##VIDEO ID:Jvb0B2S0p10## for through the chair you're live on hcam TV thanks Bob that is Matthew you're audio cut out for me I don't know if it did for everyone else yeah it's not very good well looks like we still don't have a quorum yet Parker is experiencing some kind of uh technical issues with his laptop is joining it's just restarting a system yeah thank you back [Music] is still in a tunnel all right that was the unplugg replug no good that works better okay all right we'll get started here in one second video working no now your video is not working we have a quorum at this point all right I'm uh good evening everybody I'm GNA kick off our meeting by reading a remote meeting script uh and then we'll get going all right pursu to chapter two of the acts of 2023 this meeting will be conducted via remote means in accordance with applicable law this means that members of the public body as well as members of the public May access this meeting via virtual means participants May access this meeting through the remote meeting link as posted on the meeting agenda and through the town's online calendar when required by law or Allowed by the chair persons persons wishing to provide public comment or otherwise participate in the meeting May do so by raising their hand or otherwise signaling their intent to speak this meeting will be recorded please take care to mute your microphone unless you have been recognized by the chair we will now confirm attendance of members please respond with present if you are on this call Alise mayosi uh I don't see her uh Lucia Lopez I present uh Matthew Ranka present uh Michael King Parker hap president [Music] Jane Moran present Karen Wills vicaso prti present Rob Michael here sorry I was not letting me unmute before but I'm here okay great and Robenson is present so we're as of right now we're Miss missing a lease uh uh Karen Karen and Parker yeah no I'm present Parker just said yes I must have I must have uh missed it all right great so we're just missing Elise and Karen so if they join We'll add them to uh any roll call votes all right uh I'd like to thank Matthew for chairing our last meeting it uh definitely uh bought me some credit with my wife to be able to uh attend family function so I appreciate that um but we're going to just follow along uh the agenda I don't really at this point in time I don't plan on I plan on going in order according to the agenda so uh let's try to do that unless there's a reason uh that I'm not aware of that uh we'd want to change change the order of the agenda but let's kick it off with approval not required uh and R plan for 22 to 24 Krueger Road AA Tani construction I'm not sure who's going to be speaking on that project but uh John do you know I don't know if the applicant's here but I can explain what they're trying to do I'll I'll listen I can I'm here but I'll listen and chime in if I need to all right so this is a property on crew Ruger Road um the owners own both of the pieces of land but they are looking to um just preserve this piece in uh their their own ownership but um basically separate the two the two lots are already separated but to get some of this land in here conveyed from this parcel parcel a over to the buildable lot at 22 Krueger road so it's really just you can see that zoom in so this dotted line here is the present boundary and they're looking to make this the new boundary line so it's literally shifting this boundary line over to here and conveying this area to this property and so at at with doing this parcel a becomes uh not a buildable part parcel a was already a not buildable parcel because neither one of these Lots would conform to zoning okay they currently stand this addition to this lot would make this lot more conforming but still non-conforming and since this is not a separate buildable parcel then it you you can take land from it and doesn't necessarily change its conforming status they don't intend on building this at any point in time I mean that's why it's a non-buildable parcel but um this is intended to be in its natural state all right great is there anybody on the board that has questions I had a question um if it's not conforming and changing the lot line still doesn't make it conforming then why change the lot line I can that question if if uh Zach does not want to uh you can take it if you want all right so my understanding is they in the future may want to so they want to add a garage to this property and so they can't add a garage because then they wouldn't be conforming to the setback over here so if they add land over here they are now uh they now have extra land to meet the side step back so when something is non-conforming um you can still add on to it and you can basically change the structures as long as the proposed changes don't make the existing non-conformity more non-conforming and that's called a section six finding through the zba which is the process that they're going through right now they want to add a garage onto that back portion and that would not be allowed unless they had the proper side setback so this conveyance of land would allow for them to have that proper side setback um and that's to my understanding Zach the reason why they would want to do that exactly yep and so 22 Krueger Road that's that building that home is already constructed it's a pre-existing non-conforming use yeah or pre-existing non-conforming lot the use is allowed by zoning the lot is undersized yep okay does that answer your question Lua anyone else uh on the board or even on on the public have any questions so here to the chair John so non use in the sense nobody's currently living in that lot is what that means I'm sorry wasn't clear for me so I'm sorry can you repeat that you said non- living is that what I've heard I mean is it is it an existing home already with people living in that or there's nobody living in that home right no people are living there I I said non-conforming noncon okay than yeah so just to sum up it's an exist existing home people live there the whole purpose of changing the lot line is in the future they may want to add a garage and by changing the lot line they might be a they most likely would be able to do so so they are in the process with zba right now to add that garage and get a section six finding from them for the non-conformity that they have so when a lot is non-conforming let me just through the chair if it's appropriate I might just give a little quick background so see yeah that be that' be great so when a lot is non-conforming it means they're non-conforming to some dimensional requirement I believe this lot is non-conforming to lot area and then uh potentially side setback and rear yard setback and those can be established this lck could been built prior to zoning being adopted and therefore it's non-conforming or some other reason why it's non-conforming being non-conforming doesn't mean they can't do anything with it it just means they can't increase non-conformity so if in just for example in this case uh there the lot is under size it doesn't meet the zoning requirements for the minimum lot area and then say I don't know if this is true but say the lot the side setback on this side is too short it needs to be 20 feet right and I these are just made up numbers I don't know all the details about this right now if they want to change this they could build something over here like they could close in this area as long as they don't reduce this number from what it currently is that is a section six finding the zoning board of appeals allows for that process to say yes you are a non-conforming lot but the actions that you propose are not going to make your lot more non-conforming there's nothing they can do about lot size and actually in fact they're conveying more land over to the slot so it's becoming closer to conforming than it was previously um and so there are allowances with non-conforming lots and this one is going through that process now they're trying to also as part of this whole zba process add a garage and they need to change the lot line so that they have they're not creating a new non-conformity they are working within the zoning bylaw uh to allow for the proper side setback on that side and then doing whatever permissions they need for the pre-existing non-conforming aspects of the lot to get permission to develop the structure as they are looking to develop it thank you for the explanation John all right any other questions all all right if there's no other questions I'd like to entertain a motion that the planning board endorsed the anr plan for 22 Krueger road so moved so all right great Jane with the mo motion and Matthew with a second uh roll call vote Lucia Lopez yes Matthew Rona yes Parker hap yes Jane Moran yes vicaso pry yes Michael King yes and Rob Benson is a yes uh all right so uh it's approved all right uh thank you uh Zach for coming before the board no problem thank you guys appreciate it good luck thank you and so through the chair uh Zach I can sign on behalf of the board the board authorized me to do that so can sign that tomorrow and you should be able to pick it up tomorrow at Town Hall you're on mute Zack sorry and then I'll record that with the registry after I pick it up okay awesome thank you guys thank you all right we're moving on to uh section 1.2 of our agenda Wilson Street road damage discussion uh Mr Beamer are you going to speak on this uh uh I'm prepared to uh Mr chairman and I can uh I have the plans ready to go if you want me to share my screen yep that'd be great through the chair I can um give a little bit of background if you'd like as well yes that would be terrific good um yeah so Peter beamus and Vin gatley uh sent over a um believe a rise plan for what they are looking to do to repair Wilson Street and and mitigate the uh impacts beta has reviewed it once sent a comment letter back um and so they're looking for responses to those comments to review again so beta still is in the review process with all of that um and they are not here at the meeting so they will be here when the issues are resolved and they can give an overview as to what um what was decided or what was figured out between the two parties uh but Peter may be able to give an update uh at this point if that's what the board would be looking for yeah uh Peter if you if you'd like to give an update like I think to close this on our behalf we will'll need that uh kind of con uh conclusion with our peer review consultant but uh if you'd like to give an update that'd be great okay sure thank you I know Vin gatley is here as well so I'll do the share and I presume that came up it's is now okay great um so when we first developed this plan as a concept plan and um we actually had had a site visit as well with um a few board members that were able to attend and in one Conservation Commission member um and we updated this plan to provide U more clarity from our perspective in that Wilson Street um extends from the center line of uh Legacy Farm Road North uh without any drainage Improvement essentially along its it its um shoulders uh so it goes about 670 ft till you get to this point here um and the first point where storm water comes in from the trails project is is here it's this infiltrative Basin that we added that the board had um allowed as part of a modification of the of the site plan and that water comes in at about this position here was it which is 1770 so for basically 1770 ft of Wilson Street from the center line of Legacy Farm Road it's basically just Legacy Farm Road north um RO water as well as Wilson Street storm water that's coming down the road um what we've proposed is to put is in in U Mr gatle Heritage properties to be responsible for is to construct a stone Swale along this shoulder of the road and it would extend from 1770 um down to 25 um 2455 so it's about 785 ft of um of stone line channel uh currently what's there is an is an open gravel um Road shoulder Channel and uh during Peak storm events that becomes overwhelmed and floods out into the street um and it's a combination of water coming from the trails project project but more importantly water coming from Wilson Street itself um and it's u in a concentrated no flow uh going along that edge we um and as part of updating the plans we I'm just going to scroll ahead we showed again from Legacy Farm Road what that road looks like uh you've got a storm water uh Improvement that was done as part of Legacy Farm Road North that discharges directly out onto Legacy Farm Road um then as you come down along the road there's a covert that's located in this position and then there was the Culvert that was just to the um be the south of where we're proposing to make our uh Improvement um as part of what Beta had asked for they asked for sections uh these sections were done at 1 and 20 uh we have since revised his plan we got we got BET's comments but there was not enough time to get them back to you folks and then be responsible for tonight's meeting um so we have updated the plans to make these at 10 scale it doesn't really change a lot of information here other than just show you in a different section what this is going to look like and then these were all typical details for what the Swale would look like but the more important takeaway is the fact that it's a 24in bottom to the rip wrap Channel um in the upper reach and then it's a three foot wide in the lower reach because the roadway itself is flattening out so we need enough capacity to convey the water um that we might anticipate uh for the design storm event so the although there's a a list of comments that data provided there's a a straightforward solution to these uh with the exception of one uh the one thing that we can't solve is the fact that uh Wilson Street is a very narrow um Country Road uh with country drainage and um to make this sort of drainage Improvement um we're trying to work within the available space that's there um so there's not the ability to have a shoulder as well and that is one thing that that beta is is coming back with and saying well you know design a suitable shoulder to the edge of this road and and that's this detail right here and what we're showing is the fact that the edge of pavement would then transition into a rip wrap Channel because that's what's available um to be located on this street and the only other point that I'd raise to you folks is that it to put this in perspective um Legacy Farm Road North was a reconstructed Road I'm not sure if that was a town project if that was done by the developer Legacy Farm Road um they were responsible for doing it but uh for those of you that travel that road you'd see that there's a ditch along the uh south side of that road um coming from a culvert that's that's at Route 85 um maybe the first 100 feet up that's where that Culver starts and it ties into a an underground pipe system but there's basically a a Swale along that whole edge of the road and there is a shoulder um probably about two feet some places may go to four feet uh wide and that extends all the way up Legacy Farm Road north um Legacy Farm Road North obviously is carrying a lot more traffic than Wilson Street carries but it has a similar country drainage uh storm water control for it and and the difference here is that it's a shallower pitched road so there's a little bit more room it can fit everything in there whereas Wilson Street is is a much curvier road it's a very narrow uh right of way if you will to to build within and it's very steeply graded in certain sections so those are the the two serious differences that I'd say but but not much different between the two so I'll I'll stop the share I'll I'll let Mr gatley speak and um and I'll be happy answer any question thank you thank you Mr beus good evening can you hear me all right yep okay uh Vin gatley I'm the developer um we've been at this now uh I think since May so about three months it started with uh DPW sending a letter um and we've been at this uh we've had meetings uh beta's been involved obviously and there's been a lot of back and forth between beter and and Peter and I think we've made very very little progress um I think we've offered what I think is reasonable in that we would be we should be made responsible for our own flows coming from our site and not for the I think about 1500 feet uh up gradient from from our site where our improvements would start um and this this is back to that U intersection of Legacy North Road and um I Heard the I heard Krueger road mentioned a little earlier this this project has been going on um for over five years and back uh in the beginning of the project actually through the approvals of the project there was discussion I think we had Krueger Road residents uh that were concerned about drainage um and so they're upgradient from from us and there's over the years there's been water constantly sheding across Wilson Street and they're really the only residents in hopkington that is served by that first um I don't know seven or 800 feet of of Wilson Street and I guess during approvals um this this really didn't come up and I'm not saying that that's a reason why we shouldn't be taking care of it now um but what I'm saying is I think we should only be responsible for What flows are coming from our site and the discussion so far is is is clearly gone beyond that to making us responsible I guess while we're there um for let's say 1,400 feet of of flow from that Legacy North intersection that you know by gravity much of that works its way down in into uh the area that we're looking to improve and the comments so far seem to be saying that what we're housing is is not adequate and I believe that's true if you if you look at the the additional flows that we feel um no responsibility for um I think we've been real good um citizens we've added uh significant tax money to the town um rough numbers through 23 I think we've added $3.5 million in tax revenue just from our what is now 127 units and soon will be 175 when we complete and each year now right now we're uh this year I think we'll add another close to $2 million in tax revenue for the town um and we're our phase four 48 units is done that'll be another 600,000 so we're soon going to be at the rate of about $2.5 million a year uh added to the the town's uh coffers and we we we require very little Services we have nobody that uses the school system we don't get trash pickup um and I guess I look at this situation similar to some things that we've account encountered as we've started our project um our project was approved with a certain drainage system and right out of the gate within probably a year of starting and continuing for the next couple years we we noticed um some shortcomings with our existing approved drainage system and we stepped up we made significant improvements some of the one Bas I think we double the size of anyways my point is is we've stepped up and taken care of things even though the project was approved um with a call it a smaller drainage system and I guess I look at this situation is similar to uh the Wilson Street s uh situation similar to our own where now after five years the town is coming back and and saying that you know our flows are damaging a a street that is I don't know over 50 years old um hasn't been kept up I don't think yes our flows have at least in the section that we contribute to on Wilson Street yes there's been some more I guess damage you can say and I think what we're offering to do is take care of that and it doesn't seem to be falling on uh sympathetic years here and um and I just I I think that you know maybe if if the town feels that this needs to be more robust than what we're offering maybe we're part of a bigger project but not responsible for the entire project and all the you know pre-existing conditions that date back prior to the this even the start of this project um you know I understand everybody on this board um including John and this this is new these are new people who have come on after the project was approved and it's it's it just feels like what we're doing is going through approvals again and um anyways I just want to make the point that I like I said I I think we're we've been very responsible I think what we're offering is very responsible um but it doesn't seem to be gaining any traction with the town we had a very u i I would say not well intended attended um site meeting I think we only had three board members there was also uh a meeting with between in the town that we were not invited to and out of that continuously comes these comments that what we're proposing is not adequate and it's adequate for reasons that we feel we're not responsible for so I don't know why with the kind of tax money that this project is generating and will continue to generate for the town with very little use of services I I don't know why why some Capital project cannot be put on the budget to address this um so anyways I just that's I don't have anything more to say other than that at the moment thank you all right thank thank you Mr gayy does anybody on the board have any comments questions or uh I I can give you my point of view where things are so our director of DPW uh sent a sent a letter and believes the excess water flows in in this situation is emanating from your from your project that's the whole whole Genesis of this so you've uh you've engaged Deus engineering to help find a solution we our peerreview consultant has been trying to review this providing feedback I think we're at the finishing point where they sent some comments back I think they're we're at the point where there's going to be this is what we can do this is what we can't and our peer review consultant is going to say okay it's that's the best they can do and that's reasonable or not I I don't know what else to do in terms of getting alignment between our peer rreview consultant that we hire and pay as a town to get alignment we also hire and uh the DPW D directors a town employee these are paid people that the H Town of Hopkin pays to provide expertise uh nobody in the planning board is a storm waterer expert uh civil engineer by trade um so we we rely on these people so I think that's where we are we just want to get alignment we want to close this out I don't want to talk about this anymore but we want a resolution um does anybody on the board or even John John do you have do you I believe you see it the that's same way is uh I don't know what else to say yeah I think you covered it you know beta is our review consultant we um they they are looking for the town's best interests while they review and there's going to be disagreements there's always disagreements between developers and Engineers but we try and work through a uh solution and that's what we're in the process of right now so I'm hopeful by the next time you come before us there is a resol there's alignment and uh between our peer review consultant and uh Mr beus and his group and that we can close this out and come to a a go forward plan so that we don't have to talk about this anymore it's not not something that comes before us so I think we're as anxious to get it off our agenda as you are to get it off your plate um that's where we are anybody on the board or the public have any other comments through the chair go ahead Jane there were a couple of pictures attached to the um letter that was submitted that show the damage along Wilson Street and it looks as though it's I don't know how many feet is that from the intersection that's in question that they're trying to say that the the is the original starting point of the damage the water coming down the road but it it looks like it's coming from where they're not as far up to the intersection is there an answer to that how far away is from the intersection does that damage begin yeah I'd be happy to that um so so what what what what you're seeing is where the Confluence of water um takes its greater greatest hold and that is that area but but you have to understand that 1,700 ft of water has come from Wilson Street to get to that point okay um and and it's that combination so we're not disagreeing with that we're in full agreement yeah thank you that's all anyone else have any comments questions from the board or we're gonna um there's no there's no vote there's nothing we need to do but this is going to be on our next meeting to to hopefully resolve uh a go forward path so we don't need to have it on future meeting agendas Mr chairman the only thing I would say is that if you if because three board members were able to attend and I was grateful for their for participation and one Conservation Commission member also attended y if if if any other board member feels as though they need to be more informed on this within this area I mean I'd personally be happy to meet someone there to walk this to explain it um because I think you'll see firsthand what we're trying to describe um it's it it's it's very evident when you're in the field and you start looking at the pieces why there's a problem and uh that's why we're trying to put forward a solution that will at least address what we believe is our responsibility there is a greater responsibility here however and that's what I don't think is being um expressed by the consultant or your DPW director that's those are the two points that I would make is that I just don't think that they're coming forward with a solution for their part of the problem they're just letting that problem get to us and that we're supposed to deal with it all thank you we we definitely hear your your perspective uh I think that is we definitely definitely hear your perspective for sure go ahead Matthew uh thanks two two things um very much appreciate the side uh M your audio is is not very good not not not good Matthew is is it possible for you to call on your phone and then use your video work well attempting that is there anybody else that has any comments um I just wanted to address some of the things that were brought up um I did very much appreciate the site walk it gave me a better understanding of what it is that we're discussing and I agree that I think a conversation with um DPW would be helpful as well because you know got the opportunity to hear um from the trails what it is that they see as their responsibility and I think where the information I'm missing is From dpw's perspective why they're incorrect in saying that you know they're not responsible for the whole thing so I would appreciate that information um I think at the end of the day it is you know between the town and the developer to come to a solution I do think that the developer has been making efforts to improve upon the issues um we discussed you know the residents and how they enjoy walking on Wilson and how this is something that's good for the town and for the developer to resolve the issues that exist and it seems like the developers putting forward some solutions um although at this point it doesn't seem like it's solutions that the town is happy with so I'd like to hear from DPW um although I do I agree with you rob that my preference would be for them to resolve the issue because they both know um what the problems are and what possible solutions exist and so that would be my preference thanks Lucia Matthew are you uh are you on through the chair one more quick thought Matthew you definitely have Gremlins in your computer I I don't know yeah they're out in active tonight uh Jane go ahead I was around during the host Community agreement when this project was all going down and I do remember the Krueger Road residents coming out strongly complaining about that drainage and I was wondering if it might be useful to go back into the host Community agreement and see if there was any decisions in regards to um the developer clearing up the that road that intersection I kind of remember that there was some responsibility there uh that's a good question um John I don't know if we have that documented in if we have any we could try to pull out from a host Community agreement I can take a look thank you all right to move to move the meeting along um I think you're going to need to come back to uh for us at our next hopefully I think the next thing that has to happen is you and beta uh Mr beus you and beta need to get an alignment and basically what you can do versus what you can't do um and then just lay it before the board and at least respond to their questions uh or comments and then we'll we'll we'll see how we go forward from there and if we can if we need the DPW director to be on the meeting we can try to get we can try to get her to attend and close this out uh because it's not useful just to keep on having time go by without a resolution so we want to get to a resolution I'm willing to go I wasn't able to make the S sidewalk I'm willing to go um I'd prefer a weekday as opposed to a weekend um but I'm willing to go out a sidewalk uh at basically kind of your convenience yeah I prefer a weekday so I'm I'm open if if that's what we did the last time I thought I thought it worked quite well so in evening uh would be best let me see my calendar and so like this week the best day for me would be Wednesday uh anytime after kind of 3:30 or later um I don't know if that works um I I can do that till till four I have a hard stop at five um so or even next week Tuesday Wednesday or Thursday anytime after 3:30 would work Tuesday Wednesday let's go let's Sho for next week Tuesday Wednesday or Thursday after 3:30 I just got Wednesdays um so um what about the 20 okay what are you what's a good time Tu Tuesday Tuesday or or Thursday or Wednesday I have to just I have a hard stop at um at five o'clock all right what what works for you on Thursday the 29th anytime after 3:30 is fine with me sir y all right let's meet about 3:30 on Thursday the 29th okay okay does that work for other board members any board members that weren't able to attend so far yep and we'll be we'll be able to just park along the side of the street there yeah probably the road e um would be the best place for you to park that's where we parked the last time so you're off of Wilson Street um but you have good access from that point it's the first left that you take that's paved it's the first left paved off of um off of uh Western Lan all right 3:30 on August 29th uh we'll park at Road E and um see see more uh in person great thank you appreciate your time thank you very much thanks all right guys let's uh let's for the board let's move on to the next thing in our agenda which is the minutes uh item 1.3 in our agenda any comments or feedback for the minutes from the August 5th 2024 meeting all right if there's no comments I move that the planning board approve uh actually I'd like to let me rephrase I'd like to entertain a motion that the planning board approves the minutes of August 5th 2024 as written so moved second thanks Jane and Vic all right roll call vote Lucia yes Matthew looks like he dropped off no he he's here yes all right we we can hear your audio well enough to get the yes uh Parker H I think he dropped off Jane yes vicaso yes Michael yes and Rob Benson is a yes all right we're through our administrative items we're on to 24 Chestnut Street uh I see Rick on the call Veto okay we got we got uh some of the players so I watched uh last meeting and there was some talk about connecting to sewer and uh I I I got the current state of things and our peer rreview consultant for this is Ty and bond who's on the call is somebody on the call from tyan Bond so I think your peer review consult for Chestnut is par oh I made a mistake par sorry it's it's I think it's the next one in our agenda that's that's so you have uh Walter hel from par and Matt uh chillo on a call uh Bobby Sykes the lead reviewer couldn't make it but Matt can answer technical questions and I can answer questions as well well I think I would just if you could just in a in a summ fashion give kind of an overview of your feedback to the applicant like we saw the letter there was I don't know there was over a dozen points I believe um but if you can summize car submitted a letter this afternoon that I added to the folder later today so there is a new letter in there it's a clean letter um so Walter can go into more detail about that but I just want to make the board aware there's a new letter in the folder okay yeah so we we actually had a review we reviewed the entire project we had some comments there was probably I would say 15 to 20 comments um the engineer responded to all of our comments and we actually are fine with their comments their responses and take no exception to them um and I can get into details of each one if you want to or if you want to run through the board and ask them if they have any questions about it yeah that's where I'm going to start I'm going to start with uh anyone on the board have any comments or questions about uh pars letter that they sent I don't know if everyone had to see the updated letter I actually only read the updated uh the the version sent today so uh I had that Advantage um but anyone else have any comments or questions [Music] all right hearing no comments or questions let's let's go back to our agenda and just try to work through uh our outline um and we'll go from there so we're going to review the decision criteria hold on bear with me did any like before I start there did every everyone there there's in our folders there's comments from the DPW there's comments from the fire department uh comments from the health department I'm hoping everyone had a chance to to read read those comments I don't think there's anything uh anything we definitively need to discuss I think the biggest unanswered question in my mind unless unless I missed it is that uh there's no decision on whether uh the project can connect to sewer for all five homes or only uh Lots one and five I don't I didn't see any definitive decision on that um there's no requested waivers for this project uh so section 2.9 uh the proposed definitive subdivision plan conforms to the subdivision regulations and there's no waivers from the subdivision regulations have been requested and no waivers have been granted by the board so anyone anyone on the board or the public if you have any comment if you're in the on the board just just kind of make it known you want to ask a question or comment and in the public do the same thing raising your hand in Zoom or turn your camera on and try to motion that hey I'd like to make a comment but I'm just going to go start reading the proposed conditions so item one there's uh there's no waivers so I believe I can just skip over 2.10.1 and just start reading uh 2.10.2 and go down the list there and John I do need to read all these proposed conditions correct yes that's correct all right so item one is there's no waiver so I can ignore that but going starting on two maintenance of any and all storm water management facilities outside the road rights of way shown on the subdivision plan shall be responsibility of a homeowners Association and not the town of hopkington the maintenance agreement shall include a provision which allows the town of Hopkin to perform emergency work and for reimbursement therefore homeowners associ association documents shall be submitted to the principal planner for review and approval prior to the commencement of construction roadway and infrastructure construction shown on the subdivision plan shall be completed within five years from the start of construction of this approval shall be automatically rescinded unless such time is extended by the planning board at the request of the applicant if construction has not commenced within five years from the date of of this approval such approval should be automatically rescinded uh item four prior to the planning board's endorsement of the subdivision plan the applicant shall execute an agreement with the planning board that no law depending on the new road roadway for their illegal Frontage should be sold or buildings or structures erected or placed on or building permits issued with respect to any such lot until item a the work on the ground necessary to adequately serve such a lot has been completed in accordance with the contents of the subdivision plan and profile and with the subdivision rules and regulations in that all other requirements of the subdivision rules and regulations have been fully complied with or Item B the applicant has executed a contract with the planning board accompanied by appropriate security to secure performance consistent with Section 7.6 of the subdivision regulations to complete construction of the roadway in accordance with the subdivision rules and regulation on or before a date specified in the construct and item the applicant has recorded in the registry of deeds or land Court a certificate Form K executed by the planning board that the above conditions with respect to any such lot have been completed or have been amended modified revoked waivers or released by the planning board uh number five no building permits shall be issued on the five building lots to be served by the road shown on on the plan until the construction of ways and the installation of Municipal Services secured by performance guarantee and in order to establish the amount of the performance guarantee the applicant will submit to the planning board an estimate of the cost to the town to complete all work approved by the plan and remaining at time a cost estimate is submitted set estimate shall be prepared by professional knowledgeable in estimation and construction costs instructions as to the preparation of the estimate and its content are contained in section 7.6 of the subdivision regulations the amount of the performance guarantee shall be approved by the board and the guarantee shall be provied to the town prior to the issuance of any building permits a town clerk certified version of this decision shall be recorded at the middle sex County South registry of deeds prior to the issu issuance of a building permit for the work that is subject to this decision item seven the director of Municipal inspections inspects projects under construction for compliance with the approved decisions this includes the driveway roadway and infrastructure construction shown on the plan if the director of Municipal inspections determines that any time before or during construction that are registered professional engineer or other such outside professional is required to assist with the inspection inspections of the stormw water man system or any other component of the approval the applicant shall be responsible for the cost of these inspections item eight all construction activities shall adhere to applicable laws state and federal laws and Regulatory regarding noise vibration dust sedimentation and the use of interference with or blocking of town roads number nine the applicant shall be responsible for mitigating all construction related impacts including erosion sultation and dust control the applicant shall maintain all portions of any public way used for construction access free of soil mud or debris deposited due to use by construction vehicles associated with the project and shall regularly sweep such areas as directed by the director of Municipal inspections and consultation with the DPW director during construction Street should be swept and catch Basin sumps should be cleaned regularly at least twice a year or as otherwise directed in an order of conditions issued by the Conservation Commission number 11 the applicant shall regularly remove construction trash and debris from the site in accordance with good construction practice and the construction management plan no tree stumps demolition materials trash crash or debris should be burned or buried on S on the site number 12 a completed signed construction management plan shall be submitted to the principal planner prior to the commencement of any site work the applicant shall also submit a revised full plan set which include incorporates all of the modifications made during the public hearing process and any required in this decision number 13 a completed signed long-term operation and maintenance plan shall be submitted to the principal planner prior to the commencement of construction this can be combined with construction management plan if preferred by the applicant a long-term pollution prevention plan should be included as part of the long-term operation manance plan number 14 the completed and signed storm water pollution prevention plan s swpp and a copy of the notice of intent and Construction general permit EPA shall be provided to the planning board prior to the commencement of construction a copy of the mass D approval of the s w PPP shall also be provided prior to commencement of site work number 15 assigned elicit discharge statement should be provided to plan board prior to commencement of site work number 16 no Earth product should be delivered to the site which are not used on the property no Earth shall be stripped or excavated or removed from areas of the site unless for road infrastructure home or lawful accessory use construction no Earth processing or operations will occur on the site unless Earth Products are to be combined or and or mixed for use on the property all piles of stockpiled Earth shall be stabilized with adequate dust and erosion controls all piles of Earth shall be removed from the subdivision upon completion of construction of the road and infrastructure any piles remaining after that time shall be solely in conjunction with an active permit for construction of sewage Disposal system building or lawful accessor use any violation of this provision may result in the stop work order or plan recision number 17 erosion control measures to prevent sultation on Wetlands neighboring properties and Roads during construction should be implemented erosion and sedimentation control measures should be implemented during the construction period in accordance with the approved plan and the construction management plan if they are found to be inadequate the applicant shall immediately correct any deficiencies in the event that erosion and sedim sedimentation problems arise during construction the planning board may require that all work cease until measures necessary to ensure prevention are implemented the principal planner shall receive a sign off confirming that the site contractor and any major sub contractors have received the construction management plan prior to the commencement any site work number 19 construction may occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7: p.m. Monday through Friday and Saturdays between 8:00 a.m. and 4m pursuant to chapter 141 article one of the town of hoppon General bylaws number 20 no building permits shall be issued or any construction in the subdivision allowed until approval for such work has been obtained from the Conservation Commission for areas affected by the wetlands protection act and the Hopton Wetlands protection bylaw chapter 206 of the bylaws of the town of hopt if applicable number 21 the street name shall be approved by the select board prior to endorsement and recording of the subdivision plan the street shine shall be erected by the applicant prior to the issuance of the first building permit number 22 a street acceptance plan which conforms to requirements in section 11 of the subdivision regulation shall be submitted to the planning board upon completion of construction number 23 each lot shall be assigned a street number by the director of Municipal inspections and such number should be noted on the final plan prior to endorsement number 24 the applicant developer shall provide thein principal planner with a project point of contact and contact information prior to the issuance of a building permit the point of contact information should be kept current through correspondence to the principal planner until the final certificate of occupancy was issued or construction is otherwise considered complete number 25 the applicant shall submit final as built plans of the right of way to the planning board prior to the issuance of the fifth certificate of occupancy number 26 there shall be a maximum of five building Lots in the sub division this condition shall be written on the subdivision plan prior to endorsement so the only uh we're we're at the point where uh we need to vote on the findings and then the uh and basically um the overall uh site plan so I'd like to entertain a motion that the board accept and approved the findings as previously read Allowed by the chair and the findings were the two items oh actually there's a comment from the public Alisa go go go ahead yeah um I don't know I think I mentioned this last um meeting but I just had a quick presentation I would like to show the board I do remember seeing that in the last meeting did we get that ahead of time John I don't remember seeing it uh okay it's this is a little unusual but uh I think we can entertain your presentation all right um can you see my screen it's very small but uh yeah if you put in present mode I think all right sure all right okay um while I'm talking about um while I'm talking through this presentation um I want sorry can you just say name and address before you start speaking Yeah of course um my name is Alessa vanaria and I live at 18 Chestnut Street thank you um so as I'm saying this presentation I would like for the board to bear in mind uh not only this property 24 Chestnut but also any future properties that may be developed um so trees absorbed carbon dioxide from the air as well as store that carbon in their Roots leaves and trunk so when you cut down those trees it reduces the amount of carbon dioxide that's absorbed but it also releases any stored carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases um from nature.org quote clearing forests release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere where it contributes to Rising global temperatures Forest loss and damage is the cause of around 10% of global warming um the Massachusetts forestry committee also said quote the committee unanimously agreed that maintaining Forest cover is essential recognizing that every acre of forest lost conservation to conversion pardon me represents a loss of stored carbon in to the atmosphere as well as a loss of future carbon sequestration the committee strongly supported efforts to reduce land conservation conversion uh increase permanent land conservation and enlarge forest reserves and this was a study done in 2024 carbon dioxide is the largest contributor to the greenhouse gases as you can see it's uh contributes to about 80% in this diagram here um since 200000 forests have removed approximately 2 billion metric tons of carbon from the atmosph spere this is known as the carbon sink function um forests slow the rate of climate change by reducing the rate at which carbon dioxide builds up in the atmosphere um the reductions in tree cover in North America have actually contributed to at least onethird of the warming on the hottest days of the year since before the Industrial Revolution therefore the destruction of trees at a rate faster than they regrow contributes to climate change both globally and locally leading causes of deforestation in North America are logging and urbanization the top contributor in North America is actually the United States with 14 meah hectares or 14 million hectares per year um the largest environmental impact in the United States is soil erosion and loss of carbon sink so this little diagram shows how carbon dioxide is absorbed through this foliage here um and then it releases oxygen but without these foliage unfortunately the carbon dioxide Rises straight into the atmosphere uh it also makes for temperatures that are higher and leads to soil erosion and degradation this is from the University of Michigan quote the removal of trees without sufficient reforestation has resulted in habitat damage loss of biodiversity and aridity deforestation causes Extinction and displacement of populations as observed by current conditions and in the past through fossil records um so there's a lot more Wildlife back there than one may think even in such a tiny land from single celled organisms all the way way up to apex predators um so at the bottom here of this food chain we've got the producers we've got the Plants algae stuff like that right that's eaten by the next group of animals they eat that and the group of animals above them eat that and so on and so forth until we get to the apex predator they eat everything below that sometimes the producers as well and then at the tippity top we've got the decomposers that's fungi bacteria they take dead material and they turn it into soil rich nutrient-rich soil I should say and that provides for the producers down here in order for them to grow so the some of the wild life that I found in my backyard this is a coyote um the only reason he was there was because I had an extra water melon and I I didn't want it to go to use uh go to waste but um over here I've got actually uh an AP possum and a raccoon over here if I can get it oh can't get it to play St um I guess I can't get these to play they weren't they were working but um anyways over here I've got um a white tailed deer um he's a four point stat and up here unfortunately I can't play it but um is a red tailed fox we actually have a lot more Wildlife that I didn't get footage of but that's just to show you a little bit of it uh the development and habitat loss are the principal threats to Fish Wildlife and biodiversity con conservation for every acre of habitat lost there is a corresponding reduction in the landscape's capacity to support Wildlife the impact of development is even greater than direct loss of habitat landscape fragmentation that accompanies development threatens Wildlife populations by decreasing the size of undeveloped natural habitat reducing connectivity between habitats and serving as a source of pollutants invasive species noise and other stressors that affect ecosystem Health um it is imperative for animals to have connections from one Natural Area to another in order to maintain M proper genetic Health just like we can't reproduce within our own families animals have to have access to other populations of the same species so that they can have that genetic health so this is a statistic I found from Mass aabon um it was rating the towns with the highest rates of um 2012 to 2017 that's the most recent data that we have um Hopkinson is here at uh number 14 and so uh I did look up just about how many towns and cities there were in Massachusetts um there are 351 um and Hopkinton is top 20 uh the value of undeveloped land is crucial to reducing greenhouse gases and protecting Wildlife Mass aabon calls for the protection of 50% of the natural land in Massachusetts by 2050 this goal can be met through strategic and sustainable land use planning while also meeting housing needs um wildlife and the effects of habitat loss so this also affects us as well if this habitat were to go away vehicle collisions with deer cost approximately $1 billion in annual vehicle damage in the US per year now when deer run they run at a speed of 40 mph and during deer season a buck will literally chase a dough straight into traffic 15% of deer related crashes result in injuries to drivers or passengers now if you look at the picture below this actually took place in New Jersey and while it is an extreme example the occupants in this vehicle did not survive in addition Lyme disease is the most prevalent Vector born disease in North America Vector born diseases are diseases that skip from one species to another displacing the animal population will lead to an influx in Lyme disease cases as it will bring them closer to us so my key points here are just to take into consideration the abundance of Wildlife and the the displacement of that Wildlife will have on effect of us um I'd also like to bear in mind the preservation of natural land for climate change and animal populations in addition maintaining the natural beauty of Hopkinson I mean people come to Massachusetts for the first time and and they say to me wow I I didn't expect there to be so much woods they they love it and that's why people move to hop they love the forest the state park and I I don't think if we had side by side by side housing that anyone I I personally couldn't live like that um another thing that I didn't bring up during uh my presentation was the traffic um we do have quite a bit of tra traffic on Chestnut Street and adding approximately one car per household even more um is really going to make that traffic worse um if you've ever sat in it you could be there for 5 10 minutes something like that um and lastly uh we have a duty to diminish our contributions to greenhouse gases and global warming thank you very much Alisa thank you for your presentation uh all valid points does anyone else from the public have any comments so uh I think it's important to um we're we're going to come up on some voting on The findings and then the the project its entirety so I think there's this uh from seeing that presentation there's this General misnomer that the planning board can just make cart blanch decisions about what projects to approve or not that's not the case like we need to make sure projects adhere to our bi laws and those bylaws get voted on a town meeting which requires two-thirds of the town to change so we can't just approve or deny a Project based off of um our our wishes we we we can't do that like uh so we need to do we need to uphold our bylaws and that's what we're trying to do um I think I definitely felt your passion in your presentation and and preserving the environment is super important um but here as a planning board member like we all need to vote on the project as presented by the bylaws and the applicant wants no waivers so there's nothing they're requesting that's not in accordance with our bylaws for developing land so that's that's where we are I I understand and and thank you for allowing me to present um I I do just hope that you bear all of those points in mind yes thank you the chair go ahead John I just make a point at this at this time uh you wanted to reach out to me and talk about other initiatives Hopkinson has to achieve some of the goals that you're looking to achieve I'd be happy to sit down and have a conversation with you and let you know other stuff that we're doing and how uh work within the planning board can tie into those goals uh outside of this specific process but there are things that the planning board can do and and does do to achieve some of the goals that looking to achieve and uh other stuff that the luse department and Town Hall as a whole are trying to do to to work towards those goals so I'd be happy to sit down and let you know what's where you can participate that'd be great um I'm sorry your name is again John guch and I'm the principal planner got thank you very [Music] much all right barring any other comments or questions I'd like to entertain a motion that the board accept and approve the findings as previously read aloud by the chair so moved thanks Jane is there a second second second uh it was Vic or parker it was Parker all right uh roll call vote Lucia yes Matthew yes thank you uh Parker yes Jane yes vicaso yes Michael yes and Rob Benson is a yes so now at this point I'd like to entertain a motion that the board approve the definitive subdivision plan with the conditions that were previously read aloud by the chair for what's the is it 24 Chestnut Street what's the number here so through the chair before you do that um have we asked for any final public comments is there any yeah that's a good point John before I entertain a motion is there any final comments before we seeing or hearing no no additional public comments I'd like to entertain a motion that the board approved the definitive subdivision plan with the following conditions that were previously read aloud by the chair for 24 Chestnut Street so moved thanks Jane second thanks Parker Lucia yes uh Matthew yes uh Parker yes Jane yes vicaso yes Michael yes and Rob Benson is yes uh we wish you the best of luck Rick in developing your project uh thanks for coming before the board so at this time I think I'd like to entertain a motion to close the public hearing for 24 I'd like to entertain a motion to close the public hearing for 24 Chestnut Street so moved thanks Jane thanks Parker a roll call vote Lucia yes Matthew yes Parker yes Jane yes vicaso yes Michael yeah yes and Rob Benson is yes all right well thank you very much thanks fck I don't see all the am I missing some people I don't see all the people from the school project oh I I saw Chris turn on his camera all right uh we're g to continue with 147 7 Hayden row charleswood school um so last meeting there was basically a general overview of the project some discussion about parking some about d uh discussion about traffic flows uh and uh at this point as far as what's in our our information we have no no site plan review from our Pier consultant so I'm not sure the next step in in this meeting John do you could you help guide me on uh where I should take this yeah so we're still waiting for two peer reviews from the from time Bond the engineering and storm water review and then the traffic review um traffic review is taking a little bit longer but for some reason the engineering review is also taking a little bit longer uh so we have not gotten the first the applicant has not had a chance to review or respond to it um so at this Point unless there's any updates from the applicant it might make sense to just continue to the next hearing until we have some more information from the peerreview engineer uh through the chair go ahead Chris um when we last met we were concerned that peer review wouldn't come in in time and that we wouldn't be able to respond but I know the planning board had asked in your discussion um for us to come back so that you could pick a date for the site visit and um if the committee is interested we are presenting a modification to the plan plan that would be part of whatever our peerreview response is that was in reaction to the Conservation Commission so we'd be happy to share that with the committee if they were so interested yeah let's uh let's do it just get it on the right screen here can you guys see that okay yes um so it's a a relatively minor modification that the team elected to make in response to some um comments from the Conservation Commission as well as some comments related to uh this board's comments on the parking um we submitted a letter as part of the additional information that you have available to you from the building um department where uh we made the argument of the Dober Amendment and how it applied to the project which he endorsed I'm sorry I have a cat invading the meeting um the we heard the committee's response and um while the uh building or the zoning enforcement official did endorse our reading of the do Amendment as it relates to this project we also recognized that this is a project that has a need for parking and so in response to both the need for that additional local available parking as well as to alleviate a concern of the Conservation Commission with the buffer zones for this Wetland that I'm showing on the screen here we shifted the athletic field slightly to the north you can see we can only shift it so far because there is also an isolated Wetland to the top here as well and by making that shift we were we also split what was our pervious and um parking in half and put impervious parking to this side of that Athletic Field what that does is it creates an opportunity to have more parking local to the building that's available and we would continue for school events to use either uh parking along the Loop Road marathons parking through split scheduling in order to provide more General parking to the overall School complex that's being proposed by pushing this North we have completely REM moved oursel from the buffer zone um of the Wetland to the South and we think that um the Conservation Commission will appreciate that when we show it to them tomorrow okay any uh any comments from the board questions I guess I can kick off with this question is it still this revision still keeps it at 260 parking spaces uh Michelle do you know the number of parking spaces we picked up or Dan U we added I believe 30 additional spaces yeah I if my memory serves uh at the last meeting it was 260 so there Springs it to 3 290 um I yeah uh that is including the impervious um temp parking within that calculation originally we had 60 spaces there so we're picking up the additional 30 um impervious spaces that are close to the building and maintaining I is it still 60 for the pervious lot doesn't look like it I think it's like 30 and 30 yeah it's split between the two yep maybe a little bit more maybe closer to 40 in each but it's not 60 in one like it's not fully additional there was some with the shift of the field over towards the um towards the left the that that eats away some of the space between the road and the field so we lost some of that parking lot but we felt really strongly that from the comments here and from what we know about the future and potential growth that a little bit more parking near the school was was appropriate okay any comments from any uh questions from the board just one quick one through the chair go ahead Jane that solid dark line that I see traveling to the um Marathon School school is that a side no on the other side uh yeah along the road along the drive we have we have an asphalt walk it's a sidewalk thank you that was my question out of curiosity what is the dash line in the in the drawing I believe it's a brake line that relates to how the um it's a match line yeah match line okay it's how the set is split up between various sheets okay all right through the chair go ahead Lucia um so some there was some mention about uh using the road for excess parking is that something that the the committee or the district foresees as um potential future use for larger events and if so does the fire department think that that's fine that would only occur for overflow at large events and we're happy to review that with the fire department um we haven't gotten into the level of whether we'll have no parking signs but it would not be encouraged we did also hear the um concerns of this committee um about the lanes and the backups onto that road so we also pushed the gate back I think that might have been one of your um comments last time to provide additional queuing length for any earlier Ral um I think you brought that up at the planning board last time yeah thank you I appreciate that Lucy I think it' be the school's intent to use the parking that's available here and then the marathon school as the Overflow parking and we're thinking of like back to school nights or um you know parent teacher type of events that happen so I think that's the that's the goal we would strive for um people will take it upon themselves to potentially Park on that ex you know the that road between them but we don't foresee it as actual parking for the schools thank you y i i have uh one other additional comment I guess uh this is more for John Graziano and Dr Kavanaugh it I don't think it really relates to planning board but as a resident I I I guess I have this opportunity as also the planning board chair to make a comment in the last meeting you there was a a mention of the amount of Windows to cover about 20 to 25% of the wall space um I don't know I honestly don't know what best practice is but I know in my adult life uh I've had an office with no windows and I've had an office with Windows and uh I prefer one with Windows I just want to I know the reasons to prevent heat loss and to um keep heat in during the winter to have less windows but uh I think I think the town would just I'm sure the the board the committee the is doing a great job balancing all the costs and considerations but uh I think you just I don't know my opinion is more windows would be better than less for the long term uh benefit of the school but uh you guys I think need to figure that out through the chair um appreciate the comment and I might defer to the design team to comment on this the technicalities of this a little bit more um but the amount of natural light in the learning spaces was definitely a focus when we talked about design um and I just the the percentage of Windows I think those of us who have seen like the detailed designs of the classroom which we've reviewed at a couple of our meetings um the way in which they're using those windows really does have a significant amount of natural light in all the learning spaces so we don't feel like there was any sacrifice for cost of the amount of of natural light that would be coming in and so I think similarly when I first heard those percentages they seemed low to me but in the way that they're designed in they really do create a significant amount of of that natural light in the classrooms and Chris or Dan I don't know if you want to add anything to that no that was a pretty good answer good thanks the other thing that a lot of people don't take into accountant classrooms is that classrooms while a lot of Windows are useful um a lot of wall space is useful as well for teaching um space and so the ability to hang things on the wall is something that you'll find very common in any classroom that you visit within the hopkington school district or really any school district that I've seen in Massachusetts um really it's the teachers make great use of all the available wall space and I don't know if Dr Kavanaugh wants to comment on that for how their teachers design classrooms but that was also a important consideration of having adequate wall space for those teaching purposes yeah I can comment very briefly um those wall spaces are used for anchor charts so when a teacher teaches A New Concept the anchor chart goes on the wall for future reference for the kids um the wall spaces are very largely instructional in Elementary School classrooms and I'll add a little bit to John's answer um we actually model the building from a daylight perspective to make sure that we have the right balance of glass and and wall so it's it's not as though we just say oh it's going to be this percentage and that's it we actually model every single room at every space to make sure that we are getting adequate and you know good daylight and every one of the classrooms and not only the classrooms but the goal is to have no unoccupied space without natural light so it's really it's a matter of balancing that daylight and how we use the like the right size window in each one of those spaces and the right window configurations to get the most out of it and 25% or 23 to 25% is really the the target that's what most if you're doing a high performance building that's really what you want to kind of be at I knew a lot of smart people were making smart decisions so that's good to hear I just thought I'd mention it uh one other comment about the school itself and uh I think uh uh I think something around a third somewhere between 30 and 40% of kids in hopkington at younger ages play some form of parks and wck basketball or travel basketball and one thing that I think every parent that had kids play at Marathon School realizes it's very tight for parents to watch games for those programs that basically rent the gym and like now this new school is going to have two indoor basketball courts and I think it would be a good good thing for the town if those courts could accommodate at least some level of Spectators and not basically put those Spectators right up against the court where it becomes a dangerous situation I know obviously not a planning board issue but another thing as a resident of town I just want to mention so I don't you don't need to comment on that but uh I think every parent that has been through marathon is watching a their child play it's like we're dangerously close to the court so take that under consideration for what it's worth um and I'll open up to the board is there any other comments uh or anything to share and on behalf of the uh Chris do you have any other comments or or I think our our our plan is to continue it to the next hearing because we need our peer review uh basically feedback um correct but we would like to schedule the site visit that the um the planning board was interested in having at the last meeting if possible um school is returning soon and so marathon is going to be full of kids through most of the day and so the chance to get that site walk while daylight is still relatively late in the evening or on whatever other day the board chooses um we'd like to get that in the books what is the uh what is the board's appetite like Labor Day weekend is not I I I don't view that as a possibility um but what is the board's appetite for a site walk either this weekend or on a week night uh over the next couple weeks what is there a preference for a weekend like we've historically done these Saturday mornings but uh weekends during the summer fill up very quickly for a lot of people so any opinions want to start with the 24th and see where you go after that if we said 900 a.m. on the 24th who who on the board can make it who can't about 8:30 I'll bring the dunks can the applicant a little better can can the applicant make it at 8:30 or 9 on the 24th can Chris can someone make it uh Chris Kenny are you able to make it at 8:30 on Saturday yes I'll be available so we have at least the OPM could walk you through um we did this similar exercise with the Conservation Commission and um there is a road path that is cut through the middle of the site we have that aligned with a map but otherwise you're very deep in the woods um I know with the subdivision plans the board has probably done over the last few years in this uh neck of the woods you're probably accustomed to that but I just wanted to sort of set expectations of what that site looks like right now it's not really practical to stake the building or anything along those lines how much foliage is it like there obviously all the shrubs and trees and everything are in full bloom is it even is it how practical is it to walk the site I guess is my question it is practical to get into the woods through the site okay um there is a cut path that we had done as part of a geothermal exercise it is not necessarily practical to walk the corners of the building or the extent of the um of the parking lots it goes from um fairly dense to very dense um depending on what area of the woods you're in and I highly recommend your favorite uh insect repellent um and frequent tick checks okay and back to the board can uh is there a preference for8 who can make 8:30 or not and I'll go with whatever time the board wants I can do 9 8:30 is better 8:30 is better I got two for 8:30 one for nine three for 8:30 three for 830 n Lu overed it's three to two oh well online it doesn't matter for me does nobody have toddlers that wake them up at six o'clock every day no I'm the only one no my kids are still awake I can hear them yeah all right uh where are we gonna meet again we would we would recommend meeting at the Marathon parking lot that's next to the playground there okay um there's a fairly easy walk into the woods from that point and um we have a plan that we had already generated that um we can bring copies of and Chris Kenny will be the uh the point of contact on site okay 8 8:30 on Saturday 8:24 and we'll be looking for Chris yeah I would suggest uh wearing wearing boots I know you guys have done many walks in the woods but wear boots it can be if it's rained out a lot it can be somewhat wet back there and there are some difficult to see holes from um tire tracks and other things that have since overgrown um so it can be footing can be un certain at times yeah okay you guys are really making this sound fun I've only done it a lot of times they're forecasting a lot of rain tonight from what I've heard so all right we'll see you then and uh I think I need to John do I need to continue uh this hearing or are we good on dates and time you need to continue the hearing and the the storm water management permit needs to be continued a bit further because it is due in four days so if we are continuing to the September 3rd meeting sorry September I think you're off yeah September 9th meeting uh I would recommend at least a week after that so September 16th for the decision deadline so let me see if I can word this I I'd like to entertain a motion to continue the project site plan review and storm water management permit plan for 147 Hayden row to September 16th so you would continue the hearing for the site plan review and the storm water management permit to September 9th and the decision okay for this storm M management permit to September 16th so move second all right I think we're good with uh with how the those were described so roll call vote Lucia yes Matthew yes Parker yes Jane yes vicaso yes Michael yeah yes and Rob Benson is yes all right thanks everybody on the school uh building team uh Town's excited thank you all right we're gonna continue following our agenda here we're on to zero Benson Road Joe I saw your camera light up uh I'm here let me let me just uh do we need to open a public hearing for this John or was that open last time so I believe it was open last time and then continue to this meeting okay that's what I no no discussion took place yep so M markon are you uh are you gonna be speaking on behalf and give a introduction of what you want to do here or somebody else yes I'd like to yeah all right great let's get us going okay um possible to share my screen I think John just needs to allow it but yeah yeah you're all set okay we see that folks yes okay uh my name's Joe marant um my firm uh leading the design of this project we're joined on the call by uh the owners um Wayne and and Melissa KO we are at the end of Benson Road uh the Westerly end um Lots uh two and three this originally was a project Circa 2006 2007 um Wayne um and Melissa live at uh number zero which is this home here what we're talking about is the bacon lot southernly of their home um almost completely whated save for a um a few foot paths um I was not part of the um permitting for the project in 2006 2007 so all that I offer I've gleaned from uh the public record uh the decision um the plan a great deal of the waivers and the backup information was memorialized on a plan from um 2007 what we're talking about is a single family residential lot um would have private on-site septic would make a connection to um Municipal Water um Wayne reached out in U February of 2024 to town hall spoke to John um and got guidance from John that the proper procedure was to amend that decision from December of 2006 um what is unchanged from uh that decision is the geometry of the Lots uh they are the same shape same size 20 2006 the bulb that creates the frontage is unchanged uh from that um we have updated the the topographical survey there are wetlands resources on the Westerly Edge um that are new but uh the bulk of it with related to boundary line is unchanged what um we are seeking to do is to amend uh conditions from that approval um and then um create access access to uh to lot three uh the key in all that was in my mind was an off was a condition in the decision that lot three had to be offered to hop hopkington area land trust um that was part of the decision is included in the plan and was something Wayne was in the process of doing in uh 2016 at that time he received a letter from Goldman president of halt that halt was no longer interested in the lot uh I gather that there were several Parcels uh in that area that they had interest in in creating some kind of network some kind of corridor but that never came to fruition they um in Li of that donation took a donation from uh Wayne for $1,000 uh to reverse that agreement um I guess is a way to as a nonprofit uh fund their operation now keep the lights on if you will um with no cons other conservation restriction or other restriction on lot three um Wayne has been moving forward um with the idea that uh lot three is a buildable lot in order to bring that to fruition we have to see the board and um amend portions of that decision from 2006 um having said that we are aware that u a great many things um come with uh a lot in this position in this um location we are well aware that uh storm water is a huge issue for uh both sides of the table so we pardon me we have EXC we have uh designed a a storm water management system to um mitigate the impacts from our access Drive um we have done soil testing or soil testing has down on the site to allow for the development of a septic system um we have uh Incorporated um a lot of ideas with regard to mitigating our impacts we know that the Conservation Commission is going to St very closely at our design so we've tried to set our locations up our clearing up our changes so that it'll be in line with their expectations um that stuff is pretty basic what Wayne has asked me to do is also um given the fact that this is the last lot down in that corner of uh this project was to mitigate what would be perceived to be impacts to the abutters so we have reduced our tree clearing we're trying to retain as many of the existing trees uh inside that um that bulb is we possibly can uh rather than a full buildout 80t uh diameter asphalt surface we're proposing a single drive to access lot three so Wayne has his drive this would be a second Drive um the cheap benefit being we can reduce the grading we can reduce the impact we can reduce the the tree clearing um we're also cognizant of the fact that folks get used to what they see out the out the window um in this package and it's highlighted briefly here are some additional plantings uh shrubs trees mixed needles um the landscape architect Larry Green put together something to help mitigate the view sheds of those two neighbors just to try and and make this uh I guess a little more pable palatable excuse me um we do have waivers associated with the project but the goal is and the the focus of those wavers is to reduce our grading and get down to the the single drive and retain as many of those trees as possible and finally the a benefit we see from all of this is there is an existing access and utility easement from the land of Michael Yuma to the north to the land of Davenport Village and potentially to other lands of U Mr Yuma to the South that easement will be extinguished as part of this process further limiting any potential access or any potential development M souly of lot three I think that would have some benefit and certainly would perhaps ease some of the concerns of of some of the neighbors so that is a a little bit of information on a few quite a few topics be happy to explore anything else in detail if you wish just uh let me let me start off with just some clarifying questions so the the ex existing so here in this it says existing pave turnaround so that's the proposal is for that to stay as is as is correct and then there would be and there' be a single driveway so the the adjustment to move the turnaround or basically extend the turnaround is that's not part of this plan that's just an old artifact of the original approval correct and that's what correct okay that provides the that provides the access and Frontage for Wayne's Lot 2 and this vacant lot lot three that is in existence from that that process in 2006 2007 we proposed to leave that alone and create a second Drive Wayne's existing Drive is here to his home we will add another drive to lot three here in Li of okay turn around okay so for everybody's benefit the the lot at the top uh exists I mean the home at the at the top exists and this plan is really just around adding that additional home with a single driveway off of the existing turnaround correct all right at this point I'd like to is there any initial questions from the board go ahead Matthew Matthew so you mentioned that in 2016 the applicant was in the process of uh providing the land to Halt but this was approved in 2006 right I'm just very confused on the timeline from 2006 to 2016 is there any way to clarify that way are you on the call with us I am I don't have a whole lot of background Matthew on that perhaps Wayne could could fill us in I'm sorry what was the question again let me let me try to summarize so I I think the the Genesis of the question is the original approval for the project was in 2006 and it sounded like you were trying to convey the land to Halt uh in 2016 so the question is like what happened over that 10 years span of why there was uh if that if that was the plan from the original approval what happened over that 10 years and then uh what was Hal's feedback in 2016 that why they didn't want the land I I can say that being honest time got away um I was building the house raising a family coaching Sports traveling for work and we just totally forgot about it when we did realize what was going on we contacted Halt and had a discussion with de Goldman and he felt that the lot was no longer desirable to Halt because it was a one 1.6 acres in the middle of nowhere and offered me the option of donating the $1,000 in lie of the land and he gave me the letter releasing me from the agreement and that pretty much sums it up in a short story I mean if you need any more detail I'll be glad to provide it for you okay that uh any anyone else on the board have any questions or comments at this point in time through the chair go ahead Jan thing is it was part of the original um condition of the the decision that this was did either you or halt think to contact the planning board and advise them what the thought process was I I did not because I did not like I said I to had totally forgotten about it and I thought in my mind the agreement was with Halt and that's why I contacted halt to ask him about it I'd spoken to an attorney said reach out to Hal and you let him know that you need to convey the land to him and that's what the original discussion was with Hal and then it turned into the donation versus the land so that was why I didn't reach out to the planning board because I I mean that's why we're reaching out to the planning board now um because we need to we need to amend the plan but um originally with we had assumed the agreement was with Halal and that's what we were you know advis to do is get a hold of them and get it cleared up with h just a followup um was it or was it not in the original um conditional decision that you had no interest in developing lot three at the time it was and I did not have any intentions at the time of developing it um I have since become disabled and had to stop work and I'm look seeking to utilize my land at this time okay uh Matthew go ahead uh I realized that I don't think John was here in 2006 but I'm kind of curious also about the timing if we were to have a similar exception in the future would it be precluded on uh having that land transferred before anything got built or do you did Rob do you have any insight on what the expected progression of steps was from the conditional approval from [Music] 2006 uh I I don't I don't I think we at best could re try to research further the decision but uh there's like in in our packet there's some information that may may be helpful to comb through to get more specifics on that I don't know if I can do it in real time here um but it sounded like the original project in 2006 to have both Lots as buildable Lots required a number of waivers and it looks like that uh at that time the plan to kind of not need so many waivers was to build the existing home and to donate the land to Halt and that uh that basically allowed the project in perspective to go forward um that's that's what I believe kind of happen but uh I think we need more examination of all the information to to verify to answer your specific question uh Joe uh Joe let's uh go to Joe is it Antonella if you could give your name and address and we'll uh then we'll go to staff report to get some more information go ahead Joe you're on mute sorry thank you very much Joseph antonelis I'm an attorney offices in Framingham Massachusetts um uh I represent Mark and Susan heris who are director buus to the project and I'm speaking to you with knowledge of the past because Mr hernis was present at all of the meetings in 2006 and has a very vivid memory of what was proposed at that time the efforts that the planning board went through to make determinations regarding the multiple waivers that were granted and specific um memories uh regarding the uh um offer to donate land um and in fact it was a uh offer that was in enticed the board um they found that the uh agreement to donate land to the hopkington area land trust uh represented the exceptional circumstances that were required to Grant waivers uh under the board's rules and regulations in 2006 additionally uh in the um files at the hackington Town Hall uh you will find an agreement to gift land to the hackington area trust dated uh 6th December 2006 spying between uh Mr and Mrs KO and the hackington area land trust and I can just paraphrase a few provisions of it that said the donor Mr Mrs KO agrees to gift lot three to the doni that's halt once the above mentioned subdivision is approved by the hopkington planning board with all appeal periods having expired typical language on a on a grant like that that you're not going to give the land away if you're under an appeal um the next condition was that the lead deed be delivered um free and clear of all taxes um and that it be provided in a uh with titles such that it would not interfere with the use of the lot for quote conservation purposes and the deed was to be delivered within 30 days following the approval of the subdivision and all appeal periods um in and the the the uh the komos were all supposed to deliver a certificate of M Municipal leans to show that taxes were paid so we had a 30-day period that was presented to the planning board and was available to them during their deliberations and again was used as the quidd pro quo to create the uh waiver of the subdivision rules and regulation which I think your board recognizes was the EXT mention of a dead end Street along the beyond the appical limits that are ordinarily applied to dead end streets in the town of hington and again Benson Road was a approved public way with multiple residences on it and Mr Mrs sanis being direct to Butters um did not voice any approval after they sat and relied on the representations made by uh the applicant tonight's applicant and accepted by the board uh the planning board as the uh a reason for exceptional circumstances to Grant the approval um I don't um mean to uh provide any uh motive as to what happened with 10 years I would tell the board that 10 years is an interesting number um because after 10 years a building permit that's been issued either properly improperly can no longer be appealed or questioned and frankly I'm wondering how a building permit was issued ued by the planning board when a condition of the approval had not yet been met but um it seems that 10 years seem to be the period of time that this was forgotten uh also um I I believe that the agreement by halt to relieve Mr Mrs Kom of their obligations is not necessarily uh binding on this board the board the town of hackington acting buying through its planning board was a direct beneficiary of the promise to create open space and in fact relied on it to Grant the approval for the building of Mr and Mrs koo's home which they uh have built and enjoy and that's fine um but at this point uh what you have now is you have Mr Mrs KOMO uh seeking to inj unjustly enrich themselves uh by having failed refused or neglected and again it perhaps it was a mistake or an oversight perhaps they told an attorney to do it and he or she never did but the reality it is that doesn't make any difference the fact of the matter is that a condition precedent to the approval of the subdivision was never granted and what I speak of is all evident in your um in the minutes of the prior meetings and in the records at the town of Hall that's why I raised my hand when someone uh asked whether or not there was any um uh evidence of what took place at those meetings and again the person who was there other than Mr Mrs KOMO was Mr heris who attended the meetings i i as Mr maradon aply stated he was not the engineer of record at the time and certainly was not aware of what was going on and certainly is not responsible for the lack of compliance with the original decision um I have submitted a letter to the board which I submitted prior to the last meeting which has multiple attachments on it and and in that letter I propose uh a a a condition that Mr Mrs Kom actually don't have Equitable Title to this property any longer uh I I am of the opinion based on um my experience as a land use lawyer and um my my 40 years in the business that the promise to gift land enforceable and agreed to uh created in fact a gift and that Mr Mrs Ko's property is subject to what's called a constructive trust um and for the benefit of the people who were at the meeting who relied on those promises so it it's it's Mr Mrs tannis's position today that Mr Mrs KO should be in front of your board seeking to amend the decision not to create a building lot and unjustly enrich themselves but not uh aptly following the terms and Provisions of a prior approval uh they should be in front of the board seeking to have either a conservation restriction approv for the lot or seeking to identify another uh like kind user or to hold the property um for open space um I know that um attorney wolf has submitted subed a letter uh to the board in which He suggests that this was part of a larger plan to create a series of uh open space uh for hoofington area land trust um I'm not certain how she knows that um I don't believe she was at the meeting and in my review of the file at the Town Hall and Mr janis's a careful review of the file there is no mention in any of the letters or any of the notes that this was the first or last of a piece to be assembled by hackington areial land trust and frankly if it was perhaps it was the first piece and not having it prevented them from assembling the rest uh I don't know that's pure speculation and again I would Point only to the fact that in 2006 there is a significant record of what was promised and I think you know today that uh the promises were not um fulfilled um so the position of Mr Mrs arannis is that this approval should not be granted and in fact that the prior approval is actually uh invalid because a condition of the approval which I believe was a conditioned precedent again addressing the waiver issue was never fulfilled um so I hope that provides you with some background as to how Mr and Mrs sanis the director bus to this property have seen the process and again I think that it's uh incumbent on the board to uh honor the um prior approval and uh I do not think that um people who violate terms and Provisions of subdivision approvals uh should be rewarded for U whether it's intentional or unintentional for uh the lack of fulfilling the promise uh so with that I'll stop I apologize for being perhaps overly worly wordy but I wanted to give you an idea of the historical uh understanding of the situation that's held by Mr Mrs ranis thank you thank you I John can could you give us your perspective sure uh so this is kind of complicated and I think um attorney antonelis kind of gave a pretty comprehensive review of the legal challenges that we've seen on on the town side but to boil it down it's basically an approval from the planning board uh that was clearly conditioned uh the the extension of the Dead entry was clearly conditioned on this exceptional circumstance sense it's it's listed by word in the conditions that that's the reason that this was these waivers were granted uh the dead end was extended that type of thing for this donation the donation never took place um again I don't know why I was not with Hopkinson at that point in time um the halt agreement was not a town agreement halt is not associated with the town it is a nonprofit entity so they do not have the authority to agree to anything on the town's behalf and likewise we don't have anything we can't agree on their behalf so them releasing the komos from the agreement does not impact the planning board decision because those are two separate agreements uh the planning board would need to amend the subdivision approval to modify condition three in order for that lot to be developable so it is considered a building lot all that means is that it meets the criteria for zoning conformance um I won't get into all the legal issues or responses to attorney Wolf's email because I believe she is looking to speak after me um but what the planning board needs to decide is a previous iteration of the planning board made a finding that this donation was the unique circumstance that allowed the waivers to be granted uh the planning board now has to decide if the situation now warrants amending that previous decision to modify condition three in whichever way the planning board sees fit to allow for that lot to be developed and um basically figure out what the other planning board was looking to do uh what their intent was and if the planning board currently seated would uh change that or hold what they had decided thanks John Mrs Miss wolf or Mrs wolf would you like to speak You're muted still mute yeah un might there we go thank you all um thank you John and thank you Mr Benson for allowing me to speak I'm representing Mr and Mrs KO today um in terms of I want to address U Mr Antonello's Point regarding the 10-year period I think it's more ironic that the Davenport project went into effect in 2016 than the 10year statute of limitations on the building permit um I think halt didn't just want our piece of land halt needed many pieces of land to make this a open space viable for the town I think it was their good intentions to try to do things for the town and I think if they had wanted to move forward on it they would have gotten to Mr KO and Mrs KO and said hey we need to get this deed done we need to get it put together um the onus wasn't strictly on the komos the onus was on halt also to be sure that this went through they also made the agreement um so the fact that there's this 10 year lapse in time I I don't think it's any nefarious uh or dubious uh intent on anybody's part I think it's just it is and with halt not wanting the land anymore now we have a situation where we have a piece of land that is a buildable lot in this town it requires some waivers but not unusual for many individual building lot projects s and Melissa and Wayne should not be penalized because of that and also as Wayne said it's his land and unfortunately attorney anelis I don't agree with you that it becomes a constructive trust or it is now something that the town can decide what to do with it belongs to Wayne he's taxed as a a buildable lot it's assessed at $400,000 he's paying taxes on this land and to deprive him of the use would be an extenuating circumstance for this for this board I mean he is entitled to utilize his land as you know as he sees fit and to have a perfectly good building lot in a subdivision that is mature it would be consistent with its use that is where we are at right now we are asking the board to remove that section of the original decision so that Wayne because halt no longer needs this land to develop his land thanks thank you Mrs wolf Matthew uh you have your hand raised Matthew maton yeah I'm quickly trying to read the uh the donation um so I I I'm just I'm looking at this and the agreement to GI land to Halt seems to imply that the onus was on the applicant I'm I'm kind of con I'm just not I'm I'm not seeing where ht's obligation was hear what you're saying Mr I hear what you're saying Mr Rona but I also believe if halt were going to be doing something with this land they would have contacted Wayne more than 10 years prior to that this was imperative that it get done obviously there's a mistake on both sides let's let's be honest okay okay um but I also think that if this was a project that halt again a private entity not the town of hoofington wanted to move forward with they would have been in touch with Mr KO regarding this and would have said hey Wayne we need to see your deed we need to be sure the taxes are paid we need to do all this um so again I think the fact that it didn't happen it now allows Wayne and Melissa to move forward and utilize their property thank you uh John do we have any feedback from Our Town Council or have we discussed have you discussed this with them I have not discussed this with them I think that's probably a step we should take to see get their input of like um because I think it's realistically a legal matter uh because like I have my perspective on where how like what is the legal standing currently but uh I'm not a lawyer so um through the chair if I could just kind of maybe maybe think through that um the planning board has the the subdivision approval before that's what the planning board can agree to all of the talk about the building permit or whose responsibility it was to transfer the land that's not the town's perview um the town the planning board really is looking to see did the applicant fulfill the conditions of the previous approval they didn't so now they're asking for an amendment so the planning board now has to see if the proposed amendment meets what the planning board is looking for and sometimes planning boards say well we want to follow the precedent set by previous planning boards so if that's the case you want to look and see what the intent of was for the planning board previously that that issued the approval figured out why they did what they did and if this amendment is consistent with that thinking that's you don't have to do that but generally that's how planning boards and Hopkinson have operated over the years uh the other option is to say we want to amend the subdivision to Grant whatever the requests are um and move forward that way you can also say there was the intent to donate land you can develop the slot if you donate land elsewhere or something else or whatever mitigation the planning board might want to uh uh to to make that equation hold but I don't know how Town Council would really come into play on this because it really is the only decision before the planning board is is the requested Amendment something that the planning board is looking to Grant and okay the subtext of all that is want to continue the intent and thinking of previous iterations of the planning board to keep that precedent basically all right it makes sense to me Lucia go ahead I think going off of that um that was my thought in looking at all of the materials for this the intent of the planning board seems clear um from when this decision was made that this would remain open space and I looking at this this seems to go counter to that and I don't know that something like this would have been approved by them had this been what was put before them um and so in terms of a request for an amendment I don't know that this goes along with what the original intent was thanks Lucia I I fundamentally agree um I don't does anyone on the board have a differing opinion I just have a question why does halt not want the land Parker that's 2016 who I don't know David wolf um he's not I don't know who that is so in 20 there was just a letter from 2016 there's is okay that's all that's all I needed to know yeah uh they could want it now for all I know I don't know um the chair did we contact H again then recently so just because it's that that's not what the applicant is looking for so nobody contacted Halton as part of this project the applicant is requesting an amendment and so like they don't want to gift the land to Halt they want to use it to develop a home um go ahead Matthew thanks yeah I I don't think it matters ht's opinion right now if we're talking if we're thinking about what the original uh vote the P Board took was in this matter unless we we think that that is specifically part of what led them to their decision but it their concern that this was something that would be donated for Green Space seems to be the explicit thing that they wanted and I I don't think it matters what halt would say today or said in 2016 I agree does anyone uh anyone else have any comments on the board John I'm not I'm not sure what to do uh at this point like I don't think the board's in a position to go through the the uh the outline as described um so we are still waiting on the review from the peer review consultant um we can continue the hearing until get that if you're looking to have some time to think about it I mean you can continue the hearing just to think about it you don't have to make a decision tonight um it's up to the board if they want to take more comment more public comment if any is offered or you can talk freely among the board um or you can just continue the hearing it's it's really up to you uh to try and figure out as a board what you would like to do on this item so I guess my my high level thinking is uh and I think other people on the board have already SP uh spelled this out previous planning board in Hopkinton gave approval for this project with the idea that this this lot was going to be conservation restriction land whether it halt owns it or whoever owns it the idea was it was going to be undeveloped property I don't think it's good for uh us as a planning board to rethink their their decision I think um they made a decision and that's kind of that prior precedent should hold true so I don't know what continuing this is going to solve like we can kick the can down the road but I don't see my opinion changing um I know Mrs wolf you want to speak it just give me one more minute is I I'm looking for General agreement from the board or if there's any disagreement that as well I agree Rob um I mean you spelled it out clearly let's keep it as it is as agreed by the plan previous planning board they had much of a debate on this and and certainly there's a lot of thought process which might have went through of keeping it as an open lot so the if you read the 203 or the 2006 December 13th certification of planning board action Sayes planning Bo of hopkington held a duly noted public hearing on December 11 2006 and applicant Wayne and Melissa KOMU the applicant submitted on November 7th 2006 and approval for two lot definitive subdivision plan uh land is owned by Wayne and Melissa KOMU the preliminary subdivision plan was submitted to the board and the property was uh disapproved on January 6 20 6 and it was submitted the prop the property was disapproved by the planning board September 16th 1999 subdivision plan showed building lot served by an extension of venson Road and existing Dead End Street the extension would be approximately 117 feet in length and the parcel Zone residence B um two lots would be served as individual driveways off the existing planning board cack so the new roadway shown on the subdivision plan would not be constructed applicant representative stated public hearing that the applicants intended to construct a home for themselves on the lot two and donate lot three to hopkington land acre trust uh so if you look at what the board had said they had said that the original donation was extraordinary but also it seemed to be a compromise uh by the board because our regs at the time said dead end streets shall not be approved except where exceptional circumstances exist in the opinion of this board so if we're going to go along the lines of just going by what the previous board said it looked like that that was a compromise for the Dead End Street and now the applicant is asking us to Ren that that's the that's the history that's how I'm reading it I I agree Parker all right Mrs wolf go ahead thank you so much if the board doesn't Grant this the condition of deeding to Halt ultimately could be deemed a taking of our property because deeding it to Halt is different than the town saying it has to be an open space these are two very distinct different things halt is not an extension of the town of hopkington halt has said they do not want the land so the land now verts back to Wayne the town of hopking if they want to make this an open space would need to take the land and that's the position it's our property if you're saying you're not going to Grant the house fine tell us what's wrong with the with the property tell us what's wrong with what the plan proposed is but there is no constructive trust this doesn't belong to the town of Hoppington to make the decision that we can or cannot look at building on it that's that's the question at hand just because it didn't get deed to Halt it now becomes our property and the town cannot say it's its open space that would mean it belongs to the town of Hopkinton to make that decision so it seems to me Mrs Wolf the question at hand is whether the planning board will amend a prior uh prior site plan and I think the answer from the the board is generally no okay so that's where we we're at so give me a solution Mr Benson as to how we Rectify this halt doesn't want the land I I deed it to them anyway right now it's not it's not a buildable property that's that's what the situation is right now today well it is a building lot it meets your zoning guidelines it needs to get through site plan review and right now it is not that's not there's no path I don't see a path to get it through site plan review where it's going to be approved as a building lot the chair go ahead John so the uh applicant is saying it needs to go to Halt but the the subdivision approval could theoretically be amended to have this go to the town or another nonprofit I don't know necessarily why the plan board in 2006 put Halt and didn't put a secondary recipient of that land in case the halt agreement fell through um but if the planning board would be looking to maintain the precedent set by this previous planning board they could be open to having the land be donated to the town or another nonprofit to fulfill that requirement or what I've seen elsewhere uh and actually in hopkington at times is a um in kind donation for land elsewhere in town uh you know a lot of similar size maybe adjacent to existing open space to make that open space a little bit larger and then that would basically be a transfer of development rights from one lot to another lot um that's another option that the board can uh look at but that would have to that the applicant would basically have to identify the land that they would be looking to do that with so that there's nothing we would be able to decide tonight um that would have to take some some work in the future but those are other options that the planning board could work through uh and if that's something that the applicant would be interested in exploring then I would recommend the planing board continue this hearing uh so that there's time to discuss or think about that there are other options I'm about ready to continue but Mr antonelis why don't uh go ahead oh thank you um the uh situation is and and I think that attorney wolf knows this there's a Doctrine in the law called C pre and that is a uh sub it's a doctrine that deals with charitable requests and when the recipient of a charitable Quest is no longer uh there then the court can appoint another similar organization uh in my response letter to the board I suggested perhaps a conservation restriction imposed by Mr Mrs KO themselves would solve the problem after all it was Mr Mrs KO who made the promise to the planning board as the reason to provide exceptional circumstances to donate the land so it it remains completely within the control of Mr and Mrs KO to comply with the original subdivision approval because the alternative is is to have someone and and this is possible seek to have the subdivision terminated so their approval which was not properly affected because the conditioned precedent to the creation of LW two was the donation of law three so perhaps the subdivision itself is in Jeopardy and I that's why I thought Mr and Mrs KOMO should come back in and seek to have you your board approve the issuance of the imposition of a conservation restriction so that their subdivision by which their legal access exists remains intact because frankly you have a subdivision that is out of compliance with its terms and therefore is still subject to being revoked and so again I I I applaud the board for looking at it as it relates to why the prior board did what they did and if if attorney wolf is looking for a solution um then the solution is simply to place a conservation restriction on the property because it's not a taking because again the subdivision was approved on a promise by the applicant not on a requirement by the board but for the Promise by the applicant the exceptional circumstances would not have existed and therefore the waivers could not have been granted and frankly as we I don't know how this board is going to deal with the issue of waivers as it relates to this application because now it's incumbent on Mr and Mrs KO and their legal and Engineering staff to provide you with an analysis of the public benefit of granting these waivers when when in fact the public benefit that was offered has been negated going to be a very difficult argument on their part thank you thank you Mr anelis Mr Kom uh like to wrap up this but go ahead it's un mute Wayne you're on mute Wayne you're on mute sorry about that at this point I would like to ask the chair to continue this so that we could look at other options and just to see what our options are I think that uh Wayne I totally agree with you uh I'd like to entertain a motion that the board continue this public hearing to our next meeting September so moved moved second second all right roller call vote do I need to uh John do I need to extend a decision as well no because the decision is due by October 23rd all right roll call vote Lucia yes Matthew yes Parker yes Jane yes vicaso yes Michael yes and Rob Benson is yes all right thank you okay thank you than it let's go to item five in our agenda 37 East Main Street New Labor Training Center who's going to be speaking on behalf of the applicant the chair this is a new hearing you need to open the hearing oh yeah yeah sorry uh I'd like it to entertain a motion to open the public hearing for 37 East Main Street New England Labors Training Center and storm water management permit second okay great uh roll call vote Lucia yes Matthew yes Parker yes Jane yes Vic South yes Michael yes and Rob Benson is yes all right so I was on the board when this project originally my understanding this is kind of uh well it's it's not an amendment but it's uh not long ago uh Labor Training Center came before the planning board so who on behalf of labors is going to give an update about what is being proposed here Hillary would do that my name is George Conners I'm the attorney for the labors on the project and had done most of the Civil prior to this particular aspect which is just a addition of a small Road okay Hill holes from Langan hi Hillary Holmes from Langan um good evening um I do have a screen to share just to go over um the site if I may John all right so hopefully you guys can see see my screen okay um you should be hopefully you're familiar with the site um at 37 um E Street as said it's the um New England Laborers Training Center site um it's currently under construction and as George Connors had mentioned um there was an approval for a major um site plan so what we had submitted is for an amendment to that major site plan um and for a separate storm water per as well um as you can see on the screen um you've got East Street is down um to the south of the plan kind of covered by the trees here um that's the main driveway into the site um you can see in the middle of this picture um where there's currently an existing temporary construction road um that was proposed as part of the project um right now the applicant is asking for that temporary road to be converted to a permanent Road um and that would go from their existing driveway um through the site to the um proposed well newly constructed uh parking lot for the headquarters building um which is that black um roofed building here and I have a plan that I can share that shows what that would look like so you can see we're proposing a two-way 24 foot wide um paved road that would run from Laborer's way um up to and connect to the existing Site Road um this and it has also 16 parking spaces um off of the road we are also proposing a crush Stone maintenance access connection off of the road to the existing uh paved area over by the headquarters building um with this road we are proposing lighting for it um this road will also be um constructed of porous asphalt um so there will be no increase to um impervious area um because we are proposing entirely um porest asphalt for the road and the parking spaces um we do have a green area that's shaded um where we will be proposing to remove um one of the tennis courts and this area would be a grath paer system um this would be used as like a multi-use um area it may be used for you know events it could also be used for some over overflow parking kind of just some multi-use area for them um but the intent is for this area to remain green um let's see these are just some sections of the um pavement that we're proposing like I mentioned we're proposing porous asphalt pavement um we're proposing a crush Stone maintenance road so both of these would be entirely porous materials and then we are proposing like a grass paaver system um so that would be it is it's a permeable Paving system that um it's like a plastic system that's set on Stone that would allow that would be seated to allow grass to grow so once that grass is grown in fully you know it appear as you know traditional grass but it does provide stability for you know loading as mentioned we also um have a lighting plan for the site so we're maintaining lighting um for the I sna Illuminating engineering Society of North America um we're meeting a 05 minimum foot candle um dark sky compliant hous side shields um we're also in compliance with just the M the average to um minimum ratios for the foot candles as well see in terms of attorney movements um we are in compliance in terms of the fir truck being able to turn into the site come down through the road and then turn back out and circulate through the site see believe that's all I have um just kind of want to open up for questions um oh one thing that I will note that we did include in our narrative um with our application is we are adding 16 spaces um we are asking asking that the as part of this overall project on site they are installing 10 EV charging spaces um those will be active before the installation of this work um those 10 evb spaces were not required as part of any previous planning board approval um we're asking that those 10 um EV spaces would be considered um as part of the requirement um that's now part of the planning board's um zoning board regulations for these 16 spaces I think we're required to have a certain portion um George I don't know if you recall how many but I believe it might be a quarter of the proposed spaces have to be um EV spaces so we're just asking that those 10 spaces that we are installing throughout the campus be um considered um to meet that requirement that's all I have so if there's any questions that the board has um George and I would be happy to answer them all right thanks Hillary does anybody have on the uh on the board have any questions at this point in time uh Lucia go ahead in terms of the EV spaces where will they be located on site and um when will they be provided in relation to the building of the road and the parking lot yeah so they're they're located throughout the site um they would be installed before they're currently you know under construction so they would be installed before this road is ever constructed I don't know George if you could provide a little bit more detail on where exactly they are throughout the campus John Rin would know that but when we um in this project there was the U major um dormatory building out on East Street and then the building that's right here to the yeah and then the building to the northeast of the um headquarters building which is here the two major buildings for the site um is also beyond that a maintenance building uh way up the top of the hill a little bit of training takes place there but there's two new buildings as you indicated the the headquarters building and the other side of the pond is the new building called the crane building which is a large building that we work inside making trenches those were the two new buildings requiring various um amounts of parking and things of that nature um the dormatory was uh completely renovated and some new um EV stations are supposed to be there as well I don't know those exact locations we did have a technical review meeting where John rine the architect committed to add those into the existing electrical work that been added to these buildings build the new ones or upgrade George I'm I'm on if if you'd like me to reply go ahead okay uh yes my name is John Ren I'm the architect on the project at this point thanks for having us tonight um we do have uh 10 10 charging stations there will be two at the new headquarters building with a black roof um then there's four at the adjacent building which is the COA building off of the ponds um and then there's two additional uh units at the uh at the dormatory that George was mentioning and then there's two additional units at the training building or the crane building quote unquote on the other side of the pond um all the units are currently installed um I believe they're all energized um we're waiting for striping and signage and uh programming at this point so we're we're almost ready to go so if you have your cars and you're ready to and you want to charge swing by all right very good any other questions on uh on the board at this time John if if you could provide a staff report that would be terrific sure so uh this is pretty straightforward this was a temporary road that they're looking to make permanent um they're going through the storm Water Analysis right now to see how that's going to affect the storm water management system on site uh we have not gotten the peer review for that so we are still awaiting that um Hillary and I spoke about the EV parking and um I have that as a finding so if you look through the the memo that I wrote it does spell out that as a finding um and then there is a condition that is proposed that says uh it's pretty standard condition where we just ask for a revised plan that incorporates all the changes but this specifically calls out the location of the 10 EV spaces Elsewhere on site um so the planning board is empowered to wave that requirement or basically restructure what is required to meet whatever is the best fit and I think it it makes sense to not locate all of the 10 spaces in this one area uh but to scatter them around the site as they're being proposed um town is still getting those 10 EV spaces which is more than would be required and uh they're getting used in a way that is appropriate for the Labor's Camp um other than that until we get the comments from the peer review engineer it's it seems pretty straightforward and um it's just an amendment of The previously approv site plan because that this in is includes more impervious parking and um storm wire infrastructure thanks John so I don't know how many people on the board were on the board when this project originally got approved so I'm one I'm thinking a site walk may make sense uh what What's the general opinion of the board any any comments I know it's getting late everybody's everybody doesn't doesn't want post I'm not a post uh Hillary or George would you guys be amenable to providing uh we' love we'd love to get a s sidewalk scheduled we have one scheduled for next Saturday for a different uh project and we've got uh one on the evening or like 3:30 on Thursday the Thursday before Labor Day um so we're probably not going to have a weekend available um between now and our next meeting uh realistically what is uh I guess could people go at night could people uh do a S sidewalk at night between now in our next schedule meeting where this will probably be on the agenda I can't do this week but could do next week our next meeting is not uh obviously it's not Labor Day it's the week after so we've got three we've basically got two weekends or wait three three weekends so I guess we could do um what's that date if if it may I interrupt go ahead if it helps I I only I live in hopkington I could go out there a couple times if that helps all okay um what do people we did 8:30 last what about SE uh September 7th for people people Saturday September 7th I interrupt again yep go ahead that doesn't work I'll be out of the country from the 1 to the 10th okay sorry all right what about Wednesday Wednesday like anytime 300 PM or later for how does that work for anybody Wednesday August 28th wday Wednesday August 28th I can probably do the morning of Wednesday before 8:30 I I can't do the afternoon it's the first day of school oh that's not a good day uh never mind uh George I could do the seventh if you're GNA be out I could I could do the seventh I I cannot do the seventh [Music] I I don't mind doing a couple of times all right let's let's shoot for the seventh uh 900 a.m. is uh let's try for that okay all right I don't think I I don't remember asking this John but I think we're at the point where we need to continue this to our next public hearing there's no there's no decision we need to continue um I don't believe so but let me just check when the the storm water management permit is due September 17th so we're good for next meeting okay so I'd like to entertain a motion to continue the public hearing for Labor Training Center to September 9th so moved okay thank you r go ahead George did you were you going to say something no I'm sorry all right roll call vote Lucia yes Matthew mute let's go back to Matthew Parker yes Matthew was a yes Parker yes Jane yes vicaso yes Michael yes and Rob Benson's yes thanks George and Hillary we'll see you uh Hillary I guess we'll see you on September 7th at 9:00 am at laborers and and we should see you both at the next p um I don't know you may be out of yeah he'll still be away we continue to September 9th I guess do the phone okay if it doesn't work let us let John know and at that September nth meeting we'll just have to continue it to the next public hearing I think you can go forward on the ninth without me okay thank you thank you for tonight thanks thanks thank you thanks Hillary thank you uh one question uh I know it's not on our agenda but can we John a question for you is when is the next zoning advisory committee meeting uh it's going to be scheduled for Monday 26th so I'd like to encourage board members to attend listen uh if they can uh participate if they want to um it's going to be uh so Monday September 26th zoning advisor August 26th uh the zoning advisory committee so I encourage full participation um or at least listening adding anything you want to contribute um is it virtual or in person Rob it's via Zoom y all right barring anything else I'd like to entertain a motion to adjourn for this evening so moved thanks Jane thanks Parker roll call vote Lucia yes Matthew yes Parker yes Jane yes baso yes Michael yes and Rob Benson is yes thanks everybody for bearing with it it was a long meeting about almost three hours a lot of lot of things to get through uh I probably let people go a little long but uh sometimes it's important to let everybody get their voices heard all right thanks everybody good night