[Music] through the chair you're live on hcam TV thanks Bob um let's see one two three four of us we'll give it just another minute here all right there's number five um so we'll go ahead and get started good evening everyone this is Gary trenle chair of the hopkington planning board uh and I hereby call our May 13 2024 meeting to order first chapter 2 of the acts of 2023 this meeting will be conducted via remote means in accordance to applicable law this means that members of the public body as well as members of the public May access this med 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 comments 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've been recognized by the chair we will now confirm attendance of members please respond with present if you are on the call Rob Benson Rob is not here uh Jane Moran I don't see Jane either Elise present uh Matthew present uh Michael is Michael here don't see Michael Vic present hi Vic welcome back uh Parker president hey Parker um all right well we have enough to get going so um let's get started from an agenda perspective perspective um we will as we customarily do we'll save uh the minutes um for the end um we do have one administrative item uh with regards to some uh uh potential of damage on North Wilson Street um from a current developer so we'll talk a little bit more about that um we have um two hearings that we that were continued uh Elwood Farms over off BL Lane um and then we will continue the public hearing uh for major project site plan uh for Hopkins uh lower Middle School um so we'll go ahead and continue that one um so um just to get started um that first administrative item um John do you want to give us uh the background um on uh the DPW request and just I I I think um I know the requests are pretty clear but what I'm less clear about is of from a process perspective as to to how to best um move this forward through the planning board sure I'm just trying to pull up the letter so we can have it on the screen I had it up a minute ago um oh there we go all right so um this is specifically talking about the area at the intersection of Wilson and Legacy Farms Road North there is a corner of land owned by Roy McDow that has a detention Basin on there and I think the board may remember talking about this with beta um a year or two ago beta went out there and looked at it uh saw this it was constructed to the plan but was having some issues with the drainage so they were supposed to have dug that out uh but apparently it's still draining onto the street so it's causing issues but that's not the only source there's also runoff coming from the trails which has been a um long-term issue uh with runoff from the trails and it is now thought to be causing damage on Wilson Street so DPW uh since this is a public Road DPW is looking for um planning board to try and get the developers both of them to come to a solution uh to fix the road so um Next Step may just be reaching out to the developers and having them come before planning board meeting in the future whether that's the June 3D meeting or another meeting that's up to the board to decide um but have them appear before the board uh discuss the issues identified in the DPW letter and then discuss res resolution on how to go about fixing that so for um the trails we do have $75,000 in a bond um if planning board determines that to be insufficient for the work being done because that was the bond on the original approval um they have come back for I want to say two maybe three amendments in that time uh changing the work not necessarily adding units or um infr structure but changing the property design um in order to accommodate what they're looking to do so there is the opportunity for the planning board to say hey if you're not going to fix the work we're going to up the bond to $300,000 which is what the DPW requires for this type of work um and then move forward that way so it's it's up for the board to discuss what the next step is but I think it's reasonable to say have the developers come in present their options for fixing it um and discuss with the board all right thanks John um and I just for a little bit more context I did um cruise by there um over the weekend and you know the the the rut and the erosion from the pavement on the side of the road is is probably a a foot deep um so um you know and I know there's no pictures in the letter but if people have a chance to go drive by and encourage them to do so um oh sorry throw our pictures thanks joh um so uh it sounds like for us next step is to add them to the agenda um I'm gonna there there's the good one right there on Photo 7 um wow that's really bad um but uh I'm going to recommend that we follow John's uh action that um you know I I think that we request they come back um and they can make a proposal as to how they're going to address it um I think for anyone that's newer to the planning board um this has been problematic uh for an extended period of time uh Conservation Commission has taken uh significant action and fines against them um they have have uh continue to be problematic and in some cases actually um I think there was even some uh storm water discharge um into the lake so um I um I would while I will will not be uh at the future meetings um you know i' I'd encourage the planning board to take a good hard look at this and to do everything we can to to hold them uh accountable um because they've had multiple opportunities to address this over the past several years so um any um John do we don't need to I mean we can just we don't need to take a vote or anything on it this is just a function of of um sending them a request um and then we can add it to the next agenda assuming that they will be um prepared with their recommendations to address is that fair um yeah we can we don't have to take a vote but I think it would be good to have agreement on the board that this is the next step okay should we through the chair yeah go should we also invite DPW to join as well or would that be unnecessary um I think that's a good recommendation I mean DPW and and um potentially uh concom as well I don't think they're quite as critical to it but um and uh I mean I think there was a point in time in the past where we DPW is a pretty regular attendee for us um and I think given that they are the ones voicing the complaint uh and I think given um you know from a repair perspective they're going to be in a better position to help us reassess the the bond total so I think that's a a worthwhile recommendation any other thoughts and I um John maybe if you wna yeah thank you um oh car's on right here hi Carrie hi yeah um you know what car maybe I'll just jump over to you really quick and um I don't know how much that you heard because I couldn't see you on the screen but um any additional context to add um before we make a decision is to inviting the developer back before us not a ton more context I think you guys covered it I mean we've been working Public Works work conservation and with John and planning and trying to you know come up with something and inspectional services and the developer is not being receptive and I know they're giving conservation an even harder time so that's where we thought it would be best to you know get something in writing and and go to the planning board and see if we can get some more support so that hopefully they can do something but as you said like now you're going we've been watching it for a while um there's been a damage it's getting to a point where we're going to have to do something and it just doesn't feel right to spend the town's money to fix a problem that we know is coming from off a construction site um and it just takes money away from what we could be doing in other areas of town so any help would be appreciated um hopefully they're amenable to it um and then if not we have a couple different other courses of action that we can try Carri one additional question for you um I know that the the once we once you cross the Town Line into Ashland um the pavement is uh really bad um I don't know if that correlates at all um to the trails development but have you had any conversations with um with Ashland DPW about that road and I don't even know if there's a course of action for us to involve them but um it that isn't it's a good idea and I'll reach out to them I haven't about the road itself I've had question I've had um conversations about the drainage so they've have serious issues the drainage and that Culvert that's right by the water treatment plant I believe the trails was supposed to replace and has not yet or do some upgrades um they've been having significant issues with that and they're also convinced that some of the runoff has been increasing operations and maintenance requirements at the treatment plan itself but I haven't talked about the road um and I limited it because we only have the ability to you know request the bond for our section of it I you know I don't think that we have the authority to yeah require them to do anything in Ashlin I guess that would have to come through their their Authority their Authority I know but I know their Conservation Commission similar to ours has um issued cease and desists and some corrective actions okay thank you and and again I realize cross towns it gets a little a little messy but um just just a thought John maybe it's worth reaching out to the Ashland planning board or Conservation Commission and even getting a statement from them um and while we certainly can't uh you know initiate any any repairs or work in Ashland um to me that also might just help reinforce um what I would characteriz as as negligence um on behalf of the the trails development all right I will reach out to the planner over then um from the planning board any other questions thoughts does this make sense makes sense sounds right to me okay all right so uh let's go ahead and call them back uh for the next meeting which is uh June 3 and uh encourage them to be uh to be prepared to put forth some pretty substantial effort to correct some of their um past failures all right thank you Carrie I appreciate you uh initiating this and and keeping us in the loop so thank you hey Gary sorry it's um my quick question before we leave this is this like a maintenance thing like they're not maintaining the system they have or was the system not appropriately designed to begin with do we think somebody could provide context on that I guess CU it could be a combination of all of that it could be that their system was designed poorly and isn't functioning properly it could be that their system was designed correctly but is not maintained properly and therefore is not functioning correctly um or it could just be elicit discharge that is Elsewhere on the site okay yeah and Michael it's a fair question I think it just for anyone that's that's newer to this stuff it it's also worth noting that that runoff like this is typically worst during construction um as it gets finished up it it tends to show some improvement um but that's also why in construction there's a lot of other um measures that are intended to prevent this kind of thing from happening so um those have all failed as well yeah okay so um we'll add that to the next uh next meeting agenda um all right next on our list is continued public hearing uh for El Farms 3 this is the uh subdivision off of blueberry um I see Ted is on I see Austin is on um and uh I saw in our files uh I didn't get a chance to look at it in detail but there are some updated plans um as of today um but maybe we'll start with the applicant um if you want to give us an update as to um where things stand um from your end sure so um by the way with me tonight is Austin Turner I know you've been seeing Matt Ashley lately but Matt had another obligation so Austin is standing in tonight but he's fully up to date on what's going on um so where we last left you we were at a little bit of a Crossroads where uh our plan showed connections of footing drains into the roadway drainage system and we have Town bylaws that prohibit that so um we still think that that is the best way to uh control storm water both on site and in the neighborhood so we met with Town staff including uh John and Carrie uh to talk about a couple of options and one of those options uh was to keep the roads private and keep uh homeowners association to own and maintain the roads in their entirety both um the pavement and the storm water system um and came to an agreement that that that would satisfy the requirement and still allow the tie-ins that we were looking for um so believe Matt and Austin authored a letter to planning board uh outlining that um so plans have Chang there are like two very minor changes which were things pointed out by uh carrye uh one connection to a different manhole and a an addition of a um concom approved uh perimeter drain to the public system um but by and large the plans are the same as we show you last time um but with the stipulation that they would remain private okay so just to summarize you're proposing that the road stay private with the homeowners association which would require the homeowners association to plow it maintain it um trash removal uh all the other things that all the other services that uh you lose when you are no longer a public road is that correct that's that's correct and and we are proposing that that ends at the RightWay line where we connect to blueberry and that the detention basins that are currently owned and maintained by the town would continue to be owned and maintained by the town okay um Terry I'm glad you're here tonight um I'm wondering if uh you have uh any additional commentary or perspective to uh share with us on this um no I I stuck around to hear your all your feedback I mean so we came to you know we all know that there's water issues out at this site and that the butters have been complaining about for a long time um so we had concerns about the way the drainage system was designed and specifically all the private connections to the drainage Main and you know we were getting to a point where this was the solution um but you're right like a private road has all those other implications of you know the school buses trash service um plowing salting there would have to be a really I I suggest you know that the homeowner association Covenant all that information that gets recorded with the has very you know detailed information in there so it's very clear when people purchase these houses that they know what they're responsible for and what the town is responsible for yeah through through the chair Carrie do you could you on one hand count how many uh developments or subdivisions like this and town are private absent my own Street uh or if you had to guess how how many do you think would be would fall under this category of what the applicant is proposing um more than five less than a dozen um uh you know and a lot of private ones you know it's very clear when it's private they've got you know the the bulk of um Post Office boxes out front but um but Legacy Farms those are all private roads um what is it uh the Heritage private uh ston Brook is private now portions of it that we're running into so there are subdivisions in towns that have private roads and you all are aware of all the issues that we have or do not have with those and through the chair to the applicant was there any consideration of adjusting your plan to possibly allocate for the concerns that DPW had other than the plan that we're seeing for today so yeah there were there were two Alternatives that we looked at one would be you know some pumps in all the basements and as a company we try to avoid that at all cost to rely on mechanical means to alleviate storm water issues or or not storm water but water issues um for the fact that if power fails or generator fails that um then they're just out of luck um so we took that one off the books and the other was we had a series of um Overland easements um that would allow these basement to Daylight and at that point it got to be pretty um oky on the site and and didn't think that that was really the right solution so I have a couple of questions um and Ted let me just go back to option one there you're telling me that that this is going to put so much water into the the the public system that that the counter the counter the alternate is a some pump in every basement yeah I I guess I I struggle a little bit because I'm like wow if if it's that close i' I'd like to think that you're probably putting some pumps in the basements anyways um considering how wet the property is and I agree with you I would never want to depend on that as a primary method of addressing it but like that just puts in perspective how much water we're talking about here yeah I think if you ask the people on blueberry and they've spoken up before about this you know that that has been their main focus in in this whole process is that there is a lot of water uh on site for them and and that there are issues for them and and we're trying to um Stave off those same issues so to your point of you know do we put some pumps in the basement anyway also I I think that's a real possibility um but we also strive to get gravity to do its work yeah but you're not you're you're talking about some pump basements in the new houses not the existing ones correct yes okay and and blueberry homes what's that I said we're not we're not yeah modifying any homes on blueberry but but a sump pump um just pumps water out and discharges it on the property I don't think or or does a St can you can you discharge a sump pump into the storm water management system no I mean I think that would avoid that connection into the storm water management system directly however even if you're pumping it into your own yard It ultimately makes its way into the storm water system um and I think we're trying to avoid that um you know just the Reliance on the the mechanical means okay through the chair sorry sorry hang on I I have a couple more questions yeah sure so my and I have three questions my second one so by converting this to a private road that doesn't address the situation I that what does that enable you to do that you couldn't do if it was a public road I believe the concern from the town was that the abundance of private connections into the public system and the maintenance of those connections became burdensome so this limits those connections just to the two at the main roads plus um the previously approved Conservation Commission connections okay sorry I'm not quite tracking so there's fewer connections if it's a private road that that the town is required to maintain yes okay all right so it just shifts the maintenance of those connections over to the homeowners association correct okay so it doesn't actually doesn't actually change the the the engineering behind it it just it just changes who's responsible to maintain it if there's a problem or even in terms of preventive maintenance to make sure it's all functioning properly and and and you have confidence that a homeowners association is going to effectively do that I mean this is not uncommon for many developments we do I mean k mentioned there's a handful in town you know I would say the majority of what we build are private developments where the homeowners association owns and maintains all the roads and infrastructure so okay yes I think they're fully capable of doing that and so if the people that live on Blueberry Lane today um have increasing issues U because of water then what's their course of action well I I think that we've discussed all along that at at worst you know this maintains the current level of what they are at best I think it cuts off a significant amount of water which is where where I believe this goes um that they currently see right we're putting in the road infrastructure which will um intercept some of the groundwater or um perched groundwater that we're seeing out on site um and direct it to the storm water system so I I think they will see an improvement I don't think that we say that definitively by engineering I think that's anecdotal but that's what I think will happen Okay so and and sorry one last question I know I went over my limit um but um I I know we also have plans for uh a path that connects into the backside of EMC park and if this was a private way does that or could that potentially impact access to um that path and I I just I think of uh I live very near Sanctuary Lane over off of Chamberlain um and you know at one point they put signs up no trespassing you know um so on and so forth uh that was after the development was completed but if it's private land then how do we ensure ongoing access to that um that uh that that sidewalk path that that um was was previously approved and funded through the town meeting last year um I think we could create Public Access eement over that piece of land to allow for people to pass through okay and you could probably condition an approval based on that okay all right sorry who ahead who else had questions comments through the chair this is Rob hey Rob go ahead I thought the I thought the issue from our last meeting was the mere fact of connecting kind of storm water management from house Lots into storm water management for like the right of ways and the the problem was tying tying it in at all and now I'm confused that where this proposal just limits the number of tie-ins to the public system it doesn't doesn't seem consistent to what we talked about last time unless I'm Mis misremembering it's a good question Ted or Carrie yeah the go ahead Carrie if you were looking to talk yeah I guess um so it doesn't change the number of connections it it changes the number of public connections so this is as you all know a funky one where the subdivision was approved ahead time so in the approved subdivision plan there's a connection at Blueberry Lane of the drainage main so when we typically have drainage main we only want storm water in the storm water system and we don't want private connections um as I mentioned the only thing that the the rules and regulations specifically say is no Foundation drains there's also area drains and other things that are proposed so what this enables is now there's only two connections of the private system to the public system at Myrtle and Blueberry Lane and at Fitch and Blueberry Lane so we as the town can go to those connections and monitor that much easier than everything else but there's still going to be the same volume of water and an increased volume of water coming through but we don't have any rules and regulations that uh that really dictate volume um and the only thing that we really had that differentiates the storm water system from groundwater which is what a lot of this is going to be is the the require ments about the foundation drains did that help it's an explanation I I I don't uh I understand the explanation witht that uh uh through the chair one one more question um I it seems like all these connections once the system is built all these connections are buried underground like this is PVC pipe or cor corrugated PVC or something underground these aren't connections people are going to monitor or or do anything with for probably decades and it seems like we're just shifting it I don't know it seems like this is a lot of discussion about the same same it's to me it doesn't seem like we're we're we're making any changes it seems like okay yep if there is a failure it goes on the homeowners association but all the water goes into the public system anyway um so that's what we're doing that's my interpretation as well uh Matthew Carrie directly addressed what I was going to ask and uh I'd just be repetitive at this point okay um other questions comments through the chair it and to the applicant how many uh homes are you currently planning to construct according to the site plan 20 I'm sorry can you hear me 20 20 20 20 okay so in the typical sup pump installation at least the one that I did in my house house this last February cost about three grand does that seem like a reasonable cost estimate for what you see Ted that's probably about right so to get compliant with this reg it would be 60k it would like rough ballpark the the cost isn't the issue here I if we I would spend much more than $60,000 to do a trunk system to pipe all of this to Daylight far more than $60,000 to relieve the homeowners of having to rely on a sump pump the one of the Alternatives that I mentioned was yeah a a trunk system of footing drains that navigated the site to ultimately get to grade um I I don't I'm not pushing for that here but I would do that over just having some pumps and then daylighting um and then I guess to further that if if the concern back to some of the other comments um even if you daylighted the water in your own lot that water still ultimately makes its way the way this is designed and has been previously approved ultimately makes its way back to the storm water system right even if it's Overland and it travels for a short period of time um with not a lot of time to infiltrate uh back into the road system or the yard drain system or the Conservation Commission approved perimeter drain system so I don't know that you decrease volume in that way and I would not rely on mechanical means that through the chair that latter solution that you just mentioned well if you had to rough approximate the cost what would that be I don't know I'd be making it up at this point double that okay okay the qu what I'm trying to understand is is what are the possible solutions but more importantly is there a reality where building a additional uh or possibly Building 19 homes and having one lot designated for groundwater penetration could be a viable solution if that's something that you folks considered not not interested in doing that so um sorry other thoughts or questions Matthew we uh yeah I just so if we approve the current plan and these roads stay private and you know just like Legacy Farms the HOA eventually comes to town meeting asks for the town accept the roads anyway what's the path forward there is it is would this run into issue with regulations uh or would we be able to or would the town approve it and would be accepted like what's what happens yeah you know there they we do see those periodically to your point not sure Legacy Farms has proposed that yet but um certainly we always hear a lot of complaints from people that live on private roads that they pay taxes and don't get the same Services um and well I think that's somewhat expected or common in a in a condo um or multi family housing of some kind with single family homes that's still still still out there um but maybe a little less expected um but you know there there is a mechanism to consider that but you know it doesn't that still means that the town is going to also I from my understanding going to be accepting responsibility for for maintenance of the those those those connections I mean I'll say what I really wrestle with here is that none of this actually solves the water issue um it it it ass it shifts some you know like Rob said it shifts some responsibility of Maintenance from one place to the next um it does take some of the burden off the town um but you know the the water is is still going to have to go somewhere uh somewhere other than the lowest point which is often times in someone's basement um and you know like like none of these options are are really solving for that answer of of um you know of of fully dealing with the storm water actually on the property itself um I'm I'm curious um I'm wondering if our if our peer review engineer is on and I'm wondering if maybe they can give us some perspective uh from a professional other than um the applicant um love to hear through the chair they're not on they're not on but they submitted a letter they said that their presence was probably not necessary given the state of the plans so this is a letter we just received it this afternoon so it's in the folder um but they reviewed the plans that were submitted today and said that you know described what was being proposed and said that that would uh resolve the issues with compliance of section 8.48 of uh subdivision RS um and that they have no further comments they had no comments before but this confirms that they have no additional comments based on the revised plans okay so to them this is a a viable option to comply yes and um if I could address the street acceptance question with a little bit more detail um because we have received request from people in private roads from subdivisions 20 or so years earlier um looking to make them public we had Mor Lane recently was one of them that came before at least me to to discuss um I put in a finding that specifically States the reason for this change to become private is due to the applicants um desire to address the storm water in this way and then I also asked the applicant which they thankfully provided a letter explaining why so that there is a paper trail when this comes you know comes before us again at some point in the future somebody says well why isn't it why is it private when the rest of Blueberry Lane is public This Is The Answer uh the design of the storm War system so if in the future they are able to handle the storm water through the way that our storm water EGS are written then there should be no issue making them public okay uh playe board how do you guys feel about it Rob through the chair I I think um the people that live on Blueberry Lane uh these eventually homeowners they'll be super excited to purchase a home live in hopkington and to them it's a technicality that and then they're not going to get trash pick up and they're going to be paying for their so they're going to be paying for trash pickup they're going to pay for their uh road to be plowed they're not going to understand it and uh I sympathize like honestly I sympathize with them and and to me it seems like it's a a technical solution to comply with the regulations but it doesn't really seem like it it doesn't feel great but if it if it's what we got to do it's what we got to do but it doesn't feel great for sure yeah but but Rob is there an alternative that you like better that's where um I do not have an alternative that's why I said if it's if it's what we got to do it's what we got to do I guess my question Gary is uh DPW is okay with this just to reconfirm and two if they're not is there anything specific that we could do about it or this complies with the regs and it seems like it should work so we don't have a foot to stand on Terry would you like going to reply um so I think this complies with the regulations I have the same concern I don't like any private systems going into the public system for storm water because it's more stuff to manage so this complies um it's consistent with what the town's been doing I agree with you though I think eventually the residents you know they're not going to know what they're getting into um I don't you know we'll see we'll try to put as much information in those um homeowners association agreements as we can so we have something to go back on but you know unless it's like a gated community most folks don't understand it and I think eventually the town will have to take on more responsibility but hopefully at that point we'll know what we're getting and so f will really appreciate like what they're paying for and what it means when they take it as a public road and that's all we can hope for through the chair K could could you please I didn't quite understand the latter part of your position so did you say that in a different way I guess the easy way to say that is this was a new subdivision we wouldn't allow it to be built like this but we're stuck in this situation where it's already approved subdivision we're trying to make the best of what we have we know there's a water problem out there um and it has you know I think this will comply with the regulations um I think all of your concerns about the water issues continuing and and neighbors is going to be legitimate um but I think all this having it recorded having the plans having all this stuff in the files is going to help us as we go on to better understand who's responsible for what where it's coming from and and maybe help the town figure out some Solutions in the long run but ultimately you know the the planning board you guys have the ability to make the uh the recommendations about whether roads get accepted or not um so so I'll leave it at that did that help anybody at all let me let me rephrase it uh what I'm hearing is this just throughout the conversation is that um this is an old approval um we're somewhat Limited in what uh what we what changes we can drive um the recommendation uh by the standard uh helps this comply um but at least what I'm hearing is none of us really feel very good about it because we all recognize that a private road like this will come back at some point um so it it really doesn't I'm not sure we have another option but it really really doesn't feel very it doesn't feel like a very uh elegant or clean solution to the problem that's what I'm hearing okay through the chair does the does the applicant intend to try to get the Road accepted as public at some point no I think I'm coming to you to say that I will not and that the intention is for this to remain private and to draft homeowner docs um that are very clear in what these people are accepting and to the through the chair if is to Carrie is there a path to acceptance BAS on the RS or because we're going off of an old approval that's the applicant is trying to bring them up to Modern standards but if they if the applicant Tred to push for acceptance how would we balance that in the future because and maybe John this a question for you we go by the standards based upon when the approval of the subdivision was passed but we have then a weird situation where we have two timelines that the the whole project is created John do you understand my question what I'm getting at like it's just a weird process that if they wanted to push for acceptance how would we square is that a square peg ground hole situation so I mean ex Street acceptance is a town meeting decision so town meeting can decide anything they don't have to follow regulations um it would just hinge on the recommendation of the planning board or DPW on the acceptance of the road not meeting current regulations um so if they in the future want to have the road accepted they can design it so that it complies with DPW and planning board regulations and then there's no issue um but there's go you know we put the findings in the the recommended findings in there so that there is a paper trail so you know because we're dealing with this now on other projects in 20 years when somebody says well I want my street to be accepted as public it doesn't make sense to be private why was it ever private we have a reason why it was private and we also have an answer as to how to make it um work so that we can make it public so separate separate process separate issue um I think what what I'm going to recommend and um you know regrettably it seems like this is probably the option forward but I think um we Institute a couple of conditions here and findings for that matter um the First with regards to um and I don't know quite how to describe this in a in a binary way but um you know something that that strengthens the language um for for homeowners and if other the people have other ideas as to how to specify that I think that's great and then the second piece would be a um a public easement for the um the pathway that goes into the backside of um UMC Park and um if we do those two things then um actually three things condition findings um and easement um then that effectively explains the rationale for the decision um and uh you know it it uh uh it helps provide some clarity for for for future discussions we don't have to I mean we'll we'll get to uh conditions and findings um but I so I I think we'll we'll have to Wordsmith a little bit there but you know directionally does that feel okay to people or do people feel strongly that there's uh another another option out there for us I think we've talked it through oh go ahead Parker no go ahead Robert I was just I was goingon to agree with Gary I'm I'm good at this point but go ahead I think we can vote but I would just say the applicant that there is another you know path forward and that is if you build 19 units instead of 20 and this it's unfortunate that that wasn't part of the consideration but my position okay um thanks everyone tough discussion on that um gosh where were we um Ted anything else and I'm looking at the agenda the outline here actually um just to see what's next but any any other changes or things that warant discussion from us uh not not from my perspective no okay okay and then I I know the peer review isn't on but John just to confirm there there's no other outstanding issues from from peer review that's correct then we have a letter stating such okay all right um so then next on our agenda is uh and John could I ask a favor while we continue through this um would you be willing to draft uh a condition a proposed condition in finding um the the necessary language that we would want to put to address the the three areas that we just identified um no no um I mean do you have an idea as to what you'd want it to say and I can try and Wordsmith it um uh gosh um you know I think that there is a condition this is where I struggle a little bit because any condition around the language and the to the to the potential buyers is going to be largely subjective um so I don't really know how we uh enforce that in some capacity um and just to just to kind of be clear this is a storm water management permit it's not a subdivision appr approval so it's really for storm water management in terms of the design and then construction period management so I don't know if we want to have a condition that is speaking directly to Future buyers that it would apply to them well it'd be a a condition for the storm water approval that they need to provide glit very very clear um and specific guidance to homeowners um as to this being a private road uh and the implications of it being a private it sounds like you're saying that that might be pushing the envelope a little bit because yeah I mean we could we could potentially do something in like an operations long-term operations and maintenance plan that addresses the needs for maintenance of a private road I just don't know how you can really put that onto like you said it's not enforceable how do you put it how do you put that condition in place and then yeah so so then then uh yeah as far as a homeowner notification I mean I guess I hear your saying we could put a condition in with regards to maintenance of the existing connections and Associated road that goes along with it um for the homeowners association but even that that's not something that that can be uh enforced in the you know in the time that the applicant is going to even own all this I mean as soon as that transfers over to the homeowners association I mean is really not you to your point I'm not really sure what we're accomplishing I'm I'm looking for for for any other ideas or suggestions here and you know I guess the other option is we just just just trying to avoid like Rob the discussion that Rob describes where people move in they don't fully realize the implications of it um and then they get frustrated and it becomes a a thorn um you know in a point of frustration because they they don't feel like they were properly aware of of what happened any other thoughts or suggestions from folks as to how we address this I'm let me see if it works but you guys can keep on talking through the chair I agree through sentiment I'm living through this right now on my own property where I was unaware of the situation and I can say you know it's it's not a good experience and however we can do like do we have should we talk to a different enforcement mechanism in the town that we're not thinking about but but I think that's what John is saying is the hard part is is that this is a storm water management plan so we're we're stretching things to you know require certain actions um on the on the the the on the home sale you know it's just and so far we moved at that point through the chair yeah I can't think of a situation like this we've had we've encountered before um where it's on the Storm where we could normally just attach something to a subdivision approval and but this is uh maybe J I'm just trying to fill time as John you come up with a proposal here to be honest um because I think we technically should should uh accept the proposal because it meets the regulations and and just um and move on so through the chair uh proposed condition and I just have a question at the end of how the board want to handle it but the applicant shall prepare and submit to the planning board a long-term operations and maintenance plan that describes in detail the requirements and procedures for maintenance of the private road and Associated utilities and infrastructure within the right of way in perpetuity the applicant shall submit evidence that this long-term onm plan has been received by the HOA prior to conveyance now my concern with that last sentence is if toll controls the HOA prior to conveyance they would be submitting the long-term ONN plan to themselves so I don't know how we can chire toll provide the HOA this document after conveyance because then they would be out of the picture um so if the board has any suggestions as how to word that last sentence so that it gets to the appropriate individuals within the HOA at the proper time that the new residents would have received it and it wouldn't be something that toll would be giving it to itself does that I guess on on that note John I mean reality is these homes are going to turn over um and and so I mean I mean people will live in them they will sell them there will be new buyers coming in um and and I mean I I guess I I think what's most important is that it's very clear in the homeowners uh in the HOA documents and um you know there's a anybody buying a home has an attorney that that should be reviewing that um you know I think if we if we put so much emphasis on the notification that the first time the home is bought I I think that that doesn't really address our our long-term needs so I I actually I'm okay with the the the draft that you just read it's not perfect but I think it it does make very clear as to what our expectations are as included in the homeowners document and whatever's in that home owner document is going to um you know is going to is going to is going to stick um you know even even as homes start to turn over and and sell okay I may did make one if at it so would say the applicant shall prepare and submit to the planning board for their review and approval a long-term on andm plan so the planning board still has a little bit of say as to whether that is sufficient or not when received Ted does that work for you we just lose Ted no I'm here um yes yeah that works for me I mean we we convey and sell a lot of homes in the state um a lot of which have operation to maintenance requirements um we think it's in our best interest to make those requirements very clear to the homeowner as well so I think we're aligned in what the goal is here um and and I have no problem with the way that's written and then another edit through the chair adding on prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy this condition would apply make sense yeah yeah certainly okay that makes sense uh all right any other comments on that we'll we'll vote on these formly as as we continue through the the process um but people generally feel comfortable with that or if if not then now's the chance to speak up all right I see thumbs up um and then the other condition would be for the public uh easement for the um pavement or the the the path uh that connects to to Elmwood um so John's looking for some quick conditions here uh something the effect of the the the project shall provide uh public easement for um Public Access pathway uh as as drawn on plans something something like that John one second should I throw it in chat GPT I've got so far I've got the applicant has offered to provide a public easement where necessary to access the public trail [Music] system uh I think we should be well I guess I'd say number one it's not just they offered it's so that we're we're requiring it as a condition of approval and how are you relating that to the approval what's that how are you relating that requirement to the approval what about the required approval and decision criteria relates to the public easement being required well if uh if the proposal if the means of addressing the storm water issues is for this to be a private road and and uh then how do we make sure to ensure Public Access on a private road so that's my intent is to Ure you know ensure public access to the uh design to the to the trail that connects um to the backside of EMC Park so the applicant shall provide a public easement where necessary to access the public land known as EMC Park prior to the completion of the project and then um if we want to add a finding we can say the creation or the the change of Road ownership from public to private necessitates a public easement to access EMC Park as the public road would have served as that access otherwise yes well said I'm glad you're here John okay so I think we've kind of got this drafted out um appreciate you John helping us with that um just going through the outline um and I know we're a little bit beyond time here are people comfortable if we continue I don't think there's a whole lot to discuss although the formalities here will will take some the formalities and the uh the vote will take some time but is everyone okay continuing tonight okay um so decision criteria just to people uh the board must determine if the proposed work complies with hant storm water regulations which in turn require compliance with mass D storm water standards um there are no waivers requested um so um effectively what we're looking at that is is compliance with storm water regulations and I I will say just to remind folks um that uh the good news is that um the applicant here is complying with our new storm water regulations so there is some uh additional capacity built into this that that that wasn't in place um 25 years ago any questions about the decision criteria all right I don't see any uh from a waiver perspective there are no waivers requested so that's a pretty straightforward one um on the findings um and John kindly drafted a couple of findings here the first uh is that the proposed work will comply with the hot and St water regulations the second the applicant has determined that due to the proposed design of the storm water management system infrastructure will need to connect to the roadway drainage system pursuant to the requirements of the Department of Public Works way to storm water infrastructure this type of connection is not permitted the applicant has stated that Fitch Avenue and Myrtle Avenue will remain private roads as a result um and then uh the third finding proposed finding um as uh was previously read aloud by the principal planner anything else I'm I'm sorry G did you read the two findings that were in the memo already Yes I did yep do you like me to read the third one again or yeah I want you to read it again just for formality right the change of Road ownership from public to private necessitates a public access easement to allow the public to access the public land known as EMC Park since the public ownership of the right of ways would have otherwise provided this public access y thank you I think that's a good one to put in there particularly given public easements and um sometimes those things can get lost or get messy so um okay uh um so I think we're reasonably Com or comfortable enough there um to take a vote um but let me read through the proposed conditions um as everyone knows this is always my favorite part because they are required to be read aloud um so uh number one all erosion and sediment controls shall comply with the following performance criteria a minimize total area of disturbance and protect natural features in soil B sequence activ ities to minimize uh simultaneous areas of disturbance Mass clearance and grades of the entire site shall be avoided that's a really important one to me uh C minimize Peak rate of runoff in accordance with mass of storm water standards D minimize soil erosion and control sedimentation during construction provided that prevention of erosion is preferred over sedimentation control divert uncontaminated water around Disturbed areas e maximize groundwater recharge F install and maintain all erosion and sediment control control measures in accordance with the manufacturer specifications and good engineering practices G prevent off-site transport of sediment H protect and manage on and off-site material storage areas overburden of stock piles dirt borrow uh areas or other areas used solely by the permitted project are considered a part of the project I comply with applicable federal state and local laws and regulations including water disposal sanitary sewer septic systems regulations and air quality requirements including dust control J prevents significant alteration of habitats mapped by the Massachusetts natural heritage and endangered species programs is endangered threatened or of special concern estimated habitats of rare wildlife and certified veral pools and priority habitats of rare species from the proposed activities K Institute interim and permanent stabilization measures which shall be instituted on Disturbed area as soon as pra practicable but no more than 14 days after construction activity has temporarily or permanently ceased on that portion of the site I uh properly managed on-site construction of waste materials excuse me L uh M prevent off-site Vehicles a vehicle tracking of sediments in dust shall be controlled at the site o divert off-site runoff from highly erodable soils and steep slopes to stable areas that's number one any questions reaction comments before I continue all right moving on the project shall comply with the following erosion and sediment control requirements a 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 signage or orange construction fence so that workers can see the areas to be protected the physical markers shall remain in place until a certificate of completion has been issued B appropriate erosion and sediment control measures shall be installed prior to soil disturbance measures shall be taken to control erosion with the project area sediment and runoff water shall be trapped and retained within the project area well in areas and surface water shall be protected from sediment C sediment shall be removed once the volume reaches one quarter to half the height of a hay bale sediment shall be removed from the silt fence prior to reaching the loadbearing capacity of the silt fence which may be lower than a quarter and a half inch of the height D sediment from sediment traps or sedimentation Pond should be removed when design capacity has been reduced by 50% e stock soil soil stock piles must be stabilized or covered at the end of each work day stockpile side slop shall not be greater than two to one all stock piles shall be surrounded by sediment controls F Disturbed areas remaining idle for more than 14 days shall be stabilized with seaing wood chips bark molch uh Tarpin or any other approved methods G for active construction areas such as borrow or stockpile areas roadway improvements in areas within 50 fet of building under construction a permanent set control system shall be installed and maintained to contain soil h a tracking pad or other improved stabilization method shall be constructed at all entrance exit portions of the site to reduce the amount of soil carried under roadways and off the site uh Blueberry Lane in the vicinity of the project shall be swept and needed uh throughout the construction process that one's a slight modification I think just to make it relevant to this site um permanent seating shall be undertaken in the spring from March through May and in the late summer and early fall from August to October 15th during the peak summer months in the fall uh in the fall and end in the fall after October 15th when seeding is found to be impra impractical appropriate temporary stabilization should be applied permanent seeding may be undertaken during the summer if plans provide for adequate mulching and watering on J All Slopes steeper than 3 point than 3 to1 as well as perimeter Dy sediment basins or traps and embarkment must upon completion be immediately stabilized with sod seed and anchored straw mulch or other approved stabilization me measures areas outside of the perimeter sediment control system must not be disturbed k temporary sediment trapping devices must not be removed until permanent stabilization is established in all contributory drainage areas uh L All Temporary erosion and sediment control measures should be removed after the final sight stabilization disturb soil areas resulting from the removal of temporary measur shall be permanently stabilized within 30 days of removal three a minimum of seven days prior to the start of construction a detailed construction sequence uh shall be submitted to the principal planner by the site contractor for review and approval the approved constru construction sequence shall be followed throughout the course of the construction and shall shall be altered only with prior review by and written approval from the principal planner four assigned to copy the storm water pollution prevention plan shall be provided to the board prior to the building permit per 6.0 K2 thew the SW PPP must include the signed notice of intent and approval letter five all required storm water pollution prevention plan storm water construction site inspection report shall be submitted to the principal planner within 14 days of each inspection six an adequate stock poy control measures shall be on site all times for emergency or routine replacement and shall include materials to repair or replace silt fence hay bills Stone filters burms or any other devices planned for use during construction seven soil test and evacuation of the site storm water basin must be observed by the board's engineer prior to Lane L and SE the applicant developer shall notify the principal planner at least 48 hours weekends and holidays excluded PRI of the soil testing and or excavation to allow for adequate time to coordinate these observations eight all storm water basin must be cleared once the site is stabilized all storm water basins shall be cleared cleaned prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy then we have uh the last new one John are you willing to quickly read that the two yes sorry the two thank you prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy the act the applicant shall prepare and submit to the planning board for review and approval a long-term operation and maintenance plan that describes in detail the requirements and procedures for maintenance of the private road and Associated utilities and infrastructure within the right of way in perpetuity the applicant shall submit evidence that this long-term onm plan has been received by the HOA prior to conveyance and then the second one is the applicant shall provide a public easement where necessary to access the public land known as EMC Park uh prior to the completion of the project okay I should say sorry to the chair I should say the applicant shall provide a public easement to the town okay where necessary any thoughts comments edits changes see nodding heads okay all right so just a quick process check um we will now go to final public comment um if uh if there are folks that that uh have a question or a comment about this um and then at that point we will um go ahead and um formally vote on the findings and then vote on the conditions and approval so um this point I'll open it up to the public um if you have comment or question it's helpful to go off camera or raise your hand not seeing anybody any oh uh says Caitlyn Lombardi that's my wife this is scard yes all right you just go say your name and your address and then um and then go ahead Scot Lombardi uh 14 Blueberry Lane question about the easement will residents of blueberry be able to walk on all the private roads or will we be restricted to a very narrow path to the eement to EMC Park I'm just not sure how the easement is going to work from a private road standpoint um that's a good question the way the Ean is written it would provide access to the trail to EMC park it wouldn't provide access to the entire Road um so like for example could the residents block our access to the roads therefore we couldn't even make it to the easement that would give us access to EMC uh no no you would have access to the trail uh which would enable you to get back to EMC Park okay thank you good question though appreciate you asking um okay um well I think we are ready for a vote um so just a reminder for everyone um the first thing that we will do is to vote on the findings themselves um yes John just want to make everyone aware Alise and Michael are not eligible to vote H so how many does that leave us that leaves us one two 3 leaves us five four five okay um John why am I not able to vote you've missed two meetings or two hearings okay all right so just so everyone's clear that means that um we would need all five to um vote in favor of it um for this to go through Ted you comfortable moving forward a frightening Prospect but I I think so okay um all right so uh I will entertain a motion that the board accepts and approves the findings as previously read Allowed by the chair and the principal planner so moved second uh any further discussion all right see none uh Rob how do you vote Rob Benson yes Matthew yes Vic yes Parker yes and Gary is a yes as well um so we will move on to uh vote on the approval so I will entertain a motion that the board approves the storm water manage permit uh with the conditions as previously read Allowed by the chair and the principal planner so moved Rob second Matthew any further discussion all right uh seeing none Rob how do you vote Rob Benson yes Matthew yes Vic yes Parker yes and Gary is a yes as well um so the last order of this is I'll entertain a motion to close this public hearing so moved Rob second so no further discussion uh Rob how do you vote Rob yes can at leise vote on closing it no all right uh Matthew yes Vic yes Parker yes and Gary is a yes as well so um okay uh next order of business is uh 90 and 104 Hayden row um as um the prior time thanks Ted thanks everyone uh I'm going to recuse myself from this one as an abutter so I'll hand it over to uh uh ra all right um before I go to the consultant report I wanted to ask the applicant if there was any changes to their plan that they previewed at our last discussion and then I'm going to go to uh our folks from Ty and bond so is there any changes to the plan that was discussed uh or previewed last time no Rob um Chris Everly from vertex where the OPM for the job um we didn't submit any changes the peer review comments came in last Thursday um we primarily wanted to join you this evening so that we could discuss the outcome of the site walk that we did with several members of the planning board on Saturday and see if there were any questions arising from that we also had a few questions related to um a couple of the items in the peerreview so we just wanted the opportunity to clarify some of those um at this point we're working towards a late June um construction document completion so we didn't want to miss this opportunity to get any Clarity from the board okay sounds good thank you and just for my benefit what is OPM what does that stand for uh we're the owner's project manager um as part of Massachusetts law every public um entity must have an owner's project manager if they're spending more than 1.5 million and the Hopkins would meet that criteria okay I didn't know that acronym so thank you uh all right who is gonna who's talking uh from Ty and bond uh here and did I did I lose John oh John you're there no I'm here time Bond was not asked to come to this meeting because we have not had any coordination between the applicant and time Bond on the review like like uh the applicant said they just got the letter last week uh they're trying to set up a meeting to go over the comments so there that's in the future but that did not happen by this meeting so um let's let me open it up to the planning board to see if there's any questions after the S sidewalk I apologize I wasn't able to attend but uh I know some of the people from the planning board did so is there any questions from any of the board members after after the S sidewalk uh through the chair not necessarily questions but um and Chris Chris maybe some of the Chris are you going to address some of the um points that were made relative to uh recommendations or is that not this not the time to do that uh we can certainly um I don't have a comprehensive list with me of the recommendations um I know that uh we discussed as part of the Walk um the construction of the curb um and clarifying what was asphalt versus um conc or Granite curb um associated with the edge bit we also discussed a few of the site specific observations related to some of the um the items in the time Bond report um I my my iPad died while we were walking so I don't have the world's best notes but if the committee wanted to share their specific observations um we would certainly welcome them as part of the public hearing I didn't want to steal your thunder if you were going to then that's that's all all right let's uh Matthew uh yeah a couple things just uh walking around and having listened to town uh the presentation at town meeting um one question that was raised at town meeting that uh I'd like to hear address is just how the what what the result of the Pavilion is going to be and where that might be moved if that's going to be saved I know that was asked a town meeting um as you mentioned the the curbs were something that we were looking at there um and then just one other thing I know I it's been a while since I've driven around that parking lot it's a little bit uh confusing uh the traffic pattern in places and nonintuitive just wondering if there's as part of the traffic study or any other part of this design if there were any improvements or uh improvements to the flow that could be made as the uh traffic uh parking lot uh is uh enlarged and changed so through the chair I could address that that would be great thank you Christopher um so I we did talk um uh obviously there's uh no committee discussion as part of the walkthrough we answered some clarifying questions one of the clarifying questions that was raised during the walkthrough was the current circulation that is um that exists at Hopkins and whether there was any intent from the design team to change that currently excuse me currently the um Hopkins driveway splits between oneway and two-way at um a fork in the road that's just off of the um the property and there's a bridge that crosses the stream and from that point on it is one way and that oneway continues by the Hopkins school and continues that way until it hits I believe it's lck K and then it becomes two-way from lck k um wrapping back around um we were asked whether we considered uh making any change to that Arrangement and currently we have not pursued any change to that Arrangement it is our understanding that that Arrangement stems from the original construction of the building and was a um point of discussion between the concom and planning board approvals at that time but we have not been able to find any records of that particular um discussion um some of the planning board members asked us whether we would consider examining changing that pathway to be two-way from the parking lot um on the north of the building back to the Hopkins driveway um in a limited basis which would affect just the road and basically from the turnout and um we said that we explained as I just explained that it was originally um required to be as it is but if that was the will of the planning board we could certainly examine that further Chris you want me to share the drawings sure yeah I think let's talk about Chris let's talk about the kind of wonky entrance that's there now into the into the front parking lot and how we've changed that too I can certainly share the drawings if that helps Fe Powers that's probably a good version of it so as you um look at the plan here um currently when you come in there is uh as him mentioned the wonky driveway the initial turn is actually to bypass the school entirely and serves as the fire lane of the existing school and the turn into the parking lot is actually the second turn which immediately has you turn and drive all the way to the end of the parking lot and come back that's um I can say that I've visited that building multiple times and I always have to think about which way is the right way to turn when I go there um that is one of the places where we are looking to modify the plan so I don't know if you can pop ahead to the proposed plan Dan that that'll work um so the current modified plan um operates in a couple of ways it moves that entrance to its natural location which would be to make it right as a single entrance as you approach the building we have sized the lanes to allow for two sets of um Lanes that's to allow for um parking and drop off around the building and allow for better traffic circulation as part of the student drop off process for the school we also have created a mount curb at the back corner and that allows continuation of a fire lane that has moved further away from the existing building so that it completely circles the addition as well and those would be protected by Gates so they would only be accessible to those who um open the gates such as the fire department for firefighting purposes they wouldn't be something that we would be worried about on a pedestrian basis and they'd be controlled at any time that kids would be in those areas the area in question um is slightly off the plan because it crosses the stream that I believe is um a little probably closer up by the um the north Arrow but beginning in about that area um and that's a small bridge that crosses the stream the original intent was that it would be right turn only and we would continue traffic around the building as it does now d through the chair I there's a perception that the road isn't wide enough to support 2way traffic and I don't know where this came about I mean I've walked it before with my family many times and I feel that if we stripe there's a protected sidewalk it's a nonissue and you know if the planning board has an interest to reduce a time it takes for a drop off and reduce wear and tear on the on the loop which we've all seen is deteriorating and even environmental impact of cars driving a mile and all the traffic there this is the time for us to look at this and I'm curious if we could have an assessment done or look at the current road infrastructure to see the viability of making it two-way at that part that's off the map and you know if if we could you know the time is now to look at it essentially I guess uh I don't um so Parker your suggesting we we try to consider making it it what see what we can do as the planning board to make the road that connects uh out basically out from the school the shortest path out from the school two way um I think we take that as a something we maybe uh maybe uh let me see let me let me think about our next step cuz I think it's something that involved the Conservation Commission in the be in the beginning in the planning board like uh we got to see I think we have to find out why they it was done that way to to really see if we can alter it I guess Rob if I may um I would be curious to know if from John if the town would have records of the original order of conditions and um any planning board approvals for the original Hopkins building in the 90s because that may clarify um I don't believe we had copies of those available that we could find I'm trying to remember just off the top of my head Hopkins opened in around 2000 it was 1998 I believe 1998 I think sh we should have those files they might just be on in offsite archive um but we I don't see why we wouldn't have those files okay so Parker I think that's a good point we we'll let's let's try to do that John let's see if we can find that information to see any conditions that were done or made as part of the original Hopkins school uh project um there yeah the um we should just we should just know I I don't know what we could do like in terms of increasing the scope to make that bridge bigger make the road bigger to really support two-way traffic but it'd be nice to at least know and see if we if there's anything we can do we um because this came up on Saturday we have not had the opportunity to research it extensively but I think the general um thought of the team is that that the bridge as it exists is possibly wide enough we didn't consider it because um we believed that there was a prior restriction so if the board would wish wished us to examine that further obviously we would start with um town planning and find out whether there's any historic data that would preclude us from doing that and then the next step would we would ask the design team to take a look at whether there's any physical limitation that would keep us from doing that Rob I think it would be good to at least understand why the current restriction if there is one is in place like is there a current restriction or why the decision was made um it seems like it'd be a lot more efficient for most of the traffic if it could be two ways if that were safe but curious what was there yeah I I don't know what we I I think already the I think we I don't think it's anything more than asking JN to to take that under as a note to to look up what we can what historically was uh was part of the findings when the original approval was made I don't think we have to that that's the action I think we we've just taken Elise did you had your hand raised previously oh I was just gonna talk about the the traffic flow situation that we just discussed it seems everybody's familiar with the the traffic patterns at Hopkins I uh I've had my sons have many many basketball practices at that school I've uh the basketball court behind the school the the field behind the school I am very familiar uh with the Loop Road just in general um I think all of us going there for a s sidewalk made us all uh ref familiarize ourselves with how uh confusing the current processes yes what aen is to get back out through the chair what Matt is failing to admit is he almost went the wrong way out of hopin school so I think his preference for this is quite abundant okay I had a follow up to the Pavilion uh if we move on or yeah go ahead Parker thank you um upon additional consideration is there was and I apologize I don't have my notes in front of me but there was a member of the public who wished to have the Pavilion uh maintained or moved or or in some form maintained and I was curious if we could add a condition uh and write a new condition that the playground area have an appropriate shade or something similar to The Pavilion if it's reasonable to have a shaded I think it's reasonable to have a shaded area and it might though instead of having that Pavilion have to be the Pavilion we keep to instead that there could be something structural with it that it makes more sense to um bring something that's new in so I was curious if we could add a condition uh you know to to to maintain that as part of our um ask at the at town meeting I I think we can consider it I think we're a ways away from that part of the process I like right now um this is where my head at is tyan Bond just responded with a letter today I don't I know I haven't read it I don't know if anyone else on the board has read it just responding today um Christopher I don't know if I assume you've had a chance to read it there were um there were six items that were pretty straightforward um but because of the nature of them I just was hoping to discuss them with the with the board um there's a significant number of items that um obviously we will resp respond to appropriately I think there's 70 in total but um there were six items that related specifically to the zoning bylaws that I just wanted to get some clarification of um for the committee's knowledge um pending just be be aware Mo since we just got this document this em this letter today we some of us haven't read it including myself so but yeah I would love to hear your perspective so when I do read it I have that information I hope that these are straightforward um so the first had to do with just a clarifying um the Assumption of the documents was that um the neighboring high school and middle school properties provided the frontage for the site but in the labeling of the zoning table we only clarified the um property itself that houses the Hopkins school but obviously the Hopkins school is an existing school that is reliant on those frontages um we obviously correct the zoning table to clarify that the other Parcels provide that but given that this is a contiguous campus we just wanted to make sure that the planning board didn't have or that um the peer-reviewer didn't have a larger intent with that um obviously we're adding to an existing building and adding to an existing school is much more costeffective for the town than to build a standalone School somewhere else on a separate property so I was looking for clarification on that um I think from the bo like I'll speak for myself uh I don't have any like that it seems straightforward I don't have any concern there um there was a um according to the peer reviewer due to our impervious area reaching a certain square footage um or percentage of the lot they considered um whether the town should have a special permit as part of the proposed development or whether we can continue under the um zoning bylaw we applied under um obviously if you would like us to have a special permit we'd like to begin preparing the components of that now so that we can have that to you before your next meeting uh I could I put U some additional context on this just for the board's reference sure I can share my screen thank you hold on thank you can you all see my screen yes okay um so the the peer reviewer noted that the Water Resources overlay District um slightly touches into our property um right at this corner through here um we do have an impervious area that we calculate it's very rough I want to make sure that we were able to show this as an exhibit to the board um however there's already existing impervious um that brings us down below that 2500 squ foot threshold so we're wondering um yes this is the amount of impervious in this um this corner of the lot that that that is proposed however we do already have it's about 8100 uh square feet of of of impervious so it is a bump but the the Delta still keeps it below 2500 so that's just additional context we wanted to provide to the board is you know as you're thinking about this and reading through the peer review comments okay if anyone on the board has any questions about uh as we go through these I I don't have any questions about this in I I understand um the issue I understand the comment and doesn't this particular thing doesn't go ahead Matthew yeah so one of the special permits uh is it just the height of the the gem is that the one the only special that was in there no it's the so I'll I'll just read um if you don't mind I'll read it for the committee it was section 21067 discusses the water res resources protection overlay District according to a hopkington GIS database the subject partial is partially located within the Zone a designation the applicant should depict this boundary on the site plans further section 21067 c indicates that a special permit is required for any use that renders impervious more than 15% or 2500 square ft of any lot whichever is greater the town should determine if a special permit is required for the proposed development got it the chair go ahead John I believe this property is within the wrod one and in section c it says except that no special permit shall be required for items 2 and four within the wrod 1 area nice and clean it solves it does it it makes it a non-issue okay thank you uh the next item had to do with the overall height of the building um given that we're residential um BR RB zoning uh the building as drawn is 35' 6 um which is I believe uh done to keep it consistent with the existing Hopkins building and provide adequate um headp space in the gym the zoning District requires a height of 35 ft so we would be 6 in over it um we wanted to just put that in front of the planning board because if we were asked to seek a board of appeals variance for that if that's um height is necessary to remain we would want to understand the board's position on that 6inch deviation um prior to the next meeting so that we could expedite whatever resolution there is to that so the existing school is 35 feet 6 in do we have that measurement Dan the existing Tower in front of the gym is actually taller than that the existing gym is 35 feet the existing Tower is I think about 42 feet that's that piece right at the entrance okay so the building riy is a little bit overall has a component that's taller than 35 fo6 now so why is the new part 356 instead of 35 if the if the existing main building is 35 is it because of the slope to keep it even or just for it's partially because of the amount of um insulation that's required by the building code on the new edition so we match the structure size but the that insulation is pushing it not higher okay if anyone has um like to me this is um that doesn't give me any grave concern uh I think especially considering part of the school the existing school has a height of 42 feet at the it's that kind of um uh the the I know what you're talking about the tower part there's one section um near one of the entrances that's higher so it feels like a waiver would be in order though like they should seek a variant just go if I may through the chair um if the for the committee's information for the Elmwood School which we have not brought to you yet we'll be bringing that later this summer um we did approach approach the um zoning board of appeals for a decision on whether or not what's known as the do Amendment applied to the height of that building where the educational need of the building um made it not meet the zoning and we did get an affirmative um consensus from the board of appeals that in that situation the do Amendment did apply to height so just for the committee's knowledge um I just wanted to point that out the Dober amendment is um uh an amendment that has been um in place for a number of years and the text of it is um among a larger test that um for educational uses or educational purposes on land owned or leased by the Commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions um that we can't prohibit regulate or restrict the use of that land or structures for those purposes provided that any such land or structures may be subject to reasonable regulations so the board of appeals felt that for the Elwood project as we had presented it to them that the um the variation in height there was reasonable or was um I I don't remember the exact text of it but I believe it was unreasonable um so they didn't feel that we needed an a a variance for that specific requirement and project that's your plan here is to go to the zoning board of appeals to basically get approval ahead of time that 35' 6 in is okay I if the committee would like us to um address the 6 in with some waiver of some sort then we would proceed in some manner um to address that it that's why we wanted to ask the question today rather than on June 3 I think what we're saying is we may opt just to reduce the building height by six inches there another option too so I guess I'm looking to the board um I I think considering everything considering it's a school considering there it's it's an addition to an existing School uh they're putting their best proposal forward of like what the school should consist of additional 6 Ines of height for insulation like it makes sense to me that we should say it's I it make sense that I would support the school being six inches higher than 35 ft especially considering part of the existing schools is a height of 42 feet um but is if anyone on the board has any objections or other points of view I think Now's the Time to let the applicant know I mean I I don't see the harm in having them go before Zach and just getting their I think it's there I don't think it's Zach I think it's just part sorry the uh I think it might be justs maybe we could maybe we have a waiver as part of this process uh like there's a few waivers to remove some administrative fees but we could have a waiver as part of the approval to say we wave the 35 ft and uh in the school can be 35 feet 6 inches high have any feedback on any of this or just really up to us sorry I'm writing an email um this is for the do amendment in height yeah that's going to be a determination of the zoning enforcement official so so in your opinion we don't it doesn't even it doesn't really matter what we think no because if they don't comply they're going to have to get a variance or a special permit from the zba okay wouldn't it wouldn't affect the planning board's decision all right so from our point of view I think it's a non-issue all right thank you um the next item was uh related to um it was section 210 124a requires that parking lot shall be designed and located to provide screening from Ab budding properties we recommend that additional screening features be provided along the southern property line um I can pull up the photos that I took that day if it's helpful to the board but I know during the site walk um it's fairly consistent trees and um Greenery along the entirety of the Southern um property line um isn't there a little burn there at the be as well or raise an elevation along the if you had the um the photo that I passed along to you it it's pretty green I mean it's an angle that will uh capture more trees and straight through but I I I have a few more if you'd like to see some more I took two panoramics uh through the chair we were there on the sidewalk I could see some of the homes through the trees so in my opinion it would be nice to have some additional screening especially if the taller trees there um in the winter time it's probably even more bare because now some of the leaves are coming back okay Matthew do you have anything else on this topic uh I'm just curious like what what more uh I guess some lot tries might work in there as well I just want to make sure that uh I'm curious more than anything else um how many more trees we can pack in there and have them Thrive but yeah I also agree with the leas that um there were some SP you could see through there to some extent a lot of them are evergreen um but it's a long long pathway there's exceptions Ashley from Traverse from the landscape architect just listening into the comments I think we can certainly evaluate any blank spaces but there does appear to be a pretty substantial vegetated buff and we don't want to pack the trees in too much along that edge because it will impede the existing trees growth so um certainly we'll just evaluate for Bare spots and fill in where we can and I think it's also important to note that that curb line that edge is going to stay in a similar place as it is today so we're not disturbing further into that vegetative buffer I but thank you so the comments noted maybe a question for John I've never gone through a planning board approval process for an like such a significant addition to a school and the school's been around for over 25 years and that kind of tree line has been similar for 25 years so um I guess I'm what what kind of uh realistic right like what's the right way to put this realistic things we should do or could do or would want to do to make sure there's screening from Neighbors that have been like AB budding Property Owners should we try to do anything uh I I guess I'm it's been this way for a long long time and there uh I don't know if there's complaints or not but so I think Rob if I could just add a little context this is Tim the director of facil for the schools I think where you see some of the spots going through is from the existing building over I think where we are building the addition it's a little further away from that neighborhood and I'd have to check over there and see but I think it's I think the tree line kind of grows as we get down into this section here it definitely uh I know someone had a map earlier where Sanctuary Lane comes and and like comes closest to the school is by the existing school and as you get towards like the basketball court in Ballfield in Ballfield now the houses are further away so you can't see houses at all from down there but um hopefully some of Butters will be on later and further down the process and have direct feedback as well hopefully you guys have reached out to any of the ABS as well to get their feedback Christopher was that enough feedback on on that um that I think that's enough feedback we can look at um opportunities to in infill some of the bare spots and study that further um on site um the last item that I wanted to ask the committee or the board about was um uh it was section 21024 E5 requires that at least 10% of the interior of any parking lot having 25 or more spaces shall be maintained with Landscaping the parking lot on the north of the parcel does not appear to meet the minimum 10% requirement therefore we recommend the applicant revisit the parking layout to address interior planning space I know we walked this with the members of the committee who were on site at the time um currently the layout of this is intended to alleviate the concern but it's also restricted by the existing building we're maintaining the existing curb line into the greatest extent possible maintaining the existing limit of the wetlands vegetation with the double aisle to facilitate the pick up and drop off um in an efficient manner so we're really constrained by existing conditions in this area um and so I wanted the board's take on this particular issue so that if we have to extensively redesign it or look at changing the number of parking spaces or the location parkes we understood the board's thoughts on this issue so the the current parking is is I'm assuming it's designed to support primarily the staff and then so many visitor spaces it's kind of designed for the occupancy of of people that are going to be working there is that my my understanding correctly yeah Steve I don't know if you have the counts available um but a it's a net increase um of the number of parking spaces which is proportional to the increase of the building so like if we if if some if we asked you to significantly change the parking in some manner with more vegetation to uh more trees or shrubs or Landscaping we'd be budding up against like the necess necessity for parking to support the staff that's going to work at the school and the kind of needed visitor spaces you need with any school picking up dropping off or whatever the other visitor spaces visitor reasons so um I guess I guess we can there could be push back but I don't see an easy solution is what I'm what I'm through the chair go ahead Parker also aren we further ignoring sorry John are you gonna say something I can speak after you Parker I was say aren't we also ignoring that what if we or some body decides to at the in the future play solar panels at which case all any such vegetation would be removed anyway so it seems to me to be a non-issue but I could be wrong in asserting that I yeah I I don't think um maybe that language of the BW accounted for like what has happened with the Middle School parking lot where it because it's all pavement it's easy just to put uh or easier to put solar panels over the the majority of the parking lot to get that benefit so I think um maybe that maybe the zoning bylaw is not up to date with the other things that a parking lot could be used for to support solar arrays now go ahead John so I'm going to make this uh answer cleaner and make the previous answer a a little less clean um this section is not something the planning board can wave so if there is a change to this requirement they would the applicant would have to get a variance from the zba so they may want to look and this will probably be in the file when we look into it of what was approved previously if there was a variance issued for this type of requirement um if it doesn't currently meet what is required there may have been a variance already issued so this is kind of out of the planning board's hands because the have the authority to wave this requirement the parking situation and the the landscaping and the parking correct yep okay the previous comment that I made about the wrod I was looking at the property boundary thinking it was Sanctuary Lane there is a small Corner located within the wrod and not in the wrod one Steve I sent you an email to try and talk about this so we just need to look and see what work is being done within that small corner of the site and if it meets the criteria for a special permit that would then have to be issued by the zba that's not a special permit planning board issues but if you're not meeting the criteria for applicability within that small area it should relative it should be move but we can talk offline about that through through the chair while we're on the subject of the parking lot John could you clarify do we have the ability to add a condition on the uh that all surface and curving should be Granite not pre-cast because the rationale is that this is very high traffic High assaulted and I think anybody here that's driven in that area sees how deteriorated it's been we do we have the ability to do that yeah yeah I mean that would be covered under the site plan approval right you have you're you're planning for the use of the site in terms of parking I don't see why that would would be not applicable through the chair would anybody be opposed to that kind of rationale I uh Parker the only the only thing I'm thinking is um since this is a public project that all the taxpayers of hopkington pay for I am not a curb expert but I don't know what the delin cost is like every I think the town collectively approved the the scope of the project at Town meeting so um we just want to be realistic with like things that help the project and maybe Grant does but if it add like if it's just a minor increase and it's within the budget I'd say sure but I I really have no idea sure I think that if you we look at the you know to last time meeting is an example the scrutiny that we get on maintenance for projects is sometimes um I I guess put it a different way if we could put a one-time capital investment into infrastructure that will stand a test of time versus you know needing to then go to town meeting to request you know for you know maintenance that could might or might not be approved and seeing the state of the parking lot and cures that is today I don't think it's a unreasonable ask of you know the taxpayers to foro Future Opex cost or one time capex cost it's just IR rational but so Christopher I I guess my our ask is when it comes to parking or anything related to curbing um what to come prepared to talk about the Delta and cost I think there's some sentiment that Granite curbs could stand the test of time around a school a lot longer but it's also there's some concern that cost uh the cost Delta we don't know what the cost Delta is we can certainly get that information and bring it back to the committee thank you and I if there's nothing else on that topic that I had one more here that I just um thought it would be useful to talk through um it was a section 2101 1211b requires that a buffer shall be provided at the perimeter of a lot of lot not less than 50 feet wide in the RB Zone zoning District the buffer between the southern property line and the access Drive is approximately 30 feet in width the applicant should determine if a waiver will be sought for this exceedence or if the design can be adjusted to meet the 50ft buffer requirement if um Steve if you could just throw the plan up so I believe the buffer that they're talking about is the um curb line of the exist existing Road as it exists now we're making it no wider than the existing um as part of what we're doing and all of our new work other than the mill and overlay of that road to bring it back up to a good condition is to the inside or away from the property line um so I just wanted to get the board's feeling on whether that's also something that they feel we need to seek a waiver for or if that's something where the existing um School as it exists now has that limitation and all our work is expanding it to the inside and not to the outside I'm going to look for some guidance from John see if uh if this is something we need they need planning board input on so is this proposed to be changed from what's existing are you making this buffer area narrower like does it currently meet the requirements no it doesn't Curr meet the requ correct it's like a pre-existing non-conforming condition here is like in this area here this is the existing curb we're pulling it in slightly so it's two or three feet but we're certainly not making it worse but to be able to get 50 feet of buffer is difficult this might be covered in the previous approval um and I would I would hope I'd have to get confirmation from the zoning enforcement officer but I hope at the very least you could apply for a section six finding in front of the zba and say that you're not making a non-conforming any worse by the proposed work um but I if it was if it's not changing and it was already in place I would imagine there's some type of approval or permission that is allowing it okay I think I don't want to speak for all the board members but I think for my perspective I'm very sympathetic to that and I uh understand the situation so and go ahead Christopher I think we had one more item Steve did you want to talk about yeah um the existing the storm water yeah yeah um so there's is a kind of an overarching comment um we we obviously have a storm water peer review as part of this um a couple of the comments that were made by the peer reviewer involve additional soil testing on site um the orange symbols throughout here is where we've done soil testing throughout the site um we we've tried to move the underground infiltration system location ated in this area here um and and essentially place it into an area where you know we're we're able to to build it um there is some shallow Ledge in certain areas um that we're we're also trying to avoid um we did go back out and install some groundwater monitoring Wells um in this area here in this area here so we do um we we are reconfiguring this underground storm water infiltration system as part of the peer review comments we'll be addressing everything comprehensive ly in resubmitting so we do have soil testing and groundwater information in in these areas here um one of the questions and and one of the comments that the peer reviewer brought up was um performing um in situation um infiltration testing on the property and we're wondering if the board um we we were essentially basing it on nrcs methods um and finding a hydrologic group um of soils and basing our infiltration rates on that we don't take credit for the actual infiltration capabilities when we're doing our sizing we're we're capturing all of our detention um that's required and volume storage within the system itself is this something that the board has ever um offered a waiver for going back out and and we're just being conscious of time um and of course additional cost for the project has the board ever allowed us to um allowed other projects to to use you know published um soil uh hydrologic groups to to you know use as infiltration testing and infiltration rest rates rather than going back out and doing testing additional testing the go ahead Parker I was gonna ask do we have an answer to that but not to answer a question with the question but Steve what classification of soil based on the different spot checks were are we talking is it like level three or four or is it one it's it's it's a level um it's it's it's called C so it's a b c and d and a that's the that's the highest infiltration rate all the way down to D which is essentially you know Clay like Sol soils we're we're using a c in this um we did think it was a b to begin with um we went back and did some additional testing uh sorry some additional research on it and it's it's a sea soil we actually have a physical sample of this soil too and it's it's a lot sandier and grainier than um um than than we believe um um but it is a sea type soil we would be basing our design on that so the infiltration capabilities are it's not great but it's not the soil either Michael go ahead I was just gonna say I mean uh John can answer this too but you might have to ask um the Board of Health that right what's about uh soil infiltration so so the board it's a great question and if there was an on-site septic system we would it would make it easier we'd actually be doing percolation tests in the field as part of our deep soil you know deep pole testing um with storm water it's it's slightly different um I I do know Brian besso I can certainly talk to him um about it I'm not sure if he'd have an opinion if that would carry any weight with the board I can call him tomorrow John do do you know if um if we've ever if in your time working uh in Hopkin if we've ever done that uh like allowed a project to instead of doing the actual infiltration testing just use the the soil type as kind of means to get to a an infiltration number and use that in the project to help the project move forward quicker I don't recall that ever being discussed whether it happened or not uh between the peer review consultant and the applicant I I don't know for sure I'd have to look back and see and I don't know if I would get an answer for that um we can connect offline this week and and try and figure out a solution to that okay yes yeah think that's the best step Steve like anything you can work out with John to and um and maybe even our peerreview consultant if they buy in on that I think that helps the Board make it easy for us to buy in on it yep I understand I just wanted to ask the board if if there was any historical precedence on that um and then my last question is this came up you know we are s of redoing an existing storm water feature you know we're calling it a proposed rain Garden um this area was approved as part of the original 96 approvals to the planning board as as being a storm water management feature um the peer Reviewer is also asking for Depot testing through this area too um what we were trying to do is just enhance what's already an existing area there's an existing um 12in PVC that that drains this area um into to this and then um and then conveys it you know across the road to the east if as as this is an existing area and we're just proposing to um like I said enhance it with some plantings that we're coordinating with the landscape architect is that something and we're not counting on it for any kind of detention um it's really just more of a filar quality feature that we're upgrading and in sort of an outdoor classroom would a depole test be required in that area um or or would the board consider not having one in that area if we're all we're doing is going through and re you know upgrading an an existing storm water management feature that's on site I think this is another thing that uh like if you can get agreement with our peer review consultant to say that's okay uh like none of I'll speak for myself I'm not an expert on storm water and like soil type and all this stuff so the more you get agreement from the person we hire to provide Guidance the better okay all right I totally understand um just wanted to bring it up um with the board tonight but we um like John said earlier we we just did get the the review comments we've reached out um to Ty and bond to try to schedule a meeting this week and and go through a lot of these questions as well so um hope to have some more answers next time here the chair if I just did some quick Googling as well if we could just understand the there's any safety or like legal liability concerns as part of that uh and then what if there's any Community impact so if any properties around would be negatively impact I think based on the gradient it's likely no but and then finally like what are the financial implications of skipping the testing that that could possibly lead to higher costs in the long run um knowing those three things could ALS be beneficial as well thanks Parker that um yeah I those comments make sense to me that's that's all I had appreciate the board's time so Rob we appreciate the um the board taking the time to answer these questions I know you had a long hearing before for us um that's all that we wanted to cover today I think a lot of the other comments are of a more technical nature and we'll try and address all of them prior to our return on the thir we'll look into some of the answers that you gave us but otherwise we would request to continue this until your next meeting on June 3 all right I think on our I think from the town's point of view we we're going to try to try to find the prior approvals for Hopkins school um and any findings associated with it and if there was any waivers and any any prior information that would help this process along um I think the next time we meet we'll have the peerreview consultant on the call and you guys will have a chance to talk offline not in a public hearing and uh hopefully come to agreement on most most anything you want to and then uh anything that's uh we can provide additional guidance and perspective on we will and uh I think as a town I think there's H some excitement for the school edition so uh that that's a very positive thing but for tonight um does anybody on the board or um anyone from the project team have any other comments or or I can make a mo we can I can entertain a motion to continue this conversation are you will you guys be ready for our next meeting on June 3 is it June 3 John yes yes it is uh and through the chair you might just want to see if there's any public comment I don't see any public out there but just in case yeah before I do that is there is there any public comment if you if you have anything maybe help to go off on camera if you can if not uh I'll give it a second all right I'd like to entertain a motion to continue uh what's the is it 90 and 104 Hayden row to our next meeting on June 3rd so moved second do I do I need to uh do anything about a decision or just move the just continue the hearing I believe both decisions are okay but let me just check we should continue the storm water management permit because it's currently May 26 so I would ask that we go June 10th so uh I want to I want to continue the major site plan and storm water management permit to June 3D and then the decision to June 10th with the storm water management permit to June 10th for the decision for the storm water management permit to June 10th move to yeah so moved second all right I I think I procedurally kind of messed that up but thank you for agreeing uh all right let me go down to a vote here uh Parker yes Matthew yes Elise yes vicaso yes Michael yes and Rob is a yes so we'll see you on June 3 all right thank you everyone thanks thank you and I'm gonna hand it back to Gary all right thanks Rob um I guess just uh two two more things um the first is uh media minutes from April 22nd 2024 um any questions or comments from folks on those meeting minutes Matthew yeah I just wanted to strike the word uh on page five the last paragraph before the motion um after Mr Benson suggested a site walk to strike the word all at the beginning of the next sentence I don't think everybody actually I don't think the universal qualifier actually holds okay seems reasonable any objections to that minor change all right then on that note I will entertain a motion to accept the minutes from April 22nd 2024 with the uh proposed amendment uh from Matthew so moved Rob second all right assuming no further discussion Rob how do you vote Rob yes Elise yes Vic yes Matthew yes Michael Yes Parker yes and Gary is a yes as well um I think I got everybody there um I guess last just to close um this is my last planning board meeting after six years um and I intentionally waited until there's virtually nobody left so nobody has to listen to me but um I wanted to to just share a couple of thoughts um so first um um I just want to say thank you to all of you um it really has been a pleasure uh working with everyone I think that this board brings um great perspective and diversity in town um just from where we live where we are in life our backgrounds and I think that's one of the things that makes this board great um most people don't appreciate the importance of volunteerism in running a town like hoofington and all of you show up week after week to do your Sur um and um you know hopkington doesn't doesn't run without this so thank you um I I also just want to acknowledge a few people from planning board's past that um I think really had an impact on me um first is is Fran D young and and Fran always found this balance between working within the rules uh and advocating for what was important to him and I think that's just so important for us um you know I I admire France independent thinking his ability to hold firm uh and his passion um when it needed to come out and I I think that's just a great example for us um the second person um Mariel Kramer and I I learned from her the value of inclusivity I think that she of all people always made an effort to enable people to speak and to find their voice and I'm really proud of of this planning board's track record of encouraging public input and discussion and it's not something Universal across over the boards and um you know Mariel's always been a champion for that um and the third person somebody that I never actually served with but he was one of my predecessors and that's Ken Weiss Manel and Ken was always so well prepared uh he had such a a strong understanding of all things planning and Engineering um he just he knew he he still knows so much and um you know I think that that it's one of the the learning curves associated with this role is is working through and building that expertise but um you know for those of you that may not know these three that are maybe a little near to town it's probably should strike you as odd that I list them in the same sentence um they've got very different beliefs but I think they also have one thing in common and and unequivocally I think they all put the greater needs of hopkington and are almost 20,000 residents first um and um you know I know at times it's temp to take a position based on a smaller subset of ab Butters or you know people that kind of think like we do but um I think all three of them know that boards function at their highest level when they put the town first and um at the end of the day that's that's what all of us um I think should should aspire to to do um I also want to thank John guch our principal planner um he's been so impactful for me just with his uh guidance and wisdom uh and support um you know he's my go-to I I talk to him almost every week if not every other week um most people don't realize the breadth of John's experience he's worked as a consultant uh both applicants and I think towns um and he he uh you may not know he actually serves on the planning board in his hometown so um we all see him on Zach and planning board um but he also serves as a planning board member himself um so John I feel fortunate to call your friend and and don't worry I'll still be stopping by Town Hall every now and then um to check in and see what's going on um and then lastly uh just a a few words um kind of three things that I feel really strongly about number one um nimi is the enemy of good planning and I'm GNA say that again but you know I I just it goes back to that that notion of of thinking about the broader interest of the town and it's really really easy to of I guess i' say this it's it's hard to go against nimes in so many ways but as as planners we should constantly be checking ourselves or as planning board members we should be checking ourselves against that and you know just because there's 100 people that feel that way um you know there's there's 19,000 more that that may or may not so um you know I think that's so important second piece just because an idea might be right doesn't mean it's going to be successful and um you know I just say don't underestimate as I have in the past the importance of of building public support and um you know and I I think uh it's just a um something to always consider uh as to to how to go about doing that if we want to actually do something that that is complicated and most of what we do is is pretty complicated um and then the third piece and just encourage people to seek out the voice of those that are not like not like us or and maybe not people that we know and um it's always going to make our understanding stronger it's going to strengthen our convictions or it might make us aware to something else um but um you I think it's funny we all probably feel like we know a lot of people um I I know I do and you know the reality is there's there's far more that we don't know than um those that that we do know and again just kind of building off that theme of of representing um the almost 20,000 people of hackington so um I'll wrap this up I I feel so fortunate um I've learned to be a better listener from my planning board experience I've built an appreciation for the importance of Divergent thinking and and you know having some natural conflict and disagreement it's it's good um I feel like I've grown as a facilitator I'm proud of who we are the track records and our decisions and overall just the way we've we've conducted U our business so um I look forward to seeing how the board evolves um and uh I guess on that note I'll entertain a motion to close the meeting so move let's see Gary second no no public comment at all come on man a comment on the motion oh I was gonna try John I don't know if you can make a comments on the motion but I'll I'll let you right well I don't think it's very fair that you you can say all that and not let anybody say about you but yeah that that was that was rough Gary it's been it's been an honor working with you and we're sad to see you go I know I'm going to be sad to see you go uh but I'm excited to work with the rest of the board moving forward um thank you for the the kind words it's it's been really nice working with everybody on the board up to this point um and you know look forward to doing it more but uh it's it's really good to have had a couple chairs in the past now that have uh really made this board their own uh and I hope the next chair does the same so uh thank you for your your guidance on the board and and we'll miss you and uh hope to see you back in in the near future thanks John I don't think tend and comments are always welcome Gary feel free to uh dial in don't worry I will not venture too far and I'm not moving so um just have to be public comment I have a full well I I don't even really understand Gary how much extra work you have put in over and above and beyond um but it it's a lot and uh at least I know it's a lot so you've really tried to do always triy to do the right thing and uh fully appreciate it thanks Rob we'll miss you Gary thanks for everything you've done for the town thank you will we you Ed you are one of the reason for me to step in also to be honest because if you remember very first time when I initially talk to you about this post you guided me saying that you know how important this is I'll still bug you after this also I have your number what any guys I think Vic meant he blames you he he might just what the hell are you guys doing out there I'll just say Gary believe a big shoes to Phil and we definitely I can say personally appreciate how you've thought about the the role and uh I don't know if somebody many folks are still getting to know me but they could say that Parker doesn't get speechless many times and this is one of those times I feel quite speechless so sad to see you go thanks Parker all right anything more it's always awkward I was hoping to avoid that but well organize we'll organize some uh post uh some some uh beers or something at uh at uh what the heck start line but um and notify the public so we're not violating the open meetings ad if they want to attend they are welcome yeah thank you I I thought about trying to throw a date out there and um gosh um maybe we can chat offline my my calendar is a little uh a little nuts right now it's going to get worse before it gets better but um maybe I'll throw a few dates out there um and uh it' be fun be fun we don't see each other enough so um and we gotta we got to get a lease out um one more well that might be a little tight um that have to be like in the next like couple weeks I think but um yeah all right well thank you all um don't be a stranger um as you all know I have a lot of opinions and I'm always willing to share them and charge so um if you want some free opinions um let me know and know that I I won't be a stranger to this whole process so um on that note we have an emotion in a second to adjourn uh Rob how do you vote Yes lease yes Matthew yes Michael Yes Vic yes Parker yes and Gary's the yes as well so thanks Gary a good night thanks everyone all right bye for