Uh 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. Matthew Rona >> present. >> Elise Mowski >> present. >> Lucil Lopez >> present. >> Michael King.
Parker Hap >> present. >> Peter Mimo >> present. >> Amna Dwan >> present. Vicas Prati >> present >> and Rob Ben Rob Benson is here. And John, are you gonna be able to stay on
the call? >> Uh, I was not planning on it. >> Okay. >> But if you need someone um I I can I guess I would have to rearrange my evening schedule. Um
is is there something that is needed? Uh, >> I I have not reviewed the memo. I honestly don't even know what the agenda is. So, I don't know how much help I would actually be right now. >> All right. I don't want to put you on the spot. I I think uh I think uh I
appreciate you getting us connected and we will do the best without an ear here. >> Great. All right. I'm going to leave this logged in. Um but I just assume I'm not behind the screen. >> Okay. >> All right. >> All right. Thanks, John. >> Good seeing you all.
>> All right. Bye. All right. Uh, luckily without Aneri here, we have uh we don't have a extensive agenda. All of our items on today's agenda are administrative items. The Mi uh meeting minutes
actually uh is Lori on? Lori is not on. Um, would somebody uh mind being uh on the board, mind being a kind of a meeting minutes taker?
>> Any volunteers? >> Rob, uh, just to chime in really quick. Um I I'm getting some texts from confused residents and folks uh just given the late start and wondering if it makes sense for us to push this meeting
entirely just because there's some confusion right now and given the lack of staff as well. Uh I don't know if that is like uncouthed but just wanted to throw it out there. Um,
I yeah, I I uh I think there's some people on the call that are uh here. I think there's um I think there's things we can push to the next meeting. If if people aren't on
that we and if board members feel like we should, we can. But let's try to get through what we can get through. And if we think uh any of the topics should be uh moved to a subsequent meeting uh we can do that.
But let's let's try to go through uh I know um Lucia you had a comment about the meeting minutes. Aneri and Matthew responded are how are uh how are we feeling about the status of
the meeting minutes? Is there any open questions? I had one correction that I didn't um I didn't have a chance to read it until like two hours ago, but my name is spelled wrong under absent. It should be E L Y S E, not E L I S E.
>> Okay, >> Rob, I had a couple updates also uh on the I'm sorry, I'm just like pulling them up again. Forgive me. But I was wondering if maybe we table the voting on the meeting minutes until
next meeting just because there were a couple edits that I noticed that were inaccurate or do we want to discuss them now? >> Why don't you send them directly to Aneri and at least if you want to send that comment to I think Aneri will probably watch this video but uh I'm
sure she will. But if you want to send her any of those comments uh over email uh we can do that. Okay, great. >> Yep, I already did. >> All right, so I'm going to move on to item uh
agenda item 1.2. And Parker, I think this is what you were referring to that some people that maybe want to be on the call aren't on the call uh for Ocio Drive street acceptance. >> That's correct. So we have um
OciOla Drive is maybe uh the one that requires more um I yeah I I don't love having this meeting without an area here now that we're going through the stuff. Um >> well Rob, one thing I wanted to update
you on at least related to this while you're pondering is uh I was made aware that a um engineering study is being conducted at this time and so wanted to make sure the planning board was aware of that. And then uh
there's a typo in the letter that says uh and it's misrepresenting the conditions that were or the amended conditions um and wanted to strike from that sentence modern is that is not in the uh additional conditions.
>> Okay. The thing I don't know without a nearer here is I don't know if we have a a time like I don't think we have a timeline to pass uh to basically do this like I don't think it has to be done today
I guess for this let's just go so one uh first agenda item meeting minutes we're going to post basically provide comments to Aneri over mill. Second agenda item 1.2 Oello Drive. Uh
how does the board feel about postponing further like um any type of recommendations or suggested voting on suggested motions till next meeting? Does anyone have strong opinions one way
or another? Matthew, go ahead. Does anybody feel like it doesn't represent what we discussed in the last meeting? >> Uh Matt, I would say that legally this letter is inaccurate because the word modern is included and by law the
subdivision does not have to adhere to modern standards. So that is inaccurate. >> Drew the chair. Is Parker participating in this as a board member or as a private citizen? Good question. Uh, Lucia. Um,
>> Parker, do you have any com comment on that? >> I'm I'm whatever you want me to be. >> All right. Um, let me see if I can share my screen and at least bring up the bring up the um
the letter here >> to the chair. >> Go ahead, Amna. >> Um, I think from the last meeting there were a couple of issues. There was one where Vic was asked to to, you know, not comment as a board member because it affected him as a conflict of interest
and the same held for Parker. So, I think we should just make sure we're being fair to to everybody and holding the same standard for all parties. >> Thanks, Emma. I I agree. Let me see if I can share my screen here.
All right. Uh, I'm just going to read it out loud and we can go from there. Uh pursuant to the requirements of mass general law chapter 41 section 81i, the planning board provides this report relative to a citizens petition requesting acceptance of ocular drive as
a public way at the 2026 annual town meeting. The selector uh board requested that the planning board review the petition materials and provide a recommendation regarding the acceptance of OciOla Drive. The board discussed this matter at its meeting on March 9th, 2026. Information on the road and subdivision
plan by which it was created is below. Ociel drive uh subdivision definitive plan approved 1992. The Ociel Oaks definitive subdivision plan was approved by the planning board in 1992 with a condition requiring the oscill drive remain a public a private way. On December 1st, 2025, the planning
board voted to amend the 1992 decision to remove the private road restriction. This amendment was subject to the condition that any future request for public road acceptance must comply with current town standards and procedures, including a modern engineering evaluation of the roadway and drainage
system. At this time, the planning board has not received updated engineering documentation, including an evaluation of the roadway and drainage system, updated site drawings, or an asbuilt plan demonstrating existing conditions. The board also notes that there is no information regarding and require
improvements or responsibility for associated costs. The board is sympathetic to the concerns of the OE drive residents. However, based on the information available, the planning board does not feel that it is ready to move forward and support the request for acceptance of ocular drive as a public way. Uh at this time, please contact me if you have any questions or
need additional information. Sincerely, Robert Benson, chair. So I I heard whether let's let's take Parker's comment as a a private citizen about the modern uh engineering study. I don't know if that really is uh I'm not
a lawyer. I'm not I don't know if that's applicable or not. Um does anyone on the board have any opinions. Does this does this reflect uh our collective thinking as of the last
meeting through the chair is >> as I recall from the meeting the consensus was that there was a there's a there was there was a sympathy for the the residents of the road, but we were concerned about there being a lack of
the road being prepared and ready to be accepted as a town road. They didn't meet certain conditions that were set. I think that's more or less reflected in the letter. If if there's some other nuance that we're missing, then I think we should hear what those nuances are. But I think I from when I read the letter and when you just reread it now,
I thought it captured the essence of what we discussed last week or the last meeting. >> Thanks, Peter. I uh I tend to agree. Uh, Matthew, do you have anything to add? >> Exact same thing. Nope. >> All right. >> For the chair, I mean, without Sorry,
Peter. >> No, go. No, Matt. You go. You go. I I was going to make a motion that the board transmit the final report to the select board and recommend the ocelo drive not be accepted as a public way at town meeting as the board has not receive the required engineering documentation demonstrating that the roadway meets current town standards
>> through the chair. >> Go ahead Parker. The board has received documentation pertaining to the subdivision uh layout and it's uh the given that it hasn't material changed in any way uh
other than condition over 30 years and there have not been any you know re-engineering or any other time in history the that that was submitted as part of the original form D and C along with this. So again, this
that letter is inaccurate, but if the board wants to submit it, that's more than welcome to >> You're the chair. >> Go ahead, Peter. >> I I from from my end, I'd like to know more. I don't know from from Parker or
whomever has an interest in this who may be present tonight, what what inaccuracies they see within this letter. and I' I'd like to learn a little bit more about what they're trying to convey to us because I'm not entirely clear on that. >> So I'm happy to answer Peter if the
chair will allow. >> You go ahead Parker. So Peter that is there is no process for accepting um uh oiello that the town has in a non-developer submitting to request a
road to be accepted you know decades after uh and so because of that that we leveraged a peacemeal set of uh processes which included submitting a form and I could pull up all of them in
the the record if you'll give me a moment. Uh, but Colby was sent the original um asbuilt you know plans that were submitted to the town at the time of its construction and uh this was not only the draft but also the accepted
plans. So the town is in possession of those. Um what's happening is is that the planning board there are two processes to road acceptance. There's the select board process and then there's the planning board process. The planning
board process is one that is quite extensive for new developers and has multiple steps that uh you know we know of and the board process is much more concise and is about five steps. One of which is request approval or request uh
you know not approval request the opinion of the planning board to submit or to to to weigh in and if the road should be accepted. And um what why I detail that is because the this letter is essentially reflecting the um you
know planning board process uh and you know for an original developer and not necessarily what the select board was looking for when uh Lane sent the email um to the board to ask for their opinion. So, um, what it comes down to is the planning board is in possession
of and as part of the original request for road acceptance that was, um, submitted to the select board, this included a form D and C in the original ASB built plans. The planning board, it's in the planning board file as well. So, I just this letter is inaccurate.
>> Does the chair have a follow-up question? Just >> Yep. Peter, go ahead. If if you had your opportunity to to to edit the letter, how would you edit it? I would admit the section that states that the uh
I I'm happy to give some some edits if if we want to table this for now instead of just giving good intentions, but I would probably remove that. It has not received updated um has not received you know engineering documenta documentation because in no part of the process uh
does it say updated um engineering documentation is a requirement of the um you know select board process and also um I would you know give time because there is a a engineering study that's underway right now that I've become aware of um so I suppose if they want to
keep updated and then you could say that but the playing board is in possession the documents. >> So, let me let me um uh make a couple comments. I agree that uh as a town, we don't have a good we
don't have any real process to accept the street after uh like after the developer is out of the process of developing the road and developing the neighborhood. uh un unless there's some benefit to the town like the town wants
to put a water man on the street and they want to accept the road because they want to have control of the water man or some underground utilities or if there's a benefit to the town there's a process because the town sees hey I need to basically make sure this road is up to standards because there's some
critical infrastructure underneath the road that I I want to ensure that so uh I don't like I I think as Parker said I don't there isn't a a good process for this scenario but once the select board asks the
planning board we kind of have we have our process of how we determine if if a road is elig should be accepted. So the select board and Elaine uh our town manager didn't I don't think it's required that she asked
us our opinion but really we're relying on what we normally do is we normally go through like is there an engineering evaluation of the road does it meet the current standards um to be accepted as a road and
and that's where um uh I think we are is that we there's been no like there's an engineering study I think done being done now but as part of like you said there's no process for the select board
to require an engineering study but that's typically what we do here in the plan board and since we were asked we were we basically put the question back to who's trying to get it accepted as a public way has there been any engineering study done um and the answer up to now is is no there
hasn't been like on the current state of the road like does it meet current subdivision uh rules and regulations. So, that's where we are. >> You're the chair. >> One one second, Parker. Let me see. Go ahead.
>> I was going to second Matt's motion, and if we want to continue having discussion, then we can do that as well. >> All right, we have a a second. Is there any additional discuss?
>> So, Matthew made the mo motion. Uh, Lucia seconded the motion. Do we want any additional discussion? Is Parker eligible to vote? This is on the letter and not the hearing, right? I don't know.
It's purely administrative. Um, yeah, I think it could be seen as a conflict of interest since he lives on Ocelo Drive, but once again, I'm I'm not I don't know that I'm the the jury on that uh
entirely. All right, we have a motion, we have a second. I don't hear anyone clamoring for additional discussion, so roll call vote. Matthew Rona. >> Yes. >> Elise Moloski. >> I'm sorry. Are we What was the vote for
to deny it? >> To not accept the road the motion that's this transmit the report um as written and and saying that we do not want that we do not suggest accepting the road >> as is.
As is written, >> move the board transmit the final report to the select board and recommend that OciOla Drive not be accepted as a public way at town meeting as the board does not receive the required engineering documentation demonstrant at the roadway meets the current town standards. >> Okay. Okay. Sorry, there was too much discussion in between. Um, so I vote
yes. >> Lucia Lopez, >> yes. >> Michael has is not still not on. Uh, Peter Mimo, >> no.
Amnadwan. >> Yes. >> Vicas Prati. >> I think I should recuse myself because of as >> Okay. I think uh I'm a yes. It reflects what we discussed. All right. So, we've got
one, two, three, four, five. Five yeses. Matthew, Elise, Lucia, Amna, and myself. Rob. All right, let's move on to Whisper Way Street bond release and street acceptance. I'm going to do the same
thing I did and bring up uh the Whisper Way um So, I'm going to read this one as well and then we can uh we'll go from there. Uh I I'll start I'll start here for everybody
following. Uh, pursuant to the requirements of Mass General Laws chapter 41, section 81i, the planning board provide this report relative to the request for acceptance of whisperway as a public way at the 2026 annual town meeting. The select board requested that the planning board review the street acceptance materials and provide a
recommendation regarding the acceptance of whisperway. The board discuss this matter at its meeting on March 23rd, 2026. The information on the road and subdivision plan by which it was created is below. The Whisper Way subdivision was approved by the planning board in 2019 and is
subject to an OSLPD special permit. Construction of the roadway and associated utilities have been ongoing for several years. The applicant, 20th Century Homes, has requested a certificate of completion release of the construction bond in acceptance of Whisper Way as a public way. At the 2026 annual town meeting, the town currently
holds a performance guarantee in the amount of 98,235. Bader Group uh conducted a closeout inspection on March 17, 2026 and issued an asbuilt asbuilt review date March 19th, 2026. While the roadway, utilities, and storm water
infrastructure have been installed, Beta identified a substantial number of required plan modifications and outstanding items that must be addressed before the roadway can be considered for acceptance. These include missing storm water as build calculations, missing drainage profiles, required easement clarifications, installation of missing
driveway aprons and the ADA ramp, correction of settlement at DMH5, installation of street trees, installation of a dead end sign and confirmation of infiltration basin performance. These items are required on the town subdivision rules and regulations uh and storm water
regulations. Based on the information available, the plan does planned board does not feel that it is ready to move forward and support the request for acceptance of whisperway as a public way at this time. Additional work and updated asbuilt documentation are required bel before the board can support street acceptance or bond
release. Please contact me if you have any additional questions. All right. >> Uh Chris, I see you on the call. Do you want to talk? Do you want or is Joe gonna do do you guys want to have a make a comment?
>> Well, um, thank you. That's Chris Nation representing 20th Century Homes. So, yeah, we're requesting that at least we find some clarity here. I would certainly need some direction. There's there's a lot on the list. Most of them
are simple uh clerical in nature that involve just some files and paperwork that that we have on hand that it's been submitted over time like um just some of the easements and just a a lot of easy lowhanging fruit within those multiple
items. Um there's a few paving things, but they're simple in nature. A top coat on a driveway, some settlement. Those are those are easy to execute and perfectly acceptable to us. My my confusion comes in where I think I've
identified like five very specific kind of questions putting together the beta uh review and DPW's concerns that um I won't be able to fulfill the requests
unless the board provides clarity. Um, so if we can find a way to to isolate time to go through those or someone can give me the the definitive answer as to as to how I can achieve them. Um, and
and to keep in mind, I I was a little bit taken back when I got some of these reports in that to me, I thought the the heavy lift with this road getting approved was getting the conservation sign off, which we did get in January of
this year. And and that was um that involved five plus years of storm water reporting and management of the roadway and drainage. So, um, it was certainly a shock to me to have people
have have me, you know, fulfill that obligation for multiple years and then to to kind of get hit with it. It's not going away, so to speak. Uh, I I don't know what the um where where we can where we can finally fulfill someone's
obligations if they're uh not defined clearly. With that said, I think I I don't know when we can discuss the I think I've got it narrowed down to like five separate sort of questions here that require the board to
define to me what to do. >> Okay. Um typically this a lot of this um discussion I think happens behind the scenes between maybe your engineer uh yourself and our principal planner or beta group or
peerreview consultant. Do you think the you need the board to provide guidance or the uh beta group to provide additional information? Uh I I think maybe the easiest way is to provide say an example. One example is
is a um DPW has made a recommendation which is at odds with the approved plan and that would be for example the entrance way to Cameron Woods parking area. We have constructed it per the plan, per the approved plan. But DPW now
coming in uh five, six years later and seeing what's approved and built, they're suggesting we do it differently. And so do I do a suggestion by someone reviewing an approved plan or do I go
and stick with the approved plan and assume that we ignore someone's suggestion? I I think I would need the without getting without performing a request by DPW, I'm not going to get their approval. So, it it
puts me in a in a tough spot of I would like nothing more than to fill obligations, but without having a if I fill fulfill one obligation on one end, I'm I'm not on another and and I I I don't know how I can get to the end zone
operating that way. That's just one example. I think I've got like five little nuances like that of the, you know, if there's 20 items on the list, I can fulfill all of them more boilerplate administratively, so to speak, but these I've got a few that are I I don't think
I'll get there. >> All right, let me uh without a ner here, Joe, can I uh Mr. Mark, can I ask you a question? >> Yeah, certainly. >> You're involved in a lot of these projects. What normally happens in this scenario
like Chris decided described a catch22 condition. He's trying to serve two masters at the same time. How does this normally get worked out? What we have um always kind of preached on this side is we spent an awful lot of
time in committee seeking these permits um getting input from all the stakeholders and to get to a point where something goes out to bid, something gets constructed and um the decision the
approval decision from the board says build it according to uh the engineered plan the plan for the site. So it normally the default is if the board in its wisdom said build uh a roadway a
certain way that's what should be built. So, we get to this point. Um, now we're asking someone to to I guess develop a an area uh a compromise somewhere in the
middle which um seem doesn't feel like it would satisfy either group. So, uh we always default to what was approved, what were they told to build. That's what you should see at acceptance time.
I tend to ag I I I agree. If the a plan is approved um and the developer spends uh their resources to build it as the plan to come in uh several years after that approved plan to request changes and
additional additional costs to the project doesn't isn't a fair scenario. Um, does anyone on the board have any other comments? I I think my like I don't know if all the examples are similar, Chris,
but my take is uh if the roadway is built to the approved plan uh in in all aspects, then that's what the goal should be to to try to meet um
uh additional feedback that has happened is is is happening now and that's in in um opposition of the approved plan that seems like a never- ending uh task and a never- ending expense that doesn't seem fair. But all the uh other little uh all
the other points that are I I think um on the beta readout uh I think need to be addressed with the beta group just to uh uh basically get those to an agree agreed upon resolution. Anyone else on
the board have any comments? >> The chair? >> Yeah, >> I did have one question. In reading the um DPW's letter, um it said that part of the original decision said that there should be a sidewalk along Wood Street. I don't know
if that was in Beta's response. Um, but it seemed like DPW was asking if that was still a requirement as well. >> Chair, may I answer? >> Yeah, go ahead, Chris. >> I'm I'm not I was not able to find any
reference in the approval agreements to build a sidewalk out on Wood Street. I I do remember conversations about it and and it seemed that it it um it only was during conversations in sitewalks. I again I couldn't find it in any of the
approvals. Um and I I think it had um it didn't get pushed along the way because of resource area and the busy street. Um and it was a sidewalk that didn't offer
getting to somewhere. Um the side, you know, at one point that was a a loop road and then it became a a culde-sac. So there is reference in the approval agreement to construct the sidewalk that does exist down to Wood Street, but um
and that was asked to be done in phase one. Meaning I think the intent was they wanted uh the planning board felt that the sidewalk should exist right away as soon as you know the first person's living there's access to a sidewalk.
That was um my general takeaway from the how I read and understood and then then we built it that way. The problem with the sidewalk is that there is not a detectable pad at either end. So there
we have to add an ADA compliant pad at the beginning and the termination up at the top which is um somewhat simple will to be done. So that is one of the questions. Wait a
minute. I see this is on someone's report, but I'm unable to locate it on my approval agreement. And I'm looking as closely as I can today, and I'm like, "Oh boy, I I remember the discussion, but I do not see this in my proof."
That that is um what I can offer. So, what I I think um I think what I'd like to do is if if the board agrees is basically I think our guidance is that the
uh what was approved in the plan is what uh is the goal. not like adding uh trying to move the goalposts um may be nice may may add some benefit
but that's not uh I don't know that that's a fair um fair thing to ask. So, I think that's what my guidance would be and I I'd like to see maybe you try to work out these points
with Aneri and the beta group and um there may be enough time to get these resolved so that the could be a situation where we can recommend approving the road before our
town meeting. So, I'd like to defer like any type of recommendation or voting or making a motion on this until at least next week. Put it on our agenda for next week. I mean, two weeks from now and uh see if you can at least get in touch with Aneri
and um our principal planner and try to try to pave a path forward to close out the remaining open items. Any any suggestions or any objection from
the board? >> To the chair. I have one question. >> Sure. >> Do uh we have to have this done by the really to Mr. Nation as well. Like do you guys have to go before the select board on April 7th as well or no?
>> My understanding is we have to be in front of the select board April 7th. >> Okay. So, we just have to make a decision before then, Rob. It seems >> So, we'd have to make a decision by next two weeks from today, the 6th. >> So, let's uh I'd like to not make a
motion, not vote uh today. See if see what progress can be made. see what can be worked out, what can be uh um resolved so we have an opportunity to recon to consider it uh in better detail, better better informed and with
a ner here on uh on April 6th. >> Chris, does that sound okay with you? >> That sounds fantastic. I will work diligently towards proper outcome. >> All right, sounds good. >> Thank you.
>> Let's let's move to item 1.4. 30 North Mill Street, Hickory Lane, Performance Guarantee establishment form K endorsement. Is anyone uh on to speak. Uh is the is the
applicant on for this? >> Yes, I am. Rob Chuck Joseph by Benson Road. >> Hey, Chuck. Do you do you want to um kind of give an overview of what you'd like done here?
>> Sure. Um this is a property owned by um Lynn Nean and it has it's an approved one lot subdivision uh originally I think in 2009 and then modified in 2012. Um we have reached an agreement with
Lind to purchase the property pending you know updating the approval from Concom and getting the lot released from planning board. So with Aneri's guidance, we had submitted um uh a proposed budget for the finishing of the
work uh and WNS accepted it and I think we're here looking for the lot release. So u I'll just announce myself really quick. I'm James Pearson with Weston and Samson and Aer had uh tasked me with reviewing the estimate that was
provided. and uh she asked that I attend this evening. Since she's not here, she obviously isn't here to announce me, so I'm just announcing myself. I hope that's okay. >> No, that's that's okay. This is this is the first time in my tenure on the board that uh we haven't had our principal
planner on the call, so this is unique experience for myself. >> Well, I think you're I think you're doing very well considering the circumstances. So uh so um we were given a uh an estimate
our the most recent estimate we were given um had a subtotal of just over $51,000. We had recommended to an area um that that an additional 20% contingency be carried on top of that. Uh so the total that I have in front of me is $61,366.
Um based on our review of the project, um we feel like that's a that's an adequate amount for security for the project. Um so happy to answer any other questions you might have. Does before we uh let let me open up to
the board. Does anyone on the board have any questions? Matthew, go ahead. >> Thanks. I was trying to figure out where the 51,000 estimate was. Which file is that in the form G that's there is like 49606. So I was just trying to figure out where the >> Yeah. So there was a little back and
forth between ourselves and and AR and and I think she communicated some of our questions to the applicant. The the estimate that you have in front of you it sounds like maybe uh didn't include a couple of additional things that that we told an area needed to be included. uh namely I I think it was mainly some
additional work with some of the plantings and the wetland replication and some of the loming and seating of disturbed areas. So we asked we we we suggested to an area to to talk to the applicant see if they could include that on there and and with the latest revision of the estimate looks like they have and so that's where we're getting
that total now of of just over 51,000 >> and Rob the uh applicant was uh in agreement with the 61k >> estimate Joseph Mr. Joseph, does that does that sound uh >> Yes, we >> sounds okay to you?
>> Mhm. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Matthew. Anyone else on the board have any other uh questions? Lucia, go ahead. >> Um I was in reading through the the documents, it said there was going to be
a 7.55 acre conservation restriction. Is that something that has already happened or >> Mr. Justice, do you want >> I can speak to that. That has not happened yet. Um it is part of the approval process that um prior to
getting a certificate of occupancy or whatever for the completed house that the transfer will occur on the 7.5 acre parcel. It's actually not doesn't necessarily have to be a transfer. the future owner can own the parcel, but the conservation restriction easement has to be placed on it.
>> Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I think we've just seen these come before the board where the u the requirements that were put in place didn't happen and we just want to make sure that all of that is taken care of. >> Understood. All right. At this at this time, I'd
like to entertain a motion that the P planning board set the performance guarantee for 30 North Mill Street, Hickory Lane subdivision at $61,366.80. >> So moved. >> Thanks, Matthew. >> Second. >> Thanks, Peter. Uh, roll call vote.
Matthew Rona, >> yes. >> Elise Mosowski, >> yes. Lucia Lopez, >> yes. >> Parker Hap, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Amna Dwan, >> yes. >> Vicas Pratti,
>> yes. >> And Rob Benson is yes. >> All right. Thanks, uh, Mr. Joseph. >> Thank you to the board. >> Thanks, James. Thanks. Thanks for joining. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Moving on to our next agenda item 1.5. Uh Chester Street Extension bond release. The applicant for Chester Street Extension project requests the release of a performance guarantee stating that all work at Chest Street has been completed. The town currently holds a performance guarantee in the amount of
$15,170 established by the planning board on January 6, 2025. Beta conducted a closed out closeout inspection on March 17th, 2026 and reviewed the asbuilt plan for compliance with the approved plans. While the site is generally complete, Beta identified several outstanding items that must be
addressed prior to bron release. These provide uh these include providing lom and seed mix at the driveway edge, identifying all fences and plantings on the asfield plan, and removing the dumpster and remaining construction materials from the site. These items are listed in beta's March 19th, 2026 report. Based on the outstanding items
identified, the peerreview staff have recommended the plan board not release the bonds this time and continue this item to the next planning board meeting to allow the applicant to complete this remaining work. Is the applicant on? >> Yes, we are both here. So based on what um our principal
planner and said like we would like to have this on our agenda for two weeks from now so any uh remaining items can be closed out between you as the applicant and the beta group our peerreview consultant so
we can um get to a situation where we can vote and vote in a positive positive direction. >> Okay. Just um is it helpful to give the board some additional information that
we had sent to Aneri? >> You can I I don't know what the information is. So we can >> Sure. So there were four items. One is around loom and seed which was done in the fall and we had sent pictures on November 24th. So those were sent to her. Um
the dumpster we are completing our move in and as as any of you who have moved know there's a lot of trash that comes with that. So our hope is to have those dumpsters removed within the next month. Um there are no fences that have been installed on the property. That was
something that Beta wanted us to address nor are we intending to install any. And there was also a question about a grinder pump which was not installed as part of the sewer system. It's a gravity sewer connection. So I think
that's probably all of the things that Beta was asking us to do which we we kind of feel were resolved or will be resolved in the near future. >> Okay. I I think um so as a board we we subcontract these
peer review to uh outside consultants in this case Beta Group and typically these get like they're not on right now. They're not on the call right now. So we what would be beneficial to us if if that was just agreed upon between you
and the beta group outside of this meeting because I I can't um I don't think we can agree that those are all in process of being resolved or resolved where we could vote to move this forward at this time. Um, so that's that's what
I think needs to happen is those can uh this this week and next week um before our next meeting you can get those agreed upon with the beta group and our principal planner and then we could vote to uh that um we should release the bond
for this project. That's okay. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> All right. Hopefully uh hopefully that won't be painful. It's just um without if the peer review if they were on right now, I think we could maybe discuss and
and they could um they could we could discuss in real time, but without them and without our principal planner um who had a personal issue, we're kind of uh at that's where we are. All right.
So, we're going to add that to our agenda item uh for two weeks, April 6th. All right. Is anyone uh who did someone have um or somebody want to start the discussion of charter
review survey? >> Okay. Folks can sign that is I need a special vote. Rob's >> good about falling on his sword. So >> hold on. Go ahead, Peter. >> You can blame me for this. I I'm a
member of the charter review committee, and I um had one one of the tasks that we've been assigned to to do, of course, um is to try to get feedback from the other boards, committees, and department heads about what their views are about the charter, um our foundational
document that organizes our government. Um and I had sent out um a survey and we're hoping to get some feedback from the other boards and committees. Um just by a little back way of background, we're providing a a review and study and and to recommend some improvements to
the town charter. Um we had sent out surveys to other town directors, boards, and committees. Um just this as earlier this week um I sit on the town's board of assessors and we took a look at them and the general consensus was to offer a little bit of feedback at the meeting on on Tuesday that we had but then also
sort of send in particularized answers to the survey questions that I had circulated earlier. Um, you know, I so my my thought on this is we probably would probably want to sort of if we have an opportunity if you want to take the opportunity to have a discussion
about some of the items that were captured in the survey, this is a good opportunity perhaps to do that. If the board would rather take the opportunity to sort of provide individual sort of feedback to the survey questions, you know, that's certainly the path that the that the assessors have taken earlier
this week. Um just some food for thought as far as you know where I sit on the charter review committee is that you know we're looking at a number of um based on the feedback that we've been receiving from other boards and committees. You know they're tackling other issues such as you know the composition of the boards that they're
on. Is it too many? Is it too few? the the the terms that they're serving. Too long, too short. Um whether or not they would like to see some particular ability to have appointment authority um of some of the town officers or employees who are associated with their
elected boards, appointment authority, supervision authority, things along those lines. Um there's a particular question about whether or not there should be a required rotation of public body chairs on an annual basis, some other basis as well. Um, I do note that just from my observations of the the
town charter as it pertains to the planning board, you know, there are some there's at least one particular issue that's a little bit odd about it is that we do have the ability to um appoint a town planner and to have and provide in with input from the town manager, but I
don't think a town planner exists. Um, I think we have a principal planner and and we have the town the the title that John Gich has, which a very long title, but I know it's not town planner. Um, so I think there might be some areas where we may want to clean up some of the issu
some of the language in the charter as it pertains to the planning board, but essentially I'm I'm trying not to be too scatterbrain about this, but um, you know, if the planning board members would like to have offer some feedback on the survey questions tonight, I'm happy to take it back to the charter
review if they would rather um, offer it individually um, by, you know, within a relatively short period of time. that would be helpful to us as a committee as well. So there you have it. >> All right. Thanks, Peter. One second.
Joe Joe, you have your hand raised. >> Yeah. Through the chair. U was there going to be a discussion about the form K for the Hickory Way? Is that need a a vote from the official vote from the group to move
that forward? If I'm out of line, please say so. My thinking was uh like what Deneri wrote in our um in our meeting agent like our meeting write up is based on the outstanding items
identified in the peer review it is recommended that the planning board not support street acceptance at this time and not release the bond. Rob, >> I think that's the next one. >> Before that, it's the second motion. We only set the performance guarantee and
then we moved on to Chester Street. There's two motion, two suggested motions. >> In section 1.3 >> 14. >> Oh, >> the second motion is contingent on >> Oh, sorry. Yes. Um,
yeah, I made a mistake. Um, can Peter, I I'm sorry to derail, but we'll we'll go back. Uh, I'd like to close this out. It was my my mistake. >> No worries. Uh
so as part of uh Hickory Lane, 30 North Mil Street, we need to So we did the first one to move the uh set the performance guarantee at $61,366. So the second motion,
um is there any discussion warranted? Uh, anyone on the board have any? All right. I'd like to entertain a motion that the planning board endorse the form K of 430 North Mill Street, Hickory Lane subdivision, releasing the remaining lot
contingent upon receipt by the town of the performance guarantee for the remaining work. >> So moved. >> Second, Pat. >> Thanks, Matthew. Thanks, Peter. Uh, roll call vote. Matthew Rona, >> yes. >> Elise Mosowski,
>> yes. Lucia Lopez, >> yes. >> Parker Hap, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> was that a yes? >> Yes, that's a yes. >> Amna Dwan, >> yes. >> Vicas Prati,
>> yes. >> And Rob Benson is yes. All right. Sorry about that. I um was trying to go too fast, I guess. >> Well, thank you. And I apologize, Peter, for stepping all over your presentation. >> Thank you. Quite all right. Thank you.
Um so are we going to jump back to uh item 1.66 on our agenda and discussion of charter review survey? >> So I I I guess just through the chair what what is the board's fancy? Do we have the appetite for having a discussion about these survey questions
or would we rather sort of uh sort of provide individual feedback? Let me at least share my screen to show the questions. So if anybody's uh watching or uh will watch in the future, they can at least see the questions
>> and and I know it is perfectly acceptable if the answer is not applicable. So, I I I think from my point of view, I I've read the town charter a few times, but I didn't read it in the past couple weeks uh to really be able to like
answer these questions or or have comment in real time. I don't know how other people feel. >> Lucia, go ahead. I think um to Peter's point that was actually my question in reading through the town charter was it says we appoint
a town planner but Aneri just started and she's the principal planner so is it meant um for the planning board to be involved in that process or you know did they change from a town planner to a principal planner at some
point but the wording wasn't updated uh I think that was an open question for through through the chair. I I my understanding is that um that there was an that there had been a town I suppose there had been
the ability to appoint a town planner but there was a uh an effort to change the title so that it would be effectively taken away from the planning board to have an ability to hire or appoint or to supervise that particular staff person. I could be wrong about that but I
believe but the fact is that there's no town planner. So does it require so it's a matter of of is it a matter of uh changing it such that uh such that that playing board does have a particular authority again or is it just to sort of
continue it so that we no longer you know does it make sense for an elected board of a nine member elected board to have supervision of a particular planner town or principal. Um these are questions that I think that you know we should probably want to provide some
feedback. And to be perfectly clear um the charter review committee reviews studies recommends. We don't actually change it. That's up to the town of course to do that but we are in the process of studying it and trying to try to figure out and correct some anomalies and some you know some sort of
ambiguities here and there too. So and this appears to be one of them as it pertains to the planning board. I have a followup to that. >> Go ahead, Lucia. >> Peter, do you know when that was changed? When the town planner became
the principal planner? >> That I'm not aware of. I can tell you that this particular charter has been in effect of course since 2017. But um but when that particular change came into place, I'm not entirely sure. >> Yeah. So I think that would be a useful discussion for the planning board to
have um once we have I guess some of the history of whether the planning board was involved and when that changed when the title was changed from town planner to principal planner um and if the planning board would like to be involved
in the future >> is through the chair. Go ahead, Peter. >> I can tell you that just in if you read through the town charter that it's a bit inconsistent when you can look at other elected boards and their roles with their associated um sort of professional
town hall staff. Some have the the ability to appoint and the ability to supervise and others have none at all. The assessors being one of them, none at all in the none at all category. So, it's a bit of a mishmash. Um, and so I think that, you know, one of
the things that we're looking to study is perhaps is there is there an appetite for the town to have a certain consistency among the relationship between elected boards and the professional town hall staff who support them. Is there make that consistent or is there rather you know there's there's
a reason for differences and that should be preserved. You know, it should be studied at least and it should be uh at least we should be made aware of it. through the chair. >> Go ahead, Parker. >> Uh Peter, just to answer your question
directly, uh the like gaps or areas and I've frankly don't have a lot of experience with redoing charters. In fact, uh I think it's cool that you're, you know, electing to throw your hat in the ring and take on this. So, uh, apologies if
some of this is redundant or duplicitous to efforts you've already made, but, uh, we we don't have as a board, we're very reactive and instead of proactive in my opinion. And so having uh more emphasis in the charter that the
planning board can be a lead advisor on like land use strategy for example and a steward for long-term growth that aligns with you know like the 10-year capital plan uh because we essentially are very reactive and I think if we had part of
the charter requiring more proactive measures uh could be beneficial. And then the other piece too is uh and less maybe less to do with us but I think it's 10 years is too long for us to not
only review the charter but also you know potentially even uh our zoning. So having a more regular mandated review of zoning that's again proactive and aligned with the changing of the market and growth strategies
uh could be beneficial. And then last uh was if we had a way to um clarify like who's actually owning what for each of these. And this kind of goes more with your professionalism bit, but just so there's
not interpretation risk or political conflict that we have like clear swim lanes for, you know, what we're able to uh you know control within, you know, that economic development advisory capacity. I think could be beneficial, too. But that that's just a couple
thoughts. Um have have more structured reviews uh alignment with our capital um planning or uh capital our long-term planning and the more frequent review cycle because you things change pretty quick in 10 years. Um my hairline
especially, but that's a whole another topic. >> Thank you for sharing that, Parker. >> Matthew, go ahead. >> Thanks. Um I just responding to the previous statement. I mean there's nothing that makes the the planning board necessarily be reactive. Um in the
past we've been very proactive in proposing connectivity uh aspects of town etc. So it's really what the board makes of it. Whereas in the last few years I think we've had trouble getting more than three uh or sometimes four people on a sitewalk. And so it I I'm
curious to what degree we could mandate in the charter that the board were more proactive. Um, if we have ideas, we can definitely uh for zoning, we can definitely send them to Zach on a more regular basis to analyze things. Um,
yeah, I guess I'm kind of curious to what degree we like what what mandating that the board were more active would look like. >> Lucia, go ahead. Um, I think going off of that, uh, in affordable housing, we were just talking about an updated housing production
plan, which I think is something that, um, the principal planner or the land use department maybe is a part of. I don't know if they spearhead or if the town manager does. Um, but that would be something that
would be a proactive step in kind of seeing what housing looks like in Hopkin in the region. Um, where people feel there's a need for certain kinds of housing. Um, and how as a town we can move forward and get more of the housing
that we want. I guess um I I appreciate all these insightful comments and I'm I'm also particularly grateful that this is recorded so I can go ahead and look back at it when I report back to the charter review
committee. Um uh does um would would would it make some sense then for if if to the extent that you want to provide feedback to the particular some of the particular questions on there and um would it make sense to sort of offer
those to me individually and I can sort of coate that um would that be helpful? I think it would be helpful to me I think to let you know that frankly um you know questions about setting a budget that sort of thing that's not doesn't appear to be applicable to the planning board but um
other answers to other questions in particular about you know thoughts about you know elected versus appointed positions that's something that we're taking a look at um you know um also things about the questions about the compositions of particular boards you know one thing that yeah I can tell you
for instance that some of the survey responses for the um the head of the board of health. Um, you know, they're looking to see if they can't increase the the numbers. Um, you they're thinking about suggesting that they move from a threeperson board to a fivep
person board. Um, at least the the health director sort of seems to think that way. Um, is is that, you know, is is nine too much for the planning board? Is fiveyear terms too much for the planning board? Is it too little? My god, don't say it's too little. But in
any event, you know, it's sort of if if if we think that there are some things about the the way that we're operated, the way that we're reflected in the charter in terms of composition, in terms of terms of of service for the office that we hold, you know, this is an opportunity for us to offer that kind of feedback. I can tell you too that
we're still in the process of gathering data from comparable communities to see how they operate, you know, in their planning boards and other boards and committees as well, which will I'm sure will provide some insight as to, you know, how does Hopington operate relative to our to our comparators.
We're still gathering that information. things like along those lines would be helpful to me if if I can get answers to those particular questions if you could address those particular topics that are addressed in the survey questions and I can report back and um you know we can sort of make sure that we're gathering
the right information and we're having your views reflected you know conveyed to us so we can do our jobs particularly well we hope so >> thanks Peter I think um trying to understand uh across our full
town government uh where elected responsibilities end and pay and our town staff's responsibilities begin and end is is not an easy thing to do across the board. You look at everything from planning to parks and wreck and select
board versus the town manager. It's uh I'm sure it can get it's not I'm sure it's not uniform on every facet of our town government. Um, so I'm glad I'm glad you're looking at it with uh the charter review uh board.
So sound it sounds like a very worthwhile endeavor. >> Thank you. Um I I don't have anything else to add on topic. I do hope forward I do hope though they would take a little bit of time and and provide me with the responses that will be helpful to me. Thank you.
>> I uh I will do that for on my end. All right. At this time, this this uh that that wraps up our agenda. I'd like to entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> Move. >> Second. >> Thanks, Peter. Thanks, Matthew. Roll
call vote. Uh, Matthew Rona, >> yes. >> Elise Mowski, >> yes. >> Lucia Lopez, >> yes. >> Parker Hab, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Amna Dwan, >> yes. Vicas Pratti. >> Yes. >> And Rob Benson is yes. All right. Thanks
everybody. We uh managed to get through this meeting without a near. So hopefully that doesn't happen again. >> Thank you Rob. Appreciate it. >> Thanks everybody. Bye bye. >> Bye bye.