John we know that Ted and Arie are not going to be here are there any other members that told you they're not coming no those the only two that I've heard are not coming through the chair you're live on hcam TV thank you for that we are currently waiting to get a quorum before we go ahead and start the meeting that looks like it might be Vic yes the name for there's Curtis it's like four to me that's what I've got need one more do we feel lucky nope Sim's in the weding room ah Perfect all right all right seeing that we have a quarter Forum I'm going to go ahead and call this meeting to order pursuant to chapter 2 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 are allowed by the chair 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've been recognized by the chair we'll now confirm attendance of members please respond with present if you are on this call Vic Pratt yes president Nisha nare I don't see present Rachel rosson not present Sam seder present Curtis smithon present Mary Lon Marlo present Kristen borato and and Ron Foy present I am the vice chair of this committee and acting chair for the meeting today so John could you just share the agenda just so that we're all on the same page yep I'm me just pull it up thank you so the first item is the 6870 South Street Hayward street resoning proposal uh Mory Gasser is with us tonight to to talk about some potential modifications to the OS LPD um and we'll have a brief discussion of the MBTA communities followed by the minutes so that's the agenda for tonight and uh at this point uh I'd like to recognize um any any of the board committee members that want to talk at all about the Haywood Street rezoning and hearing thatone I'd like to um introduce Scott Richerson to go ahead and uh begin the discussion on the 6870 South Street hav Street resulting proposal thanks Ron uh good evening everybody um I'm Scott Richardson with Gorman Richardson Lewis Architects uh working with uh Jim margarite on this uh uh potential rezoning and also David click uh local attorney is joining us as well um let's see is it possible for me to share my screen to uh present what I had sent or do you want to do that John I will let you share okay all right they're all set okay does everybody see uh the site plan on the screen okay um great so um as a lot of you are aware and have heard previously from Jim and his team and then as we presented a couple of months ago uh we're interested in seeing if this uh kind of isolated lot uh that is still Zone residential on South Street uh could be uh considered to be rezoned to uh rural business which is basically the same zoning as co uh and the Dunkin Donuts building and as most of you know the rest of South Street is zoned industrial uh with some an overlay a hotel overlay District on this site so what we're proposing uh we have a little more definition tonight on the project we're proposing uh an 80 by 100 uh foot footprint which is about 8,000 square feet on three floors for a total of 24,000 square ft and as per the B the business Zone the zoning bylaws for business use which this is we need 80 parking spaces uh so our building uh being 100 feet long is basically about 20 or 30 feet less Long than the co- uh Dunkin Donuts complex uh we are proposing to come in off of South Street approximately here uh with the in and out for the parking lot have a small parking area here we have access all around the building um turning radiuses to be confirmed with the fire department of course uh and basically have parking around the building um as you can see there's a property line right here um this is again an amalgamation I think of about seven Lots is that correct Jim I think there's about seven lots that are part of this parcel um and there was an abandoned uh Road or RightWay right here and then several house Lots here there were previously either six or seven houses on this parcel uh 20 some odd years ago um as part of the EMC uh project they they for some reason were left as the residential Zone Zone uh while they got their approvals uh which we were actually part of of 52 South Street complex so what we're proposing is building this building on about I think it's an acre and a half if I'm not mistaken and then basically leaving this the property to the west of the site uh as potential land to be donated to uh the town for whatever use they deem uh appropriate we are proposing to be uh heavily landscaped along uh the rear of the property and along uh the backside here which is the most proximate to these two houses here this is kind of confusing somewhat because this is part of the EMC property Dell property um which shows their parking lot kind of extending over here a little more uh detail where we're basically looking at maintaining again the existing uh trees and as a buffer to the back of the property um again our parking area and our building is held to the South Street and Hayward street corner and just another uh kind of visual representation of the proposed building as you can you can see our parking area does not extend as far back as the EMC parking lot um and again we're maintaining a buffer as we get into uh you know further discussions uh we're open to uh any kind of burm or additional plantings behind there um while this isn't an exact representation of the foliage that's there um we anticipate again maintaining the wooded area as a significant buffer to the uh next house which is here as well as the houses that are here along award um again as per our previous uh outline relative to the use of the building it is strictly office space uh would be used for margarite concrete's uh office staff which right now are primarily up at uh 2 39 South Street and at other uh other buildings that he uh owns and operates out of so this is strictly office use uh there'd be no trucks other than obviously pickup trucks if that's what office staff are driving uh and basically would be kind of in in in concurrence again with the uses that are up and down South Street which range as everybody knows from Office Space to industrial space to uh uh what Riverside properties just completed here is their landscape yard um and uh we feel that it's it's basically kind of an oversight that this was kind of left as a uh residential area because I can't imagine anybody wanting to live right on South Street uh and we feel that it's a you know more appropriate use on South Street and with the concept that we're proposing we feel we have minimal uh if any impact to the residential area uh along and adjacent to the lake Jim or David any other comments or clarifications I don't have any Scott I think you did a great job presenting it David any other thoughts relative to again this initial where we are right now uh not at this time Scott did a great job it's really just at this point to um you know to provide this uh this rendering and and what we envision um uh for the most part what the building would be and where the footprint would be um and just essentially seeking some feedback from the committee thank you Scott Jim and David uh any Zach members have any questions for the group Ron this here I just want to recuse myself from the committee but I would like to participate as a private citizen because I'm one of the wits for this property proposal yeah go ahead so as a private citizen I just want to say that you know it looks good the presentation looks good but the open question Still Remains uh for me and uh for the record sub my name is viasit prati I at 33 Hayward street ofton um you know the challenge where the open question still we have it is that you know once this is zon there's no control of it Jim might stay here in the business I'm good I'm happy about that but tomorrow if he decides that you know I want to expand my business if he sells it off God knows what will happen out here no matter what you propose what we do it it's still going to impact us so once it's Zone it's out of control that's all I would say thank you VI Sam uh thank you Ron um so I think this is a question for either you Ron or John perhaps um I'm looking to sort of drill in a little bit more into what Vic said my question is specifically in terms of sequencing of events zoning cannot be conditional of a site plan if I'm not mistaken I think that's my question so um we we have to Zone this before anything is presented to the planning board in terms of like building proposal John can you address that please yeah that's correct you can't condition zoning on a site plan thank you very and um and mine was was more of a a logistical type of thing I I don't believe you um you have you know discuss this at all with planning board in terms of the design is that correct that's correct okay and you know there would be no reason to do so at this point I understand that um uh but um just in general um I I do know that they would would likely um uh request or um or insist upon sidewalks at least along South Street um but how would you feel about putting in sidewalk along the entire perimeter I mean on the road obviously of the property for the use of of all of the neighbors so we are connect through the chair uh we are proposing uh we are proposing to add sidewalks along uh South Street since there are sidewalks here at 52 and then they I think they kind of disappear um again that's a planning board component not really a resoning component as absolutely yeah previously stated uh but I believe we would be open to doing so here uh again if this portion of the property is donated to the town um that would be you know a further discussion relative to whether the sidewalk is extended there or not understood thank you got um town meeting recently approved $123 million operating budget for the town and uh Monday approved debt overrides for tens of millions of dollars more um expense for the town do you have any idea could you get for us any idea of what the tax revenue U benefit would be of this zoning compared to current zoning yeah David did you want to uh address that um I believe as it relates just to what we have here in terms of estimates for annual tax revenue um I think we have an estimated tax revenue of 75,000 and for a fixed asset tax and excise tax it's roughly estimated around 25,000 so that would in terms of a comparison I I I we don't have that at this point okay right now uh John that these Parcels are empty space right now is that correct you asking me yeah yeah so the the potential tax revenue on on a vacant parcel is would be pretty minor that that was the only question that I had um if you if uh like to open up the are there any other comments from the committee members if not if you would like to uh participate as in the public go ahead and uh raise your hand and I'll recognize you and when recognized just give your name and address please Sam go ahead thanks just one quick question if if I remember correctly the last time we looked at a design you had a ENT entance and exit um on on Hayward did you move away from that or am I misremembering no that that's correct so there's only one uh entrance exit just along cell Street there's no access um along the Hayward street side okay thank you yeah and Mary to your point we uh we did not uh contact or attempt to present this informally or formally with the planning board yet this is certainly our first first stop to seek some feedback concerns from the committee as well as to speak to uh members of the public thank you thank you Regina go ahead Regina you've raised your hand go ahead and you're recognized to speak uh Kathy M I saw your physical hand up go ahead yeah this is her husband Steve Lang at 23 Hillcrest Drive um down the road down Hayward or just off of Hayward down the hill a bit um so is this a requ I'm assuming this is just a request to rezone this lot or group of lots and then if so has has that request been made before and wasn't it um addressed at Town several Town meetings can somebody give that history the this is the first time that this issue has been brought before the zoning advisory committee we've had one previous meeting uh um last year at town meeting there was a citizen petition that was brought up and brought before town meeting and that the my recollection is that that U was voted down at town meeting but this is the first time it's gone through the zoning advisory committee process oh okay um and then another can I make a comment was um if if there is an intent to give the back half of that property donate to the town would it need to be why would we um rezone the whole parcel business why wouldn't we just rezone what they need for that building and that would give more of a buffer for the houses and and um the residential area um sure yeah through the chair I think yeah that's uh entirely possible um and make some sense Jim do you see any issue with that just rezoning the portion of the property that we're proposing to build on and leaving the adjacent property uh Lakefront residential I have no issue and and Steve to to follow up on that that that back parcel which is roughly around 23,000 square feet the idea would be essentially to to provide it to the um open space committee thank you David uh sine your hand is raised go ahead can you hear me yes we can um so from the lmpa uh Lake Association um I think our the drainage um you know it is so you know the the idea of keeping that you know as much of that parcel Lakefront residential would definitely be preferable from our standpoint um because again in the future to Vick's Point once margarite is gone someday down the road we have no idea what's going to happen with that parcel and you know I'm not sure what restrictions can be put in place for the future to restrict what kind of if it industrial or you know what kind of business could go in there that could affect the Watershed so from our the Lake Association standpoint that's our biggest concern um with this project thank you sine go ahead Scott uh through the chair um yes so just to clarify we are not looking to rezone this industrial use we're looking to rezone at rural business which is the same zoning as uh Co and Dunkin Donuts and again under the bylaws it's very defined what is allowed in that zone primarily office use uh retail use uh restaurant use um again I don't have it in front of me but we can look at the fact that industrial uses are typically not part of that zoning um so that is why we are proposing to have it a business use not an industrial use okay thank you and again you know I I know even if it's not industrial you know the cars up there if they're salting the parking lot when it snows um all that runoff and storm drainage I'm just hoping that that's going to be um highly considered and and a thoughtful process will be done for that I know we're just zoning here but want to make sure that that is uh paid particular attention to thanks yeah so just to the chair that there's a great point and those are U that type of programming would certainly be vetted um through the planning board um you know when it when it comes you know when it becomes yep great thank you uh next up rustam uh hello finally joined with the Audio I appreciate Jim margarit for on the presenting this I had a question uh chair name and address please 35 hward Street Ram raikov uh the first question is uh that about the safety right so and you are not planning to have exit on Hayward street at all but at some point you may say uh we need to exit there for for your safety that that would make unsafe our environment completely um and last time you were uh saying that uh that could be indeed that uh it's not allowed to have exit there but what's going to happen if you it will be safety issue for the development finally and the for the office use this is first question and another question is there is a small parcel on the border of the uh for EMC property there where parking lot is which belongs to uh other person what's going to be with this one with that one he will get isolated completely from the road thank you D would you like to address that um yeah I just want to be clear on the first question is that was that focused on the potential future um yes need for or or yeah I mean yeah it could be happen it could happen during development that it would be requirement to have the exit there this is the first one and for future use because nothing is uh forever right so we can remember that just like 20 years ago there was AMC who sold that those loads to somebody and first AMC bought out it from the owners to create the buffer zone and now it's forgotten kind kind of and what happened after 20 years we need to think about the future and how people would leap around there too sure um again I think that might be something that could be conditioned um in the you know subsequent approval phase if in fact the lot is resed um David any further thoughts on that yeah yeah certainly you know where we're really at the early stages um discussions about certain restrictions they're certainly on the table that um with regards to use um certainly there's no intent with regards to access there um nor has it really been vetted about what extra steps there would be um hypothetically if this was a plan that went before the planning board after a zoning change and was approved without an access onto Hayward what would be the deps of if it wasn't Margaret uh construction if it was someone else who came in and tried to anticipated going forward I think it would be a question uh RM where you'd have the ability to to raise that or any concern you may have um at that point but we're certainly on the early stages at at this point um and there's no there there's no intent with as you can see on this site plan to um uh provide for Access um onto Hayward street it's really just for exiting and entering um through the South Street as as the primary um primary access point thank you I think on the second question um I'm not I'm not that well versed in there are multiple Parcels here um I'm not well versed in the parcel that you're talking about um David do you have any further insights on that I actually to your point Scott I I wasn't entirely clear on what the second question was it it sounds as though restum if you want to just um think you had a concern with regards to that that that western western edge yeah uh sure there is that that that the road right so Co road and it goes to the parcel at the very end before the EMC where the EMC parking lot is and that small parcel there belongs to um a former developer of this land um uh who has gone already so that's not part of this larger parcel back here uh no just that doesn't belong to Mr margarit I think if he hasn't bought since last year yeah we that's a good question I don't have an answer on that and uh so we'll do a little more research on these individual parcels and the ownership of them and again if there's a a parcel back here that is um separately owned and isolated we'll we'll have to understand that okay thank you I think it comes back to just looking reviewing the title a title report and we can do that in short order yeah all right thank you that's a good followup thank you Mike kavan Mike Kavon for R yellow Drive um we had a meeting at the Art Center when Mr margarit was asked what he was going to do if this got voted down at Town Hall and he said he was going to get it reson to Industrial so this this being rezoned to Industrial by uh Mr margarit um has been discussed um and then and the question I have is is that building diagonally across the one across from the K restaurant and the Dunkin Donut um from what I heard that's not on the market because the soil's contaminated and I was wondering if anybody looked into that building because you know I wonder if there could be a win-win maybe you know the state could fund the cleanup and it might be cheaper to buy and it's already zoned for the purposes that uh margar construction is looking for so I'm just curious is did anybody look into that building Jim any any comment Jim on that um I I was aware the building was for sale um it's very old it's in in my opinion probably a tear down and it was um you know it wasn't an our budget they wanted a crazy amount of money at the time okay thanks and Vic go ahead uh Vic here so a quick question what zoning are we applying right now I wasn't clear that's one um um the second question I'll follow it up uh on the you know um I know that as Margaret just mentioned that JY that you know it's too costly other buildings so that's why you bought this property we understand that but you bought this property for a price now you're converting into zoning just to get that price Advantage so that is where we are coming back saying that you know there's a history behind it why this was left as a uh residential and we want to make sure that we want to protect that and and all we are asking is that just leave it like that that's the only request we are going at it but I'm still not clear what zoning proposal are we proposing here is it industrial or is it small business what is it uh Vic if I could Mr shair it's it to change it to rural business district I thought that was what bought last time it was declined in the town meeting and my understanding was for two years we can't even bring the same thing back oh Vic I I can't speak to what happened in the past personally um I I don't know what that site plan may have looked at looked like uh Jim feel free to jump in um it but it sounds as though it was you know that site plan was a bit different and certainly as it relates to to traffic flow um it's not s plan David it's more to do with the zoning the zoning of a rural business was bought last time um John correct me if I'm wrong I I remember that was what it was told and it was thep declined at voted down saying that no you can't reone this to rural business yeah that that is correct and basically that was what happened a year ago uh so that's why we're going through this process uh kind of the more standard process to bet this through zoning advisory committee then hopefully ultimately planning board and again with input from Neighbors in the town and a ERS to craft a uh zoning uh rezoning that is acceptable and that the earliest it would be able to go to town meeting would be next year next May which would be two years from the previous um uh voting vote thank you Scott Mr Weiss metal n Weiss metal 145 ashate um speaking to give you guys a little bit of History uh this this parcel and the parcels across this the way uh the two houses that are there the relatively new ones were all proposed to be uh rezoned into either industrial or or rural business at one time or another town meeting has fought over at many hours worth if I remember correctly uh every time that it seems to go there the lakefront folks come out in mass and eventually it gets cut shut down and I just caution the potential uh developer of this that you better at least get the buffer Ironclad because that's the only way that I think it'll go people on the Lakes is historically viewed this is is creep down Hayward street and uh that's why say the owner of the Dunkin Donuts property ended up building two houses instead of expanding the business around the corner on that when that went down in flames uh in town meeting and recent history and if you go back even 25 30 years ago this was fought for like hours at one town meeting so it's uh it's a it's a tough place to reone just because of the the Lake masut Association folks come out uh fairly strongly on that so that's just the word of history that I'd like to leave with you thank you Ken thank you Ken and and I just would say that this really is a I you know first first off uh opportunity to to hear a lot of the concerns or or what concerns there may be from from the people in the general area so you know we can hear those and and address what we can um but also to give the general public an idea of you know what the intent here is um in the event of a uh of a zoning change um and how that would or would not affect people in the surrounding area um where in the the the primary uh portion of this development would be just um uh held closest to South Street but while at the same time providing the remainer of the property uh to the open space committee to um to do you to leave as as open space and to create that buffer and as Scott had mentioned um to preserve the vegetation around that you know that sou or that western side of the parking area um but also if if necessary and if there was favorable feedback on it to put put up uh you know burms put up buffers and that we've had that in the past on plans and um and people seem to be responsive to it so thank you though all right Parker go ahead uh through the chair Parker have three oo drives I'm speaking as a private citizen day though today though I do serve on the um planning board I think the if I were to make a comment and a suggestion it would it would be in line with what Ken just stated which is I should I should quote uh outgoing planning War Gary trenle who said in her last meeting that nimbyism is antithetical to good planning uh if you look at the history of this property it has remained uh wholly uh undeveloped with any industrial or um agriculture or you know office space since the Civil War and residents fought to have a buffer between EMC and uh the property at the founding of EMC back in the 880s residence bought for a parking lot creation back in I believe it was 2012 excuse me 2012 residents fought to have a resoning of f Kushi at the entrance to uh the community um many years ago as Ken mentioned residents voted down to have this rezoned at the last town meeting residents have been here in droves there have been hundreds of folks in Lake masok who stated that they do not want to see this rezoned and I think that the big thing is is planning we should be thinking about the future and I believe that the future was thought of when this original zoning map was created that this is one of two entrances to a neighborhood where more than 300 homes and folks live in uh a you know sizable population and I think that we need to be conscious as and I hope that the board is conscious of the voice of those residents because this is I feel like settled um in terms of you know how this property should be treated and I think it's you know quite generous of the petitioners to take the time to hear from us but um we should be thinking about uh you know folks in the in the in the in the neighborhood because at the end of the day this could have been this property could have been purchased on contingency of a reone we don't know if it has been but it's not the responsibility of the town to spot Zone and bail a business out of a decision that they made knowing what they were getting into or at least they should have been done the due diligence so that's by 10 cents I don't believe that we should be um you know making a decision uh that adjusts this map 10 degree at all but thank you for hearing me and I hope that board makes the right choice thank you Parker Mike go ahead so I just I just need to push back on everybody keep on saying this is the first time we're having these conversations uh we've been at this with Mr margarite now for two years uh at the first zoning action committee we had last time a couple of zoning committee members saying this was the first time that this was being discussed and now we're hearing it again today and um we've been the folks who have been around for a while we've been having these conversations since 52 South Street went in which is probably 25 years ago so I just really would appreciate it through the chair if people would come to this meeting a little bit more informed in that we've been having this these exact conversations for almost 30 years now thank you thank you de Daniel all right any final words from the zoning advisory committee members on a Way Forward here Mary go ahead thank you thank you Ron um so um clearly this is um this is and I I really think um uh the last speaker and and can for the history beyond the last few years um because you know don't know the 30-year history of this discussion certainly um the um the neighborhood um will need to continue to be vigilant about what they want to see have happen with this property because I believe it's currently seed residential so um and and certainly um if somebody comes in with a plan to put residential a building on this property um you may not get quite the um design that you like um there may be um you know there may be a multif family put onto the property it's a large enough property to support it um so I just want to caution people that this is you know the zoning advisory committee is simply an advisory committee we don't make the final decisions um we um in fact even if we were to vote down this um this as a recommendation to take to planning board um it does not end there so um as you know it can go forward as a citizen's petition and then at planning board that's not the final decision either for rezoning it's they simply vote on it to see whether or not it goes to town meeting and then the town as a whole votes on it that's the final decision in terms of rezoning um but then um but then the design of a site plan would need to go through um planning board in certain cases and and except you know for building a single family home or something like that um it's from my personal opinion it's not very attractive as a residential property because it is on South Street and um and that a residential property would want more buffer from South Street it makes sense to me that most of the properties along South Street are not residential um at least not until you get far to the South um and it makes it makes logical sense for this to have been business or industrial all along um but I understand the neighborhood concerns and that has to be one of the factors that is involved in this entire process so um in in my opinion it's not you know if if there are merits to to a rezoning of a property and it this has absolutely nothing to do with the design presented to us that was that was simply a courtesy because because that is not binding in any way um but uh it if it has merits then the zoning advisory committee should vote that it goes forward for further discussion because we should not be the um the barrier to something that has merits on its face and I believe on its face this it makes sense that this should be a town decision of whether or not it goes forward thank you Mary go ahead Sam uh thanks so um I think some of this might be uh redundant to what Mary said um but uh s my thought on this so far and listening to this now two sessions of this I can I can really tell that the um that the develop developer and Mr margarite you you guys are clearly trying to make this as attractive as possible and it's it's pretty obvious in the proposed plan um however when I think about zoning um I I think M I typically would think long-term which would essentially be well beyond the proposed a non-binding s plan or the or the proposed use of Mr margarit um and so then I have to think about the Merit to Mary's point of whether you know what is the benefit of rezoning this specific parcel and and so this is where I'd like to hear more why this is beneficial um Beyond Mr margarite's use of of this property and I heard $75,000 in in potential um tax revenue which is good I'm not sure if that's good enough so that's something we have to consider um the other piece I think that would I wasn't aware of and I C caught my attention was the several Parcels I think I wasn't aware that there were several Parcels so I looked up the gis and I was looking at all the parcels and I propos if this is going to be continue to be discussed perhaps we actually specify the very specific parcel where you might consider rezoning and putting this building in and not rezoning the rest which is typ which obviously is desired to be as a buffer um if I'm seeing the map correctly um instead of approaching the entire set of parcels as one project one resoning initiative um and Mary you're right in saying that we we just we just offer our opinion we're not uh we're not necessarily going to be able to make or break this moving forward but also us supporting it is potentially going against the wishes of folks we are representing um and so uh I just I just put that out there for us to consider as the as the board thanks I would like to suggest to uh Zach that we ask the petitioner to go back take a study of all the parcels and uh return at at a future meeting with exactly which ones would stay residential on which ones would be reone to the rural business and I think having that might uh you know it just gives more definition to to the type of proposal that we go through and we could limit uh the the zoning on just the parcel that touches South Street all right so um John would would we move to continue this to a future meeting so through the chair it's up to uh the committee yeah we can move it to a future meeting um you can set a meeting date and move it to that meeting or um in table it until you want to bring it back up again this isn't a hearing so there's no notification requirements like under a planning board hearing but it would be good to give interested residents and ideas as to when the next time they would be discussing it would be that being said we don't I don't think we have the next Zach meeting scheduled right now through the check um I was wondering before we actually set a next date I was wondering what the the petitioners actually think given that they don't actually need our approval do they want us to continue exploring this not hearing everything that we have said today um and our our potential suggestions of limiting D to parcels and on and on so before setting a future date David or Scott would you like to speak to that well yeah again yeah I actually we do need your approval uh from the standpoint of the process that the town has developed over the years that Zach is the recommend ation entity to bring rezoning to the planning board um so we anticipate that the process we'd like to continue to go through is to meet with you again uh follow up on the items that you have uh suggested and bring more clarity to those items David uh I would Echo that Scott I think um we can certainly go back look at the individual parcels and most specifically with regards to these Parcels that are on the western Southwestern side which as you can see the intent from this plan is to you know maintain that Integrity along award Street of the residential um you know the residential Integrity while keeping what's otherwise looked at as more of a business Commercial um uh use along cell street but we're happy to to look at those uh individual plans or um plots and just confirm um for are you purpos a motion to um table this until we get some additional information from the petitioner so moved second thank moved by Mary seconded by Sam will go through the roll call vote just uh given an i or an A when your your turn comes up and we'll start with Vic oh Vic you recuse yourself I'm sorry mat who I Sam yes Curtis I Mary Larson Marlo hi Kristen I thought I saw Kristen on the call and Ron fo is a yes so the motion carries we'll put this on a table and and Scott ask you to reach out to the chair and to John when you guys have the material ready to go ahead and we'll get that on the next available meeting uh we'll do thank you all right next item on the agenda uh Mor's been waiting patiently so uh we're going to go to potential modifications to the Open Space Landscape preservation development section hi appreciate you're taking the time to listen to me uh John can can I share my screen yep you should be able to share your screen okay just figure out okay uh all right so this is the same document that John has sent you uh earlier I just added a few comments in here to clarify things uh this is all about propos two simple and one slightly more complicated uh proposal to the open space bylaw ospd bylaw and uh the there's couple a couple of purposes here uh the first proposal uh for Section 210 uh 1133a uh the goal of the change I'm proposing here is to potentially increase the amount of open space in an ospd by allowing more Wetland than the current bylaw allows the problem with the current bylaw is that says no matter how much open space the developer provides no more than half of that can be Wetland so even if the developer has already designated 50% of the property is open space of which only 50% is wetland you can't add more Wetland to the open space because that would bring the open the Wetland percentage above 50% there's no reason that uh you know why do we want more Wetland for one thing there's more more opportunity for Trails more Public Access uh and uh you I kind of see the plans coming in for OS lpds and it seems like the plans are jumping through hoops to make sure there is exactly 50% Wetland or no more than 50% Wetland and it might just be easier if uh the Wetland can be bigger as long as that percentage of Upland that's required that's currently required is maintained so the proposal here uh is to allow any amount of wetland in the open space as long as the open space is 50% of the property which is the case today and it has an Upland area equal to or greater than 25% of the total property so we're getting exactly the same benefits today with potentially more wet land being added to the open space do you have any examples of any specific examples of where this would have benefited ospd well I haven't you know I haven't talked to developers to uh to say well what would you have done if this weren't a constraint but for example the the most recent one is the Emerald Drive development uh you look at some of Lots they're huge Lots uh house Lots with whose back part is all Wetland now that could have been added to the open space with no loss I don't think to the to the value of those lots yet they now become private property of the homeowner who will probably never venture out there that could have been part of the open space but it would have exceeded the 50% uh a limit uh I've other developments uh that you been done a long time ago you know I can't say what the motivation was for the things but I I see the percentages are very close to 50% in all of these so it's obviously they're they're playing the numbers got it to to stick within the rules so I don't see any any disadvantage to making this change uh and the wording change is easy I have it both face here uh the next one uh has to do with the fact that the open space in an OS LPD there's three things that can be done with it it can be given to the town it can be kept uh by the HOA or the developer and in which case it uh needs a SE or it could be given to a land trust or any other organization actually in which case it also needs a CR uh a CR is a pretty odorous thing and the way I see it if the land is given to a land trust it's already protected and to to have a land trust land have a CR on it means that some other Land Trust needs to be the holder of the CR so you've got two land trusts managing the same property which doesn't make a lot of sense so my proposal here is if the land is given to a land trust or appropriate entity whose goal is conservation of land then we don't need a CR because it's not helping anything and it's it's a long owner process to actually create a CR uh on the other hand if the land is given to the town current bylaw does not require a CR and this seems to me inconsistent with the fact for example that uh uh a property acquired through CPA for example even if it's purchased by the town uh has to have a CR on it so you've got Town property that has to have a CR because I guess presumably the town can't be trusted to to keep that land as open space uh so why there and not here so I would say that if the land is given to the town it should have a CR on it just to be consistent with that and to Ure that it it stays as open space because otherwise there'll be no constraints as to what can be done done with the land so uh those are the changes I'm proposing there and it's in bold face here require a CR if the land is not conveyed to a land trust conveyed to the town or HOA it must have a CR so that would be a proposal there uh by the way I I have a sense that the developer in ter in terms of the developers requirements they're the easiest thing for them to do would be to donate it it to because that just requires well it's it it still requires voted town meeting to accept the land and so on but but no CR is required which is kind of a burdensome thing to do uh if it was given to a land trust and it didn't require a CR then that would be the same benefit and it would be protected as if it had a CR so so that's the simp the two simple changes I'm proposing the there is a glitch here and it's a it's a problem problem with the current bylaw is in the cases where a CR is required there's absolutely no time limit on how long that CR can take to create and uh halt has several properties which were supposed to have CRS on them according to the current bylaw you know I'm not I'm proposing that shouldn't be a requirement but given it is they're we've had them for 20 years and there's no CR why Do's nobody to write a CR does nobody to give the CR to because you can't hold a CR on your own property so that the current bylaw has no teeth as far as requiring a CR because it doesn't have a time limit so I don't exactly know what to do here because we got to deal with the fact that uh currently CRS are taking two years or more to complete due to delays in the State uh the state uh organization that reviews CRS uh they're way behind and even if you had it the document written perfect today it might still take a year or two before the State Signs off on it so we can't we can't control what the state does but I think we can control what the person who is who task to write the CR and submit the CR to to have a time limit of some sort and I don't know what the exact wording to do one one suggestion that I have here is it require a draft of the CR to be submitted to the state is negotiated between the developer in the CR grantee at the time of the first building permit so that put the date that the CR has to be written and submitted to the state at the time of the building permit then the state can take as long as it wants to to approve it and so on uh I think the planning board should have some say on this as well if you look at the conditions on developments planning board often doesn't have a a date either uh planning board has can specified dates permit uh granting uh and and so on or could be just negotiated with the developers to what that date should be but there has to be some motivation to get to get the CRS done when there is a CR uh and that you know I don't know what options there are for specifying penalties if it's not done and so on uh I I see a lot of conditions specified by the planning board that are never enforced because nobody goes out and checks after after after the building permits are issued nobody looks at anything so anything that happens after that is a is is kind of difficult to enforce so I'm looking for the suggestions here as what the wording on that should be but I think we could come up with something that has a little more teeth so those are my two proposals uh for for B changes thank you Mor any comments from the committee I I have a go ahead Sam clarifying just because I'm not familiar uh with that with the first bylaw change if we can go back to the the um 50% yeah the yeah um so I guess the part that I didn't fully understand and maybe if you can I think an example would have been good is to understand how this plays out so it it seems like there's a designation already of a 50/50 and then there's additional Wetland that they want to add which would then potentially upset that 5050 or the the the amount of wetland that's being conveyed is that how this work yes like what what when is the when are these things happening so like when is the 50/50 the designated and then at at a later point they decide to add more Wetland or they decide not to because they don't want to upset that that uh ratio well the the plan is normally drawn up uh before the planning board actually sees it in the first case because and this planning and that plan is drawn up showing uh you see right written on the plan it says what percentage of the property is open space and what percentage of that open space is we land and that's shown on the plan and that's how it's submitted to the planning board uh to get the special permit uh right off the bat uh if the bylaw were changed to allow more than 50% Wetland then that that plan wouldn't have that constraint and that plan might turn out differently I can't guarantee it'll turn out differently but at least we have the option to turn out differently so I guess I'll follow up to that to the chair is what was the spirit of this initially to ensure that we're not just getting a ton of wetland and that there is usable space and what do this change due to that yes I mean the reason for the 50% Wetland was to ensure that all of the open space isn't just Wetland because it can't build on Wetland anyway so what does the open space get you uh if you preserve it uh so that's what the reason this but they didn't take into account that it might be beneficial to give additional Wetland to the town or or is open space uh I I think it was when this was written it wasn't completely thought through because it it's kind of inconsistent with itself the encouragement is to give at least 50% of the property as open space uh it shouldn't discourage giving 75% as open space but it it kind of does if that extra percent is wetland but but was the idea to say we'll take the Wetland off your hands as long as you give us a decent amount of usable land against it I don't think it was offering to take land out off to developers well not the developers but like ultimately like it's you don't want to manage it don't want to pay taxes on it whatever it may be so you're like you know there's a it makes sense to just give this to the time no I think the goal was to preserve open space it wasn't to do anything okay I me what what the ospd bylaw does it allows the develop or to build on smaller Lots with less Frontage in return for giving giving away some portion of the property is open space but I meant how did how did we incentivize was this I guess what I'm trying to say is was this being used to incentivize the developer to give to ensure they're giving usable open space to the town not just the Wetland it was it was yes it was to get it was to ensure that the town gets usable open space I.E Upland not just Wetland right so if we if we were to now not enforce that we may do we are we potentially going to end up in a place where we start getting just a ton of wetland and not as much use no because there still requires 25% of the property to be Upland today 25% has to be Upland 50% of 50% uh this still requires that so we're not getting any less Upland I gotta okay but then like you give us you know the rest 60 70% could be Wetland as long as you give us 25% of the property and exactly exactly okay I understand thank you thanks for that clarification Sam anyone else on the committee Mar Mary go ahead hi um so I I think that these are really good proposals thank you myy um and and um and I agree that you know the the whole the wording of this I mean that it was unintended consequences and um we've been living with them um but it was it was a very well-written law um in or bylaw in many ways um but you know certainly it was it was complicated and um and we've uh struggled with how to reward it and so I think that this is a very good um proposal um I my suggestion of where to take it from here is that John should um uh take this wording and um you know obviously review it with his his careful eyes um but also um uh insert it into the bylaw wording and then bring it back to us to review the whole bylaw um um you know with with wording changes and so we can um so we can have a chance to digest it a little bit more thank you Mary I think that's a great suggestion uh it seems to me that the 210 1133a sounds like a no-brainer the the CR restriction to me is a little bit more complicated and perhaps Frau with with unintended consequences and I I would also like to take a time to uh check with a few developers in town and just see if if they can put out some of the potential unintended coner quences and we'll bring this up at a subsequent meeting anybody else on the committee Mr WIS metal and WIS metal 145 Ash Street um through you Mr chair uh to John I believe if the Conservation Commission is given land and also I think uh the Water Department is given W land for Watershed maintenance both of those take a Act of the legislature in order to take them out of conservation which kind of provides the I'll say the uh advantage that a CR would do and and maybe some of those that have gone to the town in to be held by the conservation department then become I'm going to say more protected the other part of the second two part two is what happens if a uh organization such as halt uh just you know goes out of business and you know what happens to to its assets at that time or whatever uh you know I mean it's some of these organizations come and go uh depending on the people that are working hard at it and uh in their financial ability so I think the town needs to protect itself in that particular manner too but uh you know the whole portion of this getting open space is to make sure that it's preserved as open space and that the public has a right to be on it as opposed to a homeowners organization that early on when this bylaw was written the homeowners organization say yeah you can have all this open space around it but only people that are members of the homeowners association can use it and uh that part I think got changed but uh the key is to to make sure that it's open and available to the public thank you I think many of us would agree that the ospd has been extremely successful in hington in creating a large amount of open space and and U very very conscientious development um but uh you know I'd like to entertain a motion to go ahead and table this to a subsequent meeting to give us a chance to um as Mary suggested allow John to do some word smithing and uh for us to get a little bit more input before we bring it up again so second thank you Sam and we'll go ahead to a vote if I can my list Vic how do you vote Yes M yes thank you Sam yes Curtis yes Mary yes Kristen and Ron is a yes and so that carries and we'll bring this back up at a subsequent meeting and that finishes item number two on the agenda thank you Mor for your presentation and your constant attention to these details very helpful than we've got uh two items left uh number three MBTA communities discussion following the town meeting discussion and the P purpose of this is not to try to come up with a recommendation but just to kind of uh have a discussion on digesting what happened at town meeting and uh you know what what it is that uh we could do to get this and it uh according to um our interim Town manager uh it would need to go to a special town meeting in September or December uh in order to meet the December 31 2024 deadline for compliance um and uh you know as was brought up at town meeting uh if we do not approve it by then we are uh subject to the loss of state grants as well as probably being U sued by the attorney general and again that's seems to be the pattern for for the other towns that are in there um and I I do want to thank John Mr WIS Manel at at town meeting brought up potentially putting the eversource natural gas tanks as one of the parcels to do that um public utilities are according to John's research are specifically excluded from being eligible Parcels for this type of development so we we need to begin to think of are we going to bring the same proposal back to a special town meeting are we going to change it just like to get some thoughts on that as we uh try to navigate our way forward on this because September is right around the corner if that's when we're we're going to try to do it and we uh John if you correct me if I'm wrong we haven't heard back from the planning board yet as to what they want us to do is that correct that's correct they are going to um discuss it at the next meeting on June 3 so planning board was going to discuss it at their last meeting but um we realized that there were going to be potentially two new board members and a new chair so we felt it best to leave it until the new board is seated and the new chair is elected to have the planning board figure out the path that they want to move uh forward on this right thoughts members R this is back through the chair I just want to check did we get a Clarity what kind of lawsuits we would be prone to and what funding we are losing the amount because this discussion did came last time in planning board and also in Zach and also based on the town meeting what I hear or what I'm hearing is that we are forced to vote here that either you vot it and make it selected or else you'll have lawsuits kind of uh the purpose is beating down that you know the will of the people so um yeah the the the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have been very clear is that this this is state law and you're going to comply with it or we're going to sue you and they have followed through on those commitments um my understanding is that over the past last several years uh we have received grants to the tune of around a million dollars in aggregate of of things so it's it's a significant amount of money it's not an earth shattering amount of money because I don't know over what period of time and uh John I don't know if you have those numbers or but that was the the most recent number yeah so we've had this question a lot and it's kind of a a hard question to answer because you can look at the money that we've been granted in the past and depending on the timeline what grants are included you know I I've heard 500,000 to 5 million uh massw works I believe was at least 500,000 for engineering and I want to say two million for uh other design and construction work and that's just Mass works it doesn't include the MVP grants that we've gone for and have gotten the planning grants and that kind of stuff but I think and this is this is what my answer has been to everyone that asked me that it doesn't matter what we've been granted in the past they're not going to take that money away from us it's what we want to do in the future that we would not be eligible to do um a lot of work in climate change goes through the state through the uh Municipal vulnerability preparedness program we are currently submitting an application with westbo to do to set up a um Regional storm waterer uh inspector so that Grant would go away we would be eligible for that uh we partner with Charles River Watershed Association on their MVP grants so any grant money that we would have been getting from those efforts would be going away um in order to to meet certain criteria for other status uh statuses that the town can be like green community and stuff like that we have to have an accepted MVP plan and stuff like that and those would we would lose funding to undertake any updates to those and that's just MVP Associated um any projects that we would want to do to revitalize downtown would likely get some funding from the mass downtown initiative we would be unel for that um the mwa water line coming down Cedar Street that the town is exploring right now likely funded significantly from massworks funding that would not be eligible uh so it's those types of projects that the town is looking at in the next you know couple to five to 10 years that the town would be ineligible to get moving forward and they're not going to take away the money that we got from Mass works for downtown they're not going to take away the money that we got from MV MVP to do the initial planning studies and stuff like that it's just the stuff moving forward um and then in terms of the lawsuits my understanding is that the AG is suing under the fair housing law saying that the this zoning um I don't I'm not going to get into it because I don't know the actual argument uh enough to accurately describe it here but it's essentially a fair housing lawsuit that the state the town is not following housing laws of the state and therefore these towns that are not accepting it are not allowing for um Fair development of housing um so those are kind of the two big consequences of not complying with the law um and uh was there another question or was that it I I think that those were the two things and and just in terms of lawsuits I mean we we're kind of paying for lawsuits two ways because the the Attorney General whose salary we pay is suing us and we're defending ourselves and and that's not covered within the the current uh scope of work of the town's attorney so that's all incremental dollars Mary go ahead so um hearing the comments at town meeting just um anyone chime in with your thoughts on was was the opposition mainly BEC mainly that they didn't want any designation that would fall under these requirements or that they didn't like the particular you know uh Parcels that we we designated it was it was partial specific Mary and I I think a lot of it had to do with the owners of the deserve Condominiums oh Kristen go ahead you're you're still muted there you go hi I think a lot of people don't understand it they don't they don't get it and like what John John just gave like a really great sort of speech about it which was like compelling you know but most people are just like what what is this I don't want that and then they just don't com that yeah sorry through the chair Kristen I I'm not I'm not making this a comment about you but that drives me nuts what because I have like the fact that people are saying I don't know anything about it I did I did so much Outreach in this I did hcam things I did uh know your vote I did descriptions at planning board meetings I offered to meet with people I had a two and a half hour Q&A session with the preserved residents just me and them on so they can ask me every single question so I believe you yeah it's not it's not a lack of trying the effort to figure it out so it's I guess the my question maybe like a flyer maybe like a flyer just like explaining it all like in the mail no that won't work everyone's laughing out to everybody that would be exceptionally expensive okay never mind laughing that raises the question of like how do we get the people that said that they don't know anything how what can do what can the planning board do to actually reach out to those people because those are clearly the people we're missing with our efforts but I don't know another way to do it without people telling me where they go what they read you know what they would use to consume that information so that I can then you know put my information into those Vehicles so that can I have to I'm gonna think about this all right thank you ch uh Sam go ahead yeah I I'm a bit of two minds on this so just a quick comment according to Metro as daily the number was actually $8 million I don't know if that historical I don't know if that's true or not but then I look at also what it says it was mostly used on Legacy Farms and Main Street project so I'm not really sure that's great either that aside I I do feel like uh I do feel like the public aside from The Preserve folks the public uh probably went through the same set of thoughts that we as the zone as Zach went through when we were faced by this you know and so unless they came prepared and I know John there was a lot of Outreach and effort but for the rest of the public unless they came prepared and have done the same amount of work that we have done to think about this uh their knee-jerk reaction is going to be a a rejection with that said it wasn't that far of a vote I think it was pretty close um so if we choose to push this through um I think unfortunately some more education and some more talking points is probably going to be needed and we can potentially think about how we can be proactive about that and maybe help you John so you're not doing it all by yourself um with that said I really I really I really hate that the state is literally blackmailing us to do this I I I totally dislike this and honestly if the town decides not to not to vote this through I I think that we just own it and move forward so that's my two sents thank you Sam Parker go ahead uh yeah through the chair the the answer is a fly I have printed just in Lake Mass aqu Outreach cost me 80 bucks at Staples I'm willing to print it on a personal printer and go door too because the answer is education and uh I was literally just in the neighborhood walking talking to Residents today and asked a voter do you have you heard about um the MBTA communities and she said I don't have Facebook I don't even watch the news U I don't know what it is the only way you get that person is you go to their door and you stick a flyer at it and I'm volunteering today to do that because of all that we stand to lose and I think more importantly speaking as a private citizen we lost by eight votes we it was on the third day of town meeting there the the school crowd was gone and I think that the plan Ted did an amazing job to talk about the plan and how it is a great vision for using public transportation and giving folks potentially down the line we have to think in terms of you know decades 10 years down the line potentially there could be a uh development there and you know what I grew up in a town that they develop tow houses or something similar right next to public transportation and folks were able to go from Woodstock to Chicago and you not have cars and I think about like the Persona person that we're trying to have Hopkinson is near equidistant between uh Worcester and um you know Boston and we could be drawing folks interested from either of those metropolitan areas wanting to use public transportation it's it's a great uh plan I think you guys did a phenomenal job um I I wouldn't change it in a heartbeat I'll go door too I'll do it 10 times if that's what it takes because have to meet people where they are and not from a point of like antagonizing them either like planning board literally went and talked to folks in the reserve and we had a town meeting people saying you didn't listen to us you didn't talk to us I didn't do a good enough job right so I think that's that's what we have to do uh and I wouldn't change the map um we can get eight votes I mean we can get eight votes we we'll look forward to hearing from the planning board after their June 3D meeting uh Vic go ahead uh I believe Ken raise the hand first so do you want to give him for uh you're you're the member Vic I'd like you to go first please Y no thank you Ron and I just want to call out that you know I've been a planning board member and I've seen John actually what he just mentioned it right he has gone way and about what he can do reaching out to the public always available even called out many times and John thank you for that uh I know that's not an easy task but I just want to say that you know when we do this we don't want to change this honestly because we did a well thought through process and I'm f pushing it across once again and next time when John goes ahead right John tag me along with you so I can do whatever we can so to get this thing done I that's all I will say thanks yeah I think it seems to be more of an education thing I heard a lot of oh they're going to come take our property by emminent domain that's not something that happens in the zoning zoning process so I'm not sure how we communicate that but I think that's something we need to kind of push is that this is not going to be shoved down anybody's throat it's it's something that you know nothing can happen until someone sells their property got it they can't come and take this it's you know like all zoning it has to be you have to agree to sell your property for anything to happen just like any other zoning so like say if we can figure out how to communicate that I think we'd be you know far ahead through the chair I want to respond to that too so in the Q&A session with The Preserve residents who were the biggest um uh I don't know the word I'm thinking of the the largest group of people making that claim that their their land was going to be taken um I actually addressed that they had an they had their attorney present and I said uh something to the extent of you know if that were to be true that would be an unprecedented action in the history of our government that a state would go and use that for that that scale of eminent domain and it would bankrupt municipalities would bankrupt developers um and even their attorney was like yeah that that would pretty much be unheard of and unprecedented and and really unrealistic and so I get what you're saying Curtis that they need to be educated but like that's me directly refuting that and their attorney agreeing with me and they still didn't take that at face value so I don't honestly know what else could be said to convince anybody yeah I'm not sure how to how to address that but I think that's our principal issue is a understanding of the zoning process rather than I I don't disagree with you on that absolutely thank you Ken Ken Weissman 145 Ash Street I'm going to take a little bit different view if you uh do the same thing and expect different results I think that's the definition of uh insanity and uh quite frankly I don't think you've seen the organiza or the opposition as well organized as what that neighborhood is you lost it when the superintendant said we have to build more schools if this thing goes through that was done on Monday night that's when you lost it and I think you have to step back and understand the economics to the developer of this when the apartment complex at Legacy was being built and I'll use this as an example and you need to get the updated numbers a apartment developer would pay $40,000 per unit that you could develop um for the price of the land now this is quite a few years ago and it's certainly not with Hopkinson having very high schools in at the time so I suspect that that number is significantly higher and if you take $40,000 times uh 15 per acre that's about $600,000 for raw land uh with no utilities without anything for these these guys to do it I suspect that number is higher than than $40,000 and I think John could do some research with a couple of developers in the apartment complex guys and they'll find out what that currently number is or if you look at maybe an apartment complex that sold some land in another town uh along 495 in the last year or two you'll you'll see what that number is and what they'll do there and that kind of gives you a frame for example if it was double that quite frankly the people that preserve might might be getting more money per unit than what they currently have so you could be in the margins of where it is as it as it is there all depends on what that number is and that's the number you have to really understand I sense that the people want to see land set aside for this that cannot be immediately developed the Carboni land is developable very quickly you have the the the water line that's going to go right up Cedar Street within a couple of years if this MW connection goes through yes and Sewer you can you can put a package treatment plant onto that land I mean there's a package there's a well on the other side of the lake which means that the the soil is reasonable for that so just because it doesn't have sewer and it doesn't have water today quite frankly the economics are such and so beneficial and then you look at these guys that pay the $40,000 and then they they build what the infrastructure is and the guys that specialize in building these things they own it for about a year or two they get it fully occupied and then they sell it to a bunch of well the investors that just look at this as a almost guaranteed rent for the next 20 years Real Estate Investment Trust so this is a very lucrative business and unfortunately all the 40b properties including Hopkinton have gone away because everyone's gotten their 10% out in this area so so now if you're going to do do Apartments well the 40 BS kind of wanted to push it maybe to the two-bedroom though the one on on Lumber Street ended up with three bedrooms this one will see more bedrooms because than you think of and you're going to see more kids in the school because of the desirability of of Hopton as a place and the need for uh three bedroom apartments nobody wants one of these next to their houses I mean I started my government service as a neighborhood organizer fighting a garden apartment that was going to be in my backyard and almost all of those have been opposed by the immediate Neighbors The Preserve took a year and a half to get approved through the zoning board of appeals because it was tough to get through at that spot there's only been two or three including the one on Lumber Street where nobody opposed its spot and it's because it had no neighbors so if you pick a spot with a lot of neighbors you're going to get people like The Preserve that are going to come out and organize against it you got to come to places where the town can either control the portion or it makes it impossible you know rezone the Lumber Street Apartment Complex as a uh as one of these they've already got an investment they've got a reap that's going on for another 15 years or so nobody's going to probably touch it because you know it wouldn't be worth knocking down and and and doing it you gotta do it on economics and really think about from an economic standpoint um or otherwise you if you provide it it's it's build as as right and quite frankly we're we can't afford another hundred million and thank you for comments on that Rob go ahead hi guys uh thanks for letting me speak Rob Benson 178 Spring Street so uh I was up there answering some of the questions as it relates to this project or this uh the MBTA community's uh overlay District we were trying to pass and um I think there's a couple things yes The Preserve is scared of the unknown so obviously that's one part and the other two the other part is exactly what Ken said it's the economics so I've gone through and looked at all the kind of debt overrides a proposition two and a half overrides we've conduct we've had in hopkington in the past 10 years it's over $200 million so people that are educated know their tax bills are going up and the more housing leads to the need for more Schools they're not um they're not blind to this and so there's the other swath of people that don't live in The Preserve that are very uh aware that if you add 300 houses you're going to get so many new kids in school and we're going to need to build a new school and just in the past what three years charleswood is budgeted at about 150 million and we should get about 50 million um help from uh I forget the the acronym for the school building authority but uh and then Hopkins Renovations is about another 50 million that's 150 million right there um yeah we're we're in general people are this is my opinion in general I think people are okay with putting forward a zoning map where they don't think housing will be built so that's that's what uh that's what I think yeah and and Rob thanks for those comments I I think uh Zach thought the same thing with the proposal that we took to uh the planning board and they took it forward so we'll see what happens so um given that the planning board is meeting on the 3 thank you for this Lively discussion and uh we will await our marching orders from the planning board after their June 3D meeting uh final agenda item for our meeting tonight is the minutes of the April eth meeting so I'd uh like you all if you haven't had a chance just take a quick look at those and I'd be willing to entertain a motion to approve the minutes with one exception I think John does this intentionally uh my my name in the in the first part of the minutes was spelled Ron royy so I'd like to uh e either change it to noisy poisy or either one of those would be fine with me but other than that uh I'm okay with the minutes as as corrected I saw that Ron I fixed it already I move that we accept the minutes with that correction second thank you Vic all right through the order uh Vic go ahead approved uh yes M yes Sam yes Curtis yes Mary yes Kristen yes and Ron makes it unanimous and the minutes are approved that's our last agenda item and we do not at this point have a um Zach meeting scheduled for the next time so keep an eye on your emails um as to when that's going out I'm guessing John will give us a few date options based on when the planning board is meeting and uh unless there are any other comments I'd like to entertain a motion to adjourn oh John go ahead so I guess uh I'll ask the committee what's the feeling on meeting during the summer I know that we've got the NBTA communities but do we want to do try and go for like once a month do we want to um July June and August what's the point what's the Thought I'd like to try once a month in the summer if we can do that and uh you know if if the planning board has a very a tighter timetable we might have to squeeze another meeting in once a month sounds good to me y I just need we just need to like discuss which stes so that we can yeah some some are blackout dates but yeah yes go ahead Kristen would it be possible to meet in person one time or is that too hard for people I mean is that too hard that's the pressure the pressure is on I'd be happy to meet in person I can meet in person I mean I'm happy to meet in person outside the meeting yes everybody okay got a bar I know it's hard I just I feel like I would do so much better in person like just to be able to ask people questions and like understand things better and like spitball ideas maybe I'm I'm just not good on Zoom but I know that's hard for maybe you can always come hang out in my office I might I'm gonna pop by I'll be there tomorrow can can it be hybrid can it just be hybrid and the those who can attend a person can attend a person oh that's true I would I would ask that it not be hybrid so hard I would rather do one or the other because hybrid meetings are just a huge headache for the administrators of the meeting right it can beate things I just would love to like meet everybody and like just have a talk well at our next meeting Kristen you can make a motion that we we meet in person the first meeting of the month or something like that or the first meeting of the quarter and just have at least some interaction I think that that sounds like a good idea prodive yeah that sound as hybrid again because it becomes turns out to be hybrid what was that yeah wouldn't be considered as hybrid even we meet once in a quarter once in a month also in person no hybrid is just when you have people um remote and in person in the same meaning the same meeting yeah yeah so I might put Ken on the spot here and I don't know if Ken got my text message or not but I offered to buy Ken a beer if he can walk me through the CR process so Kristen maybe maybe that's how we meet in person okay I'll do that at the at the local Brewery we have we have to be careful of open meeting laws that's I just wanted some education for me because that's a processar with you just wanted to have a beer with Ken not too all right uh did we vote on a journey or do we need not yet so moved second all right can we just do a Voice vote on a journey John all in favor say I I hi I all right I'm GNA declare our meeting adjourned thank you everybody and uh we'll see you for our once a month summer meeting whatever it is okay bye bye thanks