The Planning Board on Monday night decided 9-0 to continue a hearing on a proposed amendment to a previously approved site plan for a Hayden Rowe Street office building. More feedback was needed from the town departments that expressed concerns about it.

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.

Rear building change raises issues

“As part of the planning and stormwater management process, we planned the foundation and a one-story building,” Driscoll explained. “But once we started the project, we came to realize due to the site work that it kind of made sense to expedite phase two.”

He added: “Clearly we were under the assumption that it was approved.”

In March, he informed principal planner Aneri Patel that a second floor had been added to the rear building. Driscoll said Patel told him that the rear building had not been approved for office space and advised him to request an amendment to the original decision.

“The whole scope of this ask is tied to a 1,200-square-foot second-floor use change from [a] storage/attic to [an] office,” he said.

No change is needed to the stormwater management system, Driscoll noted. There will be no change to the impervious area previously approved, although up to eight parking spaces will need to be added.

Scott Richardson, the cofounder and principal at Hopkinton-based architectural firm Gorman Richardson Lewis Associates, spoke and noted that the original approval for the Solect office building also “documented as a future storage building” a 2,000-square-foot structure at the rear of the property.

“What was not presented at that site plan [approval hearing] was any imagery for the rear building,” he said.

During its construction, Richardson confirmed that Driscoll wanted to change the approved 2,000-square-foot storage building to a 3,200-square-foot office building with two stories.

A block of pavement was removed to create a pervious driveway, he added. This change led to a marginal net loss of impervious space for the project.

Peer review waiver triggers debate

Patel noted that she received comments from Christopher McWhite, the director of municipal inspections, as well as the Fire Department and the Department of Public Works, about the change. Some concerns raised were the accessibility for fire apparatus to the new office building, the depiction of a garage area and identifying the basement as a storage area on the plan.

She added that McWhite stressed that the board “not waive the request of the peer review.” This request sparked debate among board members and consternation among development team members.

“Technically, the only work to be done is the final paving of the driveway,” said Driscoll. “And we’ve been waiting to do that in light of this discussion.”

He added that the request is a form of “scope creep.”

Patel said she did not know why a peer review had not been requested when the construction was started. Neither she nor McWhite were employed by the town at the time of the original decision.

Member Amna Diwan pointed out that it seemed that McWhite and the development team were not discussing the same set of plans. She sought to have the situation clarified before voting on a waiver.

Member Peter Mimmo agreed that there seemed to be a “communication problem.”

“I don’t think we can go back in time,” said member Rob Benson.

He noted that the pavement would have to be dug up to inspect the stormwater management system that had been inspected by the town’s previous building inspector.

Member Parker Happ advocated strongly for granting the waiver.

“I think we need to be more business friendly,” he said. “I don’t think it gives us a good reputation as a town.”

After receiving member feedback, chair Matthew Wronka said the board should take up the waiver decision at the next meeting on Oct. 5. This will give Patel time to reach out to town departments and get clarification on their concerns.

Lamented Driscoll: “Hopkinton is not open for business.”