We're gonna get started here in one one minute. Uh I think we have a quorum. I'm gonna I'm gonna start by reading the uh remote meeting script and we'll go from there. All right. Good evening. Uh pursuant to chapter two of the acts of 2023, this meeting will be conducted via remote means in accordance with
applicable law. This meet this means that members of the public body as well as members of the public may access this via meeting via virtual means. Participants may access this meeting through the remote meeting link is posted on the meeting agenda and through the town's online calendar when required by law or allowed by the chair. Persons
wishing to provide public comment or otherwise participate in the meeting may do so by raising their hand or otherwise signing 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'll now confirm attendance of members. Please respond with present if you're on
the call. Matthew Rona, >> present. Sorry, froze up. That's okay. Uh, Elise Mowski, >> present. >> Great. Uh, Lucia Lopez, >> present. >> Michael King, >> present.
>> Parker Half, >> present. Amna Dwan, >> Pier Mimo >> present >> and Vicasath Pratti >> present >> and Rob Benson is here and staff Aneri Patel
>> present. >> Awesome. And is Lorie St. John on? >> She's not in yet. >> Okay. All right. I'm going to get started. Uh just jumping right into our agenda.
Uh minutes. Oh, go ahead. Aneri, did you have something? >> Sorry, just Lori just joined us. >> All right. Terrific. Welcome. Uh the meeting minutes for November 17, 2025.
Any uh has anyone had everyone had a chance to review them? Get any feedback to Aneri and uh are we good to go or is there any comments additional comments? >> All right, >> we received comments from Matthew and Lucia and we are all set with the
updated ones. >> Okay, terrific. I'd like to uh enterain a motion that the board approve the minutes for November 17th, 2025 as they've been amended uh re uh it to the current
version in our packet. >> Uh labeled revised. So moved. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Thanks, Matthew. Thanks, Michael. Uh roll call votes. Matthew Rona, >> yes. >> Alise Mosowski,
>> yes. Lucia Lopez, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Parker Hab, >> abstain. >> Okay. Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Vicas Pratty, >> yes. >> And Rob Benson is a yes.
So, the next thing on our agenda is the planning board meeting dates for 2026. Um, we typically review them this time of uh this time of year for the upcoming year.
And I know it's it's impossible for people to know their calendars out throughout the year. Uh, but is there anything that um really jumps out at anybody uh as it sits here?
I think there's a typo of some sort for December. I think it goes December 7th and December. This should be I don't know. >> So, it's December 21. Sorry. >> Yeah, >> that's okay. Matthew, go ahead. >> Uh May 18th is town election. I know we
ran into that issue last year where we're not allowed to have a meeting during while the polls are open and depending on how you interpret it on the day of elections is a little funky. >> So, I scrapping that. >> Okay. Um I also suggest I mean discuss
with John regarding our town meeting. So it's in May starting. So do board prefer any other date in the May or we don't want any public meeting in the May? >> I think it's okay to have
a a meeting in May. I I just think it should be I just don't think it's great to have it on the day of uh our elections. So, like we go from April 27th uh two weeks out would be
uh May uh what is that? May is there a reason >> is there a reason not to have it May 11th? >> Uh we have um town meeting four or 5th or 11th. So we don't have the actual date yet
if I'm not wrong. So all right. Um I I think we just uh Go ahead, Lucia. Um, I thought I saw somewhere that town meeting was going to be on a Saturday, May 2nd, and that was going to be one of my questions was in addition to Yeah.
May 18th being town election, so maybe meeting on a different Monday. Um, if we were planning on meeting prior to town meeting or at least penciling something in in case there's anything that comes up prior to like has happened in the past.
I think I think with advanced notice any any of these dates can can move like in the past if we've needed to meet before town meeting we've just uh added a meeting to set to basically uh to do that.
I think um town meeting may is it's weird to have a me is it just me or do people feel it's weird to have a meeting between town meeting and the and the election. Um, I think it's okay, but I'm not sure what other people may think. If the if town
meeting is really May 2nd, like we did vote last town meeting to try to have our town meetings on a on a Saturday. And that would lead to uh May 2nd. And if we had a scheduled meeting for May 11th, it would be between town meeting
and the election, which I think is okay. Uh, anyone else have an opinion? That would that would be my opinion right now is Aneri just if we move the May 18th one to May 11th and if we need to adjust it when things are coming up
we can uh we can do that. >> Go ahead Lucia. My my thought on meeting between is that we might not want to open anything new if we do meet on May 11th just because then if we're getting new members on May
18th then that might complicate things. >> Yeah, we we have that just in general with our whatever our last meeting is before the election. We have that risk and um we're we're going to have that no matter when our last meeting is be my my
take on that. All right. I think we just pencil moved the May 18th to May 11th. And if uh if we need to adjust as we get closer, we can uh we can do that. All right. If the if if uh if it's okay,
I'll move on to item 1.3 on our agenda, which is approval not required. ANR plan 0 Main Street, 14 Main Street, 10 Walcott Street, uh Bay Path Plaza Aner, would you be willing to give us a quick background or is the applicant on
and uh maybe they could give us a background? >> Do you know if the applicant's on? I don't know. Hi, I'm um the permitting manager for Capital Group. We're um we're assisting the applicant. I'm I'm just here really to see how it goes, but I can answer
some questions if you have them. >> We typically try to get an overview of what uh like what's being done and then um uh that's all we're we're really looking for. >> Okay. So basically what we're trying to
do is um for the applicant we're combining the three lots um for future development. Uh basically right now they're the three lots are owned by different individuals but they kind of have one common owner among them the
three of them and um the first step for the future development is to have all three of the lots combined. Um, what do you have any specific questions that I could uh possibly answer or >> Let me open that to the board. Does
anyone have any have any specific questions? >> Matthew, go ahead. >> Thanks. Yeah, it it's probably not pertinent to the ANR, but I'm just kind of curious if there's only one common owner like what's if there's a plan for the property just because, you know, we
just had a had some discussion about this area a couple meetings ago. I'm just kind of curious if there's uh any thoughts about what would happen here. >> I believe a plan is under development and I know that um they've they're scheduling a meeting with the town, I
think, to discuss the uh the plan that they're developing. Um, I'm not at the moment in on that end of it, but uh I believe it's next week or so that they're going to be meeting with the town to review everything and and discuss the future prospective plan.
>> So, yes, ma'am. >> Yep. Just to add on, we are meeting with the owner and the land use department members as a pre-application meeting before they actually submit the application and to find out what what what's their plan. So it's next week so
I can answer in December 15th meeting if >> it sounds like this is uh moving pretty quick. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh obviously I think we're all curious what the uh what the future for these parcels
is but uh I think for our purpose really it's an ANR plan so it's approval not required. So, we're uh so at this time I'd like to entertain a motion um that uh the plan board authorized the principal planner to endorse the ANR
plan for zero Main Street, 14 Main Street, and 10 Walcott Street on behalf. >> So moved. >> Thanks, Matthew. Thanks, Michael. Roll call vote. Matthew Rocka, >> yes.
>> Elise Mosowski, >> yes. Lucia Lopez, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Parker H, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Vicas Pratty, >> yes. >> And Rob Benson is a yes.
All right, moving on to item two on our agenda is uh 8589 Street. So, the applicant has requested to withdraw without prejudice. Um, I don't know if we need any discussion on this. Uh,
we've talked about it at our last meeting and decide to leave it open. Uh, so they could work with the principal planner on on next steps and this these are the next steps is to request to withdraw without uh prejudice. So, I'd like to entertain a motion that the
uh the board allow the applicant to withdraw the minor project site plan application for 85-89 West Main Street without prejudice. >> Point of order. Didn't we just approve that in last meeting according to the minutes? >> So, we just did as a ad administrative
item. We did not close the hearing, >> right? But we we allowed them to withdraw without prejudice. We that motion was in last minutes. >> No board needs to vote tonight
to withdraw the application. >> Because we received that um >> so is it that we're accepting that they've withdrawn as opposed to allowing them >> accept the withdrawal? >> Okay. >> Y clarification. >> Yeah. Um,
Michael, just make the motion. >> Yep. >> All right. Second. >> All right. Thanks, Matthew. Thanks, Michael. Uh, roll call vote. Matthew Rona, >> yes. >> Elise Mosowski, >> yes. >> Lucia Lopez, >> yes. >> Michael King,
>> yes. >> Parker Hap, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Prati, >> yes. >> And Rob Benson, is he? Yes. Uh going on to uh agenda item three uh in our packet of information. So this
>> close the public hearing. >> Uh thank you Matthew. Do we have a second? Close the public hearing for 8589. All right. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona. >> Yes. >> Elise Mosowski. >> Yes.
>> Lucy Lopez. >> Yes. >> Michael King. >> Yes. >> Parker Hap. Yes. >> Peter Mimo. >> Yes. >> Vic Prati. >> Yes. >> And Rob Benson is a yes. Who >> the chair? >> Yeah. Lori, go ahead.
>> Was that Parker who seconded? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. All right. So, the applicant for 66 Fruit Street, which is uh Hopkin Parks and Recck, has requested a continuation
to December 15th. And uh so I'd like to I don't think there's a motion written in the packet of information, but I'd like to entertain a motion to continue the public hearing for 66 Fruit Street to December 15th and extend the decision deadline to December
2020 22nd, 2025. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Thanks, Matthew. Thanks, Michael. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona, >> yes. >> Elise Mosowski, >> yes. Lucia Lopez, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Parker Hap,
>> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Vicas Southrati, >> yes. >> And Rob Benson is yes. All right. On to agenda item four, which is new to us. I'd like to entertain a motion to open
the public hearing for Oolo Oaks. Uh, amended amended definitive land. >> So moved. >> Oh, second. >> So that was Matthew with the motion and Michael with a second. >> Roll call vote. Matthew Rona,
>> yes. Elise Mosowski, >> yes. >> Lucia Lopez, >> yes. Michael King, >> yes. >> Parker Hap, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Vicas Southrati, >> yes.
>> And Rob Benson is yes. All right. Uh, Aneri, would you like to kick uh kick us off and give us a staff report? Or maybe should we should is the applicant on? Maybe we get a introduction to the project from the
applicant and then get the staff report. So, Rob, I'm uh not allowed to vote on this, but I'm going to be representing the applicant. I don't know if my camera's working. I'm on my mobile office right now. >> I saw you for a minute, but then it it cut out. >> Okay. Well, I guess you guys will have
to just bear with the douls sound tones of my voice if that's efficient. >> Yeah, that's that's great. >> Perfect. I'll keep it to a a short monologue then. Uh so the story is quite
simple on this project. Uh once upon a time a dad had a dream. He wanted to build a road for him and his kids to live on. The the year was 1992 of our lord and Michael Oiello sought the town
of Hopkin to you know build his road and bought land from then built Tetlau and thus put in motion the building of Oiello Oaks. And at the time the town in its maturity had and played a little bit of fast and loose with the roles but we
uh Mr. Oiola was able to build the road and uh then only one of his daughters showed up to buy a house and the other Paula uh you know lived in the house at five oella with him. So Mr. Ociella decided to then sell the other remainder
lots to uh who are some of our neighbors today on the road. And as it worked at the time, the town, you know, plowed the road and, you know, continued to perform, you know, maintenance at times and according to the record, which I'm
happy to share with you. But what happened along the way is is that Mr. Oiello, he wasn't a developer. He was a a dad. And he tried to make attempts to get the road accepted by the town uh
multiple times. In fact, in 2009 and 13 and 14 and 15, there were attempts when he petitioned the the planning board and sometimes showed up to the meetings but sometimes didn't. And the truth is is that I think Mr.
Oiello was well intended to try and you know get the road accepted but wasn't quite either uh you know as sure of how to go through or what needed to be updated. and in his advanced age uh sometimes, you know, didn't uh attend the meetings or maybe it slipped the
calendar. I'm not really sure. But this is a situation that's quite unique for the town in terms of, you know, what we're seeking. In fact, is we were uh notified a couple years ago by, you know, the DPW when I actually bought
property on Oiello that the town was no longer going to plow to the road. This started to come to a head. And then last year we had a immense situation on the road where uh it snowed and then it rained and then it froze and we had
about a a sheet of ice like 4 in thick up and down up and down O yellow that you know neither postal truck or oil uh delivery was able to traverse. And so myself and the residents, you know, are humbly petitioning the board to update
the uh original subdivision plan which states on subsection D that the owner of Oiello shall be responsible for uh the road at no additional cost to the town. Because without removal of this uh line item on that original approval, we're
not going to be able to petition the town to accept the road. And we could talk a little bit about some of the other nuances to the plan, but that's kind of like the high level of why we're, you know, reaching out and, you know, in front of the board today is, you know, we need that removed before we
can more move forward with some of the other uh requirements that need to be done. >> Thanks, Parker. Uh, quick question. Did uh I assume because just the nature of what you from the nature of what you said there was never any home homeowners
association or never any like uh plan um to collect funds to do this type of maintenance. >> That's correct. at the infancy of the plan as it was presented to the board back in you know the early 90s um and to
this day there has never been and was never an attempt by the developer to set forth in HOA and funds have not been collected of any sort because again we were uh getting our road plowed historically for 30 years up until um
you know a couple years ago by the town so there wasn't frankly the need to or a forcing function too. So I I know you haven't lived there the whole time, but in general the general premise is the town has been plowing the road since its inception until somewhere
around in the last few years. So it's been plowing the road 30 plus years and uh uh the past few years it has not. >> That's correct. >> All right. Uh Aneri, could you give us a staff report for this project or
proposal? Mhm. Sure. So the purpose of the request is to allow residents of Ailio Drive to pursue a future petition to accept uh Ailio Drive as a town road as a public road and by removing the
condition does not mean itself it accept the public as a public road. So applicant need to file the separate application for that and go through the town meeting. And if board is inclined to support to the amendment, it may also
wish to consider hiring a independent engineering firm to assess the road and all the associated like drainage system to make sure that it is acceptable by town to adopt that as a public road. We
have Carrie from DPW here as well. She sent her comments to the planning board that um it was attached in the email in the f uh folder. But K, if you want to add anything? >> No, I don't have anything to add at this
point. >> Okay. >> All right. So, let let me can I just uh make sure I'm clear on something? My my general understanding is before the planning board want um the general d uh
premise as my as I understand it is the DPW doesn't think the planning board should should rem this unless there's a a plan for the engineering uh review of the road and a plan to get
the road up to uh subdivision standards or am I misreading uh misreading the write up here >> through the chair. >> Go ahead, Parker. >> Yeah, so we're kind of conflating two steps here. So certainly there should be
as part of uh road acceptance a you know a potential engineering study. Um and I believe it's at the latter end of the the packet that talks about um you know some of the other uh you know steps that
should go through. But at this point, you know, we're not petitioning the board to uh engineering inspection and for road and associated drainage to identify repairs needed and develop an opinion of probable cost. That's uh at the latter part of the um DPW letter for
um consideration of accepting the road. Uh we're we're not here petitioning for, you know, road acceptance today. We're simply looking to remove the subsection D and think we're putting the cart before the horse. Um because in approval
as it says in the 4.6 or 4.6.1 principal planner section, the town needs to you know state that removal. This doesn't mean we're going to get you know our road plowed which you know we understand that. Um, and as the la latter point
says, it's in uh inclined to support the amendment, it may wish to do a independent engineering uh inspection of the roadway and associated prior to any acceptance. But we're not looking for acceptance here. We're just looking for the removal of that subsection today.
>> Okay. Um, so, um, does anyone have any questions on the board? >> Go ahead, Matthew. >> Um, two two separate questions. One is what timeline is the applicant looking
at here given that it's December? Would and would this have to come back to the board to recommend acceptance before town meeting? Um or would it just be a uh citizens petition direct for the town to accept it?
>> I'm sorry in the background. What was the question again? I apologize. I was ask asking Rob if if this would come back before us uh for the planning board's disc decision if we were um recommending acceptance before town meeting and whether this was intended to
go to eventually make it on to the 2026 >> annual town meeting. Parker, do you have a timeline of like the hope the hopes uh if this could be cleared relatively soon? Is the idea to
uh basically come back to to somehow come back to the planning board to basically get a recommendation that the town approved the road before this year's town meeting? We're going to try to get and abide by
that timeline. We still have to get a lawyer to look at a draft proposal of what our article would be and the wording for a petition just to make sure that the uh
conditions not the conditions but the wording of the petition would be in line with what we're asking you know for the town to approve. Yeah, that would be in best case scenario. Uh Matt >> and Rob the other question is the applicant has a section here on legal
risks which I don't entirely understand what its relevance is. It sounds like it's just defining that states could have liability in certain situations. Um, and I know, uh, the DPW talks about how there's no, even if we were to remove
this clause, there would be no obligation for the town to start plowing or, uh, taking care of the the roads in violation of the current bylaws. But I I'm just I'm a little confused by that section there and what it's intending to convey. >> Yeah. So, this is kind of like me
throwing a little bit of spaghetti at the wall as you sticks candidly. But the uh I was going through the research on this in the uh laser fish archives and
started to hypothesize all right well what what happens if this doesn't get done for generations and in fact I started to look at what is like the potential liability not only for like homeowners and you know adjacent property owners but then I started to
look into well what if the town knows about this and doesn't do anything and I actually found uh ample case law um not just asking Chad GDP but actually reviewing the cases themselves confirming that um there have been
instances of municipalities towns in the city of Boston um that if there's an a deliberate ignor ignoring of like a private nuisance that towns can be held liable and it's kind of due to like the nuance of us being a commonwealth and
common law. And so there was uh one that there is risk to the town long term, but also there have um drainage off of uh Hayward Street has caused damage to Oiello in the past that uh in the
archives in 2013. Uh the then DPW director Westerling addressed and advised the board to um you know fix the end of the pavement by on Oiello um because there were plows
that were being damaged and there was potholes that were created and this is due to um reoccurring breakthrough uh water coming off of you know Hayward onto a private road. So, it's like a it's not to bore anybody, but it's to
essentially outline that like this is a weird situation and that there is ample data to suggest that the town could be held liable um for damages if somebody is hurt on the road, but also runoff from the road onto a private road is
happening as well. So, possibly should be considered um you know as part of the equation that the town has you know fixed it in the past too. So that's kind of the why behind that. >> Okay. Thanks, Parker. So needless to say, this is an unusual situation is
that there was a a subdivision built a road that was part of that approval was that it would basically have um its own maintenance done by the not by the town, but the town had been doing maintenance
on that road for at least the plowing. It seems like if if nothing else for quite a long time. Uh now it no longer does that. Now the applicant is looking to remove this clause that they uh will
maintain the road themselves. Then to go before the town meeting to get the road accepted by the town. So obviously unusual. I haven't dealt with this on the planning board. Um >> and uh Rob, what I would add to that too
is is if we wanted to as DPW suggests a betterment uh improvement plan, this whether it's going to town meeting or pursuing a betterment or something else like this uh section has to be removed for any of those sorts of things to
occur. Um and that's why we're approaching this as the first logical step in this process. Thanks, Parker. Uh, Matthew, go ahead. >> Thanks. Yeah, I know the applicant mentioned this was a unique case, and you mentioned this was unusual. It seems
like we have a uh an unusually high number of unique instances this year, but um the 2009 112 minutes that are included, there's actually a comment that highlighting there's no homeowners association to take care of the repairs and this is what could happen with all
the family subdivisions in town. It sounds like when this has come before the board in the past, it's been highlighted that this is not unique or unusual or unusual given the way the town's developed in the past. So, I I do think that context should be here. And several uh instances suggest the
homeowners association could be formed to take care of some of the obligations, but this goes more towards what would happen to get acceptance versus just necessarily the section D here. Thank you, Parker. I mean, thank you,
Matthew. Um, anyone else have any comments or questions, Carrie? I I have a question for you. Do you know if there uh if we have any I know you haven't been in Hopkin for ever, but do you know if if this uh if
we have other roads that have been maintained by the town over say the last 15 10 15 years that are no that are not town roads that are no longer being maintained or serviced with plowing. >> Uh yeah. So there's a difference between
maintaining and plowing. So there was a practice that allowed like plowing but no maintenance. So you couldn't like fix potholes, make repairs. If those were to be done, they were done under the bylaw that you know for um there is a bylaw that allows for minor repairs on private roads.
>> Okay. Um, but I I've been going through the process of trying to get all the ones that weren't publicly accepted roads off um the plow list because I went back to the select board and they said our policy is we do not plow private roads, right? You like a town
can accept um they can accept a a general law that would allow plowing on public roads. Hopin hasn't done that. the select board has been approached like I asked them I guess this is probably like two years ago um that other email or I think the letter that
Matthew was referring to you this has come up you know every decade or so when they decide not to um so there were roads we've slowly been taking them off a few similarish roads um Echo Brook
Lane I believe it was was similar father owned the property subdivided it for his kids um passed away later. It was subdivided even further and the planning board decision had the same exact language. So, I think it was around the
same time, and I think it was one of these like family subdivisions, and I'm air quoting because there's no such thing, but I think at a certain point, um, Hopkin was more willing to make a
adjustments or amendments or exceptions to subdivision rules and rags to try to keep families in town. Um, Maple A was another one recently. That's a dirt road over off of Front Street. um that we stopped plowing. It was
clearly a private road. Arc Road, there's a few that were named driveways that, you know, they had like a street sign, so contractors just assumed they were a street. They were not. They There was a at one point a shared driveway by, but I believe that's been removed. White
Hall Lane was another one. But this this is the first one that's come to the planning board that I'm aware of in the past five years that is to like remove a stipulation to >> this is as far as I know the first private road that the abutters would
like to become public. Most of them it seems like the abutters wanted to stay private. They just wanted to be flowed to. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, what does the board feel? Do uh do we
want to do a sitewalk? What what do what do you see as the next steps? I think um the the thing we want to be cautious about, at least from my point of view, is uh putting the town under financial
obligations related to this road. So, um I don't think I don't want to speak for our DPW director Kerry, but I don't think we want to sign up for uh uh rehabilitating the road right now be my
my guess. I think that we would want the road rehabilitated before acceptance at a minimum. Um so, I think that's where we're at. But in terms of removing this bylaw, that's uh I I kind of agree with Parker. That's
kind of a separate thing. Um does it does the board want to go on a sidewalk? Aner, go ahead. >> So I just want to add on the street acceptance process. Um even if board decide to approve this and amend the
1992 decision, whenever Mr. park hopper and the butterers decide for a street acceptance. They need to come back to planning board again with all the letters and as build plan of the road and all the conditions before they go back I mean go to the town man town
meeting and at that time planning board can recommend and give suggestions to select board before they submit to select board and for a town meeting approval >> unless they could go through a citizens petition. Cor correct
>> that could be one avenue that they don't have to come before the award again. >> That is true. >> Uh Michael, go ahead. >> Yeah, I was just curious Parker can answer. How many houses are on the street? >> Oh, yes. Good question. So, it's myself,
the Oello, the Mills, Littleles, and the Kavanagh. So, um, five houses on Oiello and then there's an ab butter at, uh, 52 Hayward, I believe, that, uh, is, you know, pretty much like on the the street
as well. >> Got it. Thanks. >> Go ahead, Lucia. So if we were to drop that condition, if I'm understanding correctly, essentially nothing changes in terms of
what the town is responsible for. Like not having it spelled out does not then mean that the town has to take care of things. But what it's going to do is open up for anyone else who has the same setup to come to the planning board and
say I want to drop that condition as well. And I guess my thought is um is there any potential harm in dropping that condition in this case or in all other cases?
I don't know if anyone has the answer to that. Matthew, go ahead. I I don't have the answer. I I think will precedent you we always have to be worried about precedent, but um uh was I recognized?
>> Yeah, Matthew, go ahead. >> Okay. Um I mean I I don't know if the professional uh staff in town have a better opinion on that, either Aner or Carrie. Um my reading of it and and the conversation has been that it's basically a a restatement of fact for
the applicants when they've been adding these just to make it clear um that they're responsible for the roads um at that time. I I don't know that removing it um as long as we're making it clear that we're not taking on additional liability
for the town etc. It's car's letter. Um, I don't know if there's anything else you want to do to cross te's and dot eyes. Um, my assumption has been that it's it's basically to to reinforce uh in the instances where we we've done this as a board that um the applicants
continuing to uh be responsible for uh maintenance of the road. Did we do this most recently? There's a shared driveway also and remember if we had had this wording earlier this year um but that's my >> Yeah. What was that case again? I was
racking my head around that earlier and I couldn't remember what it was. >> There was one to remove it. I think that might have been on Zero Benson maybe. Um I can't remember. There was also the south uh there's one over by um Whiteall
that I winter recognized >> uh off Winter Street. They wanted to put a shared driveway so it minimized uh wetland dis disruption. Uh zero Benson Road was um they put a clause in
>> Yeah. >> they uh they would donate the land to the uh um uh halts. That's right. And they uh and they didn't. >> Yeah. Thank you for refreshing my memory
on that. And I I think like that's what I was trying to uh kind of like delineate is this being like a different situation from that with the um you know one paragraph in my outline about uh street exceptions discussions of like
past roads where Cold Spring Lane, Pine Tree Lane, Cider Mill uh Road, Cranberry Lane and Cobbler's Way were added to a list and town meeting in 2017 uh where Ocielloa Drive was and Ken
Weiss mantle the then planning board uh chair asked why Oielloa drive wasn't considered as part of these you know private roads that were an old subdivision roads and private streets that were accepted as public ways. So there's been like times in the town
where this road should have been, you know, considered as part of that, but this subsection specifically is what held up the town from being able to formerly add it to the list to be accepted a decade ago. And so we're kind of trying to like close the chapter on
this. So, I think it's like a little different than like a condition approval that halt would take over the road or, you know, a somebody trying to like split a lot or anything like that is is what I'm trying to say. And I'm happy to
share in the chat too or with the uh you know board the link to that those meeting minutes as well. >> Matthew, do you have your hands raised? >> Yeah. So, I I don't have objection to striking the the clause uh as long as
it's it's noted, right, that we the town's not accepting any additional obligations here. Um and you know, it doesn't change the status of the road and it doesn't show any um any position of the board that would be
in favor of accepting it in its current state either. Um that that's all for a different hearing. I in general agree. I I wish I um I can understand why like it was in the
a decision back then, but um it seems like it was uh maybe I don't know um just the applicant trying to like say, "Hey, this is minimal, make it make it seem like a minimalist project to the
town's uh um the overall footprint of the housing in town. I'm not exactly sure. All right. Does it I'm going to um I don't think a sidewalk is warranted to do what we want
to uh what we're trying to do here. Um, I think we go through the process here and we get to a vote and you can vote if you agree with removing this uh section D to the prior uh prior board's
decision in 1992 or you can uh vote against it. But let me uh let me go jump to jump to section 4.10 10 proposed conditions. Uh approval of this a amended definitive subdivision plan shall not be construed
as acceptance of OciOla Drive as a public way. The town of Hopkin shall have no responsibility to maintain, repair, or plow Ociel Drive unless and until the road is formally accepted by town meeting. Any future request for public road acceptance shall require compliance with the current town standards and procedures, including
engineering, evaluation of the roadway and drainage. Let me let me jump to actually and go to 49 the findings. The applicant is requesting the removal of a condition imposed in 1992 requiring that OciOla Drive be maintained by the owners at no expense to the town. Removal of this
condition does not constitute acceptance of Ocio drive as a public way and does not require the town to perform maintenance or improvements. All right. I'd like to uh I'm going to 4.12. Aner, did you have something or no?
>> I just wanted to add that Mr. Parker H and we probably cannot vote whatever the vote decide >> who uh Parker can who else? >> Vic >> Vic >> Vic. >> So we we have how many? We have six
voting members and we need five. All right. I'd like to entertain a motion that the board approve and accept the finding findings as previously read aloud by the chair. >> So moved. >> Second.
>> Thanks, Matthew. Thanks, Michael. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona, >> yes. >> Elise Mosowski, >> yes. >> Lucia Lopez, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes.
>> And Rob Benson is a yes. All right. Section 4.12.2. I'd like to entertain a motion that the board approve the amended definitive subdivision plan for Oiello Oaks with the following conditions as they were
previously read aloud by the chair. I move the board approve the definitive definitive subdivision plan as for Osciello Oaks as with the conditions as they were previously read aloud by the chair. So,
>> who was Peter? >> Peter with a second. All right, roll call vote. Matthew Rona, >> yes. >> Elise Mosowski, >> yes. >> Lucia Lopez, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo,
>> yes. >> Rob Benson is a yes. All right, before I close it, I think you've got the hard the much much harder work in front of you, Parker. But uh at this time I'd like to enter in a motion to close the public hearing for
Oello Oaks. >> So moved. >> Thanks, Matthew. Roll call vote. Thanks, Elise. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona, >> yes. >> Elise Mowski, >> yes. >> Lucia Lopez, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo,
>> yes. >> And Rob Benson, is yes. Thanks, guys. >> All right. Thank you, Parker. You're doing uh you're doing all the you're doing the heavy lifting for your neighborhood. >> Uh yeah, just so everybody's aware, this
started my interest in planning board. So, you have Carrie to thank for why I got interested in rules and stuff um for that letter I initially got. So, this sparked the interest. Well, I think you're doing uh you're
doing the right steps. Try to try to make everybody's life better in your neighborhood. >> We're trying. Thank you. >> All right. Um we are have come to the end of our agenda. Uh our next meeting is December 15th. So, at this time, I'd
like to entertain a motion to adjourn for this evening. Rob, do we have an idea on timelines for for getting stuff on to the uh warrant for annual town meeting? >> That's a good question. We uh I
uh Aner I I I don't know if you've been gone through this with John but uh anything we want to get on town meeting we we should have like a kind of a calendar of when we need to do things certain things to get it make sure it gets on town meeting and we have proper time to have any public hearings if we
need to. I'm going to discuss with John. We have that uh in mind one of the topics going to be MBTA zoning. So which we are the doing the discussion with Zach members Zach committee. So um that one of the
topic is that and I need to work with other topics if we have anything to add. Can we just get an agenda item on our for next meeting for uh uh basically town meeting uh planning board calendaring uh to prepare articles for
town meeting? >> Something something like that. >> All right. Would anyone like to enter uh move a motion to ajourn to move? Second. >> All right. Thanks, uh, Vic. Thanks,
Matthew. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona, >> yes. >> Elise Mowski, >> yes. >> Lucia Lopez, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Parker Hap, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Vicas Pratti, >> yes.
>> And Rob Benson is yes. All right, everybody. Have a great night. >> See you in two weeks. >> Bye. See you guys. >> Night.