All right, I'll I'll kick us off with the remote meeting script and uh Hopefully that will give us give time for other members of the board to join. All right. 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 access this meeting through the remote meeting link as posted on the meeting agenda and through the town's online calendar. When required by the law or allowed by the chair, persons wishing to provide public
comment or otherwise participate in this 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've been recognized by the chair. We will now confirm attendance of members. Please respond with present if you're on the call.
Matthew Rourke? Present. Elise Malowski is not going to be here. Lucille Lopez? She's not going to be here tonight, too. Michael King? Not here yet. Parker Hap? Present.
Peter Memo? Present. Amna Dhuan? Vikas Athavale Prati? Present. And Rob Benson is here. So, we've got five members. So, we've got a quorum. Uh and as town staff, Anieri?
Present. All right, awesome. Chair, uh Michael King is here. Just >> Welcome, Michael. We just went through the introductory script and attendance. All right, let's get right into the
agenda. Was there any uh comments or feedback for the minutes for April 6th, Anieri, or are we uh Yes, uh I received uh few comments from uh Matthew and Lori updated and it's on the
public folder, the updated minutes. Okay. And when were the like just for the board members, when were the new when were the updated minutes put there? This afternoon. Okay. >> Around 2:00. All right.
Do you want to just go through the changes real quick? Uh just talk talk to the changes. Yeah, I didn't have any notes, yeah, uh candidly. Cuz if they're if they're more if they're minor in change, uh I'd rather just talk about them and then we can uh proceed to a vote, I think. If that uh
makes sense. >> Yes, sure. Just a second. Um Um to the chair, Amna is here as well. Just to let you know. All right, terrific. She just joined.
Um Okay. So, there was the changes uh on page four, space between agriculture and zoning, page three, little changes on he also noted that over the past few
years, this project uh to change that to the this project to this discussion, that's the minor change. And the other minor change was like there was a statement like he also noted that over the past few years to he also noted that
a few years back. Those were the minor changes. Okay. All right, so the this is I would more or less a couple clarifications uh as how I would describe them. Does the does the board feel good about
voting based off of what Anieri said in the and like understanding those as clarifications uh to vote on the meeting minutes for April 6th? I wasn't clear on the first part. What What did you say changed for page four? So,
um on page four, the change was just a second. So, uh there was a uh sentence, agriculture zoning. So, we need to add a space between
agriculture and zoning. So, there was no space in between two words. Yes, I feel comfortable with this. Okay. All right, I'd like to entertain a motion that the planning board approve the minutes of April 6th, 2026. So moved.
Thanks, Matthew. Second. Thanks, Michael. Roll call vote. Matthew Rourke? Yes. Michael King? Yes. Parker Hap? Yes. Peter Memo? Yes. Amna Dhuan? Yes, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear
you. All right, uh Vikas Athavale Prati? Yes. And Rob Benson is a yes. All right. Moving into agenda item number two, 75 South Street. Uh I believe the applicant request
requested a continuance. Anieri, do you want to give us any additional information? Yes, so applicant submitted the revised drawing to planning board and to conservation commission as well. As per my review, they are fulfilling com com and they are okay from planning
board side, but they want to continue tonight's hearing to May 11th and wait for com com to make a decision tomorrow night. So, they just simply requested continuance without the discussion for tonight. Okay. And there's nobody on that's
representing that project. No, not tonight. Okay. Uh what does that mean? So, it's we can continue the public hearing uh do we have to extend any decision deadline? Yes, uh as currently the decision deadline is May 11th. We need to change
and vote uh to May 27th. May 27th. Mhm. All right, I'd like to entertain a motion to continue the public hearing for 75 South Street to uh May 11th and the decision line
deadline to May 27th. So moved. Thanks, Matthew. Second. Thanks, Michael. Roll call vote. Matthew Rourke? Yes. Michael King? Yes.
Parker Hap? Yes. Peter Memo? Yes. Amna Dhuan? Yes. Vikas Athavale Prati? Yes. And Rob Benson is a yes. Chair, sorry. Uh we cannot vote on continuance because he's a voter. Oh, sorry. Yep.
>> Oh, okay. Thank you. >> All right. So, Vic Vic is official vote is abstention. Mhm. All right, terrific. And my vote is yes. All right. Moving right along to agenda item number
three. Uh three and four. So, last time we opened them together, we decided as a board we would talk about them uh April 23rd, which include the revised plan review as well and we received comments
uh which applicant needs to fulfill based upon the current uh uh plans which um I'm going to leave up to the applicant how he wants to address those comments which we received from Tie and Bond.
Okay, um sorry. Just let me know if you need me to speak now. One one one second, uh Mr. Stone. Uh Anieri, do you have anything else? I'm going to share the comments for the board and for the public. Uh I mean, I will just share my screen. Sure.
>> So, everybody knows because Can you see the screen? Oh. Hold on. One more attempt. I don't know why it's always I cannot Okay, I think I can. Can you see my
screen? I hope it's coming through. There it is. Now we see it. Okay. It's still still a little weird. Um Is there a window over top of it or something?
I think I think we got the basis of the the the material in view. Okay. So, basically it's our report includes what Tie and Bond reviewed based upon the document provided um by me and applicant uh and the comments we
received from other departments. Uh there are comments on uh based on the our common driveway bylaw and subdivision rules and reg which talking about um intersection, the plan changes they need to do gravel
uh must be installed and they need to show it on the plan and they need to do the easement thing before planning board make a decision based upon uh section 2101 driveway. Um and those are the basic comments
which we received from Tie and Bond at the moment. And uh other ones are based upon subdivision rules and reg and the general engineering practice. Um Applicant did change the fire based upon
fire comments for the width of the driveway. So we are good on that side, but they require to show the driveway apron and all the notes which mentioned on the report.
And yep. [clears throat] Okay, so there's several things outstanding. Yeah. Um does anyone uh At this point I I was going to let the applicants give their update, but does anyone on the board have any questions initially or
am I good to move to the applicant? All right, Mr. Stone or Mr. Thrasher, whoever would like to speak on your behalf uh go ahead. >> Yeah, I'll uh I'll start and then I'll ask if Jake can step in. Um so we did receive the um review today. Uh reviewed
that um I think I think everything that they're asking is pretty um doable. It's not um not sitting significant changes from an engineering standpoint. It's just more related to noting things on the plan that we currently have.
So I feel like uh it's it's pretty straightforward in the sense of you know, getting them what they need to be satisfied with the with the plan. Um so that's a you know, a positive thing from from our standpoint of of receiving that. Um there are some other comments that
have been made since the last meeting. We got uh some some positive comments from a zoning official from the changes that we've made. We did get some feedback I believe from the board of health and we did get a positive feedback from the historic commission based on our new plan for the historic
house in the front. So that's pretty significant I think from a from an information standpoint for you guys. Okay. Uh to the chair, just a quick question. Go ahead. >> And which uh which historic uh comments you uh mentioned about
because I don't think I'm uh in the loop. If you directly emailed to historical commission I only It's actually in the Google Drive that you sent me. I'm I read it from the um historical >> So okay, so you're talking about the original letter you received from the
company. I'm talking about the comments that he received after reviewing the plan that we submitted. The recent one you're talking about April 13th? Not the civil plan, the actual architectural plan. He was just referring to the design of the house as it regards to historic
look. I think I have the copy over here somewhere. Yeah, it was dated uh It was way back. It was dated um March. He said that >> is Yeah, so that's the one when you
submitted application then. Yeah, that time. >> I just don't I just don't recall it being mentioned or I I didn't see this last time. That's all. Yeah. And I think this is in response to one of the public comments we received last meeting which was calling out in question the aesthetics of the new
uh proposed addition to the what's called historical and I think we just really wanted to point out here that we've received historical commission feedback saying that those improvements are acceptable and um for what they're calling historical
building. All right. Uh Could I make a just few quick comments on the Tie and Bond uh review? >> Yeah. Go ahead. Yeah, so I I went through that um and um happy to have that feedback and point
out um where we might tighten things up on the design plans. Nothing jumped out on me that said um anything that we're proposing is not feasible. It It sounded seemed to me that more there was just request for
further information. So for example on to be more specific on the driveway design um I need to show for example the line of sight how I calculated that. Um so I did all that calculations on the back end,
all my turn radius is for the SU30 emergency vehicles. Um but I guess from Tie and Bond's perspective they don't know they want to see those calculations or those determinations spelled out with more detail in the drawings. Um
stuff like Engineer you mentioned as well as uh you know, I call out a note of what that driveway should be made of, how many inches of gravel which is all required under the certain bylaws and regulations. They want to see a actual engineered
profile detail of that. Um so I don't know I I take it as pretty positive feedback that nothing that we're proposing at the moment of town's rules and regulations and not feasible from an engineering standpoint.
Um so [clears throat] that's And also from the half of the board of health I was just out there again with them last week doing another round of soil testing for the proposed leach field areas and um everything checked out. We got acceptable soil perk rates.
Um acceptable soils for leach field. So no nothing's holding us back on that front as well. I think we just want to get some preliminary feedback from you guys that um it's worth continuing to do all this in-depth engineering. And Aaron, did you want to speak a
little bit about the site visit? Yeah, uh last meeting we had I think we're going to do a site visit. We had a scheduled site visit for a Saturday. Um I think Matthew was was it you that was there? Um and uh you know, we we were going to walk the site and try to get a bit of a
better understanding of the of of what we're what we're proposing. So Matthew was there with me and we kind of walked the site a little bit to show him what's going on. Um I don't know if that was helpful or not Matthew, but um maybe you could you know, if you have any feedback on on on our visit and how
that went um on that Saturday. Matthew, do you would you like to make any any comments or Yeah, no. I I think it was really helpful to see the layout there and and where the land was and where the stakes were going to be for the new house and the driveway.
Um given that you know, right now there's a lot of wooded area just trying to understand how the proposed driveway was going to im- impact uh any of the path there and just how close and how far certain things were. Um so it definitely was helpful to see
the see the see the layout. Um I don't know if there's really a lot more I can convey uh just by by from my own senses there. Um I would suggest people maybe stop by and just take a look at
the property and the and where the driveway is right now and try and place in your head if you haven't done that already. Um The one question on the Tie and Bond was about I think it was item 13 about flattening the driveway. I was curious if that was something that we were that you were looking to
to affect or if you're or what your thought was on that that question. So you know, the driveway is something that I I I kind of mentioned as just as we were walking there trying to understand where it was going. Yeah, that that is something um that can be done without issue. I
think they just caught I was showing grade a certain section of grade lines that were closer together and they said, "Why can't you just stretch this out a little bit further to kind of make it less you you know, less than 10% slope." And I agree. I think that that's a good you know, if
there's space to do it, why not make it an easier uh slope. Um >> [clears throat] >> So yeah, that's something we're going to address. Yeah, I mean Rob, if there's any specific questions anybody on the board has based on what I saw there, I can talk to that, but I I I think really just kind of understanding
the way the driveway kind of comes in and where the two the current house and the proposed house are relative to each other in the driveway. I think it was helpful. Uh but there's not much I can do kind of verbally about that. You're muted, Rob.
Uh sorry about that. Thank you Thank you, Matthew. If anyone on the board has any questions uh I think there's two things. If there's any questions uh for the applicant, maybe we ask them now. Uh number two, like we're going to need to continue it. So if the applicant
needs any guidance from us, uh I think we could we could provide that or uh but Parker, go ahead. Yeah, the only question I had for the applicant is are you guys do you have a complete and utterly
comprehensible understanding relative to the steps that you need to take in order to effectuate the project that you are seeking to accomplish? And the reason I asked that is I believe
talking to some of my partners in town hall, there's been confusion. And so just wanted to make sure you guys have everything you need to be able to effectuate this project. I'll start and and so basically I think
there is a little bit of confusion there has been a little bit of confusion on my part because we had to go through zoning first and then and and now planning and then understanding the the process of this. So from my understanding I think we we kind of have a good handle of you know the best next steps and the
procedure on what's going to happen. Our our thought is to have this meeting to get all the feedback to to have you guys kind of look at it and and and kind of I understand we can't get a decision tonight because we we still have to address the the things
from the third party review. But kind of get a good understanding from you guys that okay yes this is something that you know we we can we can see being achievable if we if these needs are met and and have a continuance on that we
meet those needs and then we we dig deeper into the engineering standpoint for all departments board of health and all that stuff. We've kind of submitted and provided as much engineering and architectural plans as we could so that everybody in each department can kind of get a conceptual
understanding of what the plan is without doing full engineering for something that may not be approved. We wanted to kind of go this route to to to you know to understand what we're doing basically and I think we've done that we've provided that. I think every every
department understands you know what what what the game plan is here and should feel comfortable enough at this point given the information to proceed or not and then now we would like to get the approval from you guys to say okay
move forward and then we're going to go you know basically full scope essentially. Does that make sense? Yeah I just want to make sure it makes sense to you guys. You have literally picked a parcel with a non-performing lot with a historic home and a title five wetland and are looking
to split and build in a town that is quite reticent for new residential and I think back to what you said initially at one of our first meetings. You didn't know what you might have been getting into on this property and so just want to make sure you have everything you
need to be successful. Yeah it's been a long road to be honest and I think I did mention that at the start like I didn't the intention and the road that I've gone down here wasn't the wasn't our first intention at all. It's just we were given information from the town from the historical board that they
would like to do A B and C. There's some certain bylaws that are in the Hopkinton bylaws written that we've read and understand now so that's the direction we've gone. So we kind of understand that this this this application of ours kind of is the
I want to say perfect fit but an application that fits all those regulations in terms of how the bylaws written from historic structure and that's that's kind of the route and the rabbit hole I guess you could say we've kind of gone down and we're at a point now where
you know we've invested so much time money effort in in trying to comply with everybody we're we're so close and I think that we can get this done we want to get it done and that's that's our goal. Thank you. Yeah.
Matthew go ahead. Thanks Rob. For my clarification here what what are what are our next steps? So are we waiting on time bond? Is it we're not this isn't a a site plan review right? The only thing that's before us is whether
we're waving is the special permit basically for the for the subdivision with the historic lot. So what what else do we need on our side here? I Aniri can you help me out here? Yeah sure.
So board needs to decide first if they want to waive the frontage requirement from subdivision for the existing house because zoning were already give waivers for the new for the frontage. So planning board needs to
decide if board wants to waive that and the special permit for common driveway and historical structure. So um I thought we were in position that we need we should wait for finalized plans and we shouldn't we shouldn't be voting
tonight. Like that's that was my guidance or what I believed going in. Yes since the required comments from applicant I mean updated plans for common driveway and once we receive that
and time bond check board can vote on both the special permits and frontage. Uh there's a slight change I'm not sure Aaron you already answered to conservation two days comments on the revised plan but they are still a little dicey with the
revised plan because based upon April 13th plan the grading proposed into the erosion control barrier and that is close to the buffer zone so I'm not sure if you replied to her last week
or you are addressing that concerns with them but I just I'm just going to point it out. That's all. So we don't have a finalized agreed upon plans with our review consultant for a common driveway proposal. Um
Is that So my I believe that's correct. So that's step one thing we're waiting for. The conservation commission it sounds like they're still uh unknown. Is my understanding is correct? Is unknown reconciliation? Um that will not hold
the planning board to make a decision in the next hearing once the applicant address it's up to the board how they want to issue the special permit for common driveway and historical but that is something which applicant needs to deal with com com.
Okay. >> Um they can do later they can do it's up to them how they want to address. All right. Those concerns but if anything if they ended up going to conservation in the future and changing the drawings they need to come back to
planning board. For a common driveway. Not for the historical special permit once it's issued unless until it's changing something. So is it So I guess my question oh sorry is my
the question I guess is is um knowing that basically our request tonight is to get approval for relief for the frontage and a shared driveway and Aniri you're saying that or sorry
Rob you're saying that we have to have all of the items that we received today from the third party review finalized and approved from them before planning board can make a decision. Is that correct or can you guys make >> That's that's typically what our process
is is that our peer review consultant who are the experts that we hire as a town Okay. uh comes to agreement with the applicant uh on any on any things in question. That's typically typically what we do. And would it
would it be fair to ask that if we could come to meet their requirements and approval that the planning board could decide on a vote tonight to say if that was met? It would be We would have to we no we would have to
we would basically have to make specific conditions and not just like a blanket statement like that. But let let let's table that for one minute. Parker go ahead. I just want to make sure I understand. So the changes that are going to be made from the current
plans the only new changes would be the driveway the shared driveway. Is that Did I hear this correctly? That's it. Correct. That is correct. Uh Rob I'm comfortable based on that to give them
the go. I mean these guys are it's almost May these guys want to get started on their projects. Uh All right let's hold on one second. Uh Ken and Zoe Parker of 69 Clinton Street go ahead.
Yeah this is uh Ken Parker here. My concern still has to do with it seems like you guys are just plainly allowing two houses in place of one and it's based on this historical structure thing but I don't see in the end if that's got anything to do with anything.
Uh it's basically got one lot that's below requirements for frontage and now you're allowing two two houses there. That's the bottom line. That's all I care about and you know it's just a general question is are you allowing property owners to to to split
up lots in this way? Is would would every you would expect that to be something something that everybody else in town's going to do? I mean it's going to have large ramifications or is this a special exception somehow or or what?
That's that's my concern. I I have an answer to that Rob if you're open. Hold on hold on one second Parker. Um I I um I completely agree with your concern. I do not I'm not supportive of this
project. Uh that's where I am. Um this does not make logical sense. You have zoning in the areas of town. This seems like a way to circumvent our zoning and it doesn't sit well with me. So, that's that's where my head is at.
Parker, go ahead. I had the same feeling as Ken and then I talked to you literally the person that wrote the um, historical bylaws and amended them and according to our rules as they are
today, this is an appropriate use of the historical bylaws for them to essentially thread the needle and I was sort of alluding to that in my comment earlier of you use the non-conforming historical bylaw and provided that, you know, and under that
kind of umbrella, you can split a lot still and it's perfectly within the bylaws. Just kind of kind of wrap my head around the noodle as well, but it is to Rob's point a little bit of circumventing our bylaws too, but it's according to it completely within the rules. So, so Parker, I would say if
they had if they potentially if they had uh, 200 ft or more of street frontage, but in this case they don't. So, we don't have a situation where um, this is in my opinion uh,
in the best interests of the people of town that have all like it takes 2/3 of the town to vote to override zoning. I don't know, um, that's that's my sentiment. >> Matthew, go ahead. Rob, I guess I'm curious under what
situations do you think 210-117-2 would apply then? Like it it seems like this is explicitly like what it's designed for. I think it is a uh, I think if there's no waivers requested,
then the bylaw is would work. But it in a situation where it requires waivers, I don't think the town and the people of towns are supportive of this. That'd be that's my that's my opinion. >> [sighs and gasps] >> Wouldn't any situation require waivers?
I don't think this project like unless I'm I'm mistaken, if they had 200 street ft of street frontage, I don't think this would it still would require going to the zoning board of appeals and getting uh, a variance for zero feet of street frontage for the back lot.
But other than that, if they didn't need that, I don't think they would require any any waivers and I think the planning board would be in a position where um, if no waivers are requested, requested, it meets our bylaws and then it could go forward. That's that's what I see. But it like if it doesn't meet the
setback requirements, you're saying if it met the setback requirements, you would see that this would be fine. >> Yeah. I think from a protect uh, How should I put this?
The the only there's no requested waiver for setback requirements that I'm aware of on this application. Or am I mistaken? Uh, the only requested waiver it's just the frontage. Okay.
I I just have a quick comment um, and I could be wrong, but um, the the way that I read the the bylaw is that if I did have the frontage, this bylaw for historic zone wouldn't be applicable. And that's what that's how it makes this applicable.
Because uh, with the minimum >> I do not believe that to be correct. A correct understanding. Um, An Erie, can you help An Erie, I don't have the bylaw in front of me. An Erie, do you happen to have it in front of you? Yes, I'm just checking, but if I'm
not drunk and even when I reviewed this application preliminary, uh, the frontage waiver would trigger because it was non-conforming and historical property and based upon our historic zoning bylaw, uh, applicant required frontage waiver based upon the
subdivision rules and regs because after this process as I think I mentioned earlier today, applicant needs to go through A&R process and for A&R, they need to have approval from any board including frontage waiver and all the setbacks. Since they already have a
variance for new lot, they need approval for existing lot and that's the reason they are applying um, special permit and as well as frontage waiver and then they going to go through A&R. For A&R, they need to make sure that they are meeting all the setback requirements, frontage and
everything, which they don't have and that is the reason they are doing frontage waiver first and the special permit for historical structure. And Rob, to be clear, the current law doesn't have the right frontage either, right? It's already non-conforming on the frontage. It is that is correct.
It's non-conforming. The uh, the general principle is it's grandfather it's a grandfathered like the non-conforming it's like a grandfathered lot before zoning applied. There's the house there. Um, so if they were to replace it with uh, one house, I wouldn't have uh,
a problem. But um, what is being attempted here in a like as a in the big picture doesn't I don't agree with and I don't think uh, I I don't think in general people would be
supportive if we took a vote or poll of our of the people in town, um, for this project. Not that not that we do that, but go ahead. Go ahead, Matthew. So, you're posing you're saying if it were a much stouter, much shorter
property, but much wider and so it had the frontage, but maybe it didn't have the right right amount of area, you'd be fine with the 117-2 here because the frontage wouldn't need a waiver and the bylaw specifically allows
for the exception for size. Uh, in those in that case there might be not there might not be any mechanism to say no. Is how I would uh, and I like like if the lot was 10 ft deep or
something ridiculously ridiculous depth of some a non-conforming lot in that agricultural, I still wouldn't like it. Like say it was 30 ft deep lot, something um, I still wouldn't like it if it had 400 ft of frontage and you subdivided it
to two lots, 200 square 200 ft of frontage on each one and 30 ft deep, if I couldn't stop it or say or have my vote, then I I would be forced to vote yes. Um, but I wouldn't like it. Okay. It just seems to violate the spirit of
>> [snorts] >> 117-2 itself. Like whether uh, Yeah. Yeah. I'm with Matt on this. It's I don't like it, but that's what it's there for. So, we have a couple options. We can
wait and uh, I think before we can really vote on the driveway non-conforming, we can uh, I mean the drive the driveway shared driveway plans, we need a final set of plans. We can always vote on the
we could vote on the frontage waiver in advance, um, if the board chose that or wanted to do that. In the interest of the applicant, however, the advice is we wait. So, I I think uh, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thatcher, you've
heard some varying opinions on the board. Um, uh, I don't know what else to provide for tonight's meeting. I think to actually vote on the plans, we need a final set of plans
uh, agreed upon with our peer review consultant. Um, the driveway waiver, I think from what you've heard, you've got a a few people that are supportive, it sounds like. Uh, I don't I'm not a a big fan of this project. Um,
so that's where we're at. Okay. No, I I I understand your you know, your concern and everyone's concern, you know, and and again to reiterate reiterate what I said before, like we kind of down this path um, and and you know, kind of non-intentionally, but we're
here. And so uh, I guess my question again is um, if if the way that the bylaw is written, uh, and and we're basically conforming I guess to to what how the bylaw is written and we
do come back with the drawings, everything that the third party review has requested. At that point, is it fair to say that it it it's a fair call to say that we should
see approval. The reason I ask is because there's there's there's a lot of money and time that has to be spent on the back end in between meetings that I could be doing. Uh, now we're into you know, May. I just don't know am I going left or am I going right? And so, you know, it it's not a matter of
opinion. I I guess it is a matter of opinion, but if it's a matter of does this project fit within this bylaw and it and it complies, can I feel some kind of confidence moving forward? So,
uh I think it's ultimately going to come down to a vote because you you from the planning board you need you need uh a waiver to to basically get this project to the next step. Um and it's going to be up to the the
people on the on the planning board members. And so, it's going to take what? Five votes in theory? Five out of the four? Or a majority? Is it five no matter how many are here? So, tonight uh we are
Is that two seven? Yeah, uh Let me check if Alicia was there. I think I think it's regardless >> Majority votes for this project. So, if we have seven, it would only take four? Is that correct?
Or is it still five because we have nine-member board? Five. So, it'd take five of the seven. Mhm. So, that's that's where we're at. Uh and I think you heard a couple a few different differing opinions.
Yeah, no. I I understand the discussion and the and I just it's just it's just hard to know which direction to go, you know? Like you know, what what's the next steps, you know? Like do I pursue having Jay, you know, do his full board of health septic design plan and
architectural plans because, you know, in another month we're going to be a month month down the road or you know, I understand that is that just you know, from my standpoint like if you understand that, like what I've been going this been going nearly
12 months now, you know? Um and so, I understand and it's a vote. I understand that I have to get the votes to proceed to the next step. Um I just you know, I I just don't want to get to the next step and then we need another meeting, you know? I I guess the question again is if I can
comply, is it still a vote if if I do comply with the bylaws? Uh No, well, it's it's ultimately going to come if all bylaws are complied with and there's no waivers requested,
ultimately the planning board goes through their process and you get to an agreed-upon plans, the the board would ultimately vote uh that if you've met all the requirements, then yes, you get a yes vote cuz you've met all the requirements, you're requesting no waivers.
Um but we're that's not where this project is at this point. Okay. Matthew, go ahead. So, Ms. Anna and Lisa aren't here. Are they Have they both missed two meetings so neither are eligible to vote?
Uh chair, I just wanted to point it out on that. Uh so, we need six major supermajority vote for special permit for voting on frontage river, voting on both the special permit. Uh Alicia can vote in the next meeting if she's joined because she was here
when the we opened this public hearing. Lucia cannot vote on this project at all. So, um for we need six vote majority vote. So, out of eight members. Okay.
And Parker, go ahead. I just I'm sympathetic to the applicant to an extent because of the investment they've made. Um and I think what this whole kind of situation is made it clear is we have some revised issues to our
bylaws that we're posed. Uh Mr. Stone, I if you're not abundantly aware, we've done considerable construction in this town recently. We were the fastest growing town in Massachusetts absent Boston metro area and facing, you know,
incredible headwinds relative to state subsidies and other funding to help bolster our existing, you know, budgets. And with that, we the residents are continuing to, you know, see their property taxes go up as, you know, we have yet even the bulk of what
bonds are going to account for in terms of increases over the coming years. And to that extent, we wouldn't be here if you were simply rehabbing a home, but that wasn't the opportunity that you saw. You saw I could put split the lot and two on and, you know, make more
money and I'm acutely aware of that. However, four-bedroom, you know, homes are the you know, the ones that you're proposing add more kids than, you know, like multi-fam than a like say a mixed use. And so, what we as stewards in the board are trying to do is ensure that,
you know, not only bylaws are accepted, but I think the back of everybody's heads here is that, you know, we want to see the current status quo of schools maintained so we don't have to ask for hundreds of millions of dollars more in capital bonds for new schools, which would result in potentially degrading our credit rating. These are all things
that are swirling around at least in my head, but I think from a risk perspective from Rob, I'm more so speaking to you, you know, if you looked at the recent enrollment numbers, we're actually under the projections relative to the kids that are going to be in schools. So, from a risk perspective, I think approving this project is low
risk. However, starting on what I said, I think it's created an abundant uh situation I think we need to redress as part of our bylaws and rules moving forward. That said, I don't think Mr. Stone, in spite of his, you know, intent
should be, you know, robustly penalized for what he's trying to do because I think the risk is low to the town, but that's all I'll say. Thanks, Parker. Matthew, go ahead. How's the historic preservation written? Is the option if it
just to knock it down eventually if he can't make it work? Isn't that what this is intended to preserve is to make it easier to preserve historic properties, historic houses? So, Go ahead, Aniri. Aniri, go ahead.
So, I just want to brief out if I'm not wrong with the discussion Aaron had with the historical commission, they reviewed the existing structure and based upon the letter they mentioned that applicant needs to keep the structure. And usually if I'm not wrong, even in the building
code, um I can check with the building commissioner, but usually applicant needs to preserve the existing house. They can modify unless and um I mean, usually if they are keeping the foundation and the existing in the place and preserving that, that's allowed that
as a historic house unless until they going to demo and do the thing, then that is that's against our our current zoning bylaw. And I think that's the thing Mr. Ann trying to do with the existing structure. They are keeping the house as it is. Based upon their plan they
provided, um they are doing addition to that one. So, uh yeah. Okay. Um So, just uh just for keeping score here,
to we would need six members of our nine-member board to vote yes uh for the uh waiver for street frontage. Uh one of those
uh six one of those members cannot vote. Another one is not uh because she's missed two meetings on this topic. One is not here tonight, so that leaves us seven eligible voters. So, you'd need six of the seven to vote yes if you wanted us to proceed to a vote
tonight. Uh Go ahead, Aniri. I think um eight members. Uh sorry. Seven members. Yes, seven members. My bad. Yeah, I'm counting Alicia. I forgot she's not here.
Um yeah, so seven members. So, I think my uh I like if I was in your shoes, I would want more people here than than not to get to six. Um so, that's that's where we are. Yeah, I mean, I think
the numbers would help me if there was more people there, right? Uh and so, I think that's the the right approach there, but um just so I understand the rules on how it works. I You said I've got to get six votes out of nine, but two of them are not eligible, but I still have to have the six. >> One one is not eligible and another one
is just not here tonight. Okay. Uh but out of the nine, one is not eligible. Uh does that So, that brings the amount from seven to six. That Is that correct?
So, we have a nine-member board. So, one is not eligible, so that brings it to eight. Uh We have uh one that is just not here tonight, so that would bring it like we have seven here, so you'd need six of seven tonight. Assuming she's at our
next meeting and the seven that are here are at that next meeting, you'd need six of the eight. Okay. I guess my question is if there was nine members allowed to vote, would it still be six? Yes. So, because it goes down in eligibility,
the number of uh yeses don't go down. That's correct. Okay. And we hope that there are eight people next meeting. Yes. Mr. Saville, I assume. All right. I feel like um we're not going to make
uh we're we're at the point of uh I don't I don't want to make recommendations, but I would try to come to finish whatever work on the driveway application, get that agreed with Ty and Bond at least. And uh we can put we'll have you on our
agenda for next meeting, and we can uh we'll move it forward or um uh uh or at least we'll we'll vote one way or another whether we
we think this should proceed or that it doesn't meet our requirements and not going to grant a waiver or we are going to grant a waiver. So, that's where we're at. Okay. All right. Aniri, do I need to continue uh any
deadlines or just the the hearings? Uh no, just the hearings to May 11th meeting. Um both hearing on three and four both special permit and the frontage waiver. So, I'd like to entertain a motion to
continue the public hearing for 82 Clinton Street uh special permit and 82 Clinton Street frontage waiver to May 11th. So moved. Thanks, Matthew. Second. Thanks, Michael.
Roll call vote. Matthew Ronca? Yes. Michael King? Yes. Parker App? Yes. Peter Mimo? Yes. Amna Dewan? Yeah. Vikas Sahu Prottoy? Yes. And Rob Benson is a yes. All right. We'll see you next meeting.
Can I as this the engineer ask one quick question for clarification? Um Sure, go ahead. Um Matthew pointed out that this is not a site plan review and we're all just talked about that in detail. So, for next meeting, just want to be really clear, I need to address
all of the comments by Ty and Bond. And that will be going back to them to review before next meeting, or is that just me presenting that updated plan with all their comments met? Is that our best-case scenario there for >> I think you basically go back, you
respond to their comments Okay. >> with with the corrective action. Yep. >> Corrective action probably will be in the plans. You can give them to that and this could be coordinated through Aniri. I think I don't know I don't know Aniri. You know better than this process
than me. Yes, I will reach out to Aaron and explain him, but usually J you send your updated comment letter and the revised plan to me. I will reach out to Ty and Bond. I will just recommend give me some time for my review and I can send them
so they also have time because um since the last updated one I got the at the end and I received revised plan, so I received Ty and Bond response last week on Thursday, Friday. So, I was not able to share with board member till this morning. So, I don't want that to
have happen again in the future. So, maybe just give some buffer time to me as well. And is there any given the mixed interest on this project, is there any reason why we might want to do a site visit with more than one member, or is
that is this we're now just kind of in the plan review stage? Um I don't know if more members can make a better time, better day. Um Just yeah. Just offering that, I guess, cuz I can be up there.
Uh I am not going to be here the next two weekends. Um Uh I I think it's I think probably the best interest of the board if we don't want to agree upon a time because uh are tough.
Uh is for everybody on the board to drive by 82 Clinton Street. I've probably driven by that house uh over 10,000 times in my life. Um so, um I'm very familiar with where it is.
All right. Uh Thank you. Thank you. All right. That brings us to the end of our agenda. Uh So, at this time I'd like to entertain a motion to adjourn for this evening. Can
I just ask one question, Rob? Oh, sorry. One question. Uh Aniri, you raised your hand. Uh there's no rush. We can go through any any questions. No, just a reminder that we have town meeting this Saturday, May 2nd. Just a reminder, everybody. Okay.
Oh, and the fantastic Rob Benson will be featured on E Hop's Know Your Vote. Catch it on HCAM live tomorrow, hosted by me. Uh that's not a shameless plug, I don't know what is. Um no, the question I had, can we get any clarity from uh the
planning department on the nuance of the historical bylaw? And Aniri, I don't know if that'd be your monkey or circus or Golsch, just to kind of see if there's any time that the waivers have never
been granted as part of a non-conforming lot. I just would it would make [clears throat] me feel a little bit better. I think any history on any prior applications that this is relevant to would be great to know. Yeah. Okay. Uh chair, can I say on this topic?
Um I was thinking after our discussion that I'm going to prepare memo for all the planning board members just to help out this process like how regarding frontage waiver when I talked to one of our admin, Kobe, um she mentioned that we did not receive frontage waiver in very long time. The
last one we received was way way back. I don't know, maybe 10, 12 years back or something. Not in a recent year, but uh I'm going to prepare and uh send out the details why it's required and how to process it because we can get one more
application in uh next couple of months, which is similar uh historical structure with frontage waiver request. So, it's just they don't need a common driveway, but it's otherwise it's a similar. So, I don't want um them to
also wait. So, just to help better I'll help board member out. Thank you. Sure. That would that's that's any any additional information would be helpful. Uh Matthew, go ahead. Yeah, I was noticing on the next
meetings um because May 11th to June 1st, and at one point we had a meeting on May 18th even though that was town election, and I thought the discussion was to keep it that we did we cancel that in the end? So, uh as per
uh I think when we schedule this year, we only uh have like one meeting on May 11th for as of now, but if board wants, we can do that. Uh we can add one more if it's required.
But otherwise, we have one only one planning board this month. I mean, in May. And annual town meeting on May 2nd. So, um the other option if we want, then that's going to be May 18th only, like right after May 11th
because we have Memorial Day on May 23rd if I'm not wrong. Oh, that's why it was uh canceled. >> Yes. Or not not scheduled. Yeah. No, I'm I'm in fine fine. It's I had 11 and 18 as both having planning boards at one point. So, I just want to make sure
that If we feel we if we feel we need another meeting before town meeting, then we could could in theory decide that next meeting. Uh Well, now we could not in theory, in practice we can decide that next meeting. Uh
We've done it before. Yeah. We're talking about the 2nd though now, not Not before the town meeting. I mean, Oh, no no, not May 2nd. I mean, never mind. I'm I was never mind. Before before um
voting. It will be after voting by state law. I I I think we ran into this issue before is that whether the state law permitted it after voting polls closed. No, no, no. I mean I mean but the town meeting's May 2nd. Town
elections are J- June. We could we could fit more meetings in that window if we needed to, like with this board if we had to, to get votes to happen. Yeah. Well. So, at the moment there's nothing on the
18th, just verifying and the calendar doesn't have anything 18th. That's right. All right. And the second at another attempt, uh I'd like to entertain a motion to adjourn for this evening. So moved. Second. Thanks, Matthew. Thanks, Parker. Roll
call vote. Uh Matthew Ronca. Yes. Michael King. Yes. Parker Hap. Yes. Peter Mimo. Yes. Amna Adwan. Yeah. Vikas Sahu Prati.
Yes. And Rob Benson is a yes. All right. See everybody in 2 weeks. Thanks. See you tomorrow, Rob. See you tomorrow, Parker. See you on Saturday. Bye.