Five, 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 uh 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 hands or otherwise signaling their intents to speak and be recognized by the chair. This meeting will be recorded. Please take care to mute your microphone unless
you have been recognized by the chair. We will now confirm attendance of members. Please respond with present if you are on this call. Luia Lopez >> present. >> Uh Lee Moloki, not yet. Michael King
>> present. >> Parker H >> present. >> Uh Peter Memo is not here. Uh Omna the >> pres. Brian Johnson >> present. >> Rob Benson is not here. Uh and Matthew
Verona is here. I'm just checking again. Elisa's not on, right? Okay. Uh members of staff, uh Aner Patel, >> present. >> Uh Lori St. John, >> not present. >> No. >> Okay.
Uh all right. Uh first item on the agenda is the minutes. We have both uh June 15th and July 6th. Um there were a couple of updates. Um anything substantial in besides correcting the some some typos?
>> No. Okay. >> Nothing additional. >> Uh any uh proposed changes from anyone on the board. Otherwise, I would entertain a motion to approve the minutes for July 6, 2026 and
July 15, 2026 as they appear in the meeting folder. >> So moved. >> June 15. >> June 15th and July 6th. Did I flip that? >> You said July 15. >> Uh June 15th and July 6th is correcting
the proposed motion. Brian, you still making that motion? >> Yes. Second. Thank you. Uh, roll call vote. Uh, Lucia Lopez, >> yes. >> Uh, Michael King, >> yes. >> Uh, Parker Hat, >> yes.
>> Amna Dwan, >> yes. >> Brian Johnson, >> yes. >> And Matthew Rona is a yes. Thank you for catching that, Lucia. All right. Um, Aner Feliz joins just give me a shout.
Okay. So, y there's a lot of names in this meeting. >> All right. Moving on to the next administrative item. Uh Morselane uh Capital Biano subdivision discussion. Um Aneri, do you want to give us a quick
update on where we're we're at? Um my understanding is we don't have as plans, but there's some discussions that uh Abutters would like to h would like to present >> uh to the chair. I'm just going to quickly update uh boards and for the
record. So basically Morselin um keabiana subdivision approved back in 1992. Um and back in 2022 board amended the decision with one of the condition saying that it requires any updates
alteration needs to go through uh planning board and uh we received couple of reports from springland resident and response back from Morsland resident. In the last meeting I think June 15 board
discussed uh few comments and requested asbuilt plan existing as bill plan from both sides of resident. Unfortunately uh none of them provided. We do have residents on the call who would like to speak to the board and address their
comments and concerns. Um basically board tonight needs to decide uh the next step on this matter. Okay. Um was there um any specific presentations or is just comments from the the public
that >> So I did receive um PDFs of photos from Mr. Clom as well as u different resident of uh Spring Lane. Um I can present both on
the screen. >> Uh that could be helpful. Um, if you want to do Mr. Colmes first or Mr. Scanland's first and Mr. Scanland, if you'd like to narrate once it goes up. >> Well, I would like for the residents in
more in Spring Lane to go first if you don't mind. >> Okay. Um, I don't have an objection to that. If the members of uh Spring if there's was a presentation from someone on Spring Lane, we could put that up first instead >> through the chair. Can you see my
screen? >> Yes, it's being shared now. >> Okay. Oh, >> is this the Spring Lane one or is this >> Spring Lane resident shared photos with me? So, I'm just >> Is this a specific resident or is it >> So, I did receive photos from um Dave.
Then I also received photos from Ivan. uh if I'm not wrong and I also receive photos from ad >> okay >> so uh I compile everything in one so I will present based upon what their comments are
>> and is this Mr. Tacia's first >> uh yes >> okay Mr. Tacia you have your hand up do you want to speak either to the photo or >> through the chair sorry to interrupt just join the meeting as well >> okay thank you
Mr. Tacia. >> Okay, I will talk to the grading plan. >> And can you uh just for the record also repeat your address? >> Yes. Dave Tacsier representing Pat Tacia at Five Spring Lane. I will discuss controlling documents. A final
definitive plan was approved by this board and recorded on 24 March 1992. The plan approved subdivision of land to create four new lots. This plan also shows the rightway is 33 feet wide except near Spring Street. The roadway
is 18 feet wide. The offset from the property line is a minimum of 5 ft. The slope is 2 feet horizontal for a maximum 1 ft vertical. The slope is downward from the property line toward the northeast. In December 2022, this board
amended the 1992 approval to allow a fifth lot. The board's certificate of planning action added condition two. Upgrades or alterations to Morse Lane which were not shown on the original subdivision plan shall not be undertaken
until a new definitive plan or amendment to the 1992 subdivision plan has been submitted to the planning board reflecting these proposed upgrades or alterations. Alterations have been made without the submission of a new
definitive plan or amendment. The absence of these documents is a violation of this board's 2022 decision condition two. The a the rightway is not compliant with the 1992
approved definitive plan. Tonight, I ask the board to set interim conditions barring future work, including paving until a plan or amendment is submitted and approved. And as the board's process allows, I ask for a formal finding that
condition two has been violated. Thank you, chairman. >> Thank you, Mr. Tossia. Um, and this what's being shown, I think, is from the original 1992 uh approval. All right. Thank you. Uh, >> yes, that's that's correct. The typical
driveway crosssection is mostly what I was referring. Um, but to be clear, we don't have uh a more recent surveyor document that has those numbers that you mentioned, right? >> No, the chair. Yes. >> Sorry. Yes, we do or yes, we don't.
>> We don't have a recent documentation. >> Okay. All right. Um, any who's next on your set of photos? Um, I did receive few photos from Iban if he
wants to present or talk about it. >> I'm going to just go through orders of the photos right now because I think that's going to be easier. Um, and come back to other comments. Um, so is
whoever was it Evan or >> actually I'm I'm going to hop in and speak first if that's okay. This is Sarah Minskuardo from Three Spring Lane. >> Do you have a set of photos in the set or what? >> We combined them all, so they're all mixed.
>> Okay. Um All right. If the person whose photo is up here doesn't want to go right now, I will recognize you. What What's your comment? >> Okay. Thank you. There has been extensive grading and excavation along Morris Lane behind our properties. The
definitive plan of 1992 specifies a road width of 18 ft. The road now measures between 22 and 1/2 and 29 ft across. Mr. McHuite measured in November,
finding 23 to 24 feet at five separate points. Town staff measured in May and found the road at the start of my property to be at least three feet over the approved width. The plan also established a five-foot setback from the
property line behind five spring. That setback is now zero. The graded surface sits directly on the property line for more than 100 continuous feet. And this cut continues behind both three and one
spring lane. The eastern half of Morse toward Rice was not touched and still measures the original 18 ft. Google Street View image four months before the work shows the same 18 foot road right up to the intersection until this work
began. The board asked for surveyor documents at the last meeting. Spring Lane provided those property surveys. We have not seen anything from Morris Lane. A survey can happen inside the definitive plan submission condition two already
requires, but all measurement numbers from the town and ours are consistent. It's wider than the plan that this board approved and it's clearly and unequivocally built outside the process
that this very board set. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Dapo Capo, >> sorry about that. Diane Caposi representing Pat Tacia at Five Spring
Lane. A drainage system now runs behind 1, 3, 5, and Seven Spring and ends in a 14 foot wide silkage pit. It sends storm water along the back property lines of
Spring Lane, which is opposite of the flow shown on the 92 definitive plan. I saw this system being built. When I arrived on November 18th, trees had been cleared at the back boundary of Fivepring and a backhoe operator was
filling a large open trench with crushed stone. He stated he was conducting work as directed by Five More Slain. Christopher McWhite was on site earlier that morning and documented the equipment used to dig the ditch in an
email to the town the same day. On December 3rd, in an email sent to Aner Patel, Mr. Scanland described this work as putting some stones in an existing ditch. There was no existing ditch along Mors Lane. I witnessed the installation
of the ditch as did Christopher Mc. Given the extensive tree damage at the back of Fivepring, I had an arborist out for a site visit on December 9th. He pointed out tree roots that were cut and left exposed by the roadway expansion.
He told me that this kind of damage can destabilize trees and make them prone to fall. Setbacks from boundary lines are meant to avoid these issues. But there is currently no setback behind fivepring. The silk fence erected after
the construction is literally attached to our surveyor's lot line marker and the boundary marker between five and seven spring. None of this work appears on the 92 plan. Thank you for your time.
>> Thank you. >> And I have two I have two photos that show uh an area the lot line marker the sil fence attached attached to that. They're a side by side. Thank you for your time. >> Henry, do you know where those are?
>> I think this is the photo she's talking about to the chair. >> Thank you. Uh Mr. Renault. >> Oh, hello Evan Brunell one lane. if you wouldn't mind bringing up the photo
uh that had the dogs in them at the bottom, the second photo of the original. Yes, thank you so much. I appreciate it. Well, thank you. So, um the 1992 plan, you know, has been referenced allow slope no steeper than
2:1 and a 5ft set back. The excavation made the slope one to one and almost straight drop a point along five. This photo shows both the road widening and the cop the grass by def. So my six-year-old daughter and I have
walked out of the gate for years. So her three spring out of there and I put the gate in so she had two safe emergency exit and five more did acknowledge the danger to me and attacks by this c twice locking and taping the gate without asking even if after I requested not to.
I know the gate is a private property issue. I only know that to demonstrate the danger that's self-evident. You know the 92 plan does grade the bank down and away from springing property lines. It was cut into a brand new ditch with D.
Claim that gravel was always there and it wasn't. I mean this is you can see a solid soil bank many feet out from where the dish is now sending water in the opposite direction which is destabilizing everything and every heavy rain more soil. The fences at one and
three the the trees at 3,5 and seven we benefit you know welcome down on the role the public has a right to use with cos walkers and kids I want to be clear that I'm not opposed at all to uh improving more slain but it does need to
follow process and ensure safe condition and the fact show that alterations and upgrades were made with no plan submitted that is the condition to violation and I think that's all that's needed for that finding and a sitewalk could confirm the road also no longer
complies with the plan. Thanks for letting me speak. >> All right. Thank you. Uh is there anybody else uh from Spring Lane um that wants to speak before Mr. Scanland? Mr. Harrow,
you're still muted if you're still muted. >> Are you waiting for me to speak? Scandal. >> Uh, and I think uh Ed Harrow is going to speak. I think he's trying to figure out how to unmute. >> Click on that. Hey. Hey, that worked.
Thank you. So I have four pictures of which this is the last one. Um I have I I'm speaking both I am a member of to be clear a member of the conservation commission and I am the
chair of the open space preservation commission and I am Hopkins defense viewer. I just want to make that's all very clear. Um these pictures are three pictures that show a turtle um who presumably made it to Morris Lane um
through the fence but then could not get herself back through the fence and up the embankment and if the right picture is shown you can see her cross shell there in the middle of Morse Lane. Um she was trapped and you and I all we all
know that turtles cross streets and bad things happen to them. Um, but if you're stuck and you can't go south and you can't go north and you can't find your way out and if she got through the [clears throat] the quote unquote silt fence, she couldn't have got up the
embankment. And we've had cases of young rabbits that got trapped between the embankment and the silt fence. Um, the the embankment is um not we we've lived here since 1981 and there was no abrupt
embankment like that. And then the last picture that's in the group that I sent is a turtle crossing Spring Lane. That is their typical route. That particular turtle crossed Spring Lane and then went across Patacius property at five Spring Lane and then continued to parts
unknown. Um, this is an active place where turtles come up out of the lake and go lay their eggs. I have spoken with Emily Petro of D asking for her opinion. She has referred me to Melody
Cheeseman of Mass Wildlife. I have uh contacted her, but I have not heard back. Um the the the continued existence of these silk fences, I believe, is way inappropriate. I'm not speaking to the other issues. I am not qualified to
speak to the other issues. I am not a butter to those issues. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh anybody else before Mr. Scandlin speaks again? I don't see any hand raised. If there's somebody else who is waving and I can't
see you, um, please speak. Otherwise, >> all right, Mr. Scan, did you want to go through your uh actually I'll let Mr. Scan go before I go back to you, Mr. Mr. Scan? The first thing is I sent you a a photo, a Google photo of the entrance to
Mors Lane from Spring Street. Could you pull that up, please? There you are. Beautiful. Right. That was taken from number, I believe, six, Spring Street, which is directly across the way from from um the
start the entrance to Morris Lane. Number eight, Spring Street. So this was the condition back then. So study that photo. Look to the left and look to the right. You see trees. You see overgrown shrubs,
brush, and what have you. Is anybody in this committee right now telling me that this road is 18 ft wide? It's not 18 ft wide. Everything was overgrown.
So what we did is we we cut down some the rotted some of the rotted trees that the residents of fire of of Mo's Lane was tired of every wintertime picking up branches, picking up dead trees
continuously because we were responsible for doing this. Then we decided that we'd clean all the brush which we did. Regarding the widen the road, we did not widen the
road. We just cleaned up the brush to make room for 18 ft. But when we remove the the the the brush and everything else, obviously you have to scrape with the beco on the underside
to remove the brush. There's no other way of doing it and there was gravel underneath the brush from way back then. So the gravel always existed because
when we remove the brush, the gravel existed underneath the brush. The the the silt net that I installed was to prevent any deterioration to the
existing earth that was left on the bank. And that's what siltn net is is for retainage to retain. It's biodedegradable. You install it, it lets the roots and the grass and everything else, the weeds
and everything else grow up through it. And in 3 years, it's all degraded and everything becomes back becomes back to normal. The photo you're looking at right now, that's the brush coming back up through Mors Lane
again. The same brush as before. But multiply this by 100 times. This is the way it existed before. It came way out past this line. And it and the first photo that you that that I sent you by Google Earth that
proves that. That photo that proves it. Look at that photo carefully. >> Um that photo is complete BS and you're completely lying right now. >> Excuse me. Can we let Mr. Scan finish
his? >> I didn't I didn't interrupt you when you were speaking, did I? >> Mr. Can you please >> please address the comments through the board? >> So, we did not widen any inch of of Mo Lane. We cleaned
up Mors Lane. We cut down the dead trees and the shrubs, the not the shrubs, the the the the the the brush and what have you. And like the fort you're looking at right now, we cleaned
all those leaves up and all the debris that's underneath the leaves because that's stopping our drainage flowing down Moors Lane. There was always a drainage channel running down Moors Lane. Always and always. I've lived in
Mors Lane 12 years and Joe Cap Biano who was always maintaining Mors Lane and I've only lived in Mors Lane 12 years. Other residents have lived in Mors Lane a long long time before me and there was
always two drainage pits that existed. Now none of them drainage pits she mentioned 14 ft wide. This is the biggest exaggeration that I have ever heard of. They're tiny drainage pits. They're They're no more than three feet wide,
just the same size as they were before. 14 ft wide. I would love to bring this this lady down there and dig a hole with a beo and tell her it's just 14t wide. She's lying.
So all I I explained everything per my emails to the planning board without repeating myself. All we did is we carried out maintenance like we always like we always did and like Joe Cab Bianca did for years and
years every winter time. Cleaned up and filled the potholes. That's basically it. In front of my house, the start of Mo's Lane is 50 feet wide,
the very start. Then it narrows down to 18 feet wide. Then between number three and number five, which is my house, it's 33 feet wide. Right now, I measured it the other day
and it's only 27 ft wide. 27 27 feet wide. Sorry, excuse me. I my mistake. On the drawing it says 33 feet wide. On the drawing it says 33 feet wide.
And for me it was 27 ft wide. 27t wide. Yes. From my boundary to their boundary 27 feet wide. From my boundary to their boundary 27 feet wide. It's not 33 feet.
So the draw the maps are all wrong. Whatever the map says, right? Because it's only 27 ft wide from the stone wall boundary that you're looking at to the end of my boundary. It's not 33 feet wide.
So basically we didn't widen the road. The same channel that the water was running there which is only probably less than less than 18 in deep. It always existed is we decided when we scraped all the
leaves and all the dirt off it. We decided that we put fresh stone into the into the same channel that always existed. Nothing else changed. The grading didn't change. Nothing changed. We did the same thing as they were doing for years.
Finished. >> So, Mr. Scan, if I could ask, >> so have you you said you've been doing the same thing for the last few years. Um, has So, I think in November 2022, um, Mr. Nean was here for the, uh, Cabo
Bianco children or the siblings at that point. Um and they were and the neighbors were here talking about how they were going to take over doing the grading. Um think was it Ryan Cavo Biano um was was potentially leaving. Have you
been has has this been the process since he since they stopped doing it? Is that the you and the the neighbors have been running it for the last four years? >> Mr. Capiano Joe he sold his property. Another developer bought his property.
He's building two lots there and I haven't met Joe since. >> Okay. So >> before this before this Joe always used to come in the winter time after the winter time and he used to he used to clean up and fill the potholes and
grade put in install apply new gravel on the road and clean it up. But then Joe when Joe left was left like this for probably three years. without no maintenance.
So then last year we decided that we'd maintain it, start maintaining it. Okay. So 2025 was the first year that the N that the current owners have maintained it. Before that it was always
um Joe Capaba that had been doing it. >> Yes. Yes. Yes. Joe Cappa Bianca was doing with and we did the same thing as Joe Capa Bianca was doing all them years. No >> god. >> No difference. >> All right. Thank you. Mr. Bruno, did you
have another comment? >> Uh, yes. Thank you. Uh, just three very quick comment. Thank you so much. This photo that's up right now. I just like to point out that the grass that we all see here is exactly where the soil bank um came all the way out to that I sold
in progress of the world widening. How can there be gravel when there was a soil bank there? That's point number one. Point number two, I think the board will probably appreciate a um um a better photo than what Mr. Scann and shared from Google Street View. um an
area actually has it and I don't know if you have it up available to share but since Mr. scan and um would like the board to see it. There is a um wider shot from Google Street View that was
provided. Do you um do you have the ability to That is a that's not it, but it's very similar. Um um but could you go to um could you go to the Google Street View from July 2025, please?
Thank you so much. Thank you. Yep. This is the photo. Um so you can see uh the fence on the right. You can see the soil embankment all the way down. Um you can see the brush that Mr. Scan is referring that is the property of Mors Lane um to
upkeep. You can also see the road and if you look at the trunk you can see the road is there about 18 ft which bring me to my last point. Thank you. Um, let's clarify the
distinction of the plan that call for 33 foot right of wedge which also includes an 18 ft road. As Mr. Scalin pointed out, the road now measures 27 ft. Therefore, the road has
been widened. Thank you. >> Okay, keep that photo up, please. >> Mr. >> On the left on the left side where the truck is parked, you can't see it right now. There was a sign there. Slow it down. It still exists. The same
identical sign still exist. I believe it said and slow it down. Children at play or something. It still existed and was was nailed down to that utility pole. The utility pole that you're looking at right now. The sign is
still there. Now we we cut down on the left side of that pole the shrubbery because that's our property and that's where the original pole was
and that still exists and that's where the sign was on the pole 5 miles per hour or something along them lines slow down. So we cut down that shrubbery on the left. So that's why the road looks
wider. As far as the right side, if you look at the photos that I sent on the right side against the fence, there was extremely very little taken of that section of the road. Extremely very
little. And the next question I have is this gentleman just mentioned about coming out his garden fence onto Mo's Lane, his garden gate. And I sent the I Googled it and I sent it over to the planning board.
Does he have the right to enter onto a private lane when he installed that chance? >> So I don't think that's >> really a subject before us right now. It's so I wouldn't want to weigh in on that. Um, I see one hand raised and so I'm going to call on on Sarah. I don't
have a last name. Um, and then I'd like to move back to the board for discussion. So Sarah, do you have a I forgot your last name. I apologize. >> Yes. No, no, that's okay. I'm just going to try to stick to the facts. Um, so I've lived here since 2012
and Dave Tassy and Diane who already spoke, they were born here. Their mother bought that house in the 60s. So that's how long they've been here. So they know exactly what this road looked like. Um so I wanted to just make that clear and
give you just a background on their knowledge. Um secondly, the plan said the road was 18 ft. Colum already admitted he made it 27 feet. So there you go with that. >> No, I did not. Thirdly, excuse me.
Thirdly, in front of my house. >> Mr. Scan, could you let Sarah finish please? in front of my home. >> And thirdly, um Joe did Joe did take care of the road. He was taking care of the road from the time that I moved in
in 2012. What that meant for maintenance was he would trim the sides of the trees and he would fill in potholes. There was no drainage ditch there. He didn't excavate soil. I mean, um, we
were able to walk out our back gates and, you know, safely go onto the road. My son was five when we moved here. So, um, you know, Joe didn't do any of that. So, for, so I'm going to try to stick to the facts here. So, all Joe did was trim
trees and fill in the potholes. Um, so I just wanted to um to give you that to give you that background. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Um, so to the board and to Aneri. So what I've gathered from a lot of those notes
are a lot of disagreement on the current sizes. And the one thing that kept being repeated is we don't have a accurate current measure of how the road in the subdivision is actually measured.
Um, [sighs and gasps] so I don't think we can say definitively exactly one, has the recent work change anything or two, is it even in compliance with the subdivision regardless of the recent work?
Um, Aneri, I know I keep asking, but practically speaking, as the board, what is our option here? We can ask the the owners of the road basically the subdivision to provide us basically a
current as built is all right >> to the chair that's the best option for the planning board to recommend and applicant need to provide. So we have some actual facts. We all measured uh we saw the pictures both parties presented
that points. Um somebody claimed that there are more than two drainage but since 1992 approved plans we don't know what is the actual condition that's going to be only determined based on the as well plan existing as well plan. So
more slain resident um needs to provide as well that uh I can recommend to the planning board and then planning board need to determine based on that as planned. We heard both the parties but board cannot just decide without looking
at actual drawings and the actual meas measurements. Um and I think I as I mentioned earlier as well that when we did inspection we measured uh from the beginning of the Morse lane. Um I think that was the first house freeze uh Morse
lane if I'm not wrong. We did measure uh during that time. So I'm talking about the driveway. I'm not talking about the role of width. Uh it looked two 3 ft wider than 18 ft. But again if uh we
considering tree removal and bushes removal maybe it's because of that we don't know that's why uh having asan is important to determine that if they uh violate the 2022 subdivision condition
if they did then board needs to act accordingly >> and would that if we were to request an asbill plan that would basically of [snorts] the the residents of the subdivision is how we would frame that or how would we target that
>> since uh to the chair since this is the private lane town do not have authority to go there and do the survey it's totally um on Morland resident to provide that um they can hire surveyor they can provide some kind of u proof of
saying that whatever the work they did it's a part of maintenance it's did not trigger the 2022 condition. So, and once we have the proof, board can review that and make a call. >> For clarity though, even without the condition and the 2022 amendment, if
they're making significant additions to the subdivision, such as the way or the drainage that was approved, that would still require updates, would it not? since I don't think so there's any condition in 1992 decision uh I can
double check but if we have that condition then yeah sure >> but I don't think there is any condition on but we do have on >> if there's any condition that's saying that um they cannot do because I think u
there's a condition of maintaining the morane as it's a private lane so Okay. Um All right. So, do we need a a motion and a vote from the board to request that?
>> The chair >> Parker, >> I have a couple questions. I'm just not a little clear here. >> Yeah, please. >> So, the col or who's the applicant in this situation? >> There isn't an applicant. So, there's an issue that was potentially raised that
the that the subdivision is out of compliance with the sub the approved subdivision that the that there are parts of the subdivision approval that are not in compliance. >> I'm sorry, say the last. So, the subdivision was approved with a a with
um specifications that the road was the road and the drainage met specific requirements and that they stay within those requirements. And Abutters have pointed out that they feel that it's no longer in compliance with
the uh the approved subdivision. Does this does the appro does the approved subdivision do those conditions apply to the original applicant? >> It applies to the land.
>> It applies to the land. >> We're very we we know that for a fact >> chair it's going to be the person who did the work since it's a subdivision and all the houses are pretty much sold out. So whoever did the work is based on
that. if the original uh subdivision owner did like I think the 2022 amendment was under Raymond and and Anna Kappa Bank if I'm not wrong if they did the work then it's going to be under that but um based on the current
situation it's usually whoever the owner of the property since it's >> individually owned. >> Does that answer your question Parker? Are you asking who's who the requirements that the road meet as a set definition applies to?
>> The latter. And then the other question I have is is whether it's an enforce do we have the authority to have an enforcement order on a condition for an individual that wasn't part of the original authorization as well. I'm not totally clear that the
town can't commission a survey under our own subdivision review and then you know we appropriate or at least wave fees for that you know as a board. Uh I know this just this feels really weird to me and I I feel more comfortable having a greater
look on by Tom Council or some sort of additional independent authority. >> I don't think we can wave fees because that we'd be being charged fees, right? We'd have to hire somebody to do it. >> Yeah. Yeah, we wouldn't be assessing the cost on the homeowners provided that
uh we're demanding a you know report. Um and then let's say we get the report done for the new asbuilt. What happens after that? I'm not clear on >> um to the chair. Can I answer >> if Yeah. If we get the ESB plan or any
reports from uh Morsland residents and it proves that they did not u increase or did any alteration or upgrades they are good they don't need to file amendment to 2022 decision there's no violation but if there is um
any change and alteration they need to file amendment to the decision. um answer to the question that since subdivision was done by somebody else but it's it's individual owned property and all the Morseland resident use the Morseland
so they are technically the owner of the Mosland so any upgrades alteration they are doing it's going to be under them so um >> I just don't know if that's true because
wouldn't a wouldn't a subdivision approval after 1956 be governed where the owners don't own to the center of the line or is this subdivision differently in the asphalt plan because it was you know submitted in 1992 was then governed under you post 1956 I just
don't see I don't are we saying they the the [clears throat] butters owned at the center of the line that's what we're saying >> they own the area >> yeah since they own the property it's not like they have ho or the original
homeowner I mean original subdivision owner uh taking care of the subdivision so it's everything is based on individual owners right now if they have HOA they can uh go through HOA but I don't think so Morselin do have any HOA
so >> I just don't know if that's true man I don't really feel comfortable with this but I'll let other people weigh in >> Brian >> um thank you I don't I don't know if this is related to the question Parker
was asking or not, but so part of the discussion seems to be there seems to be some drift in the width of the road and and the actions that were taken on either side of it. Um, and at least one
person here said, I didn't, you know, I just did this and other people were saying, but a lot more was done. Now, 1992 was quite a few years ago. So the
question becomes if the road today is out of compliance to what was agreed to 1992. And this might be related to Parker's question. I'm not sure. Does it matter if it was done within the last two years or if it was done 10 years ago?
Is our actions still going to have to be the same either way? And and I don't know the answer. I'm just raising the question as someone trying to understand You know, if we find that this road is wider than it's supposed to be, >> um, or that the embankments up to the abing properties are steeper than
they're supposed to be, um, does it matter when it happened, if it happened within the last year, the last two years, or if it happened 10 years ago, >> you know, I'm I don't know the answer. I'm just given that how this came to us >> and and what I've heard tonight about I
they did this. No, I didn't do that. that I only did clearing of trees or whatever. Um, it's part of what are we being asked to find, right? So, it may it may have some relationship to Parker's question. I'm not sure. >> And Ner, from our point of view, what
we're focused on is is the subdivision meeting the subdivision definition, right? The requirements of the subdivision. And that's that's it. Regardless of when or why it went out of compliance. That >> is correct. Does >> that answer your question, Brian?
Yeah, it does. So, I mean, it could have happened 15, 16 years ago and it only discovered now and it still would be an issue that we would find. Is is that's what you're saying? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other comments, questions from the board?
So I think that brings us back to we don't have a clear understanding of exactly how the >> the road or the subdivision generally looks right now in terms of the drainage in terms of the Morris lane.
My understanding is the next steps that we really have is to uh and is the right word demand or request at this point like I think we've already requested um but basically demand uh an as bill plan
that matches what's currently there. >> That is right. Uh in the last meeting June 15 board did they requested um as bill plan um but we did not receive if I'm not wrong Mr. Chrome in one of the
and email he mentioned that they are doing some drainage or buffer report something if they can provide us based on that if we can find then they don't need as build but I cannot answer without looking at any reports or the stuff
>> Mr. Scan >> you're still muted >> Mr. Understand you're still muted. >> There you go. >> Can you hear me now? >> Yep. >> Now land surveyors all the maps that I gave him.
>> And he looked at other maps and there is nowhere that he can see the five foot or six foot buffer zone. So nothing makes any sense to him. >> So sorry. Um if you're not currently speaking, could you please mute your
your Zoom app? A couple people have are lighting up. >> Mr. Harrow specifically. Thank you. Um sorry, Mr. Scandlin, you were saying that the maps that your surveyor has doesn't make sense or are you looking at the original 1992 maps? I
sent him every single map that I had that I got and I asked um I forget her name, the lovely lady who was speaking there from the town and >> um she sent me some some some maps and I sent them on to him and he's confused
about this five so-called 5'6 buffer zone. >> So it does not exist. I I think that's part of the issue is that the original approved plans don't match what exists on Earth right now and that's why
we're we're asking for a map a survey plot that matches what how it was actually built. >> There is no it does not exist. He told me there is no map that exists. In other words, when this was when when Moose Lane was first first created, we'll say
started building it, he believes the first house on Mors Lane at the very number that that's probably number one is they had they had a the start of Mo's Lane was 50 ft he believes
which it says on the map. Then it was reduced down to 18 ft. Then when the capabos applied for planning for number three and number five Morse lane, he believes that
back then they probably gave him permission to widen the road to 33 ft. You follow me? So the start the starter M lane is 50 ft then is 18 ft.
Then when they applied for planning to build number three and number five Morse lane, Donald Driscoll believes that then he got permission to widen the road to to 33 ft.
>> So I think that would be it. >> Yes. Once he passed number three, they increased the width of the road and then that 33 ft continued all the way down Mo's lane. >> So I think that would be helpful context
if we were looking at the asbuilt plan that just that shows that those changes in dimensions to explain why it changes at different locations. But what we need right now, I think, is that survey of the of the lot and the road and where it changes dimensions.
the existing survey of the what? >> The existing >> uh if there is a survey that is as it is right now. Yes. With the changes in dimensions >> right now. >> Well, the residents of Moors Lane agreed that they're not going willing to spend
the money to do this because they didn't they're they know and some of them have lived lived here all their lives. their elderly folks that nothing changed. That's the same old routine that was always carried out
except this time the fact that road was left for three three years since Joe Capabo didn't maintain it also he sold his house then everything overgrew and everything went went to hell that we decided to
clean up so nothing changed so then they're not willing to invest the money or spend the money to to do this for no So, one of the things, as Mr. Brian mentioned earlier, is that even if it
didn't happen this past cycle, it sounds like somewhere along the lines, the way that the road was built doesn't match what was approved with the town in 1992. And that's what we're trying to square. >> Nothing matches. I told you in front of my house, it says 33 feet wide.
>> It's only 27 feet wide. So it's not so the maps are wrong, >> right? And so we're trying to correct that. That's what we're trying to correct. >> No one has the answer. This is the end of my lock plan, right? So there's supposed to be 33 feet
wide to the boundary across the to number five spring lane. There's only 27 feet. >> So where do you go from there? an area like where where are we at? We can we can ban demand a survey as Parker
said, but there's not much else we can do at this point, right? >> Yes. And and it's it's obvious that I didn't encroach in anybody's property because it's only 27 feet wide. There's 33 feet wide on the map.
>> I also just to be clear, I didn't say we can demand a survey. I'm not even clear that we can do that just based on what I'm hearing. And I'm I would feel a lot more comfortable understanding the position of town council on this because current just in me doing some research current owners take their property
subject uh however just because something happened 15 years ago doesn't mean a person can temporarily is personally liable for widen that allegedly was completed by someone you know years earlier. And we don't know if the widening happened under the previous toutelage of Mr. Capabiano. We don't
know if there, you know, we don't know. And either I'm hearing what Colton is saying that there was gravel under the road when he was pulling brush and debris away. So, did they widen it 15 years ago or did they do it earlier? We just don't know. And I think even if we have a survey, getting back to what I
was saying before, what's the end goal that we want here? I'm hearing the Spring Street residents say, "Hey, I want to be able to walk out. We want to let turtles to be able to go up and down embments. I don't think anybody like seeing dead turtles in the road." And so can we find like a compromise that you know allows for there to be uh a little
bit of you know peace in this corner of town and I think still the cleanest answer is and getting back to it I don't think private residents should be in the business of managing roads and the town is better able to do that. So if we can as a board help to shepherd this forward the town taking responsibility in the future it's probably the best path
defensible path forward because otherwise I don't know how we get to an outcome where everybody on this call is going to be happy again. I believe the other option would be to request that they return the road to the 92 um plant, but >> not clear that we can enforce that. We
don't know if the improvements that he did were happen because clearly there's gravel already under there. So, did the improvements happen 15 years ago and he just moved a bunch of, you know, road debris and leaves? Who's to say? I don't know. >> Thank you, Parker. Deneri >> uh through the chair I just wanted to
point out to the board uh in the first email from Mr. Clom. He mentioned that the work performed back in December 2025th that was like uh pothole filling, brush removal, removal of fallen or hazardous trees,
minor grading to maintain u the morane as well as uh adding material to drain its wall or sockage beads and uh I'm just going to say only those two part count as a alteration. rest of the stuff which
everybody talk about tree removal potholes brush removal that's part of maintenance and they do have right to do that but I will just point out under the alteration like drainage wall or soft catch pee adding material that count as alteration that don't count as a
maintenance and that was performed by Mr. clone in 20 December 2025 based upon the comment and inspection we all did. I'm not going to talk about the tree removal and all that stuff. That's a part of maintenance. That's their right. It's a
private road. So they are allowed to do that. They need to maintenance the morsel. So I will just not focus on that. But um the recent work done by Mr. clone that's the reason we are requesting from him if it
was performed by all the morane then all the mor residents are I understand Parker's point that um not that don't make sense to ask for as well but if this issue bring to planning board and we if plann I mean planning board is the only authority they need to f I mean
address this issue since the 2022 condition include that that any alteration or um modific I mean alteration or what was the word >> improvements >> on Morland needs to come back to yeah
improvements uh needs to come back to planning board that's why the planning board is responsible party um again as I said like we cannot enforce enforce but we are the only one who can ask for some kind of reference some kind of existing
reports as build that helps for to understand Um there are chances that it done over the period but again we don't know town don't have any records. >> So any other
>> sorry any other feedback from the or suggestions from the board? Sorry I can tell is still talking. It sound like she was breaking up. >> Um I have a question. >> I believe that's Elise but I can't see. >> It's me. Sorry, my camera is not
working. Um, if if it comes to the point where we can't find plans and we can't come to an agreement, could we then create a new condition like with this
board saying like the road is this and these are our new set of conditions and we would like it to just stay like this going forward. So the I I think that's what we are potentially proposing, but we don't know
what it is right now is the issue. And so that's why we need the asbuilt plans to say as a board, are we comfortable with how it's been changed and amend the 2022 decision or the 1992 subdivision to support the changes? Otherwise, we could
look at the changes and say this isn't something we're good with and decide where to go from there. The problem is we can't say we're good with what we have right now because we don't know what we have right now. And that's why we need the as bill plans. >> No, I get that. I get that. But um also
as someone who is not um like I I haven't lived my whole life in this kind of environment, I know from just maintaining my own yard that like every winter with snow and with, you know, just the weather, there's a lot of
erosion. and some of my pathways in my own yard like the gravel spreads and the ground changes. So, if we could maybe set some more like definite boundaries um instead of just saying where the gravel is because I feel like that's a
very vague um boundary line, especially when we're defining a driveway or a road um because I feel like if you run a plow through, it could spread the gravel out and you won't really necessarily know where the original lines were. It's very possible that things have
slowly changed over the years. That's true. And that's one of the reasons why we're trying to get a current plan of what this looks like. Um, any other Sorry, Lisa, do you have anything else? >> No, sorry, that's it. >> All right. Any other comments from the board's thoughts of how we should
proceed? Well, the other comment, Matt, is so let's say they submit a and I think the Springs Free resident should be fully made aware of this as well. Let's say a new asbelt plan is done. The applicant now presumably a representative of Morse can ask that the existing conditions on the survey as
shown in the present roadway be approved and amended. Uh so now the road's going to be stuck, you know, where it is as constructed. So I think like folks that don't like the way it is right now, possibly we'd be in a better position to find a way to compromise among
ourselves, you know, and not uh, you know, do that because there could be a risk that the road as it is then gets accepted. And I I just put in a massive fence in my front yard and I saw that beautiful white fence that was put the embankment itself. I I don't know erosion over time that could, you know,
risk that fence. So I think there needs to be some, you know, planfulness here relative to what the implications of demanding an asbuilt for the Spring Street folks, you know, could be. Just want to throw that out there, too. >> Focus just on where we are as a planning board and making sure we understand
where the subdivision is defined. Um, I understand your comment, Parker, but focusing from our point of view and what's before us, how do we think we should handle the fact that it seems that there's a potential that the subdivision's not matching what was approved.
>> I think we should find a path forward to where the the private residents get out of the business of road maintenance. Matt, that's what I think we should. That's the most defensible path forward. >> Separate topic though, Michael, >> I fundamentally disagree. Did you have it look like you're about
to go off mute? I don't know if you had something, Michael. >> Oh, yeah. No, I was just going to say um how do we determine who pays for the survey? I guess you know, everything that I read about it says that the agreved party is usually responsible um for bringing it forward to be
adjudicated. Um but it sounds like there was a thought amongst people on the board that the Morse folk should be paying for it. Aner >> uh through the chair that's my understanding um based upon all the
document presented tonight and the work perform um they need to provide the plan or any kind of reports with indicate like how drainage what exactly going on the side
and if board wants to do a sidewalk if that's okay with Morseland resident board can do that too since it's a private lane board needs to make a call. >> Okay. Yeah. So at the very least it sounds like the drainage system has
changed which would have counted as a major change and so there is that part of it. Um does the board think a sitewalk would be helpful here or do we think we have enough information to figure out a path forward? Do you think even if we did a sitewalk it wouldn't change
our thought process? >> So the chair >> Anna Amna Yeah. Um, I thought, correct me if I'm wrong, but Aner, didn't in a past meeting, I thought you said that you and John had walked through it and
done some measurements. And if that's the case, and the measurements are obviously since they did it and verifi did whatever they had to do, it's probably accurate. I'm not sure if we already have concrete data on width of roads, etc., if us doing a
sidewalk is going to add anything. I mean, I'm not opposed to it, but I'm just not sure what value it would add if measurements have already been done. >> That's my understanding from the past previous meeting is that we did measurements, but they wouldn't be
formal enough to count as a as plan. Other comments from the board, I hear some people questioning whether we should take action this meeting. The other option is to
as a board to make a formal demand of the residents of Mors Lane and Mr. Scalan to provide the asbelt plan. How should we just go around the board and ask and do a straw poll of how people feel we should go? I think I'll go that route. Parker, what
do you think? >> What outcome are we trying to achieve? Like that's that's my question is are we trying to restore it to the original latitude conditions? Are we trying to find a path forward that's defensible for where the existing invage
on the side of the road? Maybe they don't. Do we need to find a way that has a path for turtles? Like I don't really understand the outcome we're trying to achieve right now. And if I sound frustrated by that, it's because I don't believe that private citizens should be in the business of public road maintenance. I think we should have DPW
overseeing stuff like this. That's my opinion. >> Brian, do you have thoughts? >> So, if if the challenge before us is to determine if the last agreement, I'm just going to say without saying what that is, you know, has been
violated, I think we need some kind of definitive measurement as to whether or not it has, >> right? Whatever that turns out to be. If if a site visit can provide that fine if we need an aspel plan then we
need an aspel plan. Uh now it's an interesting question if we're going to go with the aspelt plan is do the people of you know essentially there's an accusation there's essentially an accuser and a defendant
in this case right so um there's a responsibility to provide the plan with the accuser or the defendant and that's if you think of it that way um isn't it up to the accuser to prove their That's kind of how I interpreted it to
Yeah. Um I mean until we have the asbel plan, I don't think we could make a call one way or another, right? We could go out there and look around. We could bring tape measurers, but we need, you know, someone who's trained on this to kind of definitively tell us where we're at. So
>> yeah, my other thing was, you know, who pays for it, right? Because everything I read said the agrieved party usually pays. But >> yeah. >> Yeah. And that that's the only part I was thinking of, right, really is, you know, you could ask anybody anything to force them to pay for things. And
I I would think that it's the people bringing the charges that would be responsible for paying something like this. >> And it did say that there's mechanisms for recouping the cost, too. Um, if they're out of compliance. I mean, I'm not going to speak any more on that, but that's essentially what it said. >> Yeah, that might be a better question
for town council as far as recouping the cost if they're out of compliance. But I would think that the it would be those who are bringing the charges that would need to pay for it. It's just my first guess. I'm agreeing with Michael on that. >> Lucia, any thoughts?
>> Um I agree with other board members who've said without asbuilt plans, you know, there's not much that we can do at this point. Um, I do think that this is something for the board to consider in the future because if we had as built plans from 2022, then we'd be having a
very different conversation right now. >> Yeah. Uh, [sighs] Elise, do you have any other comments? Do you have thoughts on what the next step should be for the board? >> I also think that we should have the
asbuilt plans. I think it's hard to make decisions without without having that background. Um I I also kind of reiterate what everyone else has said where I'm not really sure who would be responsible
at that point for paying for it. Um I I would really like to confer with town council on that, but um I would like to see the plans too before we make like a definite decision. Uh [sighs and gasps] before I ask Amna, I think she's the
only person that I haven't asked on this. Aneri, do we feel like we need to ask council on this or do we have a clear procedural process? >> We do have a process, but if board feel comfortable asking town council and then make a call, I can reach out to town
council and see their opinion on this. Um but yeah. >> Okay. Does that change anybody's thoughts that's spoken so far? Lucia or Elise? I think particular Michael. >> I'm not. Do you have any other thoughts?
>> No, I agree with everything everyone said and um I like the idea of seeing what town council has to say too. I think that's it's good. So, it's it board correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like we all want asbuilt plans, but we would like town
council to clarify what our pro what our ability is to demand this right now or how we will go about getting that. Is that summarize I think what the majority of the the members here said?
>> Yeah. Or I think who what parties were asking to pay for it. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah, >> sorry. I was going to say I feel like we can't adjudicate it with what we have right now. So, >> okay, is that uh clear what we need to
before we come back to this? Okay. >> Yep. >> All right. Um, thank you everybody for uh for joining the for for talking about the topic, presenting your uh the photos and your point of view. Um, it sounds like this will probably come back as
another administrative item once we have clarity from town council. Mr. Scanler, do you have one last comment? You're muted still. Still muted. Still muted. >> Oh, yeah.
>> There you go. >> Okay. Elsie made a point there. >> Since 1992, think about something. The town plowing the road, pushing gravel as they plow the road. It's a gravel road. Joe Capabo
doing the maintenance, dropping off truckloads of gravel, spreading the gravel all the way down Moors Lane. It's obvious that the gravel is going to go to the right or go to the left and widen the road a little bit. It's common sense
bit by bit since 1992. That's a long time ago. Thank you, Mr. Sc. Um, we'll probably >> regarding the turtles. If they're that worried about the turtles, why do they install PVC fences at the rear of their
properties? >> Thank you, Mr. Scan. >> Coming out onto a private lane. If they're that worried about the turtles, let them remove the PVC fences. >> Thank you. So, we're going to move on to the next administrative item, which is the discussion of zoning bylaw changes.
Um, >> I'm sorry. Why did he get a last word but not us? That's not fair. >> So, we're moving on to the zoning bylaw discussion um to answer your question because we were most likely going to follow up by asking about
uh the asbuilt plans. My expectation is that we're going to end up >> What's the point of having a planning board if the planning board doesn't uphold their own decisions? What's to stop what's to stop everybody else from ignoring all of your decisions and
saying, "Ah, we don't have to do it." I mean, isn't that the whole point of having planning board decisions? So, you uphold them. This is kind of quite the precedent. >> I'm willing to discuss this offline outside of the meeting. If you have a specific question that you'd like to
talk about via email, you can reach out to either an or to me by email. >> Okay. Thank you. All right, moving on to discussion on zoning bylaw changes. Um, so I think Aniri had sent out an email a little while ago asking if people had
topics that we wanted to talk about. Uh, the zoning advisory committee is coming to the end of its term and we'll be empaneling a new zoning advisory committee in a little while. There's been a few topics that I think the board has raised. Um, so I wanted as a board
to talk about what the top priorities should be related to zoning bylaw changes if there's any that we thought we wanted to handle ourselves or generally we would ask Zach to basically do the research first and give us a a packet a
research packet for us to make decisions about later. Um just for context of what Zach has been working on this past year, they did a lot early with the MBTA overlay that we had to do um going into town meeting. Um more recently they've
been working on uh extending the ADU bylaws uh integrating with what the state had changed and then uh considering what towns in similar situations are doing with ADUs and how it fits in with the
town's goals. Um, and also looking at 40 Y uh, starter homes, affordable homes, which also kind of fits with the master plan of trying to figure out starter home plans, but also taking advantage of more recent uh, state level initiatives.
Um, so that's what they've been working on. I know the board had talked about 40y zoning in the past. Um, other topics that the board has raised is talking about parking. Um, parking garages came up. um parking maximums was something
that the board had raised when we talked about this before. We've talked about clarifying uh EV charging regulations. Uh clarifying uh Tuton 202G, the downtown mixed use um comprised of retail space on the first floor. We've
talked about building heights. I think Parker, the um economic development uh advisory board raised that one. Um, loss with historic structures was something that caved up uh actually in 2019 that was suggested that Zach take a look at whether frontage should be included and
that's never actually made it to Zach as far as I can tell and it seems like a lot of the those applications also include a frontage aspect if we want them to consider that. [gasps] Um, also if there's areas where we want to think about reducing friction. Um,
for example, should we have Zach look at scenic bylaws for uh if somebody just wants to repair a damaged stone wall in a scenic road? Like, should we make that easier? Um, are there other things like that where we generally would approve with a set of conditions and we want to
make that smoother than requiring a whole hearing? Um, and then there's sometimes a disconnect between special permit granting authorities. What goes to ZBA? What goes to planning board? Do we want to take a look at that? Um, other towns
do things very differently where I think Hollston, uh, the planning board does pretty much all the special permits and South Burough is the opposite where ZBA does almost everything. We're kind of this weird mix and whether there's something we could do for consistency there. Um, those I think are some of the
things that have come up in the last year. Are there other things that people think we should look at? And if not, what do we think the top priorities should be? I'll open up to anyone on the board to
raise a hand or Parker. Uh yeah, I think we should be looking at our maps, our use table and also uh how we are going to look at what economic development advisory board has been advising which
is ask Zach that if we're to pick pockets in town near large population centers or hubs, what they would potentially expand the map in so far as you know available zoning for commercial properties.
So finding pockets of commercial zoning. >> Yeah. That's in line with like we're not going to grow up to be like Westboro, but you know, why can't we near Western Nurseries? Why can't we We used to have an ice cream shop down in uh Massock
area. You know, what about a Bohemian style uh grocery store that folks can get off the train and walk up and have a picnic at Hington State Park? like really like kind of planful stuff like that. And then I don't know if this is like exact thing, but sidewalks. Uh we
have this beautiful new school that's going in that you think of that as a bullseye to connect outwards. I've talked to Carrie about this in the past. I think makes a lot of sense for us to really take a serious look at that, but again, I don't know if that's a Zach thing. >> So that's probably not Zach. Um, but I
do recommend as an aside that's out of out of the scope of this article, taking a look at the sections of the 2017 master plan and figuring out if there's specific sections that people are really interested or adamant about. Um, because some of those things will probably go into the circulation and the transportation section and we'll need to
figure out what our plan is going to be there. Um but for zoning other topics that people feel adamant about or things that we think we should prioritize from that set >> to the chair >> Michael >> sorry you said something first I saw my
oh um there was a recent um planning board meeting where we had multiple talks about um a property being built around a historic property and we talked about all the zoning bylaws around that. Um, and Lucy had brought up a good point
where, you know, people can build houses behind houses behind houses. And we all thought that, or I think a few people thought it'd be a good idea to bring up that bylaw for review. Um, I think that would be important. >> Okay. So
zone uh historic structure is more generally um just is it working the way we think it's working as well as does it have the right set of elements within it just digitally ask to look at it.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. Is there are does the board have any specific aspects of that that we would want them to focus on or just generally like an overview of historic structures? >> Okay. >> Um I think one question that I had with
the one we saw most recently was the amount of alteration to the preserved historic structure. Um, I I guess I understand that improvements are made, but if the purpose is to preserve it,
then in my mind there shouldn't be a tremendous amount of work being done to the historic structure if you're then also adding on another lot with another structure. But that's just my view. >> Okay. I was just gonna uh Matthew put my um
voice behind the examination of the 40 Y district. I don't know that there will be an appetite for it in this town. Um but yeah, I think maybe having um somebody look at it almost as like an academic exercise might be, you know, worth it just to see if there's any, you
know, financial risk or value to the town. >> Yeah. Um the master plan has had elements of finding starter homes in town for the last while um without a lot of success with us doing that. So this is uh one of the things that we need to think
about I think when we think about and we solicit information from the town is how do we want to address both affordability versus stock of housing. So it'll be an interesting question. Uh, Michael, do you have anything else? Or the 40 Y was what you were going to
>> the 40 Y. I mean, it's Yeah, it's uh something that I think about a lot. You know, just affordability. I think it's a societal problem. Um, but you know, we have to balance that versus having higher density housing that could, you know, put pressure on the schools. So, >> yeah.
Uh, so I hear a vote for historic structures talking about how do we get commercials slipped in. Are there other things that the board has as a priority? I have lots of ideas. Uh, so weird with lot non-conforming lots and again I
don't know if this is a Zach thing or if this is a ZBA thing but we had that situation where the you know there was a tragedy on Hayward and a couple lost their life and the children took about two years to put together uh plan and it
just created a nightmare of paperwork for folks to so I'm wondering too I know we have to modernize frontage and lot shape rules But as part of that encourage for there to be relief for you know whether it's like advancing
preservation for historic or potentially even having more uh I don't know um reduce frontage requirements if there's places where it's like mass mock is a silly place you know um something like
that just I'm I'm like pretty attuned to that driving past it all the time and I just feel that uh that could be something we think about. Um and then the last was uh for adopting um some sort of like carveout for historic that
having a historic property but flexible provision. Uh whereas like Kala is technically historical. I don't think it is personally but it is under the rules. Sorry if I offend you on that. Uh but I
would like to see a big beautiful building there and um something that is more in line with um I believe the growth trajectory of the town given the recent downtown development. So added those two. >> So which which buildings you mean? >> Old Kala's CBS is technically under
historic and because of that there's special permit authority that it has to go through in order for any alterations through historic as well. And it just for if you're a investor looking to you know potentially uh improve that area it's creates quite
a burdensome um you know path forward given our existing rules. >> Some of that might be outside what we could do just through zoning but um okay I'll make a note of that. Yeah. >> I mean, I don't know how we do it. We could sponsor sponsor our town by a lot
of change, right? Make it more. >> I wonder if the um what is it? So, development economic development advisory board might be better sponsoring that though if they've got a specific use case. >> Yeah, sure. >> Not bad. Yeah. I'm so forgive me. Are we
still talking about that is both plan board and ZAC or do we want to just focus on on Zach? >> So, specifically the agenda topic was zoning bylaw changes. >> Okay. which generally involves things that would fall under Zach. If there's specific things that we think we would want to take up our own rather than hand
to Zach, um please call that out. Otherwise, also otherwise I'd like to wrap this up and if people have other ideas, you can always email them out and we can schedule off offline. Anything any last items here?
Nope. Okay. Um thank you. got a couple things that when Zach comes back in September, probably we can pass on to them to take a look. Um, if people come up with other ideas, uh, please raise them. We'll get
them on an agenda and talk about them at a later time. All right, moving on to public hearing about an hour later than I think the agenda proposes. I appreciate Mr. Gasset's patience at on waiting for this. Uh, so I believe this
public hearing is already open. Um, but I believe uh, Mr. Gasset, you were not here last time to give us a brief overview. Would you like to just kind of over talk about the project? >> Yes. First, I'd like to apologize for the last uh, meeting. I caught up in my
sleep, I guess. Uh, that was totally a mistake on my part. Um, so I I did a basic plan um of what I had of the house, the stone wall that's in
the front of 27 Ash Street. Uh, because we're going to do away with the existing driveway and the new driveway will come off Catherine Drive. Uh, I want to try to clean up those stone
walls. Um, they were done, uh, I believe that from what I'm told, the concrete cap on top was done somewhere in the 70s or 80s.
Uh, the wall has been there for many years. Um, the the way the wall is, um, I like doing things right. So, I was if you sight
right there, if you stop there where that entrance is, um it doesn't even line up with the front door of the house. And the front doors in the same place. Um that wall
right there that you you see, um I was going to fill in between the two walls where the driveway is and get rid of the columns. because they're not obviously not needed. Uh, but when I pulled the string
line out, uh, nothing really lines up everything. Uh, when they did that, I think they just paced things off. And, uh, I'm not sure how good it'll look if I just
connect the dots between what's existing. And then I want to create a curved wall and go at back in Hannes Farm. I mean, not Hannes Farm, Catherine Drive
about 20 or 30 feet. Uh, and hold back the soil on that uh upper grade so that doesn't wash out down into Katherine Drive. So, um,
my thought is, and I won't know this until I remove that for I I need to remove these two walls you're looking at right there and rebuild them. >> It sounds like your mic stopped picking
you up. Did he go offline? His mic went out, I think. >> Yeah, I lost him, too. >> If you ever got in line with it, none of them even even the walls on either side of the stairs are offset,
you know. Um, I wanted this. I want that same look. I'm not in love with the concrete cap. Um, but I'm not sure if I can remove all that without losing the integrity and having
to replace the whole wall all the way down. I don't want to do that. Um, in my opinion, I'd love to keep the wall and put flat stones
uh on top like a standard stone wall. That would be my goal. Okay. So, are you still proposing to remove the cap or you're not sure because you're not clear on the integrity of the wall? >> I Well, I like the board's approval to
remove it if I if if I see that I can take it out. I'll know when I have to remove the other walls. Uh how much it holds the wall together. You know, it's been a long time. So,
sometimes it's difficult. I I'm going to try to cut through it in sections and remove and see how it goes. I also plan on redoing the stairs that run up toward the house from the street and put new
new treads down there. [snorts] Clean up the stairs heading to the house. >> Okay. I've since put in new front stairs. Those are all done. >> I just want to match all that out to the
street. >> Okay. I think one of the questions we had last week or last last time we met um on this was if there were any diagrams or or mockups of what the you're envisioning the wall looking once you remove the cap. I don't know if you've got the anything like that or a
similar wall. >> I do not. It's just probably a standard >> wall. I, you know, the walls I did across the street when I got approval for that at 28 ash, those were all uh
more of a uh field stone wall uh with field stone top. It just looks more natural to me than the concrete. >> So, is that what you're going for here or is it going to be different? I'd like and I would not do field stone. It's
flat rock. It's already there. >> Okay. >> And I'm just gonna blend in with what's there. Make it I want to leave all that look. I like the look. I'm just not enthralled with the cap. >> Okay. the way it was done because if I
have to do the cap when I go to I'm going to have to custom make concrete caps that'll curve in to Catherine Drive, which I can do. I just I'm not sure you're going to have new to old. It be
apples and oranges. But if I could put a flat rocks all on the top, everything's going to blend and look more natural. Okay, Lucia, do you have a comment, a question? >> Um, I have a question and this might be
for Aneri. I don't see the stairs included as part of this. Um, would the proposed work that includes changing the stairs need to be included? They I might not have written that in.
through um yeah it was not mentioned on the application so that's why it's not mentioned on the >> well I thought they were out of the right away but I'm looking at the picture it said the first step might be
um the rest is on on my >> so I was just going to they're they're really not safe so it's a safety thing I'd like to change them over match the front entrance that we just did.
>> And they're at different heights. If you look at them, they're not really. So, I'd prefer to make them all the same height. And what's involved in including the stairs? Can then this be amended to
include that or would that need some some other change? No, we can uh include in the findings. >> Okay. >> Just trying to make it all cleaner so it
blends better than >> removal of two caps and get there. >> Okay. All right. I think I got most of what Aner said. uh seem to break up slightly. Um other questions uh from the board or
any comments? >> I've seen what you're doing. I'm excited for it. Keep it going. >> Thank you. >> Anything else? Okay. Um any concerns by anybody on the board from what has been said or what's in the
packet? Okay. So I think we need a ner back because she was proposing where to put this in the findings and conditions. >> So the chair sorry some I don't know why my internet is not working properly but
we can add in the findings um condition looks good. We can just add on the first finding where it says um to section of an existing stone wall along the 27 astrate removal of removal to the
concrete cap wall along the wall and we can add there. >> So we put and >> modification of the stairs was be the and [clears throat] modification of the stairs. >> Yeah.
Because we just need to I think only one stair is going to be on the same anchor rest going to be on private. So we can just say modification >> stair. >> Um there's a condition about alignment and appearance but we're explicitly
saying there's a finding to remove the concrete cap. Is there any conflict of that or we're good with >> that? We are okay with uh it's going to be okay with that. >> Okay. Because we have the findings in the record. Okay. >> Yep. >> For the decision.
>> All right. Any [sighs and gasps] any other comments from any public comment? Any comments from members of the public that might still be on? No. Okay. I don't think we need a sidewalk for this. Sounds like everybody's good.
Um, no public comments. I don't see anybody. Uh, so for members of the board, um, sounds like we're ready to with the findings that we just, uh, as we just modified them. So I will start reading
those. If anybody has objections uh on the board, please uh speak up as I go. Uh 2.7. [sighs and gasps] So, proposed findings. The proposed project involves the removal of two sections of an
existing stone wall along 27 A Street, removal of the concrete cap along the wall and modification of the stairs and construction of a new wall segment extended toward Catherine Drive, including reconstruction of the wall at the existing driveway opening. Two, no tree removals or pruning of the limbs
over 5 in in diameter are proposed as part of this application. Three, the proposed work conforms to the provisions of chapter 160 of the Hopington General bylaws and all applicable criteria and standards set forth in section 160-6
have been satisfied. Moving on to the conditions, the applicant shall provide photographs of the area of alteration after work has been completed. These photographs shall be submitted to the principal planner for review and approval. The
applicant/developer shall provide the principal planner with a project point of contact and contact information prior to the issuance of a building permit. This point of contact information shall be kept current through correspondence to the principal planner until work is considered complete. Three, the
applicant shall reconstruct the stone wall to match the original height, alignment, and appearance. Original stones shall be reused to the maximum extent practicable uh practicable. However, if replacement stones are needed, they shall be similar in size, shape, and character to the existing
stones to ensure a consistent appearance. Four, if required by the Department of Public Works, any work within the town right of way shall comply with applicable DPW requirements, including obtaining a street opening permit if determined
necessary. Okay. I would then entertain a motion that the board accept and approve the findings as previously read aloud by the chair. So moved. >> Second.
>> All right. Motion by Michael, second by Elise. Uh, sorry, >> that was Lucia. >> Oh, sorry, Lucia. Not looking at the screen and my hearing is not going well. Okay. Um,
roll call vote. Uh, Lucia, >> yes. Elise, >> yes. >> Michael, >> yes. >> Uh, Parker, >> yes. >> Omna, >> yes.
>> Ryan, >> yes. >> And I am a yes. Okay. I would then entertain a motion that the board approve the scenic road permit with the conditions as they were previously read aloud by the chair.
>> So moved. Second. >> Uh, was that was Michael and Elise this time? >> Yes. >> All right. Uh, guys are confusing me here. Uh, Lucia, >> yes.
>> Uh, Lee, >> yes. >> Michael, >> yes. >> Parker, >> yes. >> Uh, Omna, >> yes. >> Brian, >> yes. >> And I am a yes. Uh we are all set here,
right Aneri? >> Yep. Just need to close the hearing >> and I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing for 27 Street Scenic Road application Brian Gaset Gaset Building Incorporated. >> Right.
>> Motion by Michael. Second. Anyone? >> Second. >> Second from Parker. Okay. Lucia. >> Yes. >> Elise. >> Yes. Michael, >> yes. >> Parker, >> yes.
>> Omna, >> yes. >> Brian, >> yes. >> And I'm a yes. Okay, moving on. Thank you, Mr. Gasset. >> Thank you very much. >> Uh 55 Wilson Street. The applicant has
asked us to uh continue. Um the decision is due on 83. Uh near where are we moving things to? August 31st. >> August 31st. Okay. So, I would entertain
a motion that the board continue the public hearings for 55 Wilson Street Eversource storm water management permit and 55 Wilson Street Eversource Earth Removal Permit to I believe it's August 17th, right? And extend the decision deadline to August 31st.
>> So move second. >> And a roll call vote. Um Lucia. Yes, >> Elise. >> Yes, >> Michael. >> Yes, >> Parker. >> Yes, >> Na.
I'll come back to Omna. >> Brian, >> yes. >> I'm a Yes. Did we lose Omna? >> Sorry. Yeah. Yes. >> Okay. All right. Moving on to continued public hearing. Uh 12 Maple Street. All
right. So, we had a I just closed my memo. Um, we had a sitewalk last weekend. Um, it's really interesting seeing these historic ancient ways that basically look like a
really long driveway all the way to the driveway. You can't even tell where it switches. Um, so I guess uh let's start with um Aneri. Anything that's changed from staff point
of view? >> No, no additional comment, no additional changes. >> And uh for the applicant, do you have anything uh any updates or anything that you want to add at the start of the at the start? No, I I don't think so. We had a good sidewalk and I think it was
pretty clear. Happy to answer any more questions. >> Okay. Um and everybody's signed their document from last week that's here, right? So, we've got um Peter is not eligible at all now, right? Because he's
going to have missed twice. Um okay. And so that gives us um [snorts] how many people do we have here? two. We have seven.
Seven people are eligible. Okay. Um is there any questions from anyone on the boards? Is there any comments? Everybody remember the project? Um Aner, would you want to put up a a map of the plot?
and the the fire departments approved the current um proposal. Is that right? I remember they had some questions about just making sure that it supported the fire trucks and I want to make sure that there was no open questions on any of that. >> No additional question from uh fire
>> on the current plan. [clears throat] All right. Stop. Okay. >> I'm so dead. Up. >> Can you see my screen? >> It's starting to share. Yeah. So, the one thing that I I know this came up last last meeting, I think Brian
asked about it, was where the road ends. Um, it it was really interesting on the sidewalk that it it just looks like the road and the driveway are just continuing. Um, and so, uh, it is an interesting situation and, um, I do look forward to the turnaround
that's being shown there. The the fire access, uh, looks like it would make life a lot easier to turn around in the future. Um, any questions from anyone on the board um or any about either the special permit or the uh, frontage
waiver? >> Yeah, for the chair. >> Yeah, Brian. >> Yes. So I I was the one that asked where Maple Street Extension actually stops. Um so what's beyond that will be driveway
and that's where the current um old building is. Is that correct? >> Yeah. So it goes right into a driveway that's looks it's the same width as the road ends and it goes basically to the paper road more or less. It goes to the
end of the lot line. So that so they're looking at that spot on the screen now. So that large rectangular area that seems to extend off the end of Maple Street Extension. Is that part of one of these two subdivision properties or who owns that?
>> Mr. An Yeah, it is an old parcel that needs a um action to quiet title. at some point in the near future that will become part of the uh lot that has the uh historic structure. Back in 1888,
it wasn't noted um through the title from there forward that it was actually sold from the lot on the right to the land that encompasses both the house and the new proposed lot. So uh the first
thing is that has been used for well over a hundred years as the driveway and access for the existing um historic structure. And the second thing is the action acquire title is a long and lengthy process but ultimately that will
be uh finalized and that will become part of the lot that has the um the uh historic structure [snorts] since we did the survey work out there. Um Mr. D'Angelo has paved from the edge
of what we show as Maple Street Extension ending at the terminus of Maple Street Extension all the way to the house. Um, so that has previously been gravel and now it's uh paved. I had not known that in the last intervening
year or so. So I'm just yeah because I'm the newest member to this board so I get to ask the crazy questions or the innocent ones whichever way you want to look at it. So the the lot two right after this
subdivision. >> Yeah. >> It's not going to be bordering on the street at all until this change. Am I correct? >> Brian, what do you mean by bordering on the street? >> Yeah, that would be correct. Okay. As a legal matter. As a legal
matter. >> It's a legal matter. Right. But but there is pavement from Maple Street all the way down is what you just told me. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> All right. I just wanted to make sure that I understood what the localities were and what we're being asked to do. >> Yeah. So that's why there's a zero
frontage waiver attached to this and what ZBA's al already given uh variance on >> and ZVA's already looked at this and and they're clear. They're good on this. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Conservation. I appreciate that. Thank you.
>> All right. If there aren't current questions from the board, it might help speed up discussion to get a feel for where people are. Um, so if we can go around and for sake of a straw poll, just whether you are currently leaning
in favor of both the permit and the frontage waiver or have concerns with one or the other or both. Um let's let's say so if you are currently leaning towards approving both
let's just say I or yes and otherwise and state that you which one you've got a concern with or just say that you've got concerns. Okay. Um Lucia, how are you feeling? >> Uh yes. >> Elise, >> yes.
Michael, >> uh, caveing it with I'm going heavily off what I watched last time. Um, yes. Okay. Uh, Parker, >> I say ship it. Yes, >> Omna. >> Yes, >> Brian.
>> Yeah. Yes. >> Okay. So, it sounds like nobody really has concerns with this one. Um, so should we uh I think we're not waiting on anything, right? This is then we've got findings and conditions that are
set then. Okay. Um any public comments while we're here I suppose. Um give everybody a moment. Nope. Okay. So I will read the findings
and then I will read the conditions. One second. Okay. Uh proposed findings. All right. We've got >> the chair. >> Yep. Uh >> through the chair. Sorry.
>> Um board also need to vote on paper. Hello. >> Thank you. >> Through the chair. >> Yeah. Yep. >> Yes. All right. Let's do that first. Um, so the applicant had asked for a
waiver of the applicant fee because we don't have an applicant on this project. Um, so I would entertain a motion uh that the board approve the waiver of the consultant review fee. Think that's the appropriate motion
here. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. So motion by Lucia, second by Michael. Um, Lucia. >> Yes. Elise, >> yes. >> Michael, >> yes. Parker, >> yes.
>> Omna, >> yes. >> Brian, >> yes. >> And I am a yes. All right, moving on to the findings. And I believe the first one we've got is
page 23 of our packet. So, make sure that I read read all of these. Um, all right. Special permit with lots with historic structures. Um, the lot to be created will contain an historic structure as
determined by the Hopkin Historical Commission on April 7, 2026, which found that the existing dwelling has significant historical value and is eligible for the lots with historic structures bylaw. The historic structure will remain in its present location and
will be preserved substantially as shown on the site plan dated July 31st, 2024, last revised December 15th, 2025. The criteria of section 210-17.2A have been satisfied, including that the
lot is being created in connection with a residential ANR/Subdivision process and that the historic structure will remain in place as part of the development. The proposed lot configuration and preservation of the historic structure are in harmony with the general purpose and intent of
210-17.2, which encourages preservation of historic significant structures while allowing reasonable residential use. All applicable criteria and standards set forth in the zoning bylaw have been satisfied and granting the special permit will be in harmony with the
general purpose and intent of the zoning bylaw. I'll go on to the conditions for the special permit. The historic structure shall be preserved substantially as shown on the site plan dated July 31st, 2024, last
revised December 15th, 2025, and shall remain in its present location unless otherwise approved by the planning board. Any substantial exterior alteration, demolition, or relocation of the historic structure shall require further review and approval by the planning board with consultation from
the Hopington Historical Commission. If required by the planning board under 210-17.2B, an historic preservation restriction acceptable to town council shall be recorded at the South Middle Sex Registry of Deeds with proof of recording provided to the director of
municipal inspections. No further reduction in the lot area of the historic structure shall the historic structure lot shall be permitted that would increase its non-conformity beyond what is approved under the special permit and the zoning
board of appeals variance. All required permits and approvals from the conservation commission and other applicable town departments shall be obtained prior to any site work or issuance of a building permit. If such approvals require revisions to the plans, the applicant shall submit
updated plans to the planning board for review to confirm consistency with the special permit. Okay. Um, we have the waiver. Uh, so we are I would entertain Let's do the special permit first, then we'll go over to the
frontage ver waiver. Um, I would entertain a motion that the board accept and approve the findings for the special permit for lots with historic structures as previously read aloud by the chair. >> Second motion by Parker, second by
Michael. Uh, roll call vote. Lucia, >> yes. >> Elise, >> yes. >> Michael, >> yes. Parker, >> yes. >> Omna,
>> yes. >> Brian, >> yes. >> And I am a yes. Uh, all right. So, that passes. Um, and then I would accept a mo entertain a motion
that the board approve the special permit for lots with historic structures with the conditions as previously read aloud by the chair. Second. >> Uh, that's Parker and Michael again. Um,
roll call vote. Lucia, >> yes. >> Elise, >> yes. >> Michael, >> yes. >> Parker, >> yes. >> Omna, >> yes. >> Brian, >> yes.
>> And I am a yes. Okay, moving on to the waiver. [sighs and gasps] Uh proposed findings. Uh the applicant has requested a waiver of the frontage requirement under MGL C chapter 41
section 81R for both lots shown on the plan submitted with the form in application. The existing lot containing the historic structure provides approximately 162.5 ft of frontage which does not meet the frontage requirements of the subdivision rules and regulations and the zoning
board of appeals has granted a zoning frontage relief for the proposed rear lot. Both lots have adequate access to Maple Street Extension via the proposed driveway and the emergency vehicle turnaround shown on the site plan dated July 31st, 2024, last revised December
15th, 2025. and no new roadway construction is proposed. Granting the frontage waiver is not inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the subdivision control law and strict compliance is not necessary in the public interest given the site constraints, emergency access provisions
and preservation of the historic structure. Then the conditions this waiver applies to both lots shown on the plan submitted with the form in application. The emergency vehicle turnaround shall be constructed as shown on the site plan dated July 31st, 2024,
last revised December 15, 2025, including required signage, snow removal provisions, and certification by a registered design professional confirming loadbearing capacity. Any future subdivision or resubdy shall require additional review and
approval by the planning board. The waiver shall be recorded at the South Middle Sex Registry of Deeds with the final plan and proof of recording shall be provided to the planning department. Any comments from anyone on the board? Otherwise, I would entertain a motion
that the board accept and approve the findings for the frontage waiver as previously read aloud by the chair. >> Some moved. >> Second. Uh, Michael made the motion and I think Lucia was slightly faster than Parker.
Uh, on the second. Um, so I'll do roll call vote. Lucia, >> yes. >> Elise, >> yes. >> Michael, >> yes. >> Parker, >> yes. >> Peter, oh, Peter's not here. Omna,
>> yes. >> Brian, >> yes. >> And I am a yes. Okay. Um, and then I would entertain a motion that the board approve the frontage waiver under MGL chapter 41 section 81R with the conditions as previously read aloud by
the chair. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Michael and Lucia again. Uh, Lucia, >> yes. >> Elise, >> yes. >> Uh, Michael,
>> yes. >> Parker, >> yes. Omna, >> yes. >> Brian, >> yes. >> And I am also a yes. We did the fee waiver. Uh,
so I believe we are all set with everything except closing. Correct. Anything I'm missing? Uh, anything else from the applicant? Mr. Connor, >> we'll be in with the ANR plan um in the next couple of days. So for your next meeting just so everybody understands
we're coming back for one more time. >> Sounds good. >> Through the chair I just want to point out um he just need to wait for 20 bill period. So uh I mean >> next meeting is the 17th of August. So
>> so I think it will be good for August 17 depends upon uh when I'm able to file the decision but I will let you know. Thank you. >> Has to be outside the appeals window. >> Yeah. >> All right. Um then I would entertain a
motion to close the public hearing for uh public hearings for uh I just scrolled off. Somebody wants to say it. Um so I'd entertain a motion to close the public hearings for 12 Maple Street Extension. Nicholas D'Angelo special permit for
lots of historic district and 12 Maple uh Maple Street Extension. Uh Street Extension Nicholas D'Angelo uh >> frontage waiver. >> Frontage waiver. Yeah, I wrote the same thing. [clears throat]
>> Thank you. >> All right. Uh motion by Lucia, second by Michael. Lucia, >> yes. >> Elise, >> yes. Michael, >> yes. >> Parker, >> yes. >> Omna,
>> yes. >> Brian, >> yes. >> And I am a yes. All right, [sighs] we have a new public hearing. >> Thank you. Good night. >> Thank you, Mr. Connors. Um, so I would
entertain a motion to open the new public hearing for one Briercliffe Drive. Uh Anil uh Desapati is I apologize. Um minor site plan. >> So moved.
>> Second. >> Uh roll call vote. Uh Lucia Lopez. >> Yes. >> Elise Milo. Uh Miloski. >> Yes. >> I don't know why I started doing last names on this one. It's throwing me for a loop. Michael King. >> Yes.
>> Uh Parker H. >> Yes. >> Uh Amnad Dwan. Yes. >> Brian Johnson. >> Yes. >> Uh Matthew Ronz. Yes. Okay. All right. Uh do we have the applicant on? Yes. Uh
Mr. Despati, do you uh want to give us an overview of the project? >> Sure. Um so good evening everyone. First of all, um so this is for Sunshine Preschool. Um and we are proposing a singlestory addition of approximately 900 square ft to the right side of our
existing building. The addition will include a new open classroom uh for free play and enrichment activities, a half bath with laundry, small office and a storage room. The purpose uh is purely to improve the quality of our program
for our current children. So it gives them like more indoor space especially during the New England winters. Um there is no change to enrollment, no change to staffing, no change to traffic or no change in like any increase in the uh
capacity or any any of that line and the project has been designed to comply with all the uh resistance B district setback requirements and our lot coverage comes in at 7.1% very well under 25% maximum.
So I appeared before uh the design review board last week uh I think on July 14th and received approval with three conditions. Um adding shutters to the windows uh limiting paving uh to the only like walkway and then adding front
landscaping and which we already like incorporated into the plan. But I have a uh like request on one of those three conditions. But I'll let you finish before I tell that out. >> Okay. Um and you have a staff report.
>> Yes. Um as applicant applicant mention basically he's just proposing addition um to the existing building. It's everything in the current setbacks requirement and uh they went been through design view board. They
recommend three uh stuff. One is to install of the shutter of the front of the addition addition of the landscape which applicant already mentioned that he wants to ask question to a board and the third is limitation of payment to the
walkway leading to the front entrance. He already upload I mean send revised plan um which I uploaded on folder also from health department and building department they are good. There are a
couple of questions but that will not stop planning board to review or approve minor site plan because that will trigger before the building permit applications. So health department already review they have a couple of question but um as I mentioned it's
going to be before um building department permit. >> Thank you. Um Mr. Dani what was the question you had for the board? >> Yeah so one of the recommendations is to add landscaping. Um so my our request is
like our goal is to provide enough space uh for children and parents to walk towards the door. Uh an if you don't mind like can I share the screen or if you want to share the screen just want to show the picture so everyone uh >> yeah you can share the screen you uh you can just request me
>> sure give me one sec let me open this uh and I'm going to share send request send request and yep um can you see the screen. Can you see the building? Just want to make sure.
Cool. All right. Um, so the only request is the landscaping right next to the new building, proposed building. I want to like wave that requirement. Um because it gives more space for kids and parents to walk to the door and because we have
already landscaping here on the like green grass and everything towards the slope uh that is that part is already invisible. Uh no one notices that. So I would like to request uh to wave that requirement to add this landscaping. Um
so but for everyone like this is the existing building on the left side. The onestory building is the new addition. That's the one that the walkway like small ones which is like six feet um width for the ADA component. So that's the ask from me.
So what was the proposed landscaping was were like what was being was uh was being required. So I we added those like red color flowers landscaping on towards the edge of the so that's the one that I would like to weigh
>> and did that come from design review board or is that part of the bylaws >> that come from uh design review board they just recommend three things um just to make it look better. Um applicant already addressed two of them but they only had a question regarding that
landscape on the front I mean front of the building. Uh okay. Um I will open up to the board for any questions, comments, thoughts on the flowers. >> The chair >> Omna, >> if that was a design review board
recommendation, should it be brought up with the design review board? >> Design review board is a vested uh arm of the planning board. >> Got it. Thank you. through the chair.
>> Uh, Lucia. Yep. >> Um, does the applicant have a rendering of what it is without the landscaping that was requested by the design review board? >> Yeah, the first one. Uh, let me I can open right here.
Oops. Not that. Sorry. So the originally is the plain building and entire pavement with no green like the existing condition is we already have the slope. Um so we thought we pave everything and
make it parking but uh as for design review recommendation we're not changing any of that. We're only adding the just small pave like walkway to the new building. So that's the difference. Um so but now I want to remove those red
flowers. Um we still have all the green landscape slope and everything will be untouched. The only thing is the flowers part. Um you want like to like you know opposed to sorry which one is this like it doesn't have any landscaping earlier
no shutters. So now we added everything um but now I want to like you know revise that if that makes sense. I already know if there any specific comments on the flowers specifically or was it just part of a kind of beautifification part like I understand
the grass versus the pavement but >> yeah just a part of beautifification. >> Okay. >> Can you can you hear me? >> Yep. >> Okay. Yeah. Uh they just recommend as a part of beautifification um nothing based on the minor site plan requirements.
>> Okay. Brian did you have a comment? >> Yeah. So what they recommended that you're asking not to implement is is the flowers in front of the extent the the extension of the building. Do I have that correct?
>> Yeah. Two parts. Uh one is the grass the landscaping here and the flowers to the that's the one that like you know we understood as per the recommended >> if the grass is not there what would be there in its place. >> Oh payment. >> Well I think we're proposing to use the grass now. >> Yeah. >> Right. But you're not removing the
grass. >> We're not going to remove the grass. The grass going to stay there. >> Anything else, Brian? Or >> Yeah, it just doesn't I mean, not sure I have a strong opinion one way or the other, but it doesn't seem like flowers are that big a deal to leave in. What's
What's the reason for wanting to remove it? >> Just to provide the space for more space for walking the children. Um, and it's just like more space for, you know, >> to the chair. >> Oh, sorry, Brian. Oh, sorry. >> How much space would you be getting
back? >> That was my question. >> So, right now the pavement is 6 feet as per complaint. Um, now we might get back like maybe one and a half feet that two feet. So, it'll be like 8 ft.
>> What's that? Is that door the the main access to that building or is there an interior access? >> That is towards the main access. So that's right. >> One of the doors here. That's >> okay. >> Michael, were you starting to ask a
question earlier? >> No, I mean I I don't know that I feel strongly about it one way or the other. Um is it like a maintenance thing too that you're concerned about having to maintain the flowers along the walkway that the kids will be walking on? Yeah, it's both like winter snow cleaning um
and more space for the kids to walk around while traveling. >> Um through the chair, if I can just make a comment. >> Um if it's just flowers, they're going to be dead half the year anyways in the
winter. So, I don't I don't I don't in my my opinion is I don't mind if they're removed. >> Does anybody on the board feel like the flowers are a necessary aspect of bringing light and happiness to a bunch of kids?
>> I think they're necessary for happiness. >> Okay, I can make exceptions. the chair. >> I know what to get Parker for his birthday. Yes, Anna. >> I just I mean they're flowers, but it's a foot and a half. Does it really make
that much of a difference for space? I mean, if the design review board recommended it and they think it's important and you know, is it really a foot and a half? Can a child fit in a foot and a half? >> I don't know.
>> All right. Should we just do a quick stroll poll and figure out how we all feel about flowers? It's either uh we feel like we should keep the requirement or don't feel strongly about it. >> I assume nobody wants to actively get
rid of it. Um Lucia, how do you feel? >> I like flowers, but I would be in favor of waving the requirement. >> I'm in favor of waving the requirement. >> Michael,
>> yeah, it's subjective. I would wave it. Omna, >> sorry. Sorry. Um, I like flowers. I'd keep them. >> Parker, >> let's help this guy out. He's trying to teach the kids. We can wave them. >> Brian,
>> I mean, it's not providing any functional, so I don't really want to have a strong opinion. I kind of like the idea of something decorative along there, but I'm not wetted till flower, so I guess I don't have a strong opinion. >> Number of times I remember my
three-year-olds walking through plantings. Um I I'm I'm fine waving it as a board. I think that's the general feeling of the of the board. Sorry on the Parker.
Um any other comments from the board? Does anybody feel like we need to see this piece of land or this seems like the drawing is pretty good at describing it? I mean, he's inside all those, you know, the setbacks and everything. I don't feel like I would need to see it, but again, I'll defer to the wisdom of the
board. >> I don't need to see it. >> Okay. Anybody feel like they need a sidewalk here or anything else? No. Okay. Um
any we're all good to move on to findings and conditions then? >> Is there anything that we're blocking? >> No, we can move on findings and conditions. Just a little addition which Lucia point out on condition one on the date of the um architectural drawing
that's going to be July 17 instead of June 11. So >> July 17th. Yes >> just for architectural drawing. >> Uh that's on 7101 1A. >> Yes. So it's going to be yeah propos
site plan one uh brand cliff drive prepared by real map info LLC dated June 15, 2026 and architectural drawing prepared [clears throat] by ad drafting service um dated date 61 2026 and revised on
July 17. >> Okay. All right. I will read through that's the decision criteria. What were the findings? >> Um to the chair.
>> Yep. >> Through the sorry uh since board is okay to wave the landscape at the front of the building, we just need to make waiver for that. And >> um it's just a recommendation from design view, but board wants to vote as
a waiver. So >> can we stipulate just the flowers and not the grass too? Sorry through the chair. >> So it's the bullet for addition of landscape plantings in front of the building, right? That's >> the the grass is the next bullet limitation of payment to the walkway
we're keeping. >> Gotcha. >> Um All right. So we want to capture that as a waiver versus a finding or anything. That's a waiver. Uh I mean it's up to the board to decide if we want to consider because that's just a recommendation from design review
to planning board. So if board wants to call um waiver we can make a board and do that way otherwise that's okay too. Uh, all right. So, I guess we could
entertain it as a as a waiver. Entertain a motion to wave the design review board recommendation of adding of the addition of landscape plannings in in parentheses flowers in front of
the building. >> So, moved. >> Second. >> All right. So, Lucia with a second for Michael. Um, roll call vote. Lucia, >> yes. >> Elise, >> yes. >> Michael,
>> yes. >> Uh, Parker, >> yes. >> Omna, >> yes. >> Brian, >> yes. >> And I'm a yes. All right. Uh, then on to the findings and then on to
the conditions. Okay. And the findings then are I just had it uh 791. Um the proposed minor project site plan meets the applicable site plan standards set forth in 210-136.1
of the zoning bylaws. The project consists of a small singlestory building addition to an existing licensed preschool and does not alter the driveway, curbcut, parking layout, circulation pattern, or screening. The
certified plot plan demonstrates full compliance with residents B dimensional requirements and the project narrative confirms no change in enrollment, staffing, or traffic operations. Okay. And then proposed conditions administrative pre-construction
one. The proposed development shall be constructed as depicted on and consistent with the approved materials unless these materials are required to be amended or modified as part of the decision which includes a
plans entitled proposed site plan one Brier Cliff Drive prepared by Real Map Info LLC dated 6:15 2026 and architectural drawings prepared by EAD drafting services dated 717 17, 2026.
The director two, the director of municipal inspections inspects projects under construction for compliance with the approved decision of site plan review. This includes the driveway/roadway and infrastructure construction shown on the plan if applicable. If the director of municipal
inspections determines at any time before or during construction that a registered professional engineer or other such outside professional is required to assist with the inspections of the storm water management system or any other component of the site plan, the applicant shall be responsible for
the cost of those inspections. Three, the applicant/developer shall provide the principal planner with a project point of contact and contact information prior to the issuance of a building permit. The point of contact information shall be kept current
through correspondence to the principal planner until the final certificate of occupancy is issued or construction is otherwise considered complete. Four, a completed signed construction management plan shall be submitted to the planning board prior to the
commencement of any site work. The applicant shall also submit a complete final revised plan set which incorporates all of the modifications made during the public hearing process and any required in this decision.
Five, given the limited scope of work and absence of new storm water facilities, a long-term operation and maintenance plan is not required for this project. Six, a signed elicit discharge statement shall be provided to the planning board prior to construction. Seven, the planning board
shall receive a signoff confirming that the site contractor and any major subcontractors have received the construction management plan prior to the commencement of any site work. Construction period 8. All construction activities shall adhere to applicable
local, state, and federal laws and regulations regarding noise, vibration, dust, sedimentation, and the use of interference with or blocking of town roads. Nine, the applicant shall be responsible for mitigating all construction related impacts, including erosion, siltation,
and dust control. The applicant shall maintain all portions of any public way used for construction access free of soil, mud, or debris deposited due to use by construction vehicles associated with the project and shall regularly sweep such areas as directed by the director of municipal inspections in
consultation with the Department of Public Works director. 10. The applicant shall regularly remove construction trash and debris from the site in accordance with good construction practice and the construction management plan. No tree stumps, demolition material, trash, or
debris shall be burned or buried on the site. 11. If construction has not commenced within 3 years of the date of filing of the site plan decision with the town clerk, approval shall be automatically rescended unless such time is extended by the board. For the
purposes purposes of this condition, the term commenced shall mean the commencement of site work. 12. Construction may occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and Saturday between 8:00 a.m. and 400 p.m. pursuant to chapter
141, Article 1 of the Town of Hopington General bylaws. 13. Erosion and sedimentation control measures shall be implemented during the construction period in accordance with the approved site plan and the construction management plan. If they are found to be inadequate, the
applicant shall immediately correct any deficiencies. Post construction/ongoing 14. All exterior lighting within the development project, whether shown on the approved site plan or required by the Massachusetts State Building Code,
shall be shielded, directed downward, and not upward or outward, and shall not spill onto adjacent property. No new exterior lighting is proposed. Any lighting required by the building code shall comply with 210-136.1 15. All fixed mechanical equipment on
the site shall be screened from the view from the ground. Such screening shall be sufficient in the opinion of the director of municipal inspections. 16. The applicant shall submit final asbuilt plans to the planning board prior to the issuance of a certificate
of occupancy. This asbuilt submission shall include an asbuilt drawing that depicts the asbuilt mean grade and the elevation of the highest point of the roof. The plan shall be stamped by a registered land surveyor. 17. The applicant shall provide the
principal planner with an asbuilt plan prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the facility. 18. The applicant shall incorporate design review board. [sighs and gasps] Sorry. The applicant shall incorporate design review board recommendations
including shutters on the front facade and limiting pavement to the walkways leading to the entrance unless otherwise determined infeasible by the director of municipal inspections. All right. I struck the one sub clause
about the landscape plannings at the front of the building based on our previous vote. Uh, [sighs] I would then entertain a motion that the board accept and approve the findings as previously read aloud uh for the minor
site plan application. >> Second. >> All right. I think that was Michael and then Parker, although Zoom was not >> choose your own adventure vote there. >> Lucia. >> Yes. >> Elise.
Yes, >> Michael. >> Did you not hear me? Yes. Sorry. >> Oh, I didn't hear you. Sorry. Uh, Parker. >> Yes. Sorry. >> I wasn't sure if like my audio was just missing everybody all of a sudden. Omna.
>> Yes. >> Sorry. Omna. What was that? >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. Uh, Brian. >> Yes. >> And I am a yes. All right. And then I would entertain a motion that the board approve the minor site plan with the conditions as they were previously read
aloud by the chair. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. Michael and Parker again. Lucia. >> Yes. >> Elise. >> Yes. >> Michael. >> Yes. >> Parker. >> Yes.
>> Omna. >> Yes. >> Brian. Yes. >> And I am a yes. Okay, we're all set here except to close it. Any last comments? Either Aner or uh Mr.
Des call me I know >> Desapati. Sorry my my tongue is very dry from reading all the conditions. >> I just had a question. Lucia, >> the decision criteria that doesn't need to be read aloud. >> Correct.
>> Okay. Just checking. >> Yeah. Um All right. In that case, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing for one Rydercliffe Drive Neil Desapati minor site plan uh
sunshine somewhere way at the beginning of this memo article. uh proposed building addition to Sunshine Preschool. >> Sound moved. >> Motion by second. And I just want to say
too, thank you so much for keeping this institution going for so many families and kids and building on it in town. I know like what you're doing is is magical to some folks. So, just thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. Those words, it's only incorrect. >> All right. Roll call vote to close the
public hearing. Lucia. Yes, >> Elise. >> Yes, >> Michael. >> Yes, >> Parker. >> Yes, >> Na. >> Yes, >> Brian. >> Yes,
>> and I am a yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Tipati. Um, and that brings us to the end of our agenda. We had a big section on future topics for Zach and zoning. Did anybody have anything else they wanted to to raise
for a future meeting at this point or is everybody just want to make a motion to adjurnn? >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Make a suggestion. >> Okay. All right. >> Okay. I was just going to suggest that we put more slain at the end of the
meeting if they come back. >> Second. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Who made a motion? Uh it was Parker. >> Parker was the Bush. >> Yeah, Parker and Michael. >> Um yeah, motion to adjurnn is on the
table is is is on the floor. Sorry. Um Lucia, >> yes. >> Elise, >> yes. >> Michael, >> yes. >> Parker, >> yes. >> Uh Omna, >> yes. >> Brian, >> yes.
>> And I am a yes. 9:30. All right, we're only in the end half an hour past where I think the the memo put all the all the meetings. Thank you everybody. >> Good to meet you guys. >> Good night guys. >> See you on August 17th. Have a great summer.
>> Cha cha. Bye.