All right. Pursuant to chapter two of the act 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 >> 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 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'll now confirm attendance of members. Please respond with present if you're on the call. Alise Meowski >> present. Uh Lucia Lopez,
>> she is not joining us tonight. chair. >> Okay. Uh Matthew Rona present. >> Michael King >> present. >> Parker Hap >> present. >> Peter Mimo >> present. >> Amna Dwan.
>> Vicas Prati >> present. >> And Rob Benson is here. All right. All right. All right, I'm just going to go right into the administrative uh items. Uh start with number one. Are
we in position to uh Aneri, do you have any any feedback you need or wanted for March 9th and March 23rd? Are we ready to move forward with the motions here? >> Yes. Um I received comments on March 9 and that is amended uh and discussed in
the last meeting. I did not get any comments on March 23rd. If board members do not have any comments, we can do a motion on those two items. >> All right, let let's let me I'd like to entertain a motion uh that the planning
board approved the minutes of March 9th, 2026 as amended. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. Thanks everybody. Uh Matthew Rona, >> yes. >> Elise Mowski, >> yes.
Michael King, >> yes. >> Parker Hap, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Vicas Prati, >> yes. >> And Rob Benson is yes. All right. Is does anyone have any feedback about
the March 23rd meeting minutes? All right. I'd like to entertain a motion that the plan board approved the meeting minutes for March 23rd, 2026 as written. So move. Oh, >> second. >> Thanks, Peter. Thanks, Michael. Uh, roll
call vote. Matthew Rona, >> yes. >> Elise Mosowski, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Parker Hap, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Uh, Vicas Pratti, >> yes.
>> And Rob Benson is yes. All right, moving on to item uh number one. to uh from what I'm reading in the meeting packet, it looks like a lot of progress was here. Does anyone on the board have
questions? Um or would anyone Anie, why could you just give for the the benefit of the board a quick uh summary? >> Sure. So, uh Beta RP engineer did a review, site visit, and closeout
inspection on March 17. In their first report uh they listed a lot of uh items which applicant need to address uh in their punch list and DPW also sent us a list of the comments from their side.
Applicant did a good job and they identified and addressed all the comments and as you can see in the folder uh beta report and as well as the DPW they both are satisfied. So uh whisperway applicant is good for street
acceptance as well as the bond release of the amount of $98,235. Um usually it's up to the board member if they want to release bond at the moment or they want to wait till um street officially get accepted during
annual town meeting. um board can release some amount and hold some or they can release the entire amount as well. So that is up to the board but as per the designing and the planning w u plan wise applicant address
all the comments. >> Okay. Does does anyone on the board have any questions? >> Matthew, go ahead. >> There was a question from DPW about sidewalks. Was that addressed with DPW? >> Yes. So, uh you can see in the car's um
letter as well dated April 6 which is today. She did a final site visit from her side and all the sidewalk concerns and ADA compliance applicant u did and did it on site as well basically. So
yeah and just to let board know on the easement part uh applicants lawyer already submitted that to our select board so and legal council already reviewed that so they are good on that part as well.
Does the board want me to review the the letter we plan on sending to uh the select board? I can just read it out loud, I guess. Uh uh regarding street acceptance report,
whisper away. Dear Joe, uh Joe Joe is our uh chair of the select board. Pursuant to the uh requirements of Mass General Law Chapter 41 section 81I, the planning board provides this report relative to the request for acceptance of whisper way as a public way at the
2026 annual town meeting. The the select board requested that the planning board review the street acceptance materials and provide recommendation regarding the acceptance of wishway. The board discussed this matter at this meeting on March 23rd and April 6th, 2026. Whisperway definitive open space subdivision. The Whisperway subdivision
was approved by the planning board in 2019 and is subject to an OSLPD special permit. Construction of the roadway and associated utilities has been ongoing for several years. The applicant 20th Century Homes Incorporated has requested a certificate of completion release of
the construction bond and acceptance of Whispway as a public way at the 2026 Anita meeting. The town currently holds a performance guarantee in the amount of $98,235. Beta Group conducted a closeout inspection on March 17, 2026 and issued an updated asbuilt review dated April
3rd, 2026. In this updated report, Beta confirms that all previously identified emissions required plan modifications and storm water as built requirements have been addressed. These included drainage catchment documentation, pipe slope callouts, easement clarifications, installation of driveway documentation,
pipe slope callouts, easement clarifications, install installation of driveway aprons and the ADA ramp, correction of settlement at DMH-5, installation of street trees, installation of required deadend sign and confirmation that the infiltration basin drains within the required time
frame. Beta's April 3rd, 2026 report states that all items have been resolved and the constructed roadway and drainage infrastructure are consistent with the approved plans and town regulations. Based on the updated information, the plan board finds that the roadway and associated infrastructure now meet the
town subdivision rules and regulations and stormwater regulations. The board may support request for acceptance of Wisway as a public way and release of the construction bond retaining a small portion till the town meeting of desired under section 11-.5.2. Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional
information. Sincerely, Robert Benson, chair. Sorry. Sorry for taking everyone uh reading through that, but uh go ahead, Matthew. >> I move the board transmit the final report to the select board and recommend that Whisper Way be accepted as a public way at town meeting.
>> Second. >> All right. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona, >> yes. Elise Molosski, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Parker Hap, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes.
>> Vicas Pratti, >> yes. >> And Rob Benson is a yes. All right. The question I have now is, uh, should we, and this maybe is relevant to
the board, um, should we release the bond? I I'm trying to recall uh I I don't know that our standard practice is to hold on to bonds to wait for a town meeting like once the work is
completed and our peerreview consultant says it's completed. We I um my feeling is we traditionally release the bond at that time but uh Aneri do you have any information or different perspective?
Uh so if board feels that you are satisfied I will suggest to release the bond because since applicant address all the comments and concerns and there is nothing left for applicant to do at the moment. So um there's no meaning of
holding the bond but if board fills as per the subdivision rules and rag you can hold till official street acceptant process get completes and um after the town meeting they file with town clerk or if board can release the bond at the
moment >> if decidary >> yeah if board decide to release the bond we need majority voting for this. >> Mhm. >> Just doing. >> All right.
Does anyone on the board have any questions? >> No questions. I think we released the bond. >> All right. Thanks, Parker. Uh, I'd like to entertain a motion that we release the performance guarantee for Whisper Way in the amount of $98,235.
>> So move. >> Second. >> Thanks, Parker. Thanks, Michael. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona, >> yes. >> Elise Mosowski, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Parker Hab, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes.
>> Vic Pratzy. Vic, you there? >> Oh, yes. Yes. I was unmuted and I was saying yes. >> Okay, great. And Rob Benson is yes. >> All right. >> Thanks. Uh uh that uh we don't need to
close anything. Chris or Craig, do you have any questions for the board or uh or you're everything seems to be done on our end? I am happy. Thank you for the help and
uh we'll move on to the next one. >> All right, sounds good. Thank you. >> Chair, >> go ahead and >> before we go to 1.3, just two things. Um I'm going to email you this letter if
you can come stop by tomorrow morning or you can do electronic signature as well because I need to submit this by tomorrow morning for tomorrow select board meeting and the second thing uh do board wants me to attend tomorrow night select board meeting for whisperway as
planning board sponsoring this article so somebody needs to be there if select board members do have any questions or anybody from board member wants to be there. >> Hey Rob, I'm going to be there for a separate reason. So I'm happy to answer
questions if Aner wants a night off. >> That that's fine with me and unless you're looking to go. >> I'm anyway going to be there tomorrow because it's a long day for us. So I'm going to be but I just wanted to make sure both it's okay.
>> Yeah, it's it's okay with me. Uh we also Parker will also be in attendance. Um, Matthew, go ahead. >> Uh, through the chair, just to be clear, it's just the whisper way that we need a planning board to answer questions given the timing of sending the letter. Is that correct?
>> Um, no. Usually for street acceptance, somebody or whoever the petitioner is, they needs to be there just in case board or public have any questions to answer that. Um, but yeah, it's just the public hearing for street acceptance. Um
um but um town manager is aware of this whisperway and she knows that we going to give report tomorrow. So that's going to be okay. >> We have three street acceptance reports before the select board. Right. >> Mhm.
>> So do we need >> so um for Chester Street DPW carry going to be there u for a parker and the residents needs to be there. Whoever the petitioner for the those articles needs to be there and for whisper since planning board sponsor
that somebody from planning board or I need to be there just for >> okay so this is the only one that we need planning board >> okay >> okay thanks for thanks for clearing that up
>> all right so I think Aneri if you're going to be there that's great Parker if you're going to be there as well I think we're covered Um, I can uh see if I can make it uh um An if I can I I will let you know.
>> Okay. >> Uh All right. On to agenda item number two. Public hearing for 75 Cell Street. >> Chair, we missed the 1.3 Chester Street. >> Oh, sorry. I'm trying to go too quick.
Um could you uh Aneri could you refresh the board's memor uh memory on Chester Street? >> Yeah, sure. So um applicant requested to release the bond the final bond of amount of $15,170
which planning board uh approved back in January 6, 2025. Beta conducted their closeout inspection on March 17. Uh they beta initially had a couple of punch list item which applicant needs to
address and on April 1st um revised beta report applicant answer and address all the comments. There were talk about loan and seat insulation at the driveway age that has been verified. applicant provided um feedback on that and there
was another comment regarding side planting but that was not on the original bond. So that is anyway done. There are couple of construction material still on the side which going to be removed by applicant within two weeks. So as for the beta report and the
applicant's response board is okay to release the bond for this as well. Okay. From so the recommendation is we we're we're in position we can release the bond for this. >> Does the the board have any questions
for the applicant or for Aneri. >> All right. Hearing none. Seeing none, I'd like to enter a motion that we release the bond uh performance guarantee bond amount of $15,170 for Chester Street Extension. >> So moved. Second. >> Thanks, Matthew. Thanks, Michael. Roll
call vote. Matthew Rona, >> yes. >> Elise Mosowski, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Parker Hap, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Vicas South, >> yes. >> And Rob Benson is yes.
All right. Now, are we ready to move on to agenda item number two? South 75 South Street. I think so. We have to open the public hearing. >> I think it's already I think it I think that we it's still open from prior meeting, right?
>> Right. Yeah. >> Yes. Yes. >> All right. Uh >> I can brief out on the revised material which >> that would be great. >> Yeah. Which we received. uh from applicant on
April 2nd or 1st. Um basically applicant addressed the DPW comments. Um we already sent those revised plan and the comment address to Carrie for her second review. We did not hear anything back from her yet uh due to the short time
period. But based on the applicant's letter, he's requesting waiver from um site class standard 210 section 136.1 uh condition M which requires sidewalks
along the full frontage and applicant assert that sidewalk construction is impractical due to steps slopes the need of retaining wall and wetlands buffer impacts and the lake of the connecting sidewalk among the frontage of 77 7
South Street. Um and they addressed and they submitted a couple of letters addressing to DPW which they need to I mean Carrie needs to answer those and review those documents and I'm aware that applicant is going in
front of conservation commission tomorrow night and that was the discussion we had in the last meeting that they wanted to see uh feedbacks from comcom before planning board make a decision. on minor this minor side plan
application if I'm not wrong Joe anything you want to add on this pretty much it the only material change was the to the plans was the introduction of the sewer manhole at car's request uh seeing that the staff
is doing most of the review given the nature of this filing it feels like we overdid it with the paperwork but we figured we would um update the planning board on all the correspondence that we shared with the DPW. So, it feels like
those decisions will be made by another group, but the intent was to keep you folks aware of where things stand. >> Thank Thanks, Joe. Uh, Aneri, from your uh, are we I guess my question is should we push forward on trying to go through this
hearing or with the with the conservation commission review tomorrow or what what is that appropriate >> from planning board standpoint? We are okay. Um, they are meeting all the side minor side plan conditions and applicant
officially request a waiver for that sidewalk conditions. But um I will let applicant answer from conservation because there were a couple of discussion we had in the previous meeting and they wanted to see if conservation tell them if something I
mean if they need to revise the plan then they need to come back to planning board to amend that. So that was the discussion we had during the sidewalk and I think in the start March 3rd March 3rd meeting if I'm
not wrong. So Joe, do you want planning board to make a decision or wait for one more hearing? And >> for the chair, quite frankly, the biggest concern we had was if we had to wrap up what we have been calling phase one, we wouldn't um be through that
process um quite frankly until July 1st. and it didn't seem uh particularly practical to take this group through a review and then ask you to table your decision until July 1st or come back and
amend this minor site plan approval should we get it. So that was the reason for trying to dovetail these things a little bit more closely. I'm not concerned about a a meeting tonight versus tomorrow night, that sort of thing. I didn't want to uh work very hard and diligently on this in April and
then table it until July 1st and ask for a vote August 1st. That seemed a little silly to me. So, uh we are um on this end amendable to waiting till conservation gives us their initial filings or discussing any element of the
information we turned in last week with you folks. It's really up to the board um how you'd like to proceed. >> All right. Thanks. Uh, I'll look to recommendations to the board. The um uh any anyone have uh want to offer uh
opinions? Matthew, go ahead. >> So, I hear that we're waiting for uh DVW's feedback and response still. >> Yes. Uh Carrie needs to review the revised plan on the couple of comments she provided like specifically to um
town sewer regulations, but they're going to address separately. uh it will not going to reflect to the planning board and the main concern was the south sidewalk on 75 77 south street which applicant already requested wager for that um due to the reason they cannot do
it and the rest are specifically related to DPW comments um and after Joe's concerns maybe I can suggest if we want to continue this to one more hearing and
then make decision on April 27th that's fine too if four is okay and we can hear from conservation tomorrow after that meeting >> let uh I like that as a plan but I think
the one thing we need to talk we should talk about to not leave uh the applicant uh without information is is the sidewalk the request for a waiver um let's let's talk about that. I think in general
uh South Street has um has a sidewalk along the other side of the street and the side of the street this this project is on is on the side of the street that does not have a sidewalk. So the whole length of the street there's there's no sidewalk. So, as a board, we have to
kind of I think we'd be doing ourselves a favor if we give uh like our um basically opinion now, if we're okay with that uh the waiver they're requesting or if
we're uh I don't think it's it's uh in our best interest just to hold that information if we're not comfortable with that uh until 3 weeks from now. If we if we're not comfortable with it now, we're not going to be comfortable with it 3 weeks from now. So, how does uh anyone have any
questions or concerns about or want to talk about the sidewalk and if we should have a sidewalk and uh uh anything along those lines? >> Is it fair? >> Uh Parker, go ahead. Yeah, I would say I I walked it the other day at the stretch
of um pavement as it exists and believe that there's sufficient space today for you know pedestrian access as well. You know, anecdotally, I readily see folks from the local CrossFit gym, you know, running up and down the sidewalk with
sufficient, you know, space. And additionally, given that there aren't sidewalks already in existence to the north or south of this, you know, proposed development, uh, feel that it would be us asking something that I believe would
be akin to making a sidewalk to nowhere. So similar to like whisper way and our you know sympathy there I think we should air on the side of in the future if we want to have a broader vision on you know sidewalks on that side of the street have town you know have more collective action relative to
implementing that but at least in its existence in present form today I believe there's sufficient right of way and it would be superflous and unnecessary for the applicant to be uh required to do something of that scale but just my 10 cents. All right. Thanks.
Thanks, Parker. Matthew, go ahead. >> So, I think DPW originally raised the issue of sidewalks, so I was curious what DPW's response was going to be there. Um, we at the moment, all the sidewalks are on one side, and one of the things we noticed during the sitewalk is there aren't a lot of good crossing points, which does mean that if
you are on one side of the street, it's very inconvenient to get to the other side where there's a safe pedestrian area. Uh, one of the things that the board has been trying to do over the past few years is to create a network of sidewalks by having them added where it
there's already been work going on. And so part of the plan was as there's been work in place to add the sidewalks there so that they can connect them together. And this is not very far from the traffic light uh, all things considered. And so it would seem like a reasonable
place to start kicking off sidewalks on that side of the street. through the chair if I may. >> Go ahead, Joe. >> I guess the concern we have is that the the comment centered around the uh Metro West Transit Authority, which drops off
at the Dunkin Donuts on the opposite side. So, folks will not be accessing u that side of the intersection from Haywood Street based on the information that was provided to us. So, these folks are crossing South Street
to the sidewalk and then taking the sidewalk along our frontage to get to uh an a business on an abuing property. Um the slopes in front of our space are very steep. Um there would be a grass
strip between the existing pavement and the proposed walk so that we could accommodate the existing utility poles, signage and um electric boxes associated with that light. So we're a few feet back from the edge of pave where it
starts to get very steep. So this is not simply um scrape off the loom and put down a sidewalk. There'll be some fill introduced there and a retaining wall for about the 250 foot distance. And what really strikes us beyond the
expense and the duplicity is that when you get to the end of our property, there's a gap between there and the sidewalk that leads down to project just because it's 77 May. So, we're taking these folks to the boundary line and
then they're crossing back into South Street, making their way along South Street to get to this walk. If to me, if this were a situation um that were of the utmost importance when 77 Cell Street went through their
review before this board, there would have been a walk along Cell Street to this common line. But absent that, it feels like um there was a recognition that there wasn't a tremendous need there. And then when I go back and look
through the files and the ones that um I have been involved in the designs here before this board at 97 and 99 and then looking at other spots, there's five or six spots along South Street since 2019 where this board has allowed the
variance to the requirement for the sidewalk. So this is not something that is an absolute not something that the board has has done recently in the past there. It just feels like a burden to this property owner to uh to solve a
situation that to me doesn't have a a whole lot of merit. >> Really, sir? Hey Rob, >> your mic's off. Rob, >> I I muted myself twice, I guess, because I coughed. Sorry about that. Go ahead, Parker.
>> Yeah, I was going to say the only thing to add to it and why I believe that this is worthy of a passing that kind of add to Mr. Mark Park's uh words. Um if we vote to require this, we're essentially as a board implicitly encouraging
residents to cross at that, you know, part of the intersection. And I I believe as part of a and I definitely see credence relative to Matt's comments that we should be looking at, you know, more connected ways. However, I believe that that point in the intersection is actually a dangerous place to have a standalone, you know, sidewalk on the
other side of the road. um encourage folks and we believe we should have like a broader you know traffic study or some sort of like review on where there could be uh more safer points to cross because it is a blind um intersection when you're you know crossing at that curve and I think we're essentially
encouraging folks to you know cross that road and it's potential safety concern you know and possibly even it might make sense that if the intent is to have you know a passing or a place to pass for product just because it could be you know more sufficient up the road you know pass the dunks uh Just again
anecdotally living there, I run there pretty frequently and even myself when I be across the road I'm um hamstrung to ever cross truck at that intersection simply because you can't see traffic coming from both sides because it is kind of blind. So um just my sense I think we should definitely push for more
connectivity but at least the burdenless applicant. I believe it's uh probably kind of uh being reactionary. We should be more proactive and thoughtful and planful with how we execute something of that sort instead of hoisting on one single applicant. All right. Thanks, Parker.
Um th this this topic has come up in before the planning board uh a number of times over the years and uh the sidewalk um it's not always straightforward because
the sidewalk to nowhere is is just uh uh it's like um it's not a well well thoughtout pedestrian plan when if there's a sidewalk in front of one parcel and then it's not doesn't continue down the
street. Um does uh does anyone where is the closest uh like crosswalk from where where would people if they wanted to cross but as a walker where would they cross the street? like that's
actually marked >> through the chair. Um, >> go ahead, Vic. >> I mean, I can speak as a public but not as a town because I have to recuse myself of the 75 South Street. Am I allowed to or? >> Yeah, you go ahead. >> No. Okay. Um, yeah. So, there's no
nearest crosswalk for us because I cross a lot. My daughter goes crossing across for the project just because she volunteers and it's always a pain for us to cross here. So I have to drop her in the car even it's walkable distance because of the traffic and everything. So there's no nearest one.
That's all I just want to add to that. >> Yeah, Rob. I think actually technically the closest sidewalk could be like maybe DELMC if I'm not mistaken up the road. Could totally wrong on that, but I'm pretty sure that's the closest one that's like marked. I don't recall even Delhi MC as well
Parker but maybe you're right and I agree with Ber it's a dangerous one to cross that street because there's no nothing out there so >> like it it but yeah crosswalk would add a Good
value for sure. Yeah. >> But but Vic, as a as a resident in that area, you you'd want the crosswalk at the light where the lights would stop traffic and the crosswalk would be at the light, right? >> Yes. But there's no crosswalk at all
here for the light. If I have to cross the other side from let's say I'm I'm on the 80 side, that's the Duncan side of it. So if I have to cross the 75th street, I just have to see when there's no traffic. I just have to run across the street, which is also again not an
idle condition during the snow, rain uh time. So okay, uh does anyone else on the board have any comments or or thoughts? I'd be inclined to grant the variance. Rob, do you want to do like a straw load
or something? >> Yeah. What why why don't we why don't we do that? That might be the quickest way. Uh Matthew, what would be your inclination? >> I'd like to hear DPW's response. >> Okay. And that could be one that can be
an answer, too. Uh, Elise, >> I would be inclined to grant the variance because I I just don't think it's very safe right there. Even though I am in favor of sidewalks everywhere and more connectivity, I just I agree with what everyone else has said. I I
don't think it's the right place in my opinion. >> And uh I think Michael, you said you'd be in in favor of granting uh a waiver. >> Yeah, that's correct. And Park Parker, it sounds like you too. >> Indeed. >> Uh Peter,
>> I would be in favor too. >> And Vic is is wants to recruit recuse himself. And >> yes, but I'm not in favor. >> I would be um in favor of granting a waiver unless unless uh Carrie come uh
the DPW comes back with something that's uh really uh noteworthy that like hey you're you're you guys you're not thinking about this correctly. Joe, does that does that give you enough information to uh for that topic and we
can uh continue to our April 27th meeting? >> Yeah, it's very helpful. I think we can move forward. >> All right, Aneri, to continue this April 27th because it's a minor, I don't have to continue a decision deadline, do I?
>> Uh chair, you need to continue the decision deadline. Uh I will suggest May 11. Uh, so it gives me a little bit time because we have town meeting on May 2nd. >> Okay. >> So, yeah, May 11th.
>> I'd let uh Matthew, go ahead. >> Through the chair, the according to the memo, the decision is already due May 11th. >> No, I um um Matthew, I change and put the new date. So, board voted on April 20 in
March 3rd hearing. So, this is the new deadline, >> okay, >> which your board needs to vote tonight. >> All right. So, if I if I'm understanding this correctly, I'd like to entertain a motion to continue
uh the the minor site plan uh project review for what the street number for 75 South Street to April 27th and continue the decision deadline to May 11th. So moved.
>> Thanks, Michael. Thanks, Matthew. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona, >> yes. >> Elise Mosowski, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Parker Hap, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes.
>> Uh, Vic, I guess you're recused. Rob Benson is a yes. All right. Thanks, Joe. We'll see you uh we'll see you at our next meeting. >> Sounds good. >> All right. I'd like to entertain a motion to open the public hearing for 82
Clint Street, special permit application for one common driveway, two lots with historic structures. >> So, second. >> Thanks, Michael. Thanks, Matthew. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona, >> yes.
>> Elise Malowski, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Parker Hap, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Vicas South, >> yes. >> And Rob Benson is a yes. All right. Uh,
>> through the chair, does it make sense to open both at once? >> Yes. >> That's what you you agree. You concur, Aneri? >> Yes, sure. That would be helpful. >> Okay. So, agenda item four following
along in our uh I'd also like to entertain a motion to open the public hearing for 82 Clint Street frontage waiver. >> So, moved. Second. >> Roll call vote. Matthew Rona,
>> yes. >> Elise Mowski, >> yes. Uh, Michael King, >> yes. >> Parker Hap, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> South Prati, >> yes. >> And Rob Benson is yes.
All right. To to at least initially uh I think for like an initial overview. Aneri, it probably makes sense to give us an overview of of the project in totality. >> Yeah. So applicant submitted u
application for first common driveway then special permit for because of the historical struct structure the existing structure and the third is to um like a frontage waiver request for the existing
structure on the lot current lot under the subdivision rules and w basically it's a 2.61 61 acre property 82 Clinton Street. It's under the agriculture zoning district and applicant wants to subdivide the property and build a new
house on the back side of the road. So the current house existing houses under the because it's a historical structure they went through the historical commission they are okay with that until um planning board issued the special permit to build or I mean to do the
addition on the existing house applicant went through variance process uh through board of zoning appeals for the new lot ZBA granted the front I mean variance for the
um frontage requirement for the new lot. So, planning board um going to review the common driveway then the special permit for the existing historical structure and the frontage waiver for the existing structure. Um Rob, I saw
your email regarding do they need a front uh frontage? Oh my god. Yeah, frontage waiver. Yes, they need frontage river based upon our um zoning bylaw under the historical structure and subdivision rules and
racks. So currently applicant going to go through go through this process once they have approval from planning board. They need to file ANR for both the lots. So the frontage waiver uh is just for
the existing lot because they already have variance for the new lot. And yep. >> Okay. So, let me try to try to summarize what I think. Uh,
so there's a two 2.6 approximately 2.6 acre parcel of land on Front Street. 82 82 Front Street. 82 Front Street. The The current the property has what is it 165t of frontage today approximately?
>> Yes. And so the plan is to subdivide the the the lot to basically the historic structure would remain on the front parcel and a new parcel would be on the back parcel and there' be a common driveway kind of running along the first house to go to the second
house. Correct. >> That is correct. So my question before we before we get into this, if it wasn't a historic structure, would they be able to get a variance? >> Like uh this
what do you mean? If the house is not a historical structure, do they need variance or not? >> No, no, no. I mean like um does that does that put it in some special cl in case where this would be considered cuz
like normally someone just looking coming to the planning board look like people I can't think of a time where somebody like that kind of waiver is coming to the planning board that would normally go to the board of appeals I think to try to uh
unless I'm wrong I can't I'm trying to trying to think of a scenario where we we can um what makes this special where a waiver would be appropriate as opposed to any other house along any other street I
guess is my point. >> Okay. So um let me again brief out let me uh open I mean share my screen with the plan. Okay. Oops. I don't know what is going on again.
>> Can you see my screen? >> I cannot. >> Okay. So, somehow I'm not able to share my screen again. I don't know why but okay so let me just brief out again so first of all the
property 82 Clinton it's non-conforming property it's in residential 60 zoning district uh oh my god it's in agriculture zoning district and based upon that they need to have 60,000 square ft uh lot size and 200 square ft²
frontage which they do not have currently so that isn't comes under the non-confirming uh standards if we call that applicant wants to subdivide the property and build one house on the back side of property uh because they want to build
that they need to go through the variance from zoning board and the current house is a historical structure and based upon our Hopkin zoning bylaw they need to go through planning board uh for special permit and for the frontage waiver as well. So it's not
going to be the entire subdivision process. It's just going to through u ANR process to subdivide the lot and build the house on this new lot. But they need a frontage waiver on the existing one as well because it's a historical structure. Um if it's not a
historical structure then they don't need a frontage 9. They need to go through I mean front frontage waiver form nine. They just need to go through zoning board of appeals for both the parcels. But since this is historical structure and
based upon our section 210 117, they need to apply to planning board for frontage waiver and the subdivision rules and racks. >> Okay. So that's what make it diff that's what make it makes it different because we've never >> uh like in my time on the planning board, we haven't had a situation where
this has happened. Um Uh, okay. Anyone on the the board have Wait, let's uh let me now if there's any initial questions. >> We have applicant on the call. Uh if he
wants to address something, we receive um lot of comments from different uh departments as well. It's in the memo. I can summarize couple of them. Well, let's let's see if we can um
uh Mr. Stone, uh you're the applicant. Do would you like to uh say anything about the project? >> Yes. Uh can you hear me okay there? >> Yes. >> Yeah. So, um just to give a quick summary of the whole project. This kind of went down this rabbit hole. Um the
the intention of this project was never to subdivide the property. it came to my attention that it was a historic uh house after we had purchased it. So then we went down the historic board and we found out that there is um different regulations potentially for historic
lots. So we were um we we spoke with the historic board. uh they requested us to preserve the property and we've you know obliged and we've done the the the you know the plans accordingly to try to
still get this other house and abide by the rules of of of of historic requests basically. And so now um we're basically trying to build the original house that we wanted and and keep the one in the front. uh everything that we're doing uh
is within the the the buffer zones. Uh we we've been very thoughtful with our civil engineering and science test. We've had a lot of back and forth, but we we've been, you know, very thoughtful on that. Um the pre-existing non-conforming lot on the front uh is is
you know part of this application is just to get the the uh waiver for the for the frontage because we had previously gone to zone and they had approved our zero uh frontage essentially for the rear lot. So this is kind of the process I'm learning as I go too because it seems like there's a lot
of little pieces and uh every time I turn around there's something else. So, as far as I know, you know, this is the next step in kind of getting everybody together to see see what we're trying to do. Um, preserve the front house, you know, build an addition on the front as well
as get approval for the for the rear house is essentially the big picture. >> Okay. All right. Uh iteri would you like to go through uh the regulatory review parts
or uh uh information from other town departments? Uh sure I can um go through regular both actually might have misled. >> So the proposed project required two special permit from planning was special
permit for common driveway and um special permit for lots with the historic structure. uh special permit for common driveway regulated under section 2101 120 of the zoning bylaw and under this this section common driveway is identify as a single private way
providing veular access to two single family dwelling and the bylaw further states the common driveway must be privately owned and maintained shall not be considered street or public ways and shall not constitute a part of the designated or legal frontage of any lot
and second is the special permit for a lot with the historical structure. This required under section 210 117.2 Two because the applicant proposed to create a lot that does not meet the standard size and setback requirements while preserving historically
significant structure and under this section planning board may grant the special permit if the lot to be created contain historic structure and the structure will preserved in the place or relocated within the lot as a part of the development application and the board finds u that the proposed lot is
in the harmony with the general proposed uh zoning bylaw. U we have with Tai and B as a third party peer reviewer. We did not hear back anything from them. We just received proposal this morning, scope of work from this morning. Uh so I'm hoping
that we going to get their feedback on this application soon. Um I provided the revised plan which applicants submitted on April 3rd which is Friday and um other departments needs to review on that revised plan. But the original plan
which application applicant submitted uh based upon that we receive comments from different uh department especially conservation and health department do have lot of comments on that. Um so yeah conservation they found out
about the one on call septic system. I'm aware that uh applicant change the I mean footprint of the new rare house. I'm not sure how it's going to affect on the zoning board decision but that's
going to be a separate um matter. But based upon the conservation comments um it's like installation of isone control directly on the buffer line creating near buffer zone well insulation and long-term well access without entering
the buffer zone potential for future encroachment to into the buffer zone and it's going to risk um wetland line and it's going to be in the calmcom jurisdiction as per the revised plan which uh submitted by applicant revised
Plan number three based upon that conservation commission recommending that applicant apply to them. Um and if it goes something under that jurisdiction it's going to be as a unpermitted work and they will enforce at that time and conservation commission
recommending applicant to apply to them. Based upon fire department comments, there are a couple of concerns for um common driveway and fire department happy to work with applicant on that matter. They did not provide any
specific but their main concern is the um public safety and the fire truck access. Um health department have two concerns uh on the proposed well locations. one um and they have concerns
on drainage line. So the health department comments are based on the original plan applicant submitted not on the revised plan since they modify the location of the new house. So we need comments on that from health
department as well. Um other things on the frontage um waiver request that is under the mass general laws subdivision chapter 41 section 81R
which require planning board to wave uh the strict compliance of the subdivision rules and regulations and in action to the public interest not inconsistent with intent and purpose of subdivision control law and front form nine sorry
form n frontage waiver is for that uh to uh require waver on the front page for the existing lot and once planning board issue and review that applicant needs to come back for ANR
in the future. >> Okay. Okay. So, um, is there I I I think, uh, one one sec. I I think from a planning point point of view, we're
going to have we're going to need to continue this to our next, uh, public hearing, but is there people from the public that would like to comment or other people that would like to comment about this project? >> U, my name is Ken Parker and I'm here with my wife, Zoe. Do you hear me?
>> Yep. Just say your street uh address. I see it on the street. >> 69 69 Clinton Street. Go ahead. >> So, we're across the street pretty much directly. Um my concern primarily is that it seems like uh the historical aspect of the
house is being used in order to build two houses in place of just one. Uh, and I don't from looking at the pictures shown in the uh supplements, they're not preserving very much of the old house. It looked like a completely new house.
And I well understand why they might want to build a new house because the old house is in pretty bad shape. Uh, the only historical part about the old house that I think that they could possibly be preserving is the basement, which is a not a very large basement in the first place. It is an old basement.
It's kind of historical looking if you go down there, which we've done. In fact, it used uh in the uh the way the house had been, one could not access the basement from the ground floor of the house. You had to go out in from from the outside
>> still. >> Uh so, uh that part was historical, but there's nothing about that that's going to be really maintained from the new house. So, it seems to me given the frontage situation that it's a stretch to even uh continue one house there. Uh
I don't understand why all of a sudden there's going to be two houses there. Uh I don't know. I I don't really mind there being more neighbors, but it just seems like uh you're violating the regular requirements for subdividing lots by by going this route. And this
historical business is being used as a pre pretext to achieve that. Thanks, Mr. Parker. Anyone else? >> Can I comment uh on that just a little bit? >> Yeah, just state your name and your address. >> Aaron, the 82 Clinton. Um
>> Oh, yeah. Go ahead. >> Is it Is that okay or not? >> Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, just in response, uh I the the the proposed uh renovation project for the historic house actually keeps all of the structure in play. Just
just just to clarify that there is going to be uh an addition to it, but everything is actually staying in play. I know that there's only a portion of the current house that is historic, but uh it's all staying intact. Just to clarify. >> Okay. Thanks. Uh
>> I can comment again, but I mean it showed a pretty new looking house there. I mean the front the looks of the house were were rather different. >> The whole whole roof would be replaced. >> Thanks Mr. Park.
>> We we understand. Is there anybody else? Mr. Thrasher. >> Yes, I'm the engineer on this project. Uh, and I thought I should be able to share my screen and I don't know if we have time or if it's worth me kind of giving a quick tour about what we've
come across during the design of this site, some of the restrictions, some of the challenges and where we've kind of laid this um on the plan uh as of last Friday. Is this is it is this something
>> uh Yeah, we can spend a few a few minutes because we're going to need to continue this. I just don't want to do it now and do it again in our next meeting, but uh a few minutes would be great. >> Sure. I'll be very quick. I just sent a share request. There it is.
All right. So, I believe everyone's looking at this PDF. You minimize this window. So, just to start right off the bat, what are some of the restrictions of this site? We have um a wetland down
here on the southeastern side. You can see this green wetland flagged area. We have another wetland on the southwestern side. We have uh what conservation brought to our attention here last week
is a potential vernal pool. Um the placement of these wetland flags was conducted by a wetland scientist. Um and uh if anything lies in a conservative location compared to another plan that
was done on the neighboring adjacent property here on the south side back in 2022. Uh so we're very confident in this wetland location. Uh you see these yellow lines are wetland buffer lines. Uh this blue line all the way up here is
our 225 ft potential vernal pool buffer. So for septic we have to be 225 ft out of that uh buffer zone to the vernal pool and we have to be 100t out of out of the wetland buffer zone. So as you
can see uh very challenging site and uh we were able to successfully protect these resource areas by keeping all work outside of the jurisdictional areas um that are these buffer zones. The 100 foot wetland
buffer, the 125 potential vernal pool for construction and the 225 potential vernal pool for uh septic leeching fields. So, um, this is, if I just scroll up here, uh, I'm not sure you can see, this is the
existing stone driveway. We're just widening it, um, another, uh, 12 ft. Um, we've, uh, I've designed this with a turning radius for SU30 vehicles, for fire trucks to get in and out of. Um,
this is the location of the front house septic system up here outside of the jurisdictional area. all grading, all work, uh even this well um is outside of those those jurisdictional areas. And we did go back and look forth with conservation quite a bit. They were
worried about the proximity of the foundation near the wetland buffer uh 100 foot buffer line. So we've really pushed this back um uh a lot off that line. So, it's the ease of construction
and to meet some of their concerns and um this is this is it right here. >> Okay. >> While this is up, does anyone on the board have any questions? All right. Um,
would the board like to schedule a sidewalk to see this property? It would probably make sense, I think, but I'll defer to everybody else. Uh would it be okay to for us to uh visit this property uh see how it how it
uh see the as it is on earth? Get get a firsthand view of uh what what the lay of the land is >> from my perspect my perspective. Yes. No problem. >> Okay.
Um, how what about 900 a.m. this Saturday or uh either 9:00 a.m. this Saturday or or 9:00 a.m. on the 25th.
Uh, Saturday would be better so we can get it done sooner than later from my standpoint. have been uh going back and forth a while, so the sooner the better. Um I I I would have to defer again to Jay. I'm not sure if he's needed there
or uh available. Um but uh you know, would you prefer Jay to be there also, the engineer? >> I would I would like to be there. Um unfortunately, it's my uh child's first birthday party on Saturday, so >> Oh, okay. >> What about the 25th? Is the 25th any
better? >> Um, let me just check real quick. If Aaron, it's up to you. I mean, if you've got a good handle on this, we've been working lock step on this for two months. >> Yeah, I mean, I feel like um I feel like I I could I could probably walk
everybody through it on on Saturday if you know, if you're comfortable with that, Jay. >> Yeah, I think that's fine. And I'll just play supporting role, follow up with questions if anyone has >> questions in an email. Happy to address what we put on paper there.
>> Yep. >> All right. >> Uh Aneri, I'd like to continue this to our next uh meeting, the 27th. Do I need to continue any decision deadline or anything? Uh no, we don't
need to continue any decision deadline for any applic I mean not for frontage and not for special permit. We just need to vote to continue the both hearings. >> All right. I I I think I think um
it's probably worth it uh me sh uh providing my kind of uh first take to the applicant. This is this is an unusual like request for variance uh before the planning board. So like this never this hasn't happened since like my seven years on the planning board where
there's been a historic structure and they come to the planning board for uh fundamentally a waiver. Uh so it's unusual to me. Um the street frontage is already non-conforming. It's already less than
that's required in the agricultural zoning district in Hopkaden. And now the request is fundamentally to put two homes on with with uh what would normally be less street frontage for one home. So it it doesn't uh it doesn't give me a warm
fuzzy feeling off the right off the bat. That would be my uh my my my opinion. Um but we are happy to go through the process and obviously I'm just one of nine members on the board. But that's my
initial take. So, uh, unless there's any other comments, I'd like to, uh, enter in a mo motion to continue this public hearing for 82 Clinton Street to April 27th. >> So, moved.
>> Thanks, Parker. Thanks, Michael. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona, >> yes. Alis Mayowski, >> yes. >> Uh, Michael King, >> yes. >> Parker Hop, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Vicas Prati, >> yes.
>> And Rob Benson is yes. All right, that brings us. Does that continue the public hearing for both Aneri or do I need to make two separate motions? you just mentioned 82 Clinton so we can
consider for both. >> Okay, great. >> So that brings us to the end of our agenda items. Uh our next meeting is April 27th. Uh and at this time I'd like to entertain a motion to adjourn for this evening.
>> So moved. >> Second. >> Thanks Parker. Thanks Matthew. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona. >> Yes. >> Uh Elise Mosowski. Yes. >> Michael King. >> Yes. >> Parker Hap. >> Yes. >> Peter Mimo. >> Yes. >> Vicasprati.
>> Yes. >> And Rob Benson is yes. All right. Thanks everybody.