All right, let me kick off by reading the remote meeting script and we'll go from there. Uh, pursuant to pursuant to chapter 2 of the acts of 2023, this meeting will be conducted via remote means in accordance with applicable law. This means that members of the public body as well as members of
the public may access this meeting via virtual means. Participants may access this meeting through the remote meeting link as posted on the meeting agenda and through the town's online calendar. when required by law or allowed by the chair. Persons wishing to provide public comment or otherwise
part participate in the meeting may do so by raising their hand or otherwise signaling their intent to speak. This meeting will be recorded. Please take care to mute your microphone unless you have been recognized by the chair. We [snorts] will now confirm attendance of members. Please respond with present
if you're on the call. Elise Meloski, >> Lucia Lopez, >> present. >> Matthew Rocka, >> present. >> Michael King, >> present. >> Parker Hap,
>> present. Amna Dwan, >> Peter Mimo >> present. >> Uh, Vicas Prati >> present >> and Rob Benson is here. And town staff, uh, Aneri Patel
>> present. >> And Lori St. John, >> she's not on the call. >> Okay. All right. What's uh Aneri, do we have any feedback uh for the minutes of for December 15th or January 5th? >> Yes. Um I received comments from Matthew
on both the minutes and Lucia's comments on January 5th. Um it's a minor comment. So um we already changed on January 5th and just need to modify December 15 meeting I mean minutes but we are we
receive the comments if poll is okay to approve. So, um, okay. So, the the the really the the request modifications are minor that, uh, as they're in our
folders, you'd feel like we can move forward and approve. >> Yep. >> All right. Uh, does anyone have any other comments or questions about the meeting minutes? All right. With that, with hearing nothing, I'd like to enter in a motion
to approve the meeting minutes for December 15th, 2025 and January 5th, 2026. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> All right. Thank you. Uh, roll call vote. Uh, Lucia Lopez,
>> yes. >> Matthew Rona, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Parker Hap, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. Vicas Pratti. >> Yes. >> And Rob Benson is yes.
>> All right. Uh Highland Park 4 request for performance guarantee reduction. Uh Aneri, do you want to give us an overview of what the request is or or uh is the is some a representative from Highland Park 4 on?
>> I'm not sure he's on a call or not. Let me see. No, he's not on the call. So, I will just brief out. Um, we received request from Mr. came to reduce the red I mean performance
guarantee and um eventually back in June or July they reach out to us at that time planning will reduce the bond and currently the bond amount is somewhere around 1,700
175800 and um currently he's requested to reduce it to by 78,000 Our peer review engineer bay associate reviewed that proposal and recommended the change on performance guarantee and
applicant is um in agreement with Luckner's comment on that. So the new amount for board to authorize the reduction of $73,800 and the remaining G amount going to be
102K >> 102,000 even. >> Mhm. >> All right. Yep. Does anyone have any comments or questions? I'm uh
Oh, never mind. Sorry. Okay. All right. I'd like to entertain a motion to reduce the bond mark for uh bond amount from Highland Park 4 uh from its current value of $175,800
to $102,000. So move. >> Second. >> All right. Roll call vote. Lucia Lopez. >> Yes. >> Matthew Rona. >> Yes. >> Michael King. >> Yes. >> Parker Hab. >> Yes.
>> Peter Mimo. >> Yes. >> Vic South. >> Yes. >> And Rob Benson is yes. All right. The Legacy Farm North uh villages request for performance guarantee release by PY Holmes. Uh
Aner, I don't know if you have uh is the applicant on or do you want to give us any overview on this? I don't think so again applicant is on a call for this matter. Um the only thing I'm aware is the legacy farm not project
they are done the construction phase is done and they like specifi um specifying all the plan for condition which board approved back and doing site plan approval basically and
now they are asking to release the bond which they submitted back in 2016. Yeah, I made a picture. >> All right. So, I I think um
>> from my point, go ahead. You're going to say something. >> Sorry. Uh, no. I think I'm just making the original Bond from 2016 >> and maybe people uh I'm trying to refresh my memory here, but uh PY Holmes
uh we've had Vin Gayley and he's from PY Holmes, correct? Before us many, many times. No, I think sorry to interrupt, but I think he's >> he's not for this legacy farm north.
>> So, win is uh let me check. He's for different side of the legacy farm. Does anyone know off the top of their head? I didn't know if it was uh I didn't I wasn't sure.
So >> I don't believe they're the same entity. It's just a simple Google search. >> Yeah. So we uh they are from different entity. Um they are from the trail LLC and this is under the college home.
Yeah. >> Okay. So, >> all right. Uh, >> and also just to add, uh, I think Amna just joined the meeting. >> Okay, great.
>> Hi. Sorry guys, I'm late. Sorry, I'm late. >> It's okay. It's been a It's been quite a weather day today. Uh, all right. Does anyone have any questions um or comments?
>> I I just have one question just I just how how do we ascertain whether or not the that the work has been completed in in accordance with the specifications? What's the how do we ascertain that? How do we confirm that? Uh I checked with the building commissioner um Chris and
he mentioned that all the work required everything is all set and we don't have the peer review engineer for this so I cannot re reach out to anyone for a third party peer review but based on my
discussion with John and Chris this project is already done and they are just requesting release of the Yeah, I think for this it's it's um an area it's fundamentally the the building inspector basically says the work is done uh in accordance with the plan and
m and uh correct. >> Yeah. So that sounds like it's happened. Um all right. Uh, I'd like to uh enter in a motion to
release the performance shy bond of $100,000 for PY PY Homes for Legacy Farms North Villages. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Thanks, Matthew. Thanks, Amna. Roll call vote. Lucia Lopez.
>> Yes. >> Matthew Rona. >> Yes. Parker Hop, >> yes. >> Amna Dwan, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Vic Prati, >> yes. >> And Rob Benson is a yes.
>> Thank you, Rob. I'm ask you. >> Oh, Mike. Oh, sorry. No worries, >> Michael. Thank you. Uh, >> all right. MBTA communities discussion. Um, Aneri, we had a at our last meeting, we left you with a few questions and you
were going to try to find out some information. What information were you able to gain if any? So let me share you the pre um presentation first and also mention that I hear back from the state this
afternoon like few hours back and they are okay with the geographic geographically okay with the option E which we sent I emailed them asking if it's okay or not and they requested a
draft article and I'm going to arrange a separate meeting with them this week or next week probably but I reach out um received the response from them and they just recommend to ensuring the dimension requirement that which it
meets as a one district so since we going to reduce from three district to one two district so that's their recommendation but they are okay with our option E proposal um let me share my screen on the
questions you asked me last time. >> Sure. Can you see my screen? Yes. >> Okay. >> So, in the last meeting board requested what if we do remove the parcels from the
downtown district on the side and this one tiny parcel. So, I did the calculation. And if we remove this parcels, it going to change our unit capacity and after removing them it's going to be somewhere around I mean it's
going to be 723 units. The minimum state requirement is 750 units. So removing this parcel we not going to meet another requirement if we going to meet the contingency but then we're going to have the issue with the unit capacity. So
this is like a summary of this table of removing this parcels one the bottom ones and one of this parcel then so this is the proposal I sent out to
state basically executive office of of um housing authority and on this basis they sent me an email and response And this is the summary table. So as per this table you can see the current
acres going to be 55.6 acres. The unit capacity is going to be 782 and the DUAC is going to be 17.6. So this is the only change from what we approved and in the new proposal and based upon our
current option E we are meeting the contingency requirement as our biggest parcel going to be 32.7 acres and as for um as per the contingency we have to have 27.85 acres. So this is the
current proposal with option E and the response we received from state um board asked what if we remove this parcel so I recommend and even based upon the calculation it's
not feasible to remove any parcels from the south side of the downtown district And >> the cell side is the CVS side. Correct. >> Yes. The any parcels from this big chunk.
>> And if we even remove this tiny parcels here on the Cedar Street, I think it's 16 or 19 Cedar Street. This one tiny. It will decrease our unit by 20. So then
it's going to be 7 62 units. If we just remove that one parcel. So and even to summarize the parcels we are adding on Walcott Street they are not adding any new units as they are
tiny in the size and not even increasing our acreage. So the approved acreage I mean the old proposal with three district had 54.6 acres and now with the adding parcel it's around 55.6. 6 acres.
So it's just increasing few I mean not even acre basically and the unit is going to be same as it is only the difference going to be in gross density and the contingency.
>> Okay let's uh let's let me ask a couple questions. Mhm. >> Uh the there was in my mind there were some questions about the parcels connecting
uh what I would call the like the section of land bordering the downtown intersection and the Walcott Valley. There was it seemed to me there was uh an extra parcel or maybe two parcels that I would say like
uh aren't uh required like if you um >> let me pull uh yes I I uh remember that and I just want to point out two things here. I think you are talking about these two parcels. >> The one
>> Yes. Yes. Those two parcels uh or maybe even Yes. I was of the mindset like what could we do to so those any of those parcels there that make the actual connection are not in
the downtown district as it is. So I was of the mindset to try to make them as uh as few as possible. >> So I just want to add two points. Even if we add these two parcels here or not, it's not going to change anything on our
uh calculation and just by adding this parcel it's it's just like literally at the edge of Walcott Valley and downtown. So it look like we just add few parcels to make up one district and even even if
we add those two parcels the stand if we do the zoning standard for these two parcels so Walcott Valley needs to follow the downtown district standards like a minimum lot size or open square um open space require minimum open space
requirement. So even if this big parcel and these two parcel are in residential district um for the overlay they need need to follow the downtown overlay district standards with the minimum
frontage or all that stuff because after combining two district into one we need to come up with one standards we cannot do three standards like one for preserve one for downtown and one for W valley.
So we need to combine downtown and Walcott and this downtown parcel cannot be work as a Walcott valley standards and that's one of the point which Nathan from state uh mentioned in the email
that we make sure that we are changing the standards. So >> but I I >> to me it doesn't seem like those parcels there are necessary. That's what I want to get to. Are like if they they don't
seem to me they don't seem required to connect the downtown district to Walcott Valley like we can make that connection physically on the map without those additional parcels. So why wouldn't we?
I can during the during my call with state I can ask is it okay if we just add one parcel and do the connection or if we need to keep those two parcels to make it look like and I will let know
but um as you said it will not make any major difference if we add or remove I mean add those parcel or >> I think it's going to be >> for from my point of it's going to be perception at town meeting. Uh and as a
and I I think there's a general just um uh like I think the town feels we need to comply with the state regulations, but I also does I feel like the from what I've experienced at the last two town meetings regarding this topic, they
don't want to go above and beyond the minimum that's required by the state is what I would the sentiment I felt. All right. >> Yeah. Go ahead, Parker. >> We We don't have enough time though to wait for the state's feedback.
>> Is that correct, Any? >> Well, I think tonight we're going to vote to put it on the town meeting warrant and then like whether we include four parcels or five parcels there. If we um I think the map itself, I think we
have time. But tonight, um, the next agenda item is to get it on the town warrant, which I think is a from my point of view is a no-brainer because we can always remove it if we wanted to in the future uh before town meeting, but
uh I think choosing the map itself, we have time but >> we can take stuff off before town meeting >> until it's printed. Yeah, you can. you have to you have to get it on the town meeting warrant by a certain date, but
my experience is you can take stuff off uh the town meeting warrant almost right up to the meeting, but once they're printed, the printed material is printed, it it's kind of there, but um you can withdraw uh I think up leading right up to town
meeting. Go ahead and am I wrong? >> No, you are right. Tonight uh board needs to vote uh to add the article for the town meeting. Uh I have deadline till this Friday. So basically February 1st is the deadline to submit the draft
article and the map to select board or town manager office. Basically if there is any changes like minor changes we can still do as Rob mentioned before the printing part and minor changes are
okay. We can remove the parcels but we cannot add anything to the article after I mean after I submit the art basically and I will try to reach out to Nate Nathan from state if I get him to
meet me this week. I think how we worded the articles in the past is we basically had the article language so the the language didn't need need to change and it referenced a map and we could change the map if I if my memory serves myself correct and we were we were tinkering
with the map right up to the the 11th hour uh last two times. So the just to add like the only change going to be on the map and even on the draft article we just need to remove the parcels if we
are deciding because we are not changing any other definition or any other section of the boiler which we already approved like which town already approved last year. So it's just going to be we are removing that um wala valley standard um section and there are
minor changes. So removing couple of parcels that's going to be fine that you can do. >> Does anyone have a questions about uh about this for myself or Aneri? Uh maybe Aneri is better.
All right. Go ahead, Lucia. I know you asked about the south side of downtown, but go before last meeting, but go ahead. >> Yeah. So, it sounds like we can't remove that based on the numbers without um getting below the 750, but it sounds
like we could potentially remove that northern green, the parcel in green um that I know Rob mentioned before is not in the downtown business district um without going below the 750. So, I
think that would be an improvement in that sense where I know part of the argument for the MBTA overlay was that we're not making it any more dense because downtown business is already you're already allowed to build pretty
densely. Um, and so I think if we could remove that parcel and still meet the requirements, I think that would be a plus in terms of a change that we're bringing to town meeting. Um, and then I think the outstanding question is, do we
need those extra one or two parcels for it to be contiguous? But I think beyond that, the map it, you know, we're meeting the requirements and it's what's it's what the state says we need to do. So, I think we can go to town meeting
and with those two questions answered and be able to respond to any questions that residents have. I I uh totally agree with you, Lucia. That's that would be my uh desired outcome is those parcels along Walcott
to beat meet the the definition of a a singular parcel, the minimum parcels needed to to connect those the Walcott Valley and downtown and basically substitute those in exchange for the one parcel along Cedar Street that's not in
the downtown business district. Uh and basically remove that. That would be my I think preferred preferred outcome. Uh anyone else on the board have any any uh any comments?
I can't if I think if people raise their hand I can see right away. But Aneri, do do we need to vote tonight? What do what do you want us to do? So both don't need to vote on this. Uh board needs to vote on um submitting the
articles. So such our agenda item 1.5. >> All right. Let let's go let's go to item 1.5 because we can always go back to this if we if there's something if there's something Oh, Matthew, go ahead. >> Yeah, I had a question as we're moving
to 1.5 is I don't see anything about 210-62. Were we planning on doing anything about the impayment of Lou or are we not trying to do that? >> Uh we are not doing that at the moment. >> I
sorry met which thing you are mentioning >> chapter 210 section 62 we had talked about getting uh payment in loo changed this year. >> Okay. Yes. No I'm not aware of that. And I don't have uh
>> is that something that came out of zoning advisory committee, Matthew? >> Uh it's well, it's something that we that we've talked about and hopefully we'll get back to before town meeting, but it was something that we've talked about in the past is wanting to have changed and it's something that uh Lucia
had mentioned back I think on the December 15th that I don't think we circled back on. So for that uh Ted the Zach chair reached out to me and we going to discuss in the next Zach meeting but that will not make it to this year's town meeting. >> Okay.
>> That's my understanding. >> Okay. I don't know if it was close enough that we'd want something on the as a placeholder on the on the uh warrant if we thought we'd be able to wrap it up in the next meeting or so. >> Could Matthew just could you give us a
little refresh? Could you refresh everybody's uh like I know I think you're talking about affordable housing and a payment in L but what's what's the specifics? >> 210 fees in L uh 21062 fees in L of affordable housing unit uh provision. So
this was something that we've lamented quite a bit in the past and we changed it to not be uh I believe we changed it to be not by right that the board had to authorize it. Um but the main issue is that the payment in L was always so
minimal that it wasn't effective as an option that we the affordable housing wasn't able to basically use it effectively to buy houses. So every developer wanted to just donate uh was likeund something thousand or something instead of setting
>> it was way lower than you could really build an affordable unit. >> Right. Yeah. So, the proposal um that last we talked about and I think was coming back because there were some questions that needed to be answered um was changing it the way it was being set
to being uh basically the median uh sold single family house over the past time frame and those that's where I think the open questions were and that we had to iron out before we came back to before we actually had a full warrant. But given that it's coming back before Zach, I was wondering if we wanted it a
placeholder on the warrant um so we could finalize that before town meeting. >> Let's withdraw it. If it doesn't, >> let's just let's go through the motions for these uh 5 1.5 and 1.5.2 and and then we'll we'll see if if the board
wants to try to uh put a placeholder in for that. Now, let's uh so I think 1.5.1 is pretty self-explanatory. We we need to put uh or we should we should put an article on
our town warrant for the MBTA communities uh to fix the map to get it in compliance with over 50% of the land area and one contiguous uh land mass. So, does anyone have any questions?
All right. I'd like to entertain a motion that the planning board vote to add a warn article to amend article 36 MBTA Communities Multif Family Overlay District MCMOD bylaw to comply with EO HLC requirements in the 2026 annual town
meeting warrant. >> So moved. >> Thanks Matthew. >> Second. >> Thanks Amna. Uh roll call vote. Lucia Lopez. >> Yes. >> Matthew Rona. Yes. >> Michael King. >> Yes.
>> Parker Hap. >> Yes. >> Amnan. >> Yes. >> Peter Mimo. >> Yes. >> Vicasi. >> Yes. >> And Rob Benson is Yes. All right. Let's go to 1.5.2.
So, Whisper Way is a neighborhood uh that uh got built. It's kind of near um it's off of uh Wood Street near uh 495. It beca came before the planning board I don't know three years or so maybe maybe
longer ago, four years ago. Anyways, they built they've built the street and uh built all the houses and so this warrant article is for the street acceptance of Whisper Way. Does anyone have any questions for Neri? Uh, I don't
I don't have any additional background than what I I provided. All right. I'd like to entertain a motion that the planning board vote to add warrant article for the acceptance of Whisper Way from Wood Street to end as a public way to the 2026 annual town meeting warrant.
>> So moved. >> Thanks, Matthew. >> Second. >> Thanks, Parker. Uh, roll call vote. Lucia Lopez. >> Yes. Matthew Rona, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Parker Hap, >> yes. >> Amna Dwan,
>> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Vicas Pratti, >> yes. >> And Rob Benson, is yes. All right. Now, we'll we'll circle back to uh the payment and Lou question. Do we want
to try to get something in? I I haven't listened to all the been fully up to speed on any exact conversations about this, so I don't know how close we are to to being to drafting an article.
Um, Lucia, go ahead. >> I think my question is related to open meeting law. Is it something that we can add if it's not on the agenda? >> Oh, good question. uh go ahead. Uh Matthew, why don't you go ahead? >> So the agenda item is uh voting to add
zoning articles to the annual town meeting warrant. >> Aneri, did you have a comment or a thought? So as a chair if you decide to discuss on that you are allowed to do that even if it's not mentioned because it's a
part of to add the article on the town meeting warrant. >> So you would think you' think we we'd be okay to add that >> to talk about it. We cannot talk in the details but we can decide if board wants to add that article or not and then u as
a planner I can work with Zach anyway we it's going to be like schedule upcoming schedule meeting next week and this topic is on the agenda for the Zach meeting >> I think it's I think it's something we could do we could like I said we can we
could add this tonight and literally at our ne like Zach's at their next meeting they can say we're not close we we we need more discussion I don't know we need more public comment we need I don't know to get more details of like are we do I don't know whatever the
conversation can be we can remove it >> at our very next meeting if it doesn't if it doesn't look like we should move forward >> so I'm I'm I'm good with that if uh if the board is also good with that >> you good with
All right. I don't have a written motion here. So, let me let me try to craft some uh I'd like to entertain a motion to uh add a town meeting warrant article to address our payment and in payment in lu
amount for affordable housing unit construction. M >> I apologize. Could you repeat that? I for a second. >> I don't I don't know if I could. >> I move that the planning board vote to add a warrant article
uh to change the calculation for fee and LU under uh section 21062 uh fees and lose affordable housing unit provisions to the 2026 annual town meeting warrant. >> I'll second that.
>> All right, sounds good. All right, roll call vote. Lucia Lopez, >> yes. >> Matthew Rona, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Parker Hap, >> yes. >> Amnadan, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Vicas South,
>> yes. >> And Rob Benson is yes. All right. All right. Uh, I don't think this is a still a this isn't a new public hearing, but uh, Zero Lumber Street uh, RAC Hopkins LLC major project site plan
review. Uh, [gasps] is the applicant on? >> John Federica with Gary Hold on. And, uh, tonight I'm here with Kathy Sherry of REC Hopkin. >> All right.
So, I think uh before we go on, I I think we had a mixup, at least for some of us, at least me on uh the sidewalk, but I so I apologize for that if there uh uh but anyways, we're happy to be here tonight to talk about this project.
Uh before we get going, is there any updates uh Aneri that you would like to provide >> from your perspective? We have just a second. We have our peer review consultant Emma
on the call from PAR Corporation and um we received her comments on the project and applicant responded to her comments um changing and adding I mean revising the site plan as per the
comments from Emma. So if she or applicant wants to discuss that and also just to add um design report is scheduled for next week for this project to look at into the site plan.
>> Go ahead if you'd like or like to speak first. >> I don't and you're one second. I don't I don't see the the peerreview in our folder. >> Um it is there. It's under
our Z lumber street zero folder and it says response to pair and pair peer review letter. >> I'm only the only folder I'm seeing is MBTA communities and then >> no uh that's in the difference. So if
you click on the link next to the new material from the memo, you will able to see the comments. I can pull out the letter from pair. >> That's okay. Uh oh. Okay.
Okay. All right. Yes. Why don't we have our peerreview consultant go? Uh well before we get going, is everything is everything kind of agreed upon at this point with our peerreview consultant and the applicant or where do things stand?
>> Yes. Um I haven't responded to the response to comments yet. Um but I did have I guess four items. One's a little bit um more just CAD layering. So I guess three items that I wanted to kind of discuss with them more um that I haven't gotten a chance to respond back to them on.
>> All right. Why don't why don't we uh go through those here here on the call? >> Okay. Um so two of them were um related to the zoning comments. Um so my first comment um in the original review letter
um was about the planting um between the parking lot and the roadway. Um so the zoning um bylaw states um that it needs to be dense growth or a combination of plant materials and landscape features. Um so it' be between the proposed
parking area and lumber street. Um so just it's more of a clarification on what would be considered dense. Um it looks like they're showing one tree and some plantings. Um so I can discuss that with them and with
the town in more detail on what would be considered um dense for that situation. Um the second one was related to so was my comment number three um regarding the requirement in appendix A of the zoning
bylaws um just about the placement of the storm water management facilities. Um, so I understand where they're saying that that's the optimal location for it, which is within this 60 foot front yard setback. Um, but that doesn't meet the requirements of appendix A. Um, so then
they would need some form of relief um to have it located there. Um, [clears throat] and then the other one that I would like to discuss would be my comment number five, um, about the sidewalk design. I do have um some specific locations that I could
send the applicant on markups. Um but I just uh it would would need them to show some additional elevation points um along the sidewalk just to confirm that everything's going to be meeting the ADA standards. Um particularly the stretch
from Lumber Street up towards the building um just to show that they're going to be meeting. So, it looks like from um what I can measure off of the plans that it would be like a ramp steepness there. Um so, I want to make sure that they have like the level
landing areas and everything that would be required um to have a stretch that would be um that high of a grade. So, uh, with regards to those comments and, uh, John Federico with G&H, um, we, uh, did include, um, in our revised plan
set, um, an updated, um, layout for the sidewalk connection to Lumber Street with a couple extra spot grades on there. Uh, so hopefully that will help address some of your concerns. Yes. But yes, if we do need anything else, I'll be more than happy to add in those couple extra for you.
>> Yes, I did see what you had provided. um I can I can send to you an um to forward along to you um some additional elevation points that I'd be looking for just so that we have enough information to confirm. >> That's not a problem there. Um regarding the dense growth comment um I know and
the applicant um is more than happy to jump in to speak on this um as well. Uh but uh at least um directly adjacent to the parking spaces since we do have our uh property sign that's going to be located there or advertisement sign. We didn't want to have anything that was
too large in terms of a dense growth. Um, just where it would be blocking the view of that sign. Um, but anything essentially where the sidewalk portion would be, anything behind that sidewalk portion. Um, as much as that area uh can remain undisturbed, it would be
remaining with any existing vegetation there. Um, if that was something that we did have to add in a few extra plantings, uh, we'd be more than happy to work with the town on that end. Um, and then as far as the placement of the uh storm water structure goes, um, I
believe that's a a question uh for the rest of the board uh to further discuss. If we do need to put in a formal request for a waiver there, um, I'd be more than happy to provide a brief write up uh, regarding that waiver request and um, some justification for it. Uh, but not sure exactly how the planning board
wants to handle that portion. I think we are going to uh defer to our peer peerreview consultant for her opinion. >> Yes. Um so in regards to the planting um I would um ask more for the town or the
planning board um to review what they would consider dense if um they feel that that's acceptable um in relation to the storm water system. uh just because of the grades and that being like the lower lower point um in
the property and to be sure that you're capturing everything that's going to be flowing onto the site before it gets into Lumber Street. Um I I do believe that that's a good location um for the storm water unit. Um it will be underground. Um, so I'm not
if the intention of the ordinance was that there be no features above ground that you could see like this at least would be underground and it's only going into um the front yard setback um by a few feet. I can measure it off the plan just to confirm. Um but I mean to me
that that seems reasonable. >> Chair, >> go ahead Parker. >> I'm a visual guy. Is there any chance that we could like pull a map just to show where that dense village should be? Because if it is, we're in my head. I think one of the comments we had heard
in previous meetings is folks wanting to maintain a as much of the, you know, charm of lumber street, I suppose. Uh, and there was also concerns of like, you know,
headlights and stuff. So, I think any screen could help, but I just wanted to visualize where exactly this was. It could be prudent to consider. >> I uh just requested screen priv uh share privileges. Um if somebody could grant that, I'll have a plan pulled up for us in one second.
>> Yes. Um can you I did accept that. >> Okay, great. moment here. >> Okay. Um I believe we have the uh plan up in front of us right now. >> Yes. >> Uh this is the site plan sheet here. Um
I can flip over to a drainage sheet if anybody would like. Um, but essentially, uh, I believe the screening comment was regarding this portion right here where we do have one large tree shown and some, uh, lower growing shrubs, uh, just so that we're not fully blocking our proposed signage there. Um, this was the
area that I was referring to that will remain um, as part of uh, as much natural vegetation as possible. Um, just depending on the grading for it. And um just so everyone can see the underground utility section
um that is located right within this area here. Essentially these two outer manifolds would be the furthest extents of the structure. Um so to see that in relation to the building setback um I do apologize for jumping around. Uh those
two manoles are referenced here and referenced over here. Uh, so that would appear to be um protruding into that front setback by about 20 or so feet. >> Thank you. >> To the chair.
>> Go ahead, Amna. >> Um, is there anywhere where there's a definition of what dense planting means for us? Because if you I mean to me dense planting means trees and shrubs and whatever that you can't see through year round.
I would uh I don't know that there uh I have not seen a definition. I don't think um in our zoning bylaws there is a definition of a d of dense planting plantings. Aneri, do you happen to know?
I don't think there is. >> I can check and let you know. I don't have top of my mind if that's specific. I'm I generally agree with you that pens plantings would be uh cause like
something you couldn't see through and some and basically something you couldn't see through year round. It doesn't necessarily need to meet or at best very very limited to be able to see through.
Anyone else on the board have questions at this point? Lucia, go ahead. >> Um, I think in terms of the plantings question from the sidewalk, uh, to Amna's point, it's fair, you can see
fairly well through right now because, you know, everything's dead. It's winter time. Um, and so I think if dense plantings are meant to kind of hide the parking lot better, then I could see the need to add some more plantings as long
as we're not disrupting any of the wetlands in the Yeah. Thanks, Lucia. So, um I'm not sure what we should do at this point. Typically, uh, we'd we'd continue on our agenda once it's agreed upon,
like all the final everything is kind of coordinated between the applicant and our peerreview consultant, but it seems like there's some loose ends. So, I'm not sure uh what to do as a next step.
>> Sure. >> Go ahead. we can continue hearing to the February 9th meeting if applicant and uh our peer review can respond back in that time. Then February 9 or the next
hearing going to be February 23. So I leave that up to applicant if they want to continue to February 9th or February 23rd if they needed time to um answer to the comments which we
discussed tonight. >> I believe these comments are relatively minor. So um I would have no problem with going to the ninth. Um however um I will uh default that to Kathy uh Sherry on the applicant side for rece um in
case >> February 9th is preferred. John February 9th. >> Okay. >> John or Kathy, do you need any more information from us as a as a board? >> I would I think we just need some further information on the the denseness
um as far as what you'd like to see there. We're talking about a relatively small area. um as far as around the proposed kind of a a small scale pylon sign and everything else is being maintained in its as natural state as
possible. So we would need the definition of dense or for the reviewer to come back and tell us we need another tree or something on that that idea. Um and then I'm not I'm still not sure and if this is we can work it out afterwards
is do we need to request a waiver? I think we even asked this at the um the site walkth through about the location of the storm water system um because we've responded back to that. That seems to be your decision um as far as if
there's any issue with us locating it within that front setback. So those are the two things I I feel like we need a little bit we'll need direction on whether it's from the board or peer review. >> Okay, let let's go with the storm water.
Uh, isn't this spelled out in our requirements? Uh, I I'm guess I'm going to our peerreview consultant like it seems like it's either a yes, it it needs a waiver or no, it doesn't. I'm not.
>> Yes. So, in the zoning bylaws, it says that it shall not be located within the required setback areas unless specifically permitted by the planning board. So then it will require require it would require a waiver. Correct.
>> Based on that reading. Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. We will we will put in a request for the waiver with the next round. Is that right, John? >> Correct. Yes. >> Okay.
>> And the densess of uh plantings. um >> because I just want to make sure we're talking about the same area because it is and John if I'm wrong please correct me. It is simply that little landscape island at the edge of the driveway um
where the sign is. Is that correct? Is that what we're talking about as well as Emma? Yes. >> To my understanding it is in this location here but Emma please do correct me if I'm wrong on that. And that would be >> that is the location that I was looking at. >> So we're only talking about that little
island of how much what we need for landscaping there around the sign. >> What is the dimensions of that? Like what is the uh is that >> by 8t? Like how big is it?
>> The closest point it's about 11.9. So let's call it 12 feet just for rounded. Um so it's about 12 by 18 feet give or take. 12 by 18 ft. So I would think the denseness of the of
the shrubbery there should prevent like a car cars backing out from those five spots there. >> If they're backing out from the spots, have the headlights on. Uh the densess of that should prevent like really disruption from the person across the
street. That's maybe like Yeah. So kind of limit light infiltration from headlights as people back out of those spots and
um then then to exit out onto Lumber Street. >> Okay. So maybe we can propose I'm sorry. >> Maybe we could propose to put another larger tree bordering the parking lot and leaving just what's in front where
the small shrubs are sewn so that we do have some visibility with cars coming up Lumber Street. We would like to be able to for them to see a sign. [gasps] And then we also want to make sure people pulling out of the driveway their vision and their sighteline is not impeded um on the very edge.
>> That is very important. Yes. Okay. >> Anyone on the board have any other uh anything else? All right. I'm going to continue the this till our next meeting hearing hearing none. Uh I don't need to
continue extended decision deadline. Right. and just uh I just need to continue it to our February 9th. >> That is correct. >> All right. I'd like to enterain a motion to continue our public hearing for Zero Lumber Street uh to February 9th.
>> So moved. >> Thanks, Matthew. >> Second. >> Thanks, Vic. Roll call vote. Lucia Lopez. >> Yes. Matthew Rona, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes.
>> Parker Hap, >> yes. >> Amna Dwan, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Vicas Pratti, >> yes. >> And Rob Benson is yes. >> All right, we'll see you on the 9th. >> Great. Thank you so much. I do appreciate it.
>> Thank you. All right. I'd like to entertain a motion to open public hearing for 69 Hayward Street. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Thanks, Matthew. Thanks, Parker. Roll call. Uh, Lucia Lopez,
>> yes. >> Matthew Rona, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Parker Hap, >> yes. >> Amnan, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> South Prati, >> yes. >> And Rob Benson is yes.
All right, Aneri, would you like to give us an overview of of this situation? >> Sure. Uh, so I think if I'm not wrong, back in um, let me just open my pants. Yep. Back in uh June or July if I'm not
wrong, applicant reach out to board of appeal um for variance permit and board of appeal denied the appro. >> What were they looking for a variance for? >> So um it's a
they want to do a new building on the lot if I'm not wrong. >> Okay. They proposed the house and the board did not agree with the dimension and the setback requirements what they were requesting at that time. Board of
appeals denied the proposal and it's not uh been two years. So they are coming to planning board requesting uh maybe petition from the planning board side as the planning board um be as per the section
Massachusettal general law chapter 48 section 16 planning board uh approve or deny the request and applicant previously mentioned um changes to the plan. So in the file
you can see the proposed plot plan with the changes and old plot plan which uh zoning board denied. We have applicant here on the call if they just want to add anything. Uh this is totally going
to be a regular reviews and all eight board members need to vote if they agree with the repetitive petition request. So we have to >> we have to be unanimous to get this to
>> yes since Alysia she's not here then we need anonymous vote as we are nine board members on our planning board so as for that we need eight votes in a favor
for applicant to go back to zoning board before their time period ends. two-year time period. This is you um if applicant wants to add anything they are feel free to do that.
I can show what board of appeal review back in June or July and what >> yeah could you put the would you be able to share that on the screen I think for everybody's benefit. >> Yes. Yes. Okay. So this is the revised plot plan which
applicants submitted and it's dated December 4, 2025 and uh let me pull the old proposal on the side and this is their original proposal which board of be
reviewed and denied. >> Can you see both the plans? >> [snorts] >> So the uh both in both cases the house is uh so the new plan is a 40x 22 house with
what it looks like to be a 40x 22 house. And the old plan was 40x 22 along uh 22 feet along the back and 30 feet uh wide along the front. >> Mhm. and putting feet on the right side
of the street from this. So it was like in the L shape when they originally submitted to board of appeal the current proposed plan which they submitted that it's like a straight box house basically. Mhm.
Do you have details of of the uh zoning board of appeals original commentary? Like what what what was their thinking? Do we know? >> We don't know that. Uh we only have
board of a big decision. >> Okay. All right. Is the is the applicant on that's looking to put forward this repet repetitive repetitive petition? I think they are on if they want to add
anything and I will just point out one thing for a planning board that our review is going to be limited and just to make sure that the justification applicant is providing is sufficient to allow them to refile with CPA and that's
our planning board married to review this application. Um, I think >> I'm guessing the applicant is on the call if they want to add anything. If not,
>> yes, Mr. Chairman, we are on the call. >> Do you want to uh are you representing somebody? Are you the land owner? Uh, who are >> I'm Rick Goodrell with United Consultants. We had prepared the plot plan for for the applicant who
unfortunately was not able to get on the call today. Um but we were here to answer any questions that the board may have with respect to the to the plot plan and the application. Um I was present at the zoning board hearing. Um
a two of the members of the zoning board had some concerns with regard to the side setbacks. Um, as you can see on the screen, um, the two plans are, the [clears throat] original plan had the L-shaped, uh, building that was
described, which had an 8 by4 ft, uh, area to the front right side of right corner of the building. That has now been eliminated. That has allowed for the side setbacks to be increased from 10 feet on the original proposal to 14
feet on the current proposal. um where the existing house that was proposed to be demolished um had a size setback of uh 10 ft. So
um I'm sorry. Yeah, I'm sorry. 11.4T. So we've increased the side set back from 11.4 from the existing structure that is located on the property to the 14 ft. Um
and that was uh two of the zoning board members were concerned about the side setback. Um three of the board members were satisfied with the application u but we did not have the 4 to1 vote that was necessary uh to obtain the permit
the variance excuse me. So [clears throat] as has been pointed out the process if uh the applicant chooses to come back within two years is to come to the planning board and make the case for a repetitive petition and outline
what has changed uh from that point. So the main change is the size of the house and the increase in the side setbacks. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gudro. Uh, all right. So, just so I'm looking at this correctly,
uh, this these these these picture um, ani there's an existing house to the left, right? That's like this this
This picture doesn't show the lot lines, does it? >> I don't see. Go ahead, Michael. >> If Mr. Chairman, would it be possible for me to share my screen and then I could point out some of the features if
that would be helpful? >> It'd be helpful to me. >> Yeah, I just wanted a point of clarification, too. What are what's I know they need a um a variance, but what are the setbacks for that uh area? Normally, >> the setback requirements
um for the side are 25 ft. >> 2500. >> Mr. Rick, if you want to share your screen, you can just um send me the request and I'll able to accept that. How's that? >> Okay. So, the the first question is this
dock black line here is a property line. Property is 50 ft across the frontage, 91 ft front to back, 50 feet, 91 ft. Those are the dimensions of the excuse me pre-existing non-conforming
lot was created in and around 1933. Um currently you can see the outline of the existing structure here that is on the lot and what we're
proposing as you have already figured out is this 22x 40 foot box here located on the lot. This current proposal would give 14 feet on each side of the building to the property line. Uh as has been asked, the side setback current
side setback requirement is 25 ft. Um so the 50 foot um dimension would not allow for any structure to be built or reconstructed on the property. So, we're looking at a pre-existing non-conforming
lot, a lot that was created prior to the adoption of zoning in Hopkinon. Um, which gives us some uh flexibility under the state zoning act uh to redevelop this property. Um, so that's that's in a
nutshell what the application proposal will be uh back to the zoning board if this board is so inclined to allow us to do that. What could Rick? I'm I'm not following where the existing foundation. Where's the existing house foundation?
>> See this line here? Back here? That's the edge of the foundation. It sits back up in here. >> It's like the faint line in the >> correct. >> It's not straight. >> No, there's a bunch of jogs in it.
>> Okay. Rob, it's Slake Mass properties. We're We do things a little unique here in [laughter] >> All right. >> I would imagine there were a series of additions. There's also a an out
building, I believe, a garage type structure located right in here that will be that will be removed. Actually, both structures would be removed for the construction of the house. >> All right. What uh anyone on the board,
do they have any questions or comments or things they want to say? Uh, >> I did have one question wrong because I'm just trying to square the GIS map versus this plan.
And it says 50 feet and there's a big circle around that 50 foot to property line. 50 foot to property line. And when I look at the GIS map for the, you know, property ownership, there's
four separate parcels that are 100 ft or so in total dimension. So I'm just I don't quite understand the the map versus what I'm seeing on GIS and then how the
the the variant or the setback has to do with what exactly the cumulative of both of those or is I'm just a little confused on that. >> Yes. So if I may, Mr. Chairman.
>> Sure. Go ahead. I'm trying to pull out my assessor's map. So, um, from the GIS map there, there there's the parcel that we had identified and again, I don't have it in front of me, so I'm I'm I I have it in
front of me. I don't have it on the screen, I should say, to to describe it. So, the property actually contains four lots that were roughly 25 ft in width each. Two of them had frontage on Haywood Street and then two of them were
located to the uh north east corner, I believe you would call it, uh the back right corner of the property. There's an additional two lots that have one common point being the corner of the the back right corner of
what we've shown on the site plan and the what would be the back right corner of two lots that were combined 25 ft in width that had frontage on an old dirt road um that I don't have a name of on
that plan but the the plan of record had that I believe is Oldtown Road. Um, which is not >> Yes. On the rear of the property. That's
correct. It's old time. >> Correct. Old Town. I apologize. It's not labeled on my copy of the assessor's map in the file. So the application is only for the two lots out front as the two lots in back are not contiguous
um with the two lots that we're looking for the redevelopment on. Uh if in fact the four lots were combined, we would have the requisite 5,000 square feet, 50 feet of frontage and and have the ability to to petition the board, the zoning board for a permit under that
provision of the zoning um act. However, these lots that we're proposing this project on only have a combined area of 4550 square feet. So, we're about 450 square
ft short of the ability to be allowed to develop that with the with the zoning protection afforded in the chapter 48 section six. So, that's the reason for the variance um request. >> All right. Thank you. Uh Lucy, you had
your hand up, but did you did you still have a question or >> um I didn't really have a question. And I had more of a comment in looking at the decision from the zoning board of appeals versus what the applicant is
bringing forth today. They lay out the five [snorts] um applicable zoning requirements and two of them you can't change unless you buy more property, the lot area and the lot frontage. But um the lot coverage
the applicant is decreasing from 33% to 30%. I believe the setback from the street they're increasing from the original proposal of 26 ft to 27 ft and what's required is 30. So these are all you know not within what's required but
they're improving upon them. And then the sideyard width, as you said is increasing from the proposed 10 ft to now proposed 14 ft. Um, and then in looking at the decision, three of the members voted in favor, two voted against. They needed a fourth in
order for it to pass. I think given that he's uh the applicant is coming back with changes to what can be changed, I think it would potentially make sense for the board of appeals to look it over again.
>> All right. Thanks. Thanks, Lucia. Uh, Matthew, go ahead. Thanks. The applicant may have just answered the question, but I was wondering if it went back to the board of appeals under what criteria would the variance be being sought? It sounds like
from his answer that the criteria would be that's being sought is based on not having enough land here, otherwise they wouldn't be seeking it. Did I misunderstand? >> Um, that is one of the requirement, one of the items that we would be seeking relief from. also the setback
requirements. So that there's a there's a protection under chapter 48 section six for pre-existing non-conforming lots that have 5,000 square ft of area and 50 ft of frontage that have not been held in contiguous ownership with any other
lots since the enactment of zoning. So we had looked at that. The the one shortfall we have from that is this lot does not have 5,000 square feet has 4550. So, we don't have the ability to seek
relief under that section. However, we're trying to redevelop this property and, you know, do so. Obviously, we're not going to be able to meet the side setbacks. 25 ft on each side would render zero area left or zero distance
to the to redevelop this property. So the the basis of the variance request would be for lot area frontage obviously because neither of those meet the current zoning requirements and then the front and side setbacks will also not
meet the current zoning requirements. So um we've shifted the house such that it would be 20 ft from the rear setback line where 20t is required. Um and that's how we were able to to gain the additional foot towards the front for
the 27 ft um that we're proposing now as opposed to the 26. So side setbacks, frontage area um and side setbacks, front set back, frontage and area I believe are the the
reasons for the v will be the reasons for a variance request. But again the side setbacks seem to be an issue with the zoning board. um [clears throat] during the hearing process and we've increased those up to 14 feet from the
previous application which was 10 feet. >> To the chair, >> go ahead. >> Um just commenting on some of the points that have already been made about land availability um and the or the lot size in the house. I mean it seems to me that
the house this is what I'm understanding is that the house is just too big for the lot. So, wouldn't it just make sense to build a smaller house? >> I'm not I think uh well, the re from my point of view, the reality is
like without a the zoning requirements in this for this parcel is a side setback of 25 ft. And if the lot is only 50 feet wide, that basically means they can't like they
couldn't build a house without uh a variance. Like there's no there's no making it smaller to >> Okay. >> Uh unless I'm mistaken. Uh Aneri, I think you were the first. Aner, do you have a comment?
>> I do not have a comment, but I just want to add on Lucia's point. I don't know board member get a chance to review the decision from board of appeals. Applicant did not just file for variance they filed for special permit and variance and one of the variance
criteria was um because the original house got fired and destroyed back in 2023 and as per our current zone Hopkin zoning bylaw applicant filed for applications within 12 months and they passed the 12-month period. So that is
one of the reason they needed a variance and go through special permit and variance from board of appeal. And um I mentioned in the memo that building commissioner is not in a favor of allowing this application to go back
before they complete the time frame. That's the point I just wanted to let board members know. >> So the Hopkin building commissioner uh is is of the opinion this should they
should have to wait uh the two-year uh time frame. >> So his just comment is he's in support of denial for this >> new >> Parker. Go ahead. >> Well, now I want clarity on the last
point. So why would they want them to wait longer? I don't quite understand the logic behind that. just because it says in a law or it says in a bylaw that we have they have to wait two years. >> I don't think it's I don't think he specifies he he's in favor of denying
the the planning board denying this request. He didn't say just to wait. He basically doesn't think the planning board should support this. >> Okay. What's happening to the other three parcels that the that are there? Because again when I now I've since
looked at the GIS map again with the ones that was cast through a couple other comments and there's three other parcels you know what's happening with those I suppose is my question and why wouldn't there be like an you have the answer to that in
>> no I just sorry I just want to add uh for this specific case this for this project it's going to be in relevant as per planning board jur Predictions board can uh review the applicant's documents
what they provided and decide the specification and re revision and all the material chains are sufficient for them to go back to zoning board of appeal. um the board cannot talk about the their
parcel as per >> I mean we cannot go in the depth that's not planning board jurisdiction that's come under zoning board of appeal mean board of appeal basically so >> as a a planning board roles come going
to come and review what applicant provided what they submitted to ZBA and what they submitted what they revised and if planning Bo think that it's sufficient for them to go back to board of appeal then board member can board
and after planning board 20 appeal per year ends decision is ready and then they go then they can file again to board of appeals and start the whole process with them so
just want to add that >> Michael did you have a comment >> yeah I just wasn't want Wanted to point out that the footprint of the house right now is like 8 or 900 square ft. So it's not, you know, like one of those 5 6,000 foot houses that we normally see.
You know, this is a modest property it looks like. So I don't think it's the case somebody's trying to squeeze, you know, the maximum amount of house for the maximum amount of profit on, you know, a tiny lot. So, >> uh, through the chair,
>> uh, go go ahead. Uh, state your name and address. Mr. Edwards. >> Hi. Uh, this is, uh, Peter Edwards, uh, 21 Cunningham Street. I'm also from Hayden Properties. I'm the listing broker for this property. Um, just to give you a little backstory, I represent
the family of the, uh, estate who's selling the property. >> [clears throat] >> Um unfortunately they did miss that 12-month um time period where there would have been a little bit more leeway for rebuild after the fire and unfortunate passing uh of the parents.
And this particular builder when we put it on the market we decided to go with specifically just because he has experience building um down in the lakefront community. Um he's built other properties on Downey Street very tastefully and we think the plan he's
put forward fits into the neighborhood very well. he's been, you know, I think if you look and read the meeting minutes, you can see the board was actually very uh very much in favor of his plan. And then at the last minute, um some people [snorts] um just push
back a little bit on some of the side setbacks, which you know really aren't that big of a deal when you look at some of the variances that have been given down in the lake community in that area. So, um I think the plan that he's putting forward would enhance um the
neighborhood um certainly than what's there right now with unfortunately a a burnt out house. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Edwards. >> All right. Um I I like things when they're clean.
uh meaning it'd be great if they uh if this had all happened within the 12-month window. It'd be great if there was uh no need for variances and no need to get uh or at least to get the planning board's approval. Um, and none of it is
clean from my perspective, which kind of is what it is, but um, it seems like they could have got some relief if they were able to file the necessary paperwork to rebuild after a fire within 12 months. They could have got some relief
if the lot was uh, 450t square feet bigger. So, not tremendously bigger, but in that space, like it's about 10% bigger. Um, so it's really up to the board. Uh, I
can, uh, put down, if there's no more conversation, why don't I put a motion in and we'll see how people vote. >> So, the chair, >> go ahead, Amna. >> Just sorry, one more question. Thank you for all the clarification. It really does help. Um, but what so what are the
options? If we say yes, it goes back to the zoning board of appeals. And if we say no, then what what happens? It stays the way it is. >> It stays the way it is. And and their their their course of action is to basically just wait
uh until they can go back to before the board of appeals uh after the a time period elapses. like there's this there's fundamentally um if you go before like the zone of board of appeals and look for
relief a variance and you don't get it they don't let you just go back a month later and a month later and a month you have to you have to if you get denied you have to wait two years before you can go back to the board of appeals unless you you get this this is the first time this has ever happened since
I've been on the planning board and that's like I six seven years I've been here uh that an applicant has come looking for this type of relief where they can go back to the planning to the zoning board of appeals in a shorter window of time.
So that's that's their options. If we give relief, they can go back before the zoning board of appeals. The zoning board of appeals could approve it. They could deny it. They can they they follow their process. If we don't, they're they're invariably what they would do is is most
likely wait to maximize the value of that land and try to get uh the variance uh at at a future date. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Matthew. Go ahead. Thanks. Just there are other options as well. One of the things that came up in the uh board of
appeals is that the town borders the land next to them and there was a suggestion that perhaps they could uh negotiate with the town to increase the size of their lot by acquiring one of the neighboring plots. >> Mhm. >> Yeah, that's that's always a
possibility. Uh Parker, go ahead. Yeah, I think the uh at this point, you know, this is a situation in my mind where doing a landslap or putting this family through, you know, additional steps like
that somebody's parents died in the house, you know, and I don't mean to be like overly visic, but this has been, you know, two years and I can't blame them that they didn't get paperwork done in 12 months to want to rectify this for whatever the, you know, gash that it was
in their heart that they were going through. And, you know, I think it's an acceptable plan that the that what they put forth and I feel like this would give not only just a closure for, you know, this family potentially, but also
what like Hayward Street and I think we should be in support of it. >> All right. Thanks, Parker. Aneri, do I uh do I need to re read the proposed findings here?
>> Uh I would request you to read so uh we have on the record. >> Okay. Uh this is for everybody that has our agenda. This is section 3.6 of proposed findings and this is going to lead into
ultimately the vote. Uh, the planning board has reviewed the revised plot plan dated December 4th, 2025 in comparison with the plot plan previously submitted to the zoning board of appeals dated April 1, 2025 in connection with request for consent to submit a renewed or repetitive petition pursuant to Mass
Journal Law uh, chapter 40 A section 16 and 210-147 of the Hopkins zoning bylaw. Based on this comparison, the planning board finds that the relevant materials reflect changes to the site layout and building design and that determination
of whether such changes constitute specific material changes sufficient to warrant refiling is within the discretion of the planning board. Okay. So, I'm going to first read a motion for the uh entertain
a motion for the findings. I'd like to enter in a motion that the board accept and approve the findings as previously read aloud for the request for consent to submit a renewed or repetitive petition to pursuant ma mass general law chapter 40 section 16- and and 210-41
147 of the Hopton zoning bylaw >> moved >> second >> all right roll call vote Lucia Lopez >> yes >> Matthew Rona Yes. >> Michael King. >> Yes.
>> Parker H. >> Yes. >> Amna Dwan. >> Yes. >> Peter Mimo. >> Yes. >> Vicas Pratti. >> Yes. >> And Rob Benson is a yes. All right. >> Thank you.
>> All right. >> Have a good evening. >> Thank you. >> Good luck. >> Uh order. We just approved the findings. We didn't vote on approval. >> No. Yeah. Yeah. We're not We're not done. That's right.
>> Hold on. Hold on. Uh so 3.8.2 is the approval or denial of the actual application itself. So this is the much more uh I would say important part. I'd like to entertain a motion that the
board grant uh consent pursuant to mass journal law chapter 40A uh section 16 and 210-147 of the Hopkins zoning bylaw firer custom nest build custom Nest Builders Incorporated to submit a renewed or repetitive petition
to the zoning board of appeals for the property located at 69 Hayward Street. >> So move I'll second that. >> All right, roll call vote. And so this is the vote that uh is important and this needs to be 80 for it to pass.
>> Lucil Lopez, >> yes. >> Matthew Rona, >> no. >> Michael King, >> no. >> Michael >> Parker Hap. >> Yes.
Uh Amna Dwan, >> no. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Vicas Pratti, >> yes. >> And Rob Benson is yes. >> Unfort unfort
Yeah, it was a yes. I think I froze during that. Sorry. >> That's okay. Unfortunately, that uh this does not uh does not pass. Well, thank you. Thank you for your time. >> All right. Good luck.
All right. Moving on. >> You're the chair. >> Go ahead. Uh Parker >> would like to respectfully ask if uh we can within our meeting do a motion to
reconsider That's never happened. I I What's the uh I don't know what the uh >> It's a motion that is the majority of >> Go ahead, Parker. >> If the majority of members support
reconsideration of the last motion and vote to reopen that we can reconsider and reopen debate. I'd like to entertain a motion to reconsider. >> Second. >> I think Can you move the motion and see
if there's a second? I I I guess it's the chair. Do I do I don't make the motion, do I? >> I just did, but if you you can second. >> No, he the chair point of chair can't make or second a motion. >> Oh, fair. Didn't know that.
>> I'll second it. or somebody else will. >> So, who moved and who second? Because I'm here. >> Parker moved in Peter second, I believe. >> Discussion. Does anybody uh feel
we should uh reconsider? >> Hey, we spoke. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. I would I where I'm where I'm at and where I'm a little bit sort of I'm I'm trying to understand what precisely is what are we gaining as a community by denying this um other than I suppose
elevating form over substance. I'm trying to understand precisely the the the policy or the sort of the the merits behind denying this uh particular >> Wait, are we discussing the motion to reconsider? Are we discussing the previous motion? >> I thought we were discussing the
previous motion. My bad. We haven't voted on the motion on the floor. >> Yeah, we're discussing the motion itself. >> Whether >> we got a first and second, we got a discussion if the mo if this is a worth like people's opinion on the motion and
then we can vote on whether we open it for redis for um open uh for discussion I guess whether we're going to actually reconsider. >> Okay. Is there any dis Go ahead, Matthew.
>> I'm fine with reopening discussion if we're if people want to redis it. >> Anyone else have any comments? >> I'm going to see you discuss this further. >> I would certainly appreciate a chance for us to discuss this.
All right, let's let me make a motion to how what is even the motion? A motion >> motion was to reconsider. There's there's already a motion. There's a second. >> We were discuss debating the >> All right. So, vote. >> Uh Lucia Lopez, >> yes.
>> Matthew Rona, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Parker Hap, >> yes. >> Amna Dwan, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Vic Pratzi, >> yes. and Rob Benson is a yes.
Um, now we can discuss the uh what's at what's at hand. Uh, >> through the chair, >> before you guys before you guys start a little discussion, can I just add a couple more things here? >> Sure. >> Um, just to give you a little bit of
context back about the plan that he's proposed. I mean, we're talking uh Rick, correct me if I'm wrong, but the house plan we're talking about is like 1,800 square ft, probably even smaller. So, we're not building a mansion down by the
lake here. We're replacing a house that burned down with a small house to improve the neighborhood. And we're pushing back on two, three feet here or there, um, which is just absolutely asinine. So, I would really really ask
the board to reconsider to help this family move along because if you deny this this um it's basically going to really put them in a bad spot for a long period of time. >> Thank you.
>> Thanks, Mr. Edwards. >> Uh go ahead, Matthew. So my concern is mostly with the the process here and looking at the same guidelines that the board of appeals had to work with in uh July or whenever they they voted on this
where there's explicit context under which they're allowed to consider the variance and one of the things that was raised again was the size of the the property here which isn't eligible for that. I I'm So what I'm struggling to see is if we send it back to the board
of appeals, are they going to see this as materially different, which is what we're being asked to vote upon here, uh, and does it would it significantly change their opinion based on the previous debate and discussion that they had? >> Thank you, Matthew. Lucia, go ahead.
I think in response to what Matt's saying, the lakefront district as well as the downtown business district has there are a lot of homes that anytime you want to do anything to it have to go before the zoning board of appeals because they do not meet the
requirements that the town has now in terms of the lot size. So, if a lot of those homes had been built under the current requirements, um they wouldn't have been built because they wouldn't meet those requirements. And I think the difference in this case
is that there was a pre-existing home that burned down. Um they did not meet the 12 month window, but they are coming back changing what they can given that if you look at GIS and you look at that
that district, there are a lot of lots that are that small or smaller that have houses on them. Um and so I think that's something that the board of appeals is used to looking at. Uh, and maybe it's the fact that three voted in favor and two voted against makes me think that
maybe the house that they wanted to build was just a little bit too big. You know, that maybe the the setbacks that they had then, the lot coverage was a little bit too big and coming back with something that's smaller might change one or two um people's minds who voted
against it. I don't know that they will. Um, but I think that they changed what they could be, you know, purchasing more land. >> Matthew, go ahead. >> Does the board of appeals not have an option to continue their hearings that
this could have come back with an alternative layout? Like I >> I believe they do. I be I we yes as far to my knowledge they do
>> they do have the ability to continue a hearing ask for changes >> so if there's a small change like this I just don't understand why this wouldn't have been handled through the previous hearing rather than refiling later asking to reopen
I I don't know that answer. Mr. uh Gudro, do you do you know like was uh why >> um the the board of appeals chose to close the public hearing that was carried forward and then they went into
a vote and we were somewhat surprised at the results of the vote. was not asked of us, you know, directly to make significant changes or any changes being outlined uh to us. Yes. >> They just considered they considered the proposal. They allowed for discussion.
They allowed for input and then they closed the public hearing and then they considered the so they didn't ask to like what if you made it slightly smaller. They just they reviewed the propos the house >> plan
>> as is >> at plan as is. Yep. >> Um Matthew go ahead. >> So if I remember the original rep uh suggestion is a 20% increase in size. What's the current size of the new proposal versus the original one
or what's the recommend what's the suggested new size? I think the old one was 933 or something. >> New I'm I'm not following. New size of what? >> The proposed the proposed size of the new house was the old one I think was 933.
>> The forefront of the lot. Is that what you're asking? >> No, the square footage of the of the building. >> Yeah. >> I don't have the revised building plans unfortunately. But the the footprint is 22 by 40. So that's 880
>> square feet >> square feet. >> How what was the foundation of the Do you know the rough the approximate square footage of the foundation that was there? >> Look and see if I have the field card
and if that would have it. >> Bear with me for just a minute. According to Zillow, it said 565 square feet, but I don't know how accurate that is. >> Thank you, >> the chair.
>> Lucia, go ahead. I wonder I mean I I'm not sure why Matt is asking that question specifically, but I wonder if what would be um more relevant to look at would be the lot coverage because in
the letter in the decision it says the maximum allowed in that district is 25% and their previous proposal had a lot coverage of 33% and I think the current proposal is down to 30%.
So, I don't know if that addresses why Matt is asking for square footage. That >> Well, that's why I was asking the square foot. I kne I knew the building that was there was um it was single family. I mean, a single
level. So, if this is going to be 40x 22, uh what is that? 880 ft foundation versus what was a 565 ft square foot foundation. Did I do that math right? 40 by 22.
All right. Um, anyone want to make any other points? say Elise joined the meeting just a heads up it looks like and I think that yeah if we can at the end of [clears throat] the day find a
resolution for these folks like I said before this is you know bigger than pro process or procedure or you know law coverage it's this is a family that has significant loss and this helps them move on you know and I don't think that
the plan we're seeing here demonstrabably changes the charm term nor the, you know, overall oddity that is sometimes like mascot zoning. We had to go to town meeting a couple years ago and there was a little old lady that
wanted to sell her house at the town had to, you know, work to give her a lot and it's just the nature of this area of town and how it's organically evolved. There's kind of weird stuff that happens, you know, over here. >> It's also very common in Hawkington. My
neighbor's house was built for zoning, so they're literally like right on our property line. It's very common in this town to have lots like this. Matthew, one second, Matthew. Uh Aneri, um this is unchartered ter like I don't
with Elise joining as we're kind of reconsidering this and we're going to eventually move to a vote again. Is Elise would should Ely be allowed to vote or >> at she joined the meeting at 8:47 p.m.
At the moment she cannot vote unless until board wants to explain everything from beginning to her and she is aware of the whole case what board discussed tonight specifically to this case and we did motion and approval once and then we
reopened the hearing I mean motion to discuss again we need to do whole thing so for the specific she can not join because she was not here during the discussion. the previous discussion or
during the finding voting or the previous approval denial voting >> unless until board wants to explain everything to her and do voting again. >> Lucia, go ahead.
>> Um, if I understand Aner's notes correctly, we would need eight yes votes regardless, right? So, if nine members voted, does it still need to be unanimous? Would we still need all nine to vote yes or we need eight to vote yes?
>> Eight to vote yes. >> Okay. So, I think if my suggestion would be that perhaps we could continue this to the next meeting and that would potentially allow for um Elise to then
weigh in. The only thing I'm not sure since we already once did um motion to findings and once motion to denial. So it's up to
chair to decide because we reopened the discussion. So if everybody wants >> we haven't continue >> from my point of view. We haven't closed the hearing >> hearing. I don't know.
>> Um like once we reopen for consideration, we have to vote one way or another. We can't just >> Yeah. >> Like so I look at the way I'm considering it and um I don't know all like every detail of
the the rules of like uh what is it called? the the process. >> Yeah, I don't know every rule of that, but as far as I'm concerned, it's we're going to have to vote again. It's open like that vote we took previously.
Very telling, but it uh it's not doesn't now it's kind of null and void because we're going to be voting again. Um Aneri, go ahead. Again I will just point out one thing as I said earlier that
planning board only have limited um view on this matter and only allow the justification what on applicant submitted. We cannot go in the depth of zoning requirements and all the setbacks
and everything that's going to come under board of appeal and they needs to review that during that hearing. So the planning board just to determine that what the new updated plot plan which applicant submitted if board considering
that it's sufficient for them to go back to zoning board of appeal then board board in approval if board thinks that no then board deny it's as a planning board authoriz I mean authority on this
matter is limited just wanted Yeah. Okay. Why don't why don't I give uh an up like basically in words where we are uh for Lisa's benefit. I think to get the full
context, I think Lucia, she she to your point, I think she would need to watch the video uh or at least uh hear the the conversation cuz it's not realistic to say exactly what everyone said verbatim
back again. But uh Alise, are you can you hear me? Okay. >> Yep, I can hear you. And I was fully planning on watching the video. >> All right. So, this is for your benefit. So, we we've had a situation we I haven't come across since I've been on the board there. Uh item three in our
agenda uh was a repetitive petition. So, the the applicant put forward uh a plan a h a house plan on a a lot in uh near Lake Basin. The zoning board and this
was in June of 2025. The zoning board of appeals uh basically allowed for public comment to uh for the applicant to say what they wanted to do. Then they closed public comment and then they had a discussion
and basically denied um the application because uh it was a 3 to2 vote. Three people said yes, two people said no on the board of appeals and you need a 4 to one vote. And the general discussion was
they didn't like the the uh the setback distances on the side yards and um I don't know much more details than that. So anyways, we had the situation with the homeowner. There's a few things that are unique.
They could have got relief and not have to go through this process. There was a fire that burnt down the house on this property, but they didn't go through the whatever paperwork or whatever they needed to do to rebuild within 12 months. So, this is has forced them to
um [snorts] to require variances through the zoning board of appeal. And secondarily, the lot itself is 4,550 ft. So, if it was if the lot was 5,000 ft, they'd also have relief to not do
this process. But both of those don't allow it. So, they have to they had to go to the zoning board of appeals. Their house they proposed was kind of an L-shaped house. the zoning board of appeals didn't like it from the setbacks in the sideyard. So now they've come
before us to look for um basically uh repetitive relief, meaning they want the planning board to say, "Hey, we we can go back to the zoning board of appeals to look for a variance to allow us to build a home
uh in less than two years time." So there's a a rule that the zoning board of appeals can't allow or doesn't allow people to keep coming back time and every week a new proposal of the same property. They they have to wait two years if they get denied. So the if the
planning board can grant them this relief that they can go back to the zoning board of appeals in less than two years time frame and that's what this discussion was. We had this discussion we got to a vote and the vote was 7 to2. Seven said yes, two said no uh to to
allow this relief. Uh and then after that, we needed all eight people. So it needs to be at least eight votes in favor of Yes. So after that, Parker asked for uh reconsideration.
Uh another thing that I've never had occur on the planning board. So reconsideration. So we open it for reconsideration which in my opinion wipes out that previous vote and now we've had discussion and and somewhere in that process you joined um the call
and I think we need to continue [clears throat] this to our next meeting allow you to watch the video and if all nine members joined we would need eight votes yes in our next meeting to move forward or if we get more than if we get
two or more to say no or eight. If we don't get eight people to say yes, then it's it's going to the applicant was going to have to find another path forward. Does anyone on the board have any strong objections to that plan that we we follow this, we continue to next
meeting? Uh we allow at least to watch the video and then we vote. >> All right. >> So, do we have a motion on the floor though? Is that the problem? >> No, I don't think so. We We had a motion to to reconsider and that got voted yes. We've never We haven't Nobody's made a
motion to like vote again yet. >> I was trying to recall if that's an active motion then. I think that's what you had said earlier. >> It's it's not because we re we're still reconsidering it and I was doing some research, Rob. There's this principle called sign D as part of uh Robert's
rules of order. It's Latin which basically means as long as a multi as long as a multi-me session does not expire or is not adjourned and because we saw the public hearing has not been adjourned then your law is sound according to Robert's rules or order. So
I think what you said is great and we'll take this up the next meeting. >> Just to be specific we don't follow Roberts though. where >> will of the board. Uh Aneri, go ahead.
>> So, I just check um on last general law to make sure since the board uh voted to reopen the discussion, the original W may no longer be final. And u how to
and the mo like after we reopen it does not automatically grant voting rights for the new vote also. So for Alysia she cannot vote tonight but if board continue the hearing and she
watch tonight's hearing and then she can take participate in the next hearing for this matter. Thanks, Ner. So, I I I think we're all in good standing that this is this is
all appropriate. Um I I think it's the will, like Matthew said, I think it's the will of the board. If somebody really feels strongly it's not the appropriate process, we can we can uh do something else. Motion to continue
the public hearing. >> Does the applicant >> I'm through the board. Does the applicant concur? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Thanks, Rick. All right. So,
Parker, can I re revise your uh motion? >> Yes, I accept a friendly amendment. I'd like to entertain a motion to continue the public hearing for repetitive relief for 69 Hayward Street to February 9th, 2026. >> Second.
>> All right. Roll call vote. Alise Mayoski. >> Yes. And thank you. >> Lucia Lopez, >> yes. >> Matthew Rona, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Parker Hap, >> yes. Amnadwan,
>> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Vicas Prati, >> yes. >> And Rob Benson is yes. All right. Thank you. Uh um and we will uh take this topic up again next week. At this time, this is
the the last uh that's the last thing on our agenda for this evening. So, I'd like to entertain a motion to adjourn for this evening. and I'll see everybody on February 9th. >> Second. [clears throat] >> I'll move. >> Sorry. >> Second.
>> All right. Michael with a motion. And I'm going to give Matthew the second. Uh, roll call vote. Elise Molowski. >> Yes. >> Lucia Lopez. >> Yes. >> Matthew Rona, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Parker Hap, >> yes. >> Amna Dwan,
>> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Vicasi, >> yes. And Rob Benson says, "Yes." All right. Thanks everybody. Uh difficult conversation or uh [laughter] but uh I think I think uh giving it some
extra thought is is uh is good. All right, I'll see everybody in two weeks. Bye. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Bye. Bye.