All right. 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 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 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 now confirm attendance of members. Please respond present if you're on the call. Matthew Rona, >> present. Elise Mosowski. >> Lucia Lopez
>> present. Michael King >> present. >> Parker Hap >> present. >> Peter Mimo >> present. >> Amna Dwan >> present. >> Vic Pratzi >> present. >> And Rob Benson is here. And now staff. Uh Aneri Patel
>> present. >> And Lori is Lori St. John on >> uh she's not on yet. >> Okay. All right. Let's just jump right into our agenda. Uh we're going to start with the
administrative items, the meeting minutes. Uh as they are in the um in the folder, have you received any comments and updates? Aneri, are they good? Are we ready to vote on them? >> Just minor amendment and it's already
done and it's in the in the folder. So board can vote if it's all set. >> All right. Does anyone have any additional additional comments for the meeting minutes? >> All right. Not uh hearing any. I'd like to entertain a motion that the planning
board approve the minutes of March 2nd, 2026 as written. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Thanks, Matthew. Thanks, Michael. Uh roll call vote. Matthew Rona, >> yes. Alise Meloski,
she's not here yet. Lucia Lopez, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Parker Hap, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Amna Dwan, >> yes. >> Vic South, >> yes. >> And Rob Benson is a yes.
All right, going into our second agenda, item 1.2. So, we recently talked about Oiello Drive and at the end of 2025, we we I think it spanned more than one meeting, but we talked about Oiello Drive and the
history of Ociello Drive. Um, and it had a provision when that road was constructed that it would be a private way. And we we uh voted to remove that uh clause in that approval. and now it's before us of whether we
should accept it as a public street. Aner, do you want to give us any additional background or is there any additional background to give? >> Uh, sure. So, first Parker Hap cannot discuss this topic. >> Can you hear me?
>> Okay. So, um, okay. Thank you. Parker Hap cannot uh discuss or take a part in this topic as he is a citizen petition for this street acceptance. Second um planning board reviewed 1992
decision and remove one of the condition from the original decision back in December 2025. The condition was the road on the plan shall be maintained by owners of the property at no expense to
the town. Board voted that and removed the conditions. Uh but s citizen file to select board as a to accept this as a straight acceptance. But one of the condition when we amended
the decision was any future request for public road acceptance shall require compliance with current town standards process and including engineering evaluation of the road and system. As per my knowledge uh when I sent the memo
to the planning board dated March 5th 2026 applicant did not uh file the decision with registry of date. So as for that the old 1992 decision is in the place. So um that is one of the key
point to take in mind and we do not have a updated site drawings or engineer reports regarding roads for a drive. >> So when we go ahead let me just make sure I'm clear on every on everything. When we voted to remove the clause that
it would be remain a private way, we we said at that time that it to become a public a public way, it needed to go through proper uh engineering review uh and and that has not occurred. >> That is correct. >> That is correct. And we also have the
other situation that um the uh our decision to remove that stipulation hasn't been filed with the registry of deeds remove the stipulation that it's a remain a private way. So that hasn't been filed. I don't know if
that's the most pertinent thing, but I think the most pertinent thing is uh no additional engineering review has been done and that's that's what we said we would like to have. That's what we wanted to have happen before we would accept it as a public way.
>> That is correct. >> All right. Does anyone on the board have any comments, questions? >> Uh Parker, I think you can provide comments as a citizen if you want. Um but uh anyone >> through the chair,
>> go ahead Parker. I rewatched the uh meeting from December or I can't I don't know if it was January to my recollection. I couldn't find record of us amending the subdivision to have the
additional condition that any future request for public road acceptance would require compliance with current town standards. I I maybe I listened to it. Uh, I couldn't find that and uh was just a little concerned, you know, going back and seeing this and I couldn't find
record of ever receiving this document despite being CCD on it. >> Um, I did not go back and rewatch it. Go ahead. So um decision
dated December 31st, 2025th filed with town clerk on January 5th, 2026. Um that decision mentioned the condition which board reviewed and approved uh in on December
5th December 1st hearing and it includes those conditions board reviewed and approved phases on that. Um I'm sure Kobe one of our admin forwarded the decision to applicant
after filing with town >> so they can file with registry of data. >> The the document in our folders that we're talking about is oiello oaks- amended definitive plan-decision uh-filed with TC-01-05-26.
>> That is correct. That's the decision. So at the end following subject to the following conditions approval of this amended sub sub amended definitive subdivision plan shall not be construed as acceptance of ocelo drive as a public way. The town of Hopkins shall have no
responsibility to maintain repair or plow drive and lesson until the road is formally accepted by town meeting. Any future request for public road acceptance to require compliance with current town standards and procedures including engineering evaluation of the roadway and drainage system. So that's
um that's the language in the decision. um without I don't I don't I didn't rewatch the the video, but go ahead, Matthew. >> Um it matches what is under 410 on page
23 of the memo from that meeting just for reference as well. Bullet three is the any future request to public road acceptance to require compliance with current town standards and procedures. >> Thanks, Matthew. I think that's a great call out. Thank you.
Uh so my my opinion is uh I think we're all sympathetic to the situation because we we kind of just reviewed this and um I think that the sympathy was relayed and uh or conveyed in removing that stipulation that the they could
pursue uh that the street becoming a town way a public Okay. But um I don't unless someone unless people disagree, I don't think we're ready to uh endorse or move this forward to say
we we should do that at this time. >> Briefly um to the chair. >> Sure, Peter. Go ahead. >> Do we do we have any insight as to why this engineering analysis hasn't occurred yet? I I I I would guess there's there's several people that live on the street.
It's not a free activity. So, that's that would be like u I think it's just an expense and uh my guess is Parker, I don't know if you have any inside information, but my guess would be maybe unaware it it's required. Maybe they're
not sure who to pay who's going to pay for it. >> Yeah, I couldn't speculate. And just a correct record to you, I'm not the citizen petition on this. As in mentioned earlier on, it was submitted by Paula Oiello.
>> Yeah. >> Do the chair do we have any members of the public here who are from OE way who could give insight into that question? Yeah, Peter, I'm I live on Ociella Drive and I'm not aware of any ongoing effort
from the neighbors or uh Paula to, you know, conduct a review at this time. Matt, could you just do me a favor and clarify which document you were referring to earlier? I just wasn't able to find that. >> I think he was referring to the the meet
the meeting memo for that uh the date we voted on it. Uh Matthew, do you have any >> Yeah, the meeting memo for the meeting that uh any mentioned uh December 1st. It's on page 23. Um Rob, do we have
proposed language? Like I'm I'm reading through like the scanned archives which has a lot I think there's a lot of duplication with the other documents. Do we actually have proposed wording for the amendment uh in here for the article? Sorry. >> So this isn't um
not that I'm aware of. All all I think we're we we are I think believe correct me if I'm wrong in I think we're trying to either recommend or not recommend street acceptances to the select board. >> So I don't know that we're making the motion like of actually what would be in
the annual town meeting. >> So we don't need to make a motion uh for street acceptant it directly go through select board. So they're going to do a public hearing next month. planning board just need to recommend and share their thoughts on all three street
acceptance. So we just need to prepare a report, you need to review um and we need to sign and send. So it's not like we need to vote on in this matter. It's just so so with that being said, let me
my here's my opinion. I I feel uh sympathetic to all the residents of OciOla Drive. Uh, I think the town kind of changed the maintenance plan of public ways where they were plowing this
street for over a couple decades and then they stopped plowing it and that's how this came to light. And so um I think that's a uh a sympathetic situation. I don't know the um what it costs off the top of my
head to do a engineering review. Um and I don't know the current uh state like uh I haven't traveled this this road in the recently to know the current state. Um so I'm sympathetic. I'd like
to see it work out for the residents, but I I don't think I'm ready to say uh we should definitely accept this the street with the information I have today. Anyone else? >> Aneri, what what do you want from us in
uh more than that? So after tonight's meeting I will prepare three reports uh so we can send to select board on behalf of planning board you can review those and if we are okay so tonight is just like we're going to discuss and if
everybody agree to the notes I can prepare the report and send it to select board >> like I I honestly don't know if we have I don't recall other situations similar to this like part of our street
acceptance is normally a new uh project, a new street being put in and and it's kind of the standard just part of the cost of doing business of putting it and building a neighborhood by the developer. This is unusual. So, I don't know if there's
been situations where the town has uh b uh born or basically taken on this cost of um for a street that's now 25 years in existence. Parker, go go go ahead.
>> Yeah. So, there's been uh within the last 10 years multipleful instances where the town has accepted roads that were not at the standard and my research in advance of uh trying to help with getting this road accepted. I
found um at least five instances dated back to 2015 and 2016 where the town did not accept roads that were up to standard. In fact, Lynen Street, which is another road that is being evaluated by the town, is is well not up to standard. And so, in one breath,
we're saying, let's accept Lynen Street, even though it's not up to standard, and we're going to completely, you know, take that on. But then, you know, with this one, it sounds like there's, you know, a question of, uh, whether or not it should be accepted. And as you
observed correctly, um the instances of this happening uh in the past have been because of developers abandoning projects or you know roads falling into you know disrepair and you know the town taking them on for various environmental reasons or just you know lack of
you know upkeep. But this of itself is you know quite unique um but not uh something that hasn't been seen before even in the last decade. Thanks Parker. Uh Matthew, do you have a comment? Yeah, I mean I so there's s I could
understand the situation where if there was a benefit to the town where ownership of the the road would be beneficial for some other goal of the town such as a water man or to be able to correct the a road that's necessary to connect to other main roads that the
town might want to consider paying the cost and taxes to basically repair the road. I don't think this is too abnormal. It was a road that was constructed 25 years ago that the developer just never completed. Uh we we've seen that in other places. Um
we've seen people come back to the board after a period of time and finally complete a road and then ask for approval. It's just the repairs have never been done to the point where this and I believe it was raised that the the basin at the beginning of the road at
zero uh asello aren't really being maintained. And I don't I wouldn't expect that the town would want to shoulder that burden uh to repair all of that right now. >> You're the chair.
>> Parker, go ahead. >> Yeah. In uh response to Matt's comments, there could be an argument to be made that breakthrough water that is documented in the laser fish uh archives dating back to the 90s that's coming on
Hayward and um trickling onto OE and given that Oiello has an infiltration system uh that that infiltration system in and of itself could be a benefit to the town to not only improve water quality of Lake Mass, but also So, you
know, reduce the potential of, uh, you know, particulate matter from, you know, coming off of Hayward and into that water system. Um, and in and of itself, uh, Matt, I totally understand what you're saying. I think the uh you know there are you know ways to you know show
benefit to the town that uh and you the fact there isn't a water main was the decision in the archives by the planning board and DPW director at the time to not allow for Ocielloa to connect to uh you know town water because there was concern about ability to maintain the
pressure up Ociello and Hayward Street. So, it's tough to look back in the archives and say, "Well, we're gonna accept Lynen because it has town water." But the town made a deliberate decision back 30 years ago to not allow Oiello to have water. And that being a determining
factor seems again like we're picking and choosing. >> So, my uh Lucia, go ahead. Um I think through the chair this might be a question for Aneri but has there been any discussion regarding a
betterment perhaps to bring the road up to standard whenever the um engineering review is done if that is done in the future >> for this specific straight or in general? Well, I mean, specifically for this
since we're talking about it, but um in listening to one of the early meetings, I remember um the board basically coming to the conclusion that in the future um Fitch and Myrtle, I believe the new roads off Blueberry
might be coming back to the town even though they have an HOA to ask that the town take on the responsibility of the road and their storm water system. Um, and I think the idea was this might be decades down the line. So, is this
something that's been done in the past where the um, residents basically pay to bring the road up if the developer didn't do that um, so that it could be something that would
be an option going forward. Honestly, I'm not sure because this is um like after 3 years or something, we are getting street acceptance again uh on the old like subdivision like this. So, I'm not able to answer that like
what it used to be in the past and how planning board or the town operated and um issued the street acceptance matter. We have Carrie on the call from DPW if she wants to point out something regarding street acceptance on
engineering side but usually for new subdivision or subdivision like this even drive one of the conditions says that they need to um bring that up to the code so town can board during street um I mean annual town meeting and accept
that as a public road if it's up to the select board and during the annual town meeting if still board decide town decide that they want to accept that street then it's up to the town to work and pay for it. Um but as for the
planning rule condition it was applicant's responsibility to bring that up to the code. Usually for new subdivision, we make sure that just like Whisper Way, which we're going to discuss, before we release the bond and they go for street acceptance, they need
to make sure that it's up to the current town standards for street. >> Thanks, Neri. Uh, Carrie, I saw you turn on your camera. Did you have any additional comment you wanted to make? I just want to make a comment that the
bylaws allow us uh the town to have a betterment. Um it would be up to select board. They make the decision about that whether or not we collect betterment. From my understanding, the town's only done betterments for sewer and water improvements and never for roadway improvement. >> Thank you.
Does anyone else on the board have any additional comments >> to the chair? >> Amna, go ahead. >> Um, I'm assuming that when the people that I mean, again, sympathetic to the situation, but I'm assuming when you buy your house, it'll be on your documents
that you're buying a house on a private road. Um, so I'm assuming that the people who bought knew that they were buying on a private road. Um, and I think if the if it needs to come up to snuff, I don't know what the who pays for it and how they pay for it, but you
know, once it gets built up to whatever levels it needs to meet or whatever metric it needs to meet. Sorry, my dog's barking. Um, then it becomes a public way and the town can maintain it for however long they have to maintain it. Um, but until then, it's a private road.
Yes, I I think that's the I think uh so I think there's a couple things I think uh as your lawyer when if you have a buy if you have a lawyer helping you as a buyer they should point that out but uh maybe it's not I don't I don't know
maybe it's not always clear. I I don't 100% know. Um the thing the the challenge is in this situation the residents I think there's only there's only a few houses on the street maybe five they would need to pay for the
engineering evaluation and then pay for the betterment and it's uh and that's that's kind of the ch I think that's the challenge. Um Parker go ahead. Yeah, just Rob just to clarify as part of a typical title
discovery uh in advance of a PNS for a home purchase and wish that were true uh that that would be typically standard to look into you know uh the road and if it is public or private but is in fact not part of a typical title of discovery. Um
and it's especially prevalent for homes after the subdivision authorization act of 1953 where that established more rigorous guidelines for which you know roadways were um you know governed by towns, municipalities or the state. Um it is typically within uh you know roads
before that where the property lines are understood to go to the median of you know roads unless otherwise accepted by the town that you would be guaranteed that. And it's very much so common in uh when you're seeing like paper roads or old town roads, but for typically subdivisions after um 1953, that is not
part of a normal title discovery when you're doing a PNS process. So for instance like myself or the littles that live up the street. Uh they were not aware of that and there's multiple points in the OEO record where you know residents point to that too that they uh
were unaware when they were purchasing their home that it was on a a private road. Uh just uh so you're aware. >> Thanks Parker. Uh Matthew, go ahead. >> I I I don't know have all the deeds that were issued obviously. So I don't know
about Parker uh who is probably one of the more recent purchasers. There is one in the packet that does clarify that the developer is the one granting access to the road as an easement um presumably. And so it it does seem to imply that
that is not a public road given the way that's structured. I would assume, but I don't know, maybe somebody else could interpret that. I think it comes down to is that information relayed to the buyer and in terms um assuming they have a lawyer
that they just need to if the lawyer relayed that properly, then yes, they they should they should know. Uh, obviously we weren't in those conversations with all the buyers. So, um, all right. I
I think uh I've I've kind of um said my opinion several times. I'll just restate it and we can move move on. I don't there's no vote to take that I'm aware of, but my opinion is I'm very sympathetic. I think it's a I think uh
I don't think as a planning board we can recommend the town except the street but I uh I think morally I think the town should take care of the street uh because they have been for 20 plus years and all of a
sudden they are not. So so that's my that's my take on uh the current situation. Anyone else have any last comments or we're going to move on to uh item 1.3? Matthew, go ahead. >> Uh is that last comment going to be part
of an report or is I I mean I I sort of disagree with the end of that, but if it's not going to be relevant to the report, then I'm not going to waste time, right? I mean that there there sound like there
was risks to the DPW uh machinery etc. given the maintenance of the road. I don't and it goes back to I don't think that the town should be putting itself at risk either legally um or based on the fitness of the road to damage its
equipment. I mean, through the chair, you've had five separate plowing contractors, Matt, in three years, and none have said that their plows have fallen off. It's just categorically uh speculative, and totally respect your perspective, but
it's just not the case. We haven't had one contractor that said their plow is damaged. I think the the uh this is the point I'm trying to make that I hope hopefully gets into the uh information uh that we pass on to the
the select board that we don't rec we can't recommend to accept the street at this time but we are sympathetic to this situation because of the facts that have led us to this point. the facts that uh the town was taking care of the street.
Apparently, um like the history of the of the street was going to be like basically a a street for a family and it turned out not to be a street for a family. It turned out to be just all individual owners. Um that that's that was my only
point. briefly through the chair. Will there at at the next meeting will there be actual drafts of this report that will go to the select board that we'll be able to review and then vote on this to send over to the select board? Is is that the idea or did I misunderstand that? Uh
usually on street acceptance board planning board do not vote but uh we can I can prepare the reports and board would like to review that we can do that in the March 23rd hearing. >> I mean it sounds like there's a diversity of opinion on this and it seems to me that we should have at least
a coherent response or to convey to the select board. Perhaps that's something we should see before we by the next meeting. Does that make sense? >> It it sounds that sounds good. Uh, Peter. >> All right, let's uh
it sounds like with that comment, we're going to review kind of what we relay to the select board at our next meeting. So, let's move on to item 1.3, uh, Lynen Street acceptance. So, this is a similar, but really a different uh completely different scenario in the
views of the town and and what we have in our information. Uh, I'm just going to read um read the second uh page three uh portion. Uh, the DPW recommends acceptance to
facilitate a water main improvement project planned for the East Main Street neighborhood. Formal acceptance will grant the town necessary legal rights to the roadway and allow the use of water enterprise funds for these improvements. If accepted and approved at the 2026 annual town meeting, the DPW plans to upgrade the road to current standards,
including paving and drainage rehabilitation. So, Lynen Street is a road the DPW is recommending we uh we re we that we basically recommend to the select board that it should be accepted as a town way
uh because of these ne uh desired water main improvements. All right. Does anyone have any comments or questions? >> Do the chair. So, what sets this apart from Oiello is that there's a benefit to the town. It seems that's how that's how we're making a distinction here or one
of them anyway. >> Yes, exactly. All right. Um I think with that as the backdrop, I think as a planning board, we should recommend that the to the select board that we accept the street as a public way. >> Anyone else have any uh anything to add?
>> I do, Mr. Chairman. >> Go ahead. Just state your name and address. Uh my name is Kevin Olry and I'm I represent the owners of 11 Curtis Road which is a corner lot on Lynen Street and Curtis Road. >> Okay. >> And um the uh I've have been in contact
with uh Ms. Reed relative to the DPW filing and submission and it's a very small amount of information um to uh I think progress with street acceptance um of Lynen Street for
several different reasons. There are several utilities, several very important utilities that aren't depicted on the plan that's been submitted. And the plan was only a draft copy. Um I don't know what the final copy has been prepared. It was um prepared by Haley
and Ward for the town of Hopkin and it basically just shows the um edge of pavement in the layout. I don't know if the plenty is familiar with the um the railroad bed that used to go through town in the mid 1800s. This is a portion of the layout of the railroad bed. The
railroad bid was taken as an easement in the mid 1800s and um when the property was developed or these neighborhoods were developed Curtis Road and Lynen Street in the early 1950s, the um owner of the property uh Alvin
Curtis never retained the um rights or um uh he used the um railroad bed as a boundary for the lots in the subdivision.
And what happens when uh something as of this nature occurs that there's um the derelic fee statute that gives the owners of the abuing properties to the right of way uh title to the center
line. So I have concerns relative to the town taking the uh street or accepting it as a street when they don't have clear title to it. and uh the um uh other concerns that are related to it
such as utilities. In other words, it's it's only been the water man focus to put a new water man down Lynen Street. I think the existing water man is 2 in. And I'm all in favor of upgrading the uh infrastructure in the roadway, but I
question the method the town is using to accept the road. And um the uh the only notice that we've got was a letter by DPW. I would think that um that the town should properly make an offer to purchase the pieces of property that
they want to accept instead of just taking them. Um one of the biggest concerns on Lynen Street and Curtis Road is lack of infrastructure or upgraded infrastructure. There's a drain pipe. There's several drain pipes in Curtis Road and Lynen Street, but none of them
show on the plan that was provided by DPW. And those drain pipes will be crossed as part of the construction process to put a water mane in the street. Um, I think that the I think maybe the uh priorities of the DPW are a little misaligned and they should either
do them in tandem or do the drainage before the water man. Regardless, there's going to be conflicts in the utility locations in both streets um to accommodate the new water manes and um while still maintaining a an old very
old and outdated drainage system which uh floods very frequently. Um and the town down the end of Lynon Street on the easterly end which is more or less the low point that's where things drain to. They don't have an easement across
private property to maintain a drainage easement. And the drain pipe is all silted in above the crown of the pipe as it crosses Lynen Street. And uh with several recent storm events, I've gone down there um at the request of uh the
tenants at Curtis Road at the property that I represent um and tried to dig out the pipe uh when things were flooding. So I think that the DPW needs to, you know, refocus a little bit on the drainage or make that a little bit higher of a priority or an equal
priority as the water man um at this point along with the other issues that I've raised relative to the um the operation of the derelic fee statute for ownership in the road. So I will uh stop and listen for comments. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Mr. Oly. Uh Matthew, go ahead. What's the impact on the DPW's water project if this is not accept if is not accepted by the town? >> I'm sorry, you asking me. >> No, no, no, no. Uh
>> Carrie, do you have a Did you hear the question? >> Yes. Through the chair, essentially we would remove this section um Lynen Street from the water project. It's a private water main as it is now. Um, and there have been like some leaks and stuff like that. So, if it's not
accepted, then we would probably rely on the private property owners to update it if they needed to. >> So, uh, thank you, Carrie. Um, all all of that background that was provided, um, I I'm not exactly sure what to do with it. Uh
like for us we the ultimate decision to accept the road or not accept the road relies with the select board. Um from my opinion uh our uh town staff is recommending we accept the road. any of the legal questions of
who owns the property to the road itself is is not really my uh like I I I can't negotiate that here in in our planning board meeting uh or or determine it. Like I'm not going to legally be able to determine who has legal rights. It's
going to be lawyers that are going to do that. Um, so that's my my opinion is I'm going to uh follow the recommendations of our town staff in in this area. Anyone else
on the uh board have any have any thoughts, comments, >> Matthew? Go ahead. >> I wonder if there's anybody else from this street that or the nearby streets that have a that are at this meeting and have an opinion on it.
If there is feel uh Aneri, go ahead. Do you have any uh I see your hand raised. >> Yeah, just want to point out that this is uh as a part of administrative item planning board did not going to review as a hearing. So neighbors are not aware
that we are discussing. It's going to be on select board agenda and they will send out the notice and everything as a part of their public hearing process and that um all the street acceptance are on their agenda for August 8th selective meeting if I'm not wrong.
>> So they will receive notice and all the letters by end of this month. >> It can't be August. It has to be April. >> Oh my I'm sorry. April. My bad. My bad. April. Go ahead, Matthew.
muted. Um, so this will go through a public hearing with select board. It will go through town meeting. And I, it sounds like the idea is to provide a benefit to the local neighborhood. Um, I wouldn't want to discourage the select board from
considering it and having more of the residents be able to be part of that conversation if they saw more of a problem with it and let select boards deal with that discussion. I I think as a planning board, it makes sense for us to recommend it. Thank you, Matthew. I I agree.
If if anyone has any differing opinion, now is the time. Uh now is the time to voice that. Otherwise, we're going to move on to agenda 1.4. But that would be my recommendation is that we we recommend it to the select board. They'll hold their public hearing and uh
and see what shakes out in that public hearing. All right, seeing no hands raised, moving on to item 1.4, whisper way. So, uh this uh Anerian in the writeup is
recommending we we just uh we add this to our agenda item for next week and so we can avoid the conversation for tonight. So, I'm I'm all in favor of that. if everybody else is we're waiting for um the peerreview
engineer beta to finish their review. >> Makes sense. >> All right, let's do that. Let's uh let's continue that to our uh next uh meeting. Ner. All right,
we ready to move on to agenda item two. So 75 South Street. So I I watched uh I wasn't able to attend last the meeting last week, but I watched I watched uh the meeting uh this morning and
uh the sitewalk on Saturday um minor site plan review uh all the different things. Uh, Aner, do you want to give us an update because I I believe like we're still I I think I think we're waiting on the conservation commission, which is
typically we we might not necessarily have to wait on them, but I think in this instance we are waiting on on information or uh output from the conservation commission. Do you want to give me an update from your perspective? >> Yeah, sure. So, we had a sidewalk on
March 7th. Um and uh at that time applicant mentioned that they went through conservation for um just to finalize that they can amend their existing ongoing permit. So they need to file with comcom um I talked to
Judy and applicant are waiting to submit that. So it's up to applicants if they want to complete the planning board process and then go to comcom and do that and if it's required they can come back and amend the site plan application.
It's up to applicant. Um right now they conservation reviewed uh certain part but now they need full NOI permit if I'm not wrong and yeah if Joe needs to add anything uh but that's the update from
my side on com. >> Uh Mr. Markan do you want to give us uh an update on your side? >> Sure. Um, as Aner mentioned a moment ago, we took advantage of that snowed out meeting to meet with the conservation commission the next night
and come up with a pathway forward um, how to amend the existing paperwork and allow these tracks to run parallel so we can discuss issues with you at the same time as the conservation commission. Uh, the sitewalk I thought went well. U, everyone was able to grasp what we're
trying to accomplish. I think the only reason um here tonight is something that uh Matthew in uh in your place uh last week mentioned something about should the board debate peer review for the project um seeing that it was a minor
site plan. So that's really kind of what I'm after tonight is if we're going to start something with the conservation commission would kind of want to clue them in on the time frames. Um, you folks put this out to bid. We come up uh with three candidates. We forward the
money. They start their review. We're a month out from a discussion about the the topics. So, if we're going to be in that process of choosing a peer review, I'd like to let the conservation commission know um what they can expect.
So, uh, right now this project follows under the follows under the rules to allow it to be a minor site plan. And, um, the meeting last week, it sounded like I know at least I I thought it was uh, uh,
Michael that thought it was that would be fine, but I don't know if there was a lot of other uh, people that joined in that conversation. I think from my point of view it's it's all up to the rules of like does it adhere to the rules of a
minor site plan. That's that's how I I that's my perspective. But uh anyone else have any comment? >> Aneri it's correct this this adheres to all the rules of like land disturbance site disturbance all to be within a minor site plan. Yes, there is cracks.
So the this application the current application comes under minor site plan. They are not triggering any major. So it's not um necessary to go through peer review process but it's up to the board if they want um to work on the matter.
We received few comments from DPW which we discussed last time and those are basically done through DPW but applicant needs to keep that in mind. One of the point was regarding um
sidewalk which we discuss at the let me see award street um so it's up to the board if board thinks that if we require peer review then we can reach out otherwise
for the current plans which they submitted they are good under minor side plan so it's not mandatory So, I I kind of I stated my my thinking on it. Does anyone if if no one else if everyone if if people think different, let's let Joe know now. Uh if not, I
think we are uh we're not going to change we're not going to change our minds >> through the chair. >> Go ahead, Lucia. Are we going to talk about sidewalks then even if we don't go to peer review? Because I I agree that this is, you
know, falls under minor site plan. It doesn't sound like what they're doing would require uh a peer review necessarily, but in terms of the, you know, going through the different points, one does say that if they don't
put a sidewalk in, then they need to request a waiver. I was planning on talking I was planning on talking about sidewalks even though it's a minor site plan. Um I don't know that there's any restriction to to that we we can't
All right. Uh, Matthew, go ahead. Since there's a silence, I was going to say, we usually rely on the peer reviews to to make sure that things are in compliant. Um in this case other than the question open question about the waiver or or sidewalk or that discussion
right um I think we were kind of in agreement that this looked simple enough um that the it wasn't going to require a dedicated peer review um kind of trusting uh town professionals to to say
if anything looks too complex but um I I think that was the consensus of the board was that we didn't need a peer review but we need to actually pay attention to the details then This thing I said, >> "Yep, I that's what I uh that's what I uh I agree with. I from and what I
gathered from um watching last week's uh last week's meeting." Joe, is that is that uh are you good with that? Like we we're good with I uh from what I'm hearing, we're good with it being a minor site plan review, not requiring peer review. We do want to
talk discuss sidewalks. Uh we can even discuss sidewalks now if if uh Lucy if you had any comments ready or thinking to maybe give Joe the that information now would be better. >> So if I can interject um so Joe had
mentioned that he was talking with DPW about that and they had some ideas. So I wonder if it makes sense to hear from the applicant beforeward. >> Great. >> We are just in the uh beginning stages of gathering data on all those action items. So on this side of the screen,
we're not prepared to talk about that sidewalk tonight. The hope was uh continue this meeting um reach out to um both the um fire department about their one comment and the two or three comments uh from the DPW and u see if we
can do some work offline with those two groups and then revisit this with this board. Joe Joe, I had one question and because you you do a lot of you do an extensive amount of surveying around town, you you may know the history. Was Hayward Street
at one point, this section of Hayward Street connected to Lumber Street before 495 was put in. >> Yes. Once 495 came, that section was was abandoned or destroyed, what have you. But yeah, it used to cut across. Long long-winded
answer. Yes. used to cut across and the 495 took that away. >> Yes. Cuz I have like um I have this uh future vision that like so when 495 was was put in it, it really made it more
difficult for people to go by by foot or by bicycle uh to Lake Maspan. And I I uh um I I guess a hope of mine or dream would be that there'd be some connectivity via
uh a pedestrian bridge over 495 sometime in the future uh to connect give connectivity to the rest of the town to Hayward uh more readily available. Like right now it's hard without a car to get to uh to Lake Lake Maspan. As a kid, we
used to take Haywood Street over there to take swimming lessons down at Sandy Beach. So, they existed in the 60s until construction reached Hopkin. So, >> yep. Matthew, go ahead.
>> Since we're on the topic and of South Street, I was just at Price Chopper and there were two like 10-year-olds riding their bikes down to Price Chopper. So the concept of safe navigation on South Street in sidewalks and bike lanes does seem apppropo here.
>> Yeah, the uh Lake Basinox uh a valuable like is a nice resource within the town and making it more readily accessible uh by foot traffic and bike traffic is uh it's been a goal of mine for a long time. All right. Without if there's no more
comments, I'd like to I'm going to uh continue this. Uh do you want to continue to our next meeting, Joe? >> Yeah, I think if you're meeting in a couple of weeks, that should be plenty of time. >> Yep. Aner, is our >> is our schedule uh available for them uh
to be be on our agenda for the 23rd? >> Yes. >> All right. Um, but I just want to point out one thing, Joe. Are you waiting for COMCOM hearing? Because my discussion with Judy, you're not going to be on March 24th COMCOM meeting as of now. So,
do you want March 23rd or you want to continue to April 6 planning board? Because even if we continue to April 6, >> it's going to be the same because come meet next day to planning board. My big
fear was several months lag that if we picked up the filing with the conservation commission, it would not be until sometime in June. So, we wouldn't meet till July. So, we would make progress with this board and then have to table it or come back and make
changes to it. I'm not concerned about a couple of weeks. I was more concerned about five, six months delay. And that's what that meeting with the conservation commission wiped out. The ability to run these very the schedules much more closely. So I guess um that's it. If
that's the case, do you feel the first April meeting would be would be more convenient? >> I have not spoken with Judy. So you have one leg up on me. >> So um as per my discussion with her, you
need to file with ComCom by next week to be on April 7th Comenda because they need to advertise and everything. >> Sure. Um, so if you want you can do April 27 because if even if you do April 26, you're not
going to meet COMC come meet next day. So they're hearing going to be April 7th. >> Mhm. >> So it's up to you if um if you want to discuss sidewalk and other stuff, we can you you can ask for
that. >> 6th on April the 6th. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That would probably be the most convenient, April 6. And those two schedules get much more more closely aligned. >> So I think to continue a minor site plan, I don't need to continue the decision deadline in this case.
>> Um >> to the chair, it's March 26th, I believe. March 29th >> currently. >> Yep. >> Currently, >> we need to extend the deadline as well. Decision deadline. >> What decision deadline do you want, Aneri?
>> Just a second. chair, we can do April um 20 for the decision deadline if we are meeting on April 6. >> Okay. I'd like to entertain a mo uh I'd like to continue the public hearing. I'd like
to actually I'd like to enter in a motion to continue the public hearing for 75 Cell Street to April 6th and extend the decision deadline to April 20th. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Thanks Matthew. Thanks Michael. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona. >> Yes.
>> Is Elise on? >> Um no she's not. And chair just to point out we cannot vote on this. >> I cannot vote. >> No Vick. Vick. Oh, Vic. Okay. Lucia Lopez,
>> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Parker Hap, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Am >> yes. >> And Rob Benson is a yes. >> All right. All right, we're moving on to agenda
item three. So these are uh articles for town meeting first. So first one is MBTA overlay uh district ani do you want to give us through >> the chair motion open the new public
hearing on zoning articles for annual town meeting. I'm just uh Okay. Is that Do we typically I I I I don't know that we've had public hearings for But anyways, uh
would anyone like to uh second that motion? >> Second. >> Thanks, Lucia. Matthew Rona, >> yes. >> Lucia Lopez, >> yes. Michael King, >> yes. >> Parker Hap, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes.
>> Amna Dwan, >> yes. >> Pasi, >> yes. >> And Rob Benson is yes. >> All right. First one is MBTA communities. Uh I had the benefit of uh talking to Aneri
today. Um I uh Aneria, would you like to give an update uh or or how would you like us to move forward with this? I I think we're in a good place, but let's uh let's see what the conversation brings. >> Uh sure. Let me present MBTA changes to
our resident so they are aware of what board is talking about and what are the changes we are doing. Just a second. Oops. >> Can you see my screen? >> Now we can.
>> Okay. So, just a quick update on MBTA Community Zoning District. Why it is required? What is that? Back in 2021, Massachusetts government adopted MBTA bylaw and mentioned that all 175
community needs to adopt this zoning under Massachusetts general law 4A section 3A and require MBTA communities to adopt this zoning bylaw and non-compliance risk loss of state
funding potential legal exposure. Back in 2024, Hopkinington adopted MBTA bylaw. At that time, the proposal included three subd district. One, the preso, second the downtown district, and
third is the Walcott Valley district. Here is the little closeup of all three district which were adopted under MBTA zoning bylaw. If we take a look into the summary table, you can see at that time the
current 2024 proposal to have 54.6 acres of MBTA overlay district. We had 782 final unit capacity and 80 18 units were
dwelling. Uh back in May 2025, executive office of housing liable communities reviewed Hopkinington proposal and they gave us town a conditional compliance. Why they gave us conditional compliance?
Because town did not meet one of the requirement of contingency. So uh we met all three requirements from the state. One is the acreage, other one is the multif family unit capacity and gross density. But we
did not meet the contingency requirement. As you can see on this table, the three district all the district were around like preserve were was around 22 acres downtown 16.9
and Walcott 14.8 8 15 50% contingency means one of the district needs to be half of the total acres we are a loting as a MBTA zoning district so based upon this 54.6
you have to have 27 acres of one of the subd district to meet the contingency requirement which we failed to do that in the first place. So now we are going back with the new proposal to annual town meeting this year where here is the
current new proposal where we are combining downtown district and Walot Valley district by adding eight parcels on Walcott Street and making this as a one district. We are not doing anything to
the pro preserve district. It's going to stay as it is in this proposal as well. And by adding this parcels, we are meeting our all four state requirements. The land area, unit, capacity, gross
density and the 50% contingency. So now we can see in the summary table the walk by adding those eight parcels and making it as a one district the acreage of downtown Walcott Valley is around 32 acres which is uh meeting 50%
contingency requirement and in this new proposal we going to have 775 units gross density is around 17.7 and u by adding this we are meeting all the four housing
um states requirement for MBTA proposal. Here is the comparison table. So we get idea 50 acres land required under MBTA zoning. What we approved back in 2024 was 54.6.
We are pretty much same with our new proposal only the difference is like in number of units and we are now meeting our 50% contingency area requirement and if town approve
this proposal town staff going to work with EOHLC to complete all the requirement and finalize and comply with the state on this MBTA zoning. I'm happy to answer any questions.
>> All right. Thank Thanks, Aneri. >> Anyone on the board have any uh questions? Oh, Matthew, go ahead. >> Uh has this proposal in the state that we've we've sort of finalized and been shown to the state yet? And do we have
an final answer on whether it would definitely comply or not? >> Yes. So I talked to I send our proposal and the changes board discuss removing one of the parcel on Cedar Street and just adding one um like tiny one on the
Walker Street and just adjust the Walford and downtown and they are okay with that. The only concern is that we make sure that we by reducing any uni um by reducing any parcel we don't uh reduce our number of other requirements
which we are not we are only removing 19 cedar street parcel which is in the business district and as per our discussion it not affecting it's only going to change number of units. So from 782
units we go going down to 775 and that's the only difference but state at the moment is okay with that. They are not seeing any loophole on our current proposal.
Anyone else from the board have any comments, questions? All right. Does anyone uh anyone from the public have any comments or questions? >> Yes, I do. >> Uh can you just state your name and address and and go from there?
>> Tom Smith, 22 Walcott Street. And uh is the proposal you're going to give to the town meeting um the present one showing continuous >> connection from Walcott Valley up to the the Main Street project?
>> Yes, that's well that's what that's what we're talking about right now and that >> I think that's what we would uh if everybody's in agreement tonight I think that's what we'd like to do. >> I have a question. Um, I was talking with Peter Caboni and he didn't get it in over his property in the Oval
district and my property is uh quite sizable and it would have been a continuous if my property had been put in the Olay. So, I'm thinking it's it wasn't put in there because it it is developable. And >> what is your property?
>> It's 2.6 acres right on Walk Street at 22 Walk Street. It's the big um it's not checked. >> Okay. Uh so we're we're we're trying to uh adhere
to the rules set forth by um by the state with also getting it passed at town meeting. And this is what we think is the best plan that will get approval at town meeting. We've had uh we've had this go before town meeting
twice. First time it was not approved and one of the major concerns was uh properties actually being developed and a lot of uh uh and that was one concern as well as other concerns. Um so this is this is
the plan we have put forward. >> Uh is was it the intention to do it this way so there's no developable property in the overlay? I think that by and large all of downtown is developable.
Um your property is not in the downtown business district as it is now. So we have intentionally tried not to include um properties that are not in the downtown business district that that
didn't already have uh housing is how I would how I would put it. Well, the um you're continuing down Walk Street for all those houses that are presently there. >> Yep. >> And they're built up and they could tear
them down and put units in each one of the spots, right? Newer units and >> theoretically. >> Theor. >> Yes. So, uh, so it looks like it was a
the dem the um the overlay district is kind of disingenuous because you're not providing any developable land. >> I would I would think every town that has to require uh comply >> try to do that. No, I would I think
every town has to do what's right for their their the people in town and ultimately it's going to go to town meeting and get voted on. >> Yeah. >> Um and so we've had many many hearings on this and we're trying to continue to do what we think is right for the town
that will get town meeting approval. >> That's interesting. One of the most uh obvious places that it should have gone is on Kong's property because it's right next to the station down there. And um he didn't get put in it either. He was
upset about it, but I'm not so much upset because I don't want to see 37 units go on my property because I want to still live on part of it. Uh but I just wanted to find out is a chance it's going to change before town meeting or
is this the final I did arrest you? >> Well, I am hopeful this is our last uh planning board meeting to discuss it before we discuss it at our annual town meeting. >> Now, if the town turns it down again, do you have to go back and revisit all
this? We would take any input receive that if the town meeting votes not to accept it, we would take any commentary uh given at the town meeting and try to take that into consideration for any additional adjustments. But like our goal is to
compile comply with state uh this law >> and um we we can't do it by ourselves. We have to the town meeting has to vote in support of it. >> Okay. I I understand what you're doing
anyways, but uh you're complying with the law, but you the intent of the law uh was to provide housing and you're not providing it other than the new development on the corner of Cedar Street and Main Street. I don't think
there's anything else proposed up there. Th this zoning bylaw is going to be in effect for generations. So I I I don't know what's going to happen over the next many decades. >> Yeah.
>> All right. Well, you've answered my questions and uh if the town rejects it, I'm going to try to push to accept my land and the overlay. Uh, and it I think it should have been in there all out all anyways because of it provides a
continuous uh thing without going into uh the A and B block and putting houses that are already built in there. >> So, okay, >> I don't have any more questions. >> All right. Thank you.
>> You're welcome. >> Anyone else have any comments or questions? Rob, there's somebody waving a hand if you look at the videos. >> Could you say your name and address? >> Sure. Jim Troops, 31 Walcott Street.
>> Go ahead. I'm wondering if the state is reimbursing the town for all the effort we're putting to um push forward their unfunded mandate.
I'm wondering who's paying for your your work and the board's work and the town staff. Are we paying for the uh the state? We we paying the salaries of the people working on this project or is the state
providing funding to help the town uh pay for it? Uh I don't so nobody no no no one on the planning board itself is paid. We we are all volunteers uh that are elected
volunteers I guess and um our town staff like Aneri uh is paid for by the the town of Hopkin and the taxes uh from from our Hopkin operating budget. I don't think there's
any additional funds uh provided for getting these approvals uh through. Matthew, go ahead. >> Yeah, I mean that's basically true. There was were grants when we did this the first time. Um I don't know how long those lasted. This is obviously the
third time we've gone through this. Um but there were were grants initially that um the town did make use of and and access to professionals from the state. Um but the fact that we've had to come back through this is those plans were
rejected. I believe we're uh fully in our pocket now. >> Mhm. I I don't know how to Oh, excuse me. >> Go ahead. Go ahead, Mr. Troops. I >> I'm sorry. I don't know how to do this very well, so I'm struggling on my end.
But but the the point I'm making is that this zoning change is going to cost a lot of money over the course of its impact. And if the state is mandating it and they're not funding it, then they
leave the taxpayers in Hington to fund the state mandate, which I think is patently unfair. And I want to just voice that concern to you that uh you know, paying for state mandates is the
state's job, not our job. and everybody involved in this project from now on, the building department, people inspecting what's going on as a result of these changes, all those people are going to be paid by our budget. And it
just seems that tax increases are unavoidable with that kind of a financial setup. But again, I I I just want to get across the idea that spending Hopington taxpayers money implement the state mandates is a
very bad business deal. Very bad proposition. But thank you for your forbearance here, folks. Um I'll listen from now on. Thanks. >> Thank you. Yeah, there's been um if you do there's been several articles in uh
newspapers like the Boston Globe, Boston Herald. Uh uh basically outlining a similar uh sentiment uh so there's there's others that have voiced that same concern.
Um Matthew, do do you have anything else to add? I mean I I defer to Aneri but I I don't see how this would increase the ongoing costs for like building inspectors etc which are bu paid out of permits etc. And once the rules are are there they they it's the same process as
it currently is. >> That is correct. It will not change anything new. It's just a part of zoning. MBTA is like a zoning overlay. It's going to act similar to how we have other zoning just like affordable dwelling units AD1. This is just going
to be part of that. The point you raised Matthew that yes in the past uh when this new bylaw adopted by state state used to I mean they paid to hire consultants in the starting and I think Hopkin also do had a consultant to
review and to help to draft our zoning MBTA zoning by at that time. This time it's just a minor so we do not need to go and do whole process for that. Uh the other thing is if town adopt this pilot
we have options to other grant program we are eligible to apply if it's required whenever any development or whenever town deciding to do something. If we don't comply with this MBTA, we're going to lose all those GR um I mean
grants and we going to be I s sued by state basically. >> Mhm. >> So it will increase the cost and all that. But we used to get funding for this MBTA in the beginning of this new
old. >> All right. At this time, unless I hear uh differently, I'd like to enterain a motion that the planning board recommend that the town meeting approve the article to amend article 36 MBTA Communities Multif Family Overlay
District MCOD bylaw uh according to the map shown in this meeting. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Thanks, Matthew. Thanks, Michael. Uh roll call vote. Matthew Rona, >> yes. >> Uh Lucia Lopez, >> yes. Michael King,
>> yes. >> Parker Hap, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Amna Dwan, >> uh, >> left South Prati, >> yes. >> And Rob Benson is a yes.
>> All right, moving on to agenda item 3.2. Amend article 11, section 210-62, fees in lie of affordable housing unit provision. Uh, I'm not sure who
I I think we all understand the general concept, but uh, Lucia, I know you're on the affordable housing. Uh, I I don't know the official name of the board, but uh, and Matthew, you've been on Zack, where this has been discussed quite a bit. Would one of you like to give us
like just some background and we can I think we're probably ready for vote because I think we've talked about this enough but um do you have any additional information? >> Yeah, I mean we talked about it a little bit last week. We've talked about it before. So a couple years ago or was it
last year we changed it to be uh so when developers de uh build a development of I think it's net new of five houses um there's a requirement that they add a new house that's uh deed restricted as uh affordable or there was
an option at one point to pay a fee uh that went into a trust that was managed by the affordable uh housing committee. Is that right the right term? Um the fee was considerably low and so that was not we weren't really considering it effective
and so the town changed it to be by special permit only and the planning board during discussions had not really considered it an option because it wasn't really being effective. So this is a proposal to the way that fee is
being calculated to actually make it uh a viable alternative such that um the town and developers uh could consider it as an alternative that would be collected by the affordable housing trust and uh help build or acquire deed
restricted uh affordable houses in town. Lucy, you can probably explain it better than I can if you want more. >> I think we all know that our the payment in Lou has been uh insufficient to actually build an affordable housing unit for for
a long long time. So, uh I look at this as progress. Lucia, did you have anything to add? >> Um that was a very good description by Matt. Uh, one thing that I will add that came out of Zach was I believe it was
two members who voted against it and um they were worried that this would I guess slow down development. >> Um, okay. All right. Um,
does anyone else have any additional uh comments or questions or I'm ready to entertain a motion >> through the chair? >> Lori, go ahead. >> Am I supposed to take from the previous one who made motions, Matthew and Lucia, because this is another new hearing or
do we have to redo the new hearing with new votes? >> Uh, >> it's the same hearing but two different motions. So I use the same two individuals, you and Lucille. >> So we haven't made a new motion.
>> We made a motion on 3.1 on the if you're looking at the agenda. >> Yeah. For the MBTA community. So I don't need to do any new >> So there's going to be a there's going to be a new motion for 3.2. >> Okay. >> But it's the same hearing. >> Okay. So I don't need to have a open
>> No. Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. through the chair. Did we ask if there was any public commentary? Did we want to do that? >> Yeah. Is there for this? Is there any public commentary? Pay uh fees in in lie of affordable housing unit construction.
All right. I'd like to entertain a motion that the planning board recommend that the town meeting approve the article to amend article 11 section 210-62 fees in le of affordable housing unit provision.
>> So moved. >> Second. >> Thanks Matthew. Thanks Peter. Uh roll call vote. Matthew Rona. >> Yes. >> Lucia Lopez. >> Yes. >> Michael King. >> Yes. >> Parker Hap. >> Yes. >> Peter Mimo. Yes.
>> Amna Dwan has she left. Vicas Pratti. >> Yes. >> And Rob Benson is a yes. >> All right. I'd like to entertain a motion to conlo to close the public hearing
uh public hearings for artic zoning articles for annual town meeting. >> What's that? Parker, did you have a what? >> So, I wasn't part of the the hearing. >> All right, let's uh let me >> I'm sorry. I was on mute. I was uh
dictating voice moment myself. Apologies. >> Okay, no problem. Let's let let me just restate that. I'd like to entertain a motion to close the public hearings for the zoning articles for annual town meeting. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Thanks, Matthew. Thanks, Michael. Roll
call vote. Matthew Rona, >> yes. >> Lucia Lopez, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Parker Hab, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Amna Dwan, >> uh, she's not here. Vicas Friday, >> yes. >> And Rob Benson is a yes.
>> All right, that brings us to the end of our agenda. I'd like to entertain a motion to adjourn for this evening. So move second. All right, roll call vote. Matthew Rona, >> yes.
>> Lucia Lopez, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Parker Hap, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Amna Dwan, she's not here. Vicas Pratti, >> yes. >> And Rob Benson is yes. All right. Thanks everybody. Thanks for making it to the
end. Bye.