The Planning Board at its meeting Monday called for a special meeting on Nov. 9 in the hope that it will receive a court ruling regarding a landowner’s plan to build a home at 0 Benson Road.

The board devoted about 100 minutes to reviewing revised plans proposed by Wayne Comeau’s representatives to build a single-family home as part of a subdivision on land that has been in his family for generations.

This complicated case has called into question a Planning Board decision made two decades prior.

Comeau’s plan revolves around a parcel he owns to the south of his home at 0 Benson Road. In a 2006-07 subdivision project approved by the Planning Board at that time, he had agreed to donate the parcel in question to the Hopkinton Area Land Trust (HALT) in exchange for an extension of a dead-end road. The land was to remain conservation land.

Comeau said previously that he had forgotten about executing the promised HALT donation for 10 years and was never reminded by the organization. HALT decided that it no longer wanted the land because the property it hoped to connect this lot to no longer was available. HALT sold it back to Comeau for $1,000.

Property history detailed

Chair Matthew Wronka explained the property’s contentious history to the members. He noted that the board in December 2006 approved Comeau’s subdivision request with “12 conditions, including 15 waivers.” The dead-end street was approved as a part of that decision, as well as a condition that there would be a maximum of two buildable lots on the property. Also, there was a condition that the road remain a private way and not be maintained by the town.

The condition that prompted the board to hold a new hearing on Sept. 9, 2024, Wronka said, was that “there will be no modifications to the design or extension of the roadway unless the new definitive subdivision was approved.”

On Feb. 24, 2025,  the board voted unanimously that town counsel should weigh in on the proposed amended definitive subdivision plan for 0 Benson Road because it affects a Planning Board decision made in 2006. At that meeting, Peter Brooks, Comeau’s attorney, said there was no condition from 2006 that required that the land donation be made to HALT. While the proposed gift may have influenced the decision regarding the road extension, he said it was not stated as a condition of approval.

At that meeting, Brooks explained that subdivision control law “prohibits a planning board from requiring a property owner to contribute their land, or some portion of their land, for some public purpose without compensating that property owner.”

On March 10, 2025, the board voted unanimously not to approve a proposed amended definitive subdivision plan for 0 Benson Road after receiving input from town counsel. The hearing then was closed.

“On Aug. 12, the court asked us to reopen the hearing,” said Wronka. “We started working with the applicant in September.”

A search on masscourts.org confirmed that on Aug. 12, Judge Kevin T. Smith issued an order of remand to the representing attorneys and stayed the case. The decision letter was included in a Google Drive submitted on the day of the meeting to the board.

Comeau and his wife, Melissa, petitioned the court in March 2025 to require the Planning Board to annul its March 10, 2025, decision “and approve the modification of the subdivision plan as permitted,” a second court document showed. The Comeaus sued all members of the board at that time.

Wronka said the board‘s understanding was that it would not receive an updated plan for the Oct. 5 meeting. But two business days before, it “received a new draft just for discussion.”

Because the applicant did not have materials ready for consideration for the Oct. 19 meeting, town counsel suggested that the applicant’s counsel “reach out for a joint cause extension.” Wronka said the court had given a 90-day-limit by which time the board must close the hearing.

The deadline for counsel to file for this extension is Nov. 10, prompting the decision to call a board meeting on Nov. 9. Wronka said he hoped to hear back from the court before then, given that the parties are working toward an amicable solution. That would lead to a brief meeting to grant a continuance on the project.

Revised plan reviewed

Project manager Dave Marquedant requested 10 waivers that were discussed in detail. The ones that received the most feedback included an environmental analysis, a request to use a different scale measurements on the plans than what regulations require, and a proposal to use a bituminous berm and concrete curbing rather than granite on each side of the 240-foot driveway.

Developer Craig Nation commented later in the meeting that granite could damage a plow.

Marquedant went over the details of the new plan. It reduced the size of the house but kept it “in the exact same position” as when it was proposed in 2024. It will have a deck, walkways and staircases in the front and rear.

The new plan also updated the topography on the two lots. The proposed driveway was widened to 16 feet, plus a 1-foot curb. Grading will make the driveway less steep than previously proposed. There will be underground utilities.

Marquedant noted that if the board approves the plan, it will need to go before the Conservation Commission. Some plan changes, such as moving a retaining wall out of the 50-foot buffer zone and the position of the drain fields, were made with its review in mind.

He added that the groundwater was high, according to soil test pits. Erosion controls will be installed.

Marquedant said the Hopkinton Fire Department’s concern about the fire sweep path for the proposed driveway was addressed in this plan.

Peer review consultant James Pearson of Weston & Sampson said he would review the revised submission “to verify some of the things that were stated in tonight’s meeting to make sure that everything’s addressed.” He did not point out any major issues.

Marquedant did not provide an environmental analysis, which later caused Wronka to take a straw poll as to whether this waiver request might be granted. It failed in a 7-0 vote.

Vice chair Lucia Lopez suggested to Marquedant that he conduct it, and he agreed.

The board voted to approve the variance requests about the scale dimensions 7-0.

Marquedant said he would provide rainfall data and the environmental analysis to the board as requested.