HomeMy Public PortalAbout20111205 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes
1
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
Monday, December 5, 2011 7:30 P.M.
Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton, MA
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ken Weismantel, Chairman, John Coutinho, Vice Chairman, Brian
Karp, Christian Ollenborger, Dick MacDonald, Mark Abate, Deb Thomas, Claire Wright
MEMBERS ABSENT: Carol DeVeuve
Present: Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting
Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
Mr. Weismantel opened the meeting and summarized the agenda.
1. Drowne Family Subdivision – Request for Performance Guarantee Release
Mr. Weismantel stated the Board reviewed the status of the Drowne Family Subdivision at the
last meeting and at that time voted to reduce the performance guarantee amount to $1,500.00.
He noted Ms. Lazarus has indicated that the last remaining item has now been completed and the
project is done. Mr. Ollenborger moved to release the performance guarantee held by the Town
for this subdivision, Mr. Coutinho seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in
favor.
2. Approval-Not-Required Plan - 3 Commonwealth Ave. – McElhaney
David Marquedant, J.D. Marquedant & Assoc., Inc., surveyor, appeared before the Board. Mr.
Marquedant explained the plan which would create an additional building lot on Commonwealth
Ave. He noted both lots have enough area and frontage and fit the required zoning block. Mr.
Abate moved to endorse the plan as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law,
Mr. Coutinho seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Documents:
• Application Form A & plan entitled Compiled Plan of Land in Hopkinton Massachusetts prepared for Terese
Danahy McElhaney by J.D. Marquedant & Assoc., Inc., dated Nov. 14, 2011
3. Minutes
The Board reviewed the draft minutes of November 21, 2011. Mr. Abate moved to approve the
Minutes of November 21, 2011 as written, Mr. Ollenborger seconded the motion, and the Board
voted unanimously in favor.
Document: Draft Minutes for November 21, 2011
4. 112 Hayden Rowe St. – Rick Barbieri
Rick Barbieri, developer, Joe Marquedant, J.D. Marquedant & Assoc., Inc., surveyor, and Edith
Netter, attorney, appeared before the Board. Mr. Weismantel stated this is an informal
discussion of a conceptual subdivision plan for the property. He stated he recently attended a
site walk in connection with the “Hayden Place” comprehensive permit application for this
2
property which is currently under review by the Board of Appeals (BOA), and was told by one of
the neighbors that the developer might be interested in doing something else.
Mr. Karp arrived at this time.
Mr. Weismantel stated he then followed up by discussing the issue with Mr. Barbieri. Mr.
Barbieri presented a conceptual subdivision plan for 112 Hayden Rowe St. and noted it is a
revision of the plan delivered to the Board last week and included in the meeting packet. Mr.
Marquedant described the layout which would create a paper street with two lots in compliance
with frontage, area and zoning “box’ requirements for the district, while leaving the large parcel
in the back undeveloped. Mr. Barbieri stated access to the back lot will be via a sliver of land
from Hayden Rowe St. across from EMC Park. He stated the revised plan would be better for
the Town. Ms. Wright asked whether this would provide access to the open space without going
over someone’s property, and Mr. Barbieri stated yes.
Ms. Netter stated the applicant is interested in changing direction with respect to development
plans for the property, but he would like to see first what the Planning Board thinks about it. Mr.
Weismantel asked if there will be enough space for septic systems if a sewer connection is not
possible, and Mr. Marquedant stated yes. Ms. Wright stated the Board was uncomfortable with
the proposed density of the Chapter 40B project, and this is much better. Ms. Thomas agreed.
Mr. Abate stated he likes the plan although the main issue is a cul-de-sac in a conventional
subdivision. Mr. Weismantel stated Mr. Barbieri will be asking for waivers and it will be a paper
street or driveway and Hopkinton has plenty of those. Mr. Karp stated the plan looks great and
he is very pleased to see it as an alternative to the comprehensive permit plan. Mr. Coutinho
stated the shape of the lots is acceptable and he has seen worse. Mr. MacDonald stated he likes
this alternative better. Mr. Ollenborger stated he appreciates the potential change of plans.
Mr. Barbieri stated the lot with the existing historic house conforms to zoning requirements, but
a better layout could be achieved if the lot could be smaller. Mr. Coutinho asked if Mr. Barbieri
is referring to the new Lots with Historic Structures bylaw adopted earlier this year. Ms. Wright
stated she thought this bylaw would only be applicable if the historic structure is in danger of
destruction. Ms. Lazarus stated the bylaw does not contain that requirement. Ms. Wright asked
if the decision is up to the Planning Board, and Ms. Lazarus stated yes, but the Historical
Commission first has to determine that the house in question fits the definition of a Historic
Structure. Ms. Wright stated it appears that the plan layout for this site would be more logical if
the lot with the historic home would be allowed to be smaller. Ms. Lazarus stated the Board
could hold hearings simultaneously on the subdivision and Historic Structure special permit
applications.
Paul DiBona, 108 Hayden Rowe St., stated he is a direct abutter and in favor of the new plan
which looks like a win-win situation for everyone. Mr. Weismantel stated the plan will provide
access to a trail and perhaps the schools in the back, the backbone of the Town’s major
recreation facilities. In response to a question of Mr. Weismantel, Ms. Lazarus stated the plan if
approved would create a subdivision road requiring waivers of the Subdivision Rules &
Regulations and could remain private. Mr. Marquedant stated the applicant will provide the list
of waiver requests. Ms. Lazarus stated even though the new road might look like a driveway, it
3
would probably need a name as there probably aren’t enough Hayden Rowe St. addresses
available between the two abutters. Mr. Barbieri asked how he would go about getting street
name approval, and Ms. Lazarus stated the Board of Selectmen approves street names and has a
list of historical names to use if desired.
Mr. Weismantel stated it is his understanding that if this goes forward the proponent plans to
withdraw the Chapter 40B comprehensive permit application, and Ms. Netter stated Mr. Barbieri
will do so if he gets all Planning Board approvals. Ms. Wright stated regardless of the legal
status of the new private road, it should be clear to the public that the adjacent narrow strip of
land is for public access to open space, perhaps by installation of a trail sign, so that people don’t
feel as if they are trespassing on private property. Mr. Barbieri stated he is willing to install a
sign. Mr. Weismantel stated realization of the trail is still a long way off because of land
acquisition and wetlands issues. Mr. Barbieri submitted a copy of the revised plan for the record.
Documents:
• Plan entitled Concept Plan of Land Hopkinton Massachusetts, 112 Hayden Rowe Street, Hopkinton, MA
prepared by J.D. Marquedant & Associates, Inc. dated Nov. 18, 2011, received Nov. 21, 2011
• Plan entitled Concept Plan of Land Hopkinton Massachusetts, 112 Hayden Rowe Street, Hopkinton, MA
prepared by J.D. Marquedant & Associates, Inc. dated Nov. 18, 2011, received Dec. 5, 2011 (revised)
5. Continued Public Hearing – Reservoir View – Open Space and Landscape Preservation
Development Special Permit – Christopher P. Olson
Mr. Abate moved to continue the Reservoir View OSLPD concept plan special permit hearing
until later in the evening upon conclusion of the Laurel Ave. agenda item, with the consent of the
applicant. Mr. Karp seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
6. Laurel Avenue
Tom Perna, builder, and Tony Haghanizadeh, engineer, appeared before the Board. Mr.
Haghanizadeh stated tonight’s discussion concerns a grandfathered lot on a private way, but a
special permit from the BOA is required to obtain a building permit for a new home. He noted
the BOA at the public hearing advised the applicant to go to the Planning Board to discuss
drainage issues. He stated the pavement will be extended for a short distance past the new house
and the road will look like a driveway, and because Laurel Ave. does not have a formal drainage
system, the applicant proposes to handle the water through a catch basin, a Cultec system and
groundwater infiltration. He noted there will be no increase in runoff rate post development and
the proposed system is used successfully everywhere. He referred to section 81G of the
Subdivision Control Law with respect to opening ways to public use. He stated everyone has the
right to improve a road as long as surfacing, grading and drainage are addressed, and he feels all
three requirements have been satisfied in this case. He noted the Town Engineer has reviewed
the information and feels it will work. He noted they did soil testing and found groundwater at
96 in., which is more than adequate. He stated the design basically works by holding back the
flow and reducing runoff, and it will be an improvement. He noted most of the water will
percolate into the ground, but there will be an emergency spill pipe in case the system gets
plugged up or something like that.
In response to a question of Mr. Abate, Mr. Haghanizadeh stated the water will end up being
dispersed onto the street and under normal conditions there won’t be anything coming out of the
4
emergency spill pipe. Mr. Haghanizadeh stated the proposed system is efficient and installed
underground out of sight. He noted they are trying to get away from detention ponds, which is in
line with current Conservation Commission requirements and DEP stormwater policy. Mr.
Abate stated the Board is trying to make sure the system is designed for a worst case scenario.
Mr. Weismantel asked what area is covered by the calculations and to what extent the Hillcrest
Dr. drainage is included. Mr. Haghanizadeh stated the calculations cover Mr. Perna’s lot and a
section of Laurel Ave. Mr. Perna described how the water travels from Hillcrest Dr. to a vacant
lot behind Laurel Ave. and stated that his plan takes into account all of the water flowing in this
area. Mr. Weismantel stated he wants to make sure the catch basin can handle the flow, and Mr.
Haghanizadeh stated the system is overdesigned and there should be no problems. Mr.
Weismantel asked if the Cultec system will be on the lot itself, and Mr. Haghanizadeh stated yes.
Mr. Weismantel stated he understands what the applicant is trying to do, but this is a very steep
hill. He asked how they can find depth to groundwater under these conditions, and Mr.
Haghanizadeh stated it is done by modeling and studying soil and root conditions. Ms. Wright
stated according to the soil report submitted by the applicant a determination was made by
looking at root material, and Mr. Haghanizadeh stated they wanted to be on the safe side. Mr.
Weismantel stated the water currently goes down Laurel Ave. into the rip rap, disperses and
sinks into the vegetation in front of the lot, but with the proposed changes he does not see how
the water can be kept out of the neighbor’s yard.
Ms. Wright stated the proposal does not conform to the Town’s zoning bylaws which limits
access on common driveways to 2 lots. She noted for years this lot was considered unbuildable
and nothing has changed to make it better. She stated the neighbor down the hill has expressed
concerns, and the applicant told him he can sue him if the proposed solution does not work. She
noted under the zoning bylaw the BOA has to find that the proposal will not be significantly
detrimental to the neighborhood before a special permit can be granted, and she would like to see
some more negotiations with the neighbors to convince them that their concerns are unfounded.
Mr. Haghanizadeh stated they are basing their application on Sec. 18G of the Subdivision Control
Law, not the common driveway provision of the zoning bylaw, and referred to case law. He
noted he would have explained this at the previous meeting but was unable to attend.
Mr. Weismantel asked about the ability for cars to turn around at the end of the road. Mr.
Haghanizadeh stated right now it is difficult to turn around, but this plan will improve the
situation. Ms. Wright asked who will maintain the drainage system, and Mr. Perna stated it will
be the future homeowner’s responsibility. Mr. Haghanizadeh stated a Cultec system is similar to a
septic design but more elaborate and efficient and will not require a lot of maintenance. Ms.
Wright stated it is not the Town’s responsibility to maintain private ways, and if there are
problems because the homeowner does not do what is expected from him, there might no other
recourse except legal action which can be costly. Mr. Perna stated it is his understanding that the
Town currently maintains Laurel Ave., but if needed he will hire someone to clean the catch
basin for a minimum of 5 years and even put this in writing. Mr. Haghanizadeh stated perhaps the
BOA can address this issue through a conditional approval. He noted condominium associations
use that approach and it is enforceable through a cease and desist order.
Mr. Weismantel noted if they were starting with a clean slate, the Planning Board would not
allow such a steep dead-end street, and he is not convinced the proposed solution will make
5
things better. Mr. MacDonald stated he is not an expert, but it appears the proposed system will
offer a possibility to improve the current situation for everyone involved including the people at
the bottom of the hill. Mr. Weismantel stated it would be better if the system were to be located
in the middle of the road as opposed to putting it in someone’s front yard. Mr. Coutinho stated
right now there is no control at all and the applicant is offering an engineered solution. Mr.
Abate stated if it fails, conditions will further deteriorate, and it is the Planning Board’s
responsibility to plan for the worst case scenario. Mr. Coutinho stated he realizes failure cannot
be completely ruled out, but both the applicant and the Town’s engineer feel it will work. Mr.
Weismantel stated the possibility of things going wrong goes up significantly when dealing with
a slope of more than 10%.
Doug Parcher, 49 Downey St., stated the proposed system will be located only 4 ft. from his
property line and 7 ft. from the base of his stone wall which could be damaged by hydraulic
pressure. He stated he does not agree with Mr. Perna’s statement as to who maintains Laurel
Ave., but the rip rap installed by the Town alleviated the problem and slowed the water down
considerably but Mr. Perna’s proposal will make things worse. Mr. Perna disagreed and stated
his $20,000 Cultec system is guaranteed to stop the flow. Mr. Parcher referred to Mr. Perna’s
promise to make sure the system is maintained initially for 5 years and asked what recourse he
would have when the system is no longer maintained and problems arise. Mr. Haghanizadeh
suggested attaching a maintenance agreement to the deed. Judy Crehan, 47 Downey St., stated
that is just a legal document and there is no guarantee it is followed by the homeowner.
Mr. Abate stated this never was a buildable lot and the Board should refer the issue back to the
BOA. He questioned why the Board is even having this discussion. Ms. Lazarus stated if the
BOA grants the special permit, the applicant has to come back to the Planning Board for
approval of the plan for improvement of the road, and the BOA is evaluating the impact on the
neighborhood. Mr. Weismantel asked about the possibility of putting in a pipe all the way down
to Downey St., and Mr. Haghanizadeh stated it is a matter of cost and the Town Engineer has
indicated that the proposed solution will work.
Ms. Crehan asked about aesthetics. She stated this particular section of her neighborhood is very
dense and Mr. Perna’s proposal will wedge in a giant new house, and Mr. Weismantel stated the
BOA will look at that aspect of the plan. Ms. Wright stated in general no one doubts the
engineer’s expertise, but during the 10 years she has been on the Planning Board she cannot
remember an engineer ever saying that his/her plan will not work. She noted hydrology is tricky,
and most of the problems from development are caused by water, like in the Hearthstone and
White Oak Estates subdivisions for example. She noted the Board has to look at the worst case
scenario and in this case it involves an environmentally sensitive (Lake) area and the neighbors
are already very concerned. Ms. Parcher stated the topography at 49 Downey St. cannot be
compared to that of 91 Downey St., one of the proponent’s other building projects completed
without problems according to him. Mr. Ollenborger stated this is a currently undeveloped lot
and the applicant might be asking for too much. He noted he understands the property owner is
paying taxes, but there is a lot of uncertainty with respect to the outcome and he cannot support
the proposal. Ms. Thomas stated the Town Engineer agrees with the approach and feels it will
not make conditions worse so she tends to agree with Mr. Coutinho and Mr. MacDonald,
although there is no guarantee. Mr. Abate stated he agrees with the numbers and expert’s
6
credentials, but he has doubts and is also putting himself in the future homeowner’s shoes. He
noted Mr. Perna did a nice job on the house on Winter St. but in this case site conditions might
be too difficult to overcome. Mr. Haghanizadeh submitted a new copy of the watershed plan, to
correct a typographic error. Mr. Karp stated this is a tough situation with a proposed solution
which looks good on paper but without a solid contingency plan in case of failure. Ms. Wright
stated she continues to have serious reservations regarding the proposal and its potential impact
on the neighborhood. Ms. Lazarus stated this lot is deemed “unbuildable” because the road has
not been built. Mr. Coutinho asked how this proposal compares to the plans for 112 Hayden
Rowe St. discussed earlier in the evening, and Ms. Lazarus stated both involve paper streets, but
the Hayden Rowe St. property is flat. Mr. Weismantel stated the Board will write a report to the
BOA.
Documents:
• Plan entitled Variance Plan (submitted to the Planning Board) – Laurel Avenue Hopkinton MA prepared by
hs&t group, revised 11/30/2011
• Laurel Ave. – Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal prepared by Shelley Hammond SE
received 11/30/11
• Plan entitled Existing Watershed Laurel Ave., prepared by hs&t group, dated 12/1/2011
• Email from Dave Daltorio, Town Engineer, to Elaine Lazarus dated December 05, 2011 re: Laurel Ave.
Mr. Abate left the meeting at this time.
7. Continued Public Hearing – Reservoir View – Open Space and Landscape Preservation
Development Special Permit – Christopher P. Olson
Christopher Olson, applicant, Ralph Maloon, RIM Engineering Co., Inc., engineer, and Dan
Vieira, attorney, appeared before the Board. Mr. Weismantel stated at the previous hearing on
this proposal, there was mention of a number of concerns, especially with respect to the
wetlands. He stated he believes the applicant now has a different plan for the Board’s review.
Mr. Vieira stated the Conservation Commission comments were not necessarily negative, but the
applicant decided to see if there was a less intrusive way to develop the land and an OSLPD plan
is not the only way to create open space. He noted the applicant is considering a 3-lot
subdivision, consisting of one approval-not-required lot on Spring St. and two others in a
conventional layout with a dead-end street requiring waivers from the Subdivision Rules and
Regulations. He noted the proposed street would look more like a driveway.
Mr. Maloon explained the proposed alternative layout, which would create a paper road
connecting to the back land and existing trail. He noted the proposed alternative would provide
the three lots the applicant is looking for and the Town would get access to the remaining land.
Ms. Wright stated the previous plan had a lot of wetlands issues and she asked if this would
eliminate the need for relocating the stream. Mr. Maloon stated he is considering crossing the
stream with a bridge, because as mentioned by the neighbors at the previous meeting there is a
lot of water at times and it would be a bad place for a culvert. He noted they still need to do soil
testing, prepare drainage calculations and other items required for a definitive subdivision plan
submittal. Ms. Wright asked if the applicant is still pursuing the OSLPD plan and whether the
alternative plan is a new conventional subdivision “sketch”, and Mr. Maloon stated no. Mr.
Weismantel stated one of his criteria for approval is creation of viable public right-of-way access
to the back land, and Ms. Lazarus stated the only difference is that the road will look like a
7
driveway and exist on paper only. Ms. Lazarus stated the Board’s consideration of paper streets
as a viable method of access as discussed several times this evening is a policy question, and
such approvals as a matter of course would be a departure for the Board. She recommended that
the Board discuss this policy issue at a future meeting.
Mr. Weismantel asked if there will be 18 ft. of pavement, Mr. Maloon responded yes, and Mr.
Weismantel stated in that case it is more than just a driveway in his opinion. Ms. Lazarus asked
about the placement of the house on lot 1, and Mr. Maloon stated the alternative plan would
leave more room for the house placing it further away from the wetlands. He compared the
previous plan and new alternative side by side. Mr. Karp stated the new proposal looks better,
and asked about the distance between the house on Lot 2 and the abutter’s property. Mr. Maloon
stated it has to be at least 30 ft., and Mr. Weismantel stated it appears all lots meet the
dimensional requirements for the zoning district. Mr. Weismantel stated he likes the new plan
better than the other alternatives, especially considering the amount of very good quality open
space to be deeded to the Town. Mr. Vieira stated the open space will be contiguous with other
large parcels in the area.
Mr. Vieira stated he would like to request a continuation of the public hearing for the open space
proposal for 8 months or so and submit a new application under the Subdivision Control Law.
Ms. Lazarus stated the applicant can only file a conventional plan if the current OSLPD
submission is denied first. Mr. Weismantel asked if it would be considered a completely new
filing in this case, and Ms. Lazarus stated yes. Mr. Vieira stated the conventional alternative
plan needs waivers from the Subdivision Rules and Regulations so he would like an indication
from the Board about the likelihood of approval before changing direction. Mr. Weismantel
stated the new plan would offer a better layout from a future homeowner’s perspective. Ms.
Wright stated this is a pretty area on a designated scenic road and the alternative proposal will
have a lower impact. Ms. Lazarus stated there still will be clearing for the stormwater
management and septic systems near the road and the changes will be visible from the street.
Mr. Weismantel recommended the applicant talk to the Conservation Commission first as a next
step. When polled, Board members in general were in favor of the alternative presented.
Mr. Maloon referred to a discussion on a different subject earlier in the evening, and it was noted
Hopkinton has a Town Engineer who reviews small items but does not necessarily review
subdivision proposals. Mr. Olson asked about meeting schedules, and it was clarified that the
Conservation Commission will talk to applicants informally. In response to a comment made, it
was noted the type of soil testing referred to during the Laurel Ave. discussion does not require
Bd. of Health witnessing. Mr. Weismantel stated the only waiver needed here is the one to allow
a dead-end street. The Board discussed potential changes to the cul-de-sac bulb configuration to
accommodate parking. Reference was made to the stream crossing. It was noted bridge
construction is expensive, and Mr. Weismantel stated this will have to be worked out with the
Conservation Commission but the Planning Board would prefer a culvert. Ms. Lazarus stated
that sometimes there is no choice.
A possible date for continuance was discussed. Mr. Vieira asked about the possibility of fee
waivers and it was noted that the Board could discuss the issue.
8
Mr. Weismantel stated if the alternative plan is the applicant’s preferred approach, it might be
time to start thinking about the disposition of the open space, and perhaps the land could go to
the Town’s Conservation Commission or Open Space Preservation Commission. He noted if
deeded to an organization like the Hopkinton Area Land Trust (HALT), another entity has to be
found to manage a Conservation Restriction (CR), so from the applicant’s standpoint giving it to
the Town would be the best option. Ms. Lazarus stated this would not be an OSLPD plan and a
CR therefore would not be required.
Mr. Olson asked if the right-of-way access to the open space can be for Town residents
exclusively, and Mr. Weismantel stated he does not think the Board is in favor of that. Mr.
Olson asked about trail parking. It was noted people could park at the end of the cul-de-sac
although the road will be wide enough for on-street parking. Mr. Coutinho stated the residents
might not like people parking in front of their home. Mr. Olson stated he feels visitors could also
park on Spring St. in order to keep the cul-de-sac bulb clear, but it was stated there probably
should be parking at the end of the road for visitors and also for safety officials in case of an
emergency. Mr. Weismantel stated two spaces should be sufficient for trail parking. Ms.
Lazarus suggested narrowing the road width to 16 ft. after the second house and creating a
bump-out for parking. Mr. Weismantel stated this is a good idea, perhaps widening the road to
20 ft. in certain areas with signs for trail parking. Ms. Lazarus stated a road width of 16 ft. is
probably sufficient on the section serving just one home.
Mr. Weismantel stated the applicant’s new development alternative has some merit conceptually,
and it appears the Board is generally in favor. Ms. Thomas moved to continue the hearing to
January 9, 2012 at 7:45 P.M., Mr. Ollenborger seconded the motion, and the Board voted
unanimously in favor.
Documents:
• Plan entitled Reservoir View Open Space Plan and Land Preservation Plan, dated April 24, 2011 revised
through October 14, 2011, prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc.
• Plan entitled Reservoir View Alternate Conventional Layout, dated December 5, 2011, prepared by RIM
Engineering Co., Inc.
8. Liaison Updates
a) Downtown Revitalization Committee – Mr. MacDonald stated the next meeting is on
December 6.
b) Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC) – Mr. Coutinho stated the next meeting of the ZAC has
been scheduled for December 12. He stated the Committee is making progress on review of
the Site Plan Review bylaw.
9. Other Business
a) New Elementary School Site Search - Mr. Weismantel referred to a discussion held by the
School Committee on December 1, 2011 including a presentation made by Ms. Lazarus. Ms.
Lazarus stated the School Committee had asked her to develop a list of properties that could
be potential school sites, generally of at least 15 acres centrally located. She noted each site
was discussed, including land adjacent to existing school facilities. Mr. Weismantel stated
they should look at the property behind the Center School similar to what was considered at
one point for the new Library.
9
b) DPW Facility Expansion – Mr. Weismantel asked Ms. Lazarus to talk to the Town Manager
about purchasing the old Wood St. Garage land for expansion of the DPW.
Other Documents Used at the Meeting:
• Agenda for December 5, 2011
• Memorandum from Elaine Lazarus to Planning Board, December 1, 2011
Adjourned: 9:45 P.M.
Submitted by Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
APPROVED: January 9, 2012