Pursuant to chapter two 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 ask access this meeting through the remote meeting link as posted on the meeting
agenda and through the town's online calendar when requested by law or allowed by the chair. Persons wishing to provide public comment or otherwise participant participate in the meeting may do so by raising their hand or otherwise signaling their intent to speak. This meeting will be recorded.
Please take care to mute your microphone unless you have been recognized by the chair. We will now confirm attendance of members. Please respond with present if you're on the call. >> Matthew Rona >> present. >> Elise Millowski >> present.
>> Lucia Lopez >> present. Michael King >> present. >> Parker Hap >> present. >> Amna Dwan >> present. >> Uh Vicasath Pratti >> present.
>> Rob Benson is here. And Peter Mimo said he wasn't going to be able to make tonight's call. And uh staff John Gelsuch >> present. >> Aneri Patel >> present. >> And Lorie St. John >> present.
>> All right, thanks everybody. All right, we're going to jump right into our script. I mean our uh agenda. Sorry about that. Uh so before uh this meeting, Aneri sent out uh an overview via email of the
proposed uh the plan for reviewing meeting minutes and approving meeting minutes. I don't know if anyone provided any feedback to Lori uh in advance or if we're ready to go ahead and vote
on them as is. >> So, we can vote on September 8 and 22 as it is. Uh for October 6, we received comments from Matthew which we can take a look and if everybody is okay, we can
make a motion to that one too. All right. So, I'd like to entertain a motion to approve the meet I'll do one at a time. Uh I'd like to entertain a motion to approve the meeting minutes for September 8th, 2025
as written in uh the administrative files folder >> for the current meeting. Uh so moved. >> Second. >> Yep. >> All right. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona.
>> Yes. Uh, Elise Meowski, >> yes. >> Cia Lopez, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Parker Hap, >> yes. >> Amna Dwan, >> yes. >> Vicas Pratti, >> yes. >> And Rob Benson is a yes.
All right. I'd like to entertain a motion to approve the meeting minutes for September 22nd, 2025 as they currently appear in the administrative files folder. >> So moved. Second. >> Thanks, Matthew. Thanks, Michael. Roll
call vote. Elis Mayoski, >> yes. >> Lucia Lopez, >> yes. >> Matthew Rona. I mean, did I say that? Sorry. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Parker Hap, >> yes. >> Amna Dwan,
>> yes. >> Vicas South Prai, >> yes. >> And Rob Benson is a yes. >> All right. Do we want to review what the changes are for October 6th and see if we can uh get to a motion here
>> on what would you like to do? >> Um we can take a look into October 6 minutes the suggestion um sent by Matthew and quickly go through that. Lori, do you mind sharing your screen?
I can do >> chair. Oh, I got a request. Okay. >> I did not receive your request yet. Yep. Sorry, >> I got to go through several different
things. Yeah. >> Does anybody see that? >> Nope, not yet. Okay. [Music] >> Do we see that now? >> Yes. >> I just know how great it's going to be.
Yeah. Yep. >> So the corrections that were made were in bold and they are >> just just Yeah, go ahead. >> So raise to raise
and structures porch. So, just changing the wording on that. And then where it says Mrs. Guchet responded in parentheses, this was the addition that Matt put in, Matthew put in.
And then and then the October 20th, I had taken it out and I put it back in. I don't know if I'm going too foul. Sorry. >> It was it was fine for me. Does anyone on the board have any questions?
>> Thanks. Um through the chair, I had also proposed striking the second what from the sentence Mr. Scalich noted that what Mr. Marcers is describing what constitutes on page one. Um, I had suggested changing uh on page two town
council as in a CIL to council as in legal representation. >> That's right there. >> Yep. Um, there was a formatting issue I think where there was a parenthesis instead of a bullet. >> I took that out. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. Uh I had suggested also on page four on threeclaflin street uh changing the indefinite article to the definite article on Mr. uh memo had asked a bit the benefits of an environmental analysis with respect to a project to
the project. I don't know if people had opinions on that. Um unfortunately he's not here to remember exactly what he phrased. Uh, and I had I think you talked about the response to that, although I didn't see it as it was
scrolling and that was it. >> Where's the uh which one was the last part? Um, >> the non's on screen right now. Thank you. >> In in bold. Is this the change? Yes. >> All right. As kind of as we reviewed
here with the proposed changes, what is uh is everyone on board? Anyone have any questions? All right, let's see how this goes. I'd like to entertain a motion to approve the meeting minutes for October 6th as
amended in this uh draft titled October 6, 2020 2025 draft with bold corrections. >> So moved. >> Thanks, Matthew. >> Second. >> Thanks, Michael. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona,
>> yes. >> Elise Mowski, >> yes. >> Lucia Lopez, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. Parker Hap, >> yes. >> Amna Dwan, >> yes. >> Vicasath Pratti, >> yes. >> And Rob Benson is yes. All right,
moving right along to our bond reduction request. Uh, Nebraska Street Diana Farm. Uh, Aner, we we obviously can read the uh what's in the memo, but would you like
to give us an overview of uh what's going on or what the request is and then we could go if the applicants on, we can go to them >> to our bond reduction request. >> Somebody said something. Um, yeah, sure. I can briefly
tell board members that we received requests from Jeffrey regarding u previously approved form J regarding the guarantee form and they are requesting to um reflect on the revised bond and
requesting to include only work done on the private property which is not required for the performance guarantee form. And um I sent out the email and response received from Thai and Bon on Friday and they had three concerns.
One of them was regarding labor and equipment cost which Dina um reply back to that email saying that all the cost are included in the bond they submitted on the revised bond.
And I think Dina is here in the meeting if she wants to add on to something. >> Yes, I'm here. Can you hear me? >> Yeah, Jeff, go ahead. >> Yeah. So, when I first did this bond, I was under the impression that it was for
all the infrastructure. And then after doing a little homework, I realized it was just for the work being done in the town right away. So, that's why it's so much cheaper. I had the whole project in it before and it was it's just supposed
to be the town right away and uh from Tai and Bond. Yeah, they were unclear if the if the cost included labor and equipment cost and all the works done by the foot and that's how I price stuff by the foot. It includes the labor,
machine, material, everything by the foot. And then they had another thing on here about water mane flushing. And then I, excuse me, I called Eric Cotti today and you only
flush a water man if you're installing a water mane. I'm just doing a water service. And I talked to Eric today and he said no flushing. If you guys had any questions, he he'd write another letter for me. But and then the last thing was
um sediment control for a catch basin that's there. And I'll I didn't think of that before, but it's just a silt sack that cost $50. And there's plenty of money in here for a $50 silt sack.
Aneri, do we have uh conf like um where is Tai and bond? I know they responded. >> So um on the >> do they do they agree I guess is my point.
So on the letter they mentioned um the guarantee adjustment form the applicant submitted they are correct based upon today's um mark I will say market value and they
just had three concerns they let me make sure the so Let me pull up the letter from Tai and B. So, >> okay. Oops. I think Lori, you need to do stops
sharing your screen so I can share mine. Yep, there you go. Can you see my screen? >> Not yet. >> Oh, >> so everybody on the board, uh, this email, uh, or the letter from Taiwan
came via email. Um I don't I don't think it's in the administrative files. So >> it it it is in the administrative file. Somehow it's not allowing me to share my screen. But if you take a look, it's under um Diana Farm subdivision
performance guarantee response from Thai and B. That's the folder name. >> Oh, I'm looking uh The the link in the memo is for 106. Yeah, it's there. All right. Um,
typically what we like to have happen, uh, Luc, let me before I start talking, Lucia, go ahead. >> Um, it sounds like from what Jeff is saying that points one and two were covered, but what wasn't covered was the third point, which is sediment control.
I uh I believe that to be true, Jeff. It is that >> Go ahead. >> Sediment control is just uh there's a right here. It says the there's a catch basin at the end of the road and they just want to make sure no debris gets in
it when I'm doing the road digging. And usually you you just put a sealed sack in it, like a it's like a sill fence, a sack that sits in it, you know, when you're doing the work, so no dirt gets down in it. >> Parker, go ahead. >> Yeah, I was just going to ask if we
don't approve this today and we delay this, you know, that's going to delay chap your ability to get started on this project. Correct. >> Yes, correct. This is my last step to get my building permit. I mean, my feeling is we could always go
back and raise the ball if necessary, but like Jeff does more work for this town and knows best practices and I don't see why we should administratively delay him being able to get started on this. >> Ty and Bond does say in the letter, the
quantities appear to be correct based on the site plans. >> Yeah. Uh, thanks Jeeoff. Matthew, go ahead. Rob, what are our basis be for raising the bond later? In theory, if there was uh work wasn't completed, we could we would try to
raise the bond to protect the town. But realistically, if the work's completed and the town right away, we would never look to raise the bond. Well, the point of the bond is to protect the town for work that's not completed in advance. >> Yeah. >> Yep.
So, uh, typically what we would, if Tyen Bond was on, we could we could, uh, I don't think there's any representative from Tai Bond on this call. We could have a discussion and come to alignment. Typically, we like a an approved signed
off like uh letter from our peer review consultant saying everything is good from their perspective and having these open questions is is not not great for for doing this. And and
the part that's tough is like they they they state that the quantities appear to be correct based on site plans estimate but then they have these three questions. Um >> I tried reaching out to them Friday this
number left a message and again today and to this gene and no one's responded to me. Um, I heard Parker's kind of thoughts in or sentiment. What is what uh what what are
the general thoughts? Would the board in general feel we should have like a signed off letter from our peerreview consultant which is for all intents and purposes our normal practice. If not, we we we they would be
on and we can negotiate and have that discussion right here. But uh they are not. Um so it's a little uncomfortable. What does anyone else think >> Lucia? Go ahead. >> So this is a bond reduction. Can I ask
what is the current bond amount? >> Jeff, do you know off the top of your head? >> It was for $124,000, but that I thought it was for the whole property. Like putting in the sewer pumps, the water sewer all the way to my
new house, the infiltrators out. It was a lot of work. And I just thought it was supposed to be all the infrastructure. And then I found out it's just for the, you know, the the town rightaway they want the bond for.
>> Michael, go ahead. >> Maybe I missed it. I mean, was there a discrepancy in the actual number um that the applicant was working for versus what Ty and Bond said in their letter or is it just like the itemization thing that they wanted? No, it's so ty bond
stick. Um the I think I don't know that I have itemized the form G. I don't know that we have that. Oh no, it is here. But I think they in generally agreed with it, but they had these three
questions in the in the letter. One of them was, "Does the cost include labor and equipment?" And yes, it does. It's by the foot. That includes the labor and equipment. And then, um,
does it include materials, installation, sand you put around the pipe, and yeah, includes all that, the price, and water mane flushing. But I'm just doing a water service, not a water man. Um I called Eric Cotti today and he said
no no no water main flushing and then the for the sediment for any work done in the road it says at the existing catch basin that's just a silt sack you put in it to
catch any dirt if it falls in it. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean, if they agree with the 12,000, I'd be comfortable doing it tonight, too, even without the itemization. >> I'm a little uh Jeff, the the prior bond, did you post the prior bond amount or you just looking to post this bond
amount? Is that what the >> No, I didn't I didn't post that amount. Um cuz when I went to the bond company, that's what got me going. He's like, man, that that seems like a lot for that. And then it got my wheels turning in my head. And I went and talked to
John Gallich and he told me how it's just so No, I did not. >> So that's why it's kind of holding up >> potential work because you want to get it posted and then you can start work. >> As soon as I get it posted, I can get my permit. Yeah.
>> All right. This is uh um a little unusual. Um we can do one of two things here. We can say uh unfortunately we can say we need to get a green alignment with
um our peerreview consultant. We can um well we obviously heard the conversation here. We can say in general they they agree with the numbers and in good faith we we were uh satisfied with the answers and move forward. It's really up to the
collective board um >> to the chair. >> I'm going to go ahead. I'm going to go ahead. >> Is there a reason that the peerreview consultants aren't here? I mean, is it that is it difficult to get them or is
it just they couldn't make it or you know, did they not know? I don't know. >> I >> typically they'd be on if there something on the agenda that they would be re uh there could be discussion
about. I don't I don't know. I can reach out to Jane tomorrow if uh would wants, but after the comment letter and I sent respond to her uh after,
sorry, I forgot the name Jeffrey sent me. Um but yes, nobody's here from the Thai barn tonight. >> And they didn't give a reason why or they just they're just not here. >> No, >> they didn't respond. They were they were
aware of that tonight we are discussing this but I don't think so they were able to make it tonight. >> Is it uh is there any way we can can condition our approval that uh time bond is in uh
alignment post this meeting? I don't know Aner or John Galsuch if you have an opinion on that. [Music] John, what do you think? Um, I'm not sure in this case, I would say.
>> So, yeah, the peer review doesn't the consultant doesn't usually attend these types of meetings. This is a usually a formality. They'll attend if they review the project like they did earlier in the process for the Diana Farm project and then, you know, give comments on the engineering aspects.
um this is a relatively informal review process. Uh and if they're fine with the amount, I don't see any reason to worry about it. I mean, if the board doesn't have to stick to the itemized list if you know there's an extra thing that needs to be done that we
don't know, we could say add $1,000 to the bond amount and that should cover it. I mean, you can go any range of money to make it work for the board if if that's a concern. Um but yeah, >> Matthew, go ahead.
>> Thanks. Um yeah, I mean I I I t I like I I recall when we were discussing this and I was surprised at the scope that ended up going up for the bond, but given that there was no complaint. I wasn't I didn't see any reason to discuss it. Like I I remember it sounded like it was
over over scoped and since timebond uh and the back and forth and the email to Aner uh earlier that she forwarded uh seemed to rectify this I it seems like the current the proposed amount is
reasonable. >> All right. All right. What I'd like to do is I'd like to entertain a motion that we reduce the bond amount uh for Diana Farm subdivision 6 Nebraska Street
to $12,90. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Thanks, Matthew. And Michael, I think have the seconds. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona. >> Yes. >> Elise Mowski. Yes. >> Lucia Lopez.
>> Yes. >> Michael King. >> Yes. >> Parker Hap. >> Yes. >> Amna Dwan. >> Yes. >> Vicasprati. >> Yes. >> And Rob Benson is Yes. >> All right. Jeeoff. Thanks for thanks for being here on our in our meeting and uh
good luck. >> Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Bye. [Applause] All right. Form K lot release 24 Chestnut subdivision. So, this is the
subdivision off of Chestnut Street uh that came before us. Uh I I don't remember the exact time frame, but uh it was to basically build four new homes and I think redevelop one
existing home. Um does anyone have any questions or Aneri, do you have any background information you'd like to share? >> Um not really. Just the brief I mentioned that board released lot 2, three and
five back in June and now the developer is here for lot one and four. Is everything seem in order to for us to move forward? Aneri, do you think is there any reason we wouldn't move forward with approving the lot release?
>> No. >> No. Okay, great. Anyone on the board have any questions? >> Just uh trying to recollect how many lots are there on this completely? Uh anyway, I'm trying. So, so this project was four new building lots and there was
one existing lot that had a home that they were going to uh I believe redevelop. Uh if you recall, there was a they originally came before the board to try to to build eight homes and then they reduced the scope to build
>> four new homes and uh redevelop one existing home from my memory. >> Yeah. Thank you. Yep. Yeah, I'm I'm good. >> All right. I'd like to entertain a motion that the planning board planning board endorse form K for the release of
release of lots 1 and four at the Red Tail Circle Subdivision, 24 Chestnut Street. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona, >> yes. >> Elise Mosowski, >> yes.
>> Lucia Lopez, >> yes. Michael King, >> yes. >> Parker Hap, >> yes. >> Amna Dwan, >> yes. >> Vicas Safrati, >> yes. >> And Rob Benson is a yes. All right, we're moving on to item
number two, continued public hearing for 85 through 89 West Main Street, minor project site plan. Uh this just to remind people this is the uh where Starbucks is the Verizon store
and the uh nail beauty nail salon. I don't remember the name, but uh that's that's the parking lot we're talking about. All right. Um, Andrew, are you gonna uh do you want to kick us off on behalf of the developer
or who would who's going to talk? Uh, >> that's fine. I'm I'm I'm happy to talk just to know if um there was any other discussion that was needed prior, but I'll um I'll get started. >> Sure. >> Just uh for the record, my name is Andrew Steiner. I'm with Bowler. I'm here this evening representing the
applicant and their minor site review application again at 8589 West Maine. I'm joined this evening by one of the property owners, uh, Samar Salind, as well as, uh, Victor Dlossi, who's an additional representative for the owner.
I'm going to keep the presentation relatively brief, uh, but we'll be happy to answer any questions at the end of the presentation. I do want to spend a few minutes to kind of run through what we've previously submitted because it's been it's been some time since I believe we originally submitted back in June as
well as kind of outline some of the previous permitting on the site as that came up as a question at the the last meeting. So again, when we originally submitted the project back in June, um the submission saw to create four parking stalls. This was done by
expanding uh the parking areas into some of the oversized landscape um islands on site. This improvement generally resulted in an increase of impervious area by roughly 500 square ft.
In terms of the previous permitting, this was again a redevelopment uh from when the site was the spoon that was submitted back in 2014. As part of that, the board approved 38
parking stalls on site and roughly 68.3 of the site was anticipated to be covered by impervious area. An amendment was filed in um 20 the 2017 time frame. Um and at that time the
board approved two additional parking stalls which increases the total number of parking stalls on site to 40. Um and roughly 69% of the site was anticipated to be rendered impervious. Since that uh approval in 2017, uh two
parking spaces were created through restriping bringing the total amount of parking stalls to 42, which is what is on site today. Um, as part of the revised submission package, the applicants had the surveyor actually go back out to the site uh to correct the
asbelt survey because this was a slight discrepancy from what we uh had previously submitted. Um, if possible, I'm going to share my screen just with what is um in front of the board this evening.
Is that showing up for everybody? >> Yes. >> Awesome. All right. So again, since the original submission, this is our our project's been the scope's really been reduced. Um, so what's in front of the board this
evening is to create again two additional parking stalls, which brings the total amount of parking stalls to 44. This is really an increase of two parking stalls from what's on site today, but in terms of previous approvals, it's an increase of four
because again, the additional stalls that were created passed the the 2017 approval. The small increase in uh this is done again by creating um compact spaces which are these blue squares here
as well as a small increase into the landscape area by the lumber street entrance which this is about 134 square ft of additional impervious area. This is this this small increase is directed to an on-site catch basin which
ultimately flows through a um water quality unit at the back of the site prior to discharge. I I can't speak to how the impervious area was calculated as part of the redevelopment and as well as the um 2017
amendment, but this um improvement results in the site being approximately 66% impervious, which is obviously less than what was previously approved. Um to to better illustrate this, we've we've actually provided again some exhibits
for the board um which kind of demonstrate the overall uh impervious area for the site as well as um some exhibits for the internal landscaping because I believe that was a question um at the last hearing.
So again really since we originally submitted the scope has been again significantly reduced and really the purpose has changed to more of documenting what's on site currently as well as bringing the site into compliance with the um town's accessible
parking regulations and to really again create the additional parking stalls uh by utilizing um onstate onsite spaces more efficiently. Just as a general update to the board, um we have withdrawn this application
from the conservation commission given that all of the ground disturbing activities have been removed from the jurisdictional buffer zone and the applicant is going to work with the conservation agent on placement of the proposed shrub plantings um that were
shown at the kind of near the jurisdictional buffer juris in the near the wetland area. The applicant is still seeking a waiver from the EV parking regulations as they're outlined in zoning bylaw as part
of this approval. Again, as as we previously discussed, um again, based on the timeline of the previously appro previous approvals, this site wasn't really designed with um EV infrastructure in mind. So
making the stalls either EV ready or um providing chargers would come at a substantial electrical upgrade to the site per the zoning bylaw. Again, the the board can wave that regulation if it's proven to be detrimental to the project
and really that would just add a exorbitant amount of cost to the project which would make this unviable from a economic standpoint. So again, we feel we've addressed the additional questions that have been brought up by the board. We we are hopeful for appro approval this evening.
And I believe that the is either Samara or Victor wanted to um say some additional words as well. >> Hi. Um yeah, my name is Samara Solen and I'm one of the owners of um 85 to 89 West Main Street. As stated, we're
requesting a waiver of the EV requirements as provided for by the EV regulations in chapter 210 section 124D of the zoning bylaws. As you know, we are proposing to construct a single parking space for the purpose of meeting the handicap parking requirements of the
town of Hopkin. The EV regulations provide for a waiver in situations where the EV requirement would be detrimental to the project or the site. We believe the EV requirement is detrimental to our project as well as the site for the
following reasons. The cost of this minor project is under $10,000. The EV requirement would increase the cost to over 50,000 and perhaps significantly more. Um we believe this isable financial
burden to place on a very minor project is is highly constrained which makes it physically difficult to accommodate EV charging. Parking at the site is constrained and operating at capacity. Construction of EV charging stations will result in additional traffic at the
site and would exacerbate the parking situation. Employees and visitors would find it more difficult to find a parking spot. About 50% of the parking spaces at the site are located within the 100 foot wetlands buffer. Construction of EV
charging stations within the buffer would further disturb the buffer. EV implementation would require laying new electric cables underground to and from the electrical utility room, which is located deep inside the buffer. This would result in digging up significant
lengths of pavement within the buffer. About 15% of the parking spaces are contractually reserved for uni bank. These spaces are not available for EV charging stations. About 7% of the spaces are reserved for handicap use. These spaces are not
suitable for EV charging stations. And the remaining 28% of the spaces at the site are used primarily by Starbucks. Starbucks has a lease provision that prohibits any action that would reduce parking capacity at the site. The EV charging stations, if utilized, would
tie up the parking spaces for a longer time, effectively reducing parking capacity at the site. There are EV charging stations across the street and at other nearby parking lots which are underutilized.
Requiring additional charging stations in such close proximity would not materially affect overall EV utilization. In summary, we believe that the EV mandate would result in a huge additional financial cost relative to
the small scale of the project, degradation of the effective parking capacity, and a potential degradation of traffic operations at the site. Furthermore, providing EV charging stations at the site may conflict with terms of existing lease agreements with
tenants, which prohibit taking any actions that may degrade parking capacity. We hope the board will apply reasonable standards and common sense in granting our request for a waiver of the EV requirements as provided for in the zoning bylaws in order to avoid harm to
a site that is constrained physically, environmentally, operationally, and contractually. Thanks very much for giving me the time. >> Thanks, Samara. Aner, do you have any new information uh
or any uh town new town staff perspective? Uh since this came before us originally in June, >> I've reviewed the documents applicants submitted recently requesting um two
more spaces and just as a thought looks like it will increase more in previous surfaces than what board issued back in 2017.
So I can suggest that board can decide based upon that site plan amendment happened back in 2017 before making the decision. >> Yep. One of the big uh
concerns or one of the not uh a concern previously when we discussed this when it was a different project was the DPW director was concerned about adding more imperous surface and
considerate uh considering storm water runoff and potential traffic congestion. Now that none of this is in the um the wetlands buffer, I I don't know if the RDPW director has
the same concerns. Um I don't know. So I sent an email to her but I am aware that she knows that applicant u reduced the parking amount from like 4 to two and after that we did
not receive any new update so I'm guessing her concerns are still same but yeah >> um hi uh this is Victor technosi I'd like to add that the uh as Andrew
pointed out uh uh the additional uh there's no change in the uh 25, 50, 100 year um amounts of uh runoff. Um number one, uh number two, the very tiny bit of
additional runoff is is not directed to the public uh storm water system. It's all directed uh to the uh to the wetlands area. So, I don't know if that makes any difference. Um but uh we we're
really not adding to any uh runoff for the DPW facilities. >> Andrew, I'll go to you in one second. Parker, go ahead. Yeah, I talked to a few folks in the community on this and some were on the
sustainable green community and some of them brought up a really good point that if you're coming off of 495 and are going to stop into Hopington, one of like the logical places that you first stop is, you know, getting a coffee at Bucks. And you know, we're moving
towards a uh near future. I think one thing that changed for me since then, Matt's heart will flutter a bit. I now have a hybrid vehicle, so it's one step closer to EV. But I think that's where a lot of our infrastructure is headed. And this seems to be a logical place to um
you know, put a charger of that sort. And the sustainable green committee may be aware of these things called PACE loans, which allow for uh commercial industrial business owners to be able to take up to 30 year loans to be able to offset the cost of any energy improvements. And I thought it was like
a great program that, you know, Mass has it now in order to help not only improve like green infrastructure, but also to make it so you can like peanut peanut butter spread the cost of that over, you know, 20 30 years. Uh, so, you know, I I think it's wise that given the future
we're headed that it's something we consider and if the applicant would be interested in more information, they could check out PACE loans. But I'm just I don't know if we should grant this waiver, guys, because this where we're headed as a you know country and you know this is one of those situations where this is a perfect spot to put chargers and talking to some folks in
the community like they really want to see it happen. >> Yeah, if I can add to that. Uh thank you for >> hold on a second, Victor. Uh thanks Parker. All right. Um well I'll get to you one second Victor.
A question for Aneri. And I I I I this has never come up since I've been on the board, but if if the land owner or owner of this property wanted to add just another space by restriping and there was no removal of
like green of like grass uh landscape buffer, would this be before the planning board just to resize parking spaces? I need to take a look into the site plan rules rag and parking space for that. I
don't know top of my head but usually never. >> All right let's >> that please let me >> um and uh actually actually Victor sorry for interrupting. Go ahead.
>> No thank thank you very much. Um so um E EV we're very supportive of EV parking spaces. Um um we just for this particular site that's operating at capacity. Um uh we're we're really
constrained. So we would end up with less effective parking with the EV spots. Um you know maybe one or two spots we might be able to accommodate. um if we can get financial assistance
for it. But um it's really a hardship for this spot and um you know if there's reserve parking capacity you know by all means it makes a lot of sense to uh add EV and and it's a wave of the future but
for this site it would introduce operational problems. It would introduce a conflict with the agreements and contracts we have with our tenants. Um and in in the short run it would degrade
the parking capacity at the site and maybe 10 years from now, 15 years from now where uh the utilization might be higher. It might have a less effect. But what I want to point out is that most of
the available spaces for EV are are are used by um um Starbucks. If I can share an exhibit with you, I can just illustrate that point if if it's okay
with you. Yeah. An if you could grant uh ability to share >> Victor, you need to send me a request. >> Oh, okay. >> There you go. >> Okay. Um so I don't know if you can see
this um uh chart here but the red areas are are within the buffer zone. Uh all except for one one space is partially in the buffer zone. So about half of the spaces at the site are within the
buffer. The uh spaces shown in orange um are are contractually reserved for Uni Bank um uh and uh that that comprises 15% of the spaces at the site. And then
we have the three proposed um handicap spots. Uh so the additional handicap spot would be here um as I'm showing it. uh that that would constitute about 7%
of the parking spaces. Uh and the handicap spots are not good candidates for um EV uh utilization because a population that could use it would be very limited. So the other spots that
you see are right near Starbucks. Starbucks is right here. that most of Starbucks customers are shortterm. They're in there uh they're in there to pick up their um mobile coffee orders. So, they're there for 2, three minutes
or or they're there for, you know, 10 15 minutes or maybe a few are there for as long as an hour. Um but most of them are shortterm parkers and the EVs that unless you have high charging um fast
charging EV um it would not make sense to put EVs anywhere on this site and and the fast charge would be very very expensive. It would be really prohibitive for us. uh in terms of cost
um you know I think we quoted a price of an additional 50,000 uh I think it would be more in order to construct uh five EV parking spaces which is what the uh what the law requires 10% round it up would
be five u I think the cost could be much much higher and it would have a profound impact on parking at the site. Um, and and I I just would like to make the planning board aware that if for this
particular site that's so constrained, um, we think it would create a lot of problems for us. It's not that we don't want to install EV parking spots. It's just that we're so constrained. It makes it very difficult for us.
So, uh, just to kind of, uh, re or say this out loud, the the spots in outlined in red are in the wet wetland buffer zone. So, you're saying it'd really be difficult to dig up the earth
to put in conduit and it'd be more approvals needed. There'd be be need to be I don't know, conservation commission review. I don't even know if I don't um that type of thing. And then the ones in orange outline are reserved to the UNIPE
bank and blue is obviously the handicap. So that leaves the remaining ones as the most viable spots to make EV ready or EV. All right. I think I think we got it. Uh Andrew, go ahead.
>> Yeah, I just wanted to to speak uh again just more on the the storm water because again that was a a previous concern of the board. We had uh provided a revised drainage memo as one as part of like I think it was a intram submission um to
this which again as Victor mentioned showed that there was no net increase due to the again a small amount of the impervious area that was um anticipated at that time. I think that was slightly higher than what we're looking at now. Um so I just wanted to to make that that
clear. And then also I guess just in in terms of kind of what you had mentioned um was just curious again if if this was just solely a restriping project would we kind of be in front of the the board this evening and really would be we'd be
subject to the same um EV parking um regulations that we're discussing now. I I I need support from our town staff. Like I Is that a question for me? >> I think it's just a question for the board in in general. Um I think it
mentions again kind of more it it alludes to more construction as opposed to minor restriping. >> If it was restriping only, I think Aneri or John, if you could like that's a
question the applicant is asking. If it was restriping only, would they be subject to a minor site plan review? Would they be subject to any EV parking requirements versus this proposal uh impacts when the land the landscape
zone uh landscaping areas and removes earth so they can put in a parking spot? So, would they be subject to the same minor site plan review requirements if it was just restriping or not? through through the chair. No, they
would not. Usually, uh, in town, we've considered restriping of parking lots without any actual pavement alteration to be um just a a dimminimous change and not a minor site plan.
>> That that should answer your question, Andrew. Uh, Vic, go ahead. Um so okay through the chair um my view is that the reason why I wanted this parking lot was uh they won't have additional spaces and the actual reason
is that to have the public in and out so I would say just giving a wier would be advantage because if you put a electronic parking lot being an electric owner I mean the vehicle owner EV owner I know when I put a car at charge I would park it gets charged so even
though there's a time limit we put it across I won't leave the spot till my car gets charged. So end of the it beats the purpose that you know we wanted in and out for the customer with the small parking lot. So that's what I would come across. I would say giving a var would
be a good one and still it serves the purpose of the larger community because customers come in and they see a parking vehicle EV parked you have a spot. Yes. But again it's not being utilized as it intended to. So that's all. All right,
Matthew, go ahead. Thanks, Vic. >> Thank you. Um, first I I just have a question. Um, we Aner mentioned the 2017 site plan. Is the Does she have information on what that change was or is she just going from the memo from the applicant? >> Sorry. Did you ask me anything?
>> I was asking Rob, but >> yeah. >> Yeah. Aneri, is there the initial site plan? um uh had an amendment to add two spaces. Do do we have any uh I'm not exactly
sure what we have for documentation uh on the town's behalf of any uh approval any um conditions any any documentation to state like the thinking of the board at the time.
I do not have that in the package 8589. I uploaded all the recent one which submitted by applicant including the updated site plans and the cover letter with the parking survey they did um as
well as the EV charger EV charging brief. So um I need to take a look into the condition if board wants to see that 2017 if that's >> Go ahead Matthew. Thanks. So, I mean, I want to come back to the EV waiver
separately because I have thoughts on that, but I think that's not even the thing I'm I'm most concerned with. Um, but first of all, I do want to highlight um some of the the benefits I think of this plan to some of the earlier ones. I appreciate that they're uh they've provided some background to how things
have changed since 2014 and that the proposed compact spots aren't tucked in to that Starbucks corner uh that's outside the buffer zone, for instance. Um because just watching traffic there, it seems like everybody wants those spots even if there's other empty spots and adding more densification there
seems like it's just recipe for disaster. I drove through there one time and people just start backing up even when it's completely crowded. So like adding more chaos there I think is is a concern. Um I'm generally in the position of letting property owners figure out what's best
that's compliant structure painting the lines on their property. However, we've had a not had a great history with a specific project and just looking at the site plan uh concerns here at section I like the maximizing the convenience of vehicular movement within
the site seems like something to focus on. Um, and we've often given weight to the past effort and rationale of not just our board, but other boards in town when making decisions. And
there there's a lot of things that concern me about the viability of this project. Uh, first part of which is that we've had three meetings on this and this is the fourth site plan that we've had that's had some drastic changes in it. Uh we've gone from 45 spaces to 44
to 43 and back to 44 spaces with different proposals of how things are structured. And normally we would have a peer reviewer both to inform our own discussions here but also to facilitate design decisions with the applicant and
just go uh to help speed things up in between meetings. And so we're not reviewing the plans here uh through our time. We wouldn't have missed uh the ADA spot missing. We wouldn't uh have concerns about the parallel spot potentially not having the
right length according to the site plans. Uh we wouldn't miss not mentioning the requirements for compact car signage, for instance. I'm still confused how from the 2014 plan when they've added two spots along each street, if you look at the site plans, they've add they're they're still at the
same number, the same impervious area, and the same internal landscaping. I know Andrew mentioned he doesn't know how they calculate that before. but they're still at the same value, which is confusing to me. And I I'd still like to kind of understand why that number is exactly the same as it was when they finished the proposal in
2014. And also just how did we go from 41 to 42 spots since this hearing opened in June is just a confusing thing. The original plan in 2014
had actually proposed 39 spots and they just couldn't make that work and so they brought it down to 38. There was a lot of discussion. If you look back at the 2016 meetings where uh the the current owners first bought the land and Mr. Delasi first came before the board. He
asked for three more spaces and they there was a lot of discussion about uh about what happened to get to that settlement that agreement for the original spots and as we've heard there's a lot of tight space here as the DPW director has mentioned the conservation committee has mentioned
there's a lot of concern overall and a lot of management and a lot of thought and a lot of discussion went into what could fit in this piece of land what was described in 2014 discussions as 10 lb in a 5 lb bag. The Dunkin Donuts came in
around the same time. They significantly simplified what was going on that property to make the parking work. This property expanded what they were putting on. They added the Starbucks on and they didn't have any extra space to do. That's kind of where we're trying to work with this
when so the the the first 2017 is a weird number to come here is the they were actually approved by the planning board uh in 2016 uh in June and so I'm I'm assume that's what we're talking about here because there was a five vote
majority to actually allow an additional spot that was already being used even though it wasn't striped the so-called parallel parking spot and there was discussion about changing the lines in the back uh to compact spaces and that never had a vote. Um but
the discussion before it was withdrawn was that the planning board was strongly against adding compact spaces there because it didn't fit within the movement patterns of the property. And so it's a little disheartening to see that somewhere between 2017 and now the
applicant has gone and actually added an extra spot where the board was saying they had concerns about it and it never went to vote. Uh, so I'm not sure how that happened or why that happened, but that seems to have been happen. They're asking for approval there now, just like they came in 2016 and asked for that
parallel spot to be approved. In June, they approved the uh they approved that parallel spot and then in September, the applicant came back and again asked for two more additional spots. And so these are the this would
bring us up to 41 total spots. Um, and there was a lot of discussion, a lot of concerns for exactly the same reasons. And what they happened here is they chopped out some of that internal landscaping along both sides of the street. And I'm not quite sure, and you can see them on the plans. If you compare the 2014 plan to the one that's proposed before us, there are extra
spots that weren't in the 2014 plan, actually the one that Mr. Glossy presented in in uh 2016. And so I'm very confused about the numbers still. And I I don't what provided doesn't really instill
confidence in me that the numbers are still good numbers. Thank you. >> Thanks, Matthew. Rob, this is Sat. I'm the owner of the Verizon store and I've been listening to the meeting as well. I was invited by the owners. I I couldn't
raise my hand to ask a question, but if you could allow me two minutes, I would like to say what my concerns are as well as the owner of that building. >> As the owner of the bar store. Yeah. Sat go ahead. >> Okay. So uh I've been like I own this Verizon store since 2016 since like since inception of this building was
there right day one since day one we've been struggling with the parking and I know that like and of course we want to do by rules everything has to be you know what like makes sense but my concerns are like my customers I've been losing my customers because they come they see the parking lot being filled up
all the time and they are like going to other stores and they have told my employees as well my manager who's been there for like quite some time oh you know there was no parking so we just went to another store. Last time I came there, there was no parking so I left. So this is a concern I've been like you know since like then I've been talking
to Victor and Samara and asking them hey can I get one more reserved spot for me because I really need to like you know kind of serve my customers and they they there's no spot available especially in the mornings when people are getting coffees at that time evening same thing
happens and I've seen myself like you know that a lot of people will come car poolool they'll come in two cars leave one car and they will leave like you know with one car to someplace it's very hard for us to manage as well sometime it happens with EV I think it will like you know add on like to that uh problem
and I've seen people like you know coming parking there like you know they walk to Cumberland farms as well right sometime they can't find parking there they miss like you know that exit right to the Cumberland farm and then they will come and park and I saw them somebody today there like they did that so I just want to share my feelings that
like you know you know having extra spots would really will help my business as well and uh we do struggle with a lot of people uh you know losing a lot of customers because they go to Firmingham, they go to other stores which are nearby. Every exit has a Verizon store now. So I lose a lot of customers that
way. And that's all I wanted to share. Thank you, Rob, for letting me speak. >> Sat, thank you >> to the chair. >> Amna, go ahead. I just um I don't frequent that area very often, but um because there's typically not much I
need there, but I did go with all these discussions and it's tight. And I think the bottom line is there just isn't room. And I think that's why all these discussions keep going on. And I echo everything um that Matt said. Um and I
think the EV charging is important for the future of Hopington. I can make it EV ready. we could figure out how or take alone like Parker suggested, but the bottom line is the area is tight. There just isn't room. And making more compact spots, it like when I drove
there, I didn't even want to park there with the limited spots that were there. And putting more spots would make me want to park there even less because it just becomes even more crowded and even tighter. So, I'm not sure that you're really optimizing everything um with
adding more spaces. You might actually be hurting it. Thanks, Amna. Lucia, go ahead. >> I think to echo some of what Matt said in terms of what we are hearing versus the reality of the situation, um, it was
an issue that I wasn't going to bring up just because they're out of the buffer zone now, but I know part of the argument when they were within the buffer zone is that any additional impervious area is going to stay on site. None of it's going to come into the road. And that was something that I
made sure to kind of note as I would drive up West Main Street. And I remember in a rainstorm seeing that water coming down from where the Verizon store is coming down towards the road. And I'm sitting there watching this and I'm thinking, "This is not supposed to be coming into the road. It's supposed
to be taken care of on site from everything that we heard at the meetings." um they're out of the buffer zone now. So, I wasn't going to bring that up, but it makes me question what we're hearing versus the reality. And I think that just goes along with what
Matt said um in terms of his concerns as well. So, um, here's my my thoughts. I think I think the parking lot is not a pleasant experience for people that go visit on a regular basis.
um adding another spot might allow another customer or two to to to be there. Um I do think EV parking and EV technology even cars is is important. Uh, like I want like I plan on my next car to be an
EV car, but in and I don't want drive-thru uh fast food service places in Hopkin. So, I'm not in favor of that. But other towns would have um drive-thru where a
lot of the service could be done and people would drive through, get their coffee, and go on their way. Uh here they park, they walk in, they get back in their car and leave. So it's not
like the traditional type of I do agree it would just add congestion to the parking space parking lot EV cars like if I had like for argument sake say they wanted to
uh provide EV charging at a very low price or free price or a nominal price it would people would just sit there all day long and it like that would not benefit the community. But I go back to kind of what Matthew said. Uh like
there's lots of uh history that make this may have made this a challenging just the the amount of acreage and the amount of physical buildings and being on a corner and where entrances and exits can go make it
a challenge. But if you go to item I in our packet of this says the site plan shall maximize the convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site to and from adjacent public ways. Just that first sentence.
I don't know that we've done that up till now, but I don't know and I don't know that adding more parking will make it better. So, um, that's the first thing I had to say. The second thing, and this is for the
applicant, we we are missing one of our members tonight, and I know when we did a straw poll previously, it was very tight on people that would be willing to even consider a waiver for EV versus not. And so, we have eight members here, so it would take five out of the eight for
this for it to move forward. Um, I hear like I hear Matthew's concern of not having like a peer review of this. This is it's a tough situation because this is such a
difficult uh uh lot of land with the phys with the use of it and the and the buildings and the current parking. Um, but it it is our past precedent for a small for a minor site plan. We wouldn't
have done it. Uh, should we have? I don't know. I think we are where we are now. Uh, so I guess I'd like to hear from the applicant hearing what I just said. Do you want us to go forward? We can move through our our outline and get to
votes. Uh, we are at eight members. We can see if we move forward. We can see if we if this if it's a no vote or or a yes vote, but uh what would you like us to do? >> Well, I I would like to ask for a straw
vote on number one on the um EV requirement. Uh and if that's not possible, uh uh we would we would want to move forward with um just restriping to
basically get one additional space. We would have to we would have to restripe to create um the handicap spot. Uh and um uh we'd have to restripe to um uh to
try to get one more spot if we can. Um so there would be u you know basically it would be a kind of a wash because we would use up one spot existing for handicap and then we would replace that
with restriping. I I do want to make the board aware that when we're talking about uh compact spaces, um uh we're talking about a minimum of 8
and 1/2 foot wide spaces. We're not talking about 8 foot spaces and many of the spaces are simply just a a couple of inches short of the of the of the 9 ft. So, uh, we we are not planning to put 8-
foot compact spaces anywhere on the site. All right. Thanks, Victor. I I like the the idea of uh of uh getting a straw poll vote of um
if you could if you'd be willing to let me, how should I put this? Would you be uh okay with uh not requiring
EV spaces or EV ready spaces? And let's do a straw uh a straw poll. I'll go roll call. Matthew, >> not based on the discussion to date. Okay, Elise, >> I as of today I'm going to say no.
>> Okay, Lucia more information right now. >> Okay, I understand. Lucia, >> no. >> Michael, >> on the EV part, yes. >> Parker, >> no.
Omna. >> No. >> All right. That's uh Victor. Uh I can uh Vic, what is your opinion? >> You're muted. >> You're muted there. >> Yeah. Uh not for EV Space.
>> Okay. So, uh that's six out of seven. I would probably say yes, but I I don't think I I'm uh in I'm loving the rest of the proposal. So, um I don't we can make an official vote.
You can uh ask for continuance. Uh whatever you'd like to do. >> Um withdraw without prejudice, I guess. I I don't know how that really works, but >> um just so I understand um where the
board is. So, uh I guess the board is not in favor of the EV wave of an EV waiver. Is that what I'm hearing? >> Yes, that's the straw vote we just took. >> The straw vote. and and um and with
regards to the constructing one additional spot for handicap use um can we take a straw poll on that? >> I don't think if it's just restriping the exist if the pavement doesn't change
then I don't think you need us to do to vote on anything. >> Okay. So, we can go ahead with the restriping. >> As far as Yes. As far as I'm aware, there's no restrictions um from the planning board on that.
>> Okay. Um Okay. I I guess I would suggest um a withdrawal without prejudice. Samar, do you have any thoughts on that? Oh, you're muted. >> Sorry. Um, yeah, I'm I agree.
>> Matthew, I see your hands raised. Go ahead. >> Yeah, I just have a clerical question, I guess, for based on what John said earlier. I mean, I'm reading the site plan review in article 20, uh, 2101 134. Um it says construction enlargement or alteration and I know John mentioned
that was usually constrained to the the parking the pavement itself of a parking area containing five or more parking spaces whereas for a major site plan the addition of 25 spaces would trigger it or whatever it is like it just seems
like there's a potential loophole there where if you've got four spaces you can suddenly pave a whole bunch of land and then just start painting smaller spaces later without going through site plan. Is that an interpretation of Is that accurate?
>> I I'll guess answer this question. I'm assuming you're asking me directly. >> Yeah, John, it would be great if you could help. >> Um I mean, no, like if if somebody came before the board with a whole acre of land paved, um I mean, let's for
argument sake, they were under an acre, so they don't even trigger storm water management permit. Um, I I think the board would say, "Why is the rest of this paved?" And they'd have to have an answer. And I think you could
say, "We think this is going to be the case, even if you're not telling us directly. We think you are paving all of this to restripe later. So, we're not going to approve the site plan." Um, or I guess if you're saying it's a a well, any I think the way that it's written,
any parking lot has to go. It's five and under and then over five if I remember correctly. >> Containing five or more spaces is a minor. >> I'd have to look at the language. I think there's a way to cover all of it.
Um or maybe four spaces is not considered a parking lot. Um, but yeah, if they if they came and had four spaces and a whole bunch of pavement, I think there would be ways to say no, that's not allowed because we know what's what actually is going to be
done. And it so if they went for four spaces, it wouldn't actually come before the planning board. When it went to the building permit phase or if somebody just paved a whole bunch of land, the building department would know and it would go through the proper channels. So,
>> Andrew, go ahead. >> Just for for clarity for the for the applicant, again, I know that they would be doing um you know, primarily restriping, but again, I think some of that would also be like moving some of the accessible spots from where they are
on on site today. Okay. So, I just want to make sure that that's kind of again if we're just restriping that's kind of sole encompassing of just working with town staff as opposed to again kind of the amendment that we're that we're looking at now.
>> So, I I can answer this one. >> Thanks, John. >> Um any applica, so if Andrew, if you were to go and do that, um it would still require a new application before the planning board. even if it was even if we were wrong and it it does require site plan that would not be able to be done under the application that you've
submitted because it's a completely different scope of work that has not been advertised or noticed to the abutters um and that kind of thing. So at this point even if you were to do that and it did need a site plan you would still have to go through that application process as well.
But I I don't believe it would require a site plan application but I would need to check just to make sure. Um >> uh if if we're saying it needs a site application, uh can we have approval today for moving
the uh handicap spots as shown on the plan? >> No. No. Because that would require a new application the board can't approve. Oh, so you're not able to approve an existing application and and and scratch
the construction of a new spot. In other words, a port we're asking is uh is it possible to approve our application but disapprove the portion for the constructing a new spot?
>> No. I mean, you'd have to submit new plans that only show that work because then the board would have to basically condition that decision, you know, crossing every tea, dotting every eye to make sure that >> all of those individual changes are
captured. So, so could we get contingent approval of that based upon the plans subject to resubmitting plans showing only the uh because we're showing where the handicap spots are are going already
and and we we've already presented that. So, so we would just want to remove the uh construction of that spot at lumber uh and it would be the same plan that you've already seen.
>> So, if that if that was your plan to move forward, I would recommend you continue and then get new plan showing what you want and then bringing it to the board to discuss. Um, could we get a straw poll to see if
we're if if that's going to get approved or not? Because we've already spent 30 $40,000 on engineering fees for basically not very much. And uh, you know, there's got
to be another way to do this. I I don't know what a us um to at this point. I'm under the impression that if it was just uh uh
line restriping, it wouldn't come before us. Like say there was a new application and it was just restriping parking lines. I'm under the impression it wouldn't come before the planning board. as soon as it comes before the planning board. Even though it is if it if it were to if it does
>> like I would think all the same parking lot requirements of EV ready spaces or EV spaces are there. So I don't I don't know I don't I don't know that I'm wrong but uh John or Ner can you help me is is that's
my understanding that as soon as it comes to us we would have to consider those aspects. I mean, it's it's getting very confusing, honestly, trying to decipher all the hypotheticals, which is why I was saying it's going to be the best to
just if you want to move forward with this hearing process to continue, submit a plan for what you actually want to do that the board can review and approve rather than try and condition a decision tonight on I'm I mean, if I'm not
understanding, I'm not trying to be, you know, demeaning or anything. I'm sure there's probably plenty of other people out there that don't really know what is being proposed right now and therefore wouldn't know what's being voted on. So, it's tough to weigh in on this without really understanding what the scope of
the request really is without something in front of us. I think that Andrew go I was going to uh before I let you speak the one thing I was going to propose is to see if you guys wanted to continue the this hearing
try to work out like what you needed to do was uh to get to to get this additional line striping whether it was continue this process or just have a new process whatever is financially beneficial for too. And if we just continue it for now, it kind of leaves
this potential open. Um, and if you want to go to a new process that might be more cost-effective and not come before the planning board for any decision-m, uh, that could happen too. Andrew, go ahead or >> Victor through the through the chair.
That was going to be my suggestion just to continue the hearing this tonight to allow us to kind of reassess the project. >> All right. that that's I think the best path forward is uh that will give you an opportunity to talk to uh our town staff
and Erie John Galich and they can outline like and help you with the best process uh the best financial path forward. All right, let me continue the hearing to our next
meeting. And do I need to uh extend a decision? No, not for a minor site plan. I don't think I do. Our next meeting is October 3rd. Aneri, >> November 3rd. >> November 3rd. Sorry, my my mistake.
So, I'd like to entertain a motion to continue the public hearing for 8589 West Main Street to November 3rd. >> Moved. >> Thanks, Michael. >> Second. >> Thanks, Amna. Roll call vote. Matthew
Rona, >> yes. Elise Mosowski, >> yes. Lucia Lopez, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Parker Hap, >> yes. >> Amna Dwan, >> yes. >> Picathrati, >> yes.
>> And Rob Benson is yes. All right, going on to thanks uh Andrew, Victor, and >> thank you very much >> to move on. Uh we're we're at the end of our agenda. Uh I'd like to entertain a
motion to adjourn for this evening. >> All moved. >> So moved. Second. All right, roll call vote. Matthew Rona, >> yes. >> Elise Malowski, >> yes. >> Lucia Lopez, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Parker Hap, >> yes.
>> Amna Dwan, >> yes. >> Vic Prati, >> yes. >> And Rob Benson is yes. All right. Thanks everybody. Have a good evening. Bye, guys.