The Planning Board on Monday voted 8-0 to approve a request allowing the Board of Appeals to reconsider a plan to build a house at 69 Hayward Street, where a fire destroyed the previous house.

At the Jan. 26 meeting, Custom Nest Builders, Inc. requested the board’s consent to submit a renewed/repetitive petition to the Board of Appeals to develop a home on the property. While the plans did not conform to the zoning code, the previous home near Lake Maspenock was built before the zoning code existed.

On April 9, 2023, an elderly couple and their dog died in a two-alarm fire. Seldon “Don” MacNeil, a veteran who was active in veterans affairs, and Judith MacNeil perished as a result of the blaze.

The family would have been able to build a home that did not meet current zoning standards if the proposal had been submitted within a year of the tragedy. Last summer, the family requested a variance, which the Board of Appeals denied in a 3-2 vote. In this instance, four votes were needed for the plan to pass, according to principal planner Aneri Patel.

She noted that an applicant cannot present a new proposal for two years unless eight Planning Board members approve of advancing the plan. The Planning Board consists of nine members.

At the last meeting, the board voted 6-2 in favor of it, two shy of the supermajority needed. Vice chair Matthew Wronka and member Amna Diwan voted against it. Elyse Mihajloski, the ninth member, joined the meeting too late to vote.

Just after the vote, member Parker Happ made a motion to reconsider the vote, which was approved 8-0. This request was unprecedented. It allowed Mihajloski to review the tape in preparation for this meeting.

Special circumstance moves board to reconsider

At this public hearing, Happ suggested taking a straw poll to see which way the board was leaning. Eight members were present. Diwan was absent.

Before that request was considered, Wronka noted that the Board of Appeals denied the request previously because two of the members said the lot size was too small. The lot’s dimensions did not change, he stressed. This made him question if four members would vote for the new plan.

Member Lucia Lopez agreed with Wronka.

“My hope is that they have considered what the objections were,” she said of the applicant. “From my point of view, they didn’t make changes to improve upon what was a difficult situation.”

A revised proposal previously reviewed by the Planning Board shaved an 8-foot by 14-foot leg off the prior plan. This allowed the setbacks to be increased from 10 feet to 14 feet.

Chair Rob Benson said the “tragic situation” moved him to consider granting leniency to the applicant. He noted that approving the request would be unlikely to set a precedent because of the unique nature of the case.

“I just hope that we as a board don’t stand in the way of their chance to have another opportunity to go before the Board of Appeals,” added Happ.

Happ advised the applicant to have a more compelling narrative if the plan is reconsidered.

“What are we gaining as a community by denying them the opportunity just to make that case?” asked Peter Mimmo.

The board ultimately agreed to allow the proposal to advance, with all eight members present voting in favor.

REC Lumber Street plan OK’d

The board voted 8-0 to approve REC Hopkinton’s plans for a proposed one-story office and retail building off Lumber Street without discussion.

Patel told the board that the applicant and the peer review consultant agreed on two minor plan adjustments.

REC Hopkinton previously submitted the proposal for the 2,400-square-foot building. The 3.46-acre site is fully vegetated and undeveloped.

At the Jan. 26 meeting, consultant Emma Yeh from Pare Corporation questioned the location of the stormwater management equipment within the 60-foot setback area. Patel pointed out that the equipment only went “a couple of feet” into this area.

In response to Yeh’s comment about landscaping on a small island, the applicant agreed to plant a tree and additional vegetation to prevent stormwater runoff.