The Planning Board continued a hearing on a proposed amendment to a previously approved site plan for a Hayden Rowe Street office building for a change of use to the rear building to add office space and change the garage to storage space.

This hearing dominated the meeting, which lasted nearly 3½ hours. After some heated debate over the town’s continued request for a peer review, the board voted 4-3 to approve waiving the peer review on the amendment to the major site plan. Because it was not approved by a majority of five, the issue will be revisited at the next meeting on Oct. 19.

The property at 87 Hayden Rowe Street is next to the school administration building and across from the middle school. On Sept. 11, 2023, the Planning Board approved a site plan for the two-story office building to be constructed. A stormwater management permit was approved that October for 85R and 87 Hayden Rowe Street.

Solect Energy moved its office to the building from next door at 89 Hayden Rowe Street in April.

Property owner Ken Driscoll, who is the executive chair and one of the founding principals of Solect, noted that he originally considered the second floor of the rear building to be “phase two” of the project.

In late 2024, he applied for a permit for the rear building, he said. It was issued in 2025.

Town’s peer review request contested

The town’s recent request for a peer review consultant to review the rear building triggered pushback from the development team.

Scott Richardson, the cofounder and principal at Hopkinton-based architectural firm Gorman Richardson Lewis Associates, submitted a packet to the board showing several peer reviews. He also produced a letter from Christopher McWhite, the director of municipal inspections, about the inspection of facets of the stormwater management system.

“I can confirm that none of these items have been inspected,” McWhite’s letter stated, “nor has their compliance, correct installation, or design adherence been confirmed to any degree by my inspection team.”

“While the building commissioner is calling for a peer review, he did so without really identifying any operational problems with the peer-reviewed systems,” Richardson said.

The Building Department would not have approved a certificate of occupancy if it hadn’t previously confirmed that the stormwater management system was properly installed, he noted.

Said Richardson: “I continue to go on record that they have been reviewed by the town and that everything is operational.”

Driscoll took issue with McWhite’s statement, saying that it “tears at a lot of credibility of this project.”

“[T]o accuse the team of not doing inspections and not doing their professional jobs, you know, people don’t feel good about that,” he continued.

Lou Desmarais, the vice president of service and construction at Solect, gave the dates of four inspections for the underground electrical work. He told the board that this work had been inspected by Kevin Bouret, the town’s inspector of wires and works under McWhite.

He added that he had “multiple communications” with Land Use Department administrative assistant Shannon Isaacs to schedule the appointments with Bouret.

Joe Irvine, who constructed most of  the stormwater management system, said McWhite “inspected the rebar of the foundation” for the rear building as well as the base of the foundation drain.

‘Misplaced’ document leads to confusion

“Now our simple request is for 1,200 extra square feet and some parking,” stressed an exasperated Driscoll. ”It’s now turned into something else which, for the life of me, I can’t understand.”

He added that he met McWhite during the rear building foundation inspection. No peer review question was raised until Sept. 28, shortly before the last meeting.

Chair Matthew Wronka said his understanding of McWhite’s statement was that compliance with the site plan has not been verified by McWhite or his team.

Principal planner Aneri Patel said she never received the as-built plans Driscoll discussed. Project manager Dave Marquedant said he submitted them to the Building Department on Dec. 23, 2025. Because she did not receive the as-built plans, Patel said she could not send them to the peer review consultant for review.

Richardson claimed that the plan apparently was “misplaced in the office.” He said he would send it to Patel.

Member Peter Mimmo expressed concern that the Planning Board was now acting as “an intermediary” between the development team and McWhite.

McWhite was not present at this meeting to address concerns.

Rear building modifications ‘routine’

Richardson stressed that the lower floor of the rear building will be used for storage rather than the previously proposed garage. The upper floor of 1,200 square feet will be used as office space.

One parking space will be redesignated to be capable for electric vehicle charging, according to Richardson. This will give the site six EV spaces to meet code compliance.

A minor parking lot adjustment will decrease the amount of impervious space by 27 square feet, Richardson reiterated. Part of the driveway now will be crushed stone.

“It seemed fairly routine to us,” he said. “But then this whole peer review commentary started to come up.”

Added Driscoll: “It’s a little bit of whack-a-mole.”

Patel said McWhite requested a peer reviewer “just to do a final inspection.”

Driscoll said he was unclear as to what McWhite is demanding.

“The town of Hopkinton does not want to be telling developers that they’re going to build a project today, and they’re going to have to tear it up tomorrow to have inspections done or to have any other work done,” said attorney Neal Bingham on behalf of the development team.