hi everybody let me uh let me just jump in to read uh can everybody hear me someone we can hear you give me a thumb all right great let me just uh jump into read the remote meeting script and then we'll get into our agenda uh 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 meets participants May access meeting through the remote meeting link is posted on the meeting
agenda and through the town's online calendar when required by law or Allowed by the chair persons wishing to provide public comment or otherwise participate in the meeting May do so by raising their hand or otherwise signaling their intent to speak this meeting will be recorded please take care to mute your
microphone unless you have been recognized by the chair we will now confirm attendance of members please respond with present if you're on the call Alise meowski present Lucia Lopez
present Matthew Rona Michael King uh present Parker hap present Jane Moran present Karen Wills present bath prti
present and uh I'm obviously here yeah Rob's here so uh staff John guch present and Lori St John Lori might not be able to make it tonight all right great all right let let's just
uh jump into our agenda bear with me one second all right uh an anr for 66 Fruit Street um can we get a is Mr markon going to talk to about this or who's going to give us an
overview John do you do you have an do you know I think elain is here for that Elaine yes go ahead thank you uh so the town of hopkington is the applicant and
this is a an anr plan that um delineates an affordable housing parcel um as defined on the food Street master plan so the food Street master plan showed a parcel for affordable housing but it was never surveyed um and so this was a CPC
Pro project that was voted last year uh to conduct the survey and uh we're presenting it for your endorsement this evening all right does anybody does anybody have any questions I have a question H H how do you actually ACC access this
property so right now it can be accessed via the the access road that goes to the back to the food suet field so it's on that that access road if at some point uh we need to create Frontage for this slot we'll have to Define it as a as an actual Road rather than just a
driveway okay Lucia go ahead thanks Rob um in reading the form a it puts it puts this as not to be considered a building lot but then it
also says it's to create the boundary of the parcel that is set aside for future future affordable housing um so if this is not a building lot then what is this doing so it it creates the parcel for
the future and as I mentioned access to that lot would have to be obtained also as part of that any development that were to occur there okay so this is basically like the first step in the process yeah it just defines it as um Parks and Rec for example develops
around it we want to make sure that we know where this is on the ground okay thank you does anyone else have any questions seeing none I'd like to entertain a motion that the planning award endorsed the anr plan
for 66 Fruit Street entitled plan of land in Hopton Massachusetts prepared by JD Mark Associates dat November 5th 19 uh November 5th 2024 so second all right great roll call vote
Elise meowski yes Lucia Lopez yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Parker ha yes Jane Moran
yes Karen Wills yes vicaso pry yes and Robenson is yes thanks Elaine thanks for coming uh before us appreciate it all right we're just gonna keep
moving right along here uh Wilson Street storm water unless I'm mistaken John we didn't have an update did I not I don't think I saw an updated uh estimate for uh what it would cost we
got one uh at the couple hours ago so I just added to the administrator um okay four o'clock so Phil from beta is here if um you want him to go through that I don't think anyone has seen it
but I I think it makes sense complex I think it makes sense to go through it because all we were really looking for was a number and then um I don't see I don't see Vin gaty on the call
like we wanted we wanted a number to know what to adjust the bond to so uh so Phil could could you go through uh estimate sure it's uh yeah it's very
simple it's uh obviously they're going to S cut the pavement uh at four feet off the edge of pavement they're going to supplement the gravel base and uh and and pave the edge uh for the first uh
300 or so feet they're going to have uh a burm which which will match the burm on the opposite side of the street uh to protect the uh uh the edge of edge of Road um and
keep the water in the in the gutter after that it will um oh I should I should stay that we received another plan from um Peter beus uh probably around 4:30 44 430 as
well um which actually addressed all the issues that we had um we had talked about but anyway the estimate itself it incorporates the burm incorporates uh one foot
shoulder and uh all the rip wrap and um pavement the pavement will match the uh minimum of subdivision Road um and the rip wrap and um fil the
fabric uh according to the detail and so that the number is about $102,000 um with with some contingency for um contract Administration needed um
or miscellaneous issues that may come up so that's uh with obviously with mass do prices uh the contractor obviously can do it maybe maybe as much as half of that but you know uh so
does anyone on the board have any questions for Phil Mr gayy i s i see you joined did you have any uh anything you'd like to add uh yes um I think I agree with Phil um this
is as he said um dot numbers we can uh we've put together pretty detailed budget and I've actually talked to all of our subs um about this work in the last uh
10 days or so so we see this as a $40,000 job all day long so um possibly 50 but certainly about half of what Phil was saying so
um I would propose to um since we have a bond in place for $75,000 which I think is more than adequate to cover this work we would uh like to see this
approved uh without uh with just keeping our current bond amount in place to be to be honest I don't I don't know where this leaves us um we were hoping that there would be an agreed upon
plan from a meeting a month ago um but nothing came of that now a month has gone by now the last week meeting two weeks ago no we met we had a meeting in December
where we I had said I'd like to see you meet with um per Town Personnel Phil come up with a plan to get this addressed that meeting happened where there was no uh
that meeting happened in January there was no path forward uh and now we're another month later so we're we're two months past where I I think we hit a breaking point so what from your point of view what would you you'd like us
just to keep the Bond as is and what would you what are you going to do in the immediate term for us to be okay with that well I mean you have
$75,000 where we're not finished up there but we're probably 80% done with the entire job so um I think the risk to the town is pretty small at this point
adding this in um I think it's this work is very well within the existing bond um and I guess I'm prepared to agree to the the plan that was submitted and all the
details on there as far as the scope of work and um and move this forward probably in the spring I had a chance to speak to Peter late this afternoon I don't see him on
here he's he's at another hearing but um any case we just talked about getting this started like as soon as we think the weather is right and we have a we only see maybe a a week one week's worth of
work to do this um so I guess the only thing left is just to agree on the scope of of the work which I think we do now um and then just
the have you people um you know approved the the the bond issue what is any does anybody on the board have any thoughts opinions comments questions Matthew go ahead I so I I hear what M what Mr gatle
is saying about how he could do it within his current Bond but the purpose of the bond is if the town were to have to pay and contract out what's going what contract out the work so I I don't think that argument for keeping it at
the current level makes a lot of sense um I don't know if it would make if if there were a deadline that Mr gatley and his team could uh could provide in terms of when he thinks the weather would be ready if
it's only one week's worth of work um maybe that's something worth discussing as well and have a deadline for when we'd talk about raising the bond but like I given how long this has taken um it it I'm leaning towards the bond
raising the bond being uh just making sense to protect the town here uh just speaking to the schedule um I guess Peter sent over a an email to John this afternoon about
having this done within the next 60 to 75 days and he's saying if it's not completed by May 15 um that would be sort of a deadline I guess to get the work done
and if uh and if it's not done by that date we'll certainly discuss increasing the bond but this this time I see it the bond being uh more than adequate almost by double to
do this work um so one of my other concerns Rob is that this started with storms coming in in March and we're about to hit that season again um it's possible that the damage that needs to be addressed could be even
higher thanks Matthew uh John I have a question for you do you have any uh precedence of like in the pl in the planning as a principal planner of what other what is normally done in this
these types of situations I I I think um I haven't seen this in my time on the board where we've come across this yeah there's usually not a ton of offsite uh repairs that need to be done for
development so not a lot of precedent uh to to refer to I will mention though that the $75,000 Bond was that that amount was established based on the work that was proposed under the approved site plan this extra work wasn't part of that so if there's any work that needs
to be done as part of the overall development site that's what that $75,000 will cover or attempt to cover um and then if there's additional work that needs to be done on Wilson Street along with that then I doubt that $75,000 will cover both
projects okay with that being said does anyone else on the board have any comments questions thoughts opinions Parker go ahead I think based on uh John's assit observation that we should
probably raise the bond an additional 100,000 to be safe thanks Parker so at this time I'd like to entertain a motion that the planning board raised the bond from 75,000 to 177,000 am I allowed to make comment yet
second am I allowed to make a comment yet or is this we beond that I'm not sure procedurally how this works we uh I guess we can pause for debate uh where you can make a comment go ahead yeah my my my only comment is
now that we've agreed to take take this on we're going to get this done we've been in this town for six years we're going to get this done and I don't want to go down the road of who's responsible we certainly don't agree on that but I
am agreeing to to get this work done and get it done in a in a very quick time frame unfortunately this isn't the time we can actually start the work this is not a lot of work it really is not it just needs the the right weather
so we think by May 15th we're completely done and um I I'd like to avoid a situation where you know this bond is now added by
another $100,000 and then I'm in a position where I'm going to appeal that and we're going to go back and forth and that's not going to get this work done we're agreeing to do the work I think we have based on where we are right now this is
about the fastest time frame uh we have realistically to get the work done and um so anyways I prefer just get this this done and within the within the bond
chair go ahead John um just to kind of maybe help Vin handle um this if it this becomes a decision they you can petition the board to reduce the bond once the work is done so the bond could be in place for if you can do this in a couple months the bond could be in place for a
couple months and then you can reduce it back to the 75,000 once the work is complete so it's not like this amount has to uh you know be in place for the life of the project for the life of the trails project yeah no I understand that I understand it completely I think my uh my perspective
is we originally um just originally came on our agenda uh I'm going to try to Pi quickly pull it up here but we originally got a letter from Carrie Reid nine months
ago I went on a sidewalk well over six months ago and we're still talking about this I don't think um any discussions have made any progress until the the threat of a bond and so that's what I so we have a motion in a second on the
table so we're going to vote and uh and we'll see how the V board votes John we you're I'm right in saying we have a we have a motion in a second correct so I did not hear who the first
and the second were if there were a motion Rob I made a motion Parker I made a sec a second to the motion correct roll call vote Alise mayosi sorry just to clarify this is
voting on to change the bond from 75 75,000 to 177,000 yes I vote Yes luciao Lopez yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Parker
ha yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vica South prati yes and Rob Benson is yes so hopefully uh the work can be done completed this could be a temporary uh problem for you Mr Gay and um that's
what we want as a board to get this resolved uh as quickly as possible okay well look forward to seeing that uh decision and we will take it from there all right thank you uh next thing on our agenda item 1.3
our meeting minutes from the February 10th 2024 meeting uh I know Lori's not on tonight but ises anybody have any comments uh for the meeting minutes for February 10th Matthew go
ahead yeah I just had one comment although I'm not sure what the specific intent was um on this discussion actually the storm water damage um it it says that Mr gatley feels he's being held responsible to fix damage
caused by storm water runoff from the trails development I assume that's intended to apply either not not from the trails or from Legacy Farm North or something other than from the trails am I right uh yes yeah it's uh
beyond the scope of the trails project is so I'm not sure exactly how we wanted to rephrase that I didn't have time to process that but uh I guess I would modify it to say from other than the uh other than the trails
development unless somebody has a better suggestion thought more about it I I think that's sufficient um John do is this something you can jot down yeah the meeting is also being recorded so we have okay
great all right does anyone else have anything else in addition to Matthew's uh comments oh one other thing I I realized sorry Rob um that he should not fix the damage that was not there before um I I think also needs clarification
that he didn't want to uh go beyond fixing he didn't want to go beyond fixing pre-existing damage something like that that doesn't sound right though yeah no he he I mean he was saying that he
didn't want to to build out more of the road infrastructure that wasn't caused by the damage so something to that effect um he didn't want to feel he he felt that uh and he does not feel that he should I think he felt like he was going
to make be forced to make major road improvements yeah Beyond its original state yeah yeah and it wasn't he that was his responsibility make improvements beyond the original state the parks are just put together yeah that's my proposed
amend all right with those suggested modifications by Matthew I'd like to entertain a motion that to approve the planning board approved the meeting minutes from the February 10th 2025 meeting
so moved second thanks mle thanks Matthew uh roll call vote Alise mayosi yes Luccia Lopez yes Matthew Ranka yes Michael King
yes Parker ha yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vica South pry yes and Rob Benson is a yes all right we're we're moving right along
here item number two continued public hearing zero Benson Road uh amended definitive subdivision plan Wayne Como um before we get started the chair sorry there one
other item on the agenda uh the the FEMA brick Grant presentation introduction where so we have Styler climate Consulting where did I miss that oh it's it's on the top but it's not in the
administrative items okay sorry left out of the memo right that's why I saw Jeff Roland on I am assuming um sorry about that guys everybody uh so who's going to be speaking to that
any better yep okay cool um shall I just I'm happy to share my I have a few slides too if I can share my screen let me that there you go you should be all set okay thanks Sean okay does that look good Rob I can
do a quick introduction if you'd like yeah that that' be terrific so sorry Lucy I'm trying to jump in front of you here um so Hopkinson was awarded a FEMA brick Grant a building resilient infrastructure in communities I think is what it stands for um back a number of
year or we applied for it a number of years ago recently were awarded it and have begun uh the process with C climate Consulting on reviewing our bylaws and regulations uh for areas of improvement for nature-based Solutions and other
sustainable type of um development uh infrastructure um ways that we can make our bylaws and regulations a little bit more um consistent with those types of themes and uh identify areas in our bylaws and regulations that might be
kind of going the opposite direction and so Lucy is part of Silo climate Consulting and um she is here to give an overview of the work that we've done so far and and some of the next steps and look for input from planning board members awesome thank you Johnny appreciate it
um thanks for welcoming me to the meeting tonight um give a quick overview of who I am and I know you did a nice job with that and are welcoming um Lucy Perkins I'm the director of climate resilience for Sy Syler climate Consulting we're a small woman D firm
that works with cities and towns on climate resilience planning and implementation and we've actually already had the privilege of working with the town on their climate action plan so are quite excited and honor to be continuing this work to review the town's bylaws and as John mentioned integrate climate resilience into those
regulations um I think it's emerged in this moment for a couple of different reasons one is with an awareness of impacts from flooding in town also knowing there's a desire to better integrate resilience into regulations Beyond just the storm water RS where a lot of that work is happening now so
broadening those mechanisms for implementation and also this is an effort to advance some of the recommendations from the climate action plan um we heard a major priority of the sustainable green committee and conservation committee was to um Advance some of those policy and bylaw review
ideas so this work is really putting putting that into practice um the goals for our my quick presentation for you all today is to First really do some context setting so build an understanding um of climate impacts the way that land use patterns
can affect those impacts and some of the nature-based solutions that are um emerging in in our being implemented in the region an overview of our project um the purpose of the work the scope of the work that's ahead um and some of the next steps and and what we've accomplished to date and then as John
mentioned um outlining some of those future engagement opportunities where we're really hoping to bring planning board members as well as other key stakeholders implementation partners and residents in hopkington into the process to help us shape the report and some of the recommendations that will come out of our
work um so I think just to ground us all quickly and this may be um well-known knowledge for many of you but to root it in some of the climate impacts that we're already experiencing um and contextualize and the changes that are recommending in what we are observing
studying and noticing um with climate change in the region in 2022 Massachusetts completed a series of regional climate assessments that work really well to summarize some of the most urgent ways in which each part of the state is vulnerable to risks and Hazards
now and in the future and across several different sectors um thinking about infrastructure economy social and human systems governance and the natural environment and what I wanted to do was specifically highlight two of those impacts as they particularly relate to the project at hand so the first you can
see is around freshwater freshwater ecosystem degradation so knowing that more intense and frequent storms will affect storm water management especially in systems that weren't designed for the volume of water that is antici or are already being um experienced and can
lead to increased nutrient loading sediment runoff from roadways um the second top climate impact around natural resources is related to declining Forest Health and this is really because of those warming temperatures changing precipitation patterns um increasing
pest occurrence what is possible and there's still less uncertainty around the scale of potential loss but that that those changes in the environment can affect some tree species that have a lower capacity for adaptation though these changes in the
climate are particularly important because land use and development patterns also play a role and can compound those impacts how we develop matters and land use patterns play an important role to either contribute to or mitigate those climate impacts and
what you can see here is a map that was developed by um mass autobond and it's showing some development patterns across the state and highlighting where sprawl is is already happening or sort of on the frontier with the hash marks um these are places where development looks like less dense housing on higher
acreage Lots I think the helpful key takeaway from um this idea in this slide is that really what lies in the opportunity and that there's a potential and a possibility to encourage development to work with the landscape and with natural features and encourage
development that therefore clusters hous houses at higher density on smaller lot sizes and along narrow roadways and the idea to really preserve existing mature vegetation better connect natural spaces and reduce impervious surfaces um so
it's sort of bringing together and trying to harness the potential and the power of those land use development patterns regulations bylaws um to think about how we can develop in a smart and sustainable way and some of the specific practices there are around knowing that
nature can do the work so the purpose of this slide here is really just to ground Us in some shared de definitions of Core Concepts that our work um integrates um they'll be helpful in some of the technical conversations that probably will follow in subsequent project
meetings and updates um so the first is around nature based Solutions many of you may already be familiar with this a nature-based solution is an action that incorporates natural features and processes to protect conserve restore sustainably use and manage natural or
modified ecosystems to address socio environmental challenges while providing measurable co- benefits to and benefit both people and nature that's sort of often considered the all-encompassing term and then from there you may have hear green
infrastructure um these are tools that leverage nature to do the job of infrastructure so an example might be replacing a retention Basin with bioretention cells or bioses which are um of vegetated landscape depression that can help capture treat and
infiltrate storm water um you might see them in a parking lot um or in a roadway um and the other term is often referred to as low impact development I think this tends to be more of the engineered solution where green infrastructure is more of the natural system um low impact
development is considered water and land management strategy that mimics natural conditions to support local ecosystems so you've probably seen these already implemented um in the region or in the area um as I mentioned they might look like bioses um perhaps you've seen
perable Pavements um even covert Replacements or Street trees that mitigate Urban heat island effect and storm water benefits these are all examples of what nature-based Solutions can look like when they're integrated into development there are a couple other ways to think about nature-based
Solutions and and the effects that they can have or the purpose of their integration development the first is thinking about conservation so this is using nature-based solutions to prioritize land conservation stewardship in ways that maximize benefit for both people and nature and focus development
around existing infrastructure um the takeaway here is really that strategic conservation is a great place and a smart place to start for climate resilience the second mechanism is thinking about integrating these solutions to improve project sighting
and design as well as to retrofit existing development to mitigate impacts through the addition of trees or other natural features and the reduction of impervious surfaces I think what's helpful here is to think about um just a recognition that development is an essential part of
our community so it's important to identify those opportunities to improve sighting and design both of new development but also retrofitting existing development to reduce its impact um through the integration of these natural features and this is a a photo from um mass auto bonds met Brook
Wildlife Sanctuary with a bios there um in the third sort of technique is thinking about restoration so um converting abandoned or repeatedly flooded Waterway buffers into reforested areas or Parks upgrading those undersized coverts incorporating rain
Gardens trees or other green features into existing urban areas so one of the questions is you know why would we do this there are a lot of benefits of nature-based solutions um some of them are highlighted here the first being avoided costs so um reducing the burden on
Municipal infrastructure I mentioned mentioned earlier that because of increased volume of precipitation runoff that can really stress and burden existing infrastructure systems that weren't built for that volume um so nature-based Solutions can effectively reduce that burden on infrastructure and
really make uh a fiscally responsible investment the second benefit is around Hazard reduction reducing flood impacts improving Public Safety by integrating these features that can absorb rain water and mitigate storm water runoff um I know this is something that the town
experiences and deals with so it's a helpful one of the the mechanisms or solutions to reduce those flooding impacts and then the third one is is a bit of a catchall but recognizing that there are other co- benefits to the implementation of naturebas solutions um they can improve habitat restoration
nutrient reduction water filtration carbon sequestration air purification and also provide recreational opportunities um that's just scratching the surface but there are a lot of associated benefits that follow from climate resilience land use patterns and
practices that's that's a lot of of background information I think let's dive into sort of the scope of services and the work itself um overall this is really a pretty straightforward project in scope of work not to undermine really the rigor that we're we're going about
it with um the team we are very lucky to be working with a core team of staff from the town so um John from planning we also have folks from Public Works sustainability the conservation administrator the hazard vation grants administrator the town engineer construction inspector are all working
alongside Us in this sort of core team advisory function um as I mentioned before the goal of our really focuses on evaluating the town's existing regulatory landscape identifying those opportunities to update and strengthen regulations um while engaging really all
of community to create solutions that are actionable make sense and locally in right siiz to to Hopkinton itself what you see laid out here are several of the key tasks that we are undertaking um task one we finished earlier this year
that really focused on a review of existing General bylaws zoning subdivision rigs stormw rigs well in protection regulations using a methodology that I'll share um in a few slides in more depth s two is what we're diving into
now and it's sort of leveraging the strong understanding that we were able to generate of gaps and opportunities in existing bylaws to build out recommendations for improvements based on some shared goals and with input from the public through a series of Engagement activities which is really
what T 3 focuses on and then ultimately at the end of this work T four and five is making progress towards the development of a final report with a set of recommendations that will help improve the bylaws from both a sustainability and a resilience perspective and that's um where we plan
to be there by September 2025 so part of what's really underlining our work are a series of of goals um that were agreed upon by that core team and and enhanced um there there are a lot here I think the important things to highlight are
upgrading that General regulatory context protecting soils and soil ecosystems as I mentioned really facilitating the adoption of green infrastructure low impact development nature-based Solutions having awareness of reducing impervious surfaces and really trying to mainstream perious sour
pervious surfaces um promoting sustainable development enhancing those ecosystem benefits services and co- benefits and then the two that really came through some of our initial conversations with the core team was this idea of centering people INE equity in the process so thinking about both
the what the substance regulations but also the process of updating the those bylaws knowing that there are really deep connections between the well-being of human systems and ecosystems um and then the second one is around stewarding public money for infrastructure improvements um that's sort of Team back
into that fiscal responsibility having a view of minimizing fiscal impacts to the town by considering short-term and longterm costs and benefits in the context of a changing climate so I mentioned I'd get a little more in depth into the methodology
itself um I think what's important is that we are not really Reinventing the wheel here there are some fantastic strong rigorous tools and models that exist to conduct a by bylaw review thoroughly that have been developed by different partners in the region and
across the state um what you see here is a tool created by mass autobond that we've been using they have a bylaw review tool um you can use it to go through all of the bylaws to categorize existing regulations and identify where hopkinson's language or approach is
considered conventional that's that orange column which means um the town is currently implementing sort of the common bylaw or regulation requirements um maybe it's doing better so there's an improvement Beyond those common practices or perhaps existing bylaws are
considered best or best practice it's a place where the town is already a leader for utilizing that best practice the way the tool is set up is there are a couple goals um each goal has several rows underneath it you can see a few of them listed here that
highlights um a specific consideration gives an example of each of those categories and then you can use the tool to compare to langu anguage that's currently in in the regs and assess if what exists is considered conventional better or best so then the output ends
up being a sort of colorcoded tool that you can use to start to figure out what's more outdated um where can we do a better job of encouraging nature-based Solutions and where are their opportunities for improvement um this is a very high level overview of some of the findings from
that initial review we can provide more detail if that would be helpful but what I did was pull out those goals and the tool and try to um sort of summarize where the existing bylaws stand in that categorization so um protecting natural
resource in open space tends to be in the better column um promoting efficient compact development patterns in infill is really more conventional Smart Designs that reduce overall imperviousness straddling between conventional and better and so on and so forth um what I thought be helpful to
give you an idea of what this really looks like in practice is to give an example of a place where we identified the existing bylaw as conventional so an example of a deficiency and an example of a best practice where um upington was rated in that best category so an
example of a deficiency that we identified um is around encouraging um Smart Designs that reduce overall imperviousness um this example really relate to Road width Hopkinson currently regulates Road widths and subdivisions you probably all know that's by the back of your hand 24 to 30 feet across major
and minor Road categories an improvement that main autobond excuse me mass Autobon recommends is to create wide medium and narrow categories that are 22 to 24 feet across maximum with a twoot shoulder so they give existing language
recommendations that could help move up along that scale um and an example of a best practice is around um adopting green infrastructure storm water management Provisions the reg's require ire asilt plans and drawings upon completion of work in fact the conventional practice does not even
address asilt plans the better approach recommends them the best approach requires them so we did all this we did this very thorough review we also alongside um that review did some best practice research and started to identify other towns with language that currently
exists where they're um implementing it best practice framing Hy um requires developers and designers to minimize impact on natural development or their zoning rigs we can give a couple of other examples of towns like um Northampton Franklin Westwood are
considered models in subdivision rag sight plan um review and storm water bylaws sort of respectively so those are helpful places to pull from as we keep our work moving forward the next step of the work this is really where we're going to dig in after our meeting tonight is in building
out this prioritization Matrix um the purpose of this is to harness that knowledge that we just developed through the review and some of that best practice research to focus in on some of the areas for improvement and move towards those best practices um and build out some detailed language
characterizations and Pathways implementation to hopefully equip you all with this really useful tool that says here's where to start here's some existing language and um examples that exist um in the state again we're not Reinventing the wheel here but I think we're taking
fresh eyes and adapting it to what we know of about the local context um this model comes from Clinton um but what we've done is make some some tweaks and tailored changes to the tool itself as it lives in an Excel document that reflect the community's priorities what
we've seen in different planning documents and how we know um updates and regulations move through different processes the idea is that we'll equip you something with that's very actionable um and just to orient you to what you're seeing here and what we'll be building out sort of each row will be
a specific recommendation they'll have a strategy those impact categories storm water management smart growth flood plane mitigation Public Safety have been pulled out of those Community priorities so these are ways that you can evaluate the impact of each update we talk about
the implementation pathway does it need to go through town meeting planning board um sort of who's required to help move this recommendation forward we also identify the procedural complexity is this change lwh hanging fruit will it take a lot of effort in additional study
um more work in order to implement and sort of the degree of change from the current bylaw is this a small change with minimal impact but still a step forward or is this a larger change are you moving maybe from conventional to best and stepping beyond that that
better category and some other notes what you see here is just an example from Clinton but what we'll do is go through um each of the goals and provide really specific recommend that we hope built in this Matrix will help you figure out where to start and then finally I just wanted to
walk through the public engagement component of this work so you can see who else we'll be talking to maybe identify if there any gaps here and also see how you you each fit into this work so what this pulls out are sort of four key nodes of Engagement that we're thinking about as I mentioned there's
that core project team these are Town staff who participate in a kickoff meeting well we bringing them back together in a second meeting to review the draft report and recommendations um yourselves the planning board and hopefully some other zoning advisory committee members are receiving this Public Presentation we
then plan to have more of a a round table for a really deep engagement with some of the recommendations making sure that what we're proposing um makes sense can be implemented is leveraging and really pulling those mechanisms and and tools that exist in town so reviewing
the draft report we also want to do some work and really engage the hopkington community um both through some online printed tools like an online story map that can provide help information probably some of the background that I provided earlier tonight project updates
and then host more of an open house um that can invite folks in to be part of shaping of the draft report and recommendations and then finally I think this is one of the more strategic components of this work but really trying to identify who are those implementation partners that are
important to have alongside us as we um develop the recommendation so there's shared ownership shared responsibility byy and support maybe local Champions who can help move it forward beyond the the end of the the close of the project so our hope is to have individual
roundtables with Conservation Commission sustainable green committee Chamber of Commerce to review those um report and recommendations and then had a had a really thoughtful idea um to Target Outreach to HOAs to increase their
capacity for implementation so just thinking about who are those key stakeholders and partners that can move this from idea to concept and practice um and engaging them in the process to make sure that everything is Right sized and localized to be the most impactful so that's really what's ahead
for the next few months between um now and September so that's that's all I have I did have a few discussion questions if we have time um um just to Garner some feedback and insights from planning board members because you have some
local expertise that I don't have and would love to learn from but I'll pause there before um offering those and maybe turn it back over to you see what's a good next St thanks Lucy I I think we do have time for some discussion questions I think this is a worthy a very worthy
discussion topic for us as a board but I had one question to kick us off by being a a FEMA brick Grant is the is the charter to try to come up with zoning or other uh means to
prevent uh effects of an emergency like uh weather event or is it really to just try to develop best practices to preserve the environment to minimize climate change or both so through the chair I could
probably answer that um so this this is for so since it's FEMA it has to have a emergency component and flooding um dry uh sorry heat days um droughts all those
types of things um are considered emergencies and and natural emergencies under FEMA and so some of the work that we do will address those things some of them obviously nothing we can do coastal flooding doesn't impact us that kind of thing but Inland flooding um high heat
days drought snow we see erosion from the rainfall that we're seeing you know at the trails wiping away roads and and culverts and that kind of thing so it really is geared towards mitigating the impacts of those types of events rather than climate change in general more the
extreme um outcomes of climate change and the weather events that it brings is what this is focused on so should I think of it as things we can do to be able to handle those yeah storm
events as opposed to things to prevent the storm effects yeah it's it's ways to adapt to the impacts of those storm events okay all right and uh so another question how
should we or or how do how do you deal with some of the things if they were all easy um I think they'd be just generally done very quickly but some things like you you'd mentioned in your presentation minimizing the road width or uh aut Mass
Autobon had recommendations for Road widths like uh Min median and Max I forget exactly but um obviously Road wh like the narrower the road the more risk of safety with
cars passing each other so how do you how do you relay to constituents to think about that issue there's every for everything that's a benefit to Min for for this there could be um a a subsequent thing that might be at risk
or might increase a risk of something else sure it's a great question and I think part of few places I would go back to to help answer it and answer those questions in conversation with constituents um mostly the the goals of this work so holding finding the balance
between um mitigating impacts and pres you know protecting Public Safety both of those were identified so how do we through this process um it doesn't need to be going all the way to the best practice you can find that better um sort of categorization but how do we
rightsize the recommendation to balance and reflect the community priorities that we know exist and tailor the language accordingly so I think that's part of the like really thoughtful work that we have to do to make sure that the recommendation are right sized and
reflecting um those different considerations when they may be in tension with one another sometimes they might be um complimentary but um that's part of the work and I think also some of the public engagement the the work with um community members with some of
those key implementation Partners will help us tease out those tensions figure out what a creative solution might be as we hold those Community priorities um at once sort of in figuring out what makes sense um for each the recommendations but I app I think it's a really thoughtful comment and question and it's
not an easy um sort of pathway but I think by engaging really deeply with those challenges then you come out actually with the the better solution that makes sense for each um context and planning context in which they would be implemented all right I appreciate that
does uh does anyone on the board have uh questions or maybe we jump into your discussion questions and we go from there Rob I have a question through the chair yeah go ahead Karen thank you um hi Lucy thank you that was a a very thoughtful presentation and was very informative um
so I have a question I know this might be actually for for John or Rob or or you is so is this grant just does it cover the the work of just the assessment and the evaluation and you know essentially to the end of your report the engagement of
the community or does it actually cover um also these projects being done and taking it to the extreme if we said okay we're going to narrow all the roads in Hopkinton let's go will this grant cover that or how how what does it actually cover if you could help me out with that that'd be great yeah through the chair
I'll take that one too um so this is just for a review of the bylaws and the regulations and so the product is a report at the end saying here's a matrix of the things that we can do as a town to improve our bylaws and regulations to achieve these types of goals um one of
them might be if we want to reduce pavement it's narrowing the road width that might not even be a recommendation right that's just something that yeah no I just use that as as an extreme you know an example recommendation could be changing and this is just off the off the cuff um changing a type of curbing
to allow for water to go into a grass Swale rather than into the the sewer system or something like that right so it's those types of recommendations that we can then either pick and choose to update our zoning update storm water regulations or Wetland regulations or subdivision regulations to incorporate
those types of things um as as needed okay thank you Lucy did you wanna did you have some a slide to share about discussion questions do you just want to talk to them um I haven't put them on a slide so I could I would be happy just to sort of share them with the group and see which
if there's one that we feel like there's the most energy or interest around um sure sounds good okay one of them is just broadly like you all are experts in all things Hopkinton and I'm curious if there's something that didn't come up in the presentation that's
really important for us to pay attention to in our work whether that's with regard to the goals the implementation Pathway to some of the areas of deficiency that you've even noticed through um pering and development review that we should be aware of or think
about as we go forward in building out this pration Matrix and making any recommendations so I think tapping into the like really place-based technical expertise that that you all hold that we haven't built up for years of experience
um in town would be fantastic to to um just capture a little bit before asking a more technical question does anyone on uh anyone on the board have want to start trying to answer that
so um I don't know that they're specific to Hopkin I I think these are more specific to Massachusetts or maybe the Northeast in general uh I think our uh response to extreme weather events or
extreme condition EXs where FEMA could be involved isn't uh isn't necessarily one thing like other parts of the country might be uh it's I think where the weather is changing seems to be changing rapidly
and we could be in a situation where it's very dry for six months and then we could be in a situation where it's very wet for a month or two and there's extreme situations um so when it's very dry there's the RIS of fires there's kind of
uh forestry management or yeah and how that all maps into uh Planning and Zoning uh is is um I think something to consider uh I that's
my only point is I think the kind of the emergency of events that could be happen in New England is many different ones it could be anything from a a dramatic snowstorm to a dramatic drought to a dramatic rain
event to a hurricane like we haven't had before here in the Northeast like those things um could just happen I'd say more so in the future than they probably could have happened decades ago yeah no it's so true and I think to
your point of um like the challenge of this work is mapping those emergency events and planning for them into sort of how we do our work those regulations that's what I love to do so here for the challenge I know it's not easy and I think part of the um importance is is
recognizing the diversity of what those events the forms they can take and um being considerate of each of the impacts so that I you're prepared for the different types of um hazards and risks that they can present that's
great anyone else have anything to offer through the chair go ahead Lucia I guess the question that I had as I was listening to the presentation is if we are going with bylaws and regulations from now moving
forward is there a way to connect that to what's already existing because I feel like in watching your presentation there are probably a lot of things that could be instituted that are not in the current bylaws um but if there's some
way to kind of encourage the town or the residents to look at what's existing now and how we can how we can improve upon what's already built can you say a little bit more you
think an improvement upon what's already built like existing existing development or are you thinking more in terms of the regulations themselves um improving the language that exists yeah I was thinking existing development because I think that for me is you know
Hopkinson has developed so much that this will be helpful in the future but how does that help what already exists and is there some way to encourage Improvement on what already exists in addition to changing the bylaws so that
what we get in the future is better than what we have now that's a great point and I think that's fully in the scope of our work and and maybe also part of the reason of engaging some of those HOAs because they can make some on the ground improvements or just think about how they can be implemented into a
subdivision that already exists so I appreciate you drawing my attention to that and let's check back on it the next time we're here and just make sure that we are sort of sufficiently thinking about improvements in existing development in addition to new development and then that reminds me of another um thing that great idea that
came up is when you were talking about um the the current committees or organizations yeah the Hopkinson Garden Club was one that came to mind because if you're talking about brain Gardens and things like that I think that would
be great a great resource for residents to be able to go and say you know if I have this area that floods near the catch Basin or whatever that I control is there something I can do to plant to help with the flooding and things of that nature super great idea I can see
them fitting in a couple different places so I appreciate that thank thank you go ahead Michael hey so yeah no I think this is great um so most of the stuff that you talked about uh sounded like it was pretty um low cost I would say but you know since you've done this
for multiple towns and I'm sure you've kind of dove into the literature of this you have like a way you could break down some of the suggestions uh based on cost you know an individual entity that's developing land or the town it's a good question I this might be a
question for John as well I don't think like a a thorough cost benefit analysis isn't in the scope of our work but part of what I was another sort of a subsequent line of inquiry that I had is how could we make sure this prioritization tool is really useful for
you all in decision making and perhaps like thinking about while CBA isn't in our work what could we do to help in any way provide some scale around what this might entail so like picking up on some of those other priorities would be
helpful and and we can do some creative thinking about what's possible yeah I mean anytime I think you can kind of you know wrap back into you know long-term savings that people will get by doing things more sustainably is going to really help sell it with the residents too so yeah that's and maybe that's a way
that we don't have to go through the full analysis but we can say this Improvement could provide some um you know Municipal saving or really especially touching to that fiscal responsibility priority exactly okay thank
you did you have another discussion another question discussion question I think that's sort of the LA the line of thinking I had so I appreciate the the initial the thinking from Michael it was really around what's important for the planning board and prioritizing some of
these updates um I mentioned a couple of the categories that we're thinking about around storm water management Public Safety but curious if there's anything we're missing um that would be really helpful for you all to think about as partners and really carrying the work on
after this project completes and you can you can like sit on it and we can um come back if nothing's up right now no I just uh I I don't have any uh epiphany of how to map the different the
different types of uh emergency related events that would require a FEMA intervention how like specifically weather or dramatic weather events uh what we could do in zoning like I think of the different type of extreme weather events that happen
across the the country in the world you've got flooding you've got drought fire uh extreme snow uh and like and re and I look at all of those and maybe I'm missing some but all
hurricanes uh wind all of those are potential uh and those potential situations are probably uh have going up uh and not going down so I don't know how to prevent or zone or change our
bylaws to to mitigate those risks and especially like Lucia said we have a we have a lot of homes and a lot of development that already exists yeah um so I'm not sure how to how to how to
advise you on next steps but hopefully uh we hopefully uh there's a lot of smart people involved in uh in your stakeholder groups that can help as well thanks I think you know we could think about it one of the impact categories is flood plane
mitigation it could be that we without like over engineering this tool so there's so much in there that's hard to wait through but we could think about are there other impact categories that aren't just flood play mitigation that relate to climate risks and Hazards as extreme events that could be part of the
the characterization okay awesome all right Lucia I I think we all really appreciate you coming before the board giving us a presentation um I think it will be nothing but beneficial for the
town so very excited about it I hope so yeah thank you for listening and engaging in a really um gener discussion I appreciate it and glad to be here awesome okay thank you all right we're going to move move
on to our next agenda item uh continued public hearing zero Benson Road am amended definitive subdivision plan Wayne KO uh John is um we've had this on our
agenda many times could you just from your perspective like I know there was a new letter from what appears to be a new attorney um from the komos uh I don't think anything has changed but
is do you have any other perspective no other than the letter that we received I haven't spoken to the applicants so I don't know if their plan has changed moving forward or if they are looking to do something else so I I don't
know okay Mr Brooks would you like to would you like to speak on uh on your client's behalf um well I thought that might be useful um I do for the record I'm Peter
Brooks and I represent the um C in this application um the board received a letter from me I trust they've received it and had a chance to review it on February 19th um I'd like to just Briefly
summarize the key points in that letter it's kind of a lawyer's letter it's not written in plain English but maybe I can just summarize the gist of it and then if there's any questions I could address those
questions um it seems to me and I'm very new to this but what I have learned in the last week or so is that the central issue seems to be whether the 2006 decision that approved a twoot
subdivision and two building Lots um whether that decision contained a condition that the C uh gift one of Mr Brooks you went on mute is anyone else hearing him I can hear can hear
him you lose your headphones Rob can you hear us Rob yep sorry about that I don't know what happened can you hear me now yes okay I was saying that the question was whether there was a condition contained in that 2006
decision that a gift be made um and if that was a condition whether the failure to complete that gift um renders lot three unbuildable so as to Warrant the denial of the
pending application um and our position quite simply is that there is no condition contained in that decision that required that this gift be
made certainly this board back in 2006 contemplated that the gift would be made I think certainly the proposed gift um to Halt um was a reason for the waivers and
in particular the waiver on the limitation of dead end streets um we all understand you know that it was a reason and it was a very important reason um in approving that subdivision back in
2006 but it wasn't stated as a condition there was nothing in that decision that said that the C shall gift this lot um to Halt or to anyone else no other language was used in that decision that
made the gift uh compulsory and the law some of which I've cited in my letter um is very clear that if a board wants to regulate the future conduct uh of a subdivision owner it has
to be stated as a condition in that decision um all the decision says in this case is that the C intended to donate um lot three um which they did they did intend that they had an
agreement to do that and they fully intended to complete that gift um when that was discussed back in 2006 um but the circumstances changed um those circumstances changing had nothing
to do with the c ht's interest in lot three um was not just in lot three it was uh the adjoining land known as the Davenport parcel which was uh open space
at the time and halt was looking at the possibility of joining the camo lot three with the Davenport parcel to create a much larger open space in the town when the Davenport parcel was
approved for development Hal no longer had any interest in lot three it isn't it isn't in their interest or in their plan to acquire single isolated Lots
they were looking to create um a much larger open space and it was halt that declined the gift um and suggested to the C that they just make a financial contribution of
$1,000 um in lie of that agreement to make the gift and the C did that now one of the things that has struck me in the week or so I've been looking at this is the uh suggestion by
the abutter that somehow the C engaged some grand scheme to dupe the board back in 2006 suggestion they never intended to make this gift um and that's just wrong
it's offensive and it's not supported by the facts the reason this gift did not occur was because hul no longer wanted the land the ca paid property taxes on this lot assessed as a building lot
for almost 20 years now it was approved by the board as a building lot there was no requirement that it' be maintained as open space and there was no requirement by the board that it be
conveyed to Halt so our position really quite simply is we understand it was a reason for the approval but the board didn't make it a condition um and therefore you cannot now at this point
in time say well yes it was a condition and we're going to deny this application effectively resending the approval of lot three um as a building lot uh as I said in my letter I'm sure
the board is aware the subdivision control law prohibits a planning board from requiring a property owner to contribute their land or some portion of their land uh for some public purpose
without compensating that property owner and in this case I think the board if it denies this application because the gift was not made would be doing exactly that it would be effectively resending the
prior approval of lot three because the C failed to donate a portion of their land for some public purpose I think that is the young case that I cited in my letter it's a very similar
situation and basically said that you have to compensate the commos if you're going to require as a condition to subdivision approval uh that they donate some portion of their land for some public
purpose um the final thing I would like to to say I don't know if this has already occurred um but I would really urge the board before it makes a decision to obtain some outside legal counsel um on
this issue um I think the board is considering action um that may expose the town to some substantial legal liability and costs and I think before you go down that path um having Town
Council look at this look at my letter look at those cases um and give the the board some good legal advice about what they can and cannot do here does uh at this time thank thank you Mr
Brooks I'd like to open it up to the board um for any comments questions uh from my perspective nothing's changed uh does anyone on the board have any comments questions or or opinions Parker go ahead I'm not opposed
to the suggestion we clear this with Tom counil just or have him take a look because my understanding is that there's some cons consideration to look at I
think it's called Uh implied consideration for approvals that conditions must be explicit but that there sometimes can and should be um an approval based on understanding that the public benefit would be
provided and so you know there's in the letter talks about acknowledging and I think Mr Brooks acknowledges that there's waivers granted were influenced by the expected donation and that we granted the waivers and Reliance on that donation or not we but
the board previously um but that we just make sure that we are within the boundaries of what would be considered implied consideration um that'd be something I'd
be interested in thanks Parker uh Matthew go ahead so Mr Brooks raises some interesting points and reading all the documents um I I do have one question so it I think we're all in agreement
that the board in 2006 approved the necessary waivers that eventually approved the uh the plan uh based on the representation of Mr Kim uh that as it's written in the
document the applicant will donate one of the two building Lots uh I have a question that if we given that that never happened and that seems like a material change and a material misre representation of what would happen What
happens if the decision is rescinded if the plans rescinded is that just a physical road that doesn't exist legally at that case or what's what's the end result well I think the end if you're asking me I think the end result I was asking Rob
I assumed that maybe the town planner could answer John do you have any I I I don't know but John do you have any thoughts on that question so if you were send a subdivision definitive subdivision plan it doesn't impact the lots that are mortgaged or sold in good
faith so the kom's um property that the one that they live on would not be impacted but the road essentially would no longer exist and the um currently unbuilt lot the open space designated lot would be non-buildable because
there's no Frontage answer your question it does thank you I think um this process started with our the Hopkin hopkinton's zoning
enforcement officer uh sending a letter to the komos uh that that lot couldn't be built on um because of this prior decision so that that's the starting point for this this discussion and that's what brought
it to the planning board to see if we wanted to amend the um the prior decision I am uh I don't know uh that's where uh I think we are but
anyone else on the board have any uh comments questions Mr antonellis I see you're on would you like to uh make a comment yes uh thank you Mr chairman I appreciate the opportunity and uh I've had the opportunity to review uh attorney Brooks's letter which he was kind enough
to send directly to me and I appreciate the effort that he made in that regard I think his fundamental understanding of the law regarding exacting uh land from by planning boards taking actions to exact land for public purposes is is
correct I I think his research is is fairly comprehensive in that regard however I do think that the cases that he site all speak from the point where the planning board has requested that the applicant provide the open space a lot in in one of the cases he referenced
a a playground lot or a field lot and in this particular case the history of it that predates the actual approval of 2006 is that the Kom made a couple of efforts to uh extend the colge SA or to get approval and were unsuccessful and
then came back to the board with a plan that they instituted which was to see if the board would agree that the grant of this lot lot three would um re would would meet
the test of creating an ex exceptional circumstance from which the board could then justify the grant of the multitude of waivers that were requested and I think this board recognizes that the significant request for the waivers
included not building an extension to the cesac so functionally um the the komos have access to a culdesac and have what I'll call imaginary Frontage because the roadway was never built there same thing
would be true of lot three so while attorney Brooks may be correct that a planning board does not have the authority under Massachusetts general laws to require a developer to set aside
land for open space in this particular case it was not the the planning board's idea it was the applicants idea and I think that that is an important Point throughout this process the insin or the the the
statement by attorney Brooks that U there was some scheme uh intended I frankly was confused and continued to be confused why the time period between the approval and the letter from halt saying
we don't want the land was approximately 10 years and I just wonder why it was that it took 10 years to go to Halt to give them the deed um whatever the reasons were if it
was if it was simply forgetting um and um you know they paid as as attorney Brook said they paid taxes on on it every year so obviously they were aware that they still owned it but they never went to Halt until 10 years down the road
um I find that to be somewhat confusing um and and then secondly on top of that attorney Brooks and prior counsil before him have talked about the fact that halt was only
interested in this property because it was also interested in the Davenport parcel well what we don't know is whether or not the grant of this lot when it was originally intended to be made may have effectuated something
different about the Davenport pel so if we're going to bring up the Davenport instance I think that it's incumbent on the board to find out uh the process that took place there and um why conveniently at this point um that we're
talking about Davenport when no one was talking about Davenport in 2006 I've read the uh the record of the 2006 hearings and I don't find a to additional Parcels um and again I I
think that you have a almost to use the term you have a quit proquo here uh you needed to find exceptional circumstances to extend a c act beyond what the town requires and uh those exceptional circumstances were supported by the
offering of a gift of land not the requirement um I think that if we're all going to speculate conclusions I I think it's just as easy to speculate that had the komos not offered the land that the
their 2006 application may have found the way of their earlier applications which was a denial thank you Mr anelis I uh I um I uh I think it's very compelling um does anyone on the board
have any uh other questions for either attorney uh the uh so before we take uh before we move this forward I guess I'd like a straw po opinion of the board um do you does the board think
this re require or should we try to pass this to Town Council for a review before moving forward can I just uh I'm just going to go around the our list my list here and get your
opinion uh Lucia actually Elise sorry I went out of order that's all right um I would like to hear council's opinion or thoughts on this Lucia um I'm wondering if John has any input
on that how so has this been brought to Town Council no so usually if something is before the board we wait for the board to request Town Council because otherwise we've got to pay for Town Council advice that no
one's requested um so if the board would like me to go to Town Council about this I certainly can but I have not up until this point okay so then um through the chairi followup would be your findings if it were the case that you thought it appropriate for the planning board to go
to Town Council is that something that you would include in your um comments in the memo I'm not sure what you're I'm not sure yeah the principal planner comments regarding this
uh particular hearing I think it's a it's always a good idea to go to Town Council on stuff like this but it's not I don't think I explicitly made it a suggestion but that doesn't mean I explicitly don't think
it's a good idea either okay yeah I just wasn't sure because we haven't uh come across this in the short time that I've been on the board so um I would say uh yes all right uh I think everyone's
gonna say yes Matthew go ahead so I'm not opposed Town Council taking a look at it especially since it sounds like it's potentially would come before Town Council anyway um but I I think it's clear that uh the material representation that was made by the applicant um never manifested and
whether willful or not it sounds like it it's not relevant to the subdivision laws subdivision control laws um so I not only do I think that this should be disapproved I also think we should have a public hearing about resending the original subdivision
I um I agree that uh in your opinion about this uh this proposed amendment uh Michael go ahead yeah I I would be comfortable voting tonight I don't think we need Town council's input but if the rest of
the board wants it you know obviously I would defer to that Parker I never broke 160 on my LSAT would like a lawyer to look at this all right
Jane um I wouldn't be opposed to not going forward tonight for the vote Karen I would I think it's a good idea to put it in front of Town Council just as a review all right and
Vic not oppos to it so can go to the town ccil all right um I think that's uh that's more than more than 50% so the majority would re and I and I think I don't think it's a
bad idea getting Town council's input I I think they uh um I would be surprised if there's an outcome that's not in line with my thinking but um it's better to be be safe uh on this
one procedurally um Mr Brooks is you and are are you and your applicant okay with us um continuing this public hearing to our next meeting yes we
are all right John what do what uh so in terms of the process all like to get Town council's input you're just going to uh contact them and that's how we do these things is the the request for input goes through John to Our Town Council like I don't make it
directly or the board doesn't it goes through John and he does but um when when do we need to continue what's our next meeting so our next meeting is March 10th and then March 24th do we do you think I don't I don't
know like do we think the Town Council will have feedback by March 10th we can try if if not then we can always request a continuation on March 10th but all right let's do that I would hope so I can't I don't know what their workload is like so I can't yeah I yeah
I get it can't bu on that um but so if you continue to March 10th then I would recommend you continue to decision I think we've been doing two weeks so that would be to March 24th the decision all right before uh we move forward Matthew has his hand raised go go ahead Matthew
yeah I guess I'm I'm curious if you're what the full scope and context do you want to ask of Town Council do you want to ask about both decisions or just appropo of this amendment or I think since we're going the route of asking Town Council like I think we get uh I
think we want to know about both now that you brought that up we want to know is there any reason we should be compelled to amend the prior um prior decision
and because the exchange the the gift never occurred is the prior decision still valid so I I uh I or should that be rescinded I think those two questions should be asked thank you all right at this time I'd like to
entertain a motion that uh we continue the public hearing for zero Benson Road to March 10th and continue the decision deadline for this to March 24th
2025 and through the chair just to be clear did the applicant um okay that those both both those dates Mr Brooks are you okay with those dates yes that's fine okay all right uh roll call vote so we
actually move but oh sorry sorry sorry go ahead would anyone like to yeah Matthew second all right thank you everybody uh roll call vote Elise
meowski yes Lucille Lopez yes Matthew Ranka yes Michael King yes Parker hap yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vica South pry yes and Rob Benson is
yes all right I I think it's good I think it'll be good just to get uh our town council's opinion on this and um it'll help us move forward one way or another all right I'm looking at our agenda at this
point and uh at this point we have no further things on our agenda for this evening so um I'd like to entertain a motion to adjourn uh tonight's planning board meeting so
moved all right roll call vote Alis mayosi yes Lucia Lopez yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Parker ha yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes
vicaso pry yes and Rob Benson is yes all right thanks everybody good meeting thank you bye bye