All right. Sorry for the delay. Let me uh kick us off by reading the remote meeting script and we'll go from there. Can everyone hear me? Okay. Thumbs up or all right. Pursuant to the chap pursuant to chapter 2 of the act of 2023, this meeting will be conducted via remote means in
accordance with applicable law. This means that members of the public body as well as members of the public may access this meeting via virtual means. Participants may access this meeting through the remote meeting link as posted on the meeting agenda and through the town's online calendar. When required by the 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. Alise Molowski, >> present. >> Thanks. Uh, Lucia Lopez, >> present. >> Matthew Rocka, >> present. >> Michael King,
>> present. [snorts] >> Parker Hap, >> present. >> Amna Dwan. >> Peter Mimo, >> present. Uh, Vicasath Pratti was it
>> and Rob Benson is here. All right. Did I miss somebody? No, I'm just imagining that, I guess. Um, all right. Let's just jump right into our agenda. So, uh, Aneri or anybody, was there any feedback from the meeting minutes for
our December 15th, 2025 meeting? >> Uh, it's not ready yet, chair. Um, Norway is out right now on medical leave. So, uh, once we figure it out situation, it will be ready by next
meeting. All right. So, >> let's go right into our 1.2 agenda item, the MBTA community's presentation. Uh, >> okay. >> Aner, who's going to be giving the presentation?
>> I'm going to present uh the options which Zach uh reviewed and decided with option E. Uh, let me share my screen quickly. Perfect. Thank you.
>> Can you all see my screen? >> Yep. Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, uh option A this is our current prop proposal. I will brief out uh quickly regarding MBTA. Um in fall town meeting
we approved MBTA zoning by in 2024 state reviewed that and send us a letter uh stating that we did not meet the contingent requirement uh for the bylaw. So we need to revise
our proposal and submit again. So our goal is to revise that and go through the town meeting this year town meeting and Zack reviewed few options. The current one option A is like our current
um MBTA zoning bylaw which town approved with the three zoning district preserve downtown and Walcott Valley. These are some demographics of that. The option B which Zach reviewed was
adding few parcels here on the right side of Walcut Street between downtown and Walcut Valley and remove the parcels which are in the green highlighted in the green
basically and if we go with that option you will see the results here. If we combine both, it's coming up as a 31.7 acres as a one district. And if we go with that option, we need to make sure
that we have 27.3 acres of contiguous requirement. Other option, option D which we reviewed is adding a parcel on the left side of the Wala street and on a a street like
this is around 12 um 13 parcel and remove the nine parcels here from south side of the downtown district. If we go with this option the total district area coming up as a 28.6
6 acres and um based upon that we still need to give 28.6 6 acres as a contingious then option D which board reviewed is option D and option E. So here is the
comparison. On option D we are just adding we are not going to remove any parcels from any district and option E we just going to add um around nine part 9 to 10 parcels along with Walcott
Valley nothing on a street district uh I mean a street and Zach recommended to go with option E just add nine parcel and connect to district and make it as a one um and
with that option the total district area going to be 32.71 acres and total MBTA over overall acreage will be 55.61 acres and based upon that we need to have our
contingency around 27.81 81 acres and currently with this calculation it's going to be 32.71 um I mean 71 acres with option E um it is uh we're not changing our other
criterias of MBTA and we are just adding few parcels and make it as a one district so in the end we going to have a two district one um this downtown Walcott and one preserved district
and that's it. >> Aner can you show can you show the the map again the Sure. >> So option E is the pro uh recommended proposal. >> Yes. Can you see screen again? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Yeah. So option is the recommend option just adding few parcel uh here on a wall cut street. So uh all the parcels are like three parcels are again on a residential district and other are on a
business downtown business district basically. So I I think the uh I think the obvious question at town meeting uh that uh I would expect is why wouldn't we make
this uh district as small as possible? Why would we add here and not subtract? So, that's my um I weren't I didn't attend all the uh zoning advisory committee discussions, but that's my question as well because I think that's
what I'd be asked uh presenting this. >> Um I can answer or if Matthew wants to answer, he can answer to you. Um okay. So the main reason is like if we remove
some parcels and like add and remove parcel then it will change our current calculation and it will affect the proposal. So all the parcels all the all three district which town approve
uh are um I mean basically if we remove any parcels then we need to add more parcels than what we are adding right now because it will change the capacity which we need to meet like 750 units
basically which is required as per the state MBTA module. So we need to make ma meet that requirement as well as the district requirement. >> So so I'm not I'm not understanding like option E we add these parcels we connect
we connect the the downtown area in the Walcott Valley area. We take we use parcels to connect those two. But if we just eliminating parcels like say we eliminated the one on um the left side
of Cedar Street that isn't in the B downtown business to the district just for example like >> Mhm. >> I get I understand what like 50% I understand we have to get to if it's 55 acres we get to have to get to 27 and a half in one district. I get that but
other than that I don't understand what it what it impacts. So um let me go here. So this is our current approve proposal. So district acreage then density because we need to meet the density as well and the unit
number. So if we are adding uh the parcels it will affect a little bit like from 54 acres to we going to be like 55 and it will make a one district and we can easily u accomplish our contingency.
If we remove the parcels for example uh you are talking about maybe remove removing parcels on a cedar side like on the left side these parcels are big in area and all the parcels we are adding on Wala street those are like pretty
much under 5,000 um square feet so only couple of them are larger in scale so if we remove the bigger parcels then we not going to meet the other like density one that we need
like 750 units under MBTA bylaw. >> All all I'm referring to is the parcel that is not in the downtown business district. The the one at the top um on Cedar Street by closest to B Street to
the left is not in the downtown business district. Like I don't know the acreage of that parcel off the top of my head. I can I can look. >> You're talking. >> If you move your mouse to the left.
>> Keep going. No, keep going. Right there. That one. That seems from just from my eye that seems smaller than adding than the proposed additions. Like why I guess I'm I'm like not understanding why. Um,
>> so Zach >> something something like that wasn't considered. Like I I understand there's a time constraint like hey we need to put together proposals that technically work like was that considered? Was it not?
>> So Zach did not consider removing what is approved. our track main focus was to uh add and combine and make it as a one district rather than changing on what is approved under MBTA zoning district.
>> Okay. All right. Let's uh let's go around to the board and I'm sure I'll have more questions, but I'll I'll I'll uh I'll let other people give an opportunity to Peter, you uh at least on my screen, you're first in line. >> Thank you. Just through the chair. I just want was there an explanation
offered as to why Zach recommends option E as opposed to the other alternatives? I wasn't I didn't quite get that. What makes E the best option as far as Zach is concerned? So uh that main focus was to add the
parcels which uh like not many and make it as a one district as I said earlier and not touch on what is approved and adding parcels on Walco Street. Their main purpose was like to build MBTA
zoning. any developer need u bigger parcels because as I said half of the like all pretty much eight out of 10 parcels are under 5,000 square ft² and minimum you need 5,000 so for any developer to build MBTA or multif family
over there they need a approval or they need to buy the lots and it will take I mean that main part was to not zone something which can easily build within
few years. >> Uh Peter, do you have any follow-up or I'll go to Parker. >> Parker, go ahead. >> Uh yeah, the question I had was the in terms of uh the additions, I think,
well, I guess it's more to a comment. Um I'm partial to uh option B uh just because I think and B is in boy. Uh the reason why is I think that like long
term we should be thinking in decades [clears throat] not days on this plan. And it's in my opinion like a high probability that the town would go after that um bills parcel as well uh you know try to get an
expanded parking lot as they've attempted in the last couple years. And in that case I thought that the land that is town owned cast doesn't count towards the map size. So my concern in
the arc of history is that we, you know, if we don't want to do this again in the next five years or 10 years, should maybe think a little bit bigger just to be safe. Uh so, you know, food for thought. Um, but then the followup Rob, I was looking at at the GIS map a second
ago and it says that should tread lightly based on wetland uh bumper zones or any um land that could be like floodprone which I'm wondering if that area which I believe there's drainage over there could have fallen into it but food for thought up
in B is my my preference. Uh most of this land um is not currently in the downtown business district. Correct. Aneri that in option B. >> Uh
so yeah. No. >> Yeah. So >> in option option B only uh along properties along Clifflin Street they are in the downtown district but the big chunk of parcel and the three are not in
a downtown um business district and I will just add one point while we were discussing option B uh we had few uh resident of Cleaflin street and they are in not favor they don't want to
convert that property into my MBTA zoning and as there's one uh like there's I think multif family housing project going on Claplin Street and there's one coming in the future for
around 13 houses 12 or 13 and they don't want to make it more dense and they are not in a favor of the option B that was one of the reason Zach
decided to not go with that option. Okay. Um what uh I'm not sure what we're supposed to um uh get to tonight in in tonight's meeting. Um does well first off before I I go here uh does anyone else on the
board have any comments or questions? to the board. Um, go ahead. >> So, I just wanted to just call out that, you know, let's uh the sooner we close this better because uh we have a previous experience how it has been and uh we the town voted down and
we went back to reoting because the town the you know the state came back with bunch of uh actions saying that if you don't approve it we'll decline it. what I see recommended by the Zach uh feels to be a good one and uh I would prefer
to go with whatever Zach recommends set it that's all just >> thanks Vic uh Matthew go ahead >> thanks yeah I I can talk to some of the thoughts that the board went to although Ner touched on some of them um so it's
might be easier to show them on the screen um the main concern with B which is what we I don't want to say started with because we started like we we revisited a lot of the things we talked about before but um B was one of the things that uh was
novel. Um our our the main goal here was just connecting uh two of the three zones so that by necessity there would be at least a 50% of the area. Um the main issue we ran into with what we
proposed was that we split things roughly into three buckets and that that violated the uh reasonleness of the districts um in one of the rules. Um, so we're trying to connect the two closest zones with as
little um change as possible just to make it not appear uh basically to not confuse or or not overwhelm uh town meeting with we're moving these but these parcels here and we're adding them here and and having a whole list of
removals and additions. Um our we started with option B. The concern with that one is uh there's a there there's a very large property there that isn't significantly developed and it's also very wooded etc. And we were concerned that by uh and it is outside of the
business district uh downtown business district. So by including that in the overlay, it may be encouraging um a significant change in uh the landscape there and removing some of the natural uh woodlands and and other areas that we
didn't want to lose. Um so that's why we weren't thrilled with option B. Um our main focus was a as little of a change as possible. um which meant adding as little as possible just to
connect things uh without making it seem uh overly uh contrived of an of a of a setup. Um that was one of the concerns we had with option E was does it seem contrived or do we need to fill in uh A Street and B Street basically to make it
a few sided polygon basically to make it uh remove that little incision there. Um I think we were hoping to get feedback that nobody had concerns with the state level. I don't know if we we've we've been able to get that since uh we only
came up with this uh few weeks ago. Um but that was the reason why we were proposing option E is because it seemed like the minimum change by adding that small stripe of small properties. uh it didn't allow us to remove significant chunks elsewhere and there was a concern that as I said if we started removing
chunks it would open up additional debate on what other areas we should be removing or additional confusion on that subject on the floor of town meeting. We didn't want to broach that area. >> Thanks Matthew. All right let's uh let's go to Lucia.
I think following up on what uh Matt said, did we hear back from the state if adding that little strip will now make it contiguous? Because I know that was a question that was asked of Zach. >> Not yet. Uh once I received I'm hoping
to get back reply before our next meeting, but whenever I receive any response, I will let both know. >> Okay. Thank you. Um and then going off of the issues with option B. Um I agree
with the issues that were brought up at Zach's meeting. Um so I don't I don't know that option B would be something that we would want to do. Um and then option D I think is also not as good as option E in terms of we're adding even
more than we are in option E. My only question is um would option C meet the requirements? Because with option C, you're adding on that same, you know, a little bit on A Street and a little bit on Walcott, but you're
removing some of the downtown area. And I know the discussion that was had was um is there a concern that for example the CVS lot would now potentially be entirely
residential in the future but if we were to remove that then it has to be commercial and residential and I know there's a lot of discussion right now in town in terms of ensuring that we have enough commercial um and keeping that MBTA overlay on that could potentially
then reduce the commercial in that area. So I feel like if C meets the requirements, I think it's something that we can explain in terms of we needed it to be contiguous but in adding then we can remove because we only need to be at 50
acres. Um if we think that won't pass uh either town meeting or the state then I'd say option E is the next best option in my opinion. Thanks, Lucia. Um,
Aneri, it I assume it meets the criteria because it's it's on this list of options. Is that correct? So when we discuss option C uh and adding the parcel here um it's like removing nine parcels but it's going to
change the unit number and that was the one of the reason we decided to not include option C because it's going to change the unit capacity and all the nine parcels they are like
we u I think seven out of them are more than 5,000 square ft and which is easily buildable and the unit c minimum unit number will change if we remove those parcels as CVS is a big chunk of
property than the fire station that is more than 5,000 square ft um property so >> well I guess >> it will change the numbers I can calculate again if board wants to go with option C but it will
>> I think we just want to know if it if it meets the requirements. Like the if it if it goes from 782 units to 775 units, it would still meet the requirements. I guess the question like what we don't know is
does it does it still get us above the 750 requirement number? I think it will change. It will be less or maybe like right at the edge by removing the southern part of the
downtown district. Can can like we don't need to do it in this in this meeting right tonight but can we get to that answer? >> Okay. >> What's depression meant?
So I I am uh uh just to kind of my my feeling is I think connecting the downtown district and the Walcott Valley District is by far the most palatable solution here um than other
things people could potentially throw out as options. It's just a matter of the fine-tuning of the of the connection. I I in general I like E, but E has some different variations. Like if we could slightly uh as as Lucia
said, make that little strip that connects the downtown district in Walcott a little bigger and eliminate um uh I guess that's the south side of Main Street. Um
then that that's something I think the board would like to like to know uh at least. Um one question I had uh is it looks to me on this map even in option E like I don't know what it means
by being connected. Like if I'm looking at like our GIS on one screen and our our Zoom screen share on another, it looks to me there's uh
>> three parcels north of B uh actually wait there's three parcels north of A Street. Oh wait, north of B Street. There's three parcels north of B Street that are in proposal E, but I don't know why we
wouldn't just need the one the one on the corner of B Street and Walcott Valley, I mean Walcott Street. >> So, uh, let me zoom. If we do that then state will say we
just try to connect and make it as a bond and it's like a like border lining between Walcut and downtown uh current downtown district of MBJ and that was the reason adding two more parcels on
Walut I mean that stretch across the Walcut Valley that was the only reason adding those three parcels. >> I I guess that's really um not comforting to know like I feel like
there's requirements and then there's anything else is not a requirement. If it's to connect then having the one parcel north uh north of B Street connects it. Uh I I don't know what to do with kind of information like that uh
that the state would say it doesn't doesn't work. [clears throat] Uh are we sure? I can wait for states response on that if they are okay or if they are they say you just added those parcels to make it
as a one district to meet your contingency. Um but by doing like option E we are creating one district and total two MBTA district preserve and this one. So by
doing that we are meeting all four requirements but state might say that you just add added those parcels to make it one to meet that. >> Well that's what we're doing. >> We don't know. Yeah >> but that's that's the requirement. if
we're doing this to meet their requirement and then they say if we're doing it to meet their requirement my answer would be yes we are like I I'm not I'm not understanding >> yes >> uh understanding >> Lucia go ahead
>> I think for some context when Zach talked about this they added on a couple of parcels um north of B Street not just to make it more contiguous basically but also Um the minimum lot size is 5,000
square ft. And I think those two northernmost additions don't meet that minimum. And so the feeling is that that's not going to get built under the MBTA overlay district zoning unless
somebody buys two of those parcels. And if I have that wrong then Anuri or Matt can uh correct me. >> Right. We discussed that in the last meeting. >> Yeah, they're probably all around four. Like I'm not
uh let's see. I'm looking at Hop in GIS here. Uh the first the one the one just north of Walcott Street is 1.076 acres. So that would fall under 5,000 square ft.
and the one next to it is 00921 um acres. But it's it still goes to my my my general question like, okay, if we need those two, why why do we need the
the the third north of uh B Street? Um I I think these are things that I'll be asked in the town meeting floor and um >> do this
>> just by giving a answer like we think the state will push back. Well, their requirement is for to continuous land area and and I would say anything that meets the continuous land area by
definition meets their requirements. >> Are these um Aneri is that something we can get an answer on like a ASAP or is that something we can't get an answer on for months? I don't know honestly like how long
state takes time to reply on this MBTA matter. Um maybe because of the holidays taking time but I can follow up back with them and see or maybe I will try to call them tomorrow. >> Okay.
>> To see. So that those would be my questions like um do do we need to have more than uh like 5,000 square feet in a like because if you cross the street they're all continu
contiguous. So like having that under 5,000 square ft the the one lot north of B Street is that a like is that a problem? And if so, what requirements would we know that that's a
problem? Uh, and my other I have two other questions. The parcel to the west of Cedar Street that is not in the downtown business district,
what would happen that is uh uh the northernmost parcel along Cedar Street? What would happen if we eliminated that? And my last question would be uh what Lucia proposed if we went with
kind of option C, could we eliminate that land area uh south of Main Street? So, like I have three to me, I have three follow-up questions that if we can get answered, I think we could close on this uh right away unless anyone thinks
differently. hands on experience working and having children. >> All right. I we've talked about this a lot over the last several years, so I don't want to uh keep going over it. If if nobody has any questions, I think if we can get answers to those, we could
we can lead lead to like what uh we should put in the annual town meeting at our next meeting and uh and just put it behind us and and try to get approval at our town meeting. Jennifer I'm going to jump to our next agenda
item unless anyone has any comments. >> All right, we have a continued public hearing for 66 Fruit Street Pinefield Athletic Facility, which the applicant has asked uh to withdraw their application without prejudice.
Um, I I have no objections. I don't know if anyone on the board has any comments. Um, >> I think Do we need to vote on uh I don't think we need to vote on withdrawing the application. I think we just need to formally vote on closing the public
hearing. >> May I have a question? My name is My name is Saul Ovid and I want you to know um I've never done a Zoom meeting or had anything to do with the board. So I just want to ask a simple question. Um have you guys
already talked about Lumber Street? Did I miss that? Supposed to talk? >> No, that's that's the next thing on our agenda. >> Okay. I just wanted to make sure I didn't miss it because I own a lot of that property. >> All right. Yeah. Uh, zero lumber street
lot 4 is the next thing on our agenda. >> Okay. I just want to make sure I didn't miss it. That's all. >> All right. >> Hold on one second. >> Yeah. Go ahead, please. >> Aneri, do I need to uh do anything besides um make a ask for a motion to
close the public hearing for 66 Fruit Street? you you need to vote on vual and then uh you need to close the hearing 46. >> Okay. >> Through the chair, I can read the motion, the proposal. >> Thanks, Lia.
I move that the planning board allow the applicant the town of Hopkinington Parks and Recreation Department to withdraw without prejudice the application for major project site plan and storm water management permit approval for the Pinefield Athletic Facility located at 66 Fruit Street portion as requested by
the applicant. >> Second. >> All right, roll call vote. Elise Meloski, >> yes. >> Lucia Lopez, >> yes. >> Matthew Rona, >> yes. Michael King, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes.
>> Picassi, >> yes. >> And Rob Benson is yes. Am I I'm missing somebody. Who Who is missing? >> Me and I am offended. >> Parker. Oh my god. Sorry, [laughter] Parker. >> I'm also here. Rob, I got here later, but I'm here. It's
>> Omna. Okay, let's go. And Omna Dewand. >> Uh, yes. >> And Parker Hap. >> Yes. >> All right. Thanks. I uh I'm not I'm my laptop is getting repaired and so I have on I'm not on my normal laptop and all my normal lists are and scripts and
everything are out of uh out of whack. All right with uh so that's so now I'd like to entertain a motion to close the public hearing for 66 Fruit Street. >> Some moved.
>> Second. >> Thanks Matthew. Thanks, Michael. Roll call vote. Elise Mayoski, >> yes. >> Lucia Lopez, >> yes. >> Matthew Rona, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Amna Dwan, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes.
>> Vicas Southrati, >> yes. >> Parker Hap, >> yes. >> And Rob Benson is a yes. All right. Item three on our agenda. I'd like to entertain a motion to open the public hearing for zero lumber street
law for RECC Hopkin LLC major project site plan. Uh >> hello. Hello. >> Hold on a second. We need to open the public hearing. >> I got to talk about the last public hearing.
>> It it's it's already closed. >> Well, I've been trying to get on for half an hour, but I couldn't get on. I have some questions on the overlay district. >> What's your questions? >> Okay. Uh I live at 22 Walcourt Street
and you're talking about a continuation of the overlay uh down in that area. Uh I want to find out why my property wasn't included in it. It's the last big piece of property in in the center of
town is 2.6 acres and uh it looks like you went all around me and I want to know why. >> Uh so our our job is not to favor individual land owners that want their property included in a zoning
district or not. Our responsibility is to do what's in the best interest of the town of Hopkin and the voters that voted everyone in the pling board. So, that's what we're trying to do. >> Well, if you look at the map, it's kind of disingenuous to say that because it's
a perfect connection to Uptown. >> Uh, and you went completely around it and ignored it. >> Have you been to the last two town meetings where this has been voted on and heard the discussions at our town meeting? Yeah, I heard the discussions
at the town me, but but um a little concerned that it's u disingenuous to the state. It's not including this property, which makes perfect sense because it's the biggest property there that can be developed. >> All right. Well, I I totally understand
your point that you'd like your property included. Uh but that doesn't change what we're going to do and what we're going to move forward with. Well, you're changing the overlay now, aren't you? >> We're discussing it, but just your personal sentiment to try to maximize
the value of your property isn't going to sway us to do one thing or the other. >> Well, I understand what you're saying, but uh if the MBTA looks at that overlay and says, "Why isn't that property included?" Because it's a continuation
right up town in to the other overlay district. Well, if they say that we we would reconsider. >> All right. Are you going to be talking about at the next meeting or you just >> We are We are going to be talking about
the MBTA overlay district at the next meeting. >> Okay. I'm sorry I didn't get there in time, but uh my computer wouldn't work and then I couldn't get onto the site. I had the wrong numbers. >> So, okay. >> I'd like to comment. I look I look
forward to your participation at our next meeting. We we still have time to discuss it. >> Okay. All right. It's still going to be a virtual meeting. >> Yes. >> Okay. And you've got my name, Thomas Smith. >> Yep. >> Okay.
>> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> I think it falls under point of order. Did you get address also? >> 22 Walcott Street. >> 22 Walcott Street. Um, did we So, I think I was at the
point where I entered a motion to open the public hearing for zero lumber street lot 4. >> Did we get it? >> So, thanks. Thanks, Michael. Thanks, Parker. All right. Roll call vote. Elise Mosowski, >> yes.
>> Lucia Lopez, >> yes. >> Matthew Rona, >> yes. Michael King, >> yes. >> Amna Dwan, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Vicasi, >> yes. >> Parker H, >> yes. >> And Rob Benson is a yes.
>> I have one more question. Are these all people that are on the board that you're talking about a roll call? I've never done this before, so I've never been on Zoom before. >> These are all the people that were asked to vote are on the planning board in the town of Hington. Yes.
>> All right. Thank you. All right. Is there someone on the applicant's behalf that is on that can give us an introduction to this proposal? >> Uh John Federico with Ger and Helman. Um
I believe uh Kathy Sherry um who is uh with REC Hopington, the applicant is here as well. Um I'll give Kathy a moment if she wants to jump in to start things off. Um if not I can give a very brief overview for the project.
>> Sure John thanks. Um so we have before you an application for a proposed uh onestory 2400 square foot retail office building. It's on approximately 3 and a half acres of land which is situated on Lumber Street. Um John who engineered
the plan, he'll go over that in a little bit more detail. I did just want to point out and introduce the concept that this was one of the parcels um that makes up the master plan for the neighborhood mixeduse district 100 acres
that was approved back in 2015. Um in some of the meetings leading up to this, we've gotten some questions about the master plan and where does this fit into it. So, um, before John started, I just wanted to do just a quick little recap if I could on the master plan so we were
on the same page as far as where this fit in. Um, we had uh 100 acres was owned by Paul Mastriani uh back in 2015 and that land um was reszoned to neighborhood mixed use and then went
through a master plan process. So, could I share my screen? Um, Aner, >> here. >> It might just be easier to understand. >> Are you able to see my screen? No,
>> not not yet. No. >> Let me see. Okay. Why isn't my picture showing? >> I I I don't I don't know. >> Okay. I need a lesson in uh Zoom.
>> That's okay. I don't need to bring it up. It's not it's not critical. Um so we had 100 acres of land. It through the master plan process, the plan the the 100 acres was divided into eight parcels. So um three of the parcels were
reserved for open space and those are preserved in perpetuity and then the remaining five parcels out of those 100 acres were proposed for residential or commercial use. So um a couple of those parcels have already been developed. We
developed um one lumber street where 110 Grill is on one of those parcels and then the Windsor apartments. um those were sold, purchased, and developed as a residential component under the master plan um for the 100 acres. So, we have
actually two parcels left that could be developed, parcel one and parcel 4 or lot four. We're here tonight looking at lot four, which is just a three acres of land that's adjacent to uh the Windsor Apartments and then on the other side
the open conserved land. Um, so that's where we're proposing the building that we're going to review tonight. Um, so from the master plan perspective and and we'll point this out along the way that we are in compliance with any special considerations that um were imposed with
the master plan process um as far as any different requirements, uses, etc. >> What about the racket? What about the racket club? >> Hold on, hold on, Saul. This isn't uh all all the comments have to be go through the chair. You can't just ask
questions. Hold on, >> Kathy. Go ahead. >> Um so I can address that just to take that off the table because actually the tennis center was parcel one of the parcels, parcel 7. It was sold to a different owner back in 2017 and that
was the parcel that was proposed for the tennis and swim center which has still not come to fruition. So, that was one of the parcels under the master plan, not the parcel we're talking about tonight. We're talking about parcel 4. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Sorry.
>> No problem. Uh, with that, I'll turn it over to John uh for Gary and Halen just to kind of go through an overview of the site plan and then we can answer any questions. >> Great. Thank you so much, Kathy. Um, just for the record again, John Federico with Ger and Hon. And um Aner, if you
would like to pull up the site plan, um feel free to. Um if not, I I can get screen sharing privileges, I'll pull that up on my end here. >> Uh you can share, you can ask to share the screen. >> Okay, perfect. One moment here.
Okay. Um so, uh is everybody able to see the uh cover sheet for the plan in front of me? Okay, great. Um, so for this project here, um, just as a very quick overview, um, we currently have a, uh, vacant, as
Kathy mentioned, about a three and a half acre site. Um, there is existing wetlands on site and, uh, currently we have already gone through conservation commission and received an order of conditions for the project. Um in its current state it is uh fully uh wooded
and um we do have gutterd consultant who was able to get the wetlands flagged for us. Um and for our proposal uh we are looking to um put in a uh one building of uh 2400 square ft. That will be for a
retail office use. Um we're proposing three units um for that um each about uh 800 or so square ft. Uh in total we will have 15 parking spaces. One of those parking spaces will be a handicap stall and that will be located in the back over here and that will be serviced uh
by a uh ADA accessible sidewalk that wraps around the building and that also runs out to Lumber Street itself where we are extending sidewalks to each property line. Um and uh if additional information or anything from uh DPW is required, uh we're more than happy to
provide that information. Um but for the rest of the project, we are proposing um some new plantings for screening. Um as you can see uh from our uh various symbols here around the site. Um and anything that is outside of um the uh no
disturb area or sorry within the no disturb area um is all intended to remain as natural vegetation. Um so the site will be well buffered on uh three uh sides of it. Uh only exposure will be on the portion to the uh lumber street side. Uh we will be having um
underground utilities proposed and we do have those sorry about that. Uh we do have those shown. Uh I believe it's going to be the next plan here. Perfect. Um so we will have um gas, water and uh electrical service being
provided underground. Um so those will be going to this back area where we do have a small utility room proposed. Um all that will be contained within our buffer zones and uh compliant with anything from the conservation commission side. And then from our um
drainage and uh sewer standpoint. Um we do have in the front system or front area here a proposed underground infiltration system uh with water quality rows for uh treatment and TSS removal. Um those have been reviewed by
PAR Corporation um as a part of the conservation review. Um and storm water has been signed off um as compliant for the whole entire site. Um to handle anything for our sewer output. Um we do have included in our set here um a copy of our board of health plan and we are
proposing um a uh septic system in the rear portion of the site uh located back here um that will handle any of the proposed flows for the building. Um, and as a part of our application, we did include our um, water uh, usage, which
uh, we are basing currently off of title 5 flows. Um, and I believe that generally covers everything at this moment in time. Um, so if there's any particular questions by the board or any of our um, butters in attendance, I'd be more than happy to
go into a little bit more specific for everything. Chair It's uh anyone on the board have any questions? >> I have one. Rob, can >> Parker, go ahead. Can you hear me? Yeah. This is the parcel that's directly abing Windsor, correct?
>> Yes, it is. >> Okay. Um do is this affiliated with Windsor or are you guys is this like a completely separate kind of business entity and it has nothing to do with that former project? is reason that I
was just curious why you guys wouldn't just tap into the Windsor um septic and infiltration pond. Just wondering >> as far as anything um connecting to Windsor. Um unfortunately with the location that we have for our wetland area, uh we wouldn't be able to uh cross
anything or or provide as minimal disturbances as we would need to do tie-ins for those. Um but in terms of the project itself, um from my understanding, this is intended to be its own separate entity. No association with Windsor. >> Windsor is owned by a separate entity.
Yeah, Windsor is owned by a separate entity. It's no longer owned by uh Pal Mastriani. That that land was sold and then subsequently developed into the apartments. So um this is truly just a standalone. >> Okay. Thanks,
>> Matthew. Go ahead. Thanks. Um, so the applicant mentioned that basically this is going to be a cutout into the wooded area, right? That's what the line is there is that's going to remain uh native basically. I'm looking at the the bullet that the mixeduse master plan
encourages and in some cases requires uh to accommodate pedestrian uh connectivity between the various parts of the mix mixeduse district. So I'm wondering how that plays with what's proposed. Is is that just along Lumber Street or is there other uh walking
paths to Windsor and to 110 Grill for instance and and the shopping center down there? >> Everything will be connected via the sidewalk on Lumber Street and um from my understanding the Windsor sidewalk is extended to their property line and essentially we will be meeting that um at our northern property line here. Um
unfortunately um I don't have a plan view that fully shows all that. Um, but if any additional details are needed, I'd be more than happy to provide those to the board. >> Okay. So, that addresses pedestrian but doesn't really address like bicycle and other non-motorized travel which would be required to be on Lumber Street.
>> Um, unfortunately, this sidewalk um currently is not designed um to be wide enough for uh bicycle travel. It's it's only proposed as a 5ft wide sidewalk. Um but if uh that is something that we do need to accommodate for um we will be more than happy to um talk it over with
the applicant and update any and all boards as needed for that. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh we may come back with more questions but uh let's go to Aneri for a staff report on this project.
>> Uh I will quickly summarize from my side. Um as application applicant mentioned already that they have already went through comcom approval and with the discussion uh and also mentioned on um order of conditions if there's
anything changes happening to the plan they need to go back uh for conservation review the property and the project is on neighborhood mixes district underwater resource protection over the district applicant do not need to submit
site u storm water management uh permit separately as they are um all the criteria is meeting and they are not triggering storm water applicant is going through design um not they need to go through design review
board for site plan and as well as they're going to be in front of zoning board for special permit and variance application just to inform the board members on that to construct the building and they need special permit
and variance for the use. >> What? What do you mean? This land isn't zoned for uh commercial. >> What? What do you said? They they need to go before the board of appeals. What do they need to go be? If I heard that correctly, what do they need to go before the board of appeals for?
>> So, applicant submitted um special permit and variance application. special permit under section 21072 to construct a new building for more like more than uh 2,500 square ft and
they submitted applicance application for allowing veterinary cleaning. Am I am I correct Kathine? >> Yes, if I could clarify as far as the use goes we are zoned for commercial and there are a defined set of uses that we
are approved for. we have had an interest from a potential tenant um for a veterinary clinic. So, we included that in our um in our petition to the the zoning board for uh consideration of
a vet clinic as an allowable use in the building. >> Okay. So, >> Okay. >> All right. So, there there are allowable uses that are already pre like by right for this land. >> Oh, yes. Yes. allos all medical uses,
office uses, retail, etc. But vet clinic is not specifically called out. So that's why we have that use um uh use request before them. >> Okay, that's sounds good. All right.
>> And just to add, uh pair corporation is our consultant from planning board side on this uh project. We did not receive their review back yet. they um are under review. So for next hearing, we're going to have their comments as well.
>> All right, sounds good. So th this is typically where we ask the applicant uh and I ask the board about uh potential sitewalk to get a lay of the land as it as it lies so we can um be better kind
of acquainted with the the topography, the general state of the land as it is today. Uh what um what is the general board's availability
for uh maybe not this Saturday but next Saturday? Uh what's the date? 17th >> 17th >> 17th at say 9 9:00 a.m. >> I am not available next weekend. This
weekend I'm available. >> Anyone else? All right. What about this weekend at 9:00 a.m.? Anyone not available? And that goes for our applicants as well. Could somebody uh >> meet us? >> Sorry. Uh I'm not available tonight. I'm
I'm available from 8:00 to 8:30. 9:00 a.m. That's a game for my kid. >> Okay. >> I can bring donuts if we do it at 8. [laughter] >> You guys are crazy. >> There's a chance of rain Saturday morning, too. Just
>> Oh, that's that doesn't sound great. Um, >> or maybe after 2 p.m. >> Yeah, that doesn't >> there's a greater chance of rain in the afternoon. >> So then this >> is there any for the applicant, is there
any times that work better or worse for you like weekdays, weekends? Typically, we try to do these Saturday mornings because it's generally the best availability for the board. But, uh, >> I'm open anytime, John. Um, either you
or representative from Gary, are you your flexibility? >> As as far as the weekends go, um, I will try to make myself available. Um, as of right now, um, I only have a conflict, um, I believe it's Saturday, um, the 16th or 17th, um, in the mornings that I
would not be able to attend. Um, this coming weekend, I am free for that. Um, if, uh, I couldn't attend, we'll obviously work to have, um, somebody from G&H there just to kind of help explain any, uh, questions on the engineering side of things, but uh, this
weekend I am definitely available. >> With the rain, is is Sunday a no? Is Sunday a no-go for people or is Sunday an option? >> Yeah, I can make it on Sunday. It actually works for me better. >> Fine with me. Either one.
>> And Lucia, you're resident weather expert. What are we looking at rain again on Sunday? >> Well, I was going to ask what a a rainy site visit would be because they said it's wooded, right? So, are we going to be
>> going through the mud? It's actually not that bad. Um there is um kind of a a driveway uh like a path kind of cut out into it and we're actually not going to have to go far off of Lumber Street into the site. Um so it it isn't that it
wouldn't be that bad at all. >> It's going to be partly cloudy, 45 degrees Sunday. >> Beautiful. >> The uh the path that's there was um cleared for when we were moving um machinery in to do soil testing. um that area is relatively stable. Um the only
thing I would ask on the engineering side would be um would any members of the board need anything uh staked out for visual purposes at all um so that they are able to kind of get their bearings. Um right now I believe the only thing we do have out there is
wetland flags to denote the edge of the wetland. >> That should be fine. Yeah. I mean, for my purposes, I think that's fine, too. So, >> what uh what about the Sunday the 18th? Is that
>> Did you know that that is a holiday weekend? >> Oh, let's not do that. All right. >> I was going to say to the chair, that's a long weekend that next weekend. >> Uh I don't want to do a holiday weekend. Um let's Can we shoot for Sunday this
Sunday? I think even if people can't some people can't attend, it's better to try to go on a day it's not raining than a day it's raining. Um, so Sunday the 18th at 9:00 a.m. >> I mean the the 11th. Sunday the 11th at 9:00 a.m.
>> Yeah, works for me. >> Sounds good. >> I won't be there as I said. So >> I can make it. >> All right. All right. >> I will be available as well. >> All right. Sounds good. We'll we'll have we'll try to get at least uh as many board members as possible. We know at
least Matthew can't make it, but uh hopefully he can drive by and um get a general overview. Uh so we'll see you then. But for tonight's meeting, does anyone have any uh any questions for the applicant
before the before we go there? Matthew, go ahead. >> Well, not for the applicant. I just probably for an area um so we're not reviewing this for storm water and I was just curious why it didn't trip that as part of the site plan was if because of the mixed use district or because it's just too small of a disturbance or
what's not >> uh yeah so the application is not disturbing u any criteria of storm water so that's why they don't need strong water management so they are good with the impervious surfaces disturbance and
slope so they met meeting all three criterias of storm water permit. So they're good from that side. >> Okay. If >> I may also add to that, um during our conservation review, uh PAR did complete a storm water review as well. Um and we
did have I believe it was two to three rounds of comments to address everything on the storm water side of things. Um so we did feel that any additional review by par um where they have already approved the system and no changes have been made to it um were a little bit
redundant um to have done again. >> Thanks John. Uh Parker, go ahead. >> Uh I have a question two questions for sorry what date did we set on again for the sidewalk and where should we park? Sunday the 11th at 9:00 a.m. Okay.
>> Uh parking I I'm not sure. >> It's probably easiest just to park at one Lumber Street. There is some parking like in the site if you want to pull into the site, but you could park kind of down by the spoon or the spoonery and
then just walk right over. It's not far off. >> Okay. Thanks. And then does this I'm remissed to note are you folks constructing EV chargers at this site
>> or I'm just not seeing any on the uh the plans. >> We currently do not have any proposed for the site. Um but we have had internal discussions um in the event that anything needs to be done um potential locations for those. And uh I
can just show the site plan view in case that um is needed for anything here. >> Lucia, go ahead. um through the chair. I had a question for Aneri. Given that Concom had storm
water reviews done, is that something that was given to our DPW director? Because the comments from DPW mentioned some concerns about storm water runoff and also mentioned the fact that we don't require a storm water review at
the planning board level. Has she seen the um the review that was done for conservation commission? uh if I'm not wrong uh usually comcom reach out to DPW for stormwater stuff uh we don't need from planning board side
because it's meeting our requirement but uh pair going to review stormwater part from planning board perspective as well they will not touch based on what they did for comcom but they will make sure that they are covering site plan um
rules and regulation for this project from on behalf of planning board and they will cover um certain areas of storm water but it will be not individual application required from applicant side and it will be not
another individual review. >> Okay. I guess my question is more that maybe whatever came out of conservation commission potentially might address the concerns that DPW had if she hasn't seen those um reviews. I will check I will check with Carrie. Um I'm not sure she's
aware of the Com um review, but yeah. >> So, uh I I think this is a general comment for you, John, uh and Kathy. Uh since someone mentioned EV charging, uh there's a general there's a requirement
a bylaw to have EV charging uh some a percentage of spaces or EV ready basically having the conduit in the ground to make spaces ready. So I think you should just be familiar with that uh requirement and if um
if you don't want to meet that requirement, you'd have to request a waiver. Uh, and the board does have the ability to vote on that. Uh, I'd say we uh have leaned more towards um needing to meet the requirement than
not in our current recent votes on it. We've had probably we've had a few in the past six months. Um, >> I don't see an issue with it on our end. um we'll we'll understand the requirement better and meet the whatever
the minimum requirement is and we'll show it on the we'll show it on the plan >> to address. >> All right. Does anyone have any other questions or comments or I'm going to uh ask to
continue the public hearing? I c I'm only seeing uh I'm not seeing everybody if like All right. At this time, I'd like to entertain a motion to continue the public hearing for Zero Lumber Street to January 19th.
>> Uh chair, it's going to be on January 26. January 19th. >> Oh, January 19th is Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. Sorry about that. To continue the public I'd like to entertain a motion to continue the public hearing for zero lumber street to
January 26th. >> Does anything need to be extended beyond >> an does anything need to be extended? I I think because uh I don't think we need to extend the decision deadline. >> No, we are good. This is site 10. So 90 days we are good.
>> Second. >> All right. So Michael >> have a question for you. >> Good. Point of order. We have a motion in a second already. >> All right. >> Uh, by second. >> What's that?
>> I have my I had a second. >> Oh, you were a second. Okay. >> Yeah. All right. Let's uh Saul, uh, >> yeah, >> I asked for comments a while ago. Um, we have we have a motion on the floor we're
going to vote on. Uh, Alisa Mowski, >> I was told that if I came here, I could ask these questions by Wilbur uh by Cooper uh upstairs in planning. She told me to come to this meeting and I could
at least ask a few questions. >> We I've asked numerous times if there's been any questions. No, you [clears throat] you never said anything. >> Well, I didn't. We're at a point where >> I don't understand this. >> I'm trying to learn about this. I have
very quick questions. Just two quick questions and it has nothing to do with the land. It has to do with um the building that's going to happen and what happens on Lumber Street to me already. I have 10 acres right across the street
from all of this. And all I'm concerned about is two two items. And I don't mean if you tell me to stop, I will stop. But it's just two items cuz I don't understand um
>> how the town works with these, you know what I mean, with your with the policies of what's going on. I I I don't Saul, you're um there's
generally there's bylaws that govern people's rights and ability to use the land and there's a process to basically get projects approved. >> Yeah. >> And that's all the land in in town is zoned a certain way like whether it's residential or commercial and that's all
available at our town hall in our planning department. >> Yeah. All of the processes are readily accessible through our planning department. You can learn all about them. >> Yeah. I went there and they told me to come to the meeting. >> See what But >> this >> I don't understand what you want to
know. >> Okay. I have nothing against them doing the building of what they have to do or anything. I mean, I can't stop any of that whatsoever. The question, the three
questions that I have is just one, are they going to leave any of the trees up front or does that all come down? That's one thing. And the other thing that I would like to ask is, and it's happened to me before, when they start putting
lights on all these buildings, they're all going to shine in my windows. And the reason I know this is when um Hopkin Auto put their stuff in, the board promised me in their work that
they would make sure the lights are assigned on their property are tilted down. So, I'm not against them having privacy lighting because I understand you have to have that. But they end up shooting everything into my windows to
the point where I had to close all my front windows. And I have a large beautiful home and I own 10 acres. I own uh five acres in front. No, five about eight acres in front of where they're going to be building or their parking
will be. And I know there should be safety parking. I'm not against that. But I don't want the parking facing my house. You know, they could face it the other way in and um and uh I just don't think that
it's fair that it's going to I mean, listen, this is all going to make my >> Okay, so you you we're going to continue this public hearing. We're going to v vote to continue this public hearing. All these questions, >> I re I highly suggest you come to the meeting on the 26th. We can discuss all
these questions. you'll have ample time, >> okay, >> uh, to do so because right now we're kind of we're out of our out of like we're not following our process and our >> rules of of a meeting. >> So, okay, >> roll call vote. Alise Mosowski,
>> yes. >> Lucia Lopez, >> yes. >> Matthew Rona, >> yes. Michael King, >> yes. Omn >> uh I'll come back to Omna. Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Vic Southprati, >> yes. >> Parker Hap,
>> yes. >> Rob Benson is a yes. And Omna, if you're there, uh, okay, we'll just assume the technical difficulties. So 808 and uh one
abstension. Uh I guess I don't know how if someone can't I don't know what we classify it as. All right. We look forward to seeing the applicant on the 26th. >> Sorry. Yes. Technical difficulties. Yes.
>> All right. Thanks Amna. >> At what time? >> 7 o'clock. >> Through the chair. >> Go ahead, Lucia. Um Saul and any other members from the public are also more than welcome to come to the sitewalk on
Sunday. Uh that's January 11th at 9:00 a.m. We don't discuss the project. It's basically just for for us to get an overview of what what the site layout is. Um but we welcome members of the public to come if they'd also like to
take a look. At what time? >> 9:00 a.m. Sunday the 11th. >> Okay. >> All right. At this time, I'd like to entertain a
motion to adjourn for this evening. >> So moved. >> Uh I think Parker had the second. All right. Roll call vote. Elise Mowski. >> Yes. >> Lucia Lopez. >> Yes. >> Matthew Rona. >> Yes. Michael King,
>> yes. >> Dwan, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Vic Prati, >> yes. >> Parker Hap, >> yes. >> And Rob Benson is yes. All right. Thanks everybody. Enjoy uh Martin Luther King weekend. We got a three weeks until our
next meeting. All right. Thanks everybody. >> Happy New Year. Bye. Happy New Year. >> Happy New Year.