##VIDEO ID:B8D8RFZdkuU## if there's any planning board members on the call please raise your hand so you jump to the top of my list and I can add you to the panel rela there's the chair go live on hcam TV thanks Bob getting plany board members on the panel now any other planning board members out there please raise your hand so I can add you to the panel Jane I've added you a couple times and you've declined being added to the panel me try it again oh never mind Jane's gone hi everybody we're going to get started here minute all right hey everybody I'm going to uh start by reading the remote meeting script and uh jumping into our agenda 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 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 intent to speak this meeting will be recorded please take care to mute your microphone unless you have been recognized by the chair we will now confirm attendance of members please respond with present if you're on the call Alise MOSI present great Lucia Lopez present Matthew Rona present great Michael King present Parker hap present Jane Moran all right Jane's not here yet if anybody sees or join let me know uh Wills present vicaso pry present and uh Rob Benson I'm here uh staff John gich present Lorie St John present and I see Jane I see you just joined welcome all right let's uh jump into our administrative items Wilson Street road damage discussion through the chair I have not heard from um Peter beus about this I reached out to him last week and have not got a response back so I believe we can just skip over this one for now okay let's uh at some point we're going to need to decide what to do if if there's just no um response but I think for now we'll just skip it approval not required 25 East Main Street James D is said danah John do you know if that uh the applicant is on yes so it would be helpful uh to anybody who is going to be speaking to raise your hand so I can identify you and add you to the panel so whoever is representing the applicant on this one it would be helpful thanks Joe hello all hi Joe how are you how will you good so um Jim and D Dan um have a an 8 acre piece on East Main Street um they would like to um carve out a lot for their youngest son Alex to build a home on so um what uh we have done is prepared a plan that um creates uh two lots one for their existing home at 25 and then the new lot lot two down along the easterly boundary line that would uh be separated from 25 and become uh their sons lot lot two uh we have multiple Zone districts that fall across the fil ra and RB um by the local by lot we have met the most restrictive which is the RB so the lot is set up to be in excess of 150 ft of Frontage 45,000 square feet in size so we have 273 we leave Jim Andale over 300 close to 305 ft so their lot stays conforming um their lot is about 7 Acres in size so well over the the minimum needed for that zone District okay thanks uh anyone on the board is there any questions John do you have any additional commentary to add nope it looks like they as Joe said they're just separating a larger lot two conforming Lots so uh it looks like it warrants endorsement all right at this point I'd like to entertain a motion to endorse uh let me let me get the actual uh motion here hold on I'd like to chain a motion that the planning board endorsed the anr plan for 25 East Main Street entitled plan of land in Hopkin and mass prepared for James dated October 23rd 2024 so moved thanks Jane thanks Matthew all right roll call vote uh Alise mayosi yes Lucia Lopez yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Parker hap yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vicaso prati yes and Rob Benson is a yes all right thanks Joe let's move to chair go ahead uh just so the applicant knows um I will get this signed tomorrow and you should be able to pick it up um and then as a note to the planning board we still have the form K that needs to be signed um the form e was signed for something else and the form K was behind it and so we only have one signature on the form K so I would ask the planning board to come in tomorrow and sign that as well while I have the opportunity thanks thanks John all right uh next on on our agenda is the meeting minutes from the September 23rd meeting and the October 7th meeting does anyone have any comments questions edits for either set of meeting minutes Matthew go ahead was October 7th in there I only saw September 23rd trying to find the folder again same to the chair go ahead Lori the meeting minutes are still being worked on so you won't see them right now thank you okay so the only ones we have are September 23rd are there any questions or edits or anything people anyone like to comment on it look good awesome I'd like to entain a motion to approve the meeting minutes from September 23rd 2024 meeting so moved thanks Matthew thanks Michael uh roll call vote Elise meowski yes Lucia Lopez yes Matthew Ranka yes Michael King Michael we can't hear you if you're talking yes all right uh Parker yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vicaso prti yes and Robenson is a yes all right where can uh on to agenda of item number two 37 East Street uh New England lambers TR New England Laborers Training Center so we should be able to get through this and close this out tonight um there I guess is been agreement agreement between our peerreview consultant and the applicant so it' be great to hear from the applicant of uh where things stand on their end hi um this is Hillary Holmes with Langan representing the laborers um you and I believe John rine from RGB may also be on I don't know if he was promoted yet um but I can just begin um I think we are last before you back in August um and since then we also had a site visit in September with a couple members of the planning board um we received um peer- review comments from uh PA Corporation um we had provided responses to those comments to John um so John I don't know if you wanted to speak to that at all um John the planning yeah hi uh for my video on um we got the response back from par today I sent that along to the applicant it seems like all the comments have been addressed uh and there's nothing left uh remaining as part of the review so I think the board at this point is um able to move forward with that process and and figure out if there's any other issues that the board has all right thanks John uh Bob from par would you like to make any comments before we uh we're gonna work through our agenda here no I don't I don't think so I think everything was uh address to our satisfaction um yeah all right let's let's work through our agenda and see if we can uh so we should be able to close this out so so uh do I need to read the decision criteria John you don't need to read the decision criteria it's just something that the board is going to use to make that decision but we do need to read the findings and the conditions all right before I read go through the findings and conditions is there anyone on the board that has any questions all right so I'm going to go through Section 2.9 the findings uh for major project site plan 2.9.1 the proposed major project site plan conforms to the site plan standards as described in section 210- 136 D1 of the zoning bylaws number two pursuing to section 21014 the development triggers site plan review for the alteration of a parking here as such the development is required to provide at least 10% of the total spaces to parking spaces as EV installed parking spaces or 20% of the total spaces for parking spaces as EV ready parking spaces the applicant has stated that they will provide 10 evse installed parking spaces Elsewhere on the property to comply with this requirement the location layout and orientation of the evse installed spaces in the area of work subject to this amendment will not not allow for the efficient provision of EVS installed parking spaces therefore the board finds that they have requirements of section 210- 11241 shall be waved in order to allow the applicant to locate the required evse installed spaces and more suitable locations within the subject site and not necessarily within the area of work which which is the subject of this amendment and I I think I I'm going to go uh to the conditions for the major project site plan and and do the stormm Water Management permit separately if unless anyone has any uh disagreement consistent with the previous decisions uh so we're on 2.10.1 consistent with the previous decisions the director of Municipal inspections inspects projects under construction 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 useful inspections determines at any time before or during construction that a registered professional engineer or S other such outside professionals required to assist with the inspections of the storm water management system or any other component of the site plan the applicant should be responsible for the cost of those inspections all construction activities shall adhere to applicable law state and federal laws and regulations regarding noise vibration dust sedimentation and the use of interference with or blocking of town roads the applicant should 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 the applicant shall regularly remove construction trash and debris from the site in accordance with the good construction practice and the construction of management and the construction management plan no tree stumps demolition material trash or debris should be burned or buried on the site all existing lighting within the development project whether shown on the approved site plan or required by the massachus State Building Code shall be shielded directed downward and not upward or outward and shall not spill onto adjacent property all fixed mechanical equipment on the site shall be screened from view from the ground such screening shall be sufficient in the opinion of the director of Municipal inspections if construction has not commenced within three years of the date of filing of the site plan decision with the town clerk approval should be automatically rescinded unless such time is extended by the board for the purposes of this condition the term commenced shall mean the commencement of site work construction may occur only between the hours of 7: a.m. and 7 P p.m. Monday through Friday and Saturdays between 8:00 a and 4 P p.m. pursuing to chapter 141 article one of the town of hopon General bylaws the applicant shall submit final as built plans as the planning board prior to the issuance of a CER of a certificate of occupancy on number 10 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 will be kept current through correspond correspondence to the principal planner until the final certificate of occupancy is issued or construction is otherwise considered complete a completed sign construction management permit 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 in incorporates all the modifications made during the public hearing process and any required in this decision the plan set shall identify the location of the 10 evse installed parking spaces to be located on the site a completed signed long-term operation and maintenance plan shall be submitted to the planning board prior to the commencement of construction this can be combined with the construction management plan if preferred by the applicant the long-term operation and maintenance plan and construction management plan may be modified versions of previously submitted plans incorporating the modifications approved as part of this amendment number 13 assigned elicit discharge statement should be provided to the planning prior to construction erosion and sedimentation control measures should be implemented during the construction period in accordance with 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 the planning board shall receive a sign off confirming that site contractor and any major subcontractors have received the construction management plan prior to commencement of any site work can I John should how sh I'm trying to technically navigate how I should go about uh if I should um Now read the decision Criterion findings for the storm water management permit or um or or vote on the findings of the site plan it's up to you how you want to go about it I mean you could do one permit by itself read the findings have a vote on that have the the read read the conditions have a vote on that because the conditions would be the approval and then you could do the other permit or you can just read all of it and then take votes on either one of them I mean you need to vote them separately you need to vote the site plan um like on its own and then the storm water management permit on its own all right I think those votes can happen independently but just for my reading purposes I think I'll just GNA chug through reading the storm water management the findings for the storm water management and the conditions uh so we're on to we're so now I'm going to read the findings for the storm water management permit 2.9.2 the proposed work will comply with the Hopkin storm water regulations now I'm going to read the proposed conditions for uh the storm water management permit so we're on 2.10.2 all sediment controls should comply with the following performance criteria minimize total area of disturbance and protect natural features in soil sequence activities to minimize simultaneous areas of disturbance mass clearings and Grading of the entire site should be avoided minimize Peak rate of runoff in accordance with the Massachusetts storm water standards minimize soil erosion and control sedimentation during construction provided that prevention of erosion is preferred over sedimentation control divert uncontaminated water around Disturbed areas maximize groundwater recharge install and maintain all erosion sediment control measures in accordance with the manufacturer specifications and good engineering practices prevent off-site transport of sediment protect and manage on and offsite material storage areas overb bur and stock piles of dirt borrow areas or o other areas used solely by the permitted projects are considered a part of the project comply with the applicable federal state and local laws and regulations incling including waste disposal San sanitary sewer or septic systems regulations and air quality requirements including dust control prevent significant alteration of habitats mapped by the massachusett natural heritage and endangered species program as endangered threatened of special concern estimated habitats of rear wildlife and certified veral pools and priority habitats of rare species from the proposed activities Institute interim and permanent stabilization measures which shall be instituted on a disturbed area as soon as practicable but no more than 14 days after construction activity has temporarily or permanently ceased on that portion of the site properly manage on-site construction and waste materials prevent off-site vehicle tracking of sediments dust shall be controlled at the site divert offsite runoff from highly erodable soils and steep slopes to stable areas number two the project should comply with the following erosion and sediment control requirements prior to any land disturbance activities commencing on the site the developer shall physically Mark limits of no land disturbance on the site with tape signs or orange construction fence so that the workers can see the areas to be protected the physical marker shall remain in place until a certificate of completion has been issued appropriate erosion and sediment control measures should be installed prior to soil disturbance measures should be taken to control erosion within the project area sediment and runoff water should be trapped and retained within the project area Wetland areas and surface water shall be protected from sediment sediment shall be removed once the volume reaches 1 qu to 1/ half the height of a hay BT sediment shall be removed from the silt fence prior to reaching the load bearing capacity of the silt fence which may be lower than one qu to one half the height sediment from sediment traps or sedimentation Pond should be removed when design capacity has been reduced by 50% soil stock piles must be stabilized or covered at the end of each workday stockpile side slopes shall not be greater than 2 to one all stock piles should be surrounded by sediment controls Disturbed areas remaining idle for more than 14 days should be stabilized with seating wood chip spark Mt Tarpin or any other approved methods for active construction areas such as borrow or stockpile areas roadway improvements in areas within 50 feet of a building under construction a perimeter sediment control system shall be installed and maintained to contain so soil uh letter h a tracking pad or other approved stabilization method shall be constructed at all entrance exit points of the site to reduce the amount of soil carried on to the roadways and off the site Wilson Street and Cedar Street in the vicinity of the produ should be swept as needed throughout the construction process permanent seating shall be undertaken in the spring from March through May and the late summer and early fall from August to October during the peak summer months and in the fall after October 15th when seating is found to be impractical appropriate temporary stabilization should be applied permanent seating may be undertaken during the summer if plans provide for adequate mulching and watering All Slopes steeper than 3: one as well as perimeter dkes sediment basins or traps and embankments must upon completion be immediately stabilized with saw seed and anchored straw MCH or other approved stabilization measures areas outside of the perimeter sediment control system must not be disturbed temporary sediment trapping devices must not be uh removed until permanent stabilization is established in all contributary drainage areas All Temporary erosion and sediment control measures should be removed after final sight stabilization disturb soil areas resulting from the removal of temporary measur should be permanently stabilized within 30 days of removal uh number three a minimum of 7 days prior to the start of construction a detail construction sequence should be submitted to the principal planner by the site contractor for for reviewal and approval the approved construction sequence shall be followed through the course of the construction and shall be altered only within with prior review by and written approval by uh from the principal planner number four a signed copy of the storm water pollution prevention plan she'll be provided to the board prior to the issuance of a building permit for per 6.0 6. z.k do2 the S swppp must include the assigned notice of intent and approval letter all required storm water pollution prevention plan storm water construction site inspection reports shall be submitted to the principal planner within 14 days of each inspection an adequate stockpile of erosion control M materials shall be on site at all times for emergency or routine replacement and shall include materials to repair or replace Sil fences hay bals Stone filters BMS or any other devices planned for use during construction soil testing and excavation of the site storm water basins must be observed by the board's engineer prior to land LOM and Seed if applicable the applicant developer shall notify the principal planner at least 48 hours weekends and holidays excluded prior to the soil testing and or excavation to allow for adequate time to coordinate these observations all stormw water basins must be clean once the site is stabilized all storm water basin should be cleaned prior to the issuance of issuance of a certificate of O occupancy okay so I think I'd like to do um I think it makes sense to do the storm waterer management permit first and vote on the findings so I'd like to entertain a motion that the board accept and approve the findings as previously read allowed for the storm water management permit application soov thanks Parker second thanks Matthew all right roll call vote Elise MOSI yes Luc Lopez yes Matthew Ranka yes Michael King yes Parker ha yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vicaso prti yes and Rob Benson is a yes so now I'd like to entertain a motion um to approve the storm water management permit so I like to entertain a motion that the board approved the storm water management permit do storm water management we we just approved the findings now we're now we want to approve the permanent in totality so like uh I'd like to entain a motion that the board approved the sterm Water Management permanent with the following conditions as they were previously read aloud by the chair so moved thanks Matthew second thanks Parker uh roll call vote Elise mayosi yes Lucia Lopez yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Parker hap yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vicaso pry yes and Rob Benson ises so now I'd like to um now we're going to vote on the findings for the the major project site plan so I'd like to entertain a motion that the board accept and approve the findings as previously read aloud for the amendment to the major project site plan application so thanks Parker second thanks Jane roll call vote Alise meowski point of order debate sure go ahead so I thought we we never came back to the evse question and I noticed that that's now in the findings considering this is the first time that we've had uh we've had an ask to wave this and I don't to see it listed as a waiver um I thought we discussed that we were going to have some discussion about whether that was warranted or not and I don't know if it's covered in the letters that came in today since I haven't had timeon to read them what so I don't think we waved any evsa requirements we we allow the applicant to have them not within the the confines of this the site work so they're still going to be on the property the required uh EV SE parking spaces which is not going to it's not going to be required have in the construction work Zone if that makes sense the findings is red says that the board finds that the requirements of section 210- 124.14 so I'm referring to like page 12 number 11 uh um I think it's so the proposed so proposed findings 2.9.1 um or two 2.9.1 part two pursu into sections 21014 the development trigger site plan review for the alteration of a parking area as such the development is required to provide at least 10% of the total spaces with two parking spaces as EV installed parking spaces or 20 total spaces four parking spaces is EV ready parking the applicant has stated they will provide 10 EV installed parking spaces Elsewhere on the property to comply with this requirement the location layout and orientation of the evsc install spaces in the work area subject to this amendment would not allow for the efficient efficient provision of EV SE installed parking spaces therefore the board finds the requirements of section should be waved in order to allow the applicant to locate the required evsc install spaces in more suitable locations within the subject site and not Neally within the work area of work which is the subject of this amendment so we're waving that uh requirement that it's within the project uh work area but where they're still going to have these spaces on the Labor Training Center property do is there additional do you have other questions so I I I think in this situation having walked the property like I I think the proposal makes sense because they're adding new spaces farther away from the property but we've all one of the concerns that we raised earlier um and why we were going to debate this right is we don't want to allow in other situations somebody to say oh I'm just going to put these 10 spaces way a in like some auxiliary property where it's they're not useful or they're not going to be used and so I want to make sure that we were cognizant of the um precedent that we're setting and the rationale why we were um allowing a waver here um and also that you know clarify whether a waiver was needed just so we don't run into a situation in the future John John do you have any do you have any recommendation on how to handle this uh this concern like so the conditions and findings and pretty much everything in my memo is really just a suggestion the board can modify that however they'd like uh so it's really up to the board to figure out the path forward on this and if you want to have some other condition added that speaks to this directly or not in the findings or done a different way that's up to the board I think maybe the cleanest way is to if we want to spell out something specifically uh we could add uh so we've got 15 conditions we we can add a 16th condition of of why we're allowing it like what what's the rationale so just procedurally that should be a finding not a condition okay um all right let's add a third finding uh anyone have any suggestions of what we should say go ahead Matthew so I think the finding itself uh 2 91.2 is fine if that's what we agree as a board but I don't think we ever had any discussion on this um which is why I was surprised we were just jumping right through it because we said we were going to in a previous meeting okay um I'm happy to discuss it I uh anyone else have any questions I like we're I think this was last before us in August I I I to be honest I didn't remember that off the top of my head that we were G to discuss it um go ahead Lucia I think the concern is um the concern that Matt expressed is probably something to consider that in the future if somebody else says you know we want to put them in this place that doesn't make sense then would this allow them to do that given that we've now allowed somebody to put them elsewhere on site versus where they're adding more parking um I know that for me the fact that they're providing five times the required EV spaces is a definite plus um because they needed to provide two and they're providing 10 so I think I I I don't I think they're meeting the requirement unless I'm confused it's either to provide two EV Park spaces or EV SE is like basically EV ready is that they have the the infrastructure to basically make them EV spaces but it's not to actually make them EV spaces right but they're not providing them where they're adding these parking spes which is what they came before us to um request to amend does anyone else on the board have any uh additional comments I I'm all for like adding some adding a finding to kind of explain why um does anyone have any other thoughts uh go ahead Matthew I was going to let Michael speak first but I just if there was anything from the applicant to speak to why they wanted the waiver um since that wasn't in the previous packet and I haven't read the stuff that came in today yeah I can share we did submit a plan showing um the 10 EV spaces um so they they are not EV ready they are actually um like EV charging stations that are on the campus um I can share my screen and show those locations just so um the board can have a better sense of where those spaces are and look and ref reference to where the um project area for the um for these two like 16 additional parking spaces are I just put in a request to share my screen I don't know if that's gone through yet okay um so this is the figure that we had submitted um with some of our other information um East Street is right along here um so this is the main entrance this is the area in here with where we're proposing the 16 additional parking spaces um so you can see the closest EV the two closest EV charging uh locations are right here by the headquarters building um it's a new building and new parking lot that was constructed um the other ones the other eight are throughout the campus but as um John had mentioned you know the requirement was is basically 10% um of the EV spaces which would be two which these are kind of the the closest ones um to our parking lot I don't know if the board has any other questions regarding kind of the EV layout um part of the reason why we're requesting you know to to account for these two EV charging locations is you know the infrastructure has already um been constructed for these these Chargers are already in um the the provision in the bylaw was not enacted when this overall project was approved so there were no EV requirements is part of that um it was only you know part of the bylaws after this project was approved so that's why it's being applied now to this smaller area go ahead Michael so do we think it would make sense just to State um well the applicant just said when they were you know drawing their plans up originally and building the stuff it wasn't part of the bylaw now that we're approving everything it's part of the bylaw and that's the reason why the board sees it um heading to grant them the wever I think that gives us uh coverage for any precedent that uh just because the original project site plan was approved without the EV charging requirements and this modification has uh an EV parking space requirement that we accommodated for not having them within the project site uh work area I think that gives us coverage for a precedent Matthew go ahead yeah if we're writing that as as a rationale rather than just debating it um I would also want to I think it should also cover that the existing EV locations are more optimal locations for the usage and uh as opposed to just random randomly located so I I do think this exception makes sense we shouldn't be penalizing people for having gone above and beyond in the past and having better locations uh than they'd be putting in now if they had to do it now um I also think that this might be fine just having captured in the the minutes with the existing findings if unless any has either objections through the chair go ahead John I have a proposed condition Matthew please uh add your statement to this or how you'd like it to be worded the board recognizes that the applicant has installed evsc installed parking spaces in excess of the current requirements for Ev parking prior to the adoption of the EV parking bylaw and then Matthew I don't know what you want to add on to that and that the existing uh installations are are more suitable locations than the new than the new location I don't have a better way of phrasing that um maybe that's good enough unless anybody has a better way of uh phrasing that I'm good with what John had I I think for our purposes it it kind of uh eliminates any any opportunity for precedent setting so uh I like it does anyone else have any comments so I I just drafted another sentence that maybe captures um second so then I added the existing EV parking spaces are more appropriately located than in the parking area approved as part of this decision so the whole thing the whole finding would read the board recognized that the applicant has installed EVS installed parking spaces in excess of the current requirement for Ev parking prior to adoption of the EV parking bylaw the existing EV parking spaces are more appropriately located than in the parking area approved in as part of this decision and that's a that's an additional condition no that's a finding that's an additional finding all right I am I am good with that does anyone uh want to is everyone else good uh a move to amend the findings as uh where are we're in the middle of a vote right I think we had uh uh a motion in a second and we went and but then you asked for uh um discussion debate yeah and um I don't remember who made the motion or the second but if they're willing to agree to the findings Amendment we can uh that would be great was it janen Parker I can't remember either yeah sorry trying to come off mute I'm I think I uh moved for second I'm okay with the moving forward with the action I was discussed Lori did you happen to capture who made the motion in the in the second so for the storm water management was Parker and Matthew and then you you kind of went back and forth for both storm waterers so then the major site was Parker and Jane Jane are you okay with the amendment yes I I'm in agreement all right so through the chair can I ask a question sure so am I writing the motion to read move that the board accept and approve the amended findings and conditions as previously read aloud for the stor Water Management permit application because that's the one that you made the changes to that makes sense to me through the chair the motion was just for the findings not for the findings and conditions it's not the just just the findings at this point I take all conditions as previously read allowed yep and then you're going to go back now to do the conditions we're going to first vote on the findings and then we're going to make a motion to approve the storm water management permit conditions only not the findings we already did that we are going to try to do the findings now yeah sorry no that's okay so with the so Parker and Jane agreed to the amendment so I'd like to do a roll call vote on the findings for the storm water management permit uh Alise meowski who the chair for the major project site plan minor minor site plan sorry I site plan major project site plan not storm water management permit Elise meos waiting for me okay yes all right Luc Lopez yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Parker hap yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vicaso pry yes and Robenson is yes all right so now we're gonna move to uh the approval of the over all major site plan so I'd like to so this is 31221 for everybody following along i' like to entertain a motion that the board approved the major project site planed with the following conditions uh as they were uh as they were previously read aloud by the chair who the chair go ahead John nitpicky it's an amendment to the major project site plan I'd like to entertain a motion that the board approved the amendment is it Amendment or is it like a major project site plan with the amendment they have a major project site plan already approved they are amending that major project site plan so it's an amendment to the major project site plan okay I move that the board approved the major project site plan the hold on I move that the board approve the amendment to the major project site plan with the following conditions as they were previously read Allowed by the chair so move second second hold on who who who was first was I think I think Matthew was first yeah I got Matthew for the first and then Vic for the second thank you can can I just go back one more time for this motion move would accept and approve the amendment in the findings with the following conditions as previously read allowed yes for the amendment of the major Pro site plan yes so the and that was Matthew and Vic so this is amendment to the site plan not um not the amendment to the findings that we just did that's just to be clear yeah so we're Lori we're on 3.2.2 do1 so we we're trying so there's already a major projects side plan so we're approve we're voting on The approving of an amendment to the major project site plan with the conditions that I previously read aloud and so that's what Matthew and Vic Matthew made the motion and Vic seconded it right so approve the amendment findings no no no we don't need any word findings in in this okay all right if we're good I'm going to move on to roll call vote Elise mayosi yes thank you Lucia Lopez yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Parker ha yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes uh vicaso prati yes and Rob Benson is yes all right I'd like to entertain a motion to close the John do I need to close this public hearing for 37 East uh Labor Training East East Street Labor Training Center you do um but before you do that I would request that we ask the applicant to extend the decision deadline to November it's currently November 11th but that's a holiday and I am quite busy this week uh so I would like to extend it to the 14th uh yes that would be um Bine with the applicant to extend to November 14th for the decision okay I'd like to entertain a motion to extend the decision deadline to November 14th and close the public hearing for labor Training Center major major project site plan and storm water management permit so moved thanks Matthew second thanks Parker roll call vote Elise mayosi yes Lucia Lopez yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Parker hap yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vicaso pry yes and Robenson is yes all right so we're on to um agenda item four uh MBTA communities so I think if anybody would like to M uh go ahead uh we skip three 4852 Main Street we need to continue oh we can take that later but we just that that is one that's in order let's let's technically do let's continue it now I don't want to uh so we need to continue continue the project site plan to when December December 2nd is the next planning board meeting and do we need to extend the decision deadline I believe we do [Music] to say it's December 16th is what we had it as is that okay if we if it's if it's December 16th or do we need to extend it no I think we need to extend it to December 16th oh okay and the storm water management permit do we need to do anything with that that's the one that that needs to be extended the decision deadline for the storm or for the um site plan is 90 days after the close of the public hearing the storm water management permit has a uh date certain for the um decision deadline and they've agreed to December 16th okay I'd like to continue the public hearing from 48 to 52 Main Street for the major project site plan and storm water management permit to December second and extend the decision deadline for the storm water management permit to December 16th so moved thanks Matthew second thanks Jane uh roll call vote Elise mayosi yes Lucia Lopez yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Parker hap yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vicaso prati yes and Robenson is yes so we're moving on now to agenda and item four uh item four so if anybody in the public would like to speak just raise your hand I'm going to open it up and see if anybody on the planning board uh has any initial comments or questions uh after last week's meeting Parker go ahead yeah I uh comments but I was hoping to hear what the public has to say before we all right yeah let me just uh open up to Karen Karen go ahead yeah thanks Rob um I just wanted to know if anyone else got a little flyer I had a gentleman I don't know if I'm hold it up to my camera it says uh Hopkinson it's it's going be two Hopkinson says yes to new homes and it's an entire flyer on um on this whole MBTA initiative that's apparently being put out by the state so so I was just I was just curious I didn't know if anybody else got anything like that um be happy to I can scan it and send it around to everybody if they'd like to see what it [Music] said thought it was unusual that the state would be well maybe not maybe it's not unusual that the the state is putting out sort of information trying to you know pushing for all of this stuff and um so I was just curious if anyone else got one nope uh no I did not okay I'll I'll scan it and send a copy to John unless John's already seen it and then I yeah he wants can share it with everybody else I have not seen it all right uh John I uh let me see if I can see the queue here oh at least go ahead I'm sorry I lost my train of thought I forgot what I was going to say if it comes to me I'll raise my hand again all right um I'd like to start off by uh Amy I think you're gonna need to state your name and address but Amy ritterbush is on our select board reached out to Karen spilin I think she has some she got some uh statement back that I think would be helpful for everybody to he Amy do you uh are you able to join in yep can you hear me now yep okay hi this is Amy Rush 54 Grove Street um as Rob said I did listen to the whole last meeting and then I reached out to Senator spilo's office as well as James Arena D roa's office um so um and uh Senator spilka's office sent me back a statement today this is a statement from um Senate President Karen spilka's office and I'm going to read it word for word just to the people have this information but they told me that the NBTA communities Act was designed to help solve our housing shortage by requiring communities near public transit routes to add Zoning for multif family housings nowhere in the law does it allow the state to take a residence or business's property by eminent domain and there have been zero conversations in the legislature about that hypothetical or anything remotely close to it uh the goal of this law is to help add housing to our state and by doing so uh bring down the skyrocketing cost of housing for all our residents so people can afford to stay in the communities they love like hot painton and that's where the statement ends I certainly have my own um thoughts but I'll wait till later in the meeting um to add my own thoughts thanks Amy all right there's somebody titled Indian Brook good evening uh chair and board members can you hear me okay yes can you say your name and address yes Shane Diaz five BR Lane and I am the president for the board for uh for the Indian Brook Association and I was in attendance um on the last call where we or John explained the entire plan the whole n yards and uh based on my discussion with the board members and also um good portion of the residents which is about 112 units um here at Indian Brook um the decision was made that um I represent them and basically we definitely uh unfortunately against the rezoning I just want to make sure that I'm cleared uh in stating that for the in front of the board that U Indian Brook is definitely opposed to uh being part of the Z rezoning so but thank you I just again I was on the call last time I heard a lot of good facts but unfortunately as a represent of the Comm put my hands up and basically say that uh we are not for the uh rezoning thanks Shane do you is uh do you have anything else no thank you chair thank you all right eigor R you're up next hello uh good evening uh my name is Igor Ron I'm in 49 Forest Lane this is basically uh towards the the mail from the senat I believe was it uh I have a friend uh currently in nland and there is a pressure from the state to actually approve the plan to do something similar to what would the committee basically has here on there and right now so my point here is that the state expresses interest and kind of starts to exercise some pressure to actually get the stuff built so the committee's assessment that we can kind of skirt this and make this just a paper thing that will never be built might be rather optimistic thank you thanks eigor uh Lucia go ahead um so I just wanted to say in terms of the rezoning that this is not rezoning this is a zoning overlay so how Indian Brook was built that is still in place and this would be placing uh the MBTA overlay on that thanks Lucia Alise go ahead um thanks I I remembered what I was going to say um I was thinking about our last meeting when we were talking about presenting one or two options to town meeting and after thinking about the logistics of how it would get voted and how it would be presented at town meeting I I changed my mind and I I now feel that we should only have one one vote to present at town meeting because I I just don't know how we would present it with two options to vote I feel like we would have to present one option that would get voted on and then if it passes you don't even go to option two you know what I mean how town meeting Works yep so I think it would be very confusing to have two options um so I just wanted to say that I I changed my standpoint from the last meeting after thinking more about it thanks leas go ahead Lucia I agree with one option thanks Lucia uh Ken wise Mantle go ahead there we go I found it uh in the last couple meetings we've been talking a lot about where it should be I would like to kind of talk about some of the requirements that if you were going to put it there first of all I'd like a better explanation of the requirement for a maximum of 1.25 parking spaces per unit in hopkington we don't have a lot of public transportation and most couples that would be renting that are working in two different places and each would have a car if I look at downtown if you do not provide enough parking for that and as you all know on the planning board you only require half of the parking needed for a restaurant uh because they're going to figure you're going to go into somebody else's parking lot uh at night time when the restaurant is open but if you cover if you fill all the parking spots up with residents because you don't have enough parking on the unit uh I think that's not a recipe for disaster I also think you ought to look harder at the lot size It's seems to be very small and why should one lot size be different for each little District unless you're encouraging small Standalone uh Apartments to be built where currently single family houses uh exist in the downtown area uh so I think the the the the requirements of each Zone needs a lot more look at and the last point I'd like to make and and but I really really want to understand this parking of the maximum amount I know it's in West bro's zoning that way most of the time planning board puts a minimum requirement on it and uh you know where we don't have enough parking we've run into trouble in in town uh anyway and then my last overall point if all the condo folks are going to come out against it you guys got a snowballs chance of Hell of passing it uh at special town meeting you might con seriously consider pulling the article and vote for no action and rather than go down into a real defeat if all the condo associations are going to actively oppose you so those are my three points today all right thanks Ken V Vias Sagar can you hear me yes so uh this is Vidya from 43 Forest Lan at priser um I just want to give one point like last time we were represented in the town voting and we sincerely had a voting down and we wanted to consider this voting the people's voice of representing and saying no to it and also one thing what we've been observed second point I would like to make is what been observ is when recently one of the property when on this community when it was put on sold there were a lot of challenges like this coming into the resoning and it has a profound impact on the selling of the property so so it we we started seeing concerns and uh also uh the impact without evening resoning uh in effect so if it is reson will have a very big impact so please consider the here the chair point of order go ahead Parker this is not a rezone and we need to call it what it is is a zoning overlay yeah so I'm just saying Paka that uh what I'm saying is that without resoning in effect the the people who came for the open house they have lot of questions 9 95% of the people know that I heard like this is going to be considered for reasoning so we we see these effects coming out and so please consider that the people's votes last time we did not say say no to it so please keep that um point and acknowledges the people's voice thank you thanks FIA staccia Frederick hi can you hear me yes can you just state your name and address yep station Frederick crzy my address is seven lilac Court that's in hington obviously go ahead with your comment all right um I have a are you allowed to answer questions if we do ask them I was uh if I if I know the answer I will try okay if I address it through the chair just wanted to verify um so it was I didn't get a chance to attend the last meeting unfortunately um I had work conflicts but I was told that you had originally agreed on one selection and then you moved to a different selection which included Indian Brook because there was a lot of um uh people there were a number of people who actually came in to let you know that they were against the idea of selecting other areas um so so that that is not factual okay so um so we are at the planning board at the end of like kind of near the end of our meeting one um a member of the zoning advisory committee suggested that there wasn't much comments from Indian Brook and that why didn't we consider that plan further so it wasn't a comment made by anybody on the planning board so that's just not correct all right thanks for correcting that and stating that for the record um because it really felt like just because people had not spoken up from a certain area or a certain location that this was then selected I will state Point Blank that as a member of Indian Brook and somebody who has lived in this particular condo for and I am one of those condo people for over 20 years in hopkington not only have I given my time to this town but I've also had to in different occasions really question different measures that have come up for different zoning overlays that includes the hotel districting overlay that came up like 10 years ago where it was suggested that maybe you guys could put a hotel you know Motel 6 like right next to us and each time these proposals come up it is really not I I feel like there's not a lot of of um thought invested into the impact that this has on downtown and I've seen this area grow pretty dramatically over the last 20 years and I really just need to understand why we're again considering downtown without considering the impacts that this will have on the downtown area especially at this particular um intersection which we talking about which is Lumber Street and Main Street um we have quite a few different um residences that have gone up which um have you know increased the number of people in the town dramatically but also it's just very difficult I see nothing but complaints day after day on various like groups and websites about the traffic in this town and if we continue to look at putting this overlay District in the middle of downtown whether it's over here next to Lumber and Main Street or you're talking about Main Street and 85 you're again looking at the same traffic impacts that you're going to be looking at otherwise so um I think what we're trying to do I'll speak for myself uh what I'm trying to do is Implement uh MBTA uh MBTA zoning overlay District that will fundamentally have no impact uh in terms of additional housing being built like our down town is already zoned for that number of um dwelling units to be built like MBTA communities wouldn't allow a developer to build more per acre than they can already build now so uh and with the condominium complexes I it's just not financially viable um for a developer to buy 100% of the units demolish them and build a new complex like at at a point in this meeting I'll bring up some like Financial calculations of what I like how I think it would work out um so that will come in in a few minutes but okay a developer is only so the the developer of Legacy Farm said a developer would pay about 25,000 per unit for land cost that was his estimate of like the maximum or roughly what a developer would pay was 25,000 Ken wise manle uh who just spoke of he said maybe they' pay 40 to even as high as 60 $1,000 per dwelling unit of for land cost to basically Buy all the units at any one of these three complexes the land cost is way higher than what a developer would really pay to build add to build like tear down what exists and to build new DW uh dwellings new homes new condos new apartments so what what am I trying to do I'm trying to meet the letter of this bylaw without actually building any additional new units in Hopkinton that that can't already be built today what was the number of units per acre I could have sworn it was 17 units per acre that was required by this particular uh the the zoning the MBTA community's bylaw is 15 units per acre on average for like for the town of Hopkinson okay 15 UNS per Acer and then as I recall um watching the zba uh replay Indian Brook has 13 units per acre um other and then there there are others that would not necessarily meet that so my other question is and I know that this has probably been you know discussed ad nauseum um but unfortunately I'm not finding a lot of information around this I understand that we you cannot consider I think it's called Windsor Apartments the ones that used that were built right behind the spoon I understand you cannot consider those because of a host agreement that's currently in place but what impacts them that that can't be considered when we know for a fact that not only do they meet that that 15 units per acre but they exceed it so I I think you got a couple pieces of information um kind of muddled so there's two apartment complexes in Hopkinson today that have very dense housing one is the winds are apartments behind 110 Grill yeah uh and so they were built as a unfriendly 40b complex and all the units in that complex are considered affordable housing even though only 10% of those units are considered affordable housing and because they were built under this um this special provision it it really makes it legally challenging to put an MBTA zoning overlay District on it where somebody could redevelop that and take those units out of our affordable housing inventory where um and j John maybe you can help me on this uh in a second so that's part one part two there's an apartment complex within the Legacy Farms development and Legacy Farms is built under the osm uh UD open space mixed use development and because of that if we created a zoning over uh MBTA zoning overlay District over that apartment buildings and somebody actually built it we would in effect have to allow the open Spa the osud open space mix use development to build that existing part uh apartment complex somewhere else on the property so we can't um legally it it creates challenges that Our Town Council said are uh to avoid so that's the guidance we as a board have received and that's what we've tried do but those are like as those are two of the first places we looked as a board to try to do to try to just we already get Den housing here if we can get these uh as part of our MBTA it will have minimal impact to Town everybody should be kind of like okay with that but uh we hit roadblocks in terms of Our Town Council saying it wasn't really um feasible through the chair go ahead Parker uh say share real quick um because one thing you said uh my ears caught on to which was you said Indian Brook has only you know that has fewer homes per acre than what is being proposed and I just wanted to like be really clear and understand from the perspectives of rabes at Indian Brook do you guys believe that by this overlay District not resoning this overlay District being passed lose or will be forced to demolish your homes for more housing or that the existing units per acre has to abide by the overl district I don't believe either of those points I have read up on that I just know that there is a concern that if we don't meet a certain amount of that that there will be an opportunity for developers to come into to neighboring um Lots or um properties um and we do have open lots and properties that are going to be coming up so we know that there's Redevelopment happening in Elmwood at some point um we know that across the street from us there you know there are houses that could be sold and last but not least as somebody just pointed out from one of the other condominium or you know town home complexes it impacts our resale value and so that's where obviously we're coming from and it's something where you know almost everybody here is going to be coming from that and as the planning board you're more than aware of that and I appreciate what you guys do but I still have to be here to speak for my home so question is somebody advising Indian Brook and saying that your resale value is going to be negative or negatively impacted I don't know I'm not a member of the board I will be frank about that I just joined today because I you know heard from somebody else who actually was on the last meeting who was also terrified of public speaking that you know there really wasn't a whole lot of people on from Indian Brook um so but I have heard from others in other towns who've told me that they have seen impacts to it um and I just want to be very fair and very um aware um of what may be the impact to my own home if we look at selling our home in the near future so okay so it it and just just s of being you know and looking at this from a Factory's perspective totally understand you guys are doing your research looking at other towns hopkington fastest growing town I talked to Senator sw's office today hopkington is the fastest growing town uh relative to you know new school growth and then and I think that we've been we've been experiencing some growing pains and so and but but but given the school's number one the school district is number one the sensibly in the state is there a belief that folks won't want to move to Indian Brook or Buy in hopkington to attend the schools if you want to sell is that what residents believe that nobody will want to buy your home and move in if you want to sell and get into the number one school district in Mass I mean I get where you're coming from Parker I totally get it and trust me as somebody who spent years and years with my children in the public schools here I understand that we do have the number one public schools in the state I also have seen that impact of that on our public schools and I was also you know a very big part of trying to figure out how we were gonna accommodate the number of additional children in our schools as a result of the fact that we continue to be number one and we see more and more families moving in and more places being built I I don't I don't I don't you know think that you know it's going to stop people from moving here right now I just have to tell you that if you're looking at a place here in Indian Brook or you have an option of a place down the street and I forget what it's called but there's there's um another like two or three different sets of town homes that were recently built Indian Brook may be great because it's got a location that's almost directly on 495 but if it looks like there's an opportunity and people are hearing more and more about the zoning overlay that's happening in other towns and they hear that we're actually zoned for that there's going to be a lot of questions around that and obviously if I'm looking at a place I might not consider this place I might go ahead and consider a town home in a different location because there is a there is a possibility of impact even greater density housing being built here only other question is does Indian Brook have a covenent that states that if there are any other additional units to be added to Indian Brook that it takes a majority of residents to approve any net new construction as part of your HOA does something like that exist answer that the HOA president would be able to answer that more uh more appropriately is the HOA president still on they can answer the question who the chair uh Shane Diaz if you're on uh there a question yes can you hear me yes yes so there is a rule uh a bylaw that 2third of the members of the residents have to physically vote to uh switch or change the bylaws okay thank you so it sounds like that you need two-thirds to be able to any add any new construction and you spoke on behalf of the residents that the majority of residents aren't for any net new construction so if Senator spilka's statement today as read by our esteemed selectman states that the state is not seeking any action to force for there to be new construction the state is not going to pursue any action uh related to eminent domain and it's Indian Brooks Charter that states that you guys need to have a majority of residents to approve any net new construction and the majority do not want to see net new construction and the NBTA communities 3A act clearly states that it's the resident's Choice whether or not they sell so you're not being compelled to sell either then it sounds like you guys don't have anything to be concerned about and your property values continue to increase because of the demand to want to uh move to hopkington so if you choose to sell and want to sell uh there isn't any action from the state that says you have to demolish your home um that's what I'm hearing today and The Preserve has a similar Charter that says that the majority of residents at The Preserve have to approve any net new construction and so in that extent to our chairman we're trying to not have any net new construction to be paper compliant and also make sure that property taxes don't have to go up to pay for any new capital projects uh for more schools uh so that's what we're trying to do today folks um I appreciate the explanation I just want to make it clear that while what you're staing is accurate on the the surface right now we were we have seen eminent domain take place for various projects in this town including the Main Street Corridor and you know we just need to be I think any Resident needs to be cognizant of the fact that regardless of what's stated right now in the future you could be you could see something for that respect easement and easement and taking in a land for a 4 foot extension of a road is significantly different than somebody or an entire Community losing their uh home so I disagree with the analogy that and that this is and respectfully it's folks this is not us trying to see you get pushed out of your homes and I believe every and I'm speaking for myself but could reasonably assume that every member of the board believes that we're not going to see thrusts out of their homes so respectfully disagree with the analogy that's that's fine but I still i i as a resident in this particular location I still need to do my D my due diligence so I do appreciate your responses I'm going to step down thank you very much thank you Alise go ahead I just want to reiterate that I of course I'm speaking for myself but I don't think any of us want to see more development and more growth in town to this extent and the reason why we picked these Parcels is because we believe that you guys are happy in your areas I personally live in downtown I'm right next to one of the zones that's being um proposed and I you know I hope that we don't see a large apartment complex come up in town but part of the reason why we want to Zone these areas is because we don't think it'll happen in these areas and we believe that you guys are all happy in your homes and we understand the worry but we don't think that anybody's going to sell or want to have a majority of one of the apartment complexes sell out and so nothing nothing will happen nothing will change as long as everybody stays where they are and doesn't sell out at once so I also just want to reiterate the fact that it's not a rezoning I keep hearing that and I keep hearing fear from people that they're going to be pushed out of their homes and that's that's not what this is the the state did a really bad job calling it what it is because it really should have just been called a zoning overlay project that's really what it should be called because that's what it is so that's all I have to say thanks Elise go ahead Matthew thanks Rob um and I I want to thank everybody who who's been speaking and and giving us feedback it's very helpful and we are listening so thank you very much for everybody who's um come online and and given us information and stated your concerns and asked questions um one thing specifically to respond to is that uh neighboring plots that are not part of the overlay just aren't part of the overlay they're not going to be eligible for the MBTA changes in the The increased density they're just not part of the Zone um I'm looking at the map to confirm but maybe John can just re reconfirm that none of the uh properties neighboring Indian Brook would be affected um it looks like it's just Indian Brook I know Elwood was explicitly excluded because of concerns that it could be quickly redeveloped so that's true none of the um properties around Indian Brook were included however Elmwood was not included because it's town-owned and a purchaser would have to go through an RFP process thank you John standing corrected on that one John would it be possible for me to share my screen so I see there's a bunch of people in the queue uh to talk but uh I I think it I think it would help if you kind of understand the the financial situation of of how it like how um these particular condo uh associations and homes could be redeveloped so this Walcott Valley The Preserve Indian Brook so so this is the district acreage 14.8 for Wala Valley 22.9 32.3 so any one of the the the kind of the the couple plans we have before us that don't contain uh carbonis restaurant there'd be 222 units potentially built in Wy Valley 343 in The Preserve 485 uh in Indian Brook so if you go down here to row 15 the total units today there's 66 in Walcott Valley there's 40 in The Preserve there's 112 in Indian Brook and I just took this from like kind of uh Zillow and uh and um uh of what an average unit in each one of the uh locations cost and did some math so if the 66 units so for for a developer to buy the whole entire um of The Preserve the whole entire wcard Valley the whole entire Indian Brook they're going to pay a they're gonna have to pay a premium this is basically like um just market dynamics people uh not everyone's going to want to sell their home at the at the market rate today so to buy the whole entire complex to redevelop the whole entire thing it's pretty reasonable to expect they'd pay every condo owner 50% premium so if yours um so if if you're in The Preserve and you're and your home is valued at 600,000 to for a developer to buy every single unit in that complex the developer could expect to pay about 900,000 per unit and then you start doing the math and so for cost for a developer to buy the land to build one unit under MBTA communities in any one of these three uh Parcels of land these three uh associations it's approaching it's The Preserve is 119,000 walcot Valley's 191,000 Indian Brooks 190,000 and um I mentioned earlier the the developer of Legacy Farm said in hopkington he could he should expected developer would be willing to pay about 25,000 for land to build one unit so we're we're we're approaching um four to five times that at the at the low end of The Preserve we're approaching seven to eight times that at Walcott Valley in Indian Brook what I'm trying to show you here is a math example of why this is isn't financially um realistic for a developer to pursue and okay you could say well that doesn't um that doesn't take care of the eminent domain situation well in that situation the state would still have to pay the condo owners um the market rate and then a developer would have to pay the state and they're not going to pay those rates because it's not financially viable so in either case whether it's eminent domain or developer buying the whole entire parcel I don't see it as a financially viable uh opportunity today and that's why these places these uh Parcels were selected so with that saying I'm willing to come back to this at any time but I'd like to I'm going to stop my screen sharing go back so I can see all uh see the board and take questions go ahead uh Ellen Ellen uh I don't know how to pronounce your last name Wayne rubbe thank you it's wine Rob you're close thank you I I live at two-way bridge in Indian Brook I've also been here 20 plus years and this point in my career ready to retire and plan you know my home is paid off and I plan on staying here happily for as long as I can um I I've heard a number of times both on last week's call and tonight that you know it would be impossible for a DE velop ER to buy out the entire complex not imposs it's not impossible it's it's not financially realistic they wouldn't need to they would only need to buy majority share um to get control of the association and they cannot force any Co any owner out of their home at that point no they certainly couldn't Force well they couldn't Force anyone to sell um but if there was a willing enough willing Sellers and a willing developer with really Deep Pockets I mean granted this is a big money transaction if this were to happen but if there was big money to be made from it you know we don't think it's inconceivable through the chair can the town planner confirm if condos cannot add more units without the town's approval the condos were developed under special permit the garden departments and residential districts so any new units would have to go before the planning board for an amendment to the special permit and we're not going to allow it so we're not going to build any more units even if a commercial entity wants to come in and buy them all up wouldn't that be in opposition to the reason to put this overlay on the district no that's is why we're doing it because you guys can't build any more units and we don't want to see any growth but we would no longer exist as an association and the rules that the original developer had with the town would be NL and void is my understanding if somebody got control of us I mean I think because the developer would build at the consent of the planning board and we would still have a final say to not allow any more growth so like we can go into hypothetical but folks this is the reason we're doing this is because when Ken Weiss Manel made a very eloquent point last meeting where she said that a developer would love to see carbon's property go up because they could develop that and then we could potentially have more students more need to add take out more Capital bonds for more growth in the schools and nobody wants to see that and you know even even if a developer did want to come in there's still you know guard rails against against that too so I mean I I know I'm not going to change your mind because you guys are like really militant about this but like we we genuinely are trying to have the best interest to the town at heart and that includes all members of all the associations the condo associations oh I appreciate that and I I appreciate the the you know the the hard place the town is in um but the exact reason that you think this is a good idea that there is safety and numbers here is probably the reason that it is causing a lot of stress in our communities that we really don't have agency over the future of our homes that a bunch of others would be involved in the decision and if there were a you know in our case I think 76% you know going to a developer or multiple developers those that are left which would be like one in four of us would not be able to sell our homes so it's not an all or nothing I'm sorry you've lost me can you walk me through that so you lose your home your ability to sell your home if a developer wants and I'm sort of going to the concept of zombie condos that are going on in Florida where developers want to take an aging property and all they need to do is buy the majority they become then the you know the the association goes away in effect and the developer runs the place if they choose not to continue these sewage treatment plant or the electricity or the maintenance of the roads or other services the people that live here you know no longer belong to an association it's Ellen I would go back to it's not um in those circumstances it might be financially viable for someone to do that I would say where you live and these three uh condominium associations in Hopkin it's not financially viable for a developer to do that like if I'm a business owner right folks and I have a $10 million Capital bond that I've taken out to take out a project because I want to go and build a mixed use building am I going to choose the develop the potential town homes in Hopkinson or am I going to choose a developable property that doesn't have condos on them there are probably hundreds if not thousands of potential locations to choose across Massachusetts and the downtown is already zoned for you know higher density mixed use uh uh uh housing anyway as we've seen with the Hop drug that's going up so if I'm like this enterprising CEO that wants to develop am I really going to want to go to the pitchforks and torches of the Indian Brook or The Preserve or Walcott Valley Condo Association to try to create this no I'm gonna I'm gonna go for path Beach resistance and vet a property that I have a chance at you know putting some of that capital and getting a return on my investment like that's what I'm doing if I'm a savvy business owner my shoes um but I don't know it's again we can only say this so many you know times and and and try appeel to you know better better Angels uh we don't want to see people tax out of their homes we don't want to see new growth and we certainly don't believe the law as written and as our Senator statement reiterated earlier is creating any eminent domain action uh or mass action and and on our here just eloquently pointed out too that the business plan the dollars and cents just still make make sense go ahead Karen thank you rob um so one of my I I have a question where where did the directive come from or was that just our opinion and just hear me out here for a second that we don't want to see any more growth is it was that something that we just as a planning board kind of decided because what I'm thinking I I'll just complete this thought here and then let you respond is that perhaps this is the the question that we put up before the town which is here's your choice either we comply on paper with this particular way of doing it you know and apologies to them whether it's the condos or something else or um taxes will go up growth in the town and will re or Zone overlay the terminology I guess um the just for example the carbon land so I'm not that familiar with all the plots so that's that's kind of what I'm thinking because I do I do know I was doing some research on this today and there is a $4 billion housing Bond bill before the state legislature for specifically for building contracts and things across the state so they are going to put money into what they're doing and as Parker you know had pointed out you hton is a very desirable town because of the of the school systems and things so there's you know I'm not I'm not convinced that there that something somebody won't try to come in and use some of the state's money and build something over Hopkinson but going back to my original question of should we put the the question before the town about okay you guys want more growth higher taxes you know and we'll we'll rezone ozone overlay something else or do you want to try to keep taxes low no more growth no more no more new schools and we'll we'll go with this plan what through the chair I agree with Karen and I actually think she's spot on the one thing I want to point out though that you're half correct on is the capital projects that tranch of funding the $4 billion doll for this for the uh the bond that's me that is aimed at um development that supports the development of MBTA communties properties so for example the um underlying infrastructure like let's say let's say The Preserve The Preserve for example which has a p issue with their water if uh Carbones was developed The Preserve could take advantage of that $4 billion Capital project and a and and a plan could put forth the secure funds from that to bring water down to then help them tap into you know City water so then they didn't have you know PPA in their water because it could potentially be clean that could be a use case for example that preser can benefit but Karen I I think you're spot on it's that's the question is do you want to see growth or do you want to see paper compliance I love that point that yeah just to be clear the state has not put up money to bu uh as through this these bonds for building and and constructing it's that's fine I will I will concede that point to to you and Parker but let's go back to the original question do we put this question do we put the question before the town I uh I think we we will need to prepare uh some material for town meeting I think like I guess I've been looking at it for so long it's obvious to me that if um but yes I I don't think it's obvious to everybody else yeah no I mean I think yes there's and Rob you did a great job with the numbers right and it's there's going to be there's the other side of it of the numbers of if we do build what it will cost the town what it will cost us in schools and taxes and increases so it you know perhaps just laying out the numbers for the town and then saying okay you guys vote you want you know column A or column B is it Sasha did did you still intend to have your hand raised or let's go to Eric weand here we go can you guys hear me yes okay good hello everyone this is Eric Wheeland uh 13 Forest Lane The Preserve I'm on the board here um I've heard a lot of things talked about tonight which is great and I appreciate um everyone on the planning board um speaking and offering their input and I think um Rob to your point the finan the financial aspect of it makes it highly unlikely that any of these properties would be uh developed my problem is not the here and now and the present my my problem is what's it going to be like 5 years down the road 10 years down the road 20 years down the road I represent the the people that live here in our homes and we want to know that we're secure I know you guys talked about enate do domain and you talked about um rezoning and it's an overlay I understand all that what I'm asking you is I want to I want a letter from the governor telling me that our property is safe that's that's that's what I'm looking for you guys I I understand what you're doing you're working for the town you're trying to you're trying to obey to to give something to the state I understand that my problem is what's the state going to say three years four years five years down the road they go wait a second now you know what is this why did this town give these put up these properties that aren't getting developed the whole Spirit of the law is housing will be built so I I think I think you need to look at that aspect of it um politic politics aside um it it's the state's going to push back I guarantee you and and I don't want to be that piece of property real quick uh so if we get a letter from the governor that says that they're not pushing for eminent domain or some sort of language then you will support the NBTA communities a ton meeting if they can if they can guarantee it in in um uh what's it called perpetuity or whatever it's called sure but but you know I would like to know that I am safe okay I appreciate the the comment Eric yeah I mean I I thank you uh Michael go ahead yeah I mean I just wanted to point out you know property rights and law predate the constitution in the United States I can't imagine any scenario where the government you know as it is right now could force Somebody To You Know sell their homes in the way that people are discussing here or compel people to build they can incentivize to do it you know with like a carrot but they can't take a stick approach so it's just you know it's outside the framework of the way things work so I want to point that out V go ahead hello hi can you state your name and address yeah hi um this is VY I'm from uh preserve community what's your last name okay and your your your address 25 Forest Lane hop thank you yeah I live in you know preserve Community um Eric just spoke on behalf of us actually and I'm just going to replicate um what Eric said um you know I um I live in this community since 2021 actually and I have a you know Middle School going daughter she's going to sixth grade in hopkington actually she has her friends all over um around our um you know community and um we have friends all over the Highland Drive as well actually and then it's um it's hard for me to convince a kid to you know that we are going to move out of this um you know um Place actually um the thing is that and and it's it's giving us a lot of stress also actually um I I I keep hearing different things um from different people um and and um I I you know I'm frankly saying whether we are living in us or not I mean that's what I'm you know I'm I'm uh I I don't know how to express but you know um we think that we are living in a safe country but um this kind of resoning is putting us into very unstable mindsets that's what I would say actually at at at times I I even went through a lot of financial stress you I um you know I had I was part of a um you know scam victim and um I lost around $300,000 you know I'm I'm trying to recover that that's all my life savings and then you know you guys are putting additional stress on us saying that you know we are going to rezone and stuff like that we have only one kid and um she is um like she she's feeling I mean like if I move out from here and like there is I don't think we can buy um house again in Hopkinton if it's it's like it's like it's going to give us like too much stress and even the kid is going to get affected very badly um that is the biggest thing I would say because um I have all my friends which we were in um Boston before we were in Malden and all my friends from Malden moved here so she had friends from um five six years back back so she have so many friends from there so everyone is here and if if we are going to move out from here financially uh mentally uh we we are really going to get affected very badly yeah yeah the only way you would move out is if you sold your condominium what is it do you do you understand sorry what is it the only way you would move you would no one can force you to sell your condominium no one yeah but still if if you know um 75 percentage of um the units decided to sell and if we fall into you know the rest 25% so we would be forced to move out right no that could happen without mbta's communities wow but but nobody nobody can force you to sell even if somebody bought every like other the other 39 condos nobody can force you to sell your condo okay so what we heard was like if 70% accepts then it's going they are going to uh take out that's what I heard no that is not they that is that is illegal that cannot happen you own your condominium I anyone that would want to ch um change the number of units in their Association that has a mortgage they probably would need approval to increase the number of units from their mortgage provider the condominium complexes that are there today to increase the number of units would have to come before the planning board so that's not real really realistic so the only way a developer can really redevelop those properties is to buy 100% of the units and if they buy a 100% of the units they're going to need to pay 150% or more of the market rate per unit to do that there's um I I don't know how to how to if you I'm trying to combat what I would say is misinformation um okay all right uh yeah thank you Vic go ahead thank you uh to the chat Rob uh thanks Rob I was about to mention the same thing what you just mentioned but uh what did I get the name right uh so just to assure you we as at now uh planning board committee members we are putting every best effort out here to make sure that that each one of you are safe I can assure you that if as Rob re I'm reiterating that you know if you don't want to sell then nobody can force you out nobody can do anything out there it's you own that and you have the right on it so don't go by what you have it but please reach out to any of the board members or John the plan Town planner right we more than happy to uh walk you through this plan and explain or shoot us an email and somebody would respond back to you with the right information that's all uh Sharon go ahead hi uh thank you very much Sharon Reynolds six lean Lane Indian Brook I spoke last week again I I have such appreciation for how much work has gone into uh uh coming up with zoning overlays that would work for the city for the town I really think that though there is still so much uncertainty about what could happen that it's causing 2 118 households all three of our condo communities in question here it's it's causing the burden of uncertainty to fall on 218 households rather than the whole whole city bearing the burden of it a whole town sorry um I I guess I would lean towards maybe more of a burden that's shared by more people that is Sharon I so we know or we have uh if we were to pick properties that are underdeveloped meaning whatever exists on those that land area today isn't is undervalued it a developer could make a financial business case to develop those properties and put up uh MBTA communities project and that would result in people moving into those units and it would probably result in school AG children like we can't limit the number of bedrooms in any of these projects so we assume it would result in school aged children and we are cant of everyone's tax bill like right now the median the average tax bill for a home a a homeowner in Hopkin is 12,500 by 2030 that is going to 18,500 so if we add more school AG children to the school system over and Beyond with the MBTA communities projects it would either cause the quality of the schools to degrade by having more children per classroom and and a and in a school they couldn't really they don't really fit or the town would need to build more schools which would spread out that and if the town voted yes on that it would spread the B the financial burden to everyone we are trying to find a path forward where we don't where it is not financially viable for a developer to build these units above and beyond what can be built today in downtown so we don't we believe the Del developer won't this so yes I understand your concern because it's your home um uh but we're trying to do what's best for the town and and trying and put you in a position where you should not have this concern by answering any and all questions well I know so many of you keep saying I I just um think that a buyer a earning buyer coming into this community I agree with I think Ellen said it is going to want to look elsewhere uh I would be uh looking elsewhere if I were uh educated about the issue because if all of us are having uncertainty a new buyer facing an uncertain huge cost of buying a new place is certainly going to be concerned about these issues so I have a couple of questions though see there's so many many things we don't know wouldn't the state be offering some kind of funding for communities that actually develop their zoning overlays this this the state doesn't have like uh is it possible yes right now we've talked about they are offering some money for infrastructure projects like uh potential uh uh uh I don't even think can't think of a good example but that's not actually constructing it's not it's not actually buying land uh tearing down what may exist developing the land into an MBA project MBTA project they haven't allocated money for that and to be honest there's 177 cities and towns across Massachusetts that are MBTA communities like where are they it's just financially they they can't across the board they can't like there's not enough money in the state to do that um so the thing is though it's a meaningless exercise if these Zone overlays can't really be developed easily isn't the state going to see that through the chair that's exactly correct is this is the medium because if one side is doing nothing to address the housing crisis and the other side of the token is to force and do imminent domain and the big scary things that we think is going to happen this is the medium ground which is if you build it they might come create these zoning overlays that if the cities and towns which know their towns best and where to put these uh potentially create them then the state thought well you know we can say that we're trying to fight the housing crisis but the other side is is that they probably knew and talking to some of our elected officials they're aware that you know we're probably just going to put for paper compliance and so it's is it putting lipstick on a pig and trying to address affordable housing the state maybe uh but yeah this is I don't know if that kind of gets to what your point is that this is really doing nothing um but for at least for the way hopkinton's going about it that's what we're trying to do but across 177 communities there will be communities that will have pars like we've as a town we've undergone um tremendous growth over the past 10 years so we feel that growth other towns May welcome at the well may welcome the opportunity for growth in their Town we've just experienced a lot of growth in a very short amount of time and we've had to take on uh quite a bit of uh prop two and a half override debt to build new schools so we just don't want to increase that risk right now is would be my opinion I understand that I I really do understand the position that you're in and how hard you're trying to make this the most painless outcome uh for everyone you know for the majority of people um I did want to say just one more thing which is that technically no one owner in Indian Brook can have more than 10 properties here but if eight developers got together they could buy 75 units slowly over time and vote out the condominium because they'd have enough they'd have 67% and I don't know whether this zoning overlay would increase the likelihood of that I mean they may be able to do it now but is there would there be something that would draw their attention to it or make it look more attractive well we we covered this earlier and and John G has talked about this that even if that could possibly happen and you were the last hold out that they have to go before the planning board and the town to be able to try and do any net New Growth to which I believe the consensus among the board is we won't allow it even if it they dissolve the Condominium Association and it's no longer a condominium well so under you like you as as the owner of your home condo your home um they cannot destroy it they cannot uh they couldnot just like they can't destroy any common areas they they even if they have control over the association that doesn't give them a right to your property no but I'd no longer be under an association they could dissolve it with 67% of the vote it could be done over time slowly I mean you know it it would be that would be a um if somebody realistically wanted to redevelop Indian Brook they would go with a uh 100% approach of trying to buy out every condominium owner at once buying it over time um is just not a financially attractive like what are they going to do with all those units in the meantime like that's just not financially uh it's GNA change the it's going to change the whole character of the community though if if that's that's the only way the only way I see it to be redeveloped is if some if a developer tried to buy 100% of the Condominiums as they exist today and he said and that's was their approach but can can the uh planning board veto something that 67% of the owners if 67% of say 67% owned by developers that got together and sort of you know agreed to do this thing um and it was no they voted out the condominium would would the planning board still be able to veto what they wanted to develop they can't destroy so your your condominium wasil built under the major project site plan and they can't destroy your condominium like I you're get um John can you help me with this I the technicalities here of like trying to build MBTA communities without dissolving the whole like taking 100% ownership um I'm trying to relay this correctly all the condos were approved under garden apartment and residential district special permits so when a special permit is on a property and say the condo association is dissolved and it is no longer a condo association that special permit goes away um they could rebuild theoretically under that same special permit if they get approval from the planning board to do the exact same thing though I don't know how that would really happen because the garden department and residential districts is not technically active because we're above our 10% for affordable housing and that's a finding the board has to make so you couldn't realistically develop a condo association right now under the G department and residential district so if you dissolve that they're reduced to what you can do Under the base zoning which is for some of the condos agricultural which means that you can do single family homes on 60,000 foot Lots so if somebody were to take over and dissolve the condo association they wouldn't be able to redevelop the condo in a different way without a special permit from the planning board which is not active but but they if they didn't want to do condos they could do something else without permission from the planning board they could do what's allowed under the base zoning right and how much would would that be multif family if NBTA communities is not adopted no it's not they they couldn't do multif family so it would look more attractive if it was adopted okay I I know it's remote I know these are all hypotheticals but anyway thank you uh for letting me ask these questions thanks thanks Sharon uh Joyce go ahead hi can you hear me yes yes this is Joyce Michelle of 40 Walcott Valley Drive in Hopkinson and I just wanted to raise a more shortterm concern because I know we've been talking about these long-term scenarios um I perked up my ears when somebody in The Preserve said that a property had gone up for sale and a lot of prospective buyers were um voicing their concerns that the overlay would uh undermine the value um now if that sort of thing continues to happen then a place like Walcott Valley which generally our property values have tracked very closely to some other complexes like Apple Tree Hill and Pine Crest now those are not potential properties that are considered for the overlay if our property is is impacted and theirs aren't then it could be that our our properties would drop relative to those because those would become more of a magnet I think somebody else was trying to say that earlier is that that people who would want to come into Hopkinson would preferentially perhaps go to the the complexes that didn't have the overlay and then the rest of us would suffer in our property values so so I completely understand a potential buyer could have questions about MBTA and how communities and how it could impact a potential purchase cuz they have I'm sure any potential buyer would have questions um but what's going to H well so over time if a developer does not move in those questions will kind of dissipate because nothing will have happened unless a developer moves in if a developer moves in then they've bought the uh fundamentally the entire condo complex and every owner and if they've done that they've probably paid a hefty premium per um per unit owner to do that uh so I get that there's questions currently from potential buyers but over time um I only see this making uh the condominiums in the MBTA communities more valuable as opposed to less like if you if you thought about like just look at um any house lot say you had two two and like two two and a half acre house lots and on those uh Lots were $8,000 $800,000 properties right now so 1.6 million five acres and if a developer could put up 75 dwelling units for 1.6 million those homeowners would get a lot more than 800,000 and um I don't think it's going to do much I don't think it's going to do much of anything to the property values uh but if it did the only potential uh IC is upside not downside okay thank you thanks oh go Michael go ahead point out one thing real quick from the previous speaker the one before the last one uh she said that the entire town kind of isn't sharing the burden technically right now we are if we don't you know comply with the law grant funding is on the hook and that's for the entire town I just wanted to point that out and correct the record thanks Michael I appreciate that Sue go ahead ah there we go can you hear me okay yes ah thank you rob um I did not plan to to speak tonight um and I think I first want to acknowledge the very difficult position that you guys are in you are trying to make the best of something that nobody asked for and frankly flies in the face of the best interests of the town in terms of inviting an influx of a potential influx of new people to hopkington um I don't think there's an ideal solution here and um I agree that uh at least speaking um for my case um at The Preserve I don't think our property is likely to be um quote unquote taken over and developed um in the the near or middle term I am convinced that an influx of new residents a decline in the reputation of the quality of our schools more stress on our infrastructure and the higher taxes that are going to come with that are going to far more um uh have a NE NE ative impact on my on my property value than the concern that prospective buyers may have about being in the overlay District um having said all that and I hope um you know acknowledging and and really thanking you for all of your efforts I respectfully caution the planning board from interpreting the provisions of the condo documents for these three commun unities as it relates to the dissolution of the association and the impact on the remaining um unit owners and their physical units as well as their ownership of those physical units every condo Community is different and I know um having served on the board also with Eric for several years that um the degree of safety that you have stated that we have is incorrect that's that is my only comment and it's mostly just a caution um because it really makes me feel like you're pushing us a little too hard and honestly I was there with you but would you like to share what what is your perspective that is incorrect um in our condo docs there are Provisions should 75% of the community decide to sell that all unit owners will be required to sell if the association is dissolved even the 25% who do not want to have the association dissolved are required by the legal documents to go along with that so what you are saying about no one can force you to sell your unit is incorrect and if you would like to sit down with our legal counsel or with Town Legal C counsel and review those documents and I am incorrect I would feel fine about you making those statements but again I don't that you can make that interpretation of our documents we are legally bound home ownership and a condominium Community is very different from Individual home ownership there are conditions upon which we own or do not own our home and that's all I I want to say um please be cautious about that thank you thanks Sue to the chair who's that it's Lori Lori go ahead could I have Sue's last name and address please Sue could you say your name and address for the record yes absolutely it's Susan curries and I live at 29 Forest Lane thank you you Lucia go ahead um given what Sue said and I appreciate everybody's comments I'm wondering can these communities amend their documents to increase the percentage of owners who need to agree to dissolve their condo associations before a sale can happen and I know we have some of the presidents of the associations so I think they would be willing to or able to speak on that potentially yeah uh um if anyone is available to comment on that would be great Eric do you want to go first yeah sure um I would like to answer that but I want I just want to let you know I don't know so I would have to go to our legal to our attorney and find out if that's true Lucia so I can't answer that tonight I'm sorry uh to change of condo docks I'm sorry to change of condo docks would we would we would have to meet as a board we'd have to decide if we want to do it I may it may have to be voted by the community as well I don't know but um there would be a number of steps and and um and we'd have to find out if if legally um we could do it so yeah all right thanks Eric uh Indian Brook is it is it sh Shay um I'm forgetting yeah Rob it's it's Shane Diaz here yeah so it's two3 vote physically in order for us to change the bylaws so again that's the residents who lives here has to physically vote so we can always change the laws if necessary Shane do you know um if it requ like in general my understanding uh to change bylaws on a condo association like to increase units if an owner has a mortgage on it it typ a lot of times it requires the mortgage providers approval as well do you know that's correct and I already know Indian Brook we are maxed out from a from a location point of view we cannot add any more units because the surrounding lands in our community is all conservation land thank you Leslie would you like to go or um Leslie go ahead oops sorry this is lesle um I'm I'm on 19 Force Lane in um The Preserve I meant to lower my hand all right no problem uh Ellen win robe thanks Rob um I have a question that maybe from the compliance model that we didn't look at this evening what what would be if the overlay um did include Indian Brook and in the improbable case that somewhere down the line a developer got a hold of the property how many units could be built here at Indian broke if it was built under MBTA communities yes and assuming we were raised and started over so if they yeah if they demolish the 112 units today uh under MBTA communities they could build 485 yeah and that you know that number sort of goes to the financial feasibility if someone coming of someone coming in how many could they sell at you know who knows what they would sell for and what year we're talking about here but okay thank you thank you who the chair was that you Karen it's Lori again Lori go ahead could I have Ellen's um address please Ellen can you give us your address certainly to waybridge Lane thank you thank you Lucia go ahead my follow-up question to both Eric um well actually to any of the condo association presidents would be can you then amend your condo documents to require 100% of of the owners to agree to dissolve the condo association and I asked that because people have brought up the issue of zombie condos in Florida and so I read up on that and what I read was that one of those um buildings it was 100% that were required to sell and developers came in and took over the board and changed it and reduced the number or the percentage and essentially pushed out the other owners and what's happened now is that the courts are involved and they said at this point that's not allowed 100% we're supposed to sell and so it's in the courts right now but that's a question that I have for the various condo associations and I understand your concerns and we hear them um and I'm just thinking in terms of you know if we go forward with any of these options they all include you know condos or town homes so if it's the case that you can go and change that to require 100% And if at this point the courts seem to be siding with the owners then that would be something that if I lived in one of those communities I would be pushing for my documents to change thank thanks Lucia eigor R did um would you like to speak yes thank you e in 49 Forest Lane again uh a couple of points but that I don't think we mentioned as of yet uh first of Rob to believe you brought up Ain domain and that the state would have to buy the property at the full value that historically is simply not true specifically the state of Massachusetts is actually notorious for not paying a full market value for the properties they acquire under em domain that has been ongoing pretty much all the way since when we were just a colony uh second point I would like to bring up is that uh I can e Envision a scenario where the developer would not even require to buy enough vots to uh be able to solve the Community to start driving the prices for the rest of their property significantly down uh case in point preserve pretty much as a so on water and if the developer has say 10 or 15 votes and starts uh voting against Bally any attempt to spend any money to maintain that water system our price will go down inevitably thank you thanks eigor is it stasha I know you spoke before but stasha is am I saying it correctly oops it's stasa but it's okay nobody ever gets it right so um so I just wanted to follow up with a single question so was brought up and thank you Shane for bringing this up we are surrounded by conservation land um one of the things that I'm more aware of with conservation land is that if there are certain guidelines that are met you can build on that land does the MBTA overlay District in any way change um the requirements for the conservation land or put that um make it more appealing for folks to build there if they're able to offer affordable housing on that land so there's it's it's not possible for us to put conservation restricted land um I John you can correct me if I'm wrong but it's not possible for us to really have con no I know this for a fact it's not possible for us to have conservation restricted land in our MBTA communities overlay District where it count towards the acreage okay all right that's thank you through the chair go ahead I think people might be conflating conservation line with Wetlands as well yeah wetlands are still protected under the wetlands protection act and the local bylaw this does not change anything about that yeah and you're correct it is Wetlands okay uh St St staa could you just give us your address again for minutes seven lilac Court thank you thank you uh Martha go ahead sorry I think I just needed to unmute myself my name is Martha Lanning I'm at 16 Forest Lane at The Preserve just a point to remind everyone even though you say that you are certain that nothing will be constructed the state is asking you to make these proposals so that they can construct new developments the state intends to build they are desperate for housing that's all I have to say Thank you so um I don't think anyone said that it's um cannot happen uh uh we're saying what we think or we're trying to give answers to questions and information um so making statements that are very um I'd say inaccurate is um I think we're trying to give guidance of our opinions and and the best we can U Michael go ahead through the chair go ahead Parker the state specifically the Senate President provided a statement and I'd like to remind the previous commenter that the uh state is not pursuing any action of eminent domain to try to take properties so respectfully you are completely incorrect in that assertion and I would also ask eigor to if you can email me the instances of the Massachusetts taking property and not uh properly um giving residents some sort of fair payment for that property thank you yeah I'll piig you back right off of that Rob property rights in Massachusetts in the United States are old and significant I was just reading on the states website too even if there's a dispute between a homeowners association where it dissolves in an individual resident the resident has significant rights to protect their home so I'm not 100% certain if everything we've been hearing so far has been accurate that I I read that as well Michael thank you uh Sunny go ahead Sunny just state your name and address yeah this is sunny LXI ninan to Leman Lan hopkington uh I just want to kind of differ a little bit on what Mr Parker said I think chapter 79 of the mass gender laws it pertains to emminent domain and actually if you read section two where no Provisions is made by a law a taking of land by emminent domain buyer on behalf of the Commonwealth shall be made by the governor and Council point of order point of order Sunny the the Senate President submitted a statement that said that currently the state is part of 3A and MBTA communities are not trying to as part of this act take land from owners so respectfully I totally understand what you're trying to say right now but uh we are not asserting that ident domain does not exist as a state statute you're asserting that as part of 3A in a zoning overlay District that the state is not trying to take property or use eminent domain in this action so I understand what you're trying to say correct I think Mr Parker only one thing is the laws change the legislature changes I think the gentl might that if I can if I can actually comment on it believe I think the chair I think I have the right to comment right no no you don't not unless I give you it direct all commentary to the chair and try to do it respectfully that's what I'm trying to do go ahead Sunny if you'd like to speak you need need to unmute yeah I think Mr Parker interrupted me chair I was speaking actually so I'm not sure whether as a public as I have a right to speak I believe I do if the chair gives you that ability did I think you did if you want to be combative we can we can move on like what what your point I think the point is there is eminent domain the laws can change in the future the legislature can change so right now the Senate President can give the letter doesn't mean the law is going to remain the same so even the president of the other vsor community indicated that what's in the future for us so I think that's the point we are trying to make so today the law can be this but tomorrow the legislature can make a change Sunny that that that goes for any any Resident in hopkington that goes for any Resident in the state they could they could take my home by eminent domain and and they could change zoning and just the state could say you we're uh we're going to change zoning on this parcel of land and I would have no control very true I agree the only thing I'm saying is you cannot really confidently say that it cannot happen though right so as a resident I am concerned I understand your concerns is it realistic um is it a realistic concern um you can make that judgment for yourself I don't see the state going around taking people's homes especially 40 60 100 plus homes to uh and displacing those individuals when it's not Prof when a developer that actually builds homes can't make a business case doing it it's not that's it's just not logical so yes anything can happen in the future I I I don't know how to how to ease your concerns but I think um I think you just need to look at the facts of the situation and try to come up to your own conclusions uh Leslie go ahead hi lesie Garber 194 slain The Preserve just to piggyback on what um Sunny just said I mean look at what they did to those three towns in Quin that they needed water those three towns were flooded I mean I know that was a long time ago and rights have maybe improved but I'm just saying there are examples of the State of the State taking land or doing things when it's just not going their way so I'm not going to argue anymore but I just feel like um so I don't disagree convince us I don't disagree that the state has taken land and eminent domain cases for public infrastructure like drinking water like highways do they have they done it often to demolish homes to build other homes very rarely and only if if the existing projects are or like the existing homes are Beyond repair unoccupied they use the term blighted that's that's the only time it's really ever happened so um that they're not in that that's not what they use eminent domain for could it change in the future anything uh I think everybody knows anything could like that could happen in the future I don't want to tell you it can't but um is it realistic um I think you'll have to make your own own judgment right and I think that's what we're doing we're we're trying to say that we're not willing to take that chance thanks Matthew go ahead thanks Rob um I know it's been a couple of hours of talking about this we've been talking about about two years um but I just want to ask my fellow board members to uh the the public input is is critical and we've been getting a lot of it the last couple of weeks and just I would ask the fellow board members to be permissive and letting the letting everybody talk and listening thank you thanks Matthew uh Sunny would you like to go uh I'm sorry I think I forgot to lower my hand sorry all right Eric go ahead can you hear me yes uh Eric wheel and 13 Forest Lane um I'd like to make a recommendation to the board right now uh the planning board that I'm speaking to I think all of you should recommend um some type of option uh back to the state I'm not saying a no maybe uh maybe a uh an extension or something like that because I I really think uh right now selecting properties that people live on is not a good option and I understand and i' I've sat through a number of your meetings I understand why you don't want to select other properties because they're going to get developed and we don't want want that in this town but I really believe and I'm trying to say this to you we do not want to be an overlay district and um we will fight that and I just think you need to take that message back to I don't know if you do this at town meeting or you go to the select board first but I I would I that would be my um recommendation and that's how I'm going to leave it at this point but but thank you for all your all your work thanks Eric Michael go ahead I mean anybody that is speaking in this meeting obviously can come to the uh open meeting we're going to have when we vote on this and vote for it or vote against it but the state can pull grant funding away from the town they could make the cost of not complying with the law rise over time and you have to consider the dynamic that's going to cause if things in town are deprived of money over time I just wanted to point that out thanks Michael so I don't I don't see any uh oh Elise go ahead I I just wanted to add um worst case scenario the state could take all of our funding away and come in and say you know Hopkinson submitted a plan that we already approved of so let's just go with that plan and we have no control over that and they could implement the zoning overlay and take our funding away and we would have no control over that th thanks Elise um I I want to be a little cautious like a number of people um we've been talk uh in the public comment and uh and even on the board have been talking about hypotheticals and um yes there is the future is is unknown about just kind of everyday life um so I I get that um the chair I just want to point out something the hypotheticals that a lot of people were talking about tonight were true hypotheticals the state did say that they would take grant funding away from people that don't comply with this law yeah I I I appreciate that Michael hypothetical so Vic go ahead uh just wanted to call out I mean uh this is a voting process which needs to be done through the town if the town says a no to it then uh we might land up as saying that you know taking the funding a whatever the consequences with the town as a whole have to face it but again it's the town's decision so that's all we're trying to say that we're trying to put our best effort out here but end of the day the town has to take the decision on this but I don't think so that uh uh if the town says no the state would force it back to us saying that uh uh do it or you have to go with this uh I'm not sure if that's true I I don't know if that's that's the part that I don't that is kind of the hypothetical like if the town votes was to vote no at town meeting what would happen thereafter we don't we any scenarios besides getting grant funding taken away and and potentially getting sued after that um is hypothetical we don't know what would happen after those two things are pro are pretty pretty certain to happen after that we're not sure Sharon go ahead Sharon you on mute of Sharon Reynolds 6 Leman Lane Indian Brook no I just want to say again I just I hear all this I feel badly I but I don't want to be one of 218 households bearing the burden of uncertainty about this I feel very strongly about it as I know many many people here do okay thank you for your your comment Eric did you have your hand is still raised do you have anything additional oh ER you might be on mute I think the hand might maybe was just remained raised um I think uh I'll restate what I said at our last meeting uh and for everybody's benefit on the call the MBTA communities um Act was something done at the state level uh nobody on the planning board went out to try to uh establish MBTA Community overlay District on our own we've been handed um this kind of this requirement to come up with what we view as our best proposal and put it before town meeting and so that's what we're going to try to do and and I totally understand everybody's concern that's on this call I totally understand the thousands of other people that live in Hopkinson that would be impacted and even everyone on this call would be impacted um if we had a lot uh more school AG children in the next five years uh and that's why this is so hard to come up with a proposal that um ideally we'd have a proposal everyone liked and everyone loved but that's really um has proved very hard to establish and very hard to come to that consensus and so we're trying to make the best of what I would call a very difficult situation so that's what we're doing so as a board we're going to discuss uh what our path forward here is but I'd like some input from the board of what they see as our um in my mind I would rule out the two proposals that include the carbonis properties so that leaves uh The Proposal with Indian Brook and downtown and The Proposal with w w Walcott Valley and The Preserve and downtown does anybody want to debate including the property the proposals that include carbon's property I put through the chair go ahead Parker yeah I think we put one of the new ones and then the old one and for the justification that uh Karen eloquently laid out earlier which is the choices we either develop or paper compliance that's that's my thought um I know I said last meeting that there could be concerns and confusion at Tom meeting for different proposals but I think there's a clear enough delineation between potential for net new construction uh in the immediate or uh paper compliance go ahead Lucia um so in terms of your question of not including the original plan I would not be prepared at this point to say that I support that because my thought in this meeting is that was voted down at annual town meeting and there were questions I went back after the last meeting and before this one and I rewatched that portion of annual town meeting and there were questions and some of those questions weren't really answered and potentially being able to answer those would change people's votes um and one of the issues that people brought up was well we have time so we can come back to a special town meeting and we can vote on whatever it is that comes to special town meeting and so now we are here and I think the question before us is are the other options better than what was put forth at annual town meeting and if so why and if not why not okay Karen go ahead thank you rob yeah I just wanted to I'm going to jump on the the Vic bandwagon of you know as i' mentioned before just putting putting it before the town um you know either and I don't know whether the The Proposal that you've identified is the one to go but then there should also be the one of uh of just developing and all the impact that that will have on on the town um that said if we look like we're running up against the wall with the December 31st um I don't think it's a bad thing to go to the state and say hey we we are working really hard we to get this done can you give us an extension you know where where Our intention is to comply I think that's a that's an okay thing to do and it would also give us a little bit more breathing room if we can if we can do that so um I don't know what the vehicle is for doing that but I don't think I don't think that is an option I think the only because we would be non-compliant I think we have to put I understand that but but we have two thing we have two potentially compliant options on the table one is that's going to be we'll just develop it and expand the town the other one is from our own terminology kind of paper compliance so but we need we need time to develop these two to put them before the town so so okay State we have these two proposals we just got to get the that'll put us in compliance we just have to get it before the town and prepare for this so you know I just I don't see why why not ask it's it's a it's a question they can easily say no because you'll be out of compliance so you know forget it you either do it by December 31st or not so but I don't I don't see any downside to asking for an extension so um I I really don't even know how that would work uh to be honest um so my statement kind of dils on that too Rob could we get partial credit if we just put through the center of town probably not but you know good faith right so not having so um not having a a voted on uh plan that's passed to meeting by the end of the year would kind of trigger a couple things it would trigger us being non-compliant which would um potentially stop any grants we have and it's very unclear how much money that really is but that is generally just not a good place to be number two it would probably Trigger action from the attorney general to sue the town and to be honest I don't know what uh that would really look like or how that would work I think the only option we have tonight is to put our best plan together that gets voted on a town meeting and if town meeting can vote Yes or to meeting can vote no I don't think it's our I don't think we should withhold that right from the voters of town no I don't I don't think so either but I I also think if they if they all vote no with us with us not being prepared then you're going to face the same ramifications that you just outlined which is non-compliance and withholding of grant money and I I think it's important that we know how much that grant money is but I also I mean I don't see again any downside I mean they can they can easily say no and then we're just stuck at they we don't get a knee extension but you know we are we are working very hard this whole team and the public and everybody are working very hard to get us into compliance so you know and I I I don't yes I understand that the Attorney General would probably sue us and stuff like that but the the wheels of Justice movees slow and you know what are they going to sell they're going to sue us cuz we're slow I mean you know well by the time they got around to doing a lawsuit we would probably be in compliance because we could have gotten something past the past the town the town meeting so it's just it's not that we're not doing it it's just we just need more time thanks Karen go go ahead Michael oh yeah no sorry I should put my hand and I you know I was gonna ask John actually I don't want to put him on the spot but does he have any kind of insight into what people at the state are saying about what's going to happen to the towns that aren't in compliance by the new year um I mean we've gotten no concrete guidance on that but we do know that we would be ineligible for funding we'd be considered non- compliant and we open ourselves up to a lawsuit the other thing that I was wondering about sorry I just had one more question rather then I'll defer um so grants I know a lot of stuff at the school is funded by Grant is there anything in the law that says that that funding wouldn't be affected by us not being in compliance with MBTA communities no so the guidance we've gotten from the state is there are 13 Grant programs that have identified compliance with MBTA communities as a decision criteria metric um and those are in the presentations I've listed those uh I've talked to the planner in Milton who uh Milton is currently non-compliant and they have had grant funding from two grants that were not listed in that list clawed back and the state has also uh provided guidance that any grant program that has compliance with all Massachusetts laws as a decision criteria metric would make um the town would be ineligible to receive those grants as well so we really don't know what grants we would be ineligible for unless we look to the decision criteria for every sing State Grant uh that's available and that that's just impossible so um we know what the state has explicitly told us but we don't know the other ones because we just we can't look at every single grant program in the state so this could be significant then potentially okay next joh Matthew go ahead um one of them is the MW or mass Works sorry Mass Works Grant which uh Burlington used for significant funding for their NW connection which could further push us back connecting to the with our plans there and I know town meeting was not happy about spending more money on our existing solution as we're waiting for that um on the idea of alternatives for town meeting um I one of the options that kept being raised as town meeting wanted a choice I mean it's it's the People's Choice right so we I I think it makes sense to try and give them good choices um if we can find two choices that we think are are good um we don't have the ability to come up with a completely new solution such as undeveloped land um but I think what we identified last time is the closest options were one of the carbon Solutions one of the non-carbon solutions as being possible ways of looking at that um I do I do have concerns about not including the previous and approved solution uh previous and approved plan um as we we could we know that that one has been accepted as a shorefire way of being accepted by the state um and that level of confidence may be something that's meaningful to the town voters thanks Matthew so I am um I am very against just to give you my opinion I'm very against including any proposal that includes the carbonis property I think um uh I think that serves no nobody's interest um there's going to be people that are going to um not want that proposal because they see it as a propos proposal that could um generate more school age children which would increase their tax bills and it would also uh include condominium owners in the pop um and they uh in general the voices we've heard on these calls they don't love it so I don't see that how that serves anybody's interest um and I would not vote for it myself so um I don't know what the board uh wants to do like I am of the mindset that we could there's two proposals that don't include the carbonis property and all of the residents that aren't uh on this call whose tax bills would be and even the people that are on this call their tax bills would be somewhat protected um is our greater uh interest and it's just a matter if they attack meeting Jane go ahead well I'm I'm agree with some of our fellow members earlier in the um meeting saying that if we put two proposals forward it's going to be very complicated and confusing for a lot of people I would like to go with the proposal that you had put forward last time the paper compliance with the high density and um and and and I think also we need a paper handout at the town meeting because even though we're going to show some slides or have a presentation people don't always take in all of the information and if they had um a pamphlet of some sort that not only showed the slide so folks could follow along with that but also show um the risks and I know another mention was uh people were thinking that we're just jumping in into this and we're not really thinking it through but we have been talking about this and having a lot of heavy conversations and um John has had multiple meetings with the state and I think if we also did a timeline to show just how much time and effort that we have put into this and this is not just a willy-nilly idea that we're throwing out there just to become compliant but that really have thought of um as many possible risks as we can for the town and try and present um you know a clear as picture as possible I know a lot of people aren't going to be happy but it's at the end of the day it's going to be up to the citizens who show up at the town meeting to ultimately decide and our responsibility is to share the reason why we're either putting I would prefer one but if the board really thinks that two would be better you know we have I think we have to go with something I don't think we can really um ask for an extension it's just too risky in my in my mind thanks Jane I definitely don't want a scenario where there's one Proposal with there's multiple proposals before town meeting and so we have residents from multiple different areas attend and they're voting for one because it doesn't impact them in their backyard it would in turn they're voting against their neighbors I think that's just um not um not in the best interests of our community Michael go ahead I I think we could probably um and I liked what Karen said before and then um Parker kind of added on to it too about you know the contrast that we would get from to you know one that's um more development heavy and one that's paper compliance or low impact we could probably get the same effect though if we kind of described um the consequences of kind of the worst case scenario one while not putting it forward and then just bringing forward a single plan um that has the lowest impact and explain you know why we chose the one that we're putting forward so I think we could probably get the effect of having that contrast as long as we you know describe what the alternative would be to what we're putting forward I I don't know that it's clear but like uh I feel like we need we need to come to a vote tonight of what we're going to put forward for town meeting we are out of time like that's that's my like our town meeting is two weeks from tonight um we have no more time to meet discuss we have to put together what the warrant article is going to consist of uh and it's going to be voted on and so you could vote you have your vote and um we're going to need a mo to make a motion we're going to need to do it so what I'm trying to get to is kind of informally doing straw poles by getting people's opinions but um that's what we need we need to get to Elise go ahead um I'm just thinking out loud here though the way town meeting works if we had two proposals potentially whichever one is first is the one that's going to get voted on so I mean it's not like we can go to town meeting and say here are options what do you like better A or B like it has to be a warrant article so we would have to have two articles if we're voting on two different things go ahead John yeah we we have one article um basically it would be presenting however many options so could we have four proposals you could send theoretically four proposals to town meeting um and then the motion that would approve the article would reference the proposal that would be chosen um so we talked with Town Council about that they actually thought that was cleaner than doing two separate articles because like you said if we did two separate articles you'd have one would have to get voted down and then move to the second or you would accept this first and then vote down the second or skip over the second and so you also wouldn't be able to discuss the Articles together you wouldn't be able to compare them as part of the discussion if you had two separate articles unless the moderator allowed that so they thought it the Town Council thought it would be cleaner to do one article and the motion would specify the proposal being voted on do is it already written up do we have the the verbiage for it yeah would it be pretty generic would it be worth our time to hear it does does do other members of the board want to hear what it would sound like or just me if it's just can talk to you the motion the motion would just be um to see if the town if the town would approve adoption of the and I'm paraphrasing here but it would be um to approve the adoption of the um NBTA community's multif family overlay District uh for the area familiarly known as and then whatever the what we've been calling it um would be listed and then and to amend the zoning map with those subd districts it would be pretty general of a motion and and of an article I can uh share my screen and show you what the motion uh what it officially looks like uh so here article 8 MBT to see if the town will vote to amend chapter 210 zoning bylaws to insert a new article entitled MBTA communities multif family overlay District article uh 35 neighborhood mixed use district and to the zoning map to include the NBTA community's multif family overlay District as shown on the map on file with the town clerk hero fail not and make the due return of this warrant with your doings thereon to the clerk of said town of H at the time and place afro set so this part right here it's very generic Lucia go ahead I want to make an argument to drop from consideration Walcott and carbonis that plann that includes those two and my reason for that is in choosing that we would essentially be swapping one Community for another which I don't think that makes sense personally um but also we would be reducing the amount of land near the commuter rails which has benefits in the long term if they do get developed to where we have walkability to the commuter rail and potentially less vehicular traffic in the center of town which well cut would increase so let me repeat what I think I heard you don't want to consider one of the plans that includes bonies which in that in that plan which also considers Walcott Valley yes if we're trying to make a decision then I say we drop that from consideration for the reasons that I said okay I am on board with I I think I already stated I I don't want to include any Proposal with uh carbonis property um what are um I can go around with a straw poll Alise what do you think about Luc his recommendation um I like it I I also agree that I don't want to include the carbonis property um I yeah I I I don't know I'm I'm like really I'm having a hard time making a decision here the only thing I know for sure that I I don't I don't really want the carbon's property to be involved thank you uh Matthew um I I also agree to the extent that it kind of leaves a small island um isolated in in the north part of the Town um I also like I not to shift properties but I I it may make sense as an alternative at town meeting um but Indian Brook in my mind just the traffic if that work to be developed just seems like a mess Michael yeah no I mean I think I said it in the last meeting too I don't think carbon should be considered because it you know Cuts against the interest to S of everybody in the town Parker uh I disagree I think we should include it and then have a different plan and Market them so one is the growth and one is the paper compliance uh Jane uh Jane I think you already kind of stated your opinion but you want to restate it yeah I'll just uh reiterate again I don't think we should take the risk and include the carbon property so I believe then it would leave two options and I prefer one but two will do the trick as well and Karen what is your like you you stated earlier we should go to the state to ask for more time but how do how do you think we should that aside thank thank you that aside um I I'm going to stick with my original proposal and with what Parker said I think I I would personally I would show up at town meeting and I would vote against the Carboni one but I do think it should be presented um in terms of here's the growth and here or here is the paper compliance it's a it's a good contrast and um you know if you have a a good number of if you get the town comes out and you know i' be you be know I would be my heart would go out to those if it ended up being the you know overlay on top of the um the condos then you know I I certainly understand their perspective and you know heard all of them tonight but um but if the rest of the Town came out and said you know no to the carbonis and yes to the other one then you know again we leave it up to the town let them decide you know that's who we're we're representing here let's not make a decision specifically ourselves uh Vic go ahead uh let's leave the carbonis aside okay Lucia did you have uh your hands is up yeah sorry I thought it was just specific to wall cut and carbonis um I don't necessarily agree with taking both of the plans with carbonis which is why I made the suggestion that I made so that we could at least get down to three plans um but I will say I agree with Matt in that I do think Indian Brook is the worst option out of the four and that's because it would impact the most number of existing residents if it were to get developed and also then you have zero Land close to the commuter rail station and that was the purpose of the NBTA communities Act is is to require communities near public transit routes to add zoning per um president skel's office's statement okay so I think we got a general uh at least five I think there was really above five that want agreed with your uh statement I think there was seven actually that agreed with your statement Lucia to not in um not consider that plan to move forward the one with Walcott Valley and carbonis so we're down to three I think we heard from several people not to include carbon's properties at all uh I think that was Vic Elise Jane myself um was there a fifth person yeah I supported not including them to so that would give us five out of nine that don't want to include carbo on these properties so that leaves two two remaining proposals um well let's before we do that I think I've only heard from two people that wanted to include multiple proposals with Karen and Parker is there anyone else that wants to go to town meeting with multiple proposals Matthew go ahead yeah I I as I've said I think it makes sense so last town meeting people asked for an alternative they asked they said that you know they wanted to see Alternatives and several people voted down saying that they wanted to see an alternative um I think there is a benefit in using the one that's been approved by the state as a level of confidence versus an alternative that's distinct enough to explain why so I think people that were looking for an alternative wanted to find a proposal that didn't include their property um disagree in some of the cases and I can send you some quotes I I don't I don't know that I need quotes but I think the general sentiment is um there was two there was two primary reasons people objected to it one they didn't want their own properties included and two they didn't want um readily developable land to be in The Proposal like I I don't know of like any other significant so yes they either one of those things could have been looking for an alternative proposal um I just am concerned about people like say we had two proposals and um it's literally would cause a scenario where residents from one one part one where they live they' vote one way and the residents where the other residents where they live somewhere else would vote the other way and you'd literally have the situation of neighbor versus neighbor depending on where they lived across town meeting floor that's how I see it playing out and I think that's right and I think that they're going to cancel each other out and people are going to make the right choice which is why we should do the original and then coass around and an alternative because I think people are intelligent and I'm not insult intelligence of folks who disagree with the merits of having an overl District but I think people can ascertain the risk associated with it and realize that then it's just nimbyism and settle on the correct one which is not having growth because we are fatigued of additional growth at the town and so I think the question isn't which of the two absent of Walcott Valley I think the question is is which one absent the walk valy Caron proposal Matthew go ahead Rob um respectfully I disagree there was at least five people that vote said they voted down purely because they disagreed with the process there were several people that said they wanted to go back to town meeting with more time that was under less of a time crunch and there was actually a mix of people that were fine with carbonis and people that were against carbonis so I think you're misremembering how Universal the criticisms were I do remember the sentiment that they were people felt under informed um I don't know how to combat that because it's going to happen at this town meeting there's people that are going to come to town meeting that are going to feel underformed of this process when we've had meetings about it for two and a half years um and there's only so much we can do we can talk like the the newspaper can uh talk about it um we can we have our our meetings the zoning advisory committee has their meetings um there's still going to be people that are going to show up a town meeting that going to be underformed I don't know how to comp back that best we can do is present our rational as we've been saying but I also think that saying generalizing on a subset of the the concerns is why it didn't pass or what the objections were I think is neglecting a large part of the town's uneasiness and concern it's much broader than I think you're putting out there I think there's General sentiment that yes that like I think started this meeting by saying we didn't go pursue this zoning overlay so yes there's residents in town that don't want it period and they're willing to fight it in court there I I firmly believe there's people that are like that and that feel that way um I don't know how to address those concerns like that is just they think that the state is trying to take away power from the town and um um I don't know how to what to say really to help that Karen go ahead thanks Rob um I think I could I could get on board with just one proposal at town meeting but I do think it needs to be explained in terms of why we specifically chose that one and essentially have on paper what an alternative might be not that they get to vote on it but this is the one we're putting forward and here's if we were to go forward with something that was developable developable something like that then then this would be the impact to the town right in terms of the the schools and the taxes and things like that the comparison has to be made and it's just it is you know I mean like I said I really did like your the spreadsheet you had it's it's a it's a numbers game and I think people have to have to take a take a look at that and then let the town decide I mean I in doing some research I was looking at some of the other towns mostly the ones right along the 135 route and I think it was Weston had actually put out a um a survey to the to the town and asked a number of different questions and that there it is published on their website and one of the questions was to your point said you know how many of you are willing to uh you know go for non-compliance and suffer the ramification of you know no grants and um and potentially being sued and that was like literally it was like 51% so it was it was a majority not by much but it was a majority that was that was they were completely willing and then another I don't know 17 or something perent were somewhat willing but so again I think you know it's not I don't think it's something we need to fear but I do think it's something we need to put in front of the town in terms of what you know just be very clear if we are not compliant this is what we will lose you know and um so you guys want to vote it all down and not vote for something then fine then this is this is it but you you can't force people to do something that's good for them if you know what I mean so I do Lucia go ahead so I think what I'm hearing is that some people want the original plan as an option as one of two potentially um and some people want the quote unquote paper compliance so in terms of the paper compliance I think Indian Brook is the worst option so I'm still gonna I'm gonna basically push for a straw po to say can we take that off the table unless somebody wants to argue for including Indian Brook as the option I I can go around does does anyone have strong opinion that they um Alisa you okay with eliminating that proposal just to be clear we're talking about number two the one that's Indian Brook in downtown I I really I don't know I just I feel I I'm really torn if I'm just being very candid here because I think The Preserve is a good option but we've heard from so many residents who are avidly against it and it was brought to town meeting and turned down so I'm I'm just having a really hard time making a decision here I that being said I I do think downtown is the perfect option because it's already zoned for this so nothing is changing by adding downtown but downtown is in all of the options so that doesn't help okay um the Rob if you take out the Indian Brook one does that only leave one option no that that would leave uh the original one from town meeting last year but that has carbonis doesn't it yes already say I think we have already five people that don't want to include the proposal withon so and then if we take out the Indian Brook that would only leave that would leave that would leave The Proposal with wot Valley The Preserve in downtown yep I think we have our answer if people want to go along with taking out Indian Brook which I think Common Sense Wise It's the Most uh further removed from the MBTA site and it would be a traffic nightmare so we need we need to get to five people uh that's the reality we need to get to five people to uh agree to vote here um I'm of the mindset to have one proposal uh I don't I don't agree with having multiple proposals it makes us um I think having one proposal we put our be best foot forward and I think any of these um Parcels because they've debate been debated are within the four corners of the warrant article so those motions could be made on the floor I don't think we can include Parcels that haven't been debated uh on the floor um on the town meeting floor so are we not going to show the original plan I don't know if if it's not being considered I would not know like we could but I don't know why we would I think we're going to have to because we're gonna have to show what's different and if we show what's different then people are gonna want to have a voice on it and people are gonna say I I just if we're already going to show it give folks that wanted more information a chance and then we'll probably end on the one that we choose based on the board meeting today it's like it I'm in sales guys like this is what I do it's probably why some people in the uh in the commentary section didn't like me earlier for interrupting it's because like you you present they do this in pricing exercises you do the the one you jack up the price on the one that you don't want to have them go for and then you incentivize the other one it's like we show hey this one's more taxes more students more and then we make an educated decision as a board on the one that we should go for like it's and that's what hopefully we land on from group think at Tom beating and because I think otherwise people are going to feel like they don't have a choice which is what people wanted before and they're going to want to see the original one anyway and some people are going to ask why we're not voting on it if they have a clarification but I don't know that's my thought I mean can't we kind of do that we can you know present both but say this is the one we support the second one I don't think there's any rule that says we can't talk about one that we're not putting forward right Rob John is that possible could we put together could we show two plans but say this is the one we recommend I mean it's context right something I would not recommend presenting a plan that is not something the planning board has put forward for town meeting votes so the board can can move to proposals forward to town meeting and recommend town meeting approve both of them or one of them or none of them but I would say if the board is looking to put a proposal before town meeting that they have not V voted to move before town meeting for consideration that's just going to be confusing yeah yeah so Parker like we we would need to put it like before town meeting and we could we could put language that we did not recommend the one that included carbonis for approval and we could put language that we recommend the other proposal for approval but they would both be eligible for a vote um which John any of these Parcels could they could in your opinion I think they're within the four corners of being allowed to be inserted into the amended into the article at town meeting do you think that or have any opinion on that so Town Council has said that the the parcels that have been advertised can be recombined into a proposal um which is what we did with the Walcott downtown and preserve but y on the floor of town meeting I mean that's changing a map that would not exist for people to look at it would be creating a proposal that does not exist um so I mean I would strongly recommend the board not open up town meeting floor to amending any proposals because I mean it if people start putting Parcels together we have no way of confirming it meets the criteria that NBTA communities requires the 50 acres the 15 units per the total district and the unit capacity I mean if people start putting Parcels together we could pass something that's not compliant okay I I agree Matthew go ahead I was just going to strongly agree with what John said both in this statement and the previous one if we're going to compare what we presented in May and somebody's going to ask why is this different I I think it should be one of the options and whether we recommend that one or not is something that we can discuss and it sounds like the board's leaning in in One Direction there but I think having them predefined as part of the motion as as option A or option b um just makes everything a lot easier rather than trying to explain it on the floor and work with it ad hoc all right let let me try to get to a consensus here so I think I think we can limit it to these two scenarios one scenario it's okay scenario one is we just propose wcla Valley The Preserve and the downtown area that's scenario one and we recommend that for approval scenario two is we propose the original plan from town meeting months ago we don't recommend that for approval but we also include the option of Walcott Valley The Preserve in downtown and we do recommend that zoning map for approval does anyone want to pursue other anything else than those two plans oh so my preference would still be the original assessment but if there's five people that the original proposal but there's five people that don't like that um then that makes so you you'd like you'd like to recommend the original proposal I I would just as an alternative yes okay I I think that the certainty there helps and I still think it makes more s more sense in terms of just the the the map itself all right let's let's try to go around to get to when you basically we're going to have one proposal so option A is one Proposal with Walcott Valley The Preserve in downtown option b is two proposals one of which we recommend one we're not going to recommend so option one one proposal I'm going to go around a leas do you prefer option A with one proposal or option b with two I think right now I prefer one all right Lucia um I would prefer two proposals although I I stated that you know I'm not for dropping The Preserve the original plan okay Matthew uh I'm for two proposals Michael given what John said now I'm for to propos too I think we should do the original and the one that we prefer and say which one we prefer Parker two Jane I guess two would show the contrast between the two Karen do you guys should all be up in the front of town meeting Vic obain we can all stand up there with you we'll be right behind you rob yeah and Rob is one um all right so we're going to put together a proposal with uh two options the general I believe this is the general consensus is one of the options is going to be the original plan from uh our previous town meeting and the other option is going to be The Preserve Walcott Valley and downtown does anyone disagree with those as the two options so through the chair you would need to have the board vote to send those two proposals to town meeting and then the board will need to vote on which or both um or neither of those propos proposals they would recommend town meeting pass okay so do I should I vote two separate votes or just one vote saying we recommend two separate votes would be cleaner okay I'd like to entertain a motion to move forward the MBTA zoning overlay District Proposal with Walcott Valley The Preserve and the downtown area to town meeting warrant article want to do the two I think John was saying two different motions one is with the two options specified and the second motion is going to be which one we were going to refer the original one I think so the motion would be to to move option one and option four as we've been describing them to it's to town meeting that's my understanding is is that what you is John was that what you were saying yeah yes okay so we want to move um was there a second on that can I get a friendly amendment I think it was Parker and somebody else maybe seconded it you can get a friendly Amendment who else who seconded it second thanks Jane uh so the amendment would be that we'd like to I'd like to entertain a motion to move forward two proposals one has Walcott Valley The Preserve and downtown area the other proposal has their carbon's property and a joining properties The Preserve and the downtown area to the town meeting floor as the maps for MBTA communities so moved second all right roll call vote Alise mayosi yes Lucia Lopez yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Parker H yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vicasa prati yes and Rob Benson is uh is a no I I don't like this plan but um I will be speaking on behalf of the board and put forward the board's uh interests so I'd like to um the second motion so we need to decide which of the two we prefer the chair go ahead the board could recommend both okay so we need to decide as John put it there's kind of like um there's four options we can recommend neither we can recommend both we can recommend one or the other so there's four different scenarios um does anybody want the scenario of recommending neither can I just add something sure I I kind of agree with what John said earlier I feel like the planning board is proposing this and if we have something we don't recommend in something we're proposing it just kind of makes us look disorganized that's just my opinion I think that happens uh where town meeting warrant articles get on the town meeting warrant article and then the like any sponsor ing body could say recommend no action or recommend not approval like I think it just happens um I don't um uh does anyone else share that sentiment I think we can recommend it and still sleep at night I think people are gonna make their own decision regardless if we recommend it or not and listen to the evidence all right Luccia go ahead I think Matt had his hand up first oh Matthew go ahead um yeah say there's a difference between saying that we don't recommend something versus not offering a recommendation um what we've got are what we think are the two best options for different reasons and address different concerns in the town and it would be reasonable to say that we think these are the best options for different reasons um and having listened to the town you know letting the town make the final decision so we need to come to a consensus where um five out of four um five out of the nine of us need to vote one way or another so we have four options we've got recommend neither recommend both recommend one of the other in either direction before we do that Lucia go ahead I would recommend both because as Matt said there are reasons for recommending one versus the other and in terms of w cut in The Preserve this potentially has an impact for more residents which is a negative for it it also has more land that's farther from the commuter rail which from a planning perspective is a negative and The Preserve and carbonis has been approved which is a positive and I mean all the reasons why it was the original proposal all right thanks Lucia I am gonna um just move to uh moot like entertain motions here so we can um move this along I think this is the most this is my opinion of what um I think is the best option and if we don't get five votes we'll go to other options I'd like to entertain a motion that the board the recommend the map that includes waca Valley The Preserve and the downtown area moved thanks Jan thanks Michael thanks we're gonna go to roll call vote Elise mayosi um no Lucia Lopez um I just had a question before I say yes or no are you saying then we're going to say no like is the saying yes to walcot and The Preserve and no to The Preserve and carbonis no this is just saying yes to recommending this this proposal Elise did you understand the the the motion correctly I did but I I almost feel like I don't want to recommend either because I don't I don't want to recommend the one with carbonis because I don't want that one I I just don't like that one but I don't want to choose one gu I like I I heard what Matt said and I almost feel the opposite I feel like maybe we should just not recommend either just leave it like we brought this proposal we gave you guys two options now you decide I think the important message is that it makes more sense to pass something and let the town pick which they prefer living with right I would I for um I know we're in the middle of a vote here um but I would recommend uh I like Alise's approach over recommending both huh I mean we can speak as individuals at the meeting too so even if we vote to recommend one that we can all get up there as individuals and say you know what we think the best path forward is all right with all that said Lucia how do you vote Yes Matthew the original question was do we vote to recommend the uh option four is that what we were doing yes uh I'm no Michael King yes Parker h you muted [Music] Parker Park sorry my phone sorry my phone's Frozen uh no all right Jane Moran uh so this is a vote for the positive for option four yes yes I vote Yes Karen Wills no Vic I've seen okay so Lucia Michael Jane and Karen you were a yes and I was a yes so that's five no I was a no you were a no let me see Lucia yes Michael yes Jane yes so we have four to four cuz Vic abstained so that doesn't pass right John correct all right so all right I like to entertain emotion that the board recommend for approval the original plan that include the carbon property and ajining properties The Preserve and the downtown district roll call vote Elise no Lucia did we have to move and second that oh yeah yeah yeah sorry um moved been been on in a long time Elise no thank you Lucia yes Matthew yes Michael no was that a no no Parker yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills I'm a little confused May because it's so late is this for is this for presenting both of them or just presenting The Preserve no so we're gonna we're going to show both we previously voted to not recommend right yeah I got that so what this is this is this is either to recommend the original proposal which town meeting voted no on or to recommend it for approval and so what what would your preference be no well I'm sorry I thought we were voting to present both options no no how Jane we we already voted to present both options this is if we want to recommend the original proposal oh you're right Karen it's late yes do you so you want to recommend the original proposal we're not going to the one that I voted down at last town meeting we presenting both it's whether we're voting as a we're voting as a board whether we want to recommend it over the other option or with the other option or at all I'm sorry I what I would I don't like it but I'd like to present it sounds like we're voting to present too that's what I thought it was Voting we already voted on that yep we're going to present both option with the option with with The Preserve walcot Valley and and um downtown we said even though we're presenting it we said we don't recommend it this other option was the original one and so right now we've got three yes votes three no votes like that we're not so it's tied whether we recommend it yes or no so we can first one okay Vic I've okay and Rob is a no so we don't recommend this one either so we're going to propose both plans with recommending neither so that's that's what we're U moving to the town meeting floor Matthew go ahead I would suggest that we phrase it slightly differently as we don't have the board hasn't spe hasn't made a preference over either um I'd also suggest because for logical consistency starting with the presenting the original plan first and then going to the new one because it makes for easier discussion John do do we need to iron out any of these details in in like in the meeting now tonight or can we just can this be done like uh maybe in a small working group to prepare for town meeting no you can't do board um no not not the whole board but like like there's typically there's whether it's me the chair you maybe one or two people prepare slides for the town meeting I mean yes but that's not what Matthew was asking oh um mat was asking the order of the Articles what's one article right is just the order order the proposals within the article um do we need to vote on that I don't know what um I mean if the board just wants to tell me what they want to do you don't the vote we don't need an official vote on that I like Matthew's suggestion having the original and then and then going to the newer option second I think it makes sense chronologically same same yep same it's cleaner okay that's at least five so okay all right um this is this is kind of torturous um but do we need to can do anything to close this discussion John you need to close the public hearing so i' like to entertain a motion to close the public hearing on the NBTA communities second roll call vote Alise meowski yes Lucia Lopez yes Matthew Ranka yes Michael King yes Parker hap yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vica South pry yes and Rob Benson is a yes did I miss anybody I don't think so all right um we still have another agenda item on our agenda Jeff are you still with us [Applause] John do you see is uh oh Joe Joe you're gonna talk for um six Nebraska Street yes I thought I would all right let me um do I need for definitive subdivision plan do I need to open a public hearing for this John or what we need so I'd like to open a public uh I'd like to entertain a motion to open open a public hearing for six Nebraska Street definitive subdivision plan so second all right roll call vote Elise meowski we'll go back to Elise Lucia oh I said yes oh okay Lucia yes all right uh Matthew yes Michael Yes Parker yes Jane yes Karen yes Vic yes and Rob is a yes all right Joe uh thank you for bearing with us this uh meeting we're gonna try to wrap it up pretty quickly to and see what we can cover and I I appreciate you uh sticking with us this whole time but uh if like to give us an introduction to what you'd like to what would like to be done here John I'm having issues on my end could you share a a copy of the plan Joe I can make you a panel member instead of just let that would help yep all right you're gonna get kicked out and then I'll I'll let you back in okay great uh that up on the screen for everyone to see yep okay uh what we're talking about is number six Nebraska Street uh that's one of the three uh streets off of Pleasant Street between Maine and maple um number six is a 4.65 acap parel owned by uh William Diana 9290 um it's uh bills home you see here um he's got an out building a screen porch uh a pool and law on areas uh it's really a residential use um we have the uh right away of Nebraska Street which shows up on plans as early as n 1914 it was confirmed on a plan endorsed by the planning board in March of 1980 a variance was granted in uh 1992 because the parcel had insufficient Frontage along uh Nebraska Street that granting of a variance for the frontage issue created this 4.65 acre um building lot um fast forward to 2024 um one of uh Bill's Sons Jeff has a young family would like to stay in town and um given the lack of uh Frontage along Nebraska Street um and extension to Nebraska Street seem the only way to create that buildable lot that um Jeff is looking for in order to keep his family here in town so we have proposed an extension to Nebraska street that includes this cisac this turnaround here that bulb in line with um planning board rules and regulations would give us the frontage we need um in the ra Zone District which the parcel Falls in so um a new lot one would encompass Bill's Home would get Frontage along the bulb and the new lot two would be the large lot 164,000 Square F feet and Jeff would build his home um down in here um it's part of the review of all this and our due diligence um our surveys boundary line a topographical we identified a couple of issues that Jeff has decided to get out in front of one is uh Wetlands resources areas at the Northerly corner and the southwesterly corner no work is proposed in those areas um Municipal Water and Sewer is available in Nebraska Street Jeff has received approval from the DPW to extend those Services into the site so they will be on town Water and Sewer um we have uh Jeff has reached out as part of the Pres submission process but then followed up with the hopkington fire department and they are in agreement that our root to U access the the um the site with the fire apparatus would satisfy their requirements so um we have um jumped out in front of a lot of those issues um the one that pops up frequently um the board has has discussed with many times is storm water we have waivers in our proposal that move us away from the traditional pavement inside that turnaround to something that utilizes the existing driveways as a result we knock down our numbers with regard to storm water mitigation dramatically so we're able to introduce an infiltration area down in here that will handle the home and the increases that we see so that we can um provide uh the control the mitigation to bring up post-development flow and um a rate and volume of flow down below pre-development levels and then finally I guess the the one step that's often overlooked in all this is Jeff has gone to all of the abuts um I think you'll notice in the file that there are awful lot of letters of support um for the for the project um the way way it's been proposed and the the idea of of um helping a young family stay in town so uh I guess in summary we're looking for um One new home on the uh 4.65 acres and we've done uh an awful lot with this design plan to mitigate the impacts from that change it's been a long night I was talking on mute uh sorry about that um thanks for the overview Joe I appreciate it uh John do you have any kind of uh staff report of this project yeah so um the proposed plan is just creating that bulb of a culdesac so not necessarily constructing the whole road but just that extension that would allow for Frontage for the new lot uh Nebraska Street as Joe had mentioned is a private road already in existence and has been for a number of of decades at this point um and uh the proposed extension doesn't appear to create any significant change to the area uh adversely or otherwise um and as Joe had noted they we've received a number of letters of support from Neighbors and I think it's worthy of note that no letters or comments in opposition have been received as well so uh seems like the neighborhood is pretty in support of this um and it's it would just be for one additional lot where are we with the consultant report um we I'm sorry it's late and my brain is mush Joe have we gotten it to you yet or are we still waiting on that yes we received that last Thursday Joe was was kind enough to email that over to us for a couple things needed follow up we weren't able to get those together in time for uh the peer review to uh review our comments so we have responses in the works but haven't taken that step yet all right let's um does the board want to uh try to go on a site walk does that seem appropriate [Music] here sure I'm gonna say let's try to schedule one uh Joe is that possible oh absolutely yep um uh I I can't do I I don't know that it needs to be me that I have to be there but I know I can't do this weekend um would potentially the next weekend the uh uh what is that next weekend the nth 16th the 16th Saturday the 16th yep would like 9:00 work yeah that'd be great works for me all right so if we just go to the end of Nebraska and park along the road do that work sure okay I think because of the late hour I think that's where we'd like to leave it tonight we don't have the uh the kind of the consultant report finalized we're going to need to get uh that done um I think this is a good stopping point um so John do I need to if you're okay Joe I'd like to continue this uh to our next hearing yeah please do John do I need to make an official motion to continue this or yes but you don't have to continue the decision because it's not do until January 7th all right I'd like uh so we we don't have a meeting on the 18th what's our next meeting December 2nd I'd like to entertain a motion to continue the six Nebraska Street public hearing definitive subdivision plan to December 2nd so moved thanks Matthew second all right roll call vote Alise meowski yes Luc Lopez yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Parker hap yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes viao pry yes and Rob Benson as a yes all right so at this point um I thanks Joe uh we'll see you on December 2nd and we'll actually we'll see you before then on the sidewalk this uh November 16th at 9:00 a.m. oh Jeff before uh uh I think I just continued it can can I allow Jeff to speak I saw he raised his hand here yeah that's fine Jeff go ahead Jeff if you look on muted but we can't hear you I don't know what to do at this point um Jeff I apologize but we can't uh we can't hear you if you're uh to the chair Zoom yeah Mel go ahead yeah Jeff just texting me technical issues on his end he can certainly weigh in at the site meeting or the December 2nd meeting all right that sounds awesome um I appreciate it uh so at this point um we we'll have a chance uh like Joe said to talk to Jeff uh next time but I like to make a motion or entertain a motion to adjourn for this evening no moved second thanks roll call vote Elise mayosi yes Luc Lopez yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Parker hap yes Jane ran yes Karen Wills yes vicaso prti yes and B say yes thanks everybody uh longest meeting we've had in quite a while uh when I first joined the board they were like all this long so um