The Planning Board on Monday voted 5-1 not to recommend Auciello Drive as a public way, with two abutters not voting after a protracted debate on one member’s potential conflict of interest.

The meeting started 13 minutes late. John Gelcich, the director of land use, planning and permitting, opened the Zoom meeting in the absence of principal planner Aneri Patel. Patel, who hosts the meeting and advises the board, was unable to attend due to a family emergency. Laurie St. John, the land use administrative assistant who takes meeting minutes, also was absent.

Parker Happ asked chair Rob Benson if the meeting could be postponed because of “confusion right now and given the lack of staff.” He said several people who had hoped to attend for the Auciello Drive potential road acceptance discussion texted him when they were unable to get into the meeting. Benson replied that the board would meet but could defer voting on items on which it may need Patel’s guidance.

Letter on Auciello Drive sparks tension

Happ, an Auciello Drive resident, provided the board with updates. He noted that an engineering study is being conducted on the road.

At the previous meeting on March 9, board members discussed the conditions under which it could be accepted as a town road. In December 2025, a condition was added that any private way’s acceptance as a town road would have to comply with current town standards. This would include an engineering study and evaluation of the road’s condition and drainage system.

Happ said Benson’s letter on behalf of the board to Select Board chair Joe Clark was “inaccurate.”

“The word ‘modern’ is included,” Happ explained. “And by law, the subdivision does not have to adhere to modern standards.”

At that point, Lucia Lopez questioned whether Happ “is participating as a board member or as a private citizen.”

Replied Happ: “I’m whatever you want me to be.”

Vice chair Matthew Wronka and member Amna Diwan later asked whether Happ should be commenting as a board member or voting on an issue in which he is directly involved. At the last meeting, Vikasith Pratty, who lives off Auciello Drive, recused himself because of the potential conflict of interest. When Benson later called for a vote, he did not include Happ or Pratty.

Benson shared the letter to Clark with the board. It stated 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.”

It added that the Planning Board had not yet received updated engineering information, updated site drawings, an as-built plan or a determination as to who was responsible for “associated costs.” Although sympathetic to the residents’ situation, the letter concluded that the board could not recommend approval of Auciello Drive as a public way at this time.

Peter Mimmo told Benson that this letter effectively “captured the essence” of the discussion during the last meeting.

Wronka made a motion that the board send the final report to the Select Board and not recommend the road’s acceptance.

While this motion was on the table, Happ interjected before it could be seconded. He said the board has the documentation of the subdivision layout from when it was approved in 1992. He added that it “hasn’t materially changed in any way.”

Happ added that there are “two processes to road acceptance,” one for the Planning Board and the other for the Select Board. No process exists for acceptance of a private way proposed by a citizen rather than a developer. He repeated his claim that the letter is “inaccurate” because the documentation from 1992 is in the file.

Benson countered that the Planning Board was asked by the Select Board for its recommendation. This would trigger the Planning Board’s process in determining whether to accept the road, which he said was followed.

Lopez then seconded Wronka’s motion, putting the issue to a vote. It was accepted 5-1. Mimmo voted no, while Pratty and Happ did not vote. Michael King was absent.

Whisper Way acceptance hits roadblock

The board also deferred a vote on the acceptance of Whisper Way as a public road until its next meeting on April 6. The applicant had requested a certificate of completion for the subdivision and the release of its performance guarantee bond of $98,235.

In a letter to Clark, Benson stated that a peer review by BETA Group “identified a substantial number of required plan modifications and outstanding items that must be addressed” before road acceptance could be granted.

Developer Chris Nation asked for further clarification. A major concern is that that the Department of Public Works requested modifications to the road, which already has been constructed and reviewed over a period of more than five years. This recommendation, which involves modifying the entranceway to the Cameron Woods parking area, “is at odds with the approved plan,” according to Nation.

He added that he believed the “heavy lift” in this process was getting Conservation Commission approval, which he received in January.

The situation, he stressed, puts him in a “Catch 22 situation.” Nation can either follow the approved plan or deviate from it to incorporate the DPW’s recommendation. But the request cannot be approved without DPW approval, putting him “in a tough spot.”

Benson agreed that it “isn’t a fair scenario” to expect the developer to incur more costs to modify an approved plan after it has been executed. He suggested that Nation bring his concerns to Patel and the peer review consultant.

Nation noted that many of the other issues mentioned by BETA could be quickly resolved and were more “administrative” in nature.

Lopez brought up a comment in the DPW letter about building a sidewalk on Wood Street. Nation said that, while he remembered discussions about a proposed sidewalk, he could not find any reference to a sidewalk in the approved plans.

This issue, along with the Auciello Drive potential roadway acceptance, will be discussed at the April 7 Select Board meeting.

Charter review process questions ‘town planner’ role

Mimmo, who also serves as a member of the Charter Review Committee, asked the board to discuss a questionnaire presented to the board by this committee. He said feedback also could be sent to him via email.

The town charter is reviewed every 10 years. This allows for language modification and changes that reflect current standards.

The one issue that arose was that the charter currently uses the term “town planner.” Patel serves as the principal planner. It was unclear if the principal planner is considered the town planner. A wording change may result.