All right, I'm going to kick us off uh by reading the uh remote meeting script and we'll go from there. Pursuant to chapter two of the acts of 2023, this meeting will be conducted via remote means in accordance with applicable law. This means that members of the public body as well as members of the public may access this
meeting via virtual means. Participants may access this meeting through the remote meeting link is posted on the meeting agenda and through the town's online calendar when required by law or allowed by the chair. Persons wishing to provide public comment or otherwise participate in the meeting may do so by raising their hand or otherwise signaling their intent to speak. This
meeting will be recorded. Please take care to mute your microphone unless you have been recognized by the chair. We will now confirm attendance of members. Please respond with present if you're on the call. Elise Mosowski. Uh Lucille Lopez present.
Matthew Rona present. Michael King present. Parker Hap present. Jane Moran present. Karen Wills present.
Vicas Prati present. And Rob Benson is our obviously here. Uh and staff John Gelsich present. And Lorie St. Lori may not be joining tonight. Okay. All right. Let's jump in uh right into our agenda. For everybody following
along, like everybody that has the agenda, we're just going to uh go down uh in order of our agenda. So first item uh is our administrative items 1.1 request for release of
planning uh request for release of the remaining bond for legacy farms road north. Um it looks like the the road was accepted by the town but John could you give us an update?
So yeah um the road had been accepted by the town back in 2020. Um the planning board at that time reduced the bond to 25,000 just in case there was any other fixes that need to happen uh right after the town accepted it that weren't caught ahead of time. Um but after that kind of
just fell off the table. Uh the applicant didn't request a um a release of the bond. We didn't pursue a release of the bond. So here we are looking to release the rest of the bond. All right. And from your perspective, there's no reason not to. Right.
All right. Any questions from anyone on the board? All right. I'd like to entertain a motion that we release the bond for Legacy Farms Road North of $25,000. So moved. Thanks, Jane. Thanks, Matthew.
Uh, roll call vote. Alis Mayowski, yes. Uh, Lucia Lopez, yes. Matthew Rona, yes. Michael King, yes. Parker Hap, yes. Jane Moran, yes. Karen Wills, yes. Vic Southprati,
yes. And Rob Benson is a yes. All right. Great. Moving on to our next ag uh agenda item, meeting minutes. I know Lory's not. Thank you. Best of luck, Roy. Thanks. Thank you. Meeting minutes. Uh I know Loriy's not
on, but does anyone have any comments for Yeah, Rob's? Um I think Lucia sent over comments and there might have been others. So I would just recommend we table these until the next meeting. All right, sounds good. All right, we're going to jump into item two on our agenda. Continued public
hearing for 0 and 109 Winter Street. Uh P special permit for a common driveway and storm water management permit. So we we were introduced to this project two meetings ago. Uh it wasn't on our agenda last meeting and uh it I
know there was a sidewalk I wasn't able to attend unfortunately but uh we're picking it back up tonight. Is our peerreview c consultant from Ty and Bondon? Does not look like they are.
I don't remember going May maybe we did. I don't uh I don't remember going through their report uh our meeting two weeks ago. No, we did not. H I'm not really sure. Uh to the chair.
Go ahead, Joe. I think the idea was uh offline. We try to make as much headway as we could on the outstanding items um with with Tai and Bond conduct the sidewalk and then revisit to see if we had everything resolved. And I think
we're down to two items. Okay. All right. So, I don't know how much progress we can make without like an agreed upon um kind of peerreview uh the work completed. Um I'm not sure
what to do next. I was I saw the response your email response um to their comments, but uh I'm not sure what to do at this point. John, do you have any recommendations? You could ask the applicant if there's just any updates or what they would like to do. But I mean, generally at this
point, we would just continue to the next meeting. And if there's still items that need to be worked out in the peerre u review um until the until we get a clean letter, I would say keep going, keep continuing it unless the applicant wants to present
anything. All right, that sounds fine. That sounds good. Joe, do do you have any update on your end? Yeah, I'd like to uh from the memo uh dated April 24th. Um I'd like to if the board wouldn't mind just kind of kicking around item number 16 on page
five. Is this something you could bring up quickly, John? Or maybe I can lay it out. Yeah, I can bring up. Okay. What was the date of that, Joe? Uh, the
24th. John, oh, was that the one that was just sent over? Right. Rob, is this Was this not in the folder earlier today then? I I don't see it in the folder. Oh, I don't know, but I'll bring it up on the
screen. All right, Joe. So, so we haven't we haven't uh seen this letter. So, if you want to give us some background and um we can go from there. Um item 16 deals with the storm water
basin design and um what uh Ty Bond is asking for uh is additional testing that shows up as a requirement in the town of Hopkin storm water bylaw. Um, our
concern is although our basin is not very deep, um, it may necessitate the use of machinery to conduct the test. Um, we're hoping not, but if it does, we
have an issue because the basin is on the east side, the other side of that intermittent stream channel that bisects the site. the members that were on the sidewalk, the stream back then was flowing pretty much at at bank level. It
was full. Uh we haven't had as much rain. Uh leaves are starting to pop, but it still will be an issue uh crossing that stream if the machinery is necessary. It's not an exempt activity with the conservation commission. would we would have to file with them. They'd
most likely tell us to wait to cross until June or July when we want to be constructing the driveway, not still permitting the driveway. So, we spun it around and played devil's advocate and said, "What if we assumed no infiltration at the bottom of the basin,
even though the soils indicate that there will, it made about an inch difference to the top uh elevation of the basin and the spillway. So an inch and an eighth if we took the worst case scenario. So that's why we proposed a
waiver from that requirement for that test given the fact that we are one single family house lot. It seems with that backdrop and you will tell me it didn't seem like a a big ask to wave the
requirement of that test given uh some of the circumstances in play. And that's what number 16 deals with. Uh I understand requesting the waiver from it. Does that mean you just dig the in the basin inch and eighth or
uh the exact deeper higher? We want more storage. So the top elevation will be an inch and an eighth higher. The spillway bay will be an inch and an eighth higher. Even though we know there will be some infiltration through the bottom, we'll assume none for this exercise.
Okay. I I the uh the concept makes makes sense to me. Uh does anyone on the board have any comments or feedback? If you thought it was crazy, then we would try and conduct that test in the meantime before your next
hearing. But if you think the idea has merit, we'll leave it alone and just pick this thread up at the next hearing. What uh what could the conservation commission say about this proposal? Like um I don't I know we can approve the
waiver or not. Uh but what is the conservation commission's I guess if you approve if you approve the waiver there's no need for the soil testing. So we would not file for any of that. We would go forward with the design which is in the package which includes the
inch and an eighth. If you wanted to see the actual test and not grant the waiver, then we'd go off to conservation and talk to them about if was necessary could we cross the stream channel with a piece of
machinery. I'm sure the concern would be compaction of the bank, erosion of the bank into the stream, and the fact that we're trying to do this test at a poor time of the year. The gr the water level is just
too high in that bank. So, the discussion will be about the damage we would do to the bank, and I'm sure they would suggest wait until July, Joe. So, it it makes sense to me. Uh I I kind of wish the our peer review consultant
was on for this. Uh John, do you have any thoughts on this that uh I mean I'm not a storm water engineer, so I really can't speak to the um the issues that might come out if this waiver was granted or if there are
no issues. I you know that's not my area of expertise. All right. Thank Okay. Anyone on the board have any comments? Go ahead, Lucia. So, is this the latest response from our peer review? Because it says, "We recommend the board consider if
infiltrometer testing will be required as a potential condition of approval prior to construction." So, it sounds like maybe that is um a second option that we have that the peer review suggests. Is that the case? I'm sorry.
That's the test they want us to perform. That's for the test we're asking you to wave. Okay. So, this is not their response then. They're not saying I think what they're saying is it's the board's call. So Lucia through the chair, I think the
issue is the issue is um the applicant wants to move forward with construction of the driveway. If they have to do this test and it turns out that the machinery needs to get to the site, they might need to get, if I'm getting this correct, Joe, they might need to get
some permissions from Concom, which then might take a little bit longer. So even though this would be a condition prior to construction, it would still push out the um the actual construction of the driveway what lot a lot further than
they were hoping for if that situation of the testing with the machinery came to fruition. Did I get that right, Joe? Yes, correct. Does that make sense with Zia? And and I I think the last part is to appease us is they're they're
proposing build building the base into assume no no infiltration like no water seeping directly into the ground. Right. Correct. We're taking a worst case scenario. Right. Okay. Yeah. I guess my my reading of
that um I was wondering if they meant prior to construction beyond the driveway. So, like maybe once the driveway is in place, they could do testing, but I guess it doesn't make sense to do it in that order. Thank you. I I don't know if it's reasonable um and
I don't know what it what the cost is, but if it if it can be done with hand tools, uh it might make sense to try before our next meeting. Um, if it doesn't if it can't be done with hand tools and would require machinery to cross the stream like I don't
um I think your logic makes sense. I I would have a my opinion is I don't it's it's just it it makes logical sense to me. So I don't I don't have a lot of heartache with it. Um but I I think giving it a try would be worthwhile as well.
Go ahead, Matthew. Thanks. Yeah, the concept sounds reasonable, but I just like everybody else that's mentioned, like I I don't have I'm not an expert in this area, so I would really like to hear the response from uh the peer review to see if they have any concerns with it before, you know, we we decide
for sure on the waiver, but um assuming that the science is sound and worst case assuming the worst case doesn't mean anything bad here, like I I I think it makes sense. I just would like to hear from time bond before making a final decision on it.
Okay. Thank Thank you, Matthew. Sorry about that. I was on mute for a second. Uh, anyone else have any comments? The chair. I just have questions. Go ahead, Parker. Is so is there like what I'm not quite sure I understand. what is the risk of not completing this step in
the in the process? So typically, this is my understanding, typically they would do a soil test to see how much water basically infiltrates the soil. And depending on how much it the water just like seeps into the
ground directly, it impacts the size of the uh retention basin they need for storm water runoff. So the the risk here is um if no test was done, uh a developer
could build a a basin that's too small to retain uh storm water. But in this case, they're they're proposing building the largest uh storm water retention basin possible with assuming no infiltration. So I don't I think the risks are really
mitigated to Z to to none. Yeah, that's I mean can't we just like wave this because of that? They're kind of already going to you know what I mean? It just seems Well, that's what they're asking. They're asking if if we believe their proposal is is viable and then we'll
just pick the uh with the with the Thai bond consultant on the call next meeting. that they would ask for the waiver and they're they're trying to get an assessment if we would agree to that waiver in advance of agreeing to the waiver. Yeah. But that Yeah. So that's what I was kind of trying to say is why
can't we just do that? Uh well I I don't think we we go through the whole process of voting until next uh meeting. That would be my take. Okay. I Yeah. I just want to like I'm sure these folks are waiting and you know
they want to get going. So just want to try to see if there's any way we can remove impediments for them. That's all. Okay. Excuse me. Can I say something? I'm I'm the owner of Yeah. Sally, can you could
you just introduce your give us your name and address? Yeah. Yeah. My my my name is Sally. I'm the owner of uh the project uh the 109 and as I understand we need last name and address too for the minutes. Yeah. Sally your full name
and your street. Yeah. Sally is 109 Wind Street. Okay. Yeah. I I I'm the the owner of it. I as I understand from Joe's uh explain I'm not engineer or something. I just uh to my understanding
Joe has uh prepared the the the uh the design to the worst senior say scenario. Uh sorry um sorry my English is not that perfect and he has prepared the worst
cases and which will happen in the future so so that we can move on without the test. Even we have the test I don't know that why we we we still need the test because we have prepared the worst
situation here. So and then just for this waiver we have to wait for another meeting. So I just can't it just you know cannot understand here. Yeah, we
have waited, you know, several several several meetings, but for this one, I just don't understand why we have to wait another meeting and because we have prepared worst the worst cases here and
Joe has assumed that there is no filtration here and we have built that for the no filteration here and why we have to taste that test for the filteration. So I just cannot understand
uh why we do don't get the approval here. Sorry I that's why I understanding. I just uh I just uh you know let you know my uh my understanding. Thank you for your thank you for your uh time.
All right, Sally, I totally appreciate your comment. Uh I think what Joe is suggesting makes makes total sense. We just we typically approve it's part of our typical process. We typically approve waiverss
uh for a project like this when our peerreview consultant has officially reviewed all aspects of it and it that part of the the work is done and so this would fall like approving this now at
this point would be out of line with our typical process. I think it makes sense what Joe's proposed to design it to the worst case scenario and not need the test. I'm only one member of the board. Um but that's that's my my opinion. You're the chair. Go ahead, Karen. Yeah,
I mean I I have to agree with Sally. I mean, if you take it to the logical conclusion, I think this was where Parker was going, but I'm not, but I won't speak for you, Parker, is that they they're already planning to build the biggest retention area that can be
done. So, I mean, the what are the chances are that is the peer review going to come back and say, "Build a bigger one?" Well, they're already at the maximum, right? They're already assuming no penetration. So, it just it doesn't it doesn't make sense. And while
I can certainly appreciate that we, you know, we have a history and that we don't do it before the peer review consulting, I just I don't see what wasting wasting time of these people that are waiting and waiting waiting to do this is it's going to do any, you
know, anything else. So, I would I would suggest that we vote on the waiver tonight. That would be my if you need me to make a motion, I'll make a motion or you can just check the rest of the board and see what they think. I see Matthew. I will second it. Karen, you said exactly what I was trying to say in
fewer words and more concisely. Well, I don't know if it was fewer words, Parker, but thank you. Do uh be before an official motion is made. Let's Matthew, go ahead. So, just think about the process here.
What does granting the waiver at this point unblock in terms of prog progress or they just know they don't have to talk to conservation? Right. We we still haven't approved a storm water management plan just by granting a waiver, right? So there's still more that needs to be approved and settled
before building works. I I think it just helps with planning a project when when construct when when things can start. Um that would be my guess, but Joe, do you have any a different assessment? I don't think the basin design changes
with this test since we have gone um to the worst case scenario. So it will be proving out um and supplying what's required by the regulation and obviously that is a standard framework that you
folks use as a guide. Uh we're asking to be relieved of one element of that. So it has more to do with moving this thing forward in a timely manner. Um that's the impact rather than a a wholesale
change in the basin design because as we've as we've kind of kicked around here it's at the worst case scenario. So it's more of a timing process discussion. Okay. Thanks. So, uh, Karen or Parker, I think if you kind of reward, if you want
to make a motion, if you go to section 2.8.2 and kind of reward what they say there, uh, to into a motion, um, you can, you can do that. [Music] Uh, where to the chair? Go ahead. Um,
are we going to just vote on this one waiver or are we going to vote on all the waivers? I mean, is this I think what they're proposing is this is the only waiver requested. I think what Karen and Parker has suggested was voting on this one
waiver. I don't I don't know how you feel about that, John. It's definitely out of our process. However you want to do, I just want to make sure we're getting the record right. Okay. It's Yeah. Things aren't being forgotten, right? Yep. Okay. So, I'll I'll give it a shot and
feel free to correct me or Parker, feel free to jump in. Is I would like to put forth a motion that the board approve a waiver for that the uh saturated hydraulic
conductivity test, is that the one? um shall not be required for the infiltration systems to receive the storm water runoff. That would you sorry would you take a friendly amendment that will wave the requirement for the
saturated hydraulic conductivity tests? [Music] Sure. Can I make an even friendlier? Yes. Yes. Yes. Please help us. Say you move that the planning board grant a waiver from storm water regulations appendix E4R.
Okay. So, wait. So, what was the first part of that? That we planning grant a waiver. Okay. To the stormwater regulations section appendix E item 4R. Can I say whatever you said? All right. So, what John said, we
propose an amendment that the planning board issue a waiver for appendix E4 R. The second. So Karen made the motion. Parker Parker seconded the motion.
All right. Roll call vote. Elise Moloski. We'll go back to Elise. Lucil Lopez. No. Matthew Rona. No. Michael King. Parker H. Yes. Jane Moran, yes. Karen
Wills, yes. Vicas South, yes. And Rob Benson is a yes. Elise, are you on? I think that gives us five. So, I think it passes regardless. Sorry, I'm on. I'm just on my phone and
I couldn't figure out how to unmute myself. Um, yes, I vote yes. Okay. All right. All right. So, Joe, when you come back to us at our next meeting, that waiver has already been uh granted, but we still will need to go through the
rest of our process once uh any remaining items with a peerreview consultant are done. Okay. So, uh, at this point, John, do I need to continue this to do I need to do do any formal actions to continue this?
I believe you do. So, the decision for the storm water management permit is due May 7th. The next planning board meeting is scheduled for May 19th. So, we would look for the decision for the storm water management permit to be
extended to [Music] May 23rd and the special permit for the common driveway. Does that need anything? Just continue with 90 days of the close of the public hearing. So,
that one has time. All right. I'd like to enter a motion to continue the public hearing for the special permit common driveway and storm water management permit for 0 and 109 Winter Street to May 19th and extend the decision
deadline for the storm water management permit to May 23rd. So moved. Thanks, Matthew. Second. Thanks, Parker. Uh, roll call vote. Elise Mosowski, yes. Lucia Lopez,
yes. Matthew Rona, yes. Michael King, yes. Parker Hap, yes. Jane Moran, yes. Karen Wills, yes. Vic Southprati, yes. And Rob Benson is a yes. All
right, moving right along. Uh item three on our agenda also I think Joe is going to be talking uh in regards to this one. So at our last meeting we
uh which was three weeks ago we were introduced to a project called uh Katherine Drive. Um we had a sitewalk uh of Katherine Drive. So this is to continue that public hearing. um for division
definitive subdivision plan for Katherine Drive. Do you have any new uh any update you'd like to provide, Joe, before we get into our like uh itinerary agenda, I guess? No, not really. Uh we did not make much headway uh resolving the
items. Uh we will pick that up uh tomorrow. I guess I would just want to take this opportunity to see if anything came up uh from the board's perspective during the sitewalk uh that we should incorporate. That was it. Otherwise, we
can we can wrap this up and and keep this meeting moving. I think from my perspective, it's it's fairly straightforward. after the sidewalk. It's uh basically a a c
uh it's going to be a three house culdeac. Um I didn't have a lot of uh feedback. It seems like it uh uh fits in kind of a a downtown proximity uh kind of neighborhood dwelling setting. So that's my opinion.
Uh, anyone else uh have anything. Um, all right. So we we need to wait for this is also a situation where we need to wait for our next meeting to close out the storm water uh management review. So I guess if we can continue to
meeting in the future allow us to uh catch up with a peer review, make some headway on these items and uh revisit all this uh at your next hearing. That'd be ideal. Okay. All right. Yeah, I did see uh a letter from PAR, but I did not see a response.
[Music] in our like we have a folder of all the communication. Anyone have any comments or questions for Joe or uh we're going to continue this uh to our next public uh hearing public meeting. All right. Do I need uh I can just
continue this. Do I do I need to extend any decision deadline, John? No, the subdivision decision is due on June 6th. So, we have uh another meeting and then we then we would have to continue it. All right. I'd like to entertain a motion to continue the public hearing for the definitive subdivision plan
Catherine Drive to May 19th. So moved. Second. Thanks, Matthew. Thanks, Michael. Roll call vote. Elise Mowski, yes. Lucil Lopez, yes. Matthew Rona, yes. Michael King, yes. Parker Hap, yes.
Jane Moran, yes. Karen Wills, yes. Vicas South, yes. And Rob Benson is yes. All right. Thanks, Joe. We will uh we'll see you uh in two weeks. Or actually, no, that's longer
than two two weeks. Three weeks. All right, item four on our agenda, Bay Path Animal Shelter, Fruit Street. Uh, good evening, Chris Keenan from Quinn Engineering. Can everybody hear me? We can. If you'd like to give an introduction to
the project that would uh kick us off in our discussion. Uh, the applicant's proposing to construct a new animal shelter at uh 60. Point of order. Did we vote to open the meeting? Oh, yes. Sorry. Sorry. We because it's
a we need to open the public we need to open the public hearing. Sorry, this is a formality. Let me just go. Uh I'd like to enterain a motion to open the public hearing for the stormwater management permit and major project site plan for the Bay Path animal shelter on Fruit
Street. So moved. Second. Thanks, Matthew. Thanks, Michael. Thanks. Thanks for uh jumping in there, Matthew. Uh roll call vote. Elise Mosowski, yes. Lucia Lopez, yes. Matthew Rona, yes. Michael King, yes. Parker Hap, yes. Jane
Moran, yes. Karen Wills, yes. Vic Prati, yes. And Rob Benson is yes. All right, Chris, back to you. Sorry about that. No problem. Uh, the applicant's proposing to construct a new animal shelter facility at 66 and 66B Fruit Street in
the agriculture zoning district uh in the location of a former gravel pit. The proposed one-story facility has a building footprint of roughly 8,400 square feet uh with space for 42 kennel sites, parking for 31 vehicles, uh
fenced and lighted outdoor dog yards, uh storage facilities, enclosed trash facilities, and exterior lighting. Uh the location falls within a leased area of 5 acres on a 260 acre property owned by the town of Hopkin and will take
advantage of the existing paved driveway which enters uh Fruit Street opposite number 57 and 59. Uh the existing gate at the driveway entrance will be re relocated uh beyond the proposed parking lot to continue to limit access to the
ball fields uh which exist beyond the proposed development site. The existing driveway will be widened to 24 feet from 20 ft and will be extended to the proposed animal shelter site along the existing dirt road uh which runs through the former gravel pit. Uh site lighting
will extend the full length of the driveway and include the parking lot in addition to the outside dog yards located behind the proposed animal shelter building. Uh utilities will be brought to the site from uh both Fruit Street and Pratt Way. Uh electric, telephone, and cable services will run
underground within the proposed driveway from Fruit Street to the proposed building, and sewer currently exists within the driveway uh in the form of a town-owned sewer force main. Uh a new 8-in water main will be extended to the site uh from Pratt Way along the
existing cross-country path uh which was cut when the uh sewer force main was installed. Uh a section of the proposed water man runs within the buffer zone for existing wetlands and does require a permit from the conservation commission under the wetlands protection act. Uh
parking requirements for the facility under the town of Hopkin zoning bylaw are three spaces for each thousand square feet of building area which results in 27 required parking spaces and the proposed parking lot proposes 31 parking spaces to suit the needs of uh
employees and customers. Uh, storm water from all imperous areas on site is collected, treated, and detained in accordance with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection storm water standards. And the proposed storm water facilities match or attenuate storm water runoff for all
storms up to and including the 24 year 24-hour 100year storm event. Uh screening is provided on site for all dumpster and trash facilities and for all exterior equipment pads in the form of fencing with privacy slats and or
landscaping. Um the proposed development is located over 600 feet from Fruit Street and over 700 ft from the nearest neighboring building through heavily wooded areas. So visual impacts really are not anticipated. Uh sidewalks are proposed along the parking lot and
around the animal shelter for pedestrian movement around the site. Um that's kind of the gist of what we're proposing out there. I'd be happy to answer any questions that the board might have. Yeah, Chris, I I did have one question question. I I saw the site plan uh
drawings and and the accessing the animal shelter uh land where this would be. It's the driveway where that you'd use to access the Fruit Street soccer fields.
Um there's a there's an emergency or an alternate access to the back of the fields that comes out to Fruit Street. Um, and it follows along an existing paved driveway with a gate. Um, so and that gate's closed. Like I drive by that all the time. That's that's what I thought it was, but I wanted to make
sure. Correct. So for um along Fruit Street, there's the access to the soccer fields and to the dog park, which people probably are somewhat familiar with. But if you go, it's uh I don't know, I don't know if it's 200 feet, 500 feet, some distance
past that driveway towards uh towards Southboro, there's another gated drive that the gates never open, but that's that's the proposal to access this land. That's correct. And just for my education, uh the app
the Bay Path Humane Society is entering a lease agreement with the town of Hoffkington for this for this land. That's correct. All right. All right. Um bear with me one second. Uh John, would you like to give us uh your
perspective of the project and we go from there? Sure. Um so overall it's just a typical site plan for new construction on the Fruit Street property. So there's going to be its own set of issues uh there um with
you know the wells being nearby the soil conditions that kind of stuff. So that's all going to get hashed out in the peer review. Um but one of the things that we identified uh that wasn't addressed is the electric vehicle parking requirement. So, they are required to
put in a certain percentage of um charging stations or readywired uh spaces. Uh I didn't see anything addressing that. They could ask for a waiver from the planning board. I didn't see anything about that. So, I just wanted to ask the applicant what their
intent was, how they planned on moving forward with that requirement. Sure, John. Thank thanks for bringing that up. I didn't mention that. Um, we are proposing eight uh EV ready spaces um along the uh I I believe it would be the northwest corner of the proposed parking
lot. Um that would be 25% of the proposed spaces on site. So we're not proposing any EV spaces, but we are proposing EV ready spaces with the conduit in place and that that is shown on the plans on I believe on sheet three. Right. Thank you. I must have
missed it. So the only other comments we received were from DPW and health department which are in the memo. Okay. All right. Anyone uh on the board have any comments, questions?
Matthew, go ahead. Thanks. And the one thing that jumped out reading the comments was that the plan to only add sidewalks along the driveway. Um, it's a little bit hard for me to picture not looking at the area, but I I can imagine there might be people that want to walk
a dog from the Humane Society to the dog park or somewhere vice versa. Um, I'm wondering about the practicality of actually having uh the sidewalks along the entire frontage here and what that would provide or what that would impose on the property.
Sure, I can speak to that. Um the there's an existing uh dirt roadway that runs through the property um that goes to the back of the ball fields and over to the dog park area. So So there would be an off- streetet access way that currently exists for people to move back and forth between the proposed animal
shelter and the uh the dog park. Um we haven't proposed uh sidewalks along the frontage of the property. um mostly because it's it's owned by the town and the uh the lease agreement um with Bay Path only follows along the uh the existing driveway, the existing roadway
that exists out there. So um our only uh area for work along Fruit Street um is the driveway itself. So we haven't proposed uh sidewalks in that area. Um 66 and 66B Fruit Street have 2600 uh
linear feet of frontage on Fruit Street. So, we would be talking about half a mile of uh sidewalks that then beyond the uh the applicant's lease area with the town. Rob, I assume we'll do a site block at some point so we can kind of see that in
person. Yeah, I think that's uh once we go through the questions, that's what I'm going to propose. Uh and I think that's going to be kind of the probably the the end of our discussion for tonight on this is we typically go to a sidewalk and then we can uh pick up
um pick up the full review of the project. Hopefully by that time there's a full project review, any of the details worked out with our engineer um with the applicant. And so that's terypical process. But this is before then are there any other comments or
questions that we can uh ask tonight. Chris, just one more. I'm very interested about the I know it's not really the planning board's perview, but what is the length of the lease agreement? um that I actually don't have
information on. Um I believe I could. Yes, there you go. Liz, go ahead. Hi guys. Um Liz Jeffres, shelter director for Bay Path and thank you for having us on tonight. Um it is a
50-year lease on the five acres and uh we signed it in 2022. We responded to the uh an RFP from the town in the summer or ultimately in the fall of 2019. We were chosen March of 2020 um
contingent upon a lease agreement and then that little pandemic happened, but we were able to um work with the town to identify the parcel and signed the 50-year lease in 2022. Okay. And I've been raising money, you know, since to get to this point.
All right. Awesome. Thanks. All right. That so uh Chris and Liz this typically in this point in our process we we try to schedule a sitewalk so we can actually see uh the lay of the land and uh kind of envision where the the building will go,
where the parking lot will go, and if there's any any things actually once we're there that bring up questions. Um, what's your availability for to host a sitewalk? Uh, I'm pretty much available at the
board's convenience. Um, the only difficult time for me would be Wednesday evenings. Okay. So, our next meeting is in two weeks. I I I don't know how the board feels about evenings versus uh weekends. I know we have a lot of uh board members
that have have busy Saturday mornings with soccer and other sports. Uh, what do people think about Tuesday or Thursday this week or next week? Say 4:30,
5:00. Thursday does uh is not great for me. By Tuesday, Rob, you mean tomorrow? No, I mean uh next week. Oh, next week either Thursday this week or Tuesday Thursday Thursday next week. I don't want uh I don't want to go to uh Yeah, I
don't want to occupy t this t tomorrow. Tuesday for me. Yeah, Tuesday next week works for me. That worked for me. I can't I can't do next Tuesday. Yeah, I can do next Tuesday, too. Is it next Tuesday town meeting? Yeah, I
was going to say that. Oh, that's no good. Uh um h I could probably do 4:30 this Thursday if that's best for people if what do people think about like say 4:30 this Thursday
that works. I don't think I would be there but if it works for other people then that that can make that work. Yep. Yeah, my kids have activities until 6:15 on Thursday. So, um, scheduling the sidewalks is the
hardest part from my point of view. Um, that puts us back to Saturday morning. Anyone, Is that better for anybody or worse? Like 9:00. Is Saturday 9:00 a.m. better or worse? Uh, 8 a.m. I can do it
on Saturday 9:00 a.m. I have activities for kids. So yeah, 8 a.m.'s too early on a Saturday morning. I could do Saturday. 6:30, right? It does. What were you What did you say, Elise?
I said I can do Saturday morning. Yeah, I can do 9:00 a.m. Saturday. That's when soccer is done. I'll be at Street Fields anyway. Let's shoot for 9:00 a.m. uh Saturday. Chris, does that work for you? That works for me. works for me. All right. Side work. Sidewalk.
And we'll um Where should we park? Like where this driveway is in the gate is, it's not you can't really park. It's not really great to park along the street there. So, where should we park? The the gate's actually set back from the roadway. There's probably room for six or eight cars in the driveway if that's
appropriate. Um otherwise, it's it's a pretty pretty hefty walk from the uh from the town DBW site. All right. Um, I mean, we could certainly park at DPW and and carpool over to the driveway
entrance if if we've got more than specific cars. I also used to be able to unlock it. The DPW had set up so we could unlock for when we had like sight things, but that I was there the other day and they changed the they changed the lock. They locked me out. Um, so I
could get that fixed. Let's just let's just assume we'll have let's just assume we'll have enough park in there. Okay. Um, so for everybody's sake, the on the the the road for the Fruit Street soccer
fields coming from Wood Street from 135, it's about I don't know if it's 200 feet, 500 feet. It's past that. It's on the right. There's a gate and just park there. Yeah, it's a it's directly across from uh number 57 and number 59 Fruit Street. So if uh we need uh demarcation
point. All right. All right. At this point our next step is to continue this uh discussion to our next public hearing, our next public meeting.
Um, do I need to extend any decision deadline, John, or is this just simply extending the or continuing the public hearing to May 19th? I'm just checking. No, the decision on storm water management permit is not due until May 30th. So, we have time.
All right. At this point, then I'd like to entertain a motion to continue the public hearing for the major project site plan and storm water management permit for Bay Path Animal Shelter Fruit Street to May 19th. So move. Second.
Thanks, Matthew. Thanks, Parker. Uh, roll call vote. Alisa Mayowski. Yes. Lucia Lopez. Yes. Matthew Rona. Yes. Michael King. Yes. Parker Hap. Yes. Jane Moran. Yes. Karen Wills.
Yes. Vicas Pratti. Yes. And Rob Benson is a Yes. All right. Chris and Liz, we'll uh we'll see you whoever's going to be there. We'll see you on Saturday. Saturday. Thank you all so much. Appreciate it. Thank you guys.
All right, moving right along to item five on our agenda. All right, new public hearing, Emerald Drive, definitive subdivision plan. So, I'm not sure who's going to introduce the project. Is this it seemed like I I read the the notes here. It
seemed fairly straightforward, but uh who's I would like to make a motion to open a new public hearing for Enroll Drive subdivision plan, Ravenwood LLC. Thank you, Matthew. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you. Uh roll call vote.
Elise Mowski. Yes. Lucia Lopez, yes. Matthew Rona, yes. Michael King, yes. Parker Hap, yes. Jane Moran, yes. Karen Wills, yes. Vic Southprati, yes. And Rob Benson is Yes.
We're We're going s such a good clip. I didn't I was skipping steps. Sorry, Rob. Who was the second on that? I think it was me, John. Yeah, it was Michael. Yeah. All right. Emerald Drive. This seems fairly
straightforward, but uh who who's going to introduce this the project here? I thought I'd take a stab at it. Sorry. Thanks, Joe. This project is the Connley Farm subdivision up off of Hayden Road,
very area near uh College Road. approved by the board in 2021 as a nine lot subdivision and then reworked uh in March of 2022 to reduce the density down to an eight lot subdivision. It included
a trail that uh would start at the Emerald Drive Hayden Row intersection, proceed along Emerald Drive for about 400 ft, and then cross over and go through an existing field to reach the
land other lands of the town of Hopkin. Um the idea of a trail along Hayden Row I think has kind of um lost its lost its way. Um, I think everyone in town has kind of
um moved away from construction along Hayden Row Street given the traffic levels, given the potential safety concerns and um there's no longer a need for a 10-ft wide walk and through along the roadway and through the field to
reach the land of the town of Hopington. So, what the nations uh have proposed is utilizing an existing trail network that'll get you um from the area behind um Cornell's um
between there and the Springwood subdivision uh through the house lots uh at the back of the property behind the basin. Utilize an existing trail to reach that same land of the town of Hopkin. So, it's a a slight change in
the location, but it's a better fit. Uh, utilizing the existing trail rather than cutting a trail through the field. Um, being able to access more parcels, allow more folks from Springwood to utilize this, potentially get to College Street
and College Rock. U, there was an awful lot of, um, positive energy that went into a change like that. um they had done some leg work to try to figure out what uh the the temperature and town would be on
the project and um the trails group is behind the idea. The open space committee is behind the idea. We had concerns about what the change would mean to the conservation commission. We took it on
uh on um our initiative to go in and uh talk to the conservation commission. They have is have issued a minor project change to relocate the uh relocate the sidewalk and the trail. So this was the
final step. Um this board, the last plan they saw was a 10- foot wide walk through along the road and through the field. We want to update the plan to have a simply a five- foot wide walk, the standard five- foot ADA compliant
walk along the side line of Emerald Drive and utilize the path through the middle. So, this just kind of closes the loop. Okay. on on this. I'm not sure who's sharing the so where would John where can we can we go zoom in on like
what this means to so that sidewalk you see on the left the upper the the the north side of what John is hovering over do you see right that is now 5 foot wide original approval it was 10 foot wide and we got
to a point about 400 f feet in. We crossed over and went through the existing grass field to access other lands of the town of Hopkin. And now we kind of want to utilize a better spot uh come through the house lots and since
this does not need to carry the same foot traffic, does not need to um be designed such that it will obtain grant money um that may or may not be available. It does not to be need to be 10 foot wide anymore. So, we have shrunk the width to the standard five-foot
walk. Now, the burden is really the path travels along the homeowners, the back of the homeowners lots rather than through the open space which is owned by the inhabitants of the town. Can we do we have an image where the the
path will is and Sure. I think John, you flashed on it a second ago. Joe, is the con that's the um amendment concept plan from November of 24. Is that the correct one or is there another sheet in this um
subdivision that would be better? Looks like a one before this sheet. Did you have a highlighted in green? The one that I had before is the um that came up on the screen before was the amendment concept plan from November. Is that the most up to date? It's pretty
close. Yes, they're close enough for us to kick it around. So, there is the trail highlighted in gray. That's the existing trail that runs northwest to southeast across the site. And rather
than cut the trail in across the open space down at the bottom of this sheet, we'll utilize that existing trail. So therefore, no no cutting of brush, no uh no install, no stockpiling of soils, no
installation of gravel, no installation of a surface. We'll just use this existing trail. And now the trail location, which used to write under right under the word open and open space, is now located on the lots and
not on the land owned by the town of Hopkin. Just less destruction, um less wholesale changes, just a a better spot for the trail. We just didn't want to get to the end of this and have the board expect uh a path through the the
field that never got constructed. So, this is a way to just tidy all that up. Okay. Uh, John, do you have any uh information or update from your perspective? No, I
mean, this is a pretty minor subdivision change. Um, we don't have a separate minor subdivision modification process. Every change to a definitive subdivision has to go through the same process. So, um, this is going through that process.
Uh but it's it's really a change to the to the right of way um started because of working with the town departments to get the trail moved. This is Craig Nation. Am I uh can you guys hear me?
Yeah, Craig, we can hear you. Uh only uh just wanted to chime in if you cared. Uh just to add a little bit to what Joe is saying about um the trail going through that bit of open space in the what is we call it the the
in the Eddie's open space which is it's it abuts them. It sort of came to light from uh started with conversations from them and the trails in their backyard but it didn't go anywhere. Uh, so we could have built the trail and
then there would have been several hundred feet of heavy woods to to make a trail that connected back up to what the town of Hopington's open space is, which is essentially where the trail exists now. So, uh,
and to that we started talking to open space and the trails folks and we just seem to have naturally all came up with this is the best solution now. And then another thing to elaborate on that is nothing stops the town from making these
trails in the future. I mean, it's still open space the town can do what it wants with. And as for the sidewalk, we're not relocating it. We're just making it narrower. So again, if somehow somewhere down the line the town wanted the 10-ft
wide sidewalk, well, the 10ft wide sidewalk could be constructed. Nothing would prohibit that. At least on our end, none of the lot lines changed or the no property lines changed. So that could still be done in the future. We just don't want to build it if we're
going to offer the trail that exists currently um with we don't want to offer the easements and the 10-ft wide sidewalk. Sort of one or the other. Does that make sense? Yeah, it it makes sense to me. Uh Chris,
I mean Craig, thank you. Who the chair? This is Ed Harrow, chair of the Open Space Preservation Commission. All right, Ed, go ahead. Um, I just am endorsing what Craig just spoke to. Members of Open Space walked
the existing trail. We found it quite nice. I, if I remember correctly, there were some very minor changes that we had to make because of wetlands and things. Um, we are absolutely totally completely in favor of this. The only thing we're not in favor with is the lack of the two
billboards. And on that note, I've said my piece. Thank you. All right. Thanks, Ed. Michael, go ahead. Yeah, I was trying to get my bearing. So, um, at the end of it, is it just like wooded land that's on College
Street where it says like town of Hawkington NF at the bottom where it where it dead heads on that plan is um the old Dennel farm. It's currently mowed. It's a grass area.
Okay. On Hayden Row, uh, College Street, you access it from College Street. Okay. It's a better spot. The old trail ended up in a wooded area. Someone would have to cut the brush and maintain the trail. This is already cut. Another um thing to
add to that column of improvements is uh no changes have to take place to construct this or utilize this trail. Lucia, go ahead. I was wondering the um parking lot situation because there was something in
the notes that said DPW does not want to maintain the parking area. Can we take a look at that on the plans and get more information on that? Want me to take a stab at that, Joe, or you got it? Go ahead. Yeah, go ahead.
That was my suggestion because uh of the at the entrance of Emerald and Hayden Row, it seemed to me that a nice place to have a parking spot or even a bus drop off location and it's sort of
utilized like that currently. Um I had proposed putting a parking spot or two at the entrance. um right now like police will sit there and do traffic enforcement, but it will also allow cars to come and go while he's sitting there.
Anyways, uh DPW didn't want that. They'd rather the curb. They didn't want to have to maintain an additional parking spot. So, uh that got taken off the table essentially. I think uh just based on DPW didn't want
it, didn't want another maintenance thing. Thank you. So this is a little uh this is a little unusual. This is uh this is really this is a project that's been through our whole process.
Uh and this is changing changing this. I John is West and Samson reviewing this? They are not. We got a fee estimate and scope, but the applicant um wanted to talk to you about that.
I wrote something down to that. I guess I was hoping you guys were in support of the change first and then I was going to request that. Uh well, I'll I'll ask you now. Um, due to the scope of the proposed
work, I was wanting to please have the planning board make a determination that the modifications are minimal and not anticipated to have any adverse impact compared to the original approved design and to also determine that a peer review
is unnecessary given the minimal changes. I had uh gone back and forth with John a few times. I had a little sticker shock when he got the original uh fee estimate from was that Wesson and
Samson. Anyways, Beta had been Beta reviewed this originally way back when and now they don't have a contract with the town. They're still on for doing all of the construction inspections, but it sounded like without a contract they
couldn't review this. Is that right, John? and they are not they are not part of the peer review stable that the town has for the land use department and Beta was not willing to set up a new contract that will allow them to do peer reviews
instead of just construction observations. So, so given all that and given that I I was just dumbfounded that the review could cost more than the design in the first place, I sort of felt like we're
paying someone to catch up here. We're all on the same board. We've been working on this for over a year. We've gone to all the um town commissions. We've gone to all the department heads. There is no engineering changes really. Um we're just making the
sidewalk narrower. We're not changing any drainage. We're changing no curbing. Nothing. Nothing is changing. It's just making the sidewalk narrower and giving an easement over three lots. Like there is no there's no engineering to review.
It's the way I see it. So, I was hoping the planning board would agree. Thanks, Craig. Yeah, I I was on copy of the emails. I I I tend to agree. Uh I'm only one member of the board, but um does anyone have any heartache with
that on the board? Chair, go ahead, Parker. Nope. As with uh Sally in her comments, I think you should be doing things to especially if there's external consensus expedite decisions and remove barriers where unnecessary.
[Music] Uh thanks Parker. Appreciate that. Anyone else? Lucia, go ahead. I think my only question would be um that we ensure that the easements are taken care of in the way they need to
because I know sometimes the peer review has come back and said that they need to be put in certain plans or the wording needs to be such that it explains you know the the area etc. So I would just want to ensure that that's being
followed before we move forward with it. All right. Thanks Lucia. John, do you have any thoughts about that? About the language for easements and making sure that's all correct. Yeah, I mean, we don't really condition the
easements. Um, I mean, they could look at the the plans and and take a look at that, but I think any of the easements would go to DPW. So, if we get DPW sign off to say that the plans are how they want uh in terms of easements, I think that should be sufficient. I don't think we need Weston Samson to tell us that.
Um, I I tend to agree. I agree with that. All right. I think we can go go through this and have a vote on this tonight unless anyone uh disagrees. All right. Um, I'm just going to go to section uh
5.9. No, so 5.8. No way. Uh, let's let me just go through this. 5.7 uh decision criteria. The board must determine if the proposal meets the standards forth in subdivision regulations. Um, if the board finds such, they shall issue an approval for the sub proposed subdivision. and amended definitive
subdivision plans are treated the same as new defi definitive subdivision plans with regard to the approval process. We've kind of discussed how this is really a minor change and um this did go through our formal approval process uh
previously when at that time so 5.8 Eight. Uh, no waiverss are requested. So, proposed findings. Uh, 5.9.1. The proposed amended sub definitive subvision plan conforms to the subdivision regulations. Number two, the proposed
modification is intended to facilitate the town's effort to expand the townwide trail network. I think that's uh the benefit uh to the town. Rob, I would suggest if the board is
interested in waving the peer review to make a finding, um I I have to work on the wording, but basically to say that the anticipated changes from the previously approved plan are minimal and do not warrant a
peer review. Something to that extent. If somebody wants to reward that or I can try Uh if you want to give it a a shot, John, we'll just we'll just hold on a second here. Okay,
you can keep going on the other stuff if you want. I can we can come back. All right, we're going to come back to our additional one additional finding. Uh proposed conditions 510.1 the condition conditions include and prior decisions for this project certificates of
planning board action dated August 12th 2021 amended March 1522 remain in full force and effect unless modified by this decision. Item two, the proposed development shall be constructed as depicted on and consistent with approved
plans unless required to be amended or modified as part of this decision. This the plan set is entitled Connelly Farm, Hayden Row Street, Hop Mass dated January 16, 25 and includes a trail easement plan dated
11625 sheet 105. Uh amended sketch plan of land dated 11625 sheet 205. C amended detail plan of land dated 11625 sheet 305. D. Amended grading plan of land dated 11625 sheet four or five. and E.
Amended grading plan of land dated 11625 sheet 505 And we're going to have one more uh finding uh and then uh we'll continue. All right. So through the chair, the uh third finding I would I
would recommend is the proposed modifications to the definitive subdivision plan are minimal in nature and are not anticipated to have a significant adverse impact compared to the approved design and therefore the planning board determined that a peer review is unwarranted. Thanks, John. I'd like to add that third
finding into the record. Uh I don't know that I need to restate it. Um, all right. I'd like to entertain a motion that the board accept and approve the three findings as previously read aloud
by the chair and our principal planner. So moved. Second. Thanks Karen and Parker. Uh, Elise Mosowski. Yes. Lucia Lopez. Matthew Rona. Yes. Michael King. Yes.
Parker H. Yes. Jane Moran. Yes. Karen Wills. Yes. Vicas Prati. Yes. And Rob Benston is yes. All right. 512 512.2. I'd like to entertain a motion that the board approve the defi
definitive subdivision plan with the following conditions. as they were previously read aloud by the chair and by the chair. So moved. Thanks, Matthew. Thanks, Michael. All right, roll call vote.
Elise Mowski, yes. Lucia Lopez, yes. Matthew Rona, yes. Michael King, yes. Parker Hab, yes. Jane Moran, yes. Karen Wills, yes. Vicrati, yes. And Rob Benson, is he? Yes.
All right, Craig, you're you're all set. Thank you, folks. Have a good evening. Thanks. Bye for now. All right. Uh, so we're we've got through all of our agenda items.
Um I think the only thing left to discuss is if we feel we need a through the chair I believe point of order. I think we need to close the meet public. Yeah. Yes. Thank you. I' I'd like to entertain a motion to close the public
hearing for definitive subdivision subdivision plan for Emerald Way Emerald Drive. So moved. Thanks Matthew. Second. Thanks Vic. Roll call vote. Elise Mayoski. Yes. Lucia Lopez. Yes. Matthew
Rona. Yes. Michael King. Yes. Parker Hap. Yes. Jane Ran. Yes. Karen Wills. Yes. Vicas South Prati. Yes. And Rob Benson is yes. All right. Matthew, thank you for keeping me in order with uh I've been
delinquent on opening and closing uh our public hearings tonight. Uh but the last thing I think to discuss is if we feel we need to convene before town meeting on May 5th. Uh otherwise uh I
don't my perspective is I don't see our articles as controversial. Um I don't know John have you heard anything through town hall that would lead you to believe otherwise? Um, nothing controversial, but we've heard people have questions with the ADU thing, but I
mean that's that out of anything is really the most out of our hands. Um, so nothing really in the way in the way of anything else. Okay. Does anyone does anyone feel we need to meet before town meeting or just uh uh just attend town
meeting? All right. I I don't think we need to have a meeting either. Um, can I ask a question? Sure, Lucia. So, the other things that are in our packet now that we're talking about ADUs, there is one in there.
Um, ZVA is meeting in May to talk about ADUs. The I see John's face. Um cuz I know we get we get those in our packet as you know meetings that are coming up that might be of interest. Is that just for
our information or is that for discussion? Oh okay. I for nine Chamberlain Street you mean? Is it nine? I thought it was 25. Uh no in the packet it's nine. Um so that is for sorry that's a notice of decision. You're
right. Um that's just for your information. Um, we have Kobe does planning board stuff, ZBA stuff, so she kind of uh helps by giving us the decisions and notices and stuff just so you're aware of that because sometimes the ZBA decisions can impact planning
board decisions or um an applicant had gone before a ZBA and is now going before the planning board. So, you have that information uh available to you. But with the ADU, they're not going to talk about like ADUs in general. they're actually going to get an application for a special permit for an ADU because the
proposed ADU is larger than allowed under the bylaw and the state bylaw. So that's what they're going to be discussing that day. Not like ad not ADUs in general. So they're look they're going to look for the appeals process to provide relief so they can build an ADU
larger than the zoning bylaws. Correct. Okay. Thanks. But if there's anything other than ZBA and Woodville Historic District that the board would like to see, we can absolutely include that
stuff. If any if anyone thinks anything would be helpful, at least in the land use department. I don't want to necessarily go chasing stuff down in like parks and wreck. Yeah. Yeah. I guess through the chair, my
thought when I saw that was given that this is coming up at town meeting prior to that hearing. I didn't know if it would be something that would come up um at town meeting where people are going to start discussion about larger ADUs. And so
um the short answer to that is that ADU law at the state level is already in effect. It went into effect in February. This move at the town meeting is just to change our bylaws so that there's no confusion between what's allowed at the state and what they prohibit towns from regulating, which we have in our bylaw.
We take that stuff out, keep the stuff that we can continue to regulate in the bylaw and then make the things that need to conform to what the state changed the law to reflect that in our bylaw so there's not like competing competing things because it's going to it would be a nightmare if we had like one set of
rules locally that we could not enforce and people came in and said, "Well, I want to do this." And we'd have to explain every single time, well, that's not actually allowed because of the state law. So, we're just trying to make it a cleaner process. Um but with respect to this prot this proposed application um they're larger than what
the state allows anyway. So the state has put in provisions for special permits and we actually already had that in our bylaw. So this would be allowed under our current bylaw or the the larger unit wouldn't be allowed but the special permit process would be allowed under our current bylaw. Um and then
also by the new state law. Okay. Thank you. So, just to kind of wrap that up, even if this article gets defeated at town meeting, nothing will change. All right. I'm going to uh unless unless people feel strongly, I I don't think we need to meet before town
meeting. Um uh and I think we'll just uh just be uh I I'll probably get asked to introduce our articles maybe. I I think so. Um but other than that, I don't expect uh it's
not going to be like our special town meeting where there's going to be a big uh like we were the the main main participants. It's not it's going to be much different than that. So, um I don't think we we meet um and I'll just see
everybody at town meeting and then we have our next meeting on May 19th. Uh, and John is who who is not going to be remaining on the board, I believe. Is it Jane? Yeah. So, um, it's Jane and Karen's last meeting for the
planning board. Jane and Karen. Well, I'd like to say a thank you on behalf of myself and the whole town of Hopkin for your service and participation in the planning board. Well, thank you. It's It's been fun. I've learned a lot and I've enjoyed
meeting all of you. It's been really enlightening. You may see me back on the board at some point in time. That's that's fair warning. Excellent. Well, thank you. I've I've really learned a lot as well and um I'm grateful for this time and all the
people I've met. Thank you. Thanks, Jane. Yeah, I think there's uh I think the public perception of the planning board is that we can decide what is gets done, but the reality is we have to uh uphold our bylaws and this approval
process more uh more so than to decide what we want to do. So, I think uh I think it's a great learning experience for everybody that's been that is on the board and that wants to be on the board and has been on the board. Yep. And thank you all for continuing to serve.
Thanks, J. Absolutely appreciate it. Thanks, Karen. All right, with that being said, maybe we can schedule some uh uh some drinks or something after our town meeting to celebrate our uh board
members that are departing uh the board. But uh for now, I think we just uh I'd like to entertain a motion to adjourn for this evening. So moved. So moved. Thanks, Jane. All right, roll call vote. Elise Mowski,
yes. Lucia Lopez, yes. Matthew Rona, yes. Michael King, yes. Parker Hap, yes. Jane Moran, yes. Karen, yes. Vic Southprati, yes. And Rob Benson is a yes. All right, everybody. Have a
good evening. Thank you. Thank you, everybody.