Who's caring? Hey everybody, just uh bear with us one second. John John Gish, are you on? Lori, do you know happen to know where John is? I don't. I mean, we talked about it. He knows it start today. He just might be running just a couple minutes late. All
right, let's hold on a a few minutes. All right, let me uh start off by reading the remote meeting script and uh we'll go from there. Pursuant to chapter two of the acts of 2023, this meeting will be conducted via remote means in accordance
with applicable law. This means that the members of the public body as well as members of the public may access this meeting via virtual meets. Participants may access this meeting through the remote meeting link is posted on the meeting agenda and through the town's online calendar when required by law or allowed by the chair. Persons wishing to
provide public comment or otherwise participate in the meeting may do so by raising their hands 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. Elise Meloski. Lucia Lopez. Matthew Rona, present. Michael King, present. Parker Hap, present. [Music]
Vicasi present and Rob Benson is here. So, we've got five members. So, we got enough for a quorum. Um, Rob, I'm I'm also here. John had sent me an email said I couldn't participate on this one since the election hadn't been done yet.
Yeah, there's no official winner for a planning board. So Karen keeps her seat until that election is official. Okay. Well, Karen, it's good good to have you for one more meeting. Like a bad penny. I keep turning up, but All right, so we got six. All right, staff. John, I see you
and Lori, I've already talked to you, so I know you're both here. Um, let me jump into our agenda. So for uh one thing before it's it's not on our agenda before um we get going
just so people know we're going to uh re do any reorganizing reorganizational voting uh and and that process next meeting uh once the new members of the board are uh go through their paperwork and the they they win their election and they go
through the paperwork at town hall. All right. Uh I'm just going to go through the agenda starting on item 1.1 admin uh scenic road determination 55 fruit street. So I looked at the files and uh
saw the images but is the is the applicant on Yes. Hi. I'm here. Hi Pavle. Uh hi. How are you? Would you mind just going uh through in words and describing what you're looking to do? Yeah, I'm actually
looking to redo that. Well, it's hard to call it a retaining wall as it is because it's it's few layers of stones that were free laid one on top another one and mother nature is taking its course that they're the degrading and falling apart and just don't look nice.
So, I'm looking to redo it into something more permanent and aesthetically pleasing. Uh probably something like couple feet high wall and then it'll raise up to probably column towards the driveway. Uh yeah, something
like that. Yeah. Okay. Uh if you go back, so the the the bottom of these two images kind of give a a good view of like some it looks like somebody put uh some stones around a mulch area. Some of some of them are along the street, some are along the driveway, but the the they're just
fallen. Yeah, they I mean they they used to be nicer and more in order when we first got the house, but they just fall apart and they move. I I tried to put them back together, but then they just don't stay put because there's no motor.
Uh they just held by its own weight. Yeah. And I think the more important thing for the people on the planning board is it doesn't continue into uh a stone wall. It's it's it's a collection of stones. Yeah. Yeah. exactly around
this mulch bed. So, uh then if you go to the next image, John, this is what Pavle is looking to do. And um something like this. Uh yep. And so I think we just need to determine if uh if the Stonewall
um is uh like part of the scenic road. Um uh and if this stonewall meets the like applicability of a stone wall and a scenic road, my my opinion would be it it doesn't the existing stone wall
is I would say it's not part of the a scenic road. A scenic road is typically um uh much different type of stonewall. I'll just read uh from our agenda. John uh the recommendation uh John's
recommendation. The wall proposed to be removed is very low and appears to have been installed as edging for the garden beds. In the principal planner's opinion, this wall is not historic, nor does it substantially contribute to the scenic nature of Fruit Street as a typical pilestone wall we see elsewhere around town
would. So, does anyone have any questions um on the board for Pavle? All right. Seems pretty straightforward. Okay. Hear hearing. Thank you, Parker. So, I'd like to make a mo uh I'd like to entertain a motion uh that the planning
board make the determination that the stonewall structure at the entrance of the driveway 55 Fruit Street is not subject to the scenic road bylaw as it is not historic and serves as a decorative edge for the landscape beds rather than as a wall. So, I'll second them. All right. Uh,
Matthew, how do you vote? Yes. Uh, Michael Michael King, yes. Parker Hap, yes. Rob Benson is a yes. Karen, yes. And Vic, yes. Yes. All right. Six to zero. Uh, Pavo, you asked about how
close to the street. uh like if you're going to put a put a permanent structure like you shown in the image, I like I'll just give you my opinion. It I would talk to uh a land surveyor and and put that not in the right of way. Um
we have our we had our DPW director on. I don't know if she's still here. Carrie Carrie Reed uh do you have any Pavle was asking us as the planning board like how if there's any requirements on how close a new like
more permanent uh wall could be to the road? Hear me? Yep. Um it all depends on the rightway. So they they change throughout town. Um, generally it's 8 to 10 feet off the edge
of pavement is the right of way, but in some places it could extend much further. In some places it's much narrower. So, I don't know exactly what it is at Fruit Street in this area. Yeah. So, Pavle, I think your best bet is to get a land surveyor to edge your
property boundaries and and not put a permanent structure in the right of way. Uh so that so who would know the the exact right away because actually I just finished the ingground pool construction and right before we started the construction the lens surveyor came over
and did the plot plan. So I have the plan on hand. Uh he did the entire property you know because the the that was one of the requirements for the pool construction. Uh so I know exactly where we start. It's just the question is how
far back I have to go. There's probably some uh land surveyor um things in the ground at the corners of your property uh along the road and like those two would probably most likely connect um
and a straight line. Um I think I like um that's the only guidance I can give really. Okay. Uh I can reach out to them again um and and see I guess what they say. I
mean I was going to step back um at least five six feet just because you know it's going to be expensive project number one and you know I don't want to snow plow to hit it during the storm season. So just solely for this purpose
you know I'm not looking to make it as close as the existing wall. And I I've seen this existing wall that I have right now being hit by vehicles uh a few times. So definitely not looking to build something more expensive and you
know put it in jeopardy of damage by the the plow or anything else. So, I was gonna step back at least five feet um just because but All right, Pablo that that um right now it's really out of our
uh like I think our recommendation as to is to put not put the Stonewall in the right of way and I can't really guide more than that. Okay. All right. Thank you very much everybody. Thanks. Thank you. All right. On to our next Go ahead
Karen. It's Larry. Oh, Lori, sorry. That's okay. Can I just confirm who made motion and second? Who's the first one? Was it Mike? I have Parker making the motion, Mike making the second. Okay, I had it backwards. Thank you. All
right, so uh next administrative item 25, uh 29 East Main Street. Um so uh the background this is all in the agenda. Uh but the subject property recently went through the ANR process to divide the one lot into two. This ANR
takes appears to take a small parcel parcel A from lot 1A and conveying it to lot 2A likely to address a deficiency related to side yard setback for the foundation for the dwelling on lot 2A. Do we have the applicant on? I am here Mr. Chairman. Hey Joe, how are you?
Doing well. And you? Good. All right. If you just like to give us a little background here and then uh keep it moving. Sure. Same spot. Uh the board endorsed a plan back in October. Uh this new plan is to straighten out a mixup that happened during construction. We do
not have did not have the minimum sideyard setback necessary in that zone district. So, uh, Jim Dan has, um, authorized me to prepare this plan to give 617 more square feet to his son,
Alex, who is building his home. Now, we maintain the same front lot corner. We just add something to the sideyard to uh, get that foundation back in compliance. Uh, Alex's lot 2A grows uh,
by 617. Jim's 1A shrinks, but Jim is well over the uh the minimum 45,000 square ft. It kind of straightens out a problem. Okay. Does anyone on the planning board have any questions?
All right. Hearing none, I'd like to entertain a motion that the proposed modification to the lot line appears to meet the criteria for the ANR process and the plan appears to warrant endorsement. Look like Matthew had a question actually, Rob. Oh, sorry, Matthew. Go ahead. Yeah, I was just going to ask if this was in the
non-current project file because I don't see any administrative files. That was a mistake on our end. I thought Kobe had put it in there, but she didn't. So, I just added it. Should be in there now. Okay. Thank you. Fun.
All right. Would anyone like to make that motion? So moved. Thanks, Michael. Thanks, Vic. All right. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona, yes. Michael King, yes. Parker Hap, yes.
Karen Wills, yes. And Vic Safrati, yes. And Rob Benson is a yes. All right. meeting. Moving on to 1.3 of our agenda, meeting minutes. Did anyone offer any feedback
or commentary to Lori uh ahead of time or does anyone have anything in real time here? Uh Matthew, go ahead. Uh so Lori incorporated with the most recent versions as of 9 this morning. Um, but for anybody that looked at it earlier, um, I did propose changes that are now
represented for the, uh, for several of the votes, um, just to correct some of the names. Okay. All right. Um, anyone else have any comments? So, the the fi [Music]
the final set of minutes is is in the folder. Uh, so we have two motions here. Um, we've got one. I'm going to do them um one at a time. I'd like to entertain a motion that the planning board approve the meeting minutes for April 7th, 2025.
So moved. Second. Thanks, Michael. Uh, roll call vote. Matthew Rona, yes. Michael King, yes. Parker Hap, yes. Karen Wills, yes. Vic Pratzy, yes. And Rob Benson is a yes.
All right. Our second set of meeting minutes. I'd like to entertain a motion that the planning board approve the meeting minutes for April 28th, 2025. So moved. Second. Thanks, Matthew. Thanks, Michael. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona, yes. Michael King, yes. Parker
Hap, yes. Karen Wills, yes. Vic Southprati, yes. And Rob Benson is a yes. All right, we're on to agenda item two. So this is 0 and 109
Winter Street. If you recall at our last meeting, we granted a waiver for the infiltration testing and basically because they were bu going to build the basin to the max to assume no infiltration. So, it looked like we had
a clean uh a peer review feedback letter with basically uh clean uh except for one last point. Um do we have anyone from Tai and Bond on or no? We I don't think we need him, but just in
case. All right, Joe. Uh did you happen to see their feedback letter, the last point? I'm trying to bring it up here in real time here. All right. The last thing they commented uh was about the driveway width immediately west of the proposed culvert
uh not meeting the width. what um they weren't uh they say, "However, we acknowledge that vehicle tracking software is often conservative and that an operator of such emergency vehicle be able to navigate the area without difficulty. Uh while we believe an increase in the driveway width is
necessary at this location, the board may wish to consider a condition of approval that a revised vehicle tracking plan be provided or additional driveway with be provided to accommodate." Do you have any kind of um response to that point? Yes, it's a small area. um right near
the turnaround. A few folks uh went out on the sidewalk. That area there um needs an area needs a additional payments a small triangle about 4t at the widest point about 30 ft long. So it's something that should be added. I
think that would be more effective than debating the merits of software and truck maneuvers and those sorts of things is to simply add the extra pavement and um and get it up to uh to meet the requirements um that we show on
the plans and have worked out with the fire chief. I guess it was more about the timing of it um to do a plan revision now um in a timely manner, follow up uh whatever vote happens tonight. um handle this during phase one
since the Calvin installation and the pavement back to Winter Street was the first order of business on the project uh within uh by September sometime there'll be pavement down that solves all this. So I guess it really came down
to uh what the board how the board wanted to proceed. It it appears minor uh but something that should be dealt with. Okay. I think um I think if we can make a condition,
John, uh for this would be appropriate. Could you could you maybe help think of a condition that would help solve this? So, we got this already covered. Okay. Number five. All right. Great. Right here. You're you're ahead of the game. You're ahead of me. Let's put it that
way. Yes. All right. Perfect. All right. So, does anyone on the board have any questions for Joe or um about this project? Or if not, we're going to kind of move through move through our
outline here. I'm not see if your hands raise that. I'm only seeing some of the uh some of the people, but if you have any questions about it, uh unmute and uh let me know. Otherwise, all right. So, I'm going to
go through um uh to do I need to uh read out loud the decision decision criteria 2.7. No, the only thing you have to read out loud are the conditions. Okay. And the
findings, I guess. All right, let me just go through the requested waiverss here. So the request so this this application is for um a special permit and also for the storm water management permit. So
2.8.2 we granted this waiver last meeting. So there's no uh requested waiverss outstanding. So I'm going to go into um should I read the conditions first or the findings? I never I never
understand. Um usually it doesn't matter but the the findings justify the decision and then the conditions are the items that are part of the decision. So, if you want to do it chronologically, for lack of a better term, you would do the findings first. All right, that's what I want to
do. All right, so I'm going to go through uh proposed findings 2.9.1 for uh everybody following along in the agenda. Special permit common driveway. Common driveway will provide safe and reasonable access for fire, police, and emergency vehicles. The
common drive uh the common driveway meets the proposed uh purpose and requirements of this section. The common driveaway will minimize the environmental impacts. The common driveway will not serve more than two single family dwellings. All applicable criteria and standards set forth in this chapter have been satisfied. Granting of
the special permit will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter. All right. So, I'm going to I'm going to also read the findings for the storm water uh management permit. The uh 2.9.2 Two, the proposed work will comply
with the Hopkin storm water regulations with exception of the waiver requested from appendix E.4.R. The granting of the requested waiver is not anticipated to adversely impact the stormwater management capacity of the site nor have an adverse impact on the abuing properties or
surrounding area. All right. Section 2.10. The proposed conditions for the special permit common driveway. The common driveway shall only serve the two lots subject to the special permit. House numbers of sufficient visibility
should be provided as follows. At Winter Street, where the common driveway forks so that the driveway to each lot is identified and on each dwelling unit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the final easement plan with mets and bounds to the planning board prior to the issuance of a building permit. The
declaration of common driveway agreement in the final easement plan shall be recorded on the registry of deeds prior to the issuance of a building permit on the lots and proof of recording shall be provided to the director of municipal inspections. The driveway shall be constructed substantially as shown on the plans attached with the exception of the
widening of the driveway pavement to accommodate the firetruck as shown on sheets seven of eight and eight of eight where the vehicle tracking is shown off the edge of the proposed pavement after it drives past the existing house driveway heading towards the proposed driveway culvert. The driveway shall be widened by four feet at the widest for a
length of approximately 30 ft so as to ensure that emergency vehicles can access the dwelling unit. This revision shall be shown on a revised plan set to be submitted to the principal planner prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new on-site dwelling
unit. All right, we're on to section 2.10.2. The uh storm water management permit conditions. Number one, the proposed development shall be constructed as depicted on and consistent with the approval approved materials unless these
materials are required to be amended or modified as part of this decision which includes plans entitled storm water management permit 109 winter street hop mass dated 41425 storm water report and drainage calculations dated
10224 operations and maintenance plan signed January 15. Number two, all erosion and sediment control should comply with the following performance criteria. Minimize total area of disturbance and protect natural features and soils. Sequence activities to
minimize simultaneous areas of disturbance. Mass clearings and grading of the entire site shall be avoided. Minimize peak rate of runoff in accordance with the Massachusetts storm water standards. Minimize soil erosion and control sedimentation direct construction provided the prevention of erosion is pref preferred over
sedimentation control. Divert uncontaminated water around disturbed areas. Maximize groundwater recharge. Letter F. Install and maintain all erosion and sediment control measures in accordance with manufacturer specifications and good engineering
practices. Prevent off-site transport of sediment. Protect and manage on and off-site material storage areas. Overburden and stockpiles of dirt. Borrow areas or other areas used solely by the permitted project are considered a part of the project. Comply with the applicable federal,
state, and local laws and regulations, including waste disposal, sanitary sewer, or septic system regulations and air quality requirements, including dust control. Prevent significant alterations of habitats mapped by the Massachusetts natural heritage and endangered species programs as endangered threatened of a
special concern, estimated habitats, habitats of rare wildlife and certified vernal pools, and priority priority habitats of rare species from the proposed activities. Letter K. Institute intram impermanent stabilization measures which shall be
instituted on disturbed area as soon as practical but no more than 14 days after construction activity has temporarily or permanently ceased on that portion of the site. Properly manage on-site construction and waste materials. Prevent off-site vehicle tracking of sediments. Dust shall be controlled at
the site. Divert off-site runoff from highly erodable soils and steep slopes to stable areas. Number three, the project shall comply with the following erosion and sediment control requirements. Prior to any land disturbance activities commencing on the site, the developer shall physically
mark limits of no land disturbance on the site with tape, signs, or arms construction fence so that workers can see the areas to be protected. The physical marker shall remain in place until a certificate of completion has been issued. Appropriate erosion and sediment control measures shall be installed prior to soil disturbance.
Measures shall be taken to control erosion within the project project area. Sediment and runoff water shall be trapped and retained within the project area. Wetland areas and surface water shall be protected from sediment. Sediment shall be removed once the volume reaches one quarter to 1/2
the height of a hay bell. Sediment shall be removed from the silt fence prior to reaching the loadbearing capacity of the silt fence which may be lower than 1/4 to 1/2 the height. Sediment from sediment traps or sedimentation pond shall be removed when design capacity has been reduced by 50%.
Soil stock piles must be stabilized or covered at the end of each workday. Stockpile side slopes shall not be greater than 2:1. All stock piles shall be surrounded by sediment controls. Disturbed areas remaining idle for more than 14 days shall be stabilized with seating, wood chips, spark molds, tarpolins, or any other
approved methods for active construction areas such as borrow or stockpile areas. Roadway improvements in areas within 50 50 feet of a building under construction are perimeter sediment control system shall be installed and maintained to contain soil. H letter H. A tracking pad
or other approved stabilization method shall be constructed at all entrance exit points of the site to reduce the amount of soil carried onto roadways and off the site. Wilson Street and Cedar Street in the vicinity of this project shall be kept as needed throughout the construction process.
Permanent seating shall be undertaken in the spring from March through May, in late summer and early fall from August to October 15th during the peak summer months and in the fall after October 15th when seating is found to be impractical. Appropriate temporary temporary stabilization shall be
applied. Permanent seating may be undertaken during the summer if plans provide for adequate mulching and watering. All slopes steeper than 3 to one, height to H to V 33.3%. As well as perimeter dikes,
sediment basins or traps and embankments must upon completion be immediately stabilized with sod, seed, and anchored straw mulch or other approved stabilization meth measures. Areas outside of the perimeter sediment control system must not be disturbed. Temporary sediment trapping devices must
not be removed until permanent stabilization is established in all contributory drainage areas. All temporary erosion and sediment control measures shall be removed after the final site stabilization. Disturbed soil areas resulting from the removal of temporary measures shall be permanently stabilized
within 30 days of removal. All right, we're on to number four. A minimum of seven days prior to the start of a construction of construction, a detailed construction sequence shall be submitted to the principal planner by the site's contractor for review and approval. The approved construction sequence shall be
followed throughout the course of the construction should be altered only with a prior review with prior review by an written approval from the principal planner. A signed copy of the storm water pollution prevention plan SWPP shall be provided to the board prior to
the building permit. Per 6.0.K.2, to the SWPP must include the signed notice of intent and approval letter. All required storm water pollution prevention storm water construction site inspection reports
shall be submitted to the principal planner within 14 days of each inspection. Uh number seven, an adequate stockpile of erosion control materials should be on site at all times for emergency or routine replacement. Shall include materials to repair or replace fences, hay, bail, stone filters, berms,
or any other devices planned for use during construction. Soil testing and excavation of the site storm basins must be observed by the board's engineer prior to laying s and se lman and seed. The the applicant developer shall notify the principal planner at least 48 hours,
weekends and holidays excluded. Prior to the soil testing and or excavation to allow for adequate time to coordinate these observations, all storm water basins must be cleaned once the site is stabilized. All storm water basins shall be cleaned prior to the service certificate of
occupancy. Number 10, the applicant shall provide the principal planner with a an asbuilt plan prior to the certificate of occupancy for the proposed dwelling unit. The asbuilt plan shall depict the shared driveway and all stormwater infrastructure associated with the approved project.
All right. So, we're going to vote on uh a special permit for a common driveway findings first. So, I'd like to entertain a motion that the board accept and approve the findings as previously read aloud for the special permit for a
common driveway application. May I ask a question? Sure. Go ahead, Parker. Oh, by Yes. So, I just want to confirm that on 3H uh you just read projects shall be swept as needed was what was what you read was right.
Uh 3 3.h the last sentence. Yeah. Wilson Street and Cedar Street in the vicinity of the project shall be swept as needed throughout the construction process. That's sorry that's a carryover. It's not Wilson Street and Cedar Street. I do this every time. For some reason I can't
get this one right. It should not be um Wilson Street and Cedar Street. It's from carryover from a different project. So that we're going to remove the Wilson Street that sentence. So, um,
should just say Winter Street. Winter Street. So, in So, instead of Wilson Street and Cedar Street on 3.8, it's going to be Winter Street uh in the vicinity of the projects we swept as needed throughout the construction process.
Thank you. I uh I knew Wilson Street and uh Cedar Street weren't next to it as I read it, but I didn't want to slow down, to be honest. Um, all right. So, with that uh alteration, I'd like uh
I I go back to I'd like to enterain a motion that the board accept and approve the findings as previously read aloud for the special permit for the common driveway application. Second, Parker and Michael. Yep. Yes. All right. Roll call vote.
Matthew Rona, yes. Michael King, yes. Parker Hap, yes. Rob, uh, actually Karen Wills, yes. Vic Vic Southprati, yes. And Rob Benson is yes. All right, we're going to go on to
the f the We're going to go on to the motion for the storm water management permit findings. I'd like to enter chain a motion that the board accept and approve the findings as previously read aloud for the storm water management permit application. The board second.
All right. Excellent. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona, yes. Michael King, yes. Parker Hap, yes. Karen Wills, yes. Vicas Pratti, yes. And Rob Benson is yes. All right, we're on to the overall
uh the special permit and the storm water management permit. So, special uh special permit first. I'd like to entertain a motion that the board approve the special permit for a common driveway with the following conditions as they were previously read allowed by the chair.
So moved. Second. Thanks, Michael. Thanks, Vic. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona, yes. Michael King, yes. Parker Hap, yes. Jane Moran, I mean, um, Karen Wills,
yes. Vicas Southrati, yes. And Rob Benson is yes. All right. Section 2.12.2.2. I'd like to entertain a motion that the board approves the storm water management permit with the following conditions as they were previously read
aloud by the chair. It's now moved. Second. Thanks, Michael. Thanks, Vic. Uh, roll call vote. Matthew Rona, yes. Michael King, yes. Parker Hap, yes. Karen Wills, yes. Vic Southprati, yes.
And Rob Benson is yes. All right, Joe, you're all set. Great. Um, thank you. You're all set for this one anyway. I don't I think you're up next as well, but uh at this time, I'd like to entertain a motion to close. Do Do we need to adjust
any dates, John? We're good on dates. I just I just need to close the hearing for the special permit and the storm water management permit. Uh yeah, I should be able to get the storm water management permit drafted in the next four days as long as you
Sorry. Is is that okay with you? Do you think that's reasonable? Yeah, I can get it drafted. Are you going to be able to stop by and get it signed? Does that mean it have to be signed on Friday? By Friday, yes. All right. We can make it next
week if the applicant is okay with that. Monday is a memor is Memorial Day though, so wouldn't make it Monday. Yeah, that that's what I'm just uh where I work. They gave us Friday off as as well. Um you want to make it the 28th.
Joe, is that re is that okay for you or does that cause problems? No, that's fine with us. So, what do I do? Do I need to make a motion here to extend the the storm water management permit decision deadline to No. Uh because the applicant said that
they agree with it. We can just do that administratively. Okay. Great. Change the date to May 28th. Okay. All right. At this at So, at this time, I'd like to entertain a motion to close the public hearing for the special permit and the
storm water management permit for 0 and 109 Winter Street. So moved. Second. All right. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona, yes. Michael King, yes. Parker Hap, yes.
Karen Wills, yes. Vic Prati, yes. And Rob Benson is a yes. All right. Uh we're moving on to item three on our agenda. So this is Catherine Drive.
Uh this is the um the short uh dead end road um near uh center school. Um, I saw a revised letter from PAR, our peerreview consultant, but I didn't see any back and forth of responses. I see
Bob Sykes from PAR. Um, John, maybe John Gellish, maybe you give me an update from your perspective where we are at this point. Yes. So, um, PAR sent a peer review on April 9th. The applicant submitted, um, revised
material uh dated May 13th and then um a revised letter dated May 13th uh and I believe our not add it to the file. Yeah, I
didn't I didn't by fraud on Friday. I didn't resp see a response to Joe's comments for the I think Joe sent an email back to the comments of the of the letter. I didn't see any final outcome, I don't think. Let me dig it out. I'm sure it's somewhere in my files. It didn't even download.
And if you're able to find it, uh, John, maybe we've put it up on the screen so we can all uh, just go through it uh, together. Yeah, I I have it available, John, if if you need. No, I got it. Thank you. Thank you. No problem. Yeah. I mean, if it's easier, if you want to go through it, but I can put on the
screen. Yeah, it's it's up to you. However, yeah, I can share my screen. That makes it easier. But hey, good evening everybody. I'm Bob Sykes with PAR. Bob, thanks for being with us tonight.
Of course. Bobby, I'll I'll just let you share. Whatever is easiest. Can you see my screen? Yes. Okay. Uh yeah. So we we received the uh the response to comments and uh we had
sent something uh I think later Friday. So, apologies if that wasn't uh if that didn't get distributed or had an opportunity to review that. But, um we had gone through most of the response to comments. Almost everything was addressed. I think we have about five comments that we think warrant some additional action. Uh we could go
through, you know, all of our comments in the responses or uh whatever the board would would like or we can go through, you know, the the comments that we feel still warrant some additional action. I think uh the board can tell me differently, but I think we'd like to
know where maybe the differences are so we can focus on those. Sure, that's agreeable to Yeah, if anybody on the board thinks differently, uh let me know. But yeah, let's just let's go with the these differences and start here.
Sure. So, we we had about 27 comments in our original letter. And I I think there's only about five that warrant some discussion and some maybe with some action. Um this one was mostly so there the grading materials plan identified that there was a wall in excess of about 8 ft uh retaining wall. Uh this would
typically be taken care of during the the building permit phase, but we just thought it was something that we should highlight to the board. Uh significant wall like that likely warrant some type of um railing along the top and then also would need to be engineered as well. So, just something we wanted to highlight to to you folks. Um, but
doesn't necessarily warrant any action as part of this process right now, but Okay. So, is it does it like I I guess I don't know. Is there um so as part of the building permit process is like he's
going to have to they're they're going to have to take care of this. Is that am I correct? Yes, I believe so. Maybe the applicant could speak to that to that process. Uh but yeah, it would need to be designed and there need to be a railing anything with a I think international building code requires a railing on any drop over 30 in. So uh it
need to be detailed further as part of a construction set. Yeah. Through the chair. This won't impact the decision the plan was to make on the subdivision approval though. Correct. Okay. Through the chair. Yep. It was the intent to um lay out a a block uh retaining wall. It
was an oversight on my part. Um it never made it into that plan. and revision. So, it's the intent of the applicant to provide that info. Okay. I don't I think for us tonight, I don't think there's anything for us to do here, though. It is what it seems like. I would agree. Oh, in this
comment. Yes. Okay. But just it wasn't addressed as part of our original submission. All right. Doesn't necessarily warrant action, but just wanted to note it to the board. Um so in the storm water report uh the
hydraologic uh calculations uh we had requested that u the area of the basin be confirmed and it looks like it it was revised in one of the plan sheets and we're just requesting that it be revised throughout the plan set u to reflected through all the plan sheets in the plan
set. All right. All right. So, this looks like an administrative like it looks like it just didn't the numbers didn't get copied on every every page of the the plans, right? Yeah. The grading revision. Yeah. It just needs to ripple through the remainder of the sheets.
Okay. Yeah. Administrative mostly. Um, we had a question about the contributing areas in the wershed plans when the storm water report. Uh, it did appear that uh about half of the culde-sac didn't contribute to the infiltration system. um and that the either the
grading or the calculations be revised. Um so that would warrant some sort of revision either within the plans or the storm water report. Yeah, we will be adding uh spot elevations around that culdeac to demonstrate that the water will make it to the basin. So we'll update the plans
accordingly. Okay, that should be acceptable. Uh I this is a minor revision as well. Hey, we had a the plans were missing uh a 18-in pipe and uh it appears that the plans are still missing an 18-inch pipe according to the calculations. So, just
that two 18-inch pipes are added to the plants um to reflect what's shown in the calculations. Again, poor drafting on my part, we'll add that info. Thank you. Uh and then specific to the maintenance agreement, um there's some language that
needs to get incorporated into the maintenance agreement as part of the uh the stormwater report. I believe you had uh referenced that it was uh included in the treatment train sketch. Uh but it needs to be incorporated into a maintenance agreement.
Yeah, the applicant is working on that right now. Okay. Have that shortly. Okay. I believe those are all the comments that warrant warranted any additional action. I believe everything else we we felt was uh was addressed to to our satisfaction.
John, we we didn't uh we we didn't see these um this this this letter until now here in real time. Do you have conditions uh to address these written out or how do you how do you see his next steps? Yeah,
so we have a condition uh it's kind of a standard condition that says the applicant number 12 the applicant shall submit a revised full plan set which incorporates all the modifications made during the public hearing process and any required in this decision prior to the commencement of any site work. We can put a a statement in there that says
um during the public hearing process as identified in the PAR letter dated May 16th. May 16th if you want to get more specific. And then the storm water we might want to just add a condition that
says they need to provide a revised storm water report. Okay. I think um I think with that being said, does anyone on the board have any questions for uh Bob uh our peerreview consultant or Joe or
John? Matthew, go ahead. Sorry. Yeah, I haven't read the most recent one. U but I had notes from one of the earlier ones where it looked like there was a disconnect between 35 I think it was 35 ft radius versus diameter. I was just trying to confirm some of the the differences. Um is there's discussion
about something that be 70 uh am I off by a unit of feet or inches? Um something required to be 80 units in diameter and it was 70 and then but the other document mentioned 30 uh a 35 unit I think I think they're talking
about the uh basically the fundamentally the culdeac. That sounds right. Sorry I just closed everything I had open. Th this sounds like it's one of the waivers that's
requested. Joe, could you just uh elaborate a little bit on the waiver that's being requested on this particular one? 70 foot outside diameter. That's what it was. Sorry. On the dead ends. Yeah. Yeah. The dead end road. Um in an effort
to reduce imperous area at the site, we um shrunk the pavement radius below what's required in the bylaw. still works for emergency vehicles, but allowed us to to introduce a little less pavement
on the site than uh the standard. So, we included the the waiver request to reduce it down to a a 35 foot uh radius, 70 foot diameter. Okay, thank you. Yeah, I think you said 35 foot diameter in one of the letters, which I was just trying to find. That's
why I was confused. Yep. Yeah, 35 foot radius. Yep, that was the main thing. All right. Does anyone else have any um any questions through the chair? Not a question, but um I have another condition that incorporates that revised
storm water. report. Okay. Excellent. I think I think at this point we probably want to just go we probably want to go through the wa requested waivers, right? I would say
um Rob, one more thing if I may. Go ahead, Matthew. Um I I think I saw the the feedback somewhere that the 2:1 grading was based on the existing um basin. Is that right? I was just curious about the difference in in grading whether there was any concern about
stability or whatnot um from power. That's what we didn't see in the new uh new letter. No, 2:1 can be acceptable within a basin. 3:1's preferred. Um but yeah, no, we we see 2:1 as a acceptable
slope. All right. Thank you. All right. Before we get into um any of the conditions or any of the findings or conditions, I think it makes sense to go through the waiverss. We haven't uh from my memory, we haven't gone through the waivers. Um we've had
the sitewalk. We've t been introduced to the project. Uh so section 3.8 Eight. Um, everyone on the board, if they're if you have the uh agenda,
um, I can go through these one at a time. I can stop sharing, too. All right. Uh, that that'd be great, Bob. John, if it's easy, could you just could you put the request of waiverss up on the screen? So, just to give a a perspective, this
this dead end street, so there's an exist from my perspective, there's an existing house that has like a garage behind it that's going to be uh so that existing house is you uh is there and then they have
I I don't know if it's technically ally a a road or a driveway to a house like behind it. And so this is to extend it into a subdivision to make the a third house lot kind of behind that. Um and so that's that's the environment
of this. And it's a it's only a few houses down Ash Street uh like from the from facing from center school. So it's it's in near downtown proximity. Uh so that's where it is. And let's go through these. Does anyone have any
questions? Like I I can read them out loud if that's helpful, but I'd rather people just read them. And uh if there's questions about specific ones, we can go through them. But um I've reviewed them. I think in general they make sense for this project
to to for us to like I think they're reasonable and I just want uh the board to review them and and get in um be able to chime in if there's any questions.
I think it's reasonable. All right. Thanks, Parker. If anyone doesn't, let's uh let's let's discuss them now. So, we give the applicant a chance to to explain. Um otherwise I'm going to I'm going to jump to 3.9 the findings and then get into the conditions and
um all right hearing none. Uh uh anyone uh if you have any questions or want to stop at any point just jump in. I think Bob just raised his hand. Yeah. Sorry I can't find the button. Uh I I think the um the diameter and radius I think in the fifth cog the fifth condition or
fifth waiver 35 ft pavement I think that should be you think that should be the radius 50 35 ft pavement radius proposed I believe and maybe the applicant can correct me but yes that's correct that's an
oversight on my part 8.2.5b 2.5B. Yep. All right. So, I think when it's gets time to uh list the waiverss, I'll just uh try to be um good about inserting radius as
opposed to and if I don't people jump in and and help correct me. All right, let's go to section 3.9 of our agenda. The proposed findings. The proposed definitive subdivision plan conforms to the subdivision regulations with the exception of the waiverss
requested. The waiverss requested and subsequently granted by the board are not anticipated to adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. So in section 3.10 is where uh going to read all of the conditions and we're going to read the waiverss or I'm going to read the
waivers. All right. After finding that it was in the public interest and not inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the subdivision control law, the planning board waved strict compliance with the following provisions of the rules and regulations relating to the subdivision of of land. The subdivision regulations. The waiverss of the
provisions allow the construction of the subdivision as shown on the approved subdivision plan. All right. So, I'm going to list I'm going to read all the waivers. Section 5.4.1.n cross-sections of each street at 50oot intervals. None provided.
Uh section 8.2.2.a granite curb required along pavement edges with radi less than 100 ft. No curbing proposed. Section 8.2.2. C modified Cape Cod Burm at all edge of pavement. No curbing proposed.
Section 8.2.3.C minimum traveled way of 20 ft 12 foot width proposed. Section 8.2.5.B. Outside pavement diameter of 80 foot minimum 35 feet pavement radius
proposed. Section 8.3 sidewalks shall be on sidewalks should be on one side of the street. Sidewalks should be 5 ft minimum. No sidewalks proposed. Section 8.4.10. Storm water basins the outermost edge of storm water basin shall be located at a minimum of 25 ft from
property line. 0 feet proposed. Section 8.4.10. Stormwater basin. Stormwater basin shall be screened from adjacent lots and streets. No screening proposed. Section 8.4.10. Stormwater basins embankments will be have a 3:1
for for flatter slope. Applicants show a 2:1 slope proposed. Section 8.4.10. Stormwater basins. Fencing or other effective measures should be provided to exclude people or vehicles from potentially hazardous materials. No fencing proposed.
Section 9.12.1. Street trees tree shall be planted on each side of each street in a subdivision at 40 foot intervals. No street trees proposed. All right. Number two of our proposed conditions. The proposed development shall be constructed as
depicted on and consistent with the approved materials unless these materials are required to be amended or modified as part of this decision which includes plans entitled definitive residential subdivision Catherine Drive dated uh December 5th, 2024 last
revised. Do we have that date? Joe, correct me if I'm wrong. I got it as May 6th. That's what's on the plan. The revised plan. Yes. Yes, sir. Last revised date of May 6th,
2025. Storm water and storm water report and drainage calculations dated 1024. All right, on to number three. Maintenance of any and all storm water management facilities outside the road rights of way shown on the subdivision plan shall be the responsibility of a
homeowners association and not the town of Hopkin. The maintenance agreement shall include a provision which allows the town of Hopton perform emergency work and or and for reimbursement. Therefore, homeowners association documents shall be submitted to the principal plan of review and approval prior to the commencement of
construction. Prior to the plans planning board's endorsement of the subdivision plan, the applicant shall exc ex execute an agreement with the planning board that no lot depending on the new roadway for their legal frontage shall be sold or buildings or structures erected or placed on or building permits
issued with respect to any such lot until letter A. the work of the ground necessary to adequately serve such lot has been completed in accordance with the contents of the subdivision plan and profile and the subdivision rules and regulations and that all other requirements of the sub subdivision rules and regulations have been fully
complied with or the applicant has executed a contract with the planning board accompanied by appropriate security to secure performance consistent with section 7.6 of the subdivision regulations to complete construction of the roadway in accordance with the subdivision rules and regulations on or before date
specified in the construct. And letter C, the applicant has recorded in the register of deeds or land court, a certificate K, a certificate form K executed by the planning board that the above conditions with respect to any such lot have been completed or have been amended, modified, revoked,
waiverss or released by the planning board. A town clerk certified version of the decision shall be recorded at the Massachusetts County Suffach Registry of Deeds prior to 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. This includes the driveway, roadway, and infrastructure construction shown on the plan. If the director of municipal inspections determines any time before, during construction that a registered professional engineer or other such outside professionals required to assist with the inspections of the storm water
management system and or any other component of the approval of the applicant shall be responsible for the cost of these inspections. Number seven, 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 erosion, siltation, and dust control. The applicant shall maintain all portions of any public way use 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. During construction, streets shall be swept and catch basins. Sumps shall be cleaned regularly at least twice a year or otherwise directed in
ordinant of conditions issuance by issued by the conservation commission. The applicant shall regularly remove construction trash and debris from the site in accordance with good construction practice in the construction management plan. No tree stumps, demolition material, trash or debris should be burned or buried on the
site. A final revised signed construction management plan should shall be submitted to the principal planner prior to the commencement of any site work. The applicant shall submit a revised full plan set which incorporates all the modifications made during the public hearing process and any required in this decision prior to the commencement of any site work. A final
revised signed long-term operations and maintenance plan shall be submitted to the principal planner prior to the commencement of construction. This can be combined with a construction management plan preferred by the applicant. A long-term pollution prevention plan shall be construct included as part of the long-term operation and maintenance
plan. Number 14. If applicable, the completed and signed stormwater pollution prevention plan SWPP and a copy of the notice of intent and construction general permit shall be provided to the planning board prior to the commencement of construction. A copy of the mass DP approval of the SWPP
shall be also be provided to commencement of site work. A final signed elicit discharge statement shall be provided to the planning board prior to the commencement of site work. No earth products shall be delivered to the site which are not for use on the property. No Earth shall be stripped or excavated and removed from
areas of the site unless for road infrastructure home or lawful accessory use construction. No earth processing or operation shall occur on the site unless earth products are to be combined and are mixed for use on the on the property. All piles of stockpile earth
shall be stabilized with adequate dust and erosion controls. All piles of earth shall be removed from the subdivision upon completion of construction of the road and infrastructure. Any piles remaining after that time shall be solely in conjunction with an active permit for construction or sewage disposal system, building or lawful
accessory use. Any violation of this provision may result in a stop work order or plan recision. Number 17. Erosion control measures to prevent saltation onto wetlands, neighboring properties and roads during the construction be implemented. Erosion and sediment sedimentation controls measures shall be
implemented during the construction period in accordance with approved plan and the construction management plan. If they are found to be inadequate, the applicant shall immediately correct any deficiencies in the event that the erosion and sedimentation problems arise during construction. The planning board may require that all works cease until
measures necessary to ensure prevention are implemented. The principal planner shall receive a sign off confirming that the site contractor and any major subcontractes have received the construction management plan prior to the commencement of any site work. Construction may occur only between the
hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and Saturdays between 8 am and 4 p.m. pursuant to chapter 141 of article one of the town of Hering general advis laws. Uh number 20, no building permits shall be issued or any construction in the subdivision allowed until approved.
Approval of such work has been obtained from the conference commission for areas affected by the wetlands protection act and the hopin wetlands protection bylaw chapter 206 of the bylaws of the town of Hopkin if applicable. Each lot shall be assigned a street number by the director of municipal
inspections and such number shall be noted on the final plan prior to endorsement. 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
occupy is issued or construction is otherwise considered complete. There should be a maximum of two building lots in the subdivision. The condition shall be written on the subdivision plan prior to endorsement. No further subdivision of the lot shall be permitted without the submission and approval of a new definitive subdivision
application. The applicant shall provide the principal planner with an asbill plan for Katherine Drive prior to the issuance of of the certificate of occupancy for the new dwelling unit proposed as part of this subdivision. And John, could you read one more condition?
You said you had d I hope you had drafted the the last. Yes, I did. I could just couldn't find it. Turn pages. Uh, the applicant shall submit a revised storm water report incorporating changes as described in the PAR letter dated 51625. Excellent. Matthew, you have a question.
Yeah, too. Just confirming on number five, it's Middle Sex County South Registry. Um, and there's a parenthetical EPA on 14. I'm not sure if that was important to capture that. I think he's elided. Yeah, the EPA is the one who issues that
construction general permit. So, I think you can get a construction general permit from a different source as well as just specifying it's the EPA construction general permit. And then uh your other question was I I think I think was mistakenly read as
Massachusetts County South Registry of Deeds. Oh, okay. Okay. I uh apologize. Uh at the Middle Sex County South Registry of Deeds. So, number five. Um I I guess I misspoke. Uh at the m Middle Sex County, that's a very long
list of things, Rob. Uh thank you. All right. At this time, I'd like to entertain a motion that the board accept and approve the findings as previously read aloud by
the chair and our principal planner. So moved. Thanks, Matthew. Do we have a second? Second. All right. Excellent. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona, yes. Michael King, yes.
Parker Hap, yes. Karen Wills, yes. Vicas Southrati, yes. And Rob Benson is yes. All right. Uh 3.12.2. I'd like to entertain a motion that the board approve the definitive
subdivision plan with the following conditions as were previously read aloud by the chair and our principal planner. So moved. Second. Thanks, Michael. Thanks, Michael. Thanks, Matthew. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona, yes. Michael
King, yes. Parker Hap, yes. Karen Wills, yes. Vicas South, yes. And Rob Benson is a yes. All right. Um, John, do you get enough time from uh any decision deadline to get this uh
done or do we need to try to adjust any dates if we have to? No, the decision deadline is June 6th, so we should be good. All right. At this time, I'd like to entertain a motion to close the public hearing for Katherine Drive. So moved. Second. Thanks, Matthew.
Thanks, Michael. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona. Yes. Michael King. Yes. Parker Hap. Yes. Karen Wills. Yes. Vicati. Yes. And Rob Benson is yes. All right.
Excellent. So, uh item four on our agenda has um the applicant has asked for a continuation. That's uh there's no news new news there, right? They're still looking for continuation. Correct. Correct. And they are also they gave
permission to extend the decision for the stormwater management permit to June 9th, 2025. So that's all we need to do is we need uh we need to extend the decision deadline for the storm water management permit to June 9th and continue the
hearing and continue the hearing to June 2nd. All right. So, I'd like to entertain a motion to continue the public hearing for the Bay Path Animal Shelter uh major project site plan and storm water management permit to June 2nd and extend
the decision deadline for the storm water management permit to June 9th. So, moved. Second. All right. Thanks, Michael Matthew. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona, yes. Michael King, yes. Parker Hap,
yes. Karen Wills yes. Vic Vic Pratti yes and Robinson is a yes. All right. On to agenda item five. This is putting uh a couple uh I'd
say rustic parking spots at the a trail head uh near 101 Ash Street. Um Matthew, go ahead. Uh just point of order before we get moving on to it. This is new public hearing. Oh yeah, I got open it. Uh, I'd like to entertain a
motion to open the public hearing for 101 Ash Street Scenic Road permit. So moved. Thanks, Matthew. Second. Thanks, Michael. A roll call vote. Matthew Rona, yes. Michael King, yes. Parker Hap, yes.
Karen Wills, yes. Vic South, yes. And Rob Benson is a yes. All right. As I was saying, this looks to put what I would say is a couple I don't know, park faces at the edge of a trail
head uh near 101 ash. Uh Peter, would you like to introduce what uh this is and what you're what's looking to hap happen here? Sure. And that um this picture is
probably a good way to look at it. What we're looking at doing um is improving what's already existing parking there. Um the tree, the largest tree you see there's a malberry. Um beyond that
there's a sort of half dead, halflive choke cherry. And then the that tree right there by your pointer is a is actually a sassifrass. I listed that as an unknown. No, no, not that one. The one um that one right
there is a sassifrass. And then the one in the foreground here is the malberry. And then right behind that there's a choke cherry. That one right there. Correct. Um, so what we'd like to what we're looking to do is simply add uh roadbased
material and stone dust so that when you get closer to that stone wall um it would probably be 8 in thick so that somebody pulling off doesn't worry about sinking into the leaves and what's
underneath the leaves. Um the other thing that would happen is right behind that sassifras there's a large rock that you can see large boulder um and that would be turned so that it's it's basically a two foot by 4 foot long rock and it would be turned so that the 4
foot length is parallel to the road. Um right now it kind of juts into the parking space. So it just what we're doing I think a rustic parking area is a good characterization of what we're planning to do is just make this a
little more obvious as a place where people can pull off easily. We met out there. Uh Sean Kimble, also the trails committee and I met out there with um the neighbors um to the south who were concerned about what was going on
there. And we've decided to shift things a little bit further to the north um which should work out well for everybody. We may also put some a planting or tree of some sort, you know, carefully so it doesn't block
their their visibility, but at the same time um indicates to people getting out of their cars that that walking down their driveway is not the way to go. There is a trail sign there and we'd look at um
moving that perhaps out closer to the road to make it more obvious that that's that where people need to go is um at the upper end of that uh red mark there. Okay. And the the land uh is is owned by
the town of Hopkin. Correct. Correct. This is in the right of way. Okay. And then but beyond the right of way is is that is it going to be somebody's is it town of Hopkin land or is it um town of Hopkins and land is that sort of odd
thin piece there? Um yeah that's that's our land connects to uh Cranberry Bog Trail which then ultimately connects over to behind center school.
So, it's it's one end of a, you know, fairly long, you know, couple mile trail in the woods behind Hearthstone, behind Stone Crossing. For access to most of the trail system, people typically would park behind Center School. That's what
commonly happens, but it'd be good to have a couple of spots. Better to find spots here. And as I say, people already can pull off and park here fine, but they, you know, because of concerns about getting over close to the stone wall, their cars might be kind of
hanging out towards the road, which would is not ideal. This would improve that. All right. Does uh maybe we go to staff report from John next.
So this parking uh is proposed for in the right of way but is on town land. So it would be subject to the scenic road permit because Ash is a scenic road. Um and those trees are within the right of way. Um I see no issue with taking the
trees down or moving the stone walls. Doesn't seem like it's going to significantly impact the scenic value of Ash Street. Um, so it's the extent of mine. Okay. Uh, looks like we have a comment
from the public. Uh, Vic, Victoria, could you just unmute and state your name and address and then, uh, let us know what you think. Hi, my name is Victoria and I live at 101 Ash Street with my husband and our two small children. Uh, we received notice about this last Monday and like Peter
mentioned, he came out here yesterday to talk to us, which we really appreciate. Um so we haven't had too much time to consider but we understand that this might be our only opportunity to speak. So we um appreciate it our chance to share initial concerns with the human
being. Um our primary concern is safety. So we appreciate that Peter is taking that into consideration in terms of maybe moving some of the location of the parking. Um, mainly we wanted to offer that Ash Street is a narrow winding
hightraic road and we think that parking cars along it might create dangerous blind spots both for drivers and people getting in and out of their car. Also, as pedestrians that use this road, we'd have to be forced to walk around cars to get to the street. Um, this is a
particular safety concern for us because of our small children who might not be visible to drivers and we would like to advocate for reasonable alternatives like putting in, you know, the sidewalk that continues maybe the existing
sidewalk that ends at Blueberry Street so that hikers could access the trails and pedestrians could also get by safely. Um, so thanks for your time and consideration of our concerns. So, uh, Victoria, can I ask you a question? What is your if you were to if
you were to say like if if the decision was up to you and considering it's like right in basically it is is in the proposed parking is is in the right away but it's right your land your home is right on the other side of it. What would you what would you say? Would you
say no this we shouldn't do this or yes that's it's okay? I I would really prefer that it was located here, but I understand that I'm not the only one in the community. So, through the chair, go ahead, Karen. Um,
yeah. So, I I do have an opinion on this. I live on Blueberry Lane. Um, and I've actually accessed this trail a number of times. Um, I take my dog walking down there. I It is a It is a beautiful trail down there.
Um I it's to Victoria's point. Um Ash Street particularly on that area is um it's windy. It's narrow. I think it's dangerous to put parking there. I'm I'm hardressed even having done that walk
many times. I'm kind of still a little hardressed to see where the parking would be and you know to allow what two cars to park and you know I think I think it's a dangerous situation. I
would you know at minimum we we need a sitewalk or I know this is my last meeting but I'm just telling you I would I would I would definitely side with Victoria on this. It's a it's a dangerous area. Um, Victoria, I will apologize to you because I I will walk
my dog on your on your property to stay off of Asht Street as I head back down to Blueberry. Um, so it's just it's just not a it's not a safe area to pull off cars. Um, it's just that's my my perspective.
Okay, maybe that maybe that is our next step here is we um we schedule a sitewalk to actually see what it looks like uh on uh on the ground. Um uh I'm able to like
maybe get some uh on the internet now I can I can kind of uh see the down the street um with maybe more imagery. So, I'm seeing the parking and the trail and um but I think it'd be good for the
board to be able to see this in person. Um through the chair, I just go ahead, John. I want to be uh true to what the bylaw is and I don't want to be a stickler on that but um the project and I explained this to Miss
Julian and as well the what project is being done after the trees are taken down is kind of non-consequential to the planning board decision because the planning board decision is based on the aesthetic value that the trees and stonewall add to the scenic road. So,
the board can make the decision however they want, but I just want to turn you back to what the decision criteria actually is. And it's really the the proposed action is taking the trees down and moving the stone. They could put in a driveway 5 days from now if if the
plan is approved. It doesn't matter what they put in after. It's just what the proposed action is. So, again, board can make the decision how they want to, but I just want you to look at what the decision criteria for scenic roads are. The chair, go ahead. Thank Thank you,
John. I appreciate that. Um, and I would again still I I would oppose taking those trees down. I mean, I've I've seen what they've done prior to well, when they did the development off of Blueberry, they just raised it to the
ground. And I um, you know, take is it going to affect the scenic route? No. But let's take a few more trees down a few feet further down ash street and then a few more up the other street. this just, you know, leave leave the landscape the way it is. I think it's I think it's beautiful. I think it's, you
know, they may not they may be scrub trees or whatever, but again, um, yes, they can put in whatever driveway or whatever they want. I would think that the town of Hopkin would listen to its constituents, though, and I think this is, you know, definitely not something
they should do. Sorry, Peter. Go ahead. Um just one final point which is that um there will be another meeting out there. One of the trails committee's charges is to make sure that residents that are heard. So the plan would be to meet out
there again with the the folks including Victoria who were previously um who previously received this notice. So, a Butters, one of our jobs is basically to reach out to a Butters and speak with them.
I I think that's I think that's great. I really I really appreciate that. So, um you know, Victoria, this is actually my last my last planning board meeting. Um but I know I believe I've actually met you and your husband. I have the very large dog that I've walked past
your property before. So, um certainly look me up and I'll uh I'd be happy to support you on this. I don't I don't I have never of all the times I've walked on that trail, I've never seen a car parked on the side of the road. So, I'm not sure who we're appealing to, but but
thank you, Peter. That was that's I'm glad that you guys are listening to the residents. All right. Sorry, one more thing through the chair. This is a joint hearing with the um tree warden as well. So, Carrie director's on there. So, I didn't know if you wanted to touch base. I do. I I would love to hear Carrie your
perspective. You're muted. There you go. Couple of different screens open. Um I'm of the the same kind of perspective as the tree warden. I'm only here to comment on whether or not I have
any objections to those trees being removed. And um at this point I do not. So if it is the will of the town and this is the project they want to move forward with, I have no objection to the trees being removed. Maybe maybe I can jump in quickly if
that's okay. Matthew. Yeah, go ahead, Matthew, if you'd like to introduce yourself. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, so I'm I'm Victoria's husband. Um, so I'm also a resident at 101 Ash. Um, and yeah, I totally agree with everything she's saying. I appreciate the conversation. Um it's
helpful to be here and kind of get a sense of kind of the transparency involved in the whole process. But um yeah, I guess I just had a question like how is the how is it evaluated whether those trees can be is it um the aesthetic value that's taken into the
consideration? Um is it uh you know the the fact that it's uh part of this trail proposal that is being considered just just so I understand more about it sounds like it doesn't seem to be an issue with these trees but just so I understand more what the criteria is used to judge that whether they're okay
to be removed or not would be helpful from my perspective. Do we um is there strict criteria, John? I uh here we go. So this is the this is the decision
criteria of like how the decision works. So section 5.7 here you could uh the degree of which the proposed work would adversely affect the scenic and aesthetic values upon which the scenic road designation was diversity based the necessity for the proposed work in terms
of public safety welfare convenience compens compensatory action proposed such as replacement free walls availability of reasonable alternatives to proposed work which could reduce or eliminate anticipated anticipated damage to trees or stone walls whether the proposed work would
compromise or harm other environmental historical values. Consistency of the proposed work with previously adopted town plans and policies. So I think the the first bullet and the last bullet is probably the most relevant. um like
uh I think it's perception of uh from the tree warden that these street trees are not aesthetically important for a scenic road designation. Um so it's that's perception and it's kind it's basically the last bullet it's it's fairly
consistent with proposed uh approvals that have been given in the past. Um, I do think it's worth us as a board to go actually see uh the trees and the stone
and the stone wall that is it's it's either part of or not part of and see what it actually looks like in person and so we can get an assessment. That's that's um what I would like like uh to do. I think it's hard for us because we don't
really get to judge this based on the reasonleness of a twocar parking area there. We get to judge it on are those trees and is that stone uh important for a scenic road designation? That's what we're getting asked to evaluate it on. But um anyone
on the board have think differently? You're the chair. Go ahead. Um, I think the you said the first and the last one, but I think the second one is actually also important um because in terms of public safety, welfare or convenience. Sure, it would be convenient for cars to park there, but I think again um I drive
Ash Street all the time. It's narrow. It's windy. People drive on it way too fast despite the 25 mph. I mean, God bless those police. They've been sitting on there and trying to slow that down. But people drive that road way too fast. And I think it's a danger for whatever
cars are parking there for people getting in and out of the cars. And I think it's definitely a public safety issue that should be of concern. So maybe the first, second, and last one should be a concerned through the chair. Go ahead, John. Yeah. So, uh, Victoria
is probably rolling her eyes because I talked to her about this too. Um, the way that that one is usually interpreted is in the positive, right? So, it's taking the trees down to help with safety, not not removing the trees so that the safety is preserved. If there's
a hazardous tree or a tree that's not quite hazardous that the tree warden can't um give their permission to remove without the scenic road permit, but somebody still wants to remove the tree because they're worried about it falling across their driveway or falling across the road. That is what that bullet is
usually intended to uh cover. not necessarily the project that's going to result from the removal of this tree is going to be dangerous. Therefore, don't remove the trees because the safety will be preserved kind of a thing. Thank you, John. Um, yeah, I mean, I just would
agree with Rod that a site visit would probably be best for the board. Um, even though I'm not going to be there any well, I'll be there anyway, but uh but the question I would have is, you know, how much work has been done relative to are those the only trees that will be
taken down? Is that the only rock or is it going to they're going to start on the project and then they're going to say, "Oh, you know what? This isn't far enough in and we have to take out more." So, that that would be another concern, which might want to be taken into consideration. But where
um just for my uh education here on on this call, the sidewalk coming down from the uh down Ash Street um ends at Blueberry at the first Blueberry entrance. Yes. Okay. And so this house
is obviously uh beyond that down Ash Street in the trail. All right. Um what is what are people's opinion on the board? Are they uh okay with the planning a sidewalk so we can actually see what this looks like on the ground?
I'd like to see it, Rob. I mean, I know Ashtra obviously, but I don't know specifically where this is, so I'd like to see it. Okay. I I tend to agree. Um, this is where it gets a little challenging, John. We're going to have uh we obviously had our town election
tonight and we're going to have uh two new members of our planning board joining and so in terms of scheduling the sidewalks, do we just schedule it assuming they'll be able to make it or what what's your opinion? So, since this public hearing was open before they were seated on the board,
they're not eligible to participate in the hearing. So, it doesn't matter. Yeah. All right. Um, how far like I'm wondering if we how far down it is. Is there anywhere really anywhere to park? I park on Blueberry Lane. Yeah.
And walk up and you'll see where the where I mean we agree that a sidewalk would be nice going to this trail head. It it would be a piece of connectivity that the trails committee would be in support of. Um, you know what we're looking to do with these
two spots is just the people already park there. I certainly park there and others have. [Music] Um, this would allow cars to be a little further off the road, but happy to have a sidewalk. Um, and as I said, we're planning on having another meeting with
a Butters in any case. All right. So, we've got uh Memorial Day weekend coming up here. Um, what does anyone think about like a Tuesday or Thursday at say five o'clock next week? I would prefer that.
Yeah. Does it matter which day, Tuesday or Thursday? I like Tuesday better personally, but it probably make Thursday work. All right, let's let's plan on Tuesday. I'm looking on the date.
Tuesday, uh, May 27th, 5:00, we'll park at Blueberry and we'll walk down and just try to get a lay of the land and what we're what we're talking about here as we uh so we can we can move this to the
next step, whatever that may be. Just wanted to mention if you guys want to park on our property for that, that would be perfectly fine on 101 Ash Street. Um, I also also just, yeah, I just want to mention we'd be very positive towards supporting the the extension of the sidewalk. I think local
and we've spoken to a couple other local residents in the area that um to us that's a very reasonable alternative and that would that would be great for local residents, that'd be great for trail access, etc. So, just to uh just reconfirm that. Yeah. Okay.
All right. Uh, so at this time I'd like to Do we have a decision deadline on this, John? I'm I'm going to look to continue this hearing to our next meeting. Decision deadline is 21 days uh after the close
of the hearing. So, all right. So, when when is our next meeting? June 2nd. All right. So, I'd like to continue the public hearing for um the Scenic Road alterations at 101
Ash Street. I'd like to enter in a motion for that. Moved. Oh, Matthew. Uh before Hold on, Matthew. Go ahead. We can do it next time. Okay. If if you're sure. All right. Ma uh Matthew with
Michael with the motion. Second. Thanks, Matthew. Uh roll call vote. Matthew Rona, yes. Michael King, yes. Parker Hap, yes. Karen Wills, yes. Vicer South, yes. And Rob Benson is a
yes. All right. So, um I don't know, Matthew or Victoria, if you can if you uh are available, you you're more than welcome to join us in our sidewalk. It's not a only uh a planning board thing. Anyone can join if they want to. Yeah, that would be great.
All right, so this was our last uh item on our agenda for this evening. So, um our next meeting, June 2nd, we should have two new planning board members sworn in from the election tonight today. So, uh, hopefully that's
the case, uh, that they get to town hall and get sworn in for our next meeting. Um, but at this time, I'd like to entertain a motion to adjourn for this evening. So moved. Thanks, Karen. My last meeting. I'll move to adjourn it. Excellent. Second. Thanks, Michael. Roll
call vote. Matthew Rona, yes. Michael King, yes. Parker H, yes. Karen Wills, yes. Picas Pratti, yes. And Rob Benson is yes. All right, thanks everybody. Uh, until
next time. Take care. Bye.