The Planning Board spent the bulk of its meeting Monday night discussing the potential acceptance of two private ways by the town after concerns over documentation and potential legal ramifications were raised.

The Auciello Drive proposal received the most scrutiny, as the street has a long history before the board. Chair Rob Benson recalled that when the road was originally constructed, it was conditioned to be a private way.

Patel pointed out that the board discussed the 1992 decision at its Dec. 1 meeting. It voted 6-0 to remove the condition that the street be maintained by the property owners at no expense to the town, paving the way for its application to become a town road.  At that meeting, Benson noted that a citizens’ petition could be submitted for the ATM warrant.

One condition the board added is that any private way’s acceptance as a town road would have to comply with current town standards. This would include road engineering and evaluation of the road’s condition and drainage system.

Patel added that a citizens’ petition has been filed. But the applicant has not provided any updated drawings or engineering reports to support it.

Also, Benson said the decision to remove the stipulation about compliance with current town standards has not yet been filed with the Registry of Deeds. This means that the old ruling still is in effect.

Benson stressed that while the board was “sympathetic to the situation,” he did not believe it could recommend acceptance. He noted that this issue “came to light” when the town stopped plowing the street after it had done so “for decades.”

Auciello Drive ‘unique’ situation

Member Parker Happ, who lives on Auciello Drive, said he was not aware of “any ongoing effort” by neighbors to pay for the engineering study. But an argument could be made to approve the road because it has an infiltration system that could improve the quality of water in Lake Maspenock. This is one factor that he said makes this proposal “unique.”

He added that the Planning Board three decades ago made a “deliberate decision” for Auciello Drive and Hayward Street not to be able to connect to the town water system. Happ said it would seem unfair if Linden Road received approval and Auciello Drive did not. While Linden Road is connected to the town water supply, Auciello Drive was not granted that opportunity.

Kerry Reed, the Department of Public Works director, told the board that town bylaws allow for a betterment. That decision would be up to the Select Board. While it has approved water and sewer betterments, it has not approved roadway improvements, she said.

Linden Road proposal draws blowback

The Linden Road acceptance was recommended by the DPW as part of a water main improvement project for the East Main Street neighborhood.

Attorney Kevin O’Leary spoke against the acceptance, saying that the town does not legally own the road. He represented the owner of 11 Curtis Road, which is located at the corner of Linden Street and Curtis Road.

O’Leary said Reed submitted an incomplete plan for the proposed work. One flaw he described was that the plan did not include the utilities that would be impacted.

He added that the former rail bed defines the boundaries of the subdivision lots. This situation raises the issue of a “derelict fee statute.”  The town would need to buy the land from subdivision owners before proposing to alter it, according to this law, O’Leary explained.

“I have concerns relative to the town taking the street or accepting it as a street when they don’t have clear title to it,” he stressed.

Benson added that he would agree with town staff and recommend acceptance. The legal issues raised are out of the board’s purview, he stressed. The ultimate decision would be made by the Select Board.

Whisper Way discussion delayed

The discussion regarding the acceptance of Whisper Way was deferred to the next meeting. The board is waiting for a peer review from the consultant.

Patel said all proposals ultimately will be forwarded to the Select Board for individual hearings. She was to prepare a report on the discussions at this meeting for the Planning Board’s review at its next meeting on March 23. It then would go to the Select Board. It would vote on recommending acceptance of the roads at its April 8 meeting.

75 South Street hearing continued

The board voted 7-0 to continue the minor site plan application hearing on 75 South Street after determining that a peer review for the project was unnecessary.

Consultant Joe Marquedant represented owner Lance LaFave The applicant intends to repurpose 75 South Street from a commercial/industrial building to an office building/warehouse with a loading dock.

Marquedant noted that a site walk with board members on March 7 “went well.”

Benson confirmed with Patel that the project’s scope determined that it did not require a peer review. The only issue raised at the last meeting, Patel said, was the potential for sidewalk improvements.

Marquedant requested that the hearing be continued until April 6. This would give him time to address the sidewalk issue with the Hopkinton Fire Department and the DPW. It also would align with the meeting he is planning for the following day with the Conservation Commission.

MBTA zoning plan recommended

The board voted 7-0 to recommend the approval of the revised proposal for the MBTA Communities zoning so that it would meet state requirements.

The MBTA Communities zoning plan approved at the Special Town Meeting in November 2024 failed to meet the 50% contiguous area district requirement, said Patel. At least one of Hopkinton’s districts must be 27.3 acres, according to this condition. The three districts approved previously were Walcott Valley, The Preserve and the downtown area. They equal 10.8, 22.9 and 15.5 acres, respectively.

The new plan would combine the downtown area with Walcott Valley by adding a small strip of eight parcels on Walcott Street. It would include a total 54.9 acres and meet the 50% contiguity requirement. The final unit capacity per district would be 775. The dwelling units per acre would be 17.7.

The combined downtown/Walcott Valley district would comprise 32.7 acres. The unit capacity would be 439, and there would be 16.1 dwelling units per acre. There would be no changes to The Preserve district.

The board also voted 7-0 to recommend an article revising the payment in lieu of affordable housing construction provision to allow the amount to be recalculated. Vice chair Matthew Wronka explained that the fees developers have paid to circumvent the affordable housing requirement have been insufficient for creating affordable housing.