At Monday night’s Planning Board meeting, the owner of The Trails agreed to meet with town counsel to negotiate a solution to resolving damage to Wilson Street allegedly caused by runoff from the subdivision.

Vin Gately appeared before the board to state his case. He reiterated that he does not believe The Trails caused the amount of damage to Wilson Street that previously was claimed by Kerry Reed, the Department of Public Works director. He also asserted that the Planning Board was wrong when it voted unanimously on Feb. 24 to raise the development’s bond amount from $75,000 to $177,000. 

After speaking with his attorney, Gately said he sent a letter to the board notifying members that “they didn’t have the legal authority to do that.”

“I’m basically appealing that decision,” he said.

Gately added that he thought the town was asking him to make “improvements” to Wilson Street rather than just “repairs.” He gave the example of an 800-foot swale that would need to be excavated.

The Planning Board on Sept. 8 discussed inviting Gately to this meeting to talk about his plans for the repairs he said his project engineer, Peter Bemis, prepared for Wilson Street. These repairs could have been made by May 15, according to Bemis’ plan, Gately said in February.

Gately stressed at this meeting that he is unwilling to completely repair the road.

“That’s obviously not what we think is right,” responded chair Rob Benson.

John Gelcich, the director of Land Use, Planning and Permitting, added that he has had email correspondence with Gately. Gelcich said he was not made aware of Gately’s plan of action for months.

The bond has not been implemented, he added. Also, there are no cease-and-desist orders on further development.

Town’s history with The Trails reviewed

Member Parker Happ questioned Gately about past fines levied by the Conservation Commission that had been held in abeyance, seeking to know if they had been paid.

The town has had a thorny relationship with The Trails, which is in its fourth phase of development, and its stormwater management practices since 2021. The Conservation Commission imposed fines upon The Trails in 2023 that had been held in abeyance for nearly two years because of repeated violations. Stormwater ran off the property and impacted the Ashland reservoir as well as Wilson Street. Bemis and Gately insisted that the damage was caused by an intense rainfall period and worked to improve the stormwater management system. The Trails sued the Conservation Commission in early 2024.

Gately brought up the 2023 fines that were assessed for stormwater violations.

He replied: “My attorney just took care of that with town counsel.”

Gately called his relationship with the town as being “punitive.”

“You think that these fines don’t matter because they’re gone,” asserted Happ. “So, we’re essentially being punitive for something you feel like you’re not being assessed for.”

He asked Gately why he would do the repairs “if the town his not holding [Gately] responsible, from the Conservation [Commission’s] perspective.”

Stressed Happ: “We’re reasonable people. What’s your plan?”

He repeated the question after Gately reiterated that he is not totally responsible for the road damage. Also, Happ brought up that the land had been clear-cut against the town’s recommendations, causing stormwater to flow onto Wilson Street.

Benson suggested involving town counsel. Gelcich and Gately agreed.

“If it’s a mediated legal resolution, we have to drive to that,” said Benson. “I don’t see another path forward here.”

Stoney Brook Road developer threatens legal action

The developer of Stoney Brook Road at the Highland Park IV subdivision threatened to sue the town shortly before the board unanimously approved his request for a bond reduction. The bond was reduced from $400,299 to $175,800.

This is the second road on which the developer asked the board to act. The bond previously was released for Singletary Way, Gelcich noted.

The conversation revolved around water running onto the road, which has been partially completed, according to Gelcich.

Developer Ken Marsters said construction began on the road in 2013 and nearly is complete.

Marsters raised the issue of a neighboring property owner building a 90-foot-long retaining wall that extends into the right-of-way. He also objected to this person’s PVC pipe, which he said is directing water “right onto the sidewalk.” Marsters suggested that the abutter’s actions were “illegally” done.

Benson noted that the town has not accepted the road because it has not yet been completed. He questioned what Marsters was seeking.

Marsters replied that he believed it was the town’s responsibility “in a way” to enforce action against the abutter. Gelcich disagreed, calling it “a private dispute” because the town does not own the road. He also said there are no stormwater inspections required for single-family homes.

Said Marsters: “OK, now I hate how this is going.”

Benson denied Marsters’ request for drainage mitigation in the amount of $30,000 before the vote was taken.

“Potential lawsuit,” said Marsters. “Hate to say it.”

It was unclear what action Marsters planned to take after the vote in his favor for the bond reduction.

Special permit OK’d for parking on Claflin Street

After discussion with the developer and abutters, the board approved 7-1 a request for a special permit for downtown business district parking. Member Amna Diwan voted against it, while member Elyse Mihajloski recused herself because she is an abutter.

The original request proposed parking between the principal building and the street for a four-unit development at 3 Claflin Street, off Walcott Street. The Planning Board’s task was to vote on whether the parking area “would be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood” and whether the design “would enhance the downtown streetscape,” Benson said.

Craig Hartwell, representing the applicant, presented new plans that had been approved by the Board of Appeals. An additional building with two units is planned “just off the existing historical structure.” The four units in the original plan were reduced to three.

He noted that there is an additional driveway planned between the two buildings in response to abutters’ previous comments.

Abutters raised concerns about the additional cars on the dead-end street. Additional water runoff and the street’s narrow width were other points raised before the vote was cast.

Lumber Street ANR request approved

The board unanimously approved an approval not required (ANR) plan request by attorney George Connors. His client, Doug DeWolfe, owns three Lumber Street parcels, he said, including Hopkinton Stone & Garden.

A medical office building previously was proposed for 28 Lumber Street. Connors said landscaping stock would be kept on one lot behind the proposed building. The third lot will be up for sale “at some point in time,” he noted.