The bond release for Hopkinton Highlands 3, a development completed around 2011, took center stage due to the delayed submission of the final as-built plan, which was attributed to health issues faced by Mr. Mallette, the representative for the project. The board scrutinized the inability to verify certain aspects, especially the underground drainage structures, based on concerns raised by the town engineer, Mr. Gilich, and the town’s engineering firm, Beta. The board sought comprehensive documentation and empirical evidence of the project’s functionality over the past two decades, while also considering the accuracy of the original bond amount. A resident from the condo association involved attested to the satisfactory functioning of the roadways and sidewalks, contributing to the debate on the sufficiency of evidence for the project’s completion.

In search of a resolution, the board discussed the involvement of the Department of Public Works (DPW) and the condominium board. Given the private nature of the subdivision, the relevance of DPW’s input was questioned. The developer cited unforeseen circumstances and other projects as reasons for the delays. The board considered requiring a formal statement from the homeowner’s association and additional documentation on well improvements from the developer, agreeing on these steps to move forward.

The board also engaged in an extensive review of stormwater management regulations. The members focused on the long-term operation and maintenance of stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs), deliberating the possibility of annual reports from private landowners. The decision not to impose an administrative fee for these reports was made to encourage their submission without financial barriers. Furthermore, the town is pursuing a grant to initiate a regional stormwater infrastructure enforcement program designed to track maintenance reports, underlining the importance of these regulations.

The board tackled the enforceability of stormwater regulations related to landscaping and irrigation, weighing the potential restrictions on water-intensive landscaping against the necessity to manage stormwater during extreme weather, such as droughts. A consensus was reached on removing the provisions about tree protection from the stormwater bylaw, with an eye toward a separate tree protection bylaw. This sparked a debate about the role of trees in stormwater management and the prospect of future conflicts with new bylaws.

The conversation shifted to the implications of including tree protection in the stormwater bylaw. Members debated the enforcement and practicality of protecting trees, especially considering the conflict with ground-mounted solar systems. The majority supported incorporating tree protection language, recognizing the need for erosion prevention and further discussion on the criteria for determining the protection status of trees.

Offsite mitigation for stormwater was another hot-button topic. The board debated the standard ratio for offsite mitigation and whether gradient should factor into this ratio. The potential benefits and challenges of offsite mitigation, such as fostering private-public partnerships, were discussed. The board aimed to finalize all updates, particularly concerning tree protection language, before proceeding with the stormwater management permit for Elmwood Farms 3.

The discussion of Element Farms’ stormwater management permit set a decision date for April 30th. Additionally, the board deliberated a Scenic Road permit for a property on Front Street, where the applicant, Sam Woodson, proposed a construction entrance that would necessitate alterations to a stone wall. The board examined decision criteria such as the impact on scenic values, necessity, consistency with town policies, and specific conditions for the permit, including the replacement of a tree and the reconstruction of the stone wall with its original stones. After thorough discussion, the Scenic Road permit was granted with recommended conditions.