All right. Pursuant to chapter 2 of the acts of 2023, this meeting will be conducted via remote means in accordance with applicable law. This means that members of the public body as well as members of the public may access this meeting via virtual means. Participants may access this meeting through the remote meeting link as posted on the
meeting agenda and through the town's online calendar. When required by 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. Matthew Rona, present. Alise Mosowski, present. Lucia Lopez, present.
Michael King. Parker Hap, present. Pikasath Pratti, Peter Mimo present, Amna Dwan present, and Rob Benson is here. So, we'll see if
Michael and uh Vic uh get an opportunity to join. And now staff, uh this might be I don't know if Oh, John's here. Uh oh, John Gelich. Yep, I'm here. And Rob Michael is also here. Okay. I don't know. Michael, I don't
know if your microphone is working. We can hear you now, Michael. Okay. Uh, and is Aneri Patel on? Uh, Aneri is not able to make it. She, um, had a pre-scheduled vacation, so she is not able to make this meeting. She will be here for the next meeting.
Okay. And Lori St. John present. All right. Great. Hey, Rob. Uh, yep. Vic said he's in the waiting room and he's not being let in. I don't know who has control over that. I think that's John. Hey, I don't see anybody in the waiting room.
Okay, I'll tell him. All right, bear with me one second. All right. So, our agenda tonight has six administrative items and then a continued public hearing for three Class Street.
So, let's just go through uh start with agenda item 1.1 uh meeting minutes for September 8th and September 22nd. Matthew, go ahead. Yeah, I had four proposals uh for change to September 8th, which I didn't see in the most
recent version from 12:30 12:22. Um I also was trying to figure out what changed between 1222 and the amended version that was there. Um but the first all for the Wilson Street section. Um the first proposal was to change uh in the end the board responded that the
issue would no longer be pursued and Mr. Gateley is awaiting response on the related on the raised bond amount to the town responded that it would not pursue the increased bond under the assumption that Mr. Gaitley would perform the repairs, but Mr. Gaitley uh appears to be continuing to await further response on the subject. Um,
note two, uh, Mr. Gelich stated that he would check with town council as to any other options, change council to council, um, council to to to legal counsel. Um, note three, changing the phrase lever support. Mr. Hap asked
about lever support, comma, and to Mr. Hap asked about whether the board had any quote uh sorry whether the board had quote any levers to pull unquote um comma and or maybe leave out the command and I forget the rest of the phrase. Um and then note four um Mr. Hap
asked if the board could utilize the bond at a later date to Mr. Hap asked if the board could utilize the bond now and raise the amount at a later date. I had sent those four along, but I didn't see them in the most recent change.
Thank you. I joined and Ben, you're speaking on mute. Thanks, Vic. Uh Lori, were you able to get those changes? So, I did get the changes from Matthew, but the ner um was copied on emails that Matthew sent out and there's kind of a
change in the process. So now they have to be talked about prior to me updating and then once they're talked about then they get updated and then I believe you then have to approve them after the fact. And I think Aneri was sending an email to Matthew to touch upon that. I'm
not sure if she did or not. So what I'm hearing is uh Aneri would like us to p pause on voting on these tonight. I believe so because the corrections need to be talked about then updated
then submitted and then approved if I'm understanding the way she wants the process to be. Okay. Are we under any time crunch to approve these sooner than later, John? Do we have to approve them tonight or can we just defer them to our next
meeting? You're supposed to approve minutes within I think 30 or 40 days of the meeting. Um, but it's it never it doesn't always happen. And if you need to make edits, then it's fine. People um have the draft minutes available. If they want them, they can come request
them. We have them. That kind of covers our bases. They don't have to be approved. Approved. All right, let's uh let's just bear bear with this. uh Aneri uh wanting to put her uh some
process around it and so let's just wait till our next meeting to approve these and uh and we'll go from there. All right, bond reduction request um item 1.2 on our agenda. John, would you like to are and maybe we
start with you giving us some background on what uh what's happening here? So, um this is the second of the Highland Park roads that we've uh had a request to release the bond. The other one was Single Terry Way. Um same
process except this one the road's not fully complete. So, they are just looking to reduce the bond rather than completely have the bond returned. Um, so what they did is they submitted a form G which identifies all of the work that needs to be done should the town
have to take over the work. Um, our engineer reviewed it and um had a different figure. Oddly enough, this one is lower than what the applicant submitted. So the board can really choose which figure they want to use.
Um, so it's up to the board to make that decision, but you would basically just say, you know, we are reducing the bond, I forget what we say in the memo, from $400,299
to whatever um amount you choose. So the peer review says this uh our remaining uh bond amount should be 175,800. Yes. Does anyone on the board have any
objection to use that number? Objection. What was that? No objection, I said. Okay. Um, is the applicant on or or do you would you like to give any uh any
would you like to say anything or we're ready to move forward? Plenty. Um, number one, um, the bond as it is right now, we have never we started construction that road what, 2013. It's been, you know, almost completed. We haven't enter we haven't
add asked for any bond reduction up to this date which is quite a while. Uh the total amount of the original bond was $400,299. That is not spelled out on this memo. I'll repeat it again. $400,299.
Mhm. Um he uh Luckner used our form that we submitted on the form G. And what he's saying right now basically so everybody understands it is that the new bond is $175,800 which means we're reducing our bond by
the amount of $400,299 minus the $175800. That's what we're requesting which I think I just did my math real quickly which was and you have to check it. I didn't even check the math. I think it's $225,499. That's the amount of the bond reduction.
But please check my math. Yep, that that all makes sense. I I didn't I didn't do the math calculation, but uh yeah, now now for the issue of the um if if you've noticed that there's different handwriting in there and that different handwriting
um under Yeah, the we took out the total cost of the pavement was just recently done. Uh but that was a big number. So, we took that out. But you see the different handwriting where it says drainage mitigation at upland retaining wall two locations lump sum. That is a number that Luckner came up with. Um
didn't did not we've talked about it and we've we've had a big disagreement ongoing disagreement together. Uh but I'm just going to talk about the sum right now. The sum of $30,000 is very egregious. Um that's something that I don't agree with. All of these other numbers were numbers that I put in uh
when we got to do the the costing and and we both mutually agreed upon them. But that's not the issue. The issue at hand is that um this is there's a lot number 24 and for sake I'll just say lot number 24. They put a 90 foot retaining
wall. The 90 foot 4ft retaining wall on the road layout. Now, I don't sort of blame them for that in a way because everybody thinks they own up to the sidewalk. They don't don't understand about the road layout. But no matter what, that that U 90 ft wall is
on the road layout. It retains a very sloping lot. And I think the reason why he took it all the way out as far as he could was because that would keep the wall as low as possible. If he was to bring that foot in, and it's right on the layout. If he was to bring it in another 2 ft probably, you'd be looking
at possibly another foot and a half of of wall height. So I I understand why he did it. Um but however, he put it on my property. Now that wall goes straight, runs parallel for about um 75 ft, turns
into the property onto his property after about 75 ft, and he has the wall. He has a 4ft PVC pipe draining his lot water into my road layout. It basically comes right onto the sidewalk. So, he's
creating this problem of the the drainage. Now, what what does it look like? Uh when it rains hard, you'll see if you take a picture, which Luckn did one time, you'll see some water. It it dissipates immediately. But that's not my issue. Well, well, it is my issue in a way because it really isn't is it
isn't a puddling puddle of water. It does it does flow down. That water comes out uh from his property onto my property. I don't understand why that would be my my uh uh my problem if how
can I go into his property and fix his problem. Meanwhile, he went on to my property and put pretty much an illegal wall there. If you asked me, I could probably ask him to take the wall down or the town could ask him to take the wall down because it's on the road layout. That wall was never a part of
the original road layout uh that we uh signed in 19 no not 19 2012 or 2013. And there's two areas. There's one with the pipe and the other one is the driveway. And the driveway just shoots down the hill and it widens. Like most
driveways don't widen, but the fight them to widen the road. And when you widen the driveway, so when you widen the driveway, that water from his driveway flows down onto my walkway. Once again, his property, his water flow, his water onto my property. Does
it puddle? No, it just flows during a rainstorm. It does not puddle after a rainstorm. So, two issues. Um, not my problem. uh I can't issue uh I can't go onto his property to fix fix something. He's on my property legally with the
stone wall and I don't see the the the problem in terms of any standing water. We've gone out of our way to fix every bit of standing water we could up there. Um we had the road if anybody knows the history of what's going on up there. We had a bad paver that came in there did a terrible job and we had some and and
John John and I have been in communication uh with my team in Luckn. And so what we had to do, poor me, I know everybody's going to feel sorry for me, right? It was a bad job. I had to uh scarify the whole road, put the road to its proper way it should have been done.
I had to rip up the burn, put a new BM in. So there's a we had to put down new BM, scarify the road. We did it. We found three spots or so where we were having a little bit of puddling. I you know, I thought it wasn't bad, but Lucker wanted us to see what we could do. So, we went back at an additional
cost and addressed those puddle issues. A lot of them had to do, if you ask me, with the driveways of the homeowners, but I'm not blaming anybody. We did it. We were good soldiers like we have been over the years of the 30 years that we've been up there, and we fixed it. And now we have a beautiful road. But
these two problems here, I just don't see how I'm responsible for them. Thank you, Mr. Marsters. Let me see if I can summize what what is going on here. So, you're you're the developer of this this
road and uh and I don't know if you're the developer of the houses uh or or not, but the house was uh the a home a lot was sold. Uh the person that bought the lot put a retaining wall of some sort in the right of way, correct?
And so now the you're trying to basically you you've done work on the road, so some work's been completed. So, you want the bond reduced uh to a certain amount and our peerreview consultant is saying,
"Well, there's this extra we should retain this money in terms of a bond because there is this potential issue." Um, and you're claiming it's related to this wall and the uh pipe uh for drainage
coming through the wall um and maybe even the driveway associated with this house. I don't know. We don't the town hasn't accepted the road. So I don't know like at least that's my understanding. So I don't know that the town can do anything at this point. Um
well I the town has not accepted the road. The town will accept the road once we do all of this. Once we we take care of all of our list and we're slowly going down by the risk list. Luckn has re reduced the bond by the total amount of if you don't see it here where it's where it's whited out the total cost of
the pavement which I I'll call it the road we call the pavement road. He reduced that 100%. Loved our road. Our road is great. It's perfect. It's it's awesome. What I'm saying is how can I go if you can't do anything? How can I do something on somebody's private property? Now, wouldn't it have been the town's responsible because I'm very
familiar with zoning laws um you know and in town laws being an ex selectman and zoning member of the Mashby board of selectmen and zoning board. It's sort of against the law for a homeowner to dump pro water property on another homeowner or somebody else's property. That's illegal.
So, I would have to go onto his property to fix a problem that's been created by him and him dumping it onto my property. I don't think Luckn understood that. Who can fix the problem? The homeowner.
So, Rob, can I jump in here? Sure. Sure, John. Thank you. What Mr. Marsters is describing as a private dispute, the town cannot get involved in that. If the private homeowner is dumping water onto his property, then Ken needs to take legal
action against that homeowner and prove that that homeowner is damaging your property. the town doesn't own the road. So the town doesn't have any rights to even assert in court. Um so I don't I don't know how he thinks that the town will be
able to do anything in that regard. That's a private property issue that it doesn't involve the town. He's not saying the town should I never once mentioned the town should. I mentioned the homeown Okay, let me let me make myself clear then. The homeowner should the town should not do it. But I
hold the town responsible in a way if we're talking legal because they they allowed the water to be dumped onto my property. There must have been some type of an inspection. It's illegal. Not necessarily. If it's a single family home, there is no storm water inspection.
You cannot I'm not talking storm water inspection. You cannot allow water, any water, any town to go from one property owner to and it could damage another person's property or cause, you know, water to go onto it. So, if that's happening, then that's something that one property owner needs
to to take legal action potentially or at least investigate legal action against the other private property owner. The town does not get involved. So, I have to go sue. You're telling me I have to go sue this property owner, right? So, before the town will take before the town will take it. No, the town's not going to take it. The town is
not going to be involved unless the town owned the road. The town has no legal authority to in this case. Well, do they have any authority to make me mitigate private property? You are the developer of the road at
current. You are the developer of the road and you need to when you want the town to take ownership of it, it has to meet certain standards. And if if there's damage done to your road, you need to protect that road because you are the current owner. Oh, but I hate where this is going.
Okay, now I hate where this is going. Really? So, if I sue the homeowner, who else do I sue? You know, I'm not I don't want to say it. I don't even want to say it cuz you know what? I've been in business for 40 years and I've never been sued and never sued anybody. I'm going to sue my guy that did the first road, that's for
sure, because he cost me $200,000. But but why why can't we just simply say it's not my responsibility? Because then whose responsibility is it? The homeowner. And if they don't fix it, then whose responsibility is it?
So if you give the town the road, if the home Sorry, Ken, if the homeowner doesn't fix the problem and the town accepts the road, whose responsibility is it to fix it? The residents of Hopkin. The homeowner. That does. It's still the So the town now has to take legal action
against the homeowner instead of Exactly. Then the town takes legal action. So the so the cost of that legal action is born upon the Hopkin taxpayer rather than developer. Absolutely. Why would it be why why should I do it now? It's getting a little smelly, guys.
this uh it's very clear I think in the board's uh at least in my my perspective what needs to happen here. Uh I think we are um in alignment with our peerreview
consultant and the number they quoted. We we can't do anything different. That's just the bottom line. uh from my point of view through the chair. If we want to get Luckner to come in here and explain his side, I can ask him to come to the next
meeting. Just to get clarification on that, we can do I'm I'm fine with that proposal, but there there's no way the town is going to at this point going to we can't take responsibility for something that we don't own. So, if uh I
like that suggestion, I'm I'm fine with that. What does anyone on the board think? All right. Uh, Mers, could I could I just ask that um the drain mitigation of 30,000 be wiped out now? No, that's not going to happen. Be added at a later date.
No, that takes a lawsuit. Take a say. You'll be sued. Sorry, but I mean I'm trying to be nice here, but I mean what do you expect me to do? Go on to private property.
Can you get a Can you get an opinion from your legal counsel and I'll pay for it? There's no this just doesn't there's because I want to work with you. I want to work with you. If you can you get an legal opinion paid for 100% by me. I I will be willing to do that.
That is not a fruitful use of time or resources. No, it's my resources, my money. Then then go to our town council and do it yourself. Pay pay him to I was just trying to work with you. Get some input. Just trying to work with you. All right.
Okay. So, do I get my bond release of 225,000? Whatever that is, right? Can we get that number correct? Do you do you want to wait to have Luckner come in at our next meeting to discuss 225? No. All right.
You're the You're the chair. Go ahead. Uh Peter, why is it necessary to even call a locker? Why are we do we not have enough information to make a vote tonight? Yeah, we do. Yeah, you do. Yes, I I think that's fine. We do. Um
I don't think that would be fruitful. All right. I'm okay with that. That's okay. Okay. I don't want to make a bigger deal than it is. I'll just do what I have to do. Yeah, I'm fine with that, Peter. Yep. Not a problem. I'd like to entertain a motion to reduce the bond amount for Highland Park 4 from
$40,299 to $175,000800. So moved with the exception that it was $400,299 is Yeah. If you said 40 instead of 400. Oh, sorry. from 400,299
to 175,800. Second. Thanks, Matthew. Thanks, Michael. Roll call vote. Can I Oh, sorry. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona, yes. Elise Mowski, yes. Lucil Lopez,
yes. Michael King, yes. Parker Hap, yes. Vicas Pratti, yes. Peter Mimo, yes. Amna Dwan. Yes. And Rob Benson says, "Yes." Can I make one more comment? Nice friendly comment. We did get a release
of the Broad Covenant for a single, but we haven't received that yet. That was quite a while ago. I think it was like 17,000, John, or something like that. That's You got to talk to the treasurer. I sent them the letter. We don't handle the actual money. Oh, okay. Okay. Because that's been over
a month. Okay. I'll call up the treasurer. Okay. Thank you. All right. Let's move to our next agenda item. Wilson Street dam damage update. Is Vin Gaitley on? Hi Vin, I saw you turn your
camera on. If we could just get a general update of what's going on, what's what's going on, what your plan is, that would be terrific. Okay. Um, let's see. Um, as you know, the the
planning board voted back in February to increase my bond, which is already $75,000 with the town by increase it $102,000 uh for this scope of work that um Bader
laid laid out and put values on. And um I did not agree with what was voted on that night. Um so I had a followup with my attorney. He
sent a letter to John and I guess the planning board back in March um telling the board that uh they really didn't have the legal authority to to do that um and increase my bond like that.
So, um, and the the scope of work that I guess, um, you're trying to make me responsible for is goes well beyond any type of repairs.
It's these are improvements. There's a 800 foot swell, 800 foot long swell along the road there that um we would have to excavate in some cases take out some big big rocks, maybe even move a utility
pole um and then shape it and you know back fill it with uh with gravel. And that's something that should have been done already. I mean, this is a I don't
know 60 80 year old road. It's really in disrepair. Um, and to say that all the damage is the cause of the trails and some runoff, it it just doesn't u it just doesn't
make sense to me. And I'm not um and I'm basically appealing that decision. You're on mute, Rob. Yeah, Rob, you're on mute. Sorry. Your your perspective is it's uh out of scope of what you want to do,
want to repair. So, you've uh engaged with your lawyer to send a letter to the town to basically say uh the bond increase is not justified. not uh you're questioning the legality of it and uh and so right now you have
no there's no plan in your purview to fix the road. Your plan is to challenge the Yeah, that's that's I'm not about to do something when I don't agree with what the uh the board's
vote was. All right. um understand your perspective. All right. So, um John, what is what is our what is our options here? This is not uh that's
obviously not what we we think is right. So, this is kind of why we're at this confusing point. I we don't necessarily know what Vin wants to do for the next step. Um he's mentioned so we sent I sent him an email asking
him what his plan is uh back in May said same thing that he's appealing the bond though there's no actual appeal of the bond so it's kind of just hanging in nowhere. Uh we have not implemented the bond. We have
not put a cease and desist on the project or anything like that related to the bond or anything hindering any kind of development because of the bond. we've kind of just let it lie there knowing that he's not happy and uh based on the email that I had sent outlining all the things that he had said at the
February 24th meeting, we assumed he would still be moving forward. So, we were holding the bond back, not pursuing that to allow for him to complete that work, which was not done. Um, so again, yeah, we don't know where we are either because we're waiting for Vin
to do the work, which he would say he would have done by May. and wasn't done. The chair, I have a question. Sure, Parker. Uh, hey Vin, did when the Conservation Commission voted to collect $43,00 in
fines for storm water violations in 2018 and 2021, have you paid out any of those fines uh for this? Um, I believe the answer is no.
Okay. And there's been no I don't know if they were like put in a bandance but they're just out there. There's been no discussion of those for years and years. Since then I think it was 23
we had some violations um for runoff off of our property. Yeah, that's gonna be my next question. So, did you buy 141,000 in fines? Then, did you pay those for the runoff? How much did you say?
$141,600. No, I my my attorney just took care of that with town council and that's all going to be um released. Um it's going away
and I have something all I need to do is just put it on record at the registry. It's already been signed by town council. Um I mean conservation should know about that. So there was a negotiation between your attorney and our town council to
basically come to a resolution. Yes. And so you're not paying any fines for those? Zero. Zero. Right. Okay. the the town. Um, look at I I don't want to put it this way, but my experience
with the town so far is only when there's been some been issues and it's been dealt with punitively. It's fines, it's cease and desist there. It's it's all punitive.
And um you know at some point um I I had to basically take a stand and the uh like those fines for instance it would the town if they're going to charge me so much per day per violation they were
supposed to given me like a ticket or some kind of bill or anything to to to document that. Instead, I went and paid $4,000 for one day of fines in Ashland. I had the same exact violations in
Hopkin. And two months later, we had a a meeting and they voted that night to charge me, I don't know, $4,000 a day times 40 days. And I
I wasn't about to pay that. And um as you'll see that that has gone away. Um so so the really the here's my line of questioning is so the conservation committee those fines have gone away and
then in your perspective and then you're now think that you've been unfairly your bond has been unfairly increased because you think that these funds don't matter because they're gone. So, we're essentially being punitive for something that you feel like you're not being
assessed a fine for. So, why would you do any work then to improve the road if the town isn't holding you accountable from the conservation committee perspective and you feel like the road improvements are the road repairs or improvements and not necessarily
bringing the road back to the state that it was before? So, the question is like because we met in March, it's October now. I literally have had a baby. I've had two children in the time that it's taken to get this road fixed. Just for the record. So,
uh, my wife is more efficient at getting stuff done than this problem getting resolved. So, Vin, how do we like fix this? And can you give us a plan if because right now you're just waiting and saying and pointing fingers at us, but like we're reasonable people. What's
your plan? Like, help us out here. Yeah. Um, like I said, I would say a a significant majority of the scope of work is got nothing to do. I understand that. What is your plan
though? You keep saying the same thing over and over again, man. Like, give us a plan then. Like, how are you, if you think that's not right? I don't even have frontage on the road that you want 800 feet of roadway uh restored the first four feet of it as
well as this 800 foot swale that doesn't even front my land. That's DCR property for all I know that whatever this uh outflow is you say is destroying the street down there that could be coming from the Ashlin
Waterworks plant that's between me and the street. It just, you know, it just looks like it's the town just hasn't done what they should have to keep that street in good repair. Respectfully, we walked the street just
with you and when you clearcut that against the recommendations to because of the poor erosion control that would result from the settlement settlement runoff because of the slope of the angle. We saw the the exposed, you know, rock from, you know, water runoff coming off the property. Like I we saw what we
saw. So the question is is like what's the plan? That's that's that's all I would say. Rob. All right. Thanks, Park. Thanks, Parker. Uh Vin, one question I had. Do you have more uh homes or dwelling units or to build?
Yes. Are is there any fourth phase? Just quickly, I'm in the fourth phase of a four phase project. The last phase is 48 units. There are six occupied owners moved in and there's
another 15 that are sold that their houses are under some level of construction. Okay. All right. Um I'm a little bit at a loss of where to go from here. Does anyone on the board
have any other questions or comments? Then I then I'll uh say what I what I think. But uh anyone else have anything? All right. Uh I think our last action of increasing the bond was was the right action. Um
our d uh um that's the guidance we've been given from town staff that the damage is the result of your development project. So that's like we're
that's the guidance from the people that are paid to give us guidance and our peerreview consultants. Uh, so I think we need to force action here. And John, I don't know how else to force
force action besides get our town council involved and come like I don't know what else I can we can do as a board here. Yeah, if we can get town council involved and go from there. That's uh I think that's what we have to
do. um we have to drive to a resolution and if it's a mitigate if it's a mediated legal resolution we have to drive to that. There's no other I don't see another path forward here. Anyone else on the board have any other
thoughts? They on board with that? All right, Mr. Skay, I appreciate you coming in and coming before us, but uh that's what we're going to that's what our plan is is to have our town council
um drive to some resolution and satisfaction on the town's behalf because uh our town representatives think this damage is caused by your development project and we as a board have no other real path forward but to do that.
Right. And I'm very happy to have town council get involved. We just had a lengthy back and forth for two years on those conservation fines and uh I think we found town council to be pretty reasonable and they've been up to date
on this particular issue too. um not in a significant way, but my my attorney um is uh has worked with town council over the years and um I think we have every right to you know do what we've done
here and um happy to have town council take over from here. Thank you. All right. Thank you. We're going to we're going to move on to our next agenda item. Um
so item 1.4 on our agenda is to give the principal planner authorization to approve or to basically sign ANR ANR plans um or endorse ANR plans.
So I'd like to end does anyone have any questions or comments about this? We've done this in the past. Uh so I'd like to entertain a motion that upon any vote by the board to endorse approval not required plans an area
Patel principal planner of the town of Hopkins is authorized to endorse said approval not required plans on behalf of the planning board. So moved. Thanks Matthew. Thanks Michael. All right. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona. Yes.
Elise Mosowski. Yes. Lucia Lopez. Yes. Michael King, yes. Parker Hap, yes. Vicas South Prati, yes. Peter Mimo, yes. Amna Dwan, yes. And Rob Benson is a yes. All right. So,
the next two agenda items are approval not required. Um maybe I don't uh is the applicant on? We we can John, why don't we start with you and get you give us a little background and then if the applicants on we can uh
let them speak to their what they want to do. This is for Lynen Street. I will do my best. I have not looked at these plans. Okay. So, sorry. Maybe we start with the applicant then. Is uh is Larry Topagen?
Yes, I'm here. Larry, could you speak to what you'd like to be do here? Ba basically, it's squaring off the lot and cutting off a piece which the owners the new buyers are taking with the lot, but
it's for religious uh reasons they wanted a separate piece. I don't know exactly what that is because I don't get into the religion part, but that was their request. So they're they're basically taking the current lot and dividing a little slice
of land off into its own lot. That's what they would want to do. Yes, that's what they want to do. Okay. And it's um I mean the lot still meets all specifications
even though that piece is cut off as you can see on the plan you just posted. Yep. And it's it's not a buildable lot. It's just uh it's subdivided. Yeah. Never buildable.
All right. Does anybody on the board have any questions? You're the chair. Go ahead, Lucia. I don't know that we've seen something like this before, and I'm just wondering, is that a usual thing to split a lot into
a buildable and a non-buildable lot? And why? Like how often does that happen and what's the purpose of that? Generally, John, you may have you have Yeah, you have may you're the best person to answer this. It's actually pretty common. Uh it
happens quite a bit. Um probably more, and I'm not trying to, you know, call you out, Lucia, but probably more than uh not non-buildable lots or buildable lots are done. Uh, so it's it happens a lot because in these kind of situations where this is an odd-shaped lot, they
might cut this piece off and then this per person might acquire it and absorb it into their property. So, they make it a non-buildable lot because if it was a buildable lot, uh, you would need a subdivision approval rather than an ANR because this wouldn't meet the area or
um, frontage requirements. So, they labeled as a non-buildable lot. Um, and then that would empower this owner to sell it to this owner or this owner or whoever and then it would become part of their lot. So, it happens a lot because they're trying to like just reshape lots
or I mean, we do get a lot of the I'm splitting one big lot into two smaller lots that are actually buildable, but we we get a lot of these little little changes, too. So, the only requirement is really that this is just labeled not a buildable lot. And then the statement of the
endorsement of the plan board does not construe determination of conformance with zoning is kind of just a little bit easier to to uh prove I guess. Does anyone else have any questions? Just a followup question. John I mean
thanks for explaining this but if let's say the next uh this slot is acquired by the person next to it right then it's so this this lot is acquired by this person h sorry so you're saying if this one is acquired by this one
yes this one or the person above that if let's say so will that be converted as a buildable lot afterwards or it'll still stay as non-buildable even they acquire it so I mean if this person bought it Mhm. it would be considered part of this
lot because of the um merger doctrine which is or the common lot doctrine. I forget what the actual title is and it basically says that land that abuts so parcels that abut one another held in common ownership are considered one lot
for zoning purposes. So, it may be considered two lots by the assessor, but it's really one lot and then eventually becomes one lot. But usually what will happen is if that owner buys this, uh, they don't have to
file an ANR plan. They can just do, um, I think it's called an 81P plan or maybe this, I always get it mixed up. This one's an 81P and then they could file an 81X and they can file that directly with the registry and all that does is dissolve lot lines and create one lot. So if they were to buy that piece of
land and then they want to make it into their lot, absorb it into their lot, they would file a plan straight with the registry that dissolves that lot line creating one lot. So that's probably why we don't see a lot of like the next one where they it's the non-buildable lot
owner, the new owner, because they can just file that without going through the planning board. All right. Thank you. All right. If there's no more questions, I'd like to entertain a motion uh that the planner board authorized the
principal planner to endorse the ANR plan for four Lynden Street on the board's behalf. So moved. Second. Thanks, Matthew. Thanks, Michael. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona, yes. Elise Moloki,
yes. Lucia Lopez, yes. Michael King, yes. Parker Hap, yes. Vicas Pratti, yes. Peter Mimo, yes. Amna Dwan, yes. And Rob Benson, is he? Yes. All right.
ANR plan for 28 Lumber Street. Mr. Connors, I see you turned your camera on. So, I think you're going to uh if you'd like to give us some background on what's going on here and then uh we'll go from there. I represent um uh Hopkins and Stone and
Gardens, Mr. Doug D. Wolf who owns property along Lumber Street, three various lots. This one lot has been before the planning board and then recently the conservation commission for a medical building and it will be back
after having dealt with the conservation commission and gotten a positive order of conditions. Um the back portion of this lot as it abuts 495 as you can see is an area where Mr. Dewolf has an awful lot of um his uh landcape stock. So,
we're going to keep that in um the landscape uh operation, which is the lot you adjacent to it. You can see the little Z there connecting the two properties. And then in the front, that lot one will become a medical office
building once we complete the um site plan approval with your board. As I indicated, we had gone quite a ways on that a year or so ago, but then got caught up in conservation. So, it's just a parcel in the back that will be continued to be used for landscape stock
by Hopkin and Stone and Gardens. And then lot one will be available for sale at some future point in time. All right. Does anyone have any questions? Seeing no questions, I'd like to entertain a motion that the planning
board authorized the principal planner to endorse the ANR plan for 28 Lumber Street on the board's behalf. So moved. Thanks, Matthew. Thanks, Michael. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona, yes. Elise Mosowski, yes.
Lucia Lopez, yes. Michael King, yes. Parker Hap, yes. Vicas Southrati, yes. Peter Mimo, yes. Amna Dwan, yes. And Rob Benson is yes. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Connors. Uh, all right. Agenda item number two, three Claflin Street. So, this is uh uh for everyone that we've had this before us uh on the board. Um went on a sidewalk. It's near the center of town.
Uh if the applicant could give us an update of what they're proposing, I think that we start there. Um through the chair really quick. I I'm in a butter, so I'm going to recuse myself from this one. All right. Thanks, Elise.
Mr. Mr. Chair, if I may, Craig Harwell for the applicant with Marchel Troy, would you like me to share my screen with the latest uh plans that were approved by the zoning board? Sure. As I mentioned, uh since we were last we were before the bo the zoning board uh
we've been before the historical commission uh during the sitewalk and then at the last meeting there was some discussion about possibly raising the uh historical building that's on the property so that we could better center um the the primary dwelling structure in
the middle. Uh the historical commission voted that the structure itself was historical. Uh so we've changed up the plans as you can see to uh maintain the existing historical structure. Uh still removing the porch that is to the east on the east side of that structure that
the historical commission has granted us permission to raise. And we've reduced the number of units from a total of four to three with an additional building housing two units um just off the existing historical structure.
Uh in addition, since we were last before you, the original plans had a about a 67 foot curb cut. Uh we have significantly reduced that with some grass areas uh in front of the two new units uh to reduce the curb cuts in both
of those uh areas to 20 ft each. And we've also added an additional driveway between the two buildings because there was some concern about uh parking for that unit as well. So we added an additional unit there. I think it would be helpful uh Mr.
Hartwell uh just to give us some background of where you are with the other boards. The historical commission I I saw in our document in like our our files of information. They recommended keeping the the existing historic structure that they said all future
plans should should account for that. Uh but in terms of the ZBA, it sounds like you've been through the ZBA and uh the distance from the lot line got approval. Is that Yes. Yeah. The this is the this was what was presented to the zoning board and
approved by them last week two weeks ago. Okay. And has the conservation commission weighed in on this plan? No, sir. We don't have to go before the conservation commission. Okay. All right. John, do you have any uh did you have anything
else, Mr. Hartwell? I was to say the only the only item up for discussion with this board is the parking in front between the principal structure and the street. Yep. John, do you have any other comments you'd like to provide or we can just go into I can ask the board if they have qu
any questions? Uh, no, I have no no other comments. All right. Anyone on the board have any questions for Mr. Hartwell? All right. Because this is in uh the downtown business district uh and there's no there's no retail part
of it there. It's before us because there's going to be parking in front of the buildings. If there's if the parking was behind the buildings, it wouldn't it wouldn't be in in front uh it wouldn't be before us as a board at all. So that's what we need to decide is uh
section se 2.7 basically 2.7 in our packet it say uh the decision criteria the prop uh these are the two bullet points the proposed parking area will not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood and the proposed location and design of the parking will enhance
the downtown streetscape. Uh they are requesting three waiverss in section 2.8 8 to not provide an environmental analysis to not provide a traffic impact analysis to not provide peer review fee.
Does anyone on the board have any comments or objections? Let me let me go right into uh a suggested motion. Uh I does go ahead. Oh, go ahead, Peter.
I'm sorry. Do uh the last time we had a meeting, the we had a number of interested in butters. You participate. Are there any Butters on the call tonight for this matter? Mr. Mitchell, if you unmute, you're welcome to speak.
Just give your name and address. Uh, sure. Uh, Bernie Mitchell, 5 Claflin Street, Butter. um don't even know what we're we're looking at. Last time we got a snapshot of a picture that was put up and taken down.
We cannot find on the website. Uh I guess some of the problem would be what exactly is the the layout going to be the second building. And I guess my question was principal structure is the only one that you'd be voting on. So now that they're going to
put a second unit on that same lot, those parking spaces are not in front or they're still in front of the house between the house and the street. Does that not also have an impact? I I believe because there's multiple
dwelling units on the lot, it's it's the it's any parking in front of the in front of the buildings, not just the the new building. Um John, am I wrong in that? Is that is that generally correct?
So, this is a multif family development effectively. It's got two dwelling units. So both are really the principal use buildings because they're both dwelling units or they're both dwelling unit buildings. So it's really it would be as if like one of those buildings was
an accessory dwelling unit or um a barn or garage or something like that. Yeah, I guess. Yeah. So, it's it's all it's it's basically all the parking all the parking spots so to speak for the three individual dwelling what what we refer
to as dwelling units uh being in front of the buildings is is what's that question if it and the question is it uh is it detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood or not and does it uh
the proposed location and design of the parking will enhance the downtown streetscape. Those are the two bullet points we have to evaluate this on. Why not? Uh, Bernie, do you have any other additional questions? Like we'll we'll put up we'll
see if we can get the applicant to put up uh an image of what the structure looks like and it's a more um and we can study it a little bit. Yeah. any any additional pictures uh to give a butters a sense of what they
could be expecting would be helpful. Okay. Um is it standard practice to wave all those um through through the board, excuse me, apologize. Uh through the chair, the three uh waivers for environment, drive, and peer review. Is
that standard practice? Well, it's a waiver by definition because it's uh modifying our normal uh but it's it's not unpl it's not unpausable. It's
plausible to get those waiverss asked for and it's plausible based off of um like a traffic analysis for a dead-end street. Uh it's it's very reasonable that we wouldn't require a traffic analysis, but it's up to the board to
vote on those waiverss. It's not just my opinion. Uh Sarah Broofphy, do you did you uh like to make some comments? Just give your name and address. Sure. Sarah Broofphy, 9 Claflin Street. Uh also in a butter to this. Um,
I'm curious, are these twocar garages? Um, how many units are, you know, how many bedrooms? How many, um, how many cars are we talking about here? So, if it's a two-car garage for each. So, that's 2 4 6 eight cars there plus a driveway to the left supporting the main
structure. So, we're talking nine cars on one property. And I think if we're talking about not significantly detrimental to the neighborhood and enhancing the streetscape, I'd say adding nine cars into one lot is significantly detrimental to the neighborhood. I think that when you
start to make this look, I mean, it it has it has enhanced. It has been, you know, better designed, it seems, at least at the surface. This is a pretty rudimentary drawing of the house, but um but it's starting to look like we've got condos and apartments um because that's
exactly what this is. And I think that again when we're talking about not significantly detrimental to the neighborhood that this is detrimental to the neighborhood. You're talking about a lot of volume. You're talking about a lot of cars on a dead-end street. I would also uh echo what Bernie had
mentioned about not having a traffic analysis and not having an environmental analysis I think is concerning. Again, we talk about the water runoff from across the street down our yard. when you change the majority of that lot to be hardscape and be non-pervious or
non-permeable that that is uh is problematic. We still have a narrow you know narrow street that we live within and understanding that that's our current conditions. It also be nice to not exacerbate that issue by dropping in
this many cars, this many houses, you know, this many this much. Again, I live at the end of this street and everyone turns around in my driveway or in my front yard and we're talking about adding in how many other more cars into this space. Again, if the two points
that this board is concern is considering is not significantly detrimental and enhances the streetscape, I would say that doing this is does is the opposite of that. All right. Thank you. Uh thank you. All right. Uh does anyone on the board
have any uh thoughts or questions? Well, through the through the chair, do we have a sense as to how many more cars and in fact at least from the developers perspective, how many more cars maybe is added as a result of this change in the in the plans?
Um this is Marshall at Trolio. I mean the these units are threebedroom units a piece and it's twocar garage. So, I imagine whoever buys and lives there is going to have their two cars parked inside the garage. So, I'm not sure
where nine cars come from. It's mostly going to be two cars that inside the unit. So, that's four total, but you're not even going to see four of them because they're going to be inside the garage. Matthew, go ahead. Thanks. Um, if they move the parking
lots behind the house but the same size, that would be permitted without any special permit. Correct. That's correct. Any Yeah, they wouldn't have to come before us as a planning board if they moved the parking behind the houses
behind the Yeah. living structures. But if I may, Mr. Chair, that would also greatly increase the impervious area, which we're trying to avoid doing. The whole backyard will be a parking lot basically. And it's wouldn't be safe to take that right uh a left turn behind
the building with other cars coming in or out. It's just not feasibly possible through the chair. Go ahead, Peter. Um just this is perhaps more of a question perhaps for for John, but uh the the the benefits of an environmental analysis in a project like
this and the other the other sort of uh requested waivers um how much of an impact or how much of how valuable would that information be I suppose in your view? So those waivers um are usually for much larger projects. This is we got I think
we need to remember that the scope of this special permit is whether the parking in front of the building rather than elsewhere on the site is allowable or meets the decision criteria. The use has already been approved. So if there's
going to be nine cars or two cars there, that really does not change based on what the planning board is deciding tonight. Um, so for something like do does parking in between the principal buildings and the street meet these
criteria usually doesn't require a traffic study, an environmental analysis or a peer review, which is why these waiverss were requested. it it's a typically a I don't want to say administrative because that's not the right term but typically a planning
board discussion decision rather than a scientific datadriven disc decision um discussion and decision like you would see with a traffic study or an environmental analysis or peer review.
I I think also just want to point out that we we're making a twocar garage so that there's not going to be the parking as so much in front of the house. I mean, it's a three-bedroom house. Most likely there's going to be two cars and in New England you want to park inside your garage. You don't want to be
parking outside, especially in the winter time. So, and you don't really want park somebody parking in front of the garage. So, I just see this that 90% of the time when you walk by this building, you're not going to see any car inside all outside of the uh on the drive-thru, you'll see them inside the
garage is reality behind it. Sarah, you have your hand raised. Do you have an additional comment? Yeah, I'd just like to address the fact that the cars will be in the garage. I mean, that's an assumption. And I'm making an assumption as well, too, but
it's an assumption that cars will parked in inside the house or inside the garage with having a three-bedroom unit to think that you're not going to have three cars for three bedrooms um or have more cars depending on how many, you know, how many kids you might have of
driving age. I think we as the residents of this street will be looking at cars in those driveways, whether or not um there's garage available. So, I think that, you know, it's it's an unfair assessment to say that the cars will be inside the garage. I think we need to take a look at this almost from a worst
case scenario, which would be, you know, nine cars sitting in here, which again is is um just significantly different than the rest of this neighborhood, significantly different than um than, you know, any other place here. And I think that it's going to set a really unfortunate precedent if we allow this
to happen, you know, moving forward. So, just to clarify, it's going to be at most six cars in front of the buildings. So, it's a singlecar driveway in front of a double double garage or is it a twocar? Is you have width for for two cars in front of a two-car garage?
Yeah. In front of the the the new units that the max that you can fit is four total. And then existing house is only two tandem. So that's six total if they actually don't park in the garage which Well, that's 10 then, isn't it? If I can
do two in the garage, two in the driveway for for two units. That's what that's 2 4 6 eight and then two for the first unit. So you're talking 10 cars at No, I'm talking in terms of visible from the street impact from the street. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, that's all that the I'm just saying.
That's fair. That's fair. That's a fair point that there'd be uh you know, two four there would be six cars visible from the street. But again, they're still talking about a max of dropping 10 cars, you know, into this tight-knit neighborhood. Well, this this these condos are I mean,
there's three why there's three bedrooms, it's most likely going to be someone who's going to use one of the bedrooms as an office. 90% of the all the condos in in Hopkin are twobedroom condos because two-bedroom works well for a condo situation, not necessarily a house, but for a condo. So, I just think
the reality is 90% of the time any neighbors walk down the street or drive by it, those cars going to be inside the garage, especially being in New England, people want the coverage. That's why I'm doing two-car garage because people want to park inside the garage, not outside,
which which to follow up was a direct in direct response to the feedback we got at the last planning board meeting when we only had one garage space and two outfront parking spaces. So, we've actually doubled the number of parking spaces per unit inside.
All right. Does anyone on the on the board have any uh comments or thoughts? Go ahead, Lucia. Um, so I appreciate that the developer has taken feedback and come back with what I think arguably is an improvement
over the original design. Um, and I appreciate the neighbors coming out to express their concerns as well. I think in terms of looking at the two bullet points, I have to pull them up again to see, but um, so the first the proposed parking area will will not be detrimental to the surrounding
neighborhood. I feel like I can agree with that statement. Um I live on a dead-end street and we have houses on both sides of the street and we generally don't have issues um in terms of you know people moving out in and out of the road. Uh we do have you know cars
turning around in people's driveway and all of those issues that were brought up and that's just the reality of living on a dead-end street. Um either that or you know the backup sounds of the the trash truck coming down and reversing down our
street to get out. Um what I'm having a harder time with is the second which says the proposed location and design of the parking will enhance the downtown streetscape. Um, that to me feels very subjective,
which is more difficult. And I'd like to hear the board's thoughts on that second bullet point or John's if John has any thoughts on that. I'm not going first if people are waiting for me to talk.
No. Uh, It it uh Lucia, I think you're totally correct that it is completely subjective, which is uh is is hard. Um how many people do we have? We have Vic,
Omna, Peter. All right. To the chair. I guess I I guess I guess I'm also similarly not confused, but just what's what are what what under what criteria are we looking at to determine whether or not this particular development would enhance the downtown
streetscape when how do you judge that? I I don't think there's a definition which is the trouble and I think that's that's just what Lucia pointed out like right now I would say the current status
of the lot is not pleasant. It's basically a cleared cut lot for the most part and a and a historic home that needs rehabilitation. Could Could there be a proposal for this
lot with a better streetscape than what they're proposing? I'm sure there could be, but I I don't know like judging it one way or it's there's no definition that we're going to get from anywhere. Go ahead, Matthew.
Thanks. Um, it's subjective, but there's some description in the quoted section in 2.3 if you haven't reviewed what it refers to for streetscape. Um, I go back to the email from the chief of the fire chief and uh the town's suggestion about having
some parking versus relegating people to on street. Um, which does seem strictly worse uh if people were to be parking on street than in a parking lot off the street. Sarah, did you is do you have a new comment?
Yeah, in response to to to Matthew and to the board, that letter from the fire chief also stated about the width of the street being so narrow that um adding in the additional cars would be a concern from a um from a safety perspective as well. So it yes, they recommended that
the car the the cars not be on the street, but secondarily to that also called out the fact that this the width of our street is already too narrow. So again, adding in additional cars is not going to enhance anything.
That's uh I think this is a a uh John, if this plan proposed no parking uh and re was 100, could they put a forward a plan that proposed no parking and just relied on street parking? Could
they do that? The applicant? I'd have to look at the zoning. I mean, I think they need to provide parking spaces off street. I don't I don't think this that would be okay. I I'd have to look. I can't give you a a solid answer on that. I'd have to look.
I do just want to point out that there are other houses on that street that have parking in front of their houses. Yeah. All right. I'd like to move forward with our like going through the agenda and we're going to get to a vote and uh and
um we'll we'll go we'll go that approach. Uh I'll just read um I I I read the decision criteria. I read the waiverss.
So, I'm going to put forward a suggested motion and uh we'll we're going to vote on the waiverss. So, I'd like to entertain a motion that the planning board confirm that the application submitted is considered
complete uh a complete application by granting waiverss from the submission requirements as follows. The applicant is not required to provide an environmental analysis. The applicant is not required to provide a traffic impact analysis. The applicant is not required to provide the $2,000 deposit for
thirdparty peer review. So moved. Thanks, Matthew. Second. Thanks, Michael. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona, yes. Elise Malowski. Elisa. I'm not voting on this one.
Yep. That's Sorry about that. Lucia Lopez, yes. Michael King, yes. Parker Hap, yes. Vicas Pratti, yes. Peter Mimo, no. Amna Dwan, no.
And Rob Benson is a yes. All right, let's go through proposed findings. I'm going to read these out loud. Uh, the proposed parking area will not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed location and design of the parking will enhance the
downtown streetscape. All applicable criteria and standards set forth in this chapter have been satisfied and grant of the special permit will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter. All right. Proposed conditions. Uh I'm
going to read these out loud as well. A town clerk certified version of the decision shall be recorded at the Middle Sex County South Registry of Deeds prior to the issuance of a building permit for the work that is subject to this decision. The director of municipal inspections inspects projects under construction for compliance with the approved decision. If the director of
municipal inspections determines at any time during or before or during construction that a registered professional, engineer, or other such outside professional is required to assist with the inspections of any component of the approval. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of those inspections.
All construction activities shall adhere to applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations regarding noise, vibration, dust, sedimentation, and the use of interference with or blocking of town roads. The applicant shall be responsible for mitigating all construction related impacts including erosions and siltation
and dust control. The applicant shall maintain all portions of any public way used for construction access free of soil, mud, or debris deposited due to use by construction vehicles associated with the project and shall regularly sweep such areas as directed by the director of municipal inspections in consultation with the DPW director.
Construction may occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and Saturdays between 8:00 a.m. and 4 p.m. pursuant to chapter 141 of article one of the town of Hton general bylaws. The applicant developer shall provide the principal planner with a project point of contact and contact
information prior to the issuance of a building permit. This point of contact information should be kept current through correspondence to the principal planner until the final certificate of occupancy is issued or construction is otherwise considered complete. John with
uh in section 2.11 this vote requires a super majority it and Elise is not uh as abstaining. So how do we how many people need to vote in favor? Is it still six? Yeah.
All right. So, there's two motions. There's a motion uh there's a motion for the findings like um and so first motion is the motion for the findings and then the second motion
is going to be uh approval or denial. All right. I'd like to entertain a motion that the board accept and approve the findings as previously read aloud by the chair. So moved. Thanks Matthew. Thanks Michael. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona,
yes. Lucia Lopez, yes. Michael King, yes. Parker Hap, yes. Vicas South Prati, yes. Peter Mimo, no. Amna Dwan, no. Rob Benson is a yes.
All right. This is the motion uh that's is approved or denies the pro uh basically to allow parking in front. Um I'd like to entertain a motion that the board approve the special permit with the following conditions as they were
previously read allowed by the chair. So moved. Thanks Matthew. Second. Thanks Michael. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona. Yes. Michael King. Yes. Lucil Lopez. Yes. Parker Hap,
yes. Vic Southprati, yes. Peter Mimo, yes. Amna Dwan, no. And Rob Benson is a yes. All right. Um, that
concludes. Do I need to close this, John? Yes. All right. I'd like to entertain a motion to close the public hearing for three Claflin Street. So moved. Second.
Thanks, Matthew. And was that you? Uh, Lucia. Yeah, either either me or Lucia doesn't matter. All right, a roll call vote. Matthew Rona. Yes. Uh, I'll just go to Lucia Lopez. Yes. Michael King.
Yes. Parker Hap. Yes. Pick South Prati. Yes. Peter Mimo, yes. Omnadwan, yes. And Rob Benson is a yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. All right, this brings us to the end of our agenda. Uh, our next meeting is October 20th. So at this time I'd like to entertain a motion that we adjourn for this evening.
So moved. Second. Thanks Michael. Thanks Lucia. Matthew Rona. Yes. Elise Mowski. Yes. Lucia Lopez. Yes. Michael King. Yes. Parker Hap. Yes. Vic Southprati.
Yes. Peter Mimo. Yes. Amna Dwan. Yes. And Rob Benson is yes. All right. Thanks everybody. They have a good evening.