Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
20190408 - Planning Board - Agenda
1 HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD Monday, April 8, 2019 7:30 P.M. Hopkinton Town Hall, 18 Main Street, Hopkinton, MA; Room 215/216 AGENDA 7:30 Introduction – John Gelcich, Principal Planner 7:30 Public Hearings – 76 Main Street - 1) Site Plan Review; 2) Special Permit, Flexible Community Development – REC Hopkinton LLC Major Project Site Plan Review – Proposed construction of a 3-story mixed use building with commercial and residential uses; Proposed approval of a Special Permit relative to the Flexible Community Development Bylaw, where 2 of the 26 residential units are required to be affordable. 8:30 Continued Public Hearings - Zoning Bylaw Amendments The Board will hold a public hearing on the following proposed amendments to the Zoning Bylaw: Self-Storage Facilities in Industrial A District – Citizens Petition Open Space Mixed Use Development (OSMUD) Overlay District: 1) Age Restricted Housing and Affordable Housing; 2) Live-In Managers of Assisted Living Facilities Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Installations - Screening Indoor Recreation Uses in Industrial A and B Districts Car Wash Facilities in Industrial A and Downtown Business Districts Associated Retail to Manufacturing Use 9:00 Continued Public Hearings – Bucklin St. & Leonard St. – 1) Stormwater Management Permit Application; 2) Petition to construct a paper street – Wall Street Development Corp. Proposed construction of a paper street entitled “Bucklin Street”; design and construction standards. Proposal to construct four single family homes with associated driveways, utilities, and related grading. Business to be considered by the Board at any time during the meeting: Kathleen Towner – Wilson Street Drainage, Bioretention Basin Approval Not Required Plan – 10 Linden Street – Mezitt Richard Barbieri - Box Mill Road – Review proposed minor modification to easterly road rounding Review Draft Decision – TJA Clean Energy f/k/a/ TJA Solar, Wilson St. & Cedar St. Discuss Letter of Support – Main Street Corridor Project Discuss holding a special meeting to discuss structuring a multi-stakeholder effort to address growth issues/pressures Minutes (3/11/2019, 2/25/2019; 1/14/19 Executive Session) I-495/I-90 Interchange Project - Discussion 2 Planning Board member reports and future agenda items Correspondence Town of Hopkinton Department of Land Use, Planning and Permitting 18 Main Street, Hopkinton MA 01748 508-497-9745 DATE: April 4, 2019 TO: Planning Board FROM: Elaine Lazarus, Assistant Town Manager RE: Items on Planning Board Agenda, April 8, 2019 1. Public Hearings - 76 Main Street - 1) Site Plan Review and 2) Special Permit, Flexible Community Development Two concurrent public hearings are being held on the applications described below which have been submitted to the Board. A decision is due 90 days from the close of the public hearing on each application. Site Plan Review, pursuant to Zoning Bylaw Art. XX – Proposed 43,541 sq. ft. mixed use development, consisting of one 3-story building with 14,401 sq. ft. of non-residential space on the first floor and 26 residential units on the second and third floors, and 67 parking spaces with associated stormwater management facilities. Majority vote required for approval. Flexible Community Development (FCD) Bylaw Special Permit, pursuant to Art. XI – Two affordable units within the 26 units, as required by the FCD bylaw. Two-thirds vote required for approval (6 votes). Zoning District: Downtown Business (BD) Minimum Lot Area: 15,000 sq. ft. required; 53,284 sq. ft. provided Maximum Lot Coverage (by buildings and structures): 60%; 28.3% provided Maximum Building Height: 35 feet; 35 feet proposed Currently, the property is used for commercial purposes, and the two existing buildings would be demolished. The building in the front was constructed in the 1700’s, and the rear structure in the 1980’s. The Historical Commission has reviewed the proposed demolition of the building in the front, and after holding a public hearing, determined that the structure is a preferably preserved significant structure. The Commission imposed a six month demolition delay that expires July 4, 2019 (see General Bylaw Chapter 125, Historic Preservation). Comments have been received from BETA Group, the Board’s peer review consultant, the Health Director, and the Design Review Board, and are included in the meeting materials. After BETA’s initial review, the applicant submitted revised plans and additional information. The plans contained in your meeting materials are the revised plans. In my review of the site plans, I have noted the following: 2 The application proposes a mixed use building with office, retail and restaurant uses on the first floor and residential uses on the second and third floor. Section 210-20.2.G of the BD District, lists the following permitted use: Mixed use buildings comprised of retail space on the first floor, and office space or residential dwelling units on the second and third floors. The residential dwelling units shall have dedicated on-site parking spaces. No dwelling unit shall have less than 600 gross square feet. Issue #1 – The zoning bylaw requires that the first floor of this particular type of mixed use building in the BD district contain only retail space. The application proposes retail, office and restaurant space. The Director of Municipal Inspections/Zoning Enforcement Officer will have to review each proposed use to determine compliance with the zoning bylaw, once there are potential tenants. Office use is a distinct use which is different than retail so it may not be permitted (as a primary use). A restaurant is likely ok, as the definition of “restaurant” in the Zoning Bylaw refers to it as “a retail food establishment”. Issue #2 – The Applicant’s parking space calculation is based on the use of the estimated portions of it being office, retail and restaurant. If office uses are not permitted on the first floor of the building, then the number of parking spaces should be re-calculated based only on retail and restaurant space. Issue #3 – The second sentence of Sec. 20.2.G states that the residential dwelling units shall have dedicated on-site parking spaces. I think this means that parking spaces need to be reserved for the residential uses in some way, but this is also an issue that should be clarified with the Director of Municipal Inspections/Zoning Enforcement Officer. The site plan includes an outdoor seating area for the restaurant. The off-street parking section (210-124) is clear that the number of outdoor seats must be included in the parking space calculation, even if they are seasonal. The materials submitted by the applicant state that the outdoor seats have not been included in the calculation. Board Actions: The Special Permit for the affordable dwelling units would only be issued if the Board approves the Site Plan, so when it comes time for a vote, the Board should address the Site Plan first. The Site Plan Standards contained in Sec. 210-136.1 are attached to the public hearing outline. The Site Plan Decision Criteria are below: § 210-136.2. Decision criteria. The Planning Board shall issue a “Decision of Site Plan Review” in one of the following forms: A. A written approval of the application subject to any reasonable conditions, modifications and restrictions relating to the Site Plan Standards contained in Section 210-136.1; or 3 B. Disapproval of the application if the Applicant fails to furnish the information, materials or fees required in this Article or by the Submission Requirements and Procedures adopted by the Planning Board, or if the application and site plan present a problem so intractable so as to admit of no reasonable solution. The FCD Special Permit will require findings and determinations as follows: (1) A Special Permit shall be granted if the proposal meets the requirements of the Flexible Community Development bylaw (§210-59) (2) All applicable criteria and standards set forth in the Bylaw have been satisfied, (§210- 223) (3) Grant of the Special Permit will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaw. (§210-223) Section 210-61 contains provisions applicable to the affordable housing units: A. All affordable units created, constructed or rehabilitated under this Article shall be situated within the development so as not to be in less desirable locations than market rate units in the development and shall, on average, be no less accessible to public amenities, such as open space, as the market-rate units. B. Affordable housing units shall be integrated with the rest of the development and shall be compatible in design, appearance, construction, and quality of materials with other units. Interior features and mechanical systems of affordable units shall conform to the same specifications as apply to market-rate units. C. Affordable housing units shall be provided coincident to the development of market-rate units. D. The deeds to the affordable housing units sold to income eligible buyers shall contain a restriction against renting or leasing of said unit(s) during the period for which the housing unit(s) contains a restriction on affordability. E. The applicant shall comply with the mandatory set-asides and accompanying restrictions on affordability, including the execution of an acceptable deed rider. 2. Public Hearing and Continued Public Hearing – Proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendments Please see the enclosed information on each of the proposed zoning bylaw amendments which are the subject of these public hearings. There are two public hearings concurrently being held: 1) a public hearing opened on 3/25 for certain zoning bylaw amendments, and 2) a public hearing opened on 2/25 on other proposed amendments. There was no discussion of on 3/25 of any of the items remaining, listed below. 4 Proposed Amendment Feb. 25 hearing & outcome Self-Storage Facilities in Industrial A District – Citizens Petition Proponent not present; continued to 3/25 OSMUD Age Restricted Housing/Affordable Housing related amendments Continued OSMUD Live In Managers at Assisted Living Facilities No discussion – continued Commercial Solar (screening) No vote taken Indoor Recreation Uses in Industrial A and Industrial B Districts Vote to allow by special permit in IA and make no change to IB. Needed to advertise the IA special permit change for 3/25 hearing. Car Wash Use Consensus to consider removing from Downtown Business (BD) District while adding to IA District (by special permit). Needed to advertise removal of the use from BD District for 3/25. Associated Retail to Manufacturing Use Consensus to propose by special permit instead of by right, and incorporate Town Counsel language. Did not need re- advertising – 2/25 notice covered the change. If the proposal went through the ZAC process, I have indicated its vote below. Subject/Title ZAC Vote Amend Industrial A District to allow self-storage facilities by right Vote to recommend: 2-4-2 (motion failed) Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Installations - Screening Vote to recommend: 6-0 Indoor recreation uses in IA and IB Districts Vote to recommend: 5-1 Accessory retail to manufacturing use, IA District Vote to recommend: 6-0 Car wash facilities in the IA District Vote to recommend: 7-1 OSMUD – Senior Housing – Delete prohibition on children under 18 OSMUD – Senior Housing – Delete affordable housing requirement OSMUD – Senior Housing – Allow for payment in lieu of affordable housing Vote to recommend: 8-0 NA NA 5 Subject/Title ZAC Vote OSMUD – Live-in staff at assisted living facilities; exempt from dwelling unit cap Vote to recommend: 8-0 Enclosed are letters from Town Counsel, who reviewed all of the Planning Board’s proposed amendments. The zoning amendment process is: Submit proposed amendment into warrant; Planning Board public hearing required by MGL c.40A s.5 within 65 days of when proposed amendment is submitted to the Planning Board; The Board may continue or close the public hearing; Board reviews and discusses the public comment received and Town Counsel recommendations; Board decides whether to make language changes to its articles (and what those changes are), and may consult with Town Counsel as needed. Language changes should be finalized before the end of March; Board decides whether to proceed with an article or not. Board may request to withdraw an article before the warrant is finalized; Board vote to recommend or not recommend each proposed amendment to town meeting. Recommendation may be voted any time before the town meeting begins. Town Meeting Vote If adopted, amendment is effective the date of the vote If defeated, amendment may not be voted on again for 2 years unless the Planning Board makes a positive recommendation (MGL c.40A s.5). 3. Continued Public Hearings – Bucklin St. & Leonard St. – 1) Stormwater Management Permit; 2) Petition to Construct a Paper Street – Wall Street Development Corp. An application for a stormwater management permit (SMP) was submitted to the Board on 11/1/18. A decision is due by 4/24/19 and a majority vote is required for approval. All members are eligible to vote. A petition to construct a paper street was submitted to the Board on 7/25/18. A decision is due by 4/24/19. A majority vote is required for approval and all members are eligible to vote. The last date on which the Board discussed the applications was Jan. 28, 2019. Project: Proposal to construct a paper street entitled “Bucklin Street”; Proposal to construct 4 single family homes with driveways, utilities and associated grading. A SMP is required because the project will result in a land disturbance of one acre or more and it is not a “subdivision”. The applicant submitted revised plans since the Board last discussed the project, which have been reviewed by BETA Group. The materials and the review letter are included with the meeting materials, and BETA Group’s outstanding comments are noted below. 6 Consultant Review: Stormwater Management Criteria: The project is subject to the Stormwater Management Standards in General Bylaws Chapter 172. The following are the 10 standards, what is proposed, and BETA’s comments to date. Stormwater Standard Applicant BETA Comment #1 – No untreated stormwater – No new stormwater conveyances (e.g. outfalls) may discharge untreated stormwater directly to or cause erosion in wetlands or waters of the Commonwealth. The project does not provide new untreated stormwater conveyances to wetlands. Complies – standard has been met. #2 – Post-development peak discharge rates – Stormwater management systems must be designed so that post- development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre- development peak discharge rates. The entrance road has been revised to include porous pavement. The drainage report and plans were modified to reflect the change. Design consistent with LID techniques, BETA recommends conditions: Porous pavement and subdrain connection to be reviewed and approved by DPW; Soil tests be conducted to maintain 2 feet of separation from bottom of pavement section to seasonal high groundwater elevation; Developer/homeowners to assume responsibility of maintenance/replacement (if necessary) of porous pavement to provide stormwater management runoff control. (SW4) #3 – Recharge to groundwater – Loss of annual recharge to groundwater should be minimized through the use of infiltration measures to the maximum extent practicable. 1) Additional testing to be provided before construction. 2) In response to previous BETA request for landscape plan describing the woody and herbaceous vegetative stabilization and management techniques to be used within and adjacent to the stormwater practice 1) The proposed basin is above existing grade. Recommend including a condition that a representative of the Town observe topsoil excavation prior to placement of fill to verify design assumption of soils. (SW7) 2) Board should discuss if seeding meets the intent of the requirement. (SW12) 7 Stormwater Standard Applicant BETA Comment #4 – 80% TSS removal – For new development, stormwater management systems must be designed to remove 80% of the annual load of total suspended solids. Project includes a new infiltration basin (with sediment forebay) and calculations to demonstrate 80% TSS removal. Complies – standard has been met. #5 – Higher Potential Pollutant Loads – Stormwater discharges from land uses with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads required the use of specific stormwater management BMP’s. Not Applicable Not Applicable #6 – Critical Areas – Stormwater discharges to critical areas must utilize certain stormwater BMP’s approved for critical areas. Not Applicable Not Applicable #7 – Redevelopment – Redevelopment of previously developed sites must meet the Stormwater Management Standards to the maximum extent practicable. Not Applicable Not Applicable #8 – Construction Period Erosion and Sediment Controls – Erosion and sediment controls must be implemented to prevent impacts during construction of land disturbance activities. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and an Erosion Control Plan were submitted. Recommend including the following conditions: 1) Provide provisions to protect the infiltration basin from sedimentation during construction. Once site is stabilized basin can be excavated to finish grade. (SW16) 2) Provide a final signed SWPPP prior to construction. (SW17) The Town or an agent for the Town observe the excavation of the infiltration basin prior to loam and seed to verify design assumptions including groundwater elevations and infiltration rate. (SW18) 8 Stormwater Standard Applicant BETA Comment #9 – Operations/Maintenance Plan – A long-term operation and maintenance plan shall be developed and implemented to ensure that stormwater management systems function as designed. A Long Term Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan was included. Include condition to provide estimated operations and maintenance budget. (SW23) #10 – Illicit Discharges – All illicit discharges to the stormwater management systems are prohibited. A signed Illicit Discharge Statement was provided. Complies – standard has been met Non-stormwater outstanding BETA comments are: 1. Provide additional spot grades to show positive drainage around the existing house at 62 Pleasant St. (G1) 2. New driveway for house at 62 Pleasant St. shown on plan; will require approval by owner of 62 Pleasant St. (G3) 3. Applicant proposes overhead utilities. BETA defers to the Board on this issue. (G4) 4. Re truck turning radius for emergency vehicles within Bucklin St. to turn around. Sketch Plan provided. Sketch Plan shows vehicle exceeding the length of the easement. Either expand easement or provide plan that shows vehicle can make the turnaround in space provided. BETA defers to Fire Dept. for final approval. (T2) 5. Sketch plan provided that shows truck turns at intersection of Bucklin and Pleasant. Sketch plan shows fire truck needing to use oncoming lane in Pleasant St. to make the turn. BETA defers to Fire Dept. for final approval. (T3) The standard for approving the paper street design and construction details is that the Board must apply the current Subdivision Regulations to the greatest extent practicable. Waivers requested: See 2/26/19 BETA letter, page 2. Petition Process: The Applicant’s representative and Town Counsel have been in discussion about the status of Bucklin Street, whether the proposed subdivision will qualify for “Approval Not Required” endorsement, and how to approach reviewing the work needed to build out Bucklin Street and install utilities, as approval of roadway design is not part of the Stormwater Management Permit application review. As a result of these discussions, the Applicant has submitted a petition under the provision of M.G.L. c. 41, sec. 81FF for approval of the construction of Bucklin Street. In summary, c. 41, §81FF serves to protect lots, shown on a recorded plan, that were sold off and in existence prior to the Subdivision Control Law (1953) from having to comply with subdivision regulations. Town Counsel agrees that §81FF appears to apply to the subject parcel. However, there are two important caveats: First, case law has clearly established that planning boards have the authority to review and impose conditions on construction of roads and utilities associated with lots protected by §81FF. In the past, the Hopkinton Planning Board has required applicants claiming 9 the §81FF exemption to petition for Planning Board approval of the roadway and utilities associated with the grandfathered lot. (The Applicant has now done so, consistent with the Planning Board’s past practice). Second, the c. 41 §81FF exemption would be applicable to only the existing lot on Bucklin Street. Subdivision of that lot is fully subject to the Subdivision Control Law. If the applicant were to obtain approval of the roadway pursuant to c. 41 §81FF, endorsement of an ANR plan by the Board (or approval of a definitive subdivision plan) would still be required in order to divide the existing lot. Ownership of Bucklin Street: Town Counsel believes that the Applicant has made a sufficiently credible claim of ownership rights in Bucklin Street for the purpose of the roadway petition. Town Counsel notes that an approval by the Planning Board does not adjudicate property rights, and that the abutters may choose to contest the Applicant’s rights. Any property rights dispute would be a private matter between the parties, not involving the Town. Way in Existence: At the public hearing on Jan. 28, the Board focused on whether Bucklin Street was a “way in existence” in 1953. The Applicant formally requested that the Board make a determination on the way in existence question, and the Board voted 2 in favor with 7 opposed on a motion to determine that Bucklin St. was a way in existence in 1953. The Board’s votes on the submitted materials will consist of: ✔Determination as to whether Bucklin St. was a way in existence in 1953, for the purposes of ANR endorsement. BOARD VOTE 1/28/19 When the Applicant submits an ANR plan, the Board will vote on whether to endorse it. Vote on the petition relative to the design and construction of Bucklin St., approving or disapproving the submitted plans. Approval may be with conditions. Include votes on waiver requests. Vote on the application for a Stormwater Management Permit. 4. Approval-Not-Required Plan – 10 Linden Street – Mezitt Discussion of this ANR plan is continued from the last meeting. The plan divides one parcel into two, both with frontage on Linden Street. MGL c.41 sec. 81L states the following with respect to endorsement of ANR plans: …the division of a tract of land into two or more lots shall not be deemed to constitute a subdivision within the meaning of the subdivision control law if, at the time when it is made, every lot within the tract so divided has frontage on (a) a public way or a way which the clerk of the city or town certifies is maintained and used as a public way, or (b) a way shown on a plan theretofore approved and endorsed in accordance with the subdivision control law, or (c) a way in existence when the subdivision control law became effective in the city or town in which the land lies, having, in the opinion of the planning board, sufficient width, suitable grades and adequate construction to provide for the needs of vehicular traffic in relation to the proposed use of the land abutting thereon or served thereby, and for the installation of municipal services to serve such land and the buildings erected or to be erected thereon. Linden Street is not a public way or a way in which the Town Clerk certifies is maintained and used as a public way, and it was not a way shown on a plan approved or endorsed in accordance with the subdivision control law. With respect to whether it was a way in existence when the subdivision control became effective in the Town, when the Planning Board reviewed the ANR 10 plan that created the current lot at #10 in 2000 (now proposed to be divided), it voted to endorse the plan with the requirement that a 12 ft. wide driveway on Parcel C be constructed to serve the lot in accordance with the plan submitted, and it found that it was a traveled way prior to when the Subdivision Control Law became effective in Hopkinton. Given this prior vote, The Board is now discussing whether the proposed “driveway” to the new house would provide adequate access (sufficient width, suitable grades and adequate construction) to provide for the needs of vehicular traffic. The Fire Department expressed access concerns, and the division of land on the opposite side of Linden St. should also be considered. The applicant has provided additional information about the proposed construction of a driveway within the “way”. The driveway should be considered a street, because it provides access within the way that serves the lot. After discussion of the proposed driveway relative to width, grades and construction adequacy, the Board would take the following votes: 1. Vote on a motion to make a finding that the proposed street will provide for sufficient width, suitable grades and adequate construction to provide for the needs of vehicular traffic in relation to the proposed use of the abutting land, and for the installation of municipal services to serve the land and buildings. 2. If vote on the motion to make the finding is No, then the Board would vote on a motion to deny endorsement of the plan for that reason. 3. If the vote on the motion to make the finding is Yes, then the Board would vote on a motion to endorse the plan, citing the finding. If the Board does not find that the proposed driveway will provide adequate access, then the applicant would have to submit a petition to the Board to build something more substantial, which does provide the width, grades and adequate construction for adequate access. A decision is due by April 9. 5. Box Mill Road – Richard Barbieri Mr. Barbieri will be present to request a minor modification to the plan, namely the provision of an easement by the owner of 3 Leonard St. to allow the Box Mill Road rounding on the easterly side of the road to be wider. It would widen out to include the catch basin at the corner, which is on private property. The catch basin pre-dated the construction of Box Mill Road, and was installed by a private party several years ago (see McBride letter). The easement will allow for the area to be paved and to better accommodate turning vehicles. A plan is enclosed with the meeting materials. 6. I-495/I-90 Interchange Project The website for the MassDOT project can be accessed here: https://www.mass.gov/i-495i-90- interchange-improvements. I have enclosed a comment letter from the Town with respect to this project. The most recent series of public meetings were held in 2018. PUBLIC HEARING OUTLINE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND FLEXIBLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL PERMIT 76 MAIN STREET 4/8/19 1. Project introduction and review - Applicant 2. Staff Report 3. Consultant Review – BETA Group 4. Planning Board members and Public – Add to Detailed Discussion items 5. Detailed Discussion, with Public Comment at each a. Vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow; truck traffic flow b. Stormwater management c. Site lighting d. Building design and landscaping e. Utilities; Water/Sewer f. Off-Street Parking g. Signage h. Emergency Vehicle Access i. Affordable Housing Units – Special Permit, Flexible Community Development j. Town Department and Board/Committee Comments not covered above 6. Additional or New Comments and Information 7. Discuss Site Plan standards and plan revisions to be made 8. Discuss Special Permit findings 9. Discuss conditions of approval 10. Public comment 11. Vote on Application for Site Plan approval, including conditions as applicable 12. Vote on Application for Special Permit (Flexible Community Development): a) Make Findings; b) Vote on Special Permit, including conditions as applicable 13. Close public hearing § 210-136.1 Site Plan Standards The site plan shall be designed to conform to the following Site Plan Standards: A. Site disturbance in wetland buffer zones and to slopes in excess of 25% shall be minimized. B. Unique natural and historic features shall be preserved whenever feasible, and the use of § 210-117.2, Lots with Historic Structures, shall be considered as a mechanism to do so, where appropriate. C. Tree, vegetation and soil removal shall be minimized. D. The site activities shown on the Site Plan shall be screened from view from abutting properties in residential use. Methods of screening may include solid fencing, landscaping or other proposals of the Applicant, subject to review by the Planning Board. Such screening may be located on or off-site. If located off-site, written permission of the off-site property owner shall be provided to the Board. E. All utilities shall be underground. F. Exposed storage areas, machinery, service areas, truck loading areas, utility buildings and structures and other similar uses shall be visually screened from abutting properties and those using public ways. Screening methods may consist of solid fencing, landscaping or similar proposals submitted by the Applicant, subject to review by the Planning Board. G. The site plan shall show measures to reduce and abate noise and odors generated from the site that will impact surrounding properties. H. The site plan shall comply with all zoning requirements. I. The site plan shall maximize the convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and to and from adjacent public ways. If supporting documentation, such as a traffic or parking study, submitted to the Planning Board indicates that the vehicular and pedestrian traffic movement depicted on the site plan and proposed in the application will have a significant negative impact or impacts on the site or within the adjacent ways, such impacts shall be mitigated by the Applicant. J. Parking areas shall be designed so that they are safe and convenient and do not detract from the use and enjoyment of proposed structures. Parking areas shall be designed to facilitate safe pedestrian access to the structures and other on-site facilities. K. The site plan shall minimize the number of curb cuts on public ways. L. Driveways shall be designed to ensure safe sight distances at interior and exterior intersections and along driveways, in accordance with applicable AASHTO requirements. M. Sidewalks shall be provided along the entire frontage of the subject property along existing public ways. The Planning Board may approve alternative provisions or waive the requirements of this Standard in situations where sidewalk construction or use is not feasible or practical. N. Levels of illumination shall be provided as follows: (1) No property may have exterior lighting that exceeds the average illumination level recommended by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America for such use as set forth in “Lighting Facilities for Parking Facilities,” Illuminating Engineering Society, 2014 and “The Lighting Handbook,” 10th Ed., Illuminating Engineering Society, 2011. (2) For pole mounted lights in parking and driveway areas, the height of the light source shall not exceed 15 feet, which shall be measured from the ground at the base of the pole to the bottom of the fixture. (3) Pedestrian area lighting shall utilize fully shielded fixtures, and the height of light source shall not exceed 12 feet, measured from the ground at the base of the pole to the bottom of the fixture. (4) No exterior lighting may interfere with the safe movement of motor vehicles on public ways or private ways open to the public. (5) Mercury vapor lamps shall be prohibited. (6) Uplighting shall be permitted only when used in one of the following manners: (a) To light a primary entrance, when the fixture or lamp is wall-mounted under an architectural element (e.g., roofs over walkways, entries or overhanging, nontranslucent eaves) so that the uplighting is fully captured; (b) To light local, state or national flags; or (c) To highlight or illuminate a building facade or landscaping, or to highlight or illuminate statues or monuments. (7) Floodlighting shall be permitted only if a fully shielded fixture is utilized and no lighting will fall onto the property of others. (8) Safety and security lighting shall use motion sensors, photocells, or photocells or timers to control duration of nighttime illumination. (9) Exterior lighting of recreation facilities shall utilize fully shielded fixtures and, except as authorized by Special Permit or Site Plan Approval, shall be turned off by 10:00 p.m. or at the conclusion of an activity begun before 10:00 p.m.; provided, however, that in any event the exterior lighting shall be turned off by midnight. (10) Blinking, flashing, moving, revolving and flickering lights, as well as lighting that changes intensity or color shall be prohibited except for lighting for public safety or traffic control and lighting required by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration for air traffic control and warning purposes. (11) Notwithstanding any provisions of this subsection to the contrary, sidewalks that run along the perimeter of a site and are in a public right of way or on abutting property may be illuminated, and illumination may spill onto abutting non-residential property if requested in writing by the abutting property owner. Exterior lighting that does not conform to the provisions of this subsection may be allowed by special permit from the Planning Board if the Planning Board finds that such exterior lighting will be consistent with the Purposes of this Article, or that there are other demonstrable community, health, safety or welfare benefits that will be served by the exterior lighting. No special permit may be granted pursuant to this subsection unless the Planning Board determines that the proposed exterior lighting is appropriate for the size and use of the property, any buildings thereon, and the neighborhood setting. O. Adequate access shall be provided to each structure for emergency vehicles and personnel. P. The site plan shall conform to applicable Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Stormwater Management Regulations. The site plan shall show adequate measures to prevent pollution of surface water and groundwater, to minimize erosion and sedimentation and to prevent changes in the potential for flooding. Stormwater management facilities shall be designed so that neighboring properties, public ways and public storm drainage systems will not be adversely impacted. Q. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, grounds or buildings shall be screened from view from the ground. R. All dumpsters shall be screened from public view. CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM 352 Turnpike Road Southborough, MA 01772 PHONE 508.480.9900 Hopkinton Planning Board February 25, 2019 c/o Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use and Town Operations 18 Main Street Hopkinton, MA 01748 Re: Major Site Plan Review Application 76 Main Street Hopkinton, MA Dear Members of the Board, On behalf of the applicant, REC Hopkinton, LLC., please find the enclosed application package for Major Site Plan Review associated with the proposed mixed-use project located at 76 Main Street. The subject property is further identified as Map U16, Lot 75 on the Town of Hopkinton Tax assessors maps. The Site, which contains approximately 1.2 acres of land is situated on the northerly side of Main Street and is located in the Downtown Business (BD) Zoning District and the Water Resource Protection Overlay District (WRPOD-1). Enclosed with this application are the following materials and supporting documentation: Completed/Signed Application for Site Plan Review (11 copies); Narrative in Support of Application for Site Plan Review (11 copies); Abutters List (11 Copies); 1 set of mailing envelopes and labels in conjunction with the Abutters list; $1,500 Application Fee; $2,000 Consultant Review Fee; Nine (9) paper copies (24”x36”) of Site Development Plans prepared by Bohler Engineering, dated February 22, 2019 ; One (1) reduced paper copy (11”x17”) of Site Development Plans prepared by Bohler Engineering, dated February 22, 2019 ; Drainage Report prepared by Bohler Engineering, dated February 22, 2019 (3 copies); Construction Management Plan dated February 22, 2019 (3 copies); Nine (9) paper copies (24”x36”) of Architectural Floor Plans and Elevations prepared by Applied Form and Space dated February 25, 2019 One (1) reduced paper copy (11”x17”) of Architectural Floor Plans and Elevations prepared by Traffic Impact and Access Study prepared by MDM Transporation Consultants, Inc. dated February 20, 2019 (3 copies) Nine (9) paper copies (11”x17”) of Entry Sign exhibit prepared by Applied Form and Space dated February 25, 2019 Electronic copy of all documents and submitted material Below is additional information in support of the application as required under the Site Plan Review requirements. CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM Proposed Use The property currently contains two (2) existing two-story commercial buildings, paved driveways, landscaped areas, and associated utilities. The current buildings are serviced by municipal water and sewer systems as well as electric and gas utilities. The proposed project will involve raising the existing buildings and construction of a new three-story mixed-use building with associated access, paved parking, stormwater management, utilities and landscaping amenities. The first floor of the building will contain a mix of office, retail and restaurant space while the second and third stories will contain twenty-six (26) residential apartments consisting of twelve (12) one bedroom units and fourteen (14) two bedroom units. The building will also have approximately 8,250 SF of basement area to be utilized for storage by the residential and commercial tenants. The project will continue to be serviced by municipal water and sewer systems in Main Street. Existing power and gas will be extended from Main Street. Projected Increase in Traffic Trips As outlined in the enclosed traffic report prepared by MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc. (MDM), trip generation for the development is projected to be modest with approximately 39 vehicle trips during the weekday morning peak hour, 59 vehicle trips during the weekday evening peak hour, and 66 vehicle trips during the Saturday midday peak hour. Compared to the historical use of the property, the project will result in 54 or fewer additional trips during the weekday peak commute hours and 62 or fewer additional trips during the Saturday midday peak hour. MDM finds that incremental traffic associated with the proposed development is not expected to materially impact operating conditions at the study intersections. In addition, the available sight lines at the Site Driveway intersections with Main Street will exceed the recommended sight line requirements from AASHTO. Projected Town water and sewer demand Based on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 guidelines for flow generation, it is estimated that the proposed sewerage generated from the mixed-use will be 6,346 gallons per day (GPD). This is based upon the following flow rate calculations: Proposed Use Flow Generation Area / Seats /Bedrooms Estimated Flow (GPD) Office 75 GPD / 1,000 SF 2,500 SF 188 Retail 50 GPD / 1,000 SF 7,146 SF 358 Restaurant 35 GPD / Seat 40 Seats 1,400 Residential Units 110 GPD/ Bedroom 40 Bedrooms 4,400 Typically, water uses can be estimated at 110% of the sewer generation, therefore the daily water demand for the site is estimated at 6,981 GPD for domestic water use. An on-site irrigation well is proposed to provide irrigation for proposed landscaping Discussion of the status of all other required local, state and federal permits: Water Connection Permit: A permit from the Hopkinton Water Department will be requested for allowing connection into the Town’s water system for domestic and fire suppression needs. If all other local permits are granted, then the Applicant will submit formal design plans and request a permit from the Water Department for the connection. CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM Building Permits: A building permit will be sought for individual building construction. This permit will not be sought until approval from the Town of Hopkinton Planning Board has been obtained. EPA NPDES General Permit for Construction Activities: As a result of proposing to have more than one (1) acre of land alteration, the Site is required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). In support of the SWPPP, an Electronic Notice of Intent (eNOI) will need to be prepared and submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency prior to the start of construction. It should be noted that the site does not contain, nor is it adjacent to, any wetland resource areas and as such no permits are required from the Conservation Commission. Building or addition size proposed: As noted, the project proposes one (1) three-story mixed use building with a total gross floor area of 43,541 SF. The proposed building has a net foot print of 14,401 SF. The first floor has a gross floor area of 14,401 SF, and the second and third floors have a gross floor area of 14,570 SF each. The building will also have approximately 8,250 SF of basement area to be utilized for storage by the residential and commercial tenants. Projected number of employees: The project is anticipated to employee approximately six (6) employees in the restaurant, six (6) employees in the office space and ten (10) employees in the retail space. Projected parking spaces required: Based upon the Zoning Bylaw, the project requires sixty-seven (67) parking spaces as outlined in more detail below. Proposed Use Parking Criteria Area / Seats /Bedrooms Required Parking Office 3 Spaces / 1,000 SF 2,500 SF 7.5 Retail 4 Spaces / 1,000 SF 7,146 SF 28.6 Restaurant 1 Space / 3 Seats + 1 Space / 2 employees 40 Seats 6 Employees 16.3 Residential Units 1 Space / Bedroom 40 Bedrooms 40 Total Required = (7.5+28.6+16.3)*0.5 + 40 = 67 Spaces * *In the Downtown Business District, the number of parking spaces required shall equal 50% of the amount required for each non-residential use. The project provides sixty-five (65) parking spaces on site and will utilize four (4) on-street parking spaces as allowed by Zoning to reach a total of sixty-nine (69) spaces. Proposed method of screening the premises and parking from abutting property and the street: Abutting properties and the street will be screened by a mix of vegetated landscaping and solid wall fencing as outlined on the Landscape Plan provided in the Site Development Plans. Multiple layers of landscaping are proposed specifically between the buildign and abutting residential properties in order to provide adequate privacy and screening. A calculation of exisiting and proposed lot coverage: The existing impervious coverage of the lot is approximately 37.1%, with the proposed impervious coverage of the redeveloped lot anticipated to be approximately 77.6%. CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM Description of how the Site Plan conforms to the Site Plan Standards: The site plan has been developed in accordance with the directions, requirements and standards outlined in the Code of the Town of Hopkinton, Chapter 210, Article XX, Sections 210-136.1, 210-144 and 210- 145, as well as the Planning Board’s Site Plan Review Submission Requirements. Abutting uses, utilities, pedestrian site access and safety were all considered in the layout and design of the proposed development. A loading area and grass pave turn around were incorporated into the plans to allow for propoer access and use by delivery, refuse and emergency vehicles. It should be noted that the project fully complies with the zoning requirements and the applicant is not requesting any waivers, variances or other zoning relief at this time. The applicant respectfully requests that the application package be reviewed upon receipt, and if deemed complete, placed on next available Planning Board meeting agenda for review. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 508-480-9900. Sincerely, BOHLER ENGINEERING Nathaniel E. Mahonen, P.E. John Kucich, P.E. Attachments cc: Kathi Sherry, REC Hopkinton, LLC Paul Mastroianni, REC Hopkinton, LLC Site Plan Cover Letter.docx REC Hopkinton LLC February 25, 2019 Town of Hopkinton Planning Board 18 Main Street Hopkinton, MA 01748 RE: Flexible Community Development Special Permit Application 76 Main Street Hopkinton, MA Dear Members of the Board: In addition to the enclosed Application for Major Site Plan Review associated with the proposed mixed-use project located at 76 Main Street, you will also find an application for a Flexible Community Development Special Permit to be reviewed concurrently with the Site Plan. As outlined in the Town of Hopkinton Zoning Bylaws Chapter 210, Article XI Flexible Community Development Bylaw, for every ten (10) dwelling units in the proposed development, one (1) unit shall be affordable. The applicant is proposing to construct twenty-six (26) rental apartments. In accordance with Article XI, two (2) apartments will be designated affordable. Enclosed with this application are the following materials and supporting documentation: • One (1) Application for a Flexible Community Development Special Permit with Supplemental Narrative • The plans and associated copies submitted with the Major Site Plan Review satisfy the submission requirements for the Flexible Community Development Special Permit. Duplicate copies have not been included. • FAD filing fees in the amount of $1,000 (administrative fee) and $1,020 (consultant review fee) as determined in accordance with the Fee Schedule outlined in the Application for Special Permit. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Kathi Sherry at 617.962.6544, kathi@onlinecommunications.net. Sincerely, REC Hopkinton LLC Paul Mastroianni Phone: 508.435.4031 | Fax: 508.435.0942 | 77 West Main Street, Suite 213, Hopkinton, MA 01748 TOWN OF HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD 18 MAIN STREET HOPKINTON, MA 01748 508-497-9755 505-497-9702 (fax) www.hopkintonma.gov Application for Special Permit The undersigned hereby applies to the Town of Hopkinton Planning Board to grant a Special Permit for the reasons hereinafter set forth and in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Zoning Bylaw pertaining to the herein described premises. Date: February 25, 2019 Applicant(s): Paul Mastroianni, REC Hopkinton LLC Signature(s): Mailing Address: 77 West Main Street, Suite 213, Hopkinton, MA 01748 Daytime Telephone: (508) 435-4031 Email: paulm@onlinecommunications.net Owner(s) of Record: REC Hopkinton LLC Signature(s): Mailing Address: 77 West Main Street, Suite 213, Hopkinton, MA 01748 Name of Design Professional, if any: John Kucich, Bohler Engineering Mailing Address: 352 Turnpike Road, Southborough, MA 01772 Daytime Telephone: (508) 480-9900 Email: jkucich@bohlereng.com Address of Subject Properties: 76 Main Street Project Name, if any: Tax Assessors Property ID Numbers (list all Map, Block & Lot nos.): U16-75-0 Is an amendment to a previously issued Special Permit requested? Yes No If Yes, please indicate the date of issuance: List all zoning district(s) in which the properties are located, including overlay districts: Downtown Business (BD) District; Water Resources Protection Overlay District (WRPOD) Are all real estate taxes and other assessments to the Town current? Yes No 2 Indicate below the Special Permit(s) requested by this application: Off-Street Parking Facility in a Business (B) District (§ 210-19G) Off-Street Parking Facility in a Downtown Business (BD) District (§ 210-20.3G) Shared and Off-Site Parking (§ 210-124) Parking Space Reduction (§ 210-124.D) Common Driveway (§ 210-120) Hotel Overlay District Use (§ 210-20.3G) Office Park District Use (§ 210-185) Open Space and Landscape Preservation Development Concept Plan (Article XVII) Campus Style Development (Article XIV) Village Housing in Residential Districts (Article XIIIA) Garden Apartments in Residential Districts (Article XIII) Flexible Community Development (Article XI) Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Installations (Article XXXI) Drive-in, Drive-through or Drive-up Uses (§ 210-19.D, § 210-20.3.D, § 210-24.F) Registered Marijuana Dispensary (Article XXXIII) Other Supplemental Information Common Driveway Applications Only: Will an Approval-Not-Required (ANR) plan be submitted to the Planning Board to create or modify the lots which will share the common driveway? Yes No Will a definitive subdivision plan be submitted to the Planning Board to create or modify the lots which will share the common driveway? Yes No Hotel Overlay District and Office Park District Applications Only: List specific uses requested: 3 Flexible Community Development – Supplemental Information and Submission Requirements The Premises Total parcel size: 1.2+/- acres Longest contiguous parcel frontage: 139 feet Total wetlands: 0 acres Total floodplain: 0 acres Current use of the premises: Retail and office space Briefly list and describe all existing structures on the premises: The property currently contains two (2) existing two-story commercial buildings, paved driveways, landscaped areas, and associated utilities. The Project Garden Apartment Development Projects (Article XIII): Base plan: Number of dwelling units: Number of affordable dwelling units required: Total number of dwelling units proposed: Number of market rate units proposed: Number of affordable units proposed: Number of ownership units: Number of rental units: Are waivers of dimensional requirements proposed? Single-Family Projects: Please indicate the type of project: Open Space and Landscape Preservation Development: Yes No Conventional subdivision plan: Yes No Individual building lots (ANR/81-P) plan: Yes No Base plan: Number of building lots: Base plan: Number of dwelling units: Number of affordable dwelling units required: Total number of dwelling units proposed: Number of market rate units proposed: 4 Number of affordable units proposed: Number of ownership units: Number of rental units: Are waivers of dimensional requirements proposed? All Projects: Number of affordable units to be provided: 2 Number of affordable units for which equivalent payment of fees in lieu of units is proposed: 0 Proposed timing of payment of fees in lieu of units: N/A Method of provision of the affordable units: Number of units off-premises Number of units on-premises New construction 2 Rehabilitation or renovation of existing structure(s) Proposed location/property address of each proposed off-premises unit: Location/Address Number of units Does the project involve the demolition of existing structure(s)? Yes No If yes, please list the address and age of the structures: The 76 Main Street property currently contains two (2) existing two-story commercial buildings. A portion of the front building was constructed more than 75 years ago (1790). The rear building was constructed in the 1980s. 5 Unit Composition: Please indicate the number of dwelling units and the unit numbers in each category. Bedrooms Detached Units Attached Units 1 2 3 4 5 Affordable units 1 1 2 Market rate units 11 13 24 Project Phasing: Please complete the chart below regarding anticipated phasing of the project. If you plan to develop the project in one phase, complete only the first column. Add additional columns representing additional phases as necessary. Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Total Approximate month and year of start of site work construction 8/2019 Approximate month and year of start of dwelling unit construction 3/2020 Approximate month and year of lottery 3/2021 Approximate month and year of initial occupancy 3/2021 Number of market rate units 24 Number of affordable units 2 6 SUPPLEMENT TO APPLICATION FOR FLEXIBLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL PERMIT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: REC Hopkinton LLC has filed an Application for a Major Site Plan Review for a proposed mixed-use development located at 76 Main Street. The proposed project will involve raising the existing commercial buildings and construction of a new three-story mixed-use building with associated access, paved parking, stormwater management, utilities and landscaping amenities. The first floor of the building will contain a mix of office, retail and restaurant space while the second and third stories will contain twenty-six (26) residential rental apartments consisting of twelve (12) one bedroom units and fourteen (14) two bedroom units. FLEXIBLE COMMUNITY SPECIAL PERMIT NARRATIVE: a) Proposed number of dwelling units permitted in the zoning district, prior to the addition of the additional units (i.e. base plan) The development proposes to provide twenty-six (26) residential rental apartments consisting of twelve (12) one bedroom units and fourteen (14) two bedroom units. b) Proposed number of dwelling units requested Twenty-six (26) residential apartments consisting of twelve (12) one bedroom units and fourteen (14) two bedroom units. The proposed number of affordable rental units is two (2). c) The proposed diversity and approximate cost range for all of the proposed dwelling units The development proposes to provide twenty-six (26) residential apartments consisting of twelve (12) one bedroom units having an estimated monthly rental rate of $1,400-$1,800 and fourteen (14) two bedroom units having an estimated monthly rental rate of $2,200 - $2,700. d) The proposed number and location of market rate and affordable dwelling units, whether proposed on or off-site Of the twenty-six (26) residential apartments to be developed, twenty-four (24) apartments will be market rate and two (2) apartments will be designated affordable. There will be one (1) one bedroom affordable rental unit and one (1) two bedroom affordable rental unit. e) The proposed method or combination of methods to satisfy the Bylaw requirements with respect to the provision of affordable units – number of affordable units on-site, number off-site, and/or fees in lieu of units Of the twenty-six (26) residential apartments to be developed, twenty-four (24) apartments will be market rate and two (2) apartment will be designated affordable. There will be one (1) one bedroom affordable rental unit and one (1) two bedroom affordable rental unit. f) How the project conforms with the latest Master Plan and Open Space and Recreation Plan The proposed mixed use development conforms to the latest Master Plan and Downtown Business District Zoning: • Promotes a village-style mix of retail, restaurants, offices and multi-family housing • Provides a number of new services and amenities to the Downtown area and to the residents of Hopkinton from the commercial aspect of the development • Provides more housing opportunities and choices • Increases affordable housing opportunities • Promotes pedestrian and bicycle travel 7 • Enhances vitality of the Downtown area • Spurs revitalization of the Downtown area g) How the requirements of the Bylaw are met. The applicant is providing affordable housing units as outlined in Article XI Flexible Community Development Bylaw 210-62. 2. Waiver Requests: None 3. Reduction in Dimensional Requirements: None 4. Restrictive Documents: Not applicable BETA GROUP, INC. 315 Norwood Park South, 2nd Floor, Norwood, MA 02062 P:781.255.1982 | F:781.255.1974 | W:www.BETA-Inc.com March 19, 2019 Town of Hopkinton Planning Board Land Use, Planning and Permitting Department 18 Main Street Hopkinton, MA 01748 Attn: Ms. Elaine Lazarus, Director Re: 76 Main Street – Major Site Plan Review and Flexible Community Development Special Permit Planning Board Peer Review Dear Ms. Lazarus: BETA Group, Inc. (BETA) reviewed the proposed Application for 76 Main Street - Major Site Plan and Flexible Community Development Special Permit. This letter is provided to outline BETA’s findings, comments and recommendations. BASIS OF REVIEW The following documents were received by BETA and formed the basis of review: •Cover letter for Major Site Plan Review to Hopkinton Planning Board dated February 25, 2019 from Bohler Engineering Southborough MA including the following attachments: o Application for Site Plan Review o Entry Sign Plan •Cover letter for Flexible Community Development Special Permit to Hopkinton Planning Board dated February 25, 2019 from REC Hopkinton LLC, Hopkinton, MA including an Application for Special Permit •Plans (16 sheets) entitled Site Development Plans for proposed Mixed Use Development REC Hopkinton, LLC, dated February 22, 2019 prepared by Bohler Engineering •Architectural Plans (5 sheets) entitled 76 Main Street Multifamily Mixed Use dated February 25, 2019 prepared by Applied Form and Space, Andover MA •Traffic Impact Memorandum to REC Hopkinton dated February 20, 2019 prepared by MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc., Marlborough MA REVIEW CRITERIA BETA reviewed the above documents in accordance with the following: •Town of Hopkinton Zoning Bylaws: Chapter 210 printed October 2016 •Town of Hopkinton Massachusetts Zoning Map dated 2015 •Water Resource Protection Overlay District (Map) Hopkinton, MA March 2011 •Town of Hopkinton Stormwater Regulations amended August 11, 2014 •Town of Hopkinton Chapter 172 Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Bylaw •Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook effective January 2, 2008 by MassDEP •Massachusetts Erosion and Sedimentation Control Guidelines for Urban and Suburban Areas reprinted May 2003 Ms. Elaine Lazarus, Director March 19, 2019 Page 2 of 10 PROJECT OVERVIEW The 1.22± acre project site is located on the north side of Main Street just west of the police station. The site is located within the Downtown Business (BD) Zoning District and within the Water Resources Protection Overlay District (WRPOD-1). The proposed mixed use (retail on first floor and office space and residential dwelling units on the second and third floors) is permitted within the district. The project requires site plan review for a major project. Due to the proposed 26 residential units the project will require a special permit from the Planning Board for a Flexible Community Development. The existing property includes two 2 story commercial buildings paved driveways, landscaping and utility services. The site is not located within a critical area (MassDEP Approved Zone II). MassDEP Priority Resource Map indicates the project is not located with NHESP estimated habitats of rare wildlife or rare species. The site is also not located within a FEMA mapped flood zone. NRCS soils maps indicate the soils on site include Rainbow silt loam with a hydrologic soil group (HSG) of C/D (slow to very slow infiltration rate). The proposed project intends to raze all existing structures and construct a new three story 14,401± sq. ft. foot print with retail on the first floor and office and 26 residential units on the second and third floors. It will include on-site parking, landscaping lighting and utility services. ZONING Article VII – Downtown Business (BD) District The site is located within the Downtown Business (BD) Zoning District and within the Water Resources Protection Overlay District (WRPOD-1). The project meets the requirements for minimum lot area, minimum lot frontage, and maximum lot coverage for building. In addition, minimum side and rear yard setbacks, and maximum building height requirements are met. Impervious surfaces and building combine to exceed the maximum coverage of 25%, see Article XII. The proposed building is a mixed use building, and permitted in a BD district. The residential dwellings have dedicated on-site parking spaces, and no dwelling is less than 600 square feet. Off street parking will not be located between the principle building and Main Street. Article XI – Flexible Community Development Bylaw Due to the proposed 26 residential units, the project is required to obtain a special permit from the Planning Board for a Flexible Community Development. Any project that results in a net increase of ten (10) or more dwellings requires one unit shall be affordable. Two (2) of twenty-six (26) units will be affordable housing units. These affordable dwellings will be within the development, compatible in design, appearance, construction, and quality of materials with the other units. Article XII - Water Resources Protection Overlay District The site is also located within the Water Resource Overlay District (WRPOD-1). The current site is at 37.1% impervious and proposed will be 77.6%, both far exceed the maximum of 15% impervious surfaces allowed in the district without providing a system for groundwater recharge (§210-70.C.(2)). There are two underground infiltration systems proposed at the site to provide groundwater recharge. Catch Basins will have an oil and debris trap to prevent undesirables from entering the groundwater. Article XVIII - Supplementary Regulations (as applicable) The proposed building will contain office, retail, and restaurant space on the first floor, and 26 total residential apartments, twelve (12) 1-bed room apartments, and fourteen (14) 2-bedroom units, on the second and third floor. Residential components of mixed use buildings require 1 space for every Ms. Elaine Lazarus, Director March 19, 2019 Page 3 of 10 bedroom. 40 spaces will be required for the second and third floor bedrooms. In the Downtown Business district, the number of parking spaces required shall equal 50% of the required spaces for each non-residential use. The total office area is 2,500 square feet, and requires 8 spaces. The total retail area is 7,146 square feet and requires 29 spaces. The restaurant will have 40 seats with 6 staff, and requires 16 spaces. The 40 spaces for the residential units and 27 spaces for the non-residential units equate to 67 spaces. The project will include 69 total spaces. Four of these spaces will come from on street parking directly in front of the building, and 65 of these spaces will come from the off street parking located next to and behind the building. Four (4) of the offstreet parking spaces will be handicap accessible, with one of those spaces being van accessible. Parking spaces measure 9 feet by 18 feet. Z1.Recommend including a condition that requires a deed restriction that prohibits the study from being converted to a bedroom. Article XX - Site Plan Review The project proposes construction of more than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area, an increase of 50% of gross floor area, the construction of 25 or more parking spaces and is considered a major project. §210-136.1 Site Plan Standards Unique natural or historic features were not observed on the site. The building was originally from the late 1700s. The project proposes using the one existing vehicle access driveway on Main Street with one curb cut. Parking areas are designed to bylaw requirements including numbers and size. Project is not expected to be a significant generator of noise or odors. Dumpsters are provided and screened with stockade fence, and block wall. Sidewalks will be provided along the frontage of the building, and along the perimeter of the building. The Site Plan complies with Zoning except as noted above. See appropriate sections for comments on Zoning. There will be an increase of approximately 150 gallons per day of water demand at the site. SP1.Provide documentation from fire department there is sufficient access around buildings (§210- 136.O). SP2.Provide information on proposed mechanical equipment (heating, cooling, and air conditioning) and associated screening and noise (§210-136.Q). LIGHTING Site lighting is adequate with no spillage to residential properties. There is no photometric data along west side of building. Minor spillage is shown onto Main Street, but will not be an issue. Maximum light mounting is at 15 feet high. LI1.Confirm that the “E” lights along west side of building will not cause spillage onto abutting property. UTILITIES Proposed utilities are shown underground including: •New public domestic and fire water services with site hydrant •New public sewer service with grease trap for restaurant •New electric service with pad mounted transformer •New gas service Ms. Elaine Lazarus, Director March 19, 2019 Page 4 of 10 •New telephones and cable services U1.Provide confirmation from DPW that there is sufficient water and sewer capacity (6,346 gal/day) to service the proposed development LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING Project site for the 14,401 square foot building is 1.2± acres in size and is mostly developed with buildings and pavements. Approximately 15,000 s.f. at the rear of the site is wooded; mainly large, mature deciduous trees. A driveway serving the Police Station and housing abuts the eastern property line. Residential uses abut the north and west sides of the project site. Existing elevations range from 446 at Main Street and 437 at the rear of the site. The project includes the removal of 15,000± sq. ft. of existing large trees at the back of the project site. A large existing maple tree is being removed on the west side of the site near Main Street. Proposed landscaping includes 9 shade trees, 29 evergreen trees, over 200 shrubs and over 170 perennials and ornamental grasses. Plant species are appropriate for region and site conditions. Adequate details and notes have been provided. Site amenities include 3 bicycle loops and an outdoor patio between the restaurant and the sidewalk along Main Street. LA1.Provide disposition of existing metal bench near the back of the sidewalk, facing the Fire Station. LA2.Consider adding a shade tree to the left of the outdoor patio (near low point). Parking lot includes required perimeter planting area, number of trees where appropriate and per §210- 124.E (1-3) LA3.Provide alternative plantings to the Emerald Green Arborvitae to meet the 30 feet height requirement §210-124.E (4). LA4.Provide calculations that indicate at least 10% of the interior of any parking is maintained landscape area §210-124.E (5). Plans include appropriate dense growth screening of residential abutters (§210-124.E (6)) and public ways (§210-124.E (7)). LA5.There is an existing stone wall in the northern part of the site. Consider re-using this stone at a new wall on site (§210-136.1.B). LA6.Provide additional fencing/screening to fully screen the proposed project from abutting residential uses at the northwest corner of the site ((§210-136.1.D). TRAFFIC IMPACT The Site will continue to utilize one 24 foot wide full-access driveway along Main Street in close proximity to the existing curb cut. Study Area The Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) evaluated the intersection of the signalized intersection of Main Street (Route 135) at Grove Street (Route 85) &Cedar Street (Route 85), and the unsignalized intersection of Main Street (Route 135) at the Site Driveway. BETA finds the provided study area intersections, roadways, and their descriptions to be appropriate. Ms. Elaine Lazarus, Director March 19, 2019 Page 5 of 10 Baseline Traffic Data Turning Movement Count (TMC) data and radar equipped Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) data were collected on Thursday, January 24th and Saturday, January 26th, 2019. The TMC volumes were collected between 7:00 – 9:00 AM and 4:00 – 6:00 PM on Thursday, and between 11:00 AM – 1:00 PM on Saturday. The ATR units collected vehicle volume and speeds for 24 hours on each day. T1.Identify the potential for pedestrian and bicycle volume during warner weather. Although traffic data collection revealed zero pedestrian and bicycle volume, it should be noted that counts were collected in January on a balmy, yet rainy and windy day. It would be expected that the area experiences some pedestrian and bicycle activity given the characteristic of the study area. The TMC were adjusted by a factor of 7% based on continuous volume counts obtained by MassDOT “Continuous Count Station 307 – Westborough - Route 9 East of Northborough Town Line.” BETA finds this adjustment to be appropriate. Weekday peak hours were found to occur between 7:30 - 8:30 AM and 4:45 - 5:45 PM, the Saturday peak hour was found to occur between 12:00 - 1:00 PM. Traffic Speeds Main Street is posted with a 25 mile per hour (mph) speed limit in the vicinity of the Site driveway. The radar equipped ATR collected traffic speeds for 72 hours from Thursday, January 24th to Saturday, January 26th, 2019. T2.Clarify why three days (Thursday, Friday, and Saturday) were collected for speeds but only two days (Thursday and Saturday) were collected for volumes. Speed data found 85th percentile travel speeds to be approximately 31 mph eastbound and 29 mph westbound; approximately 5 mph higher than the posted speed limit. The observed speeds may be in relation to the grade of the roadway, which slopes down in the eastbound direction. Crash History The most recent available three years (2014-2016) of MassDOT crash data was obtained and evaluated for the two study intersections. Both intersections were calculated to have crash rates lower than the MassDOT average crash rates for intersections of similar type. The signalized intersection of Main Street at Grove Street had 15± reported crashes over three years, approximately five (5) crashes per year. While the intersection does not fall within a MassDOT Crash Cluster, a Road Safety Audit (RSA) was completed in March of 2014. It is understood that improvements revealed from the RSA are currently in design with the Town and State. BETA evaluated crash data for the study area and found similar conclusions. Sight Line Evaluation Sight distance for the proposed site driveway was evaluated based on the measured 85th percentile speeds (31 mph eastbound and 29 mph westbound) and the 25 mph posted speed limit. The site driveway was measured to have greater than 500 feet of available Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) and Intersection Sight Distance (ISD) in both directions. This measurement exceeds the SSD and ISD required by AASHTO for the measured 85th percentile speed and posted speed limit. BETA notes that the sight distance calculations were completed assuming a roadway with zero grade. Main Street decreases in grade from a point approximately 600 feet west of the proposed site driveway. BETA evaluated sight distance calculations incorporating the grade differential and found the roadways straight alignment continues to provide adequate sight distance. Ms. Elaine Lazarus, Director March 19, 2019 Page 6 of 10 Planned Roadway Improvements MassDOT Project 606043 is currently under design to improve Main Street within the study area. The project is expected to realign the Route 85 approaches to the traffic signal at Main Street (Route 135), provide upgraded sidewalks, and provide a multi-use path along the southern side of Main Street. The improvements as depicted in the plans for Project 606043 were incorporated in the Future analysis years. BETA finds this methodology to be appropriate. Background Growth Annual traffic volume counts from MassDOT “Continuous Count Station 307 – Westborough - Route 9 East of Northborough Town Line” were utilized to determine background growth rate. The count station data revealed a slight decrease in traffic in recent years. As a result, the TIA evaluates the 2024 future year volumes based on a 0.5% annual growth rate for five (5) years. BETA finds this growth rate to be consistent with previous projects in the Town. In addition to growth rate, the TIA incorporated additional project related trips from three nearby developments: Lumber Street Mixed Use Development, Whalen Road & Chamberlain Road Subdivision, and Legacy Farms. Trips from these uses were distributed through the study area network. BETA finds this methodology to be appropriate. 2024 No-Build Traffic Volume Networks The 2024 No-Build volume networks were obtained by growing the 2019 Seasonally Adjusted Existing traffic volume by 0.5% per year for five (5) years, then adding the development related trips from the three nearby developments as defined above. BETA finds this methodology to be appropriate. Trip Generation Site traffic was estimated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition for the following Land Use Codes (LUC): o LUC 710 – Office - Trips per 1,000 Square Feet at 2,500 sf o LUC 820 – Shopping Center - Trips per 1,000 Square Feet at 7,150 sf o LUC 932 – High Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant - Trips per seat at 40 seats o LUC 221 – Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) - Trips per unit at 28 units T3.According to the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, office spaces with a gross floor area less than 5,000 sf should be evaluated using Land Use Code 712 – Small Office Building. T4.Explain whether the 40 restaurant seats include outdoor patio seating. Based on the above land uses, the site was estimated to generate approximately 39 vehicle trips (20 in, 19 out) in the morning peak hour; 59 (30 in, 29 out) in the evening peak hour; and 66 (35 in, 31 out) in the Saturday mid-day peak hour. The site was estimated to generate 620 daily trips on a weekday and 698 daily trips on a Saturday. No credits or reductions in trips were applied for pass-by trips or internal trip capture. BETA finds this methodology to be acceptable. Trip Generation Comparison The existing peak hour vehicle volumes, as collected in January 2019, into and out of the site driveway were subtracted from the estimated trip generation of the proposed development. This determined the “net new trips” for the site. BETA finds this methodology to be appropriate. Ms. Elaine Lazarus, Director March 19, 2019 Page 7 of 10 Trip Distribution Residential trips were distributed into the study area network based on US Census data for employment locations of residents in Hopkinton. All other trips to the site were distributed based on general traffic patterns as collected by turning count data in January 2019. Trips were distributed West on Route 135 (towards I-495), East on Route 135 (towards Ashland), and North on Route 85 (towards Route 9). No trips were distributed South on Route 85, despite the location of the Town of Hopkinton public schools and a freeway interchange to I-495. BETA finds the provided distribution to be reasonable. 2024 Build Traffic Conditions The 2024 Build traffic volumes were obtained by adding the estimated site generation trips to the network based on the distribution percentages defined in the previous section. BETA finds this methodology to be appropriate. Traffic Analysis Synchro simulation software was utilized to evaluate existing, no-build, and build traffic operations at the two study area intersections. A summary of Level of Service (LOS), delay, and volume to capacity ratio (v/c) were provided for each intersection organized by approach. T5.A summary of queueing was not provided. Discuss traffic queueing and whether extended queues from the traffic signal will restrict access for the site driveway or any other parcels (fire station and police station) within the area of the intersection. T6.Traffic volumes shown in the analysis worksheets were found to be inconsistent with traffic volumes shown in the TIA Figures. Please check and revise the analysis accordingly. Based on the analysis provided, the signalized intersection of Route 135 at Route 85 operates at LOS D or better during existing conditions with some approaches operating at LOS E. The intersection improves in the future (no-build) condition due to updated lane configuration and timing from the ongoing MassDOT design project. The intersection is shown to have a minor increase (1-2 seconds per vehicle) in delays as a result of project trips when comparing the 2024 Build operations with the 2024 No-Build operations. T7.Confirm whether the traffic signal timing, phasing, and clearance times shown in the No-Build and Build analysis represents the signal timing and phasing provided as part of the MassDOT Project. Given the proposed locations of stop lines, it would be expected that some of the clearance times may be different. The stop-controlled site driveway was generally shown to operate at LOS D or better in all peak hours. The exception is the 2024 Saturday No-Build condition, which is shown to operate at LOS E, but improves to LOS D in the 2024 Saturday Build condition. Site Access and Circulation AutoTURN analysis was provided for the Town’s Ladder truck and a Single Unit truck. Both analysis drawings show adequate turning space for each vehicle provided the vehicle turns left around the north side of the building and reverses onto a mountable area on the northeast corner of the parking lot. A loading area is provided on the east side of the parking lot near the driveway entrance at Main Street. T8.Discuss how vehicles will utilize this loading area, and ensure that loading activity does not block access to the driveway. Ms. Elaine Lazarus, Director March 19, 2019 Page 8 of 10 Recommendations The TIA discusses several mitigation actions involving access and egress, pedestrian and bicycle accommodation, and a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. BETA generally concurs with these recommendations. T9.Confirm that the proposed curb extension, curb ramps, and crosswalk can be accommodated without impacting the driveways and driveway ramps for the abutting properties. T10.Show charging stations and any signage denoting the location of preferential parking for low emission vehicles on site plan. T11.Discuss any safety related improvements that may be made to address the two closely spaced access ways of Claflin Commons and the proposed site driveway. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The project stormwater management system generally relies on the two proposed subsurface infiltration chamber systems to provide peak rate attenuation and infiltration. The design includes allowing runoff to be captured deep sump catch basin units and then directed to one of two subsurface infiltration chamber systems with isolator row. One system is discharged to the existing drainage system on Clafin Commons while the over system is discharged overland to the northeast corner of the site. Roof runoff is routed directly into the subsurface infiltration chamber systems. SW1.Provide hydraulic analysis showing existing drainage system on Clafin Commons can accommodate the overflows from Underground System #1. SW2.Expand topography at the northeast corner of the site to evaluate impacts to abutters from stormwater discharge associated with UG#2. SW3.Provide detail of flared end section with riprap pad. The project was reviewed in accordance with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Stormwater Management Regulations. The following are the 10 standards and relative compliance provided by the submitted documentation. NO UNTREATED STORMWATER (STANDARD NUMBER 1):No new stormwater conveyances (e.g., outfalls) may discharge untreated stormwater directly to or cause erosion in wetlands or waters of the Commonwealth.The project does not propose untreated stormwater discharges to wetlands. Stormwater runoff is directed to two new subsurface infiltration basin systems via deep sump catch basins. Riprap sizing calculations have been provided for the new flared end outlet –complies with standard. POST-DEVELOPMENT PEAK DISCHARGE RATES (STANDARD NUMBER 2):Stormwater management systems must be designed so that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-development peak discharge rates. The two proposed subsurface infiltration systems will be utilized to mitigate peak runoff rates from the proposed impervious areas. Infiltration rates were not used in the submitted model as a means of attenuation, a conservative approach. Submitted calculations indicate there will be no increase in peak flows from the site as a result of the project. SW4.Provide comparison of existing and proposed runoff volumes in addition to the peak discharge analysis. Ms. Elaine Lazarus, Director March 19, 2019 Page 9 of 10 SW5.Verify that the inverts for the subsurface infiltration systems are consistent with the plans and details. Model shows invert of chambers being 439 and plans show top of stone at elevation 441. Height of proposed chamber is 2.5 feet. Revise as necessary. RECHARGE TO GROUNDWATER (STANDARD NUMBER 3):Loss of annual recharge to groundwater should be minimized through the use of infiltration measures to maximum extent practicable. NRCS soils maps indicate the soils on site include Rainbow silt loam with a hydrologic soil group (HSG) of C/D (slow to very slow infiltration rate). Adjacent areas include Broadbrook very fine sandy loam with a HSG of D (low infiltration). The project proposes groundwater recharge through the use of two subsurface infiltration chamber systems (UG#1 and UG#2). A recharge volume adjustment factor was provided with the required recharge calculations. Drawdown time calculations were including showing the systems will drain within 72 hours using the rawls rate associated with “silt loam”. The submission included soil test pits taken on December 2018, a period during seasonal high groundwater. Two soil test pits (TP#4 & TP#4A) were conducted within the limits of UG#1 and one soil test pit (TP#2) was conducted within the limits of UG#2. For UG#1, TP4 indicated fill through the profile and TP4A showed fill from 0” – 80” below ground surface. Below the fill, sandy loam was recorded and estimated seasonal high groundwater (mottles) was observed at elevation 436.5±. For UG#2, sandy loam was recorded and mottles were observed at elevation 436.5. Refusal (potential ledge) was encountered at elevation 434.5. The bottom of both subsurface infiltration systems are proposed to be elevation 438.5, two feet above ESHGW. SW6.Identify limits of and provide provisions on Grading & Drainage Plan to remove all fill from limits of subsurface infiltration systems and replace with Title 5 sand. SW7.Identify location of monitoring wells/cleanouts within subsurface infiltration chamber systems. 80%TSS REMOVAL (STANDARD NUMBER 4):For new development, stormwater management systems must be designed to remove 80% of the annual load of Total Suspended Solids.Stormwater runoff from the pavement areas are collected in deep sump catch basins with hoods and routed to subsurface infiltration chamber systems with isolator rows. Roof runoff is routed directly into UG#2. TSS Removal Calculations for each treatment train has been included in the submission. Long term pollution prevention plan with spill response procedures were included with the Stormwater Operation and Maintenance Plan. SW8.Route roof runoff directly into UG#1 to bypass infiltrator row. HIGHER POTENTIAL POLLUTANT LOADS (STANDARD NUMBER 5):Stormwater discharges from Land Uses with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads require the use of specific stormwater management BMPs. The proposed multi-use development is not considered a LUHPPL – standard not applicable. CRITICAL AREAS (STANDARD NUMBER 6):Stormwater discharges to critical areas must utilize certain stormwater management BMPs approved for critical areas. The project is not within an Approved Wellhead Protection Area or other stormwater critical areas – standard not applicable. REDEVELOPMENT (STANDARD NUMBER 7): Redevelopment of previously developed sites must meet the Stormwater Management Standards to the maximum extent practicable.The site is mixture redevelopment/new development but is being treated by the Applicant as new development. If the project addresses the comments noted herein it will meet the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standards –complies with standard. Ms. Elaine Lazarus, Director March 19, 2019 Page 10 of 10 CONSTRUCTION PERIOD EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS (STANDARD NUMBER 8):Erosion and sediment controls must be implemented to prevent impacts during construction or land disturbance activities.The project site will disturb more than 1 acre in area requiring a Notice of Intent with EPA and development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Plans and details include a stabilized construction entrance, stormwater inlet protection and erosion control barriers around site (silt fence) and stockpile locations with erosion control barriers. A SWPPP was not provided with the submission. SW9.Provide draft SWPPP for review (Town of Hopkinton Stormwater Regulations §6.0.K.2). SW10.Recommend a condition requiring a copy of the final SWPPP be made available to the Town prior to construction. OPERATIONS/MAINTENANCE PLAN (STANDARD NUMBER 9):A long-Term Operation and Maintenance Plan shall be developed and implemented to ensure that stormwater management systems function as designed.A written Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan was included the Drainage Report. SW11.Include manufacturer’s recommended maintenance procedures for the proprietary water quality structures and subsurface infiltration chamber units. SW12.Updated 11”x17”) to include the location of snow storage areas and coordinate with landscaping plans. SW13.Provide Maintenance Agreement per Hopkinton Stormwater Regulations Appendix D.3.a-f ILLICIT DISCHARGES (STANDARD NUMBER 10):All illicit discharges to the stormwater management systems are prohibited.A signed Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement was included as part of the submission - complies with standard. If we can be of any further assistance regarding this matter, please contact us at our office. Very truly yours, BETA Group, Inc. Tyler de Ruiter, PE Christopher Luppino, PE Project Engineer Civil Engineer Traffic Philip F Paradis, Jr., PE, LEED AP, CPSWQ Associate Job No: 6504 O:\6500s\6504 - Hopkinton - 76 Main Street\Engineering\Reports\76 Main Peer Review 3-19-19.docx 2 MDM G:\Projects\1019 - Hopkinton (76 Main)\Correspondence\Peer Review\1019 Response Memo01_Final.doc Comment T2: “Clarify why three days (Thursday, Friday, and Saturday) were collected for speeds but only two days (Thursday and Saturday) were collected for volumes.” Response: The speed and volumes were collected on a Thursday, Friday and Saturday. The speed data included in the report include the average and 85th percentile speeds over the three day period were as the volume data was summarized in the report for a typical weekday (Thursday) and a Saturday. The Friday volume data was not used as is customary to TIAS standards; however, it is provided in the Attachments for reference purposes. Comment T3: “According to the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, office spaces with a gross floor area less than 5,000 sf should be evaluated using Land Use Code 712 – Small Office Building.” Response: The use of trip generation estimates for LUC 712 is slightly higher than LUC 710 for the 2,500 square feet of office proposed. ITE’s Trip Generation manual quantifies a small office building as being a single tenant, a fact that remains unknown for this Site; therefore, the general office category (LUC 710) was used in the traffic assessment. That said, the additional number of trips would be insignificant (less than 3 additional trips) and will not change the results and conclusions of the traffic report. The trip generation worksheet for LUC 712 – Small Office Building is provided in the Attachments and an alternative trip generation methodology was reviewed as part of response to T4 below which uses LUC 712. Comment T4: “Explain whether the 40 restaurant seats include outdoor patio seating.” Response: The 40-restaurant seats do not include the outdoor patio seating. An alternative trip generation methodology using a small 2,500 sf office building (LUC 712), a restaurant with 60 seats (LUC 932), 7,150 sf of retail (LUC 820), and 28 apartments (LUC 221) is provided in the Attachments. The alternative trip generation methodology assumes an internal trip capture between the mixed-use development but no reduction for pedestrian or bicycle trips. The results indicate that the internal capture for the various uses would be at least 20% during the peak hours; therefore, the resulting trip generation is less than provided in the February Traffic Impact Assessment prepared for the project. Accordingly, the result and conclusion remain conservative and valid. Comment T5: “A summary of queueing was not provided. Discuss traffic queueing and whether extended queues from the traffic signal will restrict access for the site driveway or any other parcels (fire station and police station) within the area of the intersection.” 3 MDM G:\Projects\1019 - Hopkinton (76 Main)\Correspondence\Peer Review\1019 Response Memo01_Final.doc Response: A summary of vehicle queuing results from the capacity analysis worksheets provided in the February traffic assessment for the signalized intersection of Main Street at Cedar Street/Gove Street is provided in Table R1. TABLE R1 VEHICLE QUEUE ANALYSIS SUMMARY MAIN STREET AT CEDAR STREET/GROVE STREET Baseline 2025 No-Build 2025 Build Approach Available Queue Storage Length (feet) Average Queue Length1 Maximum Queue Length1 Average Queue Length1 Maximum Queue Length1 Average Queue Length1 Maximum Queue Length1 Weekday Morning Peak Hour Eastbound L Eastbound T/R Westbound L Westbound T/R Northbound L Northbound T/T Southbound L/T Southbound R 140± >1000 75± >1000 125± >1000 >1000 150± 142 348 <25 495 148 430 126 <25 384 590 <25 827 238 621 223 77 82 216 <25 141 76 223 <25 70 180 333 <25 198 136 414 53 199 82 217 <25 142 77 224 <25 70 182 336 <25 200 136 414 53 199 Weekday Evening Peak Hour Eastbound L Eastbound T/R Westbound L Westbound T/R Northbound L Northbound T/T Southbound L/T Southbound R 140± >1000 75± >1000 125± >1000 >1000 150± 62 306 <25 443 148 107 284 95 112 462 37 646 260 199 482 213 46 289 <25 160 90 62 26 256 84 483 32 220 176 118 57 461 46 294 <25 162 90 62 26 258 87 493 32 223 176 118 57 465 Saturday Midday Peak Hour Eastbound L Eastbound T/R Westbound L Westbound T/R Northbound L Northbound T/T Southbound L/T Southbound R 140± >1000 75± >1000 125± >1000 >1000 150± 42 201 <25 313 66 81 126 <25 92 367 34 528 148 179 250 85 33 198 <25 122 43 48 31 80 66 323 28 182 92 105 69 166 35 204 <25 125 44 49 31 82 68 330 28 184 92 105 69 170 1Average and 95th percentile queue lengths are reported in feet per lane. 4 MDM G:\Projects\1019 - Hopkinton (76 Main)\Correspondence\Peer Review\1019 Response Memo01_Final.doc As summarized in Table R1 the project will have nominal impact to queuing at the signalized intersection compared to No-Build conditions. Specifically, the average queue lengths on the eastbound approach to Cedar Street/Gove Street will not interfere with the proposed site driveway which will be located approximately 440 feet from the “STOP” line. Likewise, the 95th percentile queue length will not interfere with the proposed site driveway during the weekday morning and Saturday midday peak hours. The queue analysis indicates that left turns out of the proposed driveway will continue to be blocked for short periods of time (5% of the weekday evening peak hour) a condition that exists today. Comment T6: “Traffic volumes shown in the analysis worksheets were found to be inconsistent with traffic volumes shown in the TIA Figures. Please check and revise the analysis accordingly.” Response: There were minor discrepancies in the TIA Figures which have been adjusted. Updated Figures are provided in the Attachments. The results and conclusion remain unchanged. Comment T7: “Confirm whether the traffic signal timing, phasing, and clearance times shown in the No- Build and Build analysis represents the signal timing and phasing provided as part of the MassDOT Project. Given the proposed locations of stop lines, it would be expected that some of the clearance times may be different.” Response: The MassDOT project did not have traffic signal timing, phasing, or clearance times. The February traffic assessment assumed the new intersection geometry with existing traffic signal phasing under an optimized timing plan. The MassDOT project designer will be responsible for the final signal timing, phasing, and calculations of clearance times. Regardless of the design the proposed mixed-use project will be nominal with respect to operations and queues at the signalized study intersection. Comment T8: “Discuss how vehicles will utilize this loading area, and ensure that loading activity does not block access to the driveway.” Response: An AutoTurn graphic of the loading area is provided in the Attachments which indicates adequate maneuvering area for a delivery truck without blocking the access driveway. Comment T9: “Confirm that the proposed curb extension, curb ramps, and crosswalk can be accommodated without impacting the driveways and driveway ramps for the abutting properties.” 5 MDM G:\Projects\1019 - Hopkinton (76 Main)\Correspondence\Peer Review\1019 Response Memo01_Final.doc Response: As part of the Main Street improvement project, a crosswalk at the Police Station driveway is proposed to be relocated to a position along the Site frontage which is in conflict with the proposed driveway location. The final design and location subject to MassDOT approval; the Proponent will work with the Town and MassDOT to relocate the crosswalk to the west of the 77 – 79 Main Street driveway. Comment T10: “Show charging stations and any signage denoting the location of preferential parking for low emission vehicles on site plan.” Response: The location of the charging station and preferred parking for low emission vehicle has been incorporated into the site plan prepared by Bohler. Comment T11: “Discuss any safety related improvements that may be made to address the two closely spaced access ways of Claflin Commons and the proposed site driveway.” Response: Claflin Commons currently serves the police station property and is closely spaced with the existing site driveway. The redesign of Main Street as part of the MassDOT project indicates that the driveways within the study area (including the proposed site driveway) will be constructed as a driveway apron style with a raised sidewalk crossing to promote slower travel speeds. While the final design and location of the crosswalk near Claflin Commons subject to MassDOT approval, the Proponent will work with the Town and MassDOT to relocate the crosswalk to the west of the 77 – 79 Main Street driveway. This proposed location would provide an enhanced crossing location and may be able to include a curb extension to reduce the crossing distance. The proposed driveway will be under “STOP” sign control and no further safety related improvements are warranted. CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Serving the East Coast• www.BohlerEngineering.com 352 Turnpike Road Southborough, MA 01772 PHONE 508.480.9900 April 2, 2019 Via Fed Ex Town of Hopkinton Planning Board Land Use, Planning and Permitting Department 18 Main Street Hopkinton, MA 01748 Attention: Ms. Elaine Lazarus, Director RE: Response to Health Director Comments 76 Main Street Hopkinton, Massachusetts Dear Members of the Board, Bohler Engineering is in receipt of a comment letter from the Health Director dated March 14, 2019 regarding the above referenced project. On behalf of the applicant Bohler Engineering offers the following responses and enclosed information. For clarity, we have listed the original comments in italics with our responses in bold directly below Comment 1: The final utility plan and construction detail must address an external grease trap that will service the restaurant. Consult both the DPW/Sewer Department and Health Department for requirements. Response: The submitted plans include an external grease trap as shown on the Utility Plan, Sheet 6 and a construction detail on Sheet 13. It is anticipated that any additional comments on the design would be received from the DPW/Sewer Departments as part of the departmental review of the Site Plan application. Comment 2: The final landscape plan and construction detail must address the irrigation well that is proposed for the property. All wells in Hopkinton must meet minimum requirements for potability. The well must be installed by a licensed installer and otherwise meet all appropriate permitting, testing and siting requirements established by both the Hopkinton Board of Health and Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Applications and permits may be obtained by the Hopkinton Health Department. Response: Acknowledged, it is noted that the irrigation well has been sited such that it is a minimum twenty-five (25) feet from parking areas and a minimum ten (10) feet from property lines. The irrigation well is shown on Sheet 4. CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM Comment 3: The demolition must be completed in accordance with the terms stipulated in the General Notes and Demolition Plan provided and in accordance with the requirements of the MADEP Response: Acknowledged. Please do not hesitate to contact us at 508-480-9900 should you have any questions or require any additional information regarding our responses. Sincerely, BOHLER ENGINEERING Nathaniel E. Mahonen, P.E. John A. Kucich, P.E. Cc, Paul Mastroianni, REC Hopkinton, LLC Kathi Sherry, REC Hopkinton, LLC CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Serving the East Coast• www.BohlerEngineering.com 352 Turnpike Road Southborough, MA 01772 PHONE 508.480.9900 April 2, 2019 Via Fed Ex Town of Hopkinton Planning Board Land Use, Planning and Permitting Department 18 Main Street Hopkinton, MA 01748 Attention: Ms. Elaine Lazarus, Director RE: Response to Planning Board Peer Review Comments 76 Main Street Hopkinton, Massachusetts Dear Members of the Board, Bohler Engineering is in receipt of a comment letter from BETA dated March 19, 2019 regarding the above referenced project. The majority of the comments were responded to in our letter dated March 27, 2019 with the exception of one comment, SW1. Please see our response below regarding the outstanding comment, for clarity, we have listed the original comments in italics with our responses in bold directly below. Stormwater Management Comments Comment SW1: Provide hydraulic analysis showing existing drainage system on Claflin Commons can accommodate the overflows from Underground System #1. Response: It should be noted that the existing drainage system in Claflin Commons was evaluated as Design Point #2 in the original analysis submitted. This analysis showed a reduction in peak rates of runoff to the system in all storm events. As such, the reduction in flow would alleviate any potential impacts due to the new connection and there are no known capacity issues in the existing system. That being said, attached is an expanded HydroCAD analysis that includes the stormwater system for Claflin Commons. The information from the existing system was input from a plan titled “Grading and Utility Plan – Hopkinton Police Station” dated October 24, 2002 prepared by Pare Engineering Corporation. The analysis shows that the existing conveyance system can handle flows up to and including a 5.5” inch storm event. This is adequate capacity to accommodate existing flows from the Police Station and the proposed overflow connection as grate capacity at the inlets would restrict overall capacity of the system in a storm event of this size rather than pipe capacity. CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM Please do not hesitate to contact us at 508-480-9900 should you have any questions or require any additional information regarding our responses. Sincerely, BOHLER ENGINEERING Nathaniel E. Mahonen, P.E. John A. Kucich, P.E. Cc, Paul Mastroianni, REC Hopkinton, LLC Kathi Sherry, REC Hopkinton, LLC DATE: April 2, 2019 TO: Planning Board FROM: Shannon Soares, Land Use Administrative Assistant RE: DRB Meeting – 76 Main Street Planning Board Members, At their meeting on March 19, 2019 the Design Review Board reviewed plans for 76 Main Street, and had several comments that they would like to share. - Concerns that there is not enough parking to accommodate both residential and commercial uses for the property - The board would like to see changes with the lighting – shorter poles, fewer lights - Concern that the overall design doesn’t fit into the existing neighborhood – board would like to see more traditional red brick used, some paneling at the base of the glass storefronts so the overall building doesn't look so modern, and possibly pick architectural elements from the surrounding buildings so that the new building would fit into the surrounding neighborhood better - Members of the board would like to see the historic house saved and incorporated into the design - Members of the board wanted the applicant to take a look at removing the floor to ceiling glass wall at the restaurant as it would impact the direct abutting neighbor. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN for CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES at Mixed Use Development 76 Main Street Hopkinton MA, 01748 SWPPP Prepared For: REC Hopkinton, LLC Paul Mastroianni 77 West Main Street Hopkinton, MA 01748 508-435-4031 Prepared by: BOHLER ENGINEERING 352 Turnpike Road Southborough, MA 01772 Phone: (508) 480-9900 www.bohlerengineering.com SWPPP Preparation Date: March 2019 Estimated Project Dates: Project Start Date: TBD Project Completion Date: TBD W181207 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) 76 Main Street – Hopkinton, MA TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION 1: CONTACT INFORMATION/RESPONSIBLE PARTIES ......................................................................... 2 1.1 Summary of Requirements ..................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Operator(s) / Subcontractor(s) ................................................................................................................................ 3 1.3 Stormwater Team .................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Required SWPPP Modifications ............................................................................................................................. 5 1.5 Requirement to Post a Notice of Permit Coverage ................................................................................................. 6 SECTION 2: SITE EVALUATION, ASSESSMENT, AND PLANNING ......................................................................... 7 2.1 Project/Site Information .......................................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Project Latitude/Longitude ..................................................................................................................................... 7 2.3 Additional Project Information ............................................................................................................................... 7 2.4 Discharge Information ............................................................................................................................................ 7 2.5 Nature of the Construction Activity ........................................................................................................................ 9 2.6 Size of Construction Project ................................................................................................................................... 9 2.7 Construction Support Activities .............................................................................................................................. 9 2.8 Sequence and Estimated Dates of Construction Activities ..................................................................................... 9 2.9 Business Days and Hours for the Project .............................................................................................................. 10 2.10 Potential Pollutant-Generating Activities ............................................................................................................. 10 2.11 Deadline to Initiate Stabilization........................................................................................................................... 10 2.11.1 Deadline to Complete Stabilization Activities ............................................................................................. 11 2.11.2 Exceptions to the Deadlines ......................................................................................................................... 11 2.12 Allowable Non-Stormwater Discharges ............................................................................................................... 12 2.12.1 Allowable Non-Stormwater Discharges ....................................................................................................... 13 2.12.2 Control Measures for Non-Storm Water Flows ........................................................................................... 13 2.11 Site Maps .............................................................................................................................................................. 13 SECTION 3: DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS ................ 14 3.1 Endangered Species Protection ............................................................................................................................. 14 3.1.1 Supporting Documentation ............................................................................................................................... 14 3.2 Historic Preservation ............................................................................................................................................. 14 3.3 Safe Drinking Water Act Underground Injection Control Requirements ............................................................. 15 SECTION 4: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS ............................................................................................... 17 4.1 Natural Buffers or Equivalent Sediment Controls ................................................................................................ 17 4.1.1 Buffer Compliance Alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 17 4.1.2. Buffer Exceptions ............................................................................................................................................. 17 4.2 Perimeter Controls ................................................................................................................................................ 18 4.2.1 Silt Fence .......................................................................................................................................................... 18 4.2.2. Diversion Ditch/Berm ...................................................................................................................................... 18 4.2.3. Rock Check Dam .............................................................................................................................................. 18 4.3 Sediment Track-Out .............................................................................................................................................. 18 4.3.1 Specific Track-Out Controls ............................................................................................................................. 19 4.3.2 Maintenance Requirements .............................................................................................................................. 19 4.4 Stockpiled Sediment or Soil .................................................................................................................................. 19 4.5 Minimize Dust ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 4.6 Minimize the Disturbance of Steep Slopes ........................................................................................................... 19 4.7 Topsoil .................................................................................................................................................................. 20 4.8 Soil Compaction ................................................................................................................................................... 20 4.9 Storm Drain Inlets Protection ............................................................................................................................... 21 4.10 Constructed Stormwater Conveyance Channels ................................................................................................... 21 4.11 Sediment Basins .................................................................................................................................................... 21 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) 76 Main Street – Hopkinton, MA 4.12 Chemical Treatment .............................................................................................................................................. 21 4.13 Dewatering Practices ............................................................................................................................................ 22 4.14 Other Stormwater Controls ................................................................................................................................... 22 4.15 Site Stabilization ................................................................................................................................................... 23 4.15.1 Measures of the Stabilization ....................................................................................................................... 23 SECTION 5: POLLUTION PREVENTION STANDARDS ............................................................................................ 25 5.1 Potential Sources of Pollution ............................................................................................................................... 25 5.1.1 General Maintenance Requirements ................................................................................................................. 25 5.2 Spill Prevention and Response .............................................................................................................................. 25 5.2.1 Emergency Spill Notification ........................................................................................................................... 26 5.2.2 Reporting .......................................................................................................................................................... 26 5.3 Fueling and Maintenance of Equipment or Vehicles ............................................................................................ 26 5.4 Washing of Equipment and Vehicles .................................................................................................................... 27 5.5 Storage, Handling, and Disposal of Construction Products, Materials, and Wastes ............................................. 27 5.5.1 Building Products ............................................................................................................................................. 27 5.5.2 Pesticides, Herbicides, Insecticides, Fertilizers, and Landscape Materials ...................................................... 27 5.5.3 Diesel Fuel, Oil, Hydraulic Fluids, Other Petroleum Products, and Other Chemicals ..................................... 27 5.5.4 Hazardous or Toxic Waste ............................................................................................................................... 28 5.5.5 Construction and Domestic Waste ................................................................................................................... 28 5.5.6 Sanitary Waste .................................................................................................................................................. 28 5.6 Washing of Applicators and Containers used for Paint, Concrete or Other Materials .......................................... 29 5.7 Fertilizers .............................................................................................................................................................. 29 5.8 Other Pollution Prevention Practices .................................................................................................................... 29 5.8.1. Contaminated Soils ........................................................................................................................................... 29 5.8.2. Snow Removal Plan ......................................................................................................................................... 29 SECTION 6: INSPECTION AND CORRECTIVE ACTION ......................................................................................... 30 6.1 Inspection Personnel and Procedures .................................................................................................................... 30 6.1.1 Inspection Schedule .......................................................................................................................................... 30 6.1.2 Inspection Areas ............................................................................................................................................... 30 6.1.3 Inspection Requirements .................................................................................................................................. 31 6.1.4 Inspection Reports ............................................................................................................................................ 32 6.1.5 Inspection By EPA ........................................................................................................................................... 33 6.2 Corrective Action .................................................................................................................................................. 33 6.2.1. Corrective Action Report ................................................................................................................................. 33 6.3 Delegation of Authority ........................................................................................................................................ 34 SECTION 7: TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................... 35 SECTION 8: TERMINATION OF COVERAGE ............................................................................................................. 36 SECTION 9: CERTIFICATION AND NOTIFICATION ................................................................................................ 37 SWPPP APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................................ 38 1 PROJECT SUMMARY The site, which contains approximately 1.22 acres of land, contains an existing parking lot, two buildings, and associated landscaping. The remaining portion of the site is undeveloped consisting of wooded areas. The proposed project includes the construction of a new three-story 14,400+/- square foot multi-use building along with new paved parking areas, landscaping, storm water management components and associated utilities. The site, including the proposed parking areas, has been designed to drain to deep-sump, hooded catch basins. The catch basins will capture and convey stormwater runoff, via an underground pipe system, to one of two (2) proposed underground infiltration systems to attenuate flows below the pre-development conditions. Pretreatment of stormwater runoff will be provided by a combination of the deep-sump, hooded catch basins and isolator rows within the underground system prior to discharge. Rooftop runoff has been designed to flow to the underground systems as well. 2 SECTION 1: CONTACT INFORMATION/RESPONSIBLE PARTIES 1.1 Summary of Requirements Because the project will disturb more than one (1) acre during construction, coverage under EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharge from Construction Activities is necessary. In order for the project to obtain coverage under this NPDES General Permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPP Plan) must be developed that contains the following requirements: 1. Certifications for the Owner, Operator, and Subcontractors must be included in the SWPP Plan. The Owner is defined as the permittee with operational control over construction plans and specifications. The Operator is defined as the permittee with day-to-day operational control over activities necessary to ensure compliance with the SWPP Plan. The Subcontractor is defined as anyone employed by the Operator to carry out construction activities. Certifications are provided in Section 8.0 and Appendix G of this SWPP Plan. 2. An electronic Notice of Intent (eNOI) must be filed with the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prior to the initiation of construction activity covered by the General Permit. Construction activities may begin fourteen (14) days after receipt of a complete eNOI is posted on EPA’s NPDES web site. A paper copy of the Notice of Intent is provided for reference in Appendix A. The eNOI shall be completed and submitted by logging into the following website: https://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater-discharges-construction-activities#ereporting and following the steps to fill out a eNOI for the 2017 General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities (CGP). The eNOI will need to be certified by an appropriate member of the operator’s company. The certifying authority will need to set up and account with the EPA’s NeT-CGP reporting system by registering as a certifier at this website address: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/oeca-cgp- web/action/registration . 3. The Owner must also demonstrate as to whether or not the project's receiving waters has an established or approved Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). These issues are discussed in Section 2.0. 4. The Owner must demonstrate compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Historic Preservation Act (HPA). The Owner must determine whether any listed endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat exists in the Project area. The Owner must also determine whether areas of historical significance occur in the vicinity of the site. These issues are outlined in Section 3.0 and Appendices J and K contain correspondence with the Massachusetts Historical Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species Division. 5. Storm water pollution prevention controls for construction activities must be implemented and must conform to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and Federal Environmental Protection Agencies Standards. The storm water pollution prevention controls proposed for this project are presented in Section 4.0. 6. The SWPP Plan must identify any authorized non-storm water discharges that are combined with storm water discharges and implement a system of controls to provide appropriate pollution prevention measures to these components of the discharge. Non-storm water discharges and appropriate controls are discussed in Section 5.0. 7. An inspection and maintenance plan must be developed and implemented. This inspection and maintenance plan is presented in Section 6.0. Construction activity records must be completed and maintained. Construction activity records shall be completed and maintained in Appendix C and Site Inspection Reports shall be completed and maintained in Appendix D. 3 8. A written description of the release of a Reportable Quantity (RQ), an estimate of the amount of the release, the date of the release, the circumstances leading up to the release, and the steps that will be taken in response to the release must be submitted to the EPA. Copies of the written description shall be retained in Appendix E. 9. The SWPP Plan must be updated to accurately reflect site changes, control measure changes or in response to a hazardous or reportable quantity (RQ) release as defined in the Emergency Response Plan for the Project. Copies of SWPP Plan amendments shall be retained in Appendix F. 10. After final stabilization of the construction site, a Notice of Termination (NOT) shall be submitted to the EPA. The NOT will be retained in Appendix B. 11. The SWPP Plan and all construction records must be retained for a period of at least three (3) years following final stabilization and the filing of a NOT. A copy of the SWPP Plan and all pertinent records shall be maintained at the construction site during the duration of construction activity. Additional requirements under the General Permit that are not included as part of this SWPP Plan include the following: 1. A notice must be at the construction site main entrance that includes the General Permit numbers for the project (when assigned) and a copy of the eNOI, the name and telephone number of the local contact person, a brief description of the project, and the location of the SWPP Plan if the site is inactive or does not have an on-site location to store the plan. 2. The Owner and Operator must allow access to the construction site by the EPA and Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP). 1.2 Operator(s) / Subcontractor(s) All Operators associated with this construction project to be covered under the NPDES General Permit must adhere to the requirements of this Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). This SWPPP was required to be developed prior to submitting the electronic Notice of Intent (eNOI). All known Operators associated with a construction project to be covered under this permit have been identified and are noted within this section of this SWPPP. This SWPPP has been developed on behalf of Owner/Developer but may be used as a group SWPPP as it is intended to address both the owner’s and the General Contractor’s scope of work and obligations under the General Permit. Should the General Contractor choose to utilize this SWPPP to obtain coverage under the General Permit, they must complete and submit the appropriate documents, certifications and NOI included within the SWPPP. Note: For the purposes of this SWPPP, an “Operator” is any party associated with a construction project that meets either of the following two criteria: 1. The party has operational control over construction plans and specifications, including the ability to make modifications to those plans and specifications; or 2. The party has day-to-day operational control of those activities at a project that are necessary to ensure compliance with the permit conditions (e.g. they are authorized to direct workers at a site to carry out activities required by the permit). Subcontractors generally are not considered operators for the purposes of this permit, but are required to comply with the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for any work that they perform on-site. It 4 is recommended that the Operators require their subcontractors sign a Subcontractor Agreement such as the type included in Appendix G of this SWPPP. All Operators must file an eNOI to obtain coverage under the General Permit. Note: Where there are multiple operators associated with the same project, all operators are required to obtain permit coverage. The Operator(s) who will be engaged in construction activities at the site have been identified as the following: Owner/Developer Name: REC Hopkinton, LLC Contact Name: Paul Mastroianni Street: 77 West Main Street City, State, Zip Code: Hopkinton, MA 01748 Telephone: 508-435-4031 Fax: Email: paulm@onlinecommunications.net Contractor Name: TBD Contact Name: Street: City, State, Zip Code: Telephone: Fax: Email: If more than one contractor is present: Contractor Name: TBD Contact Name: Street: City, State, Zip Code: Telephone: Fax: Email: 1.3 Stormwater Team Each Operator, or group of multiple operators that will be involved with this project, must assemble a “Stormwater Team,” which will be responsible for overseeing the development of the SWPPP, any later modifications to it, and for compliance with the requirements of the General Permit. This SWPPP identifies the following individuals as the Stormwater Team: Role or Responsibility: TBD Name: Position: Telephone: Email: 5 Role or Responsibility: TBD Name: Position: Telephone: Email: If more than one contractor is present: Role or Responsibility: TBD Name: Position: Telephone: Email: Each member of the stormwater team must maintain ready access to an electronic or paper copy of applicable portions of this permit, the most updated copy of the SWPPP, and other relevant documents or information that must be kept with the SWPPP. 1.4 Required SWPPP Modifications The Operator(s) must modify the SWPPP, including the site map(s), in response to any of the following conditions: Whenever new operator(s) become active in construction activities on your site, or changes are made to the construction plans, stormwater control measures, pollution prevention measures, or other activities at the site that are no longer accurately reflected in your SWPPP. This includes changes made in response to corrective actions. The SWPPP does not need to be modified if the estimated construction sequence dates change during the course of construction; To reflect areas on the site map where operational control has been transferred (and the date of transfer) since initiating permit coverage; If inspections or investigations by site staff, or by local, state, tribal, or federal officials determine that SWPPP modifications are necessary for compliance with this permit; Where EPA determines it is necessary to impose additional requirements on your discharge, the following must be included in your SWPPP: o A copy of any correspondence describing such requirements and; o A description of the stormwater control measures that will be used to meet such requirements. To reflect any revisions to applicable federal, state, tribal, or local requirement that affect the stormwater control measures implemented at the site; and If applicable, if a change in chemical treatment systems or chemically enhanced stormwater control is made, including use of a different treatment chemical, different dosage rate, or different area of application. The Operator must complete required revisions to the SWPPP within 7 calendar days following the occurrence of any of the conditions listed above. 6 All modifications shall be recorded in Appendix F and shall include dates, description of the modification, and the name of the person authorizing the change. All affected operators shall be notified of said change. 1.5 Requirement to Post a Notice of Permit Coverage A sign or other notice of permit coverage must be posted at a safe, publicly accessible location in close proximity to the construction site. The notice must be located so that it is visible from the public road that is nearest to the active part of the construction site, and it must use a font large enough to be readily viewed from a public right-of-way. At a minimum, the notice must include: The NPDES ID (i.e. permit tracking number) A contact name and phone number for obtaining additional construction site information The Uniform Resource Locator (URL) for the SWPPP (if available), or the following statement: “If you would like to obtain a copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for this site, contact the EPA Regional Office at https//www.epa.gov/npdes/contact-us-stormwater#regional “ The following statement “If you observe indicators of stormwater pollutants in the discharge or in the receiving waterbody, contact the EPA through the following website: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/report-environmental-violations .” 7 SECTION 2: SITE EVALUATION, ASSESSMENT, AND PLANNING 2.1 Project/Site Information Project Site Name:76 Main Street Project Address: 76 Main Street Project State and Zip Code: Hopkinton MA 01748 Project County: Middlesex 2.2 Project Latitude/Longitude Latitude: 42 º 13’ 41” N (degrees, minutes, seconds) Longitude: 71 º 31’ 26” W (degrees, minutes, seconds) Method for determining latitude/longitude: USGS Topographic Map (specify scale): EPA Web Site GPS Other: Horizontal Reference Datum: NAD27 NAD 83 or WGS 84 Unknown 2.3 Additional Project Information Is the project/site located in Indian country land, or located on property of a religious or cultural significance to an Indian tribe? Yes No If Yes, provide the name of Indian country land or Indian tribe associated with property: Are the earth-disturbing activities in response to a public emergency? Yes No If Yes, provide the cause of the public emergency: Are you applying for permit coverage as a “federal operator” as defined in Appendix A of the 2012 Construction General Permit? Yes No 2.4 Discharge Information Does your project/site discharge stormwater into a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)? Yes No Are there any surface waters that are located within 50 feet of your construction disturbance? Yes No 8 Table 1 – Names of Receiving Waters Name(s) of the first surface water that receives stormwater directly from your site and/or from the MS4 (note: multiple rows provided where your site has more than one point of discharge that flows to different surface waters) 1.Indian Brook 2. 3. Table 2 – Impaired Waters / TMDLs (Answer the following for each surface water listed in Table 1 above) Is this surface water listed as “impaired”? If you answered yes, then answer the following: What pollutant(s) are causing the impairment? Has a TMDL been completed? Title of the TMDL document Pollutant(s) for which there is a TMDL 1. YES NO YES NO 2. YES NO YES NO 3. YES NO YES NO Describe the method(s) you used to determine whether or not your project/site discharges to an impaired water: Massachusetts Year 2016 Integrated List of waters Table 3 – Tier 2, 2.5, or 3 Waters (Answer the following for each surface water listed in Table 1 above) Is this surface water designated as a Tier 2, Tier 2.5, or Tier 3 water? (see Appendix F of General Permit) If you answered yes, specify which Tier (2, 2.5, or 3) the surface water is designated as? 1. YES NO Tier 2 2. YES NO 3. YES NO 9 2.5 Nature of the Construction Activity Construction activities will involve site preparation necessary for construction of the foundations for the major on-site structures, building of the parking area, installation of the necessary underground utilities, and construction of the storm water management features. These activities primarily include: clearing and stripping of vegetation, excavating, hauling within site and stockpiling of top and subsoils, and trenching and rough grading. If foundation excavations penetrate into the groundwater table, lowering of the water table will be required through localized perimeter point well dewatering. Once the excavations are completed, forms will be constructed for footings, piers, piles and/or foundations. The structure will then be constructed on the completed building foundations. Soil erosion and sediment control measures will be installed prior to the commencement of any significant soil disturbing activities and will remain in place until final site stabilization is complete. These are discussed in the following section. Topsoil which must be excavated for site development will be separated from the remaining soil and stockpiled on-site (if practicable) for use during site landscaping. The stockpiled topsoil will be surrounded by silt fence and seeded to prevent the mobilization of sediment. 2.6 Size of Construction Project Size of Property: 1.25 Total Area of Construction Disturbance (in acres): 1.25 Max. Area to be Disturbed at Any One Time (in acres): 1.25 2.7 Construction Support Activities Construction support activities located beyond the construction project area are not to be covered under this SWPPP and the Construction General Permit. 2.8 Sequence and Estimated Dates of Construction Activities The following is a description of the intended sequence of construction activities, including an approximate schedule of the estimated start dates and the duration of the activity, for the following activities: Project Schedule: Sequence of Major Activities Construction is scheduled to begin [TBD] and extend for approximately [TBD] calendar days. Construction activities shall be documented and retained. Construction activities include the following: Construction activities may begin fourteen (14) days after receipt of complete NOI posted on EPA’s NPDES web site. [TBD] Construct temporary construction exit points at locations shown in the plans, for construction traffic. [TBD] Install silt fences around locations of all existing drainage structures as shown on the Erosion Control Plan. [TBD] Install additional erosion control measures as outlined on the Erosion Control Plan. [TBD] Perform clearing, grubbing, and topsoil removal as required. [TBD] Begin site-grading operations. Approximately 1.25 acres of disturbance. [TBD] Install all storm sewer pipes and underground utility lines as shown on the plans with appropriate erosion control measures to eliminate siltation from entering pipe systems. [TBD] 10 Begin building construction. [TBD] When applicable, install base material as required for pavement. [TBD] Construct all curb and gutter, gutter inlets, area inlets, and storm sewer manholes, as shown on the plans. [TBD] Remove inlet protection around inlets and manholes no more than 48 hours prior to placing stabilized base course, if applicable. Note that erosion control around inlets cannot be removed until paving operations are complete. [TBD] Remove temporary construction exits only prior to pavement construction in these areas (these areas are to be paved last). [TBD] Carry out final grading and seeding and planting as shown on Landscape Plan. [TBD] Remove silt fencing only after all paving is complete and exposed surfaces are stabilized. [TBD] Install final pavement as shown on the plans. [TBD] Filing of NOT. [TBD] Records retention for three (3) years after filing NOT. 2.9 Business Days and Hours for the Project The contractor is to confirm allowable work hours with the municipality’s Building Department. 2.10 Potential Pollutant-Generating Activities The following activities are anticipated during construction and could have the potential to generate pollutants. All such activities are to be conducted in accordance with all applicable General Permit requirements and in accordance with industry-standard best management practices. An inventory of possible pollutants associated with each activity is listed below next to the activity. Earthwork activities- sediment, earthwork equipment oil and fuel Paving operations- asphalt, asphalt sealer, oil, paving equipment fuel Concrete- concrete washout, concrete truck oil and fuel Exterior building painting- solvents, paint thinners, painting wash water Landscaping- outdoor fertilizer storage and application of fertilizer Solid waste storage and disposal- construction waste including any of the items above and materials such as caulk, sealant, PVC glue, etc. 2.11 Deadline to Initiate Stabilization The operator must initiate soil stabilization measures immediately whenever earth-disturbing activities have permanently or temporarily ceased on any portion of the site. Earth-disturbing activities have permanently ceased when clearing and excavation within any area of the construction site that will not include permanent structures has been completed. In circumstances where unplanned or unanticipated delays in construction due to circumstances beyond the Operators control (e.g., sudden work stoppage due to unanticipated problems associated with construction labor, funding, or other issues related to the ability to work on the site; weather conditions rendering the site unsuitable for the continuation of construction work) and you do not know at first how long the work stoppage will continue, the requirement to immediately initiate stabilization is triggered as soon as you know with reasonable certainty that work will be stopped for 14 or more additional calendar days. At that point, you must comply with the deadlines to initiate and complete stabilization. For the purposes of this SWPPP, EPA will consider any of the following types of activities to constitute the initiation of stabilization: 11 1. Prepping the soil for vegetative or non-vegetative stabilization; 2. Applying mulch or other non-vegetative product to the exposed area; 3. Seeding or planting the exposed area; 4. Starting any of the activities in # 1 – 3 on a portion of the area to be stabilized, but not on the entire area; and 5. Finalizing arrangements to have stabilization product fully installed in compliance with the applicable deadline for completing stabilization. 2.11.1 Deadline to Complete Stabilization Activities When a total of 5.0 acres or less has been disturbed, earth-disturbing activities have temporarily ceased when clearing, grading, and excavation within any area of the site that will not include permanent structures will not resume (i.e., the land will be idle) for a period of 14 or more calendar days, but such activities will resume in the future. The 14 calendar day timeframe begins counting as soon as the Operator knows that construction work on a portion of the site will be temporarily ceased. If more than 5.0 acres of land has been disturbed, stabilization measures must be initiated immediately in areas of exposed soil where construction activities have permanently ceased or will be temporarily inactive for 14 more calendar days. Stabilization measures shall be completed as soon as practicable, but no later than seven (7) calendar days after stabilization has been initiated. In areas discharging to a sediment or nutrient impaired water, or to a water identified as Tier 2, Tier 2.5, or Tier 3 for antidegradation purposes, stabilization must be completed as soon as practicable, but no later than seven (7) calendar days after stabilization has been initiated. For example, this would apply to sites discharging to waters with TSS, or phosphorus, or other similar impairments. As soon as practicable but no later than 7 or 14 calendar days depending on the above conditions, after the initiation of soil stabilization measures consistent with this SWPPP, the Operator is required to have completed: a. For vegetative stabilization, all activities necessary to initially seed or plant the area to be stabilized; and/or b. For non-vegetative stabilization, the installation or application of all such non-vegetative measures. Final site stabilization is achieved when turf grass cover provides permanent stabilization for at least 70 percent of the disturbed soil surface, exclusive of areas that have been paved. 2.11.2 Exceptions to the Deadlines Deadlines for projects that are affected by arid or drought stricken areas, snow cover, or circumstances beyond the control of the Operator (as defined in Part 2 of the General Permit) that delay the initiation and/or completion of vegetative stabilization as required in this SWPPP, and are using vegetative cover for temporary or permanent stabilization, may comply with the following stabilization deadlines instead: i. Immediately initiate, and within 14 calendar days complete, the installation of temporary non- vegetative stabilization measures to prevent erosion; ii. Complete all soil conditioning, seeding, watering or irrigation installation, mulching, and other required activities related to the planting and initial establishment of vegetation as soon as conditions or circumstances allow it on your site; and iii. Document the circumstances that prevent you from meeting the deadlines required in Section 2.9.1 above and the schedule you will follow for initiating and completing stabilization. 12 2.12 Allowable Non-Stormwater Discharges The following is a list of allowable non-stormwater discharge present at the site: Type of Allowable Non-Stormwater Discharge Likely to be Present at Your Site? Discharges from emergency fire-fighting activities YES NO Fire hydrant flushings YES NO Landscape irrigation YES NO Waters used to wash vehicles and equipment YES NO Water used to control dust YES NO Potable water including uncontaminated water line flushings YES NO Routine external building wash down YES NO Pavement wash waters YES NO Uncontaminated air conditioning or compressor condensate YES NO Uncontaminated, non-turbid discharges of ground water or spring water YES NO Foundation or footing drains YES NO Construction dewatering water YES NO Discharges from firefighting activities: Emergency firefighting activities are not anticipated. Fire hydrant flushing: It is anticipated that fire hydrant flushing will occur at the proposed hydrant locations during construction to allow for quality control during installation. Landscape irrigation: Irrigation of the proposed landscaping may be needed to promote establishment of vegetation. Water used to wash vehicles where detergents are not used: The washing of construction vehicles and equipment are not proposed onsite. Water used to control dust control: Dust control may be implemented onsite during construction and is anticipated to be located within ongoing non-stabilized work areas to prevent dry arid conditions. Potable water including uncontaminated water line flushing: During construction, it is anticipated that water line flushing will occur to assure quality control during installation. Routine external building wash down that does not use detergents: Building washdown during construction is not expected. Pavement wash waters: Washdown of pavement is not expected. Uncontaminated air conditioning or compressor condensate: The proposed building will contain air conditioning; however, it is unknown at this time as to whether the condensate will discharge to the surface or be conveyed thought the building plumbing. Uncontaminated ground water or spring water: Groundwater and spring waters are not expected to be encountered. Foundation or footing drains where flows are not contaminated with process materials such as solvents; Footing drains are not proposed for this project. 13 Uncontaminated excavation dewatering: The operator is required to document the locations where dewatering activities are to take place based upon construction sequencing. 2.12.1 Prohibited Non-Stormwater Discharges The following discharges are specifically prohibited by the EPA’s General Permit: 1. Wastewater from washout of concrete, unless managed by an appropriate control as described in section 2.3.4 of the General Permit. 2. Wastewater from washout and cleanout of stucco, paint, form release oils, curing compounds, and other construction materials. 3. Fuels, oils, or other pollutants used in vehicle and equipment operation maintenance. 4. Soaps, solvents, or detergents used in vehicle and equipment washing or external building washdown. 5. Toxic or hazardous substances from a spill or other release. To prevent the above-listed prohibited non-stormwater discharges, operators must comply with the applicable pollution prevention requirements in the General Permit. 2.12.2 Control Measures for Non-Storm Water Flows Dust control water sprays and irrigation sprinklers shall be undertaken to minimize any volume of non- stormwater runoff. Pumped groundwater draw down water, fire line and potable waterline flushings shall be conducted directly into the storm water conveyance system. Flows are only to be directed into the drainage swales if adequate vegetative cover has been established and/or other provisions are taken to prevent erosion of the conveyance structures. Care shall be taken to prevent high flow hose discharges from eroding the detention pond bottom by either using splashboards or directing the flow into an existing pool of water. Groundwater or storm water pumped from excavations that contain silt or sediment shall be directed to a silt-fenced or straw bale diked area for settling prior to discharge to the detention basins. Wash-up waters shall be directed to the detention basins. No wash waters containing chemicals shall be discharged on-site. 2.13 Site Maps As part of this SWPPP a comprehensive design site plan package was developed entitled Mixed Use Development – REC Hopkinton, LLC, see Appendix M. These plans are considered to be part of this SWPPP and shall be retained and made accessible in accordance with the SWPPP. 14 SECTION 3: DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS 3.1 Endangered Species Protection Under what criterion listed in Appendix D of the General Permit are you eligible for coverage? A B C D E F 3.1.1 Supporting Documentation For criterion A, indicate the basis for your determination that no federally-listed threatened or endangered species or their designated critical habitat(s) are likely to occur in your site’s action area (as defined in Appendix A of the General Permit). Check the applicable source of information you relied upon including: Specific communication with staff of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service. . Publicly available species list: Other source: Review of Mass GIS online database information For criterion B, provide the Tracking Number from the other operator’s notification of permit authorization: Provide a brief summary of the basis used by the other operator for selecting criterion A, B, C, D, E, or F: For criterion C, provide the following information: INSERT LIST OF FEDERALLY-LISTED SPECIES OR FEDERALLY-DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT LOCATED IN YOUR ACTION AREA INSERT DISTANCE BETWEEN YOUR SITE AND THE LISTED SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT (in miles) Also, provide a brief summary of the basis used for determining that your site’s discharges and discharge- related activities are not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat: INSERT TEXT HERE For criterion D, E, or F, attach copies of any letters or other communication between you and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service concluding consultation or coordination activities in Appendix J. 3.2 Historic Preservation The following steps outline the Screening Process in Appendix E of the General Permit: Step 1 Do you plan on installing any of the following stormwater controls at your site? Check all that apply below, and proceed to Step 2. Dike Berm Catch Basin Pond Stormwater Conveyance Channel (e.g., ditch, trench, perimeter drain, swale, etc.) Culvert Subsurface infiltration system 15 Step 2 If you answered yes in Step 1, have prior surveys or evaluations conducted on the site already determined that historic properties do not exist, or that prior disturbances at the site have precluded the existence of historic properties? YES NO If yes, no further documentation is required for Section 3.2 of the SWPPP. Step 3 If you answered no in Step 2, have you determined that your installation of subsurface earth- disturbing stormwater controls will have no effect on historic properties? YES NO If yes, provide documentation of the basis for your determination. Historic review and demolition delay permitting with Town of Hopkinton Step 4 If you answered no in Step 3, did the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO), or other tribal representative (whichever applies) respond to you within 15 calendar days to indicate whether the subsurface earth disturbances caused by the installation of stormwater controls affect historic properties? YES NO If no, no further documentation is required for Section 3.2 of the SWPPP. If yes, describe the nature of their response: Written indication that adverse effects to historic properties from the installation of stormwater controls can be mitigated by agreed upon actions. . No agreement has been reached regarding measures to mitigate effects to historic properties from the installation of stormwater controls. Other: 3.3 Safe Drinking Water Act Underground Injection Control Requirements Do you plan to install any of the following controls? Check all that apply below. Infiltration trenches (if stormwater is directed to any bored, drilled, driven shaft or dug hole that is deeper than its widest surface dimension, or has a subsurface fluid distribution system) Commercially manufactured pre-cast or pre-built proprietary subsurface detention vaults, chambers, or other devices designed to capture and infiltrate stormwater flow 16 Drywells, seepage pits, or improved sinkholes (if stormwater is directed to any bored, drilled, driven shaft or dug hole that is deeper than its widest surface dimension, or has a subsurface fluid distribution system) 17 SECTION 4: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS 4.1 Natural Buffers or Equivalent Sediment Controls Are there any surface waters within 50 feet of your project’s earth disturbances? YES NO If no, no further documentation is required for Section 4.1 of the SWPPP. 4.1.1 Buffer Compliance Alternatives If yes was noted above, check the compliance alternative that you have chosen: I will provide and maintain a 50-foot undisturbed natural buffer. I will provide and maintain an undisturbed natural buffer that is less than 50 feet and is supplemented by additional erosion and sediment controls, which in combination achieves the sediment load reduction equivalent to a 50-foot undisturbed natural buffer. It is infeasible to provide and maintain an undisturbed natural buffer of any size, therefore I will implement erosion and sediment controls that achieve the sediment load reduction equivalent to a 50-foot undisturbed natural buffer. I qualify for one of the exceptions in Part 2.1.2.1.e. of the General Permit (If you have checked this box, provide information on the applicable buffer exception that applies, below.) 4.1.2. Buffer Exceptions Which of the following exceptions to the buffer requirements applies to your site? There is no discharge of stormwater to the surface water that is located 50 feet from my construction disturbances. No natural buffer exists due to pre-existing development disturbances that occurred prior to the initiation of planning for this project. For a “linear project” (defined in Appendix A of the General Permit), site constraints (e.g., limited right-of-way) make it infeasible for me to meet any of the CGP Part 2.1.2.1.a compliance alternatives. The project qualifies as “small residential lot” construction (defined in Part 2.1.2.1.e.iv and in Appendix A of the General Permit). Buffer disturbances are authorized under a CWA Section 404 permit. Buffer disturbances will occur for the construction of a water-dependent structure or water access area (e.g., pier, boat ramp, and trail). 18 4.2 Perimeter Controls Perimeter controls that will be implemented for this project include the following. 4.2.1 Silt Fence Silt fence is a synthetic permeable mesh fabric typically incorporating wooden support stakes at intervals sufficient to support the fence and water and sediment retained by the fence. Silt fence is also available with a wire mesh backing. The fence is designed to retain sediment-laden water to allow settlement of suspended soils before filtering through the mesh fabric for discharge downstream. Silt fence shall be located to capture overland, low-velocity sheet flows as follows: Silt Fence Section Section Length (feet) Drainage Area (acres) Avg. Land Slope (percent) Install silt fence at a fairly level grade (along the contour) to provide sufficient upstream storage volume for the anticipated runoff. A construction detail has been provided on the erosion and sediment control plans. All sediment accumulated shall be removed before it reaches one-half of the above ground height of the perimeter control. See section 2.8 for installation sequencing. 4.2.2. Diversion Ditch/Berm Diversion ditches (or swales) and berms (or dikes) are constructed as shown on the Construction Drawings at locations within the construction site to intercept overland flow and direct or divert flow to a sediment basin or other point where discharge can be controlled. Ditches are excavated in the surface soils with the spoils from excavation typically placed along the downstream edge of the ditch to provide additional capacity. Berms are built up on the surface soils and compacted to create a stable diversion. A construction detail has been provided on the erosion and sediment control plans. All sediment accumulated shall be removed before it reaches one-half of the above ground height of the perimeter control. See section 2.8 for installation sequencing. 4.2.3. Rock Check Dam Defined channels subject to concentrated flows in larger quantities and higher velocities may be protected with rock check dams. The dams impound sediment-laden water to allow settlement of suspended soils before filtering through the stone. Dams shall be placed along the water course at intervals as follows: Check dams shall be placed as shown on the Construction Drawings and are composed of components of crushed stone and/or riprap. A construction detail has been provided on the erosion and sediment control plans. All sediment accumulated shall be removed before it reaches one-half of the above ground height of the perimeter control. See section 2.8 for installation sequencing 4.3 Sediment Track-Out The construction site roads shall be maintained in good construction condition to minimize off-site vehicle tracking of sediments. A construction entrance tire mud cleaning structure and laydown area shall be constructed of crushed stone to remove mud from the tires of construction vehicles. The rock shall be replaced as necessary to assure its effectiveness. Additionally, dump trucks hauling material to or from the construction site shall be covered in accordance with state and local regulations. The paved streets adjacent to the site will be inspected daily and swept as necessary. 19 4.3.1 Specific Track-Out Controls All access points from the public street into the construction site shall include a construction exit composed of coarse stone to the dimensions shown on the Construction Drawings. The rough texture of the stone helps to remove clumps of soil adhering to construction vehicle tires through the action of vibration and jarring over the rough surface and the friction of the stone matrix against soils attached to the vehicles tires. A construction detail has been provided on the erosion and sediment control plans. If the majority of mud or dirt is not removed from existing traffic, hose bibbs shall be provided at construction traffic exit points and vehicle tires shall be washed before exiting on public roads. Silt from this washing operation shall be intercepted and trapped before wash water is allowed to be discharged offsite. The schedule for the Installation of this BMP is outlined in section 2.8 of this SWPPP 4.3.2 Maintenance Requirements Where sediment has been tracked-out from your site onto the surface of off-site streets, other paved areas, and sidewalks, the Operator must remove the deposited sediment by the end of the same work day in which the track-out occurs or by the end of the next work day if track-out occurs on a non-work day. The Operator must remove the track-out by sweeping, shoveling, or vacuuming these surfaces, or by using other similarly effective means of sediment removal. The Operator is prohibited from hosing or sweeping tracked-out sediment into any stormwater conveyance (unless it is connected to a sediment basin, sediment trap, or similarly effective control), storm drain inlet, or surface water.” 4.4 Stockpiled Sediment or Soil The Operator must locate stock pile areas per the erosion control plans and outside any established natural buffers. Temporary perimeter sediment barriers are to be installed around the limits of the stockpile area. Stockpiles of earthen materials shall be stored out of storm water conveyance areas and in a manner that prevents erosion and the transport of sediments. Silt fences shall be employed when required, as described in this plan. A construction detail has been provided on the erosion and sediment control plans. 4.5 Minimize Dust Fine water sprays shall be used to control dust onsite shall by spraying on dry areas of the site. The use of oils and other petroleum based or toxic liquids for dust suppression is prohibited. Chemical dust suppressants shall not be used. Wind screening may also be implemented if deemed beneficial by the Operator or where dust conveyance may concentrate and discharge offsite. Dust control shall be implemented on a routine basis as deemed necessary by site conditions and the Operator. Water shall be applied at a rate necessary to control the dust and as not to develop saturated, muddy or puddle conditions onsite. 4.6 Minimize the Disturbance of Steep Slopes Earthwork procedures shall be timed, and shall progress, in a manner that will minimize the exposure of disturbed surfaces to storm water runoff. Excavation and filling sequences shall typically proceed down slope while maintaining an earth dike at the toe of the slope. Tree felling, stumping, grubbing, stripping and other construction activities shall be performed so as to minimize disturbances and to not concentrate runoff (i.e., up or down slope, not cross slope) into flows capable of soil erosion. Stabilization procedures shall be 20 undertaken in accordance with this plan and the requirements of the General Permit. Grubbing during wet seasons should be avoided. Minimized disturbance to steeps slopes will be achieved by phasing disturbances in areas where appropriate, installation of retaining walls (where proposed) to limit ground disturbances and using stabilization practices designed to be used on steep grades such as implementing erosion control matting (geotextiles) and temporary mulching. Geotextiles are porous fabrics known in the construction industry as filter fabrics, road rugs, synthetic fabrics, construction fabrics, or simply fabrics. Geotextiles can be manufactured from synthetic or natural materials. Geotextiles are used for filtration, reinforcement, material separation, mattings, and drainage applications and erosion control. For sediment and erosion control applications, they are most commonly used as mattings to stabilize flow in channels and swales on recently planted slopes and as separators to prevent the migration of sediments into other layers such as soil from beneath rip rap. Installation and maintenance shall be per the manufactures recommendations and requirements. Mulching refers to the placement of material, including but not limited to grass, wood chips, straw, and gravel, on the soil surface to cover and hold in place disturbed soils. This practice is often complementary to seeding and planting practices and provides temporary stabilization until permanent vegetation becomes established. Install mulch in a 3 to 5-inch layer over exposed surfaces and monitor regularly and inspect for rills. Fill rill with new mulch. Continue to replenish mulch on a regular basis or until such time as the slope has become permanently stabilized. 4.7 Topsoil Topsoil which must be excavated for site development shall be separated from the remaining soil and stockpiled on-site (if practicable) for use during site landscaping. The stockpiled topsoil will be surrounded by silt fence and seeded or covered to prevent the mobilization of sediment. A construction detail is included on the erosion and sediment control plans. 4.8 Soil Compaction In areas of the site where final vegetative stabilization will occur or where infiltration practices will be installed, the Operator must restrict/limit vehicle/equipment use within those locations to only the activities necessary for site development in order to avoid soil compaction. The Operator shall utilize areas of proposed compacted/impervious surfaces to the greatest extent practical for vehicle/equipment maneuvering. In the locations of proposed infiltration basins, a rough grade shall be established to one foot above proposed finished grade until the site is stabilized and at such time, final excavation may occur to proposed finished grades. The Operator must implement soil conditioning techniques prior to seeding or planting areas of exposed soils that have been compacted. Any technique used shall be for the support of vegetative growth and installation. 21 4.9 Storm Drain Inlets Protection Curb and grated inlets are protected from the intrusion of silt and sediment through a variety of measures as shown on the Construction Drawings. The primary mechanism is to place controls in the path of flow sufficient to slow sediment-laden water and to allow settlement of suspended soils before discharging into the storm sewer. Controls typically provide a secondary benefit by means of filtration. Grated inlets typically include a sturdy frame wrapped in silt fence or crushed stone-lined perimeter to slow the flow of water. Curb inlets typically include crushed stone barriers held in place with silt fence material or geotextile fabric. A construction detail is provided on the erosion and sediment control plans. The Operator must clean, or remove and replace, the protection measures as sediment accumulates, the filter becomes clogged, and/or performance is compromised. Where there is evidence of sediment accumulation adjacent to the inlet protection measure, you must remove the deposited sediment by the end of the same work day in which it is found or by the end of the following work day if removal by the same work day is not feasible. 4.10 Constructed Stormwater Conveyance Channels Stormwater conveyance channels are proposed to avoid unstabilized areas on the site and to reduce erosion. This will be accomplished through the installation of diversion dikes/swales as discussed in section 4.2.2. Additionally, check dams will be installed within these diversion dikes/swales to minimize erosion of the channels and their embankments, outlets, adjacent streambanks, slopes, and downstream waters during discharge conditions by dissipation of the stormwater runoff to a non-erosive flow velocity. The locations and construction details are provided in the erosion and sediment control plans. 4.11 Sediment Basins Temporary sediment basins are depressions constructed downslope of construction activity and located such that storm water runoff from upland areas of less than 100 acres are diverted through the basin. Sediment basins shall be constructed as directed by the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and shall be constructed as part of the initial best management practices whenever practical. The Operator shall provide a temporary settling basin storage volume of 3600 cubic feet per one acre drained. Proposed locations are shown on the sediment and erosion control plans. The Operator is responsible for adjusting location, size and stormwater diversion to the proposed temporary settling basins based upon project phasing and earth disturbance operations. An overflow pipe is incorporated at the outlet to discharge flow from the basin. Sediment basins shall be phased with the earthwork activity where practical. The basin shall be kept in effective operating condition and removed of accumulated sediment to maintain at least ½ of the design capacity of the sediment basin at all times. 4.12 Chemical Treatment The use of chemical treatments is not proposed at this time, however are not forbidden. Should the Operator choose to use polymers, flocculants, or other treatment chemicals at the site, the operator must update the SWPPP to include the following a. A listing of all soil types that are expected to be exposed during construction and that will be discharged to locations where chemicals will be applied. Also include a listing of soil types expected to be found in fill material to be used in these same areas, to the extent you have this information prior to construction. b. A listing of all treatment chemicals to be used at the site, and why the selection of these chemicals is suited to the soil characteristics of your site; 22 c. If you have been authorized by your applicable EPA Regional Office to use cationic treatment chemicals, include the specific controls and implementation procedures designed to ensure that your use of cationic treatment chemicals will not lead to a violation of water quality standards; d. The dosage of all treatment chemicals you will use at the site or the methodology you will use to determine dosage; e. Information from any applicable Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS); f. Schematic drawings of any chemically-enhanced stormwater controls or chemical treatment systems to be used for application of the treatment chemicals; g. A description of how chemicals will be stored consistent the general permit; h. References to applicable state or local requirements affecting the use of treatment chemicals, and copies of applicable manufacturer’s specifications regarding the use of your specific treatment chemicals and/or chemical treatment systems; and i. A description of the training that personnel who handle and apply chemicals have received prior to permit coverage, or will receive prior to use of the treatment chemicals at your site. 4.13 Dewatering Practices The Operator is prohibited from discharging ground water or accumulated stormwater that is removed from excavations, trenches, foundations, vaults, or other similar points of accumulation, unless such waters are first effectively managed by appropriate controls. Uncontaminated, non-turbid dewatering water can be discharged without being routed to a control. The following discharge requirements for dewatering activities must be maintained: Do not discharge visible floating solids or foam; Use an oil-water separator or suitable filtration device (such as a cartridge filter) that is designed to remove oil, grease, or other products if dewatering water is found to contain these materials; To the extent feasible, utilize vegetated, upland areas of the site to infiltrate dewatering water before discharge. In no case will surface waters be considered part of the treatment area; At all points where dewatering water is discharged, comply with the velocity dissipation requirements of Part 2.1.3.1 of the General Permit; With backwash water, either haul it away for disposal or return it to the beginning of the treatment process; Replace and clean the filter media used in dewatering devices when the pressure differential equals or exceeds the manufacturer’s specifications. If groundwater is encountered during the construction sequencing as described in Section 2.8 of this SWPPP, lowering of the water table will be required through localized perimeter point well dewatering. The Operator is responsible for all means and methods for any and all dewatering practices. 4.14 Other Stormwater Controls In addition to construction related stormwater erosion controls, post development stormwater controls are proposed. Storm water runoff generated within the Project areas to be developed will be collected in water quality swales, storm water culverts, and directed to the on-site detention basins. 23 Storm water directed to the detention basins will be infiltrated for storms up to and including the 100-year storm event. To provide storm water treatment prior to discharge to the detention basins, a system of water quality swales and sediment forebays will be employed. This "open" type, vegetated drainage system will be used to collect and convey storm water runoff. This method of storm water collection and conveyance has several distinct advantages over "closed" type catch basin/manhole and drainpipe designs. The open type design provides: Additional ground surface area for infiltration; Runoff flow and velocity attenuation; and Moderate to significant pollutant removal capabilities. Suspended solids from post-constriction storm water runoff. A post construction Operation and Maintenance Plan has been developed and will be implemented by the property owner/manager post construction. Additionally, a long term pollution prevention plan was developed and will be executed by same. The proposed stormwater improvements will establish a comprehensive mechanism for long term protection against sediment and pollutants associated with stormwater discharges. 4.15 Site Stabilization Site Stabilization Practices: Vegetative Non-Vegetative Temporary Permanent A fundamental principal for preventing erosion and controlling sedimentation is to minimize the extent of land disturbance. For areas where disturbances cannot be avoided, rapid stabilization of the surface is the most effective method of controlling erosion. Areas that are disturbed during construction activity must be stabilized as soon as practicable. A land surface that is stabilized resists the erosive action of storm water runoff. For the purposes of this SWPPP, “exposed portions of your site” means areas of exposed soil that are required to be stabilized. Note that EPA does not expect that temporary or permanent stabilization measures to be applied to areas that are intended to be left unvegetated or unstabilized following construction (e.g., dirt access roads, utility pole pads, areas being used for storage of vehicles, equipment, or materials). The General Permit also requires that records be retained as part of the SWPPP. The records should include the dates of major grading activities, cessation and initiation of construction activities, and initiation of stabilization measures. A draft record and future completed records shall be maintained. It is recommended that the Operators utilize Grading/Stabilization Activities log in Appendix C of the SWPPP to document compliance with the stabilization requirements in of the CGP. 4.15.1 Measures of the Stabilization The Operator must initiate soil stabilization measures immediately whenever earth-disturbing activities have permanently or temporarily ceased on any portion of the site. Below are descriptions of stabilization measures that will be used during project construction. To be considered adequately stabilized, you must meet the criteria below depending on the type of cover you are using, either vegetative or non-vegetative. See section 2.11.1 for applicable stabilization deadlines. 24 Temporary Seeding – Within 14 days after construction activity ceases on any particular area, all disturbed ground where there will not be construction for longer than 14 days must be seeded with fast-germinating temporary seed and protected with mulch. Permanent Seeding – All areas at final grade must be seeded within 14 days after completion of the major construction activity. Except for small level spots, seeded areas should generally be protected with mulch. Permanent Plantings - At the completion of the Project, the contractor shall install and adequately establish all plantings as required. Mulching - Mulching refers to the placement of material, including but not limited to grass, wood chips, straw, and gravel, on the soil surface to cover and hold in place disturbed soils. This practice is often complementary to seeding practices. Geotextiles - Geotextiles are porous fabrics known in the construction industry as filter fabrics, road rugs, synthetic fabrics, construction fabrics, or simply fabrics. Geotextiles can be manufactured from synthetic or natural materials. Geotextiles are used for filtration, reinforcement, material separation, mattings, and drainage applications and erosion control. For sediment and erosion control applications, they are most commonly used as mattings to stabilize flow in channels and swales and on recently planted slopes, and as separators to prevent the migration of sediments into other layers such as soil from beneath rip rap. Protection of Trees and Mature Vegetation - Natural vegetation shall be preserved whenever possible, but especially on steep slopes, near perennial and intermittent watercourses or swales, and on sites in wooded areas. Preserving natural and mature vegetation can save money, beautifies areas, provides buffer and habitat and reduces soil erosion. Erosion and Sediment Control Barriers shall be used to prevent equipment from damaging areas designated for preservation. Special care should be taken with mature trees. Barriers should be offset from trees to protect roots. 25 SECTION 5: POLLUTION PREVENTION STANDARDS 5.1 Potential Sources of Pollution The following is a list of Pollutant Generating Activities that are anticipated onsite. The Operator is required to comply with the requirements outlined in the Pollution Prevention Standards Section of this SWPPP if any of the following activities at the site or at any construction support activity area is proposed. Fueling and maintenance of equipment or vehicles; Washing of equipment and vehicles; Storage, handling, and disposal of construction materials, products, and wastes; Washing of applicators and containers used for paint, concrete, or other materials; Sediment collection/discharge Fertilization The location of these proposed activities are shown on the erosion and sediment control plans. If not shown, the Operator is required to document and update the SWPPP to show all locations of pollution generating activities. 5.1.1 General Maintenance Requirements The Operator must ensure that all pollution prevention controls that are installed remain in effective operating condition and are protected from activities that would reduce their effectiveness. The Operator must inspect all pollutant-generating activities and pollution prevention controls in accordance with the inspection frequency requirements to avoid situations that may result in leaks, spills, and other releases of pollutants in stormwater discharges to receiving waters, and must document the findings. If it is found that controls need to be replaced, repaired, or maintained, the Operator must make the necessary repairs or modifications in accordance with the following: Initiate work to fix the problem immediately after discovering the problem, and complete such work by the close of the next work day, if the problem does not require significant repair or replacement, or if the problem can be corrected through routine maintenance. When installation of a new pollution prevention control or a significant repair is needed, the Operator must install the new or modified control and make it operational, or complete the repair, by no later than seven (7) calendar days from the time of discovery. If it is infeasible to complete the installation or repair within seven (7) calendar days, the Operator must document their records as to why it is infeasible to complete the installation or repair within the seven (7) calendar day timeframe and document the schedule for installing the stormwater control(s) and making it operational as soon as practicable after the seven (7) calendar day timeframe. Where these actions result in changes to any of the pollution prevention controls or procedures documented in this SWPPP, the Operator must modify the SWPPP accordingly within 7 calendar days of completing this work. 5.2 Spill Prevention and Response Prior to the commencement of any construction activity, the operator shall develop procedures for expeditiously stopping, containing, and cleaning up spills, leaks, and other releases. Identify the name or title of the employee(s) responsible for detection and response of spills or leaks. 26 5.2.1 Emergency Spill Notification The Operator is prohibited from discharging toxic or hazardous substances from a spill or other releases. Where a leak, spill, or other release containing a hazardous substance or oil in an amount equal to or in excess of a reportable quantity established under either 40 CFR Part 110, 40 CFR Part 117, or 40 CFR Part 302 occurs during a 24-hour period, the Operator must notify the National Response Center (NRC) at (800) 424-8802 or, in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, call (202) 267-2675 in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 110, 40 CFR Part 117, and 40 CFR Part 302 as soon as the operator has knowledge of the discharge. The Operator must also, within 7 calendar days of knowledge of the release, provide a description of the release, the circumstances leading to the release, and the date of the release. State, tribal, or local requirements may necessitate additional reporting of spills or discharges to local emergency response, public health, or drinking water supply agencies 5.2.2 Reporting In the event of a discharge of oil or another hazardous material, rapid notification of responsible facility personnel, oil spill and/or hazardous material removal organizations and federal, state, and local regulatory agencies can be essential to protecting the environment in the immediate vicinity. As required by the conditions of the General Permit, all spills shall be recorded and documented within the SWPPP. Detailed reports including the date and time of the incident, location, volume and contents of the spill, weather conditions, response procedures, parties notified, recommended revisions to the proposed storm water pollution prevention controls, operating procedures, and/or equipment needed to prevent recurrence shall be maintained. Reports on reportable quantity spills are to be maintained in Appendix E of this SWPP Plan. Because construction activities may handle many hazardous substances over the course of construction, spills of these substances in amounts that equal or exceed RQ levels are a possibility. The Emergency Response Plan lists the RQ levels of the substances expected to be on the construction site. Any discharge of a substance above an RQ shall be reported to the Construction Manager. 5.3 Fueling and Maintenance of Equipment or Vehicles If the Operator conducts fueling and/or maintenance of equipment or vehicles at the site, the Operator must provide an effective means of eliminating the discharge of spilled or leaked chemicals, including fuel, from the area where these activities will take place. To comply with the prohibited discharges, the Operator must: If applicable, comply with the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) requirements in 40 CFR 112 and Section 311 of the Clean Waters Act CWA; Ensure adequate supplies are available at all times to handle spills, leaks, and disposal of used liquids; Use drip pans and absorbents under or around leaky vehicles; Dispose of or recycle oil and oily wastes in accordance with other federal, state, tribal, or local requirements; Clean up spills or contaminated surfaces immediately, using dry clean up measures where possible, and eliminate the source of the spill to prevent a discharge or a furtherance of an ongoing discharge; and Do not clean surfaces by hosing the area down. 27 5.4 Washing of Equipment and Vehicles The Operator must provide effective means of minimizing the discharge of pollutants from equipment and vehicle washing, wheel wash water, and other types of washing. The Operator must, for storage of soaps, detergents, or solvents, provide either (1) cover (e.g., plastic sheeting or temporary roofs) to prevent these detergents from coming into contact with rainwater, or (2) a similarly effective means designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants from these areas. The Operator shall conduct all equipment and vehicle washing activities away from surface waters and stormwater inlets or conveyances and direct wash waters to a sediment basin or sediment trap, using filtration devices, such as filter bags or sand filters, or using other similarly effective controls. 5.5 Storage, Handling, and Disposal of Construction Products, Materials, and Wastes 5.5.1 Building Products The Operator must minimize the exposure to stormwater of any of the products, materials, or wastes specified below that are present at the site by complying with the following requirements. Note: These requirements do not apply to those products, materials, or wastes that are not a source of stormwater contamination or that are designed to be exposed to stormwater. The Operator must: For building products: In storage areas, provide either (1) cover (e.g., plastic sheeting, storage trailers or temporary roofs) to prevent these products from coming into contact with rainwater, or (2) a similarly effective means designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants from these areas. Solid Waste Storage and Disposal: All waste materials will be collected and stored in a securely lidded metal dumpster rented from a local waste management company which must be a solid waste management company licensed to do business by the state and the city. The dumpster will comply with all local and state solid waste management regulations. 5.5.2 Pesticides, Herbicides, Insecticides, Fertilizers, and Landscape Materials In storage areas, the Operator must provide either (1) cover (e.g., plastic sheeting or temporary roofs) to prevent these chemicals from coming into contact with rainwater, or (2) a similarly effective means designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants from these areas; and comply with all application and disposal requirements included on the registered pesticide, herbicide, insecticide, and fertilizer label. 5.5.3 Diesel Fuel, Oil, Hydraulic Fluids, Other Petroleum Products, and Other Chemicals The Operator must store chemicals in water-tight containers, and provide either (1) cover (e.g., plastic sheeting or temporary roofs) to prevent these containers from coming into contact with rainwater, or (2) a similarly effective means designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants from these areas (e.g., spill kits), or provide secondary containment (e.g., spill berms, decks, spill containment pallets); and (3)clean up spills immediately, using dry clean-up methods where possible, and dispose of used materials properly. Do not clean surfaces or spills by hosing the area down. Eliminate the source of the spill to prevent a discharge or a continuation of an ongoing discharge. 28 5.5.4 Hazardous or Toxic Waste The Operator must: Separate hazardous or toxic waste from construction and domestic waste; Store waste in sealed containers, which are constructed of suitable materials to prevent leakage and corrosion, and which are labeled in accordance with applicable Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements and all other applicable federal, state, tribal, or local requirements; Store all containers that will be stored outside within appropriately sized secondary containment (e.g., spill berms, decks, spill containment pallets) to prevent spills from being discharged, or provide a similarly effective means designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants from these areas (e.g., storing chemicals in covered area or having a spill kit available on site); Dispose of hazardous or toxic waste in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommended method of disposal and in compliance with federal, state, tribal, and local requirements; and Clean up spills immediately, using dry clean-up methods where possible, and dispose of used materials properly. Do not clean surfaces or spills by hosing the area down. Eliminate the source of the spill to prevent a discharge or a furtherance of an ongoing discharge. All hazardous waste materials will be disposed of in the manner specified by local, state and/or federal regulations and by the manufacturer of such products. Site personnel will be instructed in these practices by the job site superintendent, who will also be responsible for seeing that these practices are followed. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS’s) for each substance with hazardous properties that is used on the job site shall be obtained and used for the proper management of potential wastes that may result from these products. An MSDS will be posted in the immediate area where such product is stored and/or used and another copy of the each MSDS shall be maintained in the SWPPP file at the job site construction trailer office. Each employee who must handle a substance with hazardous properties will be instructed on the use of MSDS sheets and the specific information in the applicable MSDS for the product he/she is using, particularly regarding spill control techniques. The Operator shall train all personnel in the proper cleanup and handling of spilled materials. No spilled hazardous materials or hazardous wastes will be allowed to come in contact with storm water discharge. If such contact occurs, the storm water discharge will be contained onsite until appropriate measures in compliance with state and federal regulations are taken to dispose of such contaminated storm water. It shall be responsibility of the job site superintendent to properly train all personnel. 5.5.5 Construction and Domestic Waste Provide waste containers (e.g. dumpster, or trash receptacle) of sufficient size and number to contain construction and domestic wastes. In addition, you must: (1) On work days, clean up and dispose of waste in designated waste containers; and (2) Clean up immediately if containers overflow. Solid Waste Storage and Disposal All waste materials will be collected and stored in a securely covered metal dumpster rented from a local waste management company which must be a solid waste management company licensed to do business by the state and the city. The dumpster will comply with all local and state solid waste management regulations. 5.5.6 Sanitary Waste Position portable toilets so that they are secure and will not be tipped or knocked over. All sanitary waste will be collected from the portable units by a licensed sanitary waste management contractor, as needed or more frequently as required by local regulations. 29 5.6 Washing of Applicators and Containers used for Paint, Concrete or Other Materials The operator must provide an effective means of eliminating the discharge of water from the washout and cleanout of stucco, paint, concrete, form release oils, curing compounds, and other construction materials. To comply with this requirement, Operator must: Direct all wash water into a leak-proof container or leak-proof pit. The container or pit must be designed so that no overflows can occur due to inadequate sizing or precipitation; Do not dump liquid wastes in storm sewers; Dispose of liquid wastes in accordance with this SWPPP; Remove and dispose of hardened concrete waste consistent with your handling of other construction wastes in this SWPPP; Locate any washout or cleanout activities as far away as possible from surface waters and stormwater inlets or conveyances, and, to the extent practicable, designate areas to be used for these activities and conduct such activities only in these areas. 5.7 Fertilizers The operator is required to minimize discharges of fertilizers containing nitrogen or phosphorus. To meet this requirement, you must comply with the following requirements: Apply at a rate and in amounts consistent with manufacturer’s specifications; Apply at the appropriate time of year for your location, and preferably timed to coincide as closely as possible to the period of maximum vegetation uptake and growth; Avoid applying before heavy rains that could cause excess nutrients to be discharged; Never apply to frozen ground; Never apply to stormwater conveyance channels with flowing water; and Follow all other federal, state, tribal, and local requirements regarding fertilizer application. 5.8 Other Pollution Prevention Practices 5.8.1. Contaminated Soils Any contaminated soils (resulting from spills of materials with hazardous properties) which may result from construction activities will be contained and cleaned up immediately in accordance with the procedures given in accordance with applicable state and federal regulations. The job site superintendent will be responsible for seeing that these procedures are followed. 5.8.2. Snow Removal Plan Snow removal practices will consist of several management techniques to minimize major runoff and pollutant loading impacts. First, de-icing compounds such as calcium chloride or calcium magnesium acetate should be used. If stored, the de-icing compounds should be stored on enclosed impervious pads. Low-salt areas will be designated on the portions of the road adjacent to streams and wetlands. All snow removed should be placed in pervious areas where it can slowly infiltrate. In addition, street cleaning will occur biannually. 30 SECTION 6: INSPECTION AND CORRECTIVE ACTION 6.1 Inspection Personnel and Procedures Personnel Responsible for Inspections Role or Responsibility: TBD Name: Position: Telephone: Email: Role or Responsibility: TBD Name: Position: Telephone: Email: The Operator shall obtain copies of any and all local and state regulations, which are applicable to storm water management and pollution minimization at this job site, and will comply fully with such regulations. The contractor will submit written evidence of such compliance if requested by the Owner or any agent of a regulatory body. The Contractor will comply with all conditions of the NPDES General Permit for Construction Activities, including the conditions related to maintaining the SWPP Plan and evidence of compliance with the SWPP Plan at the job site and allowing regulatory personnel access to the job site and to records in order to determine compliance. The person(s) inspecting the site shall be the Operator or a member of their staff or a third party hired to conduct such inspections. The person who conducts inspections shall be a “qualified person.” Note: A “qualified person” is a person knowledgeable in the principles and practice of erosion and sediment controls and pollution prevention, who possesses the skills to assess conditions at the construction site that could impact stormwater quality, and the skills to assess the effectiveness of any stormwater controls selected and installed to meet the requirements of this permit. 6.1.1 Inspection Schedule All control measures will be inspected at least once every seven (7) calendar days. For any portion of the site that discharges to a sediment or nutrient-impaired water or to a water that is identified as Tier 2, Tier 2.5, or Tier 3 for antidegradation purposes, inspections must be conducted once every seven (7) calendar days and within 24 hours of the occurrence of a storm event of 0.25 inches or more, or the occurrence of runoff from snowmelt sufficient to cause a discharge. 6.1.2 Inspection Areas The following areas require inspection: All areas that have been cleared, graded, or excavated and that have not yet completed stabilization; All stormwater controls (including pollution prevention measures) installed at the site; Material, waste, borrow, or equipment storage and maintenance areas that are covered by this SWPPP; 31 All areas where stormwater typically flows within the site, including drainage ways designed to divert, convey, and/or treat stormwater; All points of discharge from the site; and All locations where stabilization measures have been implemented. The Operator is not required to inspect areas that, at the time of the inspection, are considered unsafe to your inspection personnel. 6.1.3 Inspection Requirements The following are requirement for inspections: Check whether all erosion and sediment controls and pollution prevention controls are installed, appear to be operational, and are working as intended to minimize pollutant discharges; Determine if any controls need to be replaced, repaired, or maintained; Check for the presence of conditions that could lead to spills, leaks, or other accumulations of pollutants on the site; Identify any locations where new or modified stormwater controls are necessary to meet the requirements of the SWPPP; At points of discharge and, if applicable, the banks of any surface waters flowing within your property boundaries or immediately adjacent to your property, check for signs of visible erosion and sedimentation (i.e., sediment deposits) that have occurred and are attributable to site discharge; and Identify any and all incidents of noncompliance observed. If a discharge is occurring during your inspection, the Operator is required to: a. Identify all points of the property from which there is a discharge; b. Observe and document the visual quality of the discharge, and take note of the characteristics of the stormwater discharge, including color, odor, floating, settled, or suspended solids, foam, oil sheen, and other obvious indicators of stormwater pollutants; and c. Document whether your stormwater controls are operating effectively, and describe any such controls that are clearly not operating as intended or are in need of maintenance. Based on the results of your inspection, initiate corrective action plan. The following maintenance procedures are to be performed as noted. Litter, construction debris, and chemicals shall be prevented from exposure to storm water and from becoming a pollutant source. A daily walkover of the Project site to identify exposure of potential pollutants to storm water shall be performed. All measures will be maintained in good working order; if repairs are found to be necessary, they will be initiated within 24 hours of report. Built-up sediment shall be removed from silt fences when it has reached 1/3 of the aboveground height of the silt fence. Sediment shall be removed where accumulations reach one-half the aboveground height of any straw bale barriers. 32 Silt fences will be inspected for depth of sediment, tears or sags in the fabric, and to see if the fabric is securely attached to the posts. Posts will also be inspected to ensure that they are firmly set in the ground. Temporary and permanent seeding shall be inspected weekly during its period of establishment for bare spots and areas of insufficient germination or growth. Remedial action shall be taken to establish a stabilized surface in these areas once identified. Straw bale dikes shall be replaced when the strings have broken. Two stakes shall be maintained in ground. Deteriorated silt fences shall be replaced as soon as the condition is discovered. Conveyance structures shall be maintained so as to operate in the design condition. Foreign debris, including leaves and lawn cuttings shall not be allowed to accumulate in diversion swales, water quality swales, sediment forebays, or detention basins. Fertilizer applications shall be applied strictly in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. Storm water detention basins and sediment forebays shall be maintained in working order and free of foreign debris throughout the construction period. Any sediment basins will be inspected for depth of sediment, and built up sediment will be removed when it reaches 50 percent of the design capacity or at the end of the job. Accumulations of sediment that escape to off-site areas must be removed at intervals to minimize offsite impacts. Sediment accumulations in public streets shall be removed as soon as possible and before any anticipated rain event. Vehicle tire mud cleaning devices shall be maintained to ensure their proper operation. Spare erosion and sediment control barrier material shall be stocked on site. A site inspection report will be made after each inspection. A copy of the report form to be completed by the inspector is included in Appendix D. 6.1.4 Inspection Reports The Operator must complete inspection reports within 24 hours of completing any site inspection. A sample inspection report is included in the SWPPP for use and consideration (see Appendix D). Each inspection report must include the following: a. The inspection date; b. Names and titles of personnel making the inspection; c. A summary of your inspection findings, covering at a minimum the observations made in accordance with the requirements for inspections as noted above. d. If you are inspecting your site at the frequency above or due to rainfall measuring 0.25 inches or greater. The applicable rain gauge or weather station readings that triggered the inspection must be included; and e. If you have determined that it is unsafe to inspect a portion of the site, describe the reason you found it to be unsafe and specify the locations that this condition applied to. Each inspection report must be signed in accordance with Appendix I, Part I.11 of the General Permit. 33 The Operator is required to keep a current, copy of all inspection reports at the site or at an easily accessible location, so that it can be made available at the time of an onsite inspection or upon request by EPA. For purposes of this permit, your inspection reports may be kept electronically if the records are: a. In a format that can be read in a similar manner as a paper record; b. Legally dependable with no less evidentiary value than their paper equivalent; and c. Accessible to the inspector during an inspection to the same extent as a paper copy stored at the site would be, if the records were stored in paper form. All inspection reports completed for this part must be retained for at least 3 years from the date that your permit coverage expires or is terminated. 6.1.5 Inspection By EPA You must allow EPA, or an authorized representative of the EPA, to conduct the following activities at reasonable times: Enter onto areas of your site, including any construction support activity areas covered by this permit (see Part 1.3.c), and onto locations where records are kept under the conditions of this permit; Access and copy any records that must be kept under the conditions of this permit; Inspect your construction site, including any construction support activity areas covered by this permit and any stormwater controls installed and maintained at the site; and Sample or monitor for the purpose of ensuring compliance. 6.2 Corrective Action Personnel Responsible for Corrective Actions: Company Name: TBD Contact Name: Street: City, State, Zip Code: Telephone: Fax: Email: Any deficiencies discovered during an inspection must be addressed by the installation of new or modified erosion controls to make it operational, or complete the repair, by no later than seven (7) calendar days from the time of discovery. If it is infeasible to complete the installation or repair within seven (7) calendar days, you must document in your records why it is infeasible to complete the installation or repair within the seven (7) calendar day timeframe and document your schedule for installing the stormwater. Where your corrective actions result in changes to any of the stormwater controls or procedures documented in your SWPPP, the Operator must modify the SWPPP accordingly within seven (7) calendar days of completing corrective action work. 6.2.1. Corrective Action Report For each corrective action taken, the Operator must complete a corrective action report. Note that these reports must be maintained in your records but do not need to be provided to EPA except upon request. The Corrective Action Report shall be prepared in accordance with the following: 34 Within 24 hours of identifying the correction action condition, document the specific condition and the date and time it was identified; Within 24 hours of completing the corrective action condition, document the specific condition and the date and time it was identified; Each corrective action report must be signed and certified in accordance with Appendix I, Part I.11 of the General Permit A copy of all corrective action reports must be kept at the site or an easily accessible location so that it can be made available at the time of an on-site inspection or upon request by the EPA; All corrective action reports completed for this part must be retained for at least three (3) years from the date that your permit coverage expires or is terminated. 6.3 Delegation of Authority Duly Authorized Representative(s) or Position(s): Company Name: TBD Contact Name: Street: City, State, Zip Code: Telephone: Fax: Email: 35 SECTION 7: TRAINING Personnel selected for the inspection and maintenance responsibilities will receive training from the job site superintendent and/or the operator. They will be trained in all the inspection and maintenance practices necessary for keeping the erosion and sediment controls that are used onsite in good working order. It is recommended to utilize the sample training log for recording keeping contained in Appendix H. Prior to the commencement of earth-disturbing activities or pollutant-generating activities, whichever occurs first, the Operator must train and ensure that the following personnel understand the requirements of this SWPPP and their specific responsibilities with respect to those requirements: • Personnel who are responsible for the design, installation, maintenance, and/or repair of stormwater controls (including pollution prevention measures); • Personnel responsible for the application and storage of treatment chemicals (if applicable); • Personnel who are responsible for conducting inspections as required; and • Personnel who are responsible for taking corrective actions The Operator is responsible for ensuring that all activities on the site comply with the requirements of this SWPPP. The Operator is not required to provide or document formal training for subcontractors or other outside service providers, but must ensure that such personnel understands any requirements of the SWPPP that may be affected by the work they are subcontracted to perform. At a minimum, personnel must be trained to understand the following if related to the scope of their job duties (e.g., only personnel responsible for conducting inspections need to understand how to conduct inspections): • The permit deadlines associated with installation, maintenance, and removal of stormwater controls and with stabilization; • The location of all stormwater controls on the site required by this permit, and how they are to be maintained; • The proper procedures to follow with respect to the permit’s pollution prevention requirements; and • When and how to conduct inspections, record applicable findings, and take corrective actions. Table 7-1: Summary Table for Completion of Training Name Date Training Completed 36 SECTION 8: TERMINATION OF COVERAGE Until coverage is terminated, all conditions of the general permit must be complied with. Coverage must be terminated within 30 days of one or more of the following conditions: Construction activities and if applicable, construction support activities have been completed and the following requirements are met: a. For any areas that (1) were disturbed during construction, (2) are not covered over by permanent structures, and (3) over which you had control during the construction activities, you have met the requirements for final vegetative or non-vegetative stabilization in Part 2.2.14b of the General Permit; b. You have removed and properly disposed of all construction materials, waste and waste handling devices, and have removed all equipment and vehicles that were used during construction, unless intended for long-term use following termination of permit coverage; c. You have removed all stormwater controls that were installed and maintained during construction, except those that are intended for long-term use following your termination of permit coverage or those that are biodegradeable; and d. You have removed all potential pollutants and pollutant-generating activities associated with construction, unless needed for long-term use following your termination of permit coverage; or You have transferred control of all areas of the site for which you are responsible under this permit to another operator, and that operator has submitted an NOI and obtained coverage under this permit; or Coverage under an individual or alternative general NPDES permit has been obtained. The Notice of Termination (NOT) must be submitted electronically at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater- discharges-construction-activities#ereporting 37 SECTION 9: CERTIFICATION AND NOTIFICATION Owner Certification: “I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information contained therein. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information contained is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I have no personal knowledge that the information submitted is other than true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.” Owner: Printed Name: Title: Signature: Date: Ground0"32 S.F.Residential Sign Band (Accent Color #1)Decorative Detail (Accent Color #3)Commercial Title Sign Band (accent Color #2)Metal Sign Cabinet (Painted)Granite Pillar SupportsBacklit Individual Cut LettersTenant Sign Panels (Replaceable) Up to 7 Large Tenant Panels. Each Panel Replaceable with Dual Panel Allowing for Up to 14 TenantsBacklit Individual Cut LettersPainted Structural Metal Support Frame for Sign and Granite Pillars, Cantilevered from Concrete BaseConcrete Foundation and Base (Concealed by Landscape Plantings)10' - 0"0"9' - 4"8"8"4' - 3"8"6' - 4"7' - 4"1' - 8"8"7' - 8"7' - 4"4' - 3"OpenOpen3 Dundee Park, Suite B02Andover MA 01810978-474-1945www.afsarch.comProjectDateScaleaF+S Job No.© 2019 aF+S LLC. These Documents are Copyright Protected.ArchitectsConstruction Managers3/4" = 1'-0"76 Main Street MultifamilyMixed Use76 Main StreetHopkinton, MA 01748Entry Sign2/25/20191822a-76MNSGNSGNSGNSGN----1111SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEWSITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEWSITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEWSITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW February 19, 2019 Hopkinton Planning Board Zoning Articles Proposed for 2019 Annual Town Meeting The proposed zoning changes described in this document have been submitted into the 2019 annual town meeting warrant. The Planning Board is required by law to hold a public hearing on every zoning bylaw and zoning map change regardless of sponsor, and the public hearing date of each is noted below. The draft language of the Planning Board’s articles may be modified after review by Town Counsel and following the public hearing, and the Board may also decide not to proceed with an article. Public participation is an integral part of the process. Comments may be voiced at the public hearing, and may also be sent via mail or email to the Board in advance of the hearing (mail to Planning Board, 18 Main St., Hopkinton, MA 01748; email to Elaine Lazarus at elainel@hopkintonma.gov) In addition to the several Planning Board articles, there are 4 citizens’ petitions which propose changes to the Zoning Bylaw. The Planning Board articles are listed first, and the citizens’ petitions follow. Many of the articles refer to specific zoning districts. To see where they are located, see the Zoning Map: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_K9oi9FHiWPY09SSTEyMEJ1cFU/view Public Hearing - February 25, 2019 at 7:30 pm, Town Hall Room 215/216 1. Temporary Banners – Sponsor: Planning Board 2. Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Installations – Sponsor: Planning Board 3. Educational Uses in Industrial A, Industrial B & Professional Office Districts – Sponsor: Planning Board 4. Indoor Recreation Uses in Industrial A and Industrial B Districts – Sponsor: Planning Board 5. Accessory Retail to Manufacturing Use, Industrial A & Industrial B Districts – Sponsor: Planning Board 6. Restaurants in Industrial B Districts – Sponsor: Planning Board 7. Car Wash Uses – Sponsor: Planning Board 8. OSMUD Overlay District/Restricted Land-Recreational Parcel Amendments – Sponsor: Planning Board 9. OSMUD Overlay District, Senior Housing Development Issues: Residents of Age Restricted Housing and Affordable Housing – Sponsor: Planning Board 10. OSMUD Overlay District, Live-In Managers at Assisted Living Facility – Sponsor: Planning Board 11. Self-Storage Facilities in the Industrial A District – Sponsor: Paul Mastroianni/Citizens Petition Public Hearing - March 25, 2019 at 7:30 pm, Town Hall Room 215/216 12. One-Year Growth Restriction – Sponsor: Amy Ritterbusch et al./Citizens Petition 13. Subdivision, Garden Apartment & Village Housing Phasing – Sponsor: Amy Ritterbusch et al./Citizens Petition 14. Board of Selectmen/Select Board – Sponsor: Amy Groves/Citizens Petition 2 1. Temporary Banners – Public Hearing Feb. 25, 2019 at 7:30 PM - Sponsor: Planning Board This proposal would change the zoning regulations as they pertain to banners hung over streets. At the present time, banners may only be displayed over Main Street. The proposal would: Allow banners to be hung over any public way (not just Main St.); Increase the maximum number of days a banner may be displayed, from 14 days to 30 days; and Increase the maximum size of banners from 75 sq. ft. to 180 sq. ft. The purpose of the change is to increase flexibility with respect to displaying banners over streets. The banners would remain subject to approval by the Board of Selectmen. The changes do not affect banners on private property or on buildings. Proposed changes: Temporary banners may be displayed over public roadways Main Street if authorized by the Board of Selectmen and subject to such limitations as it shall require. Such banners shall not be displayed for more than 30 14 days and may not exceed 180 75 square feet in area. 2. Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Installations – Public Hearing Feb. 25, 2019 at 7:30 PM – Sponsor: Planning Board The proposed article would add new language to the zoning bylaw provision which pertains to the permitting of Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Installations (i.e. solar farms). Such facilities require a special permit from the Planning Board, and the proposed language would address concerns raised relative to the need to provide more screening to abutters. The new language would require an effective year round screen. Proposed change: The visual impact of the commercial solar photovoltaic installation, including all accessory structures and appurtenances, shall be mitigated. All accessory structures and appurtenances shall be architecturally compatible with each other. Whenever reasonable, structures shall be shielded from view by vegetation forming an effective year round screen and/or joined and clustered to avoid adverse visual impacts. Methods such as the use of landscaping, natural features and fencing may be utilized. 3. Educational Uses in Industrial A, Industrial B & Professional Office Districts – Public Hearing Feb. 25, 2019 at 7:30 PM – Sponsor: Planning Board The proposal is to add language to the Industrial A, Industrial B and Professional Office districts that would allow educational uses/vocational schools by right. At the present time the uses are not listed as permitted in the districts, but educational uses are allowed in every district pursuant to MGL 40A sec. 3 (i.e. the “Dover Amendment”), which states in part: No zoning ordinance or by-law shall regulate or restrict the interior area of a single family residential building nor shall any such ordinance or by-law prohibit, regulate or restrict the use of land or structures for 3 religious purposes or for educational purposes on land owned or leased by the commonwealth or any of its agencies, subdivisions or bodies politic or by a religious sect or denomination, or by a nonprofit educational corporation; provided, however, that such land or structures may be subject to reasonable regulations concerning the bulk and height of structures and determining yard sizes, lot area, setbacks, open space, parking and building coverage requirements. The purpose of the proposed change in these Districts is to increase visibility and the potential that an educational use would locate in these areas. In each of the Districts, the following would be added to the “permitted uses” section, clarifying that the use is allowed by right: Educational uses/vocational schools. 4. Indoor Recreation Uses in Industrial A and Industrial B Districts – Public Hearing Feb. 25, 2019 at 7:30 PM – Sponsor: Planning Board The proposal is to add “indoor recreation” as a use by right in the Industrial A district and to change it from a use by special permit to a use by right in the Industrial B district. The zoning bylaw already defines the use as: INDOOR RECREATION – A facility, within a permanent building or structure, designed and equipped for the conduct of sports, athletic and other leisure-time activities; provided that all activities are conducted entirely within the building and no noise generated within the facility may be heard at the property line. Such activities may include swimming, skating, indoor skydiving, soccer, bowling and other similar uses; but shall not include arcades and billiard halls unless accessory to another indoor recreation use. The use was defined and added to the bylaw in 2015 because of the growing popularity of some of the activities, and the desire to have more indoor recreation in Hopkinton. The proposed changes are intended to increase that likelihood, while continuing to restrict it to commercial areas. In both Districts, the following provision would be added to the “permitted uses” section, clarifying that the use is allowed by right, and in the Industrial B District, the use would be deleted from the listing of uses allowed by special permit: Indoor recreation uses. 5. Accessory Retail to Manufacturing Use, Industrial A & Industrial B Districts – Public Hearing Feb. 25, 2019 at 7:30 PM – Sponsor: Planning Board This proposal would allow a manufacturing use in the Industrial A and Industrial B districts to have an associated accessory retail use within the same District, with a maximum area of up to 5,000 sq. ft. Some of the manufacturing uses currently allowed involve the production of goods such as apparel, furniture and wood products, and it may be beneficial for these uses to have a small retail area where they can sell the goods locally. The use would be allowed by right. The following language would be added to the list of uses allowed by right in the Industrial A District: Retail uses which are accessory to a manufacturing use located within the Industrial A District. The area of such retail use shall not exceed 5,000 square feet. 4 The following language would be added to the list of uses allowed by right in the Industrial B District: Retail uses which are accessory to a manufacturing use located within the Industrial B District. The area of such retail use shall not exceed 5,000 square feet. 6. Restaurants in Industrial B Districts – Public Hearing Feb. 25, 2019 at 7:30 PM – Sponsor: Planning Board At the present time, restaurants in the Industrial B district with 100 seats or less are allowed by right, and those with more seats require a special permit. The proposal is to remove the special permit requirement for restaurants with more than 100 seats in the Industrial B District and which are also within the Hotel Overlay District. These areas are: 1) a roughly 500 ft. wide strip of land adjacent to and parallel to Rt. 495 in the Elmwood Industrial Park area; and 2) all or a portion of lots on the west side of Lumber St. adjacent to Rt. 495 (numbers 20 through 60 on the even numbered side of the street). The change is proposed to increase the likelihood of attracting restaurants to this particular area. The associated language changes are: a. Change the by-right provision From: Restaurants that contain no more than 100 seats and that are not open for business after 11:00 PM. To: Restaurants that contain no more than 100 seats and that are not open for business after 11:00 PM. This restriction on number of seats shall not apply to restaurants location within the Hotel Overlay District portion of the Industrial B District. b. Change the special permit provision From: Restaurants that contain more than 100 seats or are open for business after 11:00 PM. To: Restaurants that contain more than 100 seats and are not located in the Hotel Overlay District, or are open for business after 11:00 PM. 7. Car Wash Uses – Public Hearing Feb. 25, 2019 at 7:30 PM – Sponsor: Planning Board The Industrial A district is proposed to be amended to allow car wash facilities that operate with sustainable and efficient use of resources, as a use by special permit. At the present time, car wash facilities are allowed by special permit in the Business and Downtown Business districts. The proposed change would expand the locations in which they could locate. The following language would be added to the list of uses allowed by special permit in the Industrial A District: 5 Car wash facilities that operate with sustainable and efficient use of resources. 8. OSMUD Overlay District/Restricted Land-Recreational Parcel Amendments – Public Hearing Feb. 25, 2019 at 7:30 PM – Sponsor: Planning Board The Town owns a 19 acre parcel on East Main St. (the “Recreation Parcel”), which was donated by the Legacy Farms master developer. The land is within the OSMUD Overlay District that covers Legacy Farms, so any uses on the parcel that the Town chooses to locate there are subject to the OSMUD zoning restrictions. One of the uses that the Town is considering hosting is an International Marathon Center (IMC), which is an allowed use within the District. However, the parcel is also subject to a Restricted Land Covenant, which means that it counts toward the minimum 500 acres of Open Land required in Legacy Farms. The definition of “Restricted Land” in the zoning bylaw does not include the language that allows the IMC, so the presence of an IMC would require the removal of the 19 acres from the Open Land total, which was not the intent. Therefore, the proposed bylaw language would allow the parcel to remain in the Restricted Land category if an IMC is located there. The proposed bylaw changes involve inserting “cultural or educational uses” in three places where uses of Restricted Land are discussed, as follows (proposed language is bold and underlined): In the Definition of Restricted Land: Land devoted to uses permitted by § 210-170A, which may include (1) open space land left substantially in its natural state; (2) open space land that is restored or landscaped, including irrigation, detention and/or retention ponds or stormwater catchment areas and subsurface utilities; (3) open space land used for agricultural purposes; (4) open space land improved for active and passive recreational uses, including pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian trails; (5) land improved for other municipal, cultural, or educational uses; (6) food preparation and sales areas, restrooms, parking and access areas, and similar uses, structures or portions thereof, operated in association with other Restricted Land uses; and (7) A total of no more than 30 acres of land, which may be restricted for the benefit of landowners within a particular area of the OSMUD District. Restricted Land shall not include land set aside for road and/or parking uses that are not accessory to other Restricted Land Uses. In two places in the bylaw section entitled “Restricted Land”: Restricted Land may be used for active and passive recreation, conservation, forestry, agriculture, natural buffers, underground utilities, cultural or educational uses, municipal purposes and other similar purposes necessary for the convenience and enjoyment of the OSMUD District or the Town, as well as other purposes customarily associated with a use authorized by this Subsection. And 6 Restricted Land may be (i) owned by a Landowners’ Association, (ii) owned by a non- profit entity, a principal purpose of which is land conservation or the provision of recreational facilities or cultural or educational uses, (iii) conveyed to the Town, or (iv) owned by, made subject to easement rights benefiting, or leased to third parties. In all such cases the uses permitted by such deeds, easements or leases of required Restricted Land shall be consistent with the provisions of this §210-170, the Master Plan Special Permit and the applicable Restricted Land Covenant. A Landowners’ Association or other party responsible for Restricted Land may adopt reasonable rules and regulations to govern the use of the Restricted Land under its control and to prevent encroachment thereon. 9. OSMUD Overlay District, Senior Housing Development Issues: Residents of Age Restricted Housing and Affordable Housing - Public Hearing Feb. 25, 2019 at 7:30 PM – Sponsor: Planning Board Bylaw amendments are proposed that would address an issue that has come up with respect to the Senior Housing Development portion of Legacy Farms, which is now under construction (“The Trails at Legacy Farms”, Heritage Properties). The bylaw requires that the development provide 10% of the units as affordable housing, and the bylaw also requires that no child under the age of 18 may be a resident of the development. In order for the units to count as “affordable” on the State’s Subsidized Housing Inventory, they must be approved by the Mass. Dept. of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), and the units will then become deed- restricted. DHCD will not approve any affordable units if the zoning, condominium documents and other restrictions prohibit children. DHCD will not approve the affordable units in the Trails as it currently stands. DHCD will approve age-restricted affordable units if the restrictions state that one resident of the unit must be 55 or over – and this is consistent with the definition of “Senior Housing Development” elsewhere in the OSMUD. So the Town has at least 3 choices, all of which are proposed as possible bylaw changes: 1) change the zoning bylaw to remove the requirement for affordable units, 2) change the zoning bylaw to allow a payment in lieu of providing the affordable units, 3) change the zoning bylaw to replace the prohibition on children with language requiring at least one resident be age 55 or over. Retain Requirement for Affordable Units, No Payment in Lieu Option Remove Requirement for Affordable Units Adopt Payment in lieu of Affordable Units Option No Children under Age of 18 Language Removed and Replaced Solves Problem X X Solves Problem X Solves Problem X Solves Problem X Solves Problem X X If the Town does nothing, the developer will be in violation of the zoning bylaw (at a minimum) because the affordable housing units can’t be provided. There is nothing that the developer can 7 do about it – only Town Meeting can make a change to the bylaw, and there is no non-zoning fix. If the Town adopts a payment in lieu option, it should determine the calculation of the payment. The draft language is the same that is used elsewhere in the Zoning Bylaw already, in the Flexible Community Development section (Article XI). 1) Proposed language to change the zoning bylaw to remove the requirement for affordable units (210-166.A): Dwelling Uses within the OSMUD District shall be limited to 940 new Dwelling Units constructed after May 5, 2008, plus 180 Dwelling Units in Senior Housing Developments constructed after May 4, 2015, provided, however, that the owner or owners of any such additional Dwelling Unit in Senior Housing Developments shall require, through deed restrictions, condominium documents, leases, rental agreements or other appropriate instruments, the form and adequacy of which has been approved by the Planning Board, that no child under the age of 18 may be a resident in any such Dwelling Unit at least one resident of every Dwelling Unit be 55 years of age or older. No more than 50 of the 1120 new Dwelling Units so constructed may be single-family dwellings, and the remainder shall be multi-family dwellings, including attached dwellings, garden apartments, units in mixed-use buildings and Senior Housing Developments. 2) Proposed language to allow a payment in lieu of providing the affordable units: An applicant may contribute funds to the Town of Hopkinton Affordable Housing Trust Fund to be used for the development or creation of affordable housing in lieu of constructing and offering the units. For each affordable unit not constructed or provided, the fee-in-lieu of a unit shall be an amount equal to the purchase price of a three-bedroom home that is affordable to a qualified affordable housing unit purchaser, as contained in the Department of Housing and Community Development Local Initiative Program (LIP) guidelines regardless of what type of dwelling units are proposed, approved or constructed in the Development Project. Fees-in-lieu of units payments shall be made according to a schedule agreed upon by the Planning Board and the applicant. 3) Proposed language to remove affordable housing requirements: Delete Section 210-167.C in its entirety. In addition to the Affordable Housing requirements provided in Subsection A of this Section, to the extent that the Senior Housing Developments create a total number of Dwelling Units within the OSMUD District in excess of 940, those Senior Housing Developments shall require the provision of, in the aggregate, one Dwelling Unit of Affordable Housing for every 10 Dwelling Units in Senior Housing Developments, but not to exceed twenty (18) Dwelling Units of Affordable Housing in the aggregate. The additional Dwelling Units of 8 Affordable Housing required under this section may be provided anywhere within the OSMUD District. And amend Section 210-167.A: A. Except as otherwise provided in the following paragraph of this Section, not fewer than sixty (60) Dwelling Units within the OSMUD District shall be Affordable Housing, which shall be located within one or more Development Projects containing, in the aggregate, not fewer than two hundred forty (240) Dwelling Units eligible for inclusion in the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development’s Subsidized Housing Inventory. These requirements shall be in addition to the Affordable Housing requirements provided in Subsection C of this Section. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if, prior to the issuance of a building permit for a Development Project that contains Affordable Housing, either (i) M.G.L. c. 40B, §§ 20 through 23 is no longer in effect, or (ii) the rules, regulations or guidelines of the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development issued pursuant to M.G.L. c. 40B, §§ 20 through 23 no longer provide that all of the units in a rental development that contains at least 25% affordable housing units are eligible for inclusion on the Subsidized Housing Inventory, then not fewer than ninety-four (94) Dwelling Units within the OSMUD District shall be developed as Affordable Housing, in addition to the Affordable Housing requirements provided in Subsection C of this Section. 10. OSMUD Overlay District, Live-In Managers at Assisted Living Facility – Public Hearing Feb. 25, 2019 at 7:30 PM – Sponsor: Planning Board This change would address an issue raised by the owners of Fairview Estates, the retirement community on East Main Street, which is within Legacy Farms. When the facility was under construction, it was determined by the Town that the on-site apartments for live-in managers which are part of their model of care, would count toward the total number of dwelling units allowed in Legacy Farms if they were constructed to function as separate dwelling units. Therefore, the two units were constructed without kitchens. The owners have been operating the facility for a few years, and it has been difficult to attract and retain the live-in managers because they do not have a full apartment in which to live. The apartment is their residence, and they are employees who are responsible for facility and resident care, and they live on-site. The proposed language would exempt the units from the dwelling unit cap and would require that at least one occupant of the apartment is a full time employee of the facility, and it would limit the number of apartments to 2. The tenant units do not count toward the overall dwelling unit cap, and this would not change. A new paragraph would be added to Section 210-166.A as follows: 9 No on-site apartment which provides a permanent live-in residence for 24-hour on-site responsible staff of a Continuing Care Retirement Community or Assisted Living Facility shall be deemed a Dwelling Unit for the purposes of this Intensity of Use limitation, provided that such apartment is located within the Facility, one occupant of the apartment is a full-time employee of the Facility, and that there shall be no more than two such apartments per Community/Facility. 11. Self-Storage Facilities in the Industrial A District – Public Hearing Feb. 25, 2019 at 7:30 PM – Sponsor: Paul Mastroianni/Citizens Petition The proposal would add “self-storage facilities” as a use by right in the Industrial A District, and adopt a parking requirement of 2 spaces per 10,000 square feet of gross floor area. The amendment request was reviewed by the Zoning Advisory Committee, which did not recommend the change to the Planning Board. 12. One-Year Growth Restriction – Public Hearing March 25, 2019 at 7:30 PM – Sponsor: Amy Ritterbusch/Citizens Petition The proposal would impose a temporary cap on the construction of new dwelling units. It would allow for the issuance of 12 building permits for new dwellings before the bylaw automatically expires on 7/1/2020. No more than 2 building permits could be issued to any one applicant. The proposed language states that the purposes of the bylaw are to promote orderly growth, phase growth so as not to strain the community’s ability to provide basic education, public facilities and services, to provide the town with information, time and capacity to incorporate community input into updated zoning regulations, and to preserve and enhance community character and value of property. The bylaw states that an updated growth bylaw proposal will be presented at the 2020 annual town meeting. 13. Subdivision, Garden Apartment & Village Housing Phasing – Public Hearing March 25, 2019 at 7:30 PM – Sponsor: Amy Ritterbusch/Citizens Petition This proposal would impose a 3-year cap on the construction of new dwelling units within subdivisions, Garden Apartment and Village Housing developments. It would allow for the issuance of 10 building permits in any 12 month period within such developments, and would automatically expire on 7/1/2022. The proposed language states that the purposes of the bylaw are: To ensure growth and development occur in accordance with the planning objectives of the town, in an orderly manner and at a rate that can be supported by town services; To provide the town with the opportunity to study the effect of growth on the infrastructure, finances, character and municipal services of the town and to plan for capital improvements; To ensure that the pace of residential development is related to the town’s ability to provide adequately for public safety, schools, road, municipal infrastructure and human services; To preserve and enhance the character of the community and its property values; and To allow departures from the strict application of the bylaw when appropriate to encourage those types of residential growth which address housing needs of specific population groups or which significantly reduce residential density. To that end, the bylaw exempts from the cap building permits that are on lots not created by a definitive subdivision plan, subdivision 10 lots approved by the Planning Board prior to the effective date of the bylaw, and dwelling units approved in comprehensive permits issued by the Board of Appeals. 14. Board of Selectmen/Select Board – Public Hearing March 25, 2019 at 7:30 PM – Sponsor: Amy Groves/Citizens Petition This proposal would change all references in the Zoning Bylaw to “Board of Selectmen” and “Selectmen”, to “Select Board” and “Select Board Members”. A companion petition would make similar changes to the General Bylaws. The changes would accomplish the re-naming of the Board of Selectmen to Select Board. March 20, 2019 Planning Board 18 Main Street Hopkinton, MA 01748 Re: Self-Storage Facilities Dear Planning Board Members: At your upcoming hearing on March 25, you will be considering a Citizens’ Petition to amend the Zoning Bylaws to allow “self-storage facilities for residential and commercial customers” in the Industrial A District by right. The petitioners also seek to establish a parking space requirement for a “Self-Storage Facility” of a minimum of two spaces per 10,000 square feet of gross floor area. Although the proposed amendment is legally acceptable, I advise employing consistent language throughout the Zoning Bylaws. Section 210-34.A permits “self-storage facilities for residential and commercial customers” by right. However, Section 210-124.B(1), which addresses parking, refers to “self-storage facility[ies]” only. Additionally, I advise defining the term “self-storage facilities for residential and commercial customers” or “self-storage facility” to provide clarity on the scope of the permitted use. Sincerely, J. Raymond Miyares February 21, 2019 Planning Board 18 Main Street Hopkinton, MA 01748 Re: OSMUD Overly District – Senior Housing Development Affordable Units Section 210-167 Dear Planning Board Members: At your upcoming hearing on February 25, you will be considering two alternative Zoning Bylaw amendments to Section 210-167, the Affordable Housing provision of the Open Space Mixed Use Development Overlay District. Currently, Section 210-167.C provides that, “to the extent that the Senior Housing Developments create a total number of Dwelling Units within the OSMUD District in excess of 940, those Senior Housing Developments shall require the provision of, in the aggregate, one Dwelling Unit of Affordable Housing for every 10 Dwelling Units in Senior Housing Developments, but not to exceed twenty (18) [sic]1 Dwelling Units of Affordable Housing in the aggregate.” As described in my comment letter on the proposed amendment to Section 210-166.A (age restriction in Senior Housing Developments), the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) recently declined to include a number of Legacy Farms Dwelling Units of Affordable Housing in Senior Housing Developments on the Department’s Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI) because Section 210-166.A requires that no child under the age of 18 may be a resident in any such Dwelling Unit. If the Town elects not to modify this age 1 As originally proposed in 2014, Section 210-166.A would have authorized 200 additional Dwelling Units in Senior Housing Developments and Section 210-167.C would have required that up to 20 of those units qualify for inclusion in the SHI. When the provisions were re-proposed in 2015, the number of Dwelling Units was reduced to 180 and the corresponding number of affordable units should have been reduced accordingly to 18. The change was apparently made in the applicable numeral but not the word in the text of Section 210-167.C. Hopkinton Planning Board February 21, 2019 Page 2 of 2 restriction, as proposed, then, practically speaking, the developer will not be able to comply with Section 210-167.C’s mandate to add additional Affordable Housing Dwelling Units. Accordingly, the two proposals to amend Section 210-167 are alternative options for the Town to consider should the Town not move forward with the proposed amendments to Section 210-166.A. Option 1 would remove the requirement of Section 210-167.C that the permit holder add additional Dwelling Units of Affordable Housing for every unit in Senior Housing Developments in excess of 940. There are potential consequences for removing this requirement entirely. Specifically, the Town’s housing stock will increase without a corresponding increase in low- or moderate-income housing eligible for inclusion on the SHI. Within the past several years, the Town’s permitting boards have approved a substantial number of dwelling units that allowed the Town to reach and exceed its target of 10% of housing stock reserved for low- or moderate-income households earning less than 80% of the area mean income. When a municipality is above the 10% threshold, the Zoning Board of Appeals need not consider any comprehensive permit application under M.G.L. c.40B. In order to maintain its 10% level, the Town needs to guard against the creation of dwelling units without a corresponding increase in SHI-eligible units. Option 2 would permit the developer to choose between providing the additional Affordable Housing Dwelling Units, or contribute to the Hopkinton Affordable Housing Trust Fund in lieu of constructing or providing any additional Dwelling Units of Affordable Housing required under Section 210-167.C. The Attorney General has approved such payment with regard to affordable housing. See January 22, 2016 Letter Decision, Case No. 7772 (Chelmsford). I have made some technical changes to the amendment, which are attached. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, J. Raymond Miyares 2019 ATM Planning Board Article – OSMUD Overlay District – Senior Housing Development Affordable Units Option 1: To see if the Town will vote to Amend Article XXVI of the Zoning Bylaw as follows: 1. By deleting there from Section 210-167.C, Affordable Housing, Subsection C in its entirety. 2. By deleting therefrom the last sentence of the first paragraph in Section 210-167.A in its entirety, so that the first paragraph of Section 210-167.A will read as follows: Except as otherwise provided in the following paragraph of this Section, not fewer than sixty (60) Dwelling Units within the OSMUD District shall be Affordable Housing, which shall be located within one or more Development Projects containing, in the aggregate, not fewer than two hundred forty (240) Dwelling Units eligible for inclusion in the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development’s Subsidized Housing Inventory. 3. By deleting therefrom the second paragraph of Section 210-167.A the phrase “in addition to the Affordable Housing requirements provided in Subsection C of this Section” in its entirety, so that the second paragraph of Section 210-167.A will read and inserting, a new second paragraph as follows: Notwithstanding the foregoing, if, prior to the issuance of a building permit for a Development Project that contains Affordable Housing, either (i) M.G.L. c. 40B, §§ 20 through 23 is no longer in effect, or (ii) the rules, regulations or guidelines of the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development issued pursuant to M.G.L. c. 40B, §§ 20 through 23 no longer provide that all of the units in a rental development that contains at least 25% affordable housing units are eligible for inclusion on the Subsidized Housing Inventory, then not fewer than ninety-four (94) Dwelling Units within the OSMUD District shall be developed as Affordable Housing. Pass any votes or take any action relative thereto. Option 2: To see if the Town will vote to Amend Article XXVI of the Zoning Bylaw by inserting a new paragraph at the end of Section 210-167.C, Affordable Housing, Subsection C, the as followsing: An applicant may contribute funds to the Town of Hopkinton Affordable Housing Trust Fund to be used for the development or creation of aAffordable hHousing in lieu of constructing and offering the Dwelling uUnits required by Section 210-167.C. For each aAffordable Housing Dwelling Uunit not constructed or provided, the fee-in-lieu of a unit shall be an amount equal to the purchase price of a three-bedroom home that is affordable to a qualified affordable housing unit purchaser, as contained in the Department of Housing and Community Development Local Initiative Program (LIP) guidelines regardless of what type of dwelling units are proposed, approved or constructed in the Development Project. Fees- in-lieu of units Ppayments shall be made according to a schedule agreed upon by the Planning Board and the applicant. Pass any vote or take any action relative thereto. February 21, 2019 Planning Board 18 Main Street Hopkinton, MA 01748 Re: OSMUD Overlay District – Residents of Age-Restricted Housing Section 210-166.A Dear Planning Board Members: At your upcoming hearing on February 25, you will be considering a Zoning Bylaw amendment that would adjust the age restrictions for certain dwelling units in the Senior Housing Development within the Open Space Mixed Use Development Overlay District. I. Current Zoning Bylaw Requirements Section 210-166.A restricts the total number of Dwelling Units within the OSMUD District to 940 Dwelling Units constructed after May 5, 2008, plus 180 Dwelling Units in Senior Housing Developments1 constructed after May 4, 2015, provided, however, that the additional Dwelling Units in Senior Housing Developments must be subject to a requirement, contained in a deed restriction, condominium document, lease, rental agreement or another appropriate instrument, that no child under the age of 18 may be a resident in any such Dwelling Unit. To the extent that Senior Housing Developments create a total number of Dwelling Units within the OSMUD District in excess of 940, the Zoning Bylaw requires one Dwelling Unit eligible for inclusion in the Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI) maintained by the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) for every 10 Dwelling Units 1 A “Senior Housing Development” is defined in in Section 210-164 as “A multifamily residential land use consisting of multiple dwelling units on one single contiguous parcel, operated with the intent that at least one resident of every unit be 55 years of age or older.” Hopkinton Planning Board February 21, 2019 Page 2 of 3 created, “but not to exceed twenty (18) [sic]2 Dwelling Units of Affordable Housing in the aggregate.” See Section 210-167.C. II. SHI and Affordable Units in the Senior Housing Developments The Town always intended for Dwelling Units within the OSMUD that are in the Senior Housing Developments to count towards the Town’s SHI. However, DHCD recently declined to include a number of Legacy Farms Dwelling Units of Affordable Housing in Senior Housing Developments on the SHI. DHCD noted two reasons for its decision: (1) The federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C §§ 3601, et. seq., and Massachusetts’ anti- discrimination law, M.G.L. c.151B, prohibit housing discrimination against individuals based on age. While specific exemptions have been enacted for the purpose of allowing age-restricted housing for seniors, no such exemption exists that would allow discrimination based on family status (i.e., children living in the home).3 In DHCD’s view, the condition banning individuals under the age of 18 from residing within Senior Housing Developments runs afoul of these statutory provisions. (2) DHCD asserts that it has a long-standing practice not to approve units in age-restricted housing for persons 55 years of age or older, if selection or occupancy policies, special 2 As originally proposed in 2014, Section 210-166.A would have authorized 200 additional Dwelling Units in Senior Housing Developments and Section 210-167.C would have required that up to 20 of those units qualify for inclusion in the SHI. When the provisions were re-proposed in 2015, the number of Dwelling Units was reduced to 180 and the corresponding number of affordable units should have been reduced accordingly to 18. The change was apparently made in the applicable numeral but not the word in the text of Section 210-167.C. 3 Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §3607, housing intended and operated for occupancy by persons 55 years of age or older means: (i) at least 80 percent of the occupied units are occupied by at least one person who is 55 years of age or older; (ii) the housing facility or community publishes and adheres to policies and procedures that demonstrate the intent required under this subparagraph; and (iii) the housing facility or community complies with rules issued by the Secretary for verification of occupancy, which shall— (I) provide for verification by reliable surveys and affidavits; and (II) include examples of the types of policies and procedures relevant to a determination of compliance with the requirement of clause (ii). Such surveys and affidavits shall be admissible in administrative and judicial proceedings for the purposes of such verification. Hopkinton Planning Board February 21, 2019 Page 3 of 3 permits or other zoning approvals, or underlying zoning would exclude persons 18 years of age or younger from occupying those affordable units. Therefore, none of the Dwelling Units of Affordable Housing within the Senior Housing Developments are currently eligible for inclusion in the SHI.4 III. Proposed Amendment to Section 210-166.A The proposed amendment would remove the condition on children under the age of 18 residing in Senior Housing Developments and, instead, would require only that at least one resident of each Dwelling Unit in the Senior Housing Developments be 55 years of age or older. This change would permit Affordable Housing Dwelling Units in Senior Housing Developments to be included in the Town’s SHI, and would, in addition, avoid any question about whether the restriction comports with applicable law more generally.5 Attached are my suggested edits to the proposed amendment. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, J. Raymond Miyares 4 DHCD’s policy is attached. 5 Notwithstanding the position articulated in the DHCD Policy, the Attorney General approved the 2015 amendments to the OSMUD zoning, including the ban on individuals under 18 from Senior Housing Developments, without comment. 2019 ATM Planning Board Article – OSMUD Overlay District – Residents of Age- Restricted Housing To see if the Town will vote to Amend Article XXVI of the Zoning Bylaw by deleting the first paragraph of Section 210-166.A and inserting, in place thereof, a new first paragraph, as follows: Dwelling Uses within the OSMUD District shall be limited to 940 new Dwelling Units constructed after May 5, 2008, plus 180 Dwelling Units in Senior Housing Developments constructed after May 4, 2015, provided, however, that the owner or owners of any such additional Dwelling Unit in Senior Housing Developments shall require, through deed restrictions, condominium documents, leases, rental agreements or other appropriate instruments, the form and adequacy of which has been approved by the Planning Board, that at least one resident of every Dwelling Unit be 55 years of age or older. No more than 50 of the 1120 new Dwelling Units so constructed may be single-family dwellings, and the remainder shall be multi-family dwellings, including attached dwellings, garden apartments, units in mixed-use buildings and Senior Housing Developments. Pass any vote or take any action relative thereto. February 2018 Local Initiative Program Policy Regarding Restrictions on Children in Age-Restricted 55+ Housing It is DHCD’s longstanding policy, consistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing under the federal Fair Housing Act, to maximize opportunities for families with children in housing that receives DHCD subsidy or program approval. Families with children not only are protected under federal and state civil rights laws, but also face particular barriers in accessing affordable housing across the Commonwealth. It is also longstanding DHCD policy that housing subject to DHCD subsidy or program approval is also subject to DHCD approval of marketing and resident selection procedures. Accordingly, it has long been DHCD’s policy and practice not to approve affordable units under the Local Initiative Program (“LIP”), including Local Action Units (“LAUs”), in age-restricted housing for persons 55 years of age or older (“55+ housing”), if selection or occupancy policies, special permits or other zoning approvals, or underlying zoning would exclude persons 18 years of age or younger from occupying those affordable units.1 DHCD is restating the policy at this time given the inquiries on the subject. In submitting an application to LIP for 55+ housing, the following must be submitted to DHCD for review as applicable to the housing: Occupancy rules or policies in addition to the LIP required Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing and Resident Selection Plan Affordable housing restriction(s) in addition the LIP required Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants Condominium documents, including the Master Deed and Declaration of Trust Zoning bylaws Zoning permit Other relevant documents as may be requested by DHCD 1 Age-restricted housing for persons 55 years of age or older (“55+ housing”), to the extent permitted under federal and state law including the federal Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.), as amended, and Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 151B, is not required to exclude persons 18 years of age or younger. Nothing in this policy is intended to prohibit compliance with applicable federal and state legal requirements (e.g., the requirement that at least 80% of the occupied units in the housing are occupied by at least one person who is 55 years of age or older). February 21, 2019 Planning Board 18 Main Street Hopkinton, MA 01748 Re: OSMUD Overly District – Live-In Managers at Assisted Living Facility Dear Planning Board Members: At your upcoming hearing on February 25, you will be considering a Zoning Bylaw amendment governing the intensity of use limitations in the Open Space Mixed Use Development Overlay District. Currently, Dwelling Units within the OSMUD District are limited to 940 Dwelling Units constructed after May 5, 2008, plus 180 Dwelling Units in Senior Housing Developments constructed after May 4, 2015. The proposed amendment would exclude from the definition of Dwelling Unit for the purposes of Section 210-166.A only, an “on-site apartment which provides a permanent live-in residence for 24-hour on-site responsible staff of a Continuing Care Retirement Community or Assisted Living Facility shall be deemed a Dwelling Unit for the purposes of this Intensity of Use limitation, provided that such apartment is located within the Facility, one occupant of the apartment is a full-time employee of the Facility, and that there shall be no more than two such apartments per Community/Facility.” The language of the proposed amendment states that the apartment must provide a “permanent live-in residence for [a] 24-hour on-site responsible staff” member. I advise removing the phrase “24-hour” because the wording can be interpreted as requiring the employee to be on site at all times. I assume that the goal of the Town is for the individual residing within the apartment to be a full-time staff member and on call when present. Additionally, the word “responsible” appears to be unnecessary. I therefore advise deleting this term. Hopkinton Planning Board February 21, 2019 Page 2 of 2 I have revised the draft Warrant Article to reflect these recommendations. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, J. Raymond Miyares 2019 ATM Planning Board Article – OSMUD Overlay District – Live-‐‑In Managers at Assisted Living Facility To see if the Town will vote to Amend Article XXVI of the Zoning Bylaw by inserting in Section 210-‐‑166.A, Intensity of Use Limitations, a new paragraph at the end of Subsection A, as follows: Not more than two on-site apartments that which provides a permanent live-in residence for an 24-hour on-site responsible staff member employed in a full-time capacity of a Continuing Care Retirement Community or Assisted Living Facility shall be deemed a Dwelling Unit for the purposes of this Intensity of Use lLimitation, provided that such apartment is located within the Facility, one occupant of the apartment is a full-time employee of the Facility, and that there shall be no more than two such apartments per Community/Facility. Pass any vote or take any action relative thereto. March 20, 2019 Planning Board 18 Main Street Hopkinton, MA 01748 Re: Applicability of Proposed Bylaw Changes in OSMUD Dear Planning Board Members: By later dated February 21, 2019, I shared my comments on four proposed amendments to the Open Space Mixed Use Development Overlay District. The proposals are summarized briefly below: • Amend the definition of “Restricted Land” in Section 210-164 to allow for additional land uses to count toward the required “Restricted Land” acreage. • Amend Section 210-166.A to exclude from the definition of Dwelling Unit (for the purposes of Section 210-166.A only) certain apartments occupied by a staff member of a Continuing Care Retirement Community or Assisted Living Facility. • Amend Section 210-166.A to remove the prohibition on children under the age of 18 residing in Senior Housing Developments and, instead, to require only that at least one resident of each Dwelling Unit in the Senior Housing Developments be 55 years of age or older. • Amend Section 210-167 either to remove the requirement that the permit holder provide additional Dwelling Units of Affordable Housing or to permit the developer to choose between providing the additional Affordable Housing Dwelling Units or contributing to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Since providing you with my comments, it has come to our attention that Section 210- 175.C may restrict the effectiveness of these amendments. 210-175.C. provides: All land within the OSMUD District shall be subject to the provisions of this Chapter as in effect on the effective date of the amendments added to this Chapter by the 2015 Annual Town Meeting. Planning Board March 20, 2019 Page 2 of 2 In order for OSMUD developments to have the benefit of the proposed amendments without also becoming subject to other amendments proposed for other Zoning Articles, it is necessary to amend Section 210-175.C as follows: All land within the OSMUD District shall be subject to the provisions of this Chapter as in effect on the effective date of the amendments added to this Chapter by the 2015 Annual Town Meeting; provided, however, that such land shall be subject to the provisions of this Article as in effect on the effective date of the amendments added to this Article by the 2019 Annual Town Meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, J. Raymond Miyares February 21, 2019 Planning Board 18 Main Street Hopkinton, MA 01748 Re: Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Installations Dear Planning Board Members: At your upcoming hearing on February 25, you will be considering a Zoning Bylaw amendment governing Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Installations. Specifically, the amendment would require all structures to be shielded from view by vegetation forming an effective year-round screen. The proposed amendment is silent as to what interest the required screen is supposed to protect. In other words, does the vegetation screen need to hide the structures from abutting properties? From public ways? From distant properties at higher elevations? I would advise clarifying this point in the bylaw language. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, J. Raymond Miyares February 21, 2019 Planning Board 18 Main Street Hopkinton, MA 01748 Re: Indoor Recreation Uses Dear Planning Board Members: At your upcoming hearing on February 25, you will be considering a Zoning Bylaw amendment governing the siting of “Indoor Recreation Uses.”1 I have made a small number of technical edits to the draft Warrant Article, which are attached. Assuming these changes are incorporated, I am satisfied that the proposal is in proper form for consideration at the upcoming Annual Town Meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, J. Raymond Miyares 1 “Indoor Recreation” is defined in Section 210-4 of the Zoning Bylaw as follows: A facility, within a permanent building or structure, designed and equipped for the conduct of sports, athletic and other leisure-time activities; provided that all activities are conducted entirely within the building and no noise generated within the facility may be heard at the property line. Such activities may include swimming, skating, indoor skydiving, soccer, bowling and other similar uses; but shall not include arcades and billiard halls unless accessory to another indoor recreation use. 2019 ATM Planning Board Article – Indoor Recreation Uses To see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning Bylaws as follows: 1. By amending Article VIII, Industrial A District, by inserting a new sequentially numbered Item following number (12) in §210-34, Uses permitted by right, Item A, as follows: ( ) Indoor recreation uses. 2. By amending Article VIIIA, Industrial B District, by inserting a new sequentially numbered Item following number (13) in §210-37.8, Uses permitted by right, Item A, as follows: ( ) Indoor recreation uses. 3. By amending Article VIIIA, Industrial B District, by deleting therefrom Item J in §210- 37.9, Uses permitted by special permit, in its entirety. Pass any vote or take any act relative thereto. February 21, 2019 Planning Board 18 Main Street Hopkinton, MA 01748 Re: Car Wash Uses Dear Planning Board Members: At your upcoming hearing on February 25, you will be considering a Zoning Bylaw amendment permitting “car wash facilities that operate with sustainable and efficient use of resources” by special permit in the Industrial A District. “Car wash facilities” are currently allowed by special permit in the Business District (Section 210-19.A(4)) and the Downtown Business District (Section 210-20.3.A(4)). Neither of these provisions require the car wash facility to “operate with sustainable and efficient use of resources.” Nor is a definition of “sustainable and efficient use of resources” provided. Because the phrase “sustainable or efficient use of resources” could be interpreted differently by reasonable people, we advise the Planning Board to include a definition of “sustainable and efficient use of resources” in the Bylaw. Better still, the Bylaw could give the Board of Appeals discretion in its special permit decision-making by reference to “Car wash facilities that, to the extent feasible, employ technologies that conserve water and electricity.” In addition to the comments above, I have made a small number of technical edits to the draft Warrant Article, which are attached. Hopkinton Planning Board February 21, 2019 Page 2 of 2 Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, J. Raymond Miyares 2019 ATM Planning Board Article – Car Wash Uses To see if the Town will vote to amend Article VIII, Industrial A District, of the Zoning Bylaws, by inserting a new Item (8) in §210-‐‑35.A, Uses allowed by special permit, Item A, as follows: (8) Car wash facilities that, to the extent feasible, employ technologies that conserve water and electricity operate with sustainable and efficient use of resources. Pass any vote or take any act relative thereto. February 21, 2019 Planning Board 18 Main Street Hopkinton, MA 01748 Re: Accessory to Retail to Manufacturing Use Dear Planning Board Members: At your upcoming hearing on February 25, you will be considering a Zoning Bylaw amendment that seeks to add “[r]etail uses which are accessory to a manufacturing use” as a permitted as-of-right use in the Industrial A and Industrial B districts. The proposed amendment would limit the area of such retail use to not more than 5,000 square feet. “Accessory uses, including but not limited to cafeterias” are already permitted as of right in the IA and IB districts pursuant to Section 210-34.A(8) and Section 210-37.8.A(8), respectively. “Accessory use” is defined in Section 210-4, as follows: A building, structure or use that is customarily incidental and subordinate to the lawful principal use of the lot and is located on the same lot as the principal use or building. An accessory use must not be the primary use of the property but rather one that is subordinate and minor in significance, has a reasonable relationship with the primary use and is one that is usual to maintain in connection with the primary use of the lot. (Emphasis added.) The intent of the proposed amendment is to allow manufacturing facilities to operate retail shops that are directly tied to their production (e.g., furniture producers selling furniture). According to Elaine Lazarus, the Zoning Advisory Committee also seeks to allow such retail stores anywhere in the IA and IB districts, as opposed to limiting the retail use to a manufacturer’s principal lot. Thus, using the term “accessory” in this context would not accomplish ZAC’s goals and may foster ambiguity with respect to Section 210-34.A(8) and Section 210-37.8.A(8). I therefore advise Hopkinton Planning Board February 21, 2019 Page 2 of 2 that the Planning Board create a new permitted as of right retail use for the IA and IB districts. Attached are my suggested changes to the proposed amendment. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, J. Raymond Miyares 9 ATM Planning Board Article – Accessory Associated Retail to Manufacturing Use To see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning Bylaws as follows: 1. By amending Article VIII, Industrial A District, by inserting a new sequentially numbered Item following number (12) in §210-34, Uses permitted by right, Item A, as follows: ( ) Retail stores uses which are associated with accessory to a manufacturing, assembly or processing plant use located within the Industrial A District and that principally sell items manufactured, assembled, processed, or produced in the district. The area of such retail use shall not exceed 5,000 square feet. 2. By amending Article VIIIA, Industrial B District, by inserting a new sequentially numbered Item following number (13) in §210-37.8, Uses permitted by right, Item A, as follows: ( ) Retail stores uses which are associated with accessory to a manufacturing, assembly or processing plant use located within the Industrial B District and that principally sell items manufactured, assembled, processed, or produced in the district. The area of such retail use shall not exceed 5,000 square feet. Pass any vote or take any act relative thereto. PUBLIC HEARING OUTLINE Bucklin Street Stormwater Management Permit (SWMP) & Roadway Petition 10/29/18, 12/3/18, 12/17/18, 1/28/19, 3/11/19, 4/8/19 1. ✔ Project introduction and review – Applicant 2. ✔Principal Planner Comments 3. ✔ Consultant Review – BETA Group 4. ✔Planning Board members and Public – Add to outline 5. Detailed Discussion (a) Site visit follow up (b) Road design i. Dead end (c) Lot layout design (d) Public safety i. Fire department access ii. Traffic impacts from development (e) Stormwater management i. Impact on abutters on Pleasant St. ii. Impact on abutters on Maple Street Extension iii. Soil testing iv. Compliance with standards (f) Utilities; Municipal water & sewer; underground or overhead utilities (g) Legal issues: i. Right to make improvements ii. ✔Way in existence in 1953 (h) Historic Preservation i. Stone walls (i) Waiver requests (j) Conservation Commission review/wetland impacts 6. Public comment/discuss standards and plan revisions to be made 7. Discuss SWMP and Roadway Petition conditions of approval with applicant 8. Public comment 9. ✔Vote on determination relative to Way in Existence in 1953 10. Vote on the Roadway Petition 11. Vote on the Stormwater Management Permit 12. Close public hearing BETA GROUP, INC. 315 Norwood Park South, 2nd Floor, Norwood, MA 02062 P:781.255.1982 | F:781.255.1974 | W:www.BETA-Inc.com March 19, 2019 Department of Land Use, Planning, and Permitting Town Hall 18 Main Street, 3rd Floor Hopkinton, MA 01748 Attn: Ms. Elaine Lazarus Mr. Don MacAdam, M.S. Director of Land Use and Town Operations Conservation Administrator Re: Bucklin Street Road Constriction, Stormwater Management Permit and Notice of Intent Peer Review Update Dear Ms. Lazarus and Mr. MacAdam: BETA Group, Inc. reviewed supplemental/revised document submitted for the proposed Bucklin Street project off Leonard and Pleasant Streets for the Petition to Approve Road Construction, Stormwater Management Permit and Notice of Intent in Hopkinton. This letter is provided to update BETA’s findings and recommendations of submitted documents. BASIS OF REVIEW BETA received the following items: •Response to BETA’s Review Comments, dated March 12, 2019 prepared by GLM Engineering Consultants, Inc., Holliston, MA •Plans (10 sheets) entitled:Plan of Land “Parcel A – Bucklin and Leonard St.” Hopkinton Massachusetts dated March 29, 2018 revised through March 12, 2019 prepared by GLM Engineering Consultants, Inc. •Stormwater Management Report Site Plan of Land “Bucklin Street” Hopkinton Massachusetts, dated March 30, 2018 revised through March 12, 2019 prepared by GLM Engineering Consultants, Inc., Holliston, MA including pre and post development watershed maps COMPILED REVIEW LETTER KEY BETA reviewed this project previously and provided additional review comments in letters to the Board dated October 24, 2018, December 12, 2018 and February 26, 2019 (original comments and responses in italics). GLM Engineering Consultants, Inc. (GLM) provided responses (responses in standard text) and BETA provided comments on the status of each (status in bold italics). SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The existing wooded 3.22± acre site is located on the north side of Leonard Street. The project site is located in the Residential A zoning district and the Water Resources Protection Overlay District. The plan depicts isolated wetlands on the southwest and southeast corners of the parcel. The site is not located within a critical area (MassDEP Approved Zone II), NHESP mapped areas of estimated habitats of rare Ms. Lazarus and Mr. MacAdam March 19, 2019 Page 2 of 8 wildlife or rare species or FEMA mapped 100 year flood zone. NRCS soils maps indicate the soils on site include Rainbow silt loam with a hydrologic soil group (HSG) of C/D (very slow infiltration rate). The project proposes to construct a 700± foot long, 20 foot wide road and subdivide the lot into 4 new lots with public water, sewer services and stormwater management system. Proposed stormwater management system includes the construction of road swales in series ultimately connecting to a new drainage basin. REQUESTED WAIVERS REVIEW The Applicant has requested the following waivers from the Rules and Regulations Relating to the Subdivision of Land: W1.Accept no Environmental Analysis (§5.4) W2.Accept no Traffic Impact Report (§5.4) W3.Waiver from road location and alignment (all sub-sections) (§8.2.1) W4.Waive curbing requirements (all sub-sections) (§8.2.2) W5.Allow variable width right of way and 20' paved road width (§8.2.3) W6.Allow no turnaround for dead end street (§8.2.5) W7.Allow no sidewalks (§8.3) W8.Waiver from stormwater management (§8.4) W9.Allow above ground private utilities (§8.7.1) W10.Accept no street lights (§8.7.2) W11.Accept 4" x 4" x 3' concrete bounds (§9.11) W12.Accept no street trees (§9.12) BETA recommends the Applicant add the following waiver requests. W13.Allow dead end streets to exceed 500 feet in length (§8.2.5.B). W14.Allow side slope shall not exceed a ratio of three horizontal to one vertical (§8.2.6) BETA2: Recommend including approved waivers on title sheet. ZONING/REGULATIONS REVIEW Article II Residence A (RA) District The proposed subdivision plan lots comply with area, lot coverage, frontage, and yard setbacks of the Residential A District. Ms. Lazarus and Mr. MacAdam March 19, 2019 Page 3 of 8 Article XII Water Resources Protection Overlay District The project is located within the Water Resources Protection Overlay District and requires approval for any use that renders impervious more than 15% or 2,500 square feet of any lot, whichever is greater. Refer to Stormwater Management section for review of required infiltration practices. ROAD CONSTRUCTION/SUBDIVISION REVIEW The proposed project includes the extension of an existing driveway into a 20’ wide paved roadway. The location of the roadway is between two existing residences (58 & 62 Pleasant Street). Based on the proposed profile there will also be some regrading required between them. The new roadway will eliminate the driveway for no. 58. No curbing is proposed and the road is not crowned but is designed to slope to the south side for drainage purposes. Other than those items and those listed in the Requested Waivers Review, the road meets the minimum design standards for a rural road. GENERAL: G1.Provide missing existing and proposed topography for the proposed road from Pleasant Street to the project parcel.GLM:Revised See Sheet 2. BETA2: Provide additional spot grades to show positive drainage between house at 62 Pleasant Street and new road.GLM2: Revised See Sheet 4.BETA3: BETA recommends including a condition that requires positive drainage around the existing house at 62 Pleasant Street. G2.Provide driveway culvert crossing detail.GLM:Revised See Sheet 8.BETA2: Detail provided – issue resolved. G3.Provide a driveway for the existing house at 62 Pleasant Street off new road.GLM:Revised See Sheet 8.BETA2: Drive shown – will require approval by owner of 62 Pleasant Street. G4.Provide location of proposed private utilities.GLM:Proposed overhead utilities.BETA2: Applicant BETA defers to Board this issue. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REVIEW A traffic impact analysis was not provided at this time for review. T1.Show sight distances on the plans of at least 200 feet in accordance with §8.2.1.E.GLM:Revised See Sheet 6. (Sight distance exceeds 300 feet in both directions)BETA2: Information provided – issue resolved. T2.Provide truck turning plan to demonstrate that emergency vehicles have adequate space within Bucklin Street to turn around. BETA recommends evaluating alternatives to relying on a private driveway for the turn around.GLM:Applicant had a meeting with the Fire Dept. and they will be providing a turning radius guide at which time we will review and provide updated information. BETA2: Information to be provided – issue remains outstanding.GLM2: See Attached Sketch Plan with Truck Turn.BETA3: Sketch Plan shows vehicle exceeding the length of the easement. Either expand easement or provide plan that shows vehicle can make the turnaround in space provided. BETA defers to fire department for final approval. T3.Show and label turning radii on the plans and demonstrate that adequate turning radii are provided at the intersection of Bucklin Street and Pleasant Street.GLM:Revised See Sheet 6. Ms. Lazarus and Mr. MacAdam March 19, 2019 Page 4 of 8 (Corner radius provided at intersection) BETA2: Provide truck turns at intersection and adjust curb radii as necessary.GLM2:Information to be provided – issue remains outstanding.GLM2: See Attached Sketch Plan with Truck Turn.BETA3: Sketch Plan shows fire truck needing to use oncoming lane in Pleasant Street to make the turn. BETA defers to fire department for final approval. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT The existing site is wooded and slopes from the eastern side downward to the western side of the site. Stormwater currently flows overland to the northwest portion of the site. Although the site has some slope (2.2%±), a significant portion of the site is flagged as isolated wetlands indicating the presence of high water table and or poor draining soils both or which require special attention when designing a stormwater management system to mitigate the impacts of development. The project proposes to extend an existing driveway into a new 20’ wide paved road, Bucklin Street. Runoff from Bucklin Street will drain to a series of grass swales. Runoff from proposed houses will be directed to subsurface infiltration chambers with overflows to the new grass swales. The proposed grass swales are connected with 12” reinforced concrete pipe under the four new driveways, which drain to a new basin on the western edge of the project site. The new basin consists of a sediment forebay and headwall with an outlet to a level spreader draining to the west. SW1.Provide calculations that indicate swales and driveway culverts can accommodate 25 year storm event (§8.4.8).GLM:Revised See Stormwater Report Appendix B-1 BETA2: Calculations provided – issue resolved. SW2.Include stamp and signature of a Professional Engineer to certify that the Stormwater Management Plan is in accordance with the criteria established in the Bylaw and the Regulations (Appendix B, §21).GLM:Revised See Stormwater Report BETA2: Stamp provided – issue resolved. MASSACHUSETTS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STANDARDS: The project is subject to the Stormwater Management Standards (Stormwater Regulations (SWR) 7.0). The following are the 10 standards and relative compliance provided by the submitted documentation. No untreated stormwater (Standard Number 1): No new stormwater conveyances (e.g., outfalls) may discharge untreated stormwater directly to or cause erosion in wetlands or waters of the Commonwealth.The project does not provide new untreated stormwater conveyances to wetlands – complies with standard. Post-development peak discharge rates (Standard Number 2): Stormwater management systems must be designed so that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-development peak discharge rates.Calculations demonstrate that the proposed development will not increase peak discharge rates. This standard should be re-evaluated upon addressing all included comments. SW3.To accommodate offsite stormwater runoff that flows onto and through the site, include the upland areas that contribute runoff to the project parcel in both existing and proposed watershed maps and calculations, up to and including runoff that crosses where new road will be between the existing houses off Pleasant Street.GLM:Revised See Stormwater Report, (Pre & Post Dev. Area Plans)BETA2: Analysis area revised – issue resolved. Ms. Lazarus and Mr. MacAdam March 19, 2019 Page 5 of 8 SW4.To better determine impacts to abutters analyze pre and post stormwater runoff at three analysis points (one along north property line, second along the west property line and third to Pleasant Street).GLM:Revised See Stormwater Report. BETA2: Analysis area revised. Provide mitigation to keep proposed peak runoff flow to Pleasant Street at or below existing condition. GLM2: The combined overall peak runoff has been reduced for the project site. The flow from Pleasant Street will eventually combine with the flow toward the northerly boundary downgradient from the roadway entrance.BETA3: In 2011 BETA complete a hydrologic analysis of the major culvert crossing Main Street just west of CVS. We discovered that the drainage truck lines in Pleasant Street are currently significantly undersized for the 10 year storm event. The drainage from Pleasant Street drainage is routed north on Maple Street and does not combine with the flow from the site. Provide BMPs and or system modifications so that there is no increase in existing flow to Pleasant Street.GLM2: The entrance road has been revised to include porous pavement. The drainage report and plans hve been revised to reflect this modification.BETA4: Design consistent with LID techniques, BETA recommends including the following conditions: a.Porous pavement and subdrain connection to Town catchbasin be reviewed and approved by DPW b.Soil tests be conducted to maintain 2 feet of separation from bottom of pavement section to seasonal high groundwater elevation c.Developer/homeowners to assume responsibility of maintenance/replacement (if necessary) of porous pavement to provide stormwater management runoff control. SW5.BETA calculates the 100 year storm at 7.25 in (from Atlas graph page 22) x 1.13 = 8.19 in. Revise calculations using this rainfall amount.GLM:Revised See Stormwater Report BETA2: Rainfall data revised – issue resolved. SW6.To avoid double counting infiltration, model infiltration basin with a CN of 98 – water surface. GLM:Revised See Stormwater Report (CN 98 for pond area)BETA2: Calculation revised – issue resolved. Recharge to groundwater (Standard Number 3): Loss of annual recharge to groundwater should be minimized through the use of infiltration measures to maximum extent practicable.Groundwater recharge calculations were provided –refer to comment SW2 above. SW7.The south side of the infiltration basin is 30± from flagged vegetated wetlands which has a surface elevation of 501.8±. Provide an additional test pit in the southwest corner of the basin to confirm that there will be 2 feet of separation from the bottom of the basin to seasonal high groundwater elevation.GLM:Additional testing to be provided BETA2: Additional testing needed– issue remains outstanding.GLM2: Additional testing to be provided prior to construction.BETA3: The proposed basin is above existing grade. Recommend including a condition that a representative of the Town observe topsoil excavation prior to placement of fill to verify design assumption for soils. SW8.Provide a cross section for the proposed drainage basin. Include subgrade materials and depths as well as slopes and stabilization methods.GLM: Revised See Sheet 7.BETA2: Section provided – issue resolved. Ms. Lazarus and Mr. MacAdam March 19, 2019 Page 6 of 8 SW9.Provide detail of sediment forebay outlet weir and stormwater basin emergency overflow.GLM: BETA2: Detail provided – issue resolved. SW10.Provide draw down device in stormwater basin for maintenance.GLM:Revised See Sheet 7. BETA2: Draw down device provided – issue resolved. SW11.Provide monitoring well in stormwater basin.GLM:Revised See Sheet 7.BETA2: Monitoring well provided – issue resolved. SW12.Provide landscape plan describing the woody and herbaceous vegetative stabilization and management techniques to be used within and adjacent to the stormwater practice (Appendix B, §20).GLM:Revised See Sheet 7. (Note provided area to be loamed and hydro-seeded)BETA2: Board should discuss if seeding meets the intent of the requirement. SW13.In order to maintain level flow from level spreader, provide revise level spreader detail to include a hard level surface (curb or equivalent) for the weir.GLM:Revised See Sheet 7.BETA2: Curb provided – issue resolved. 80% TSS Removal (Standard Number 4):For new development, stormwater management systems must be designed to remove 80% of the annual load of Total Suspended Solids. The proposed project includes a new infiltration basin (with sediment forebay) and calculations to demonstrate 80% TSS removal – standard has been met. Higher Potential Pollutant Loads (Standard Number 5): Stormwater discharges from Land Uses with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads require the use of specific stormwater management BMPs.The proposed project is not a LUHPPL –standard does not apply. Critical Areas (Standard Number 6): Stormwater discharges to critical areas must utilize certain stormwater management BMPs approved for critical areas.The proposed project does not include stormwater discharges to critical areas –standard does not apply. Redevelopment (Standard Number 7): Redevelopment of previously developed sites must meet the Stormwater Management Standards to the maximum extent practicable.The proposed project is not a redevelopment of a previously developed site –standard does not apply. Construction Period Erosion and Sediment Controls (Standard Number 8):Erosion and sediment controls must be implemented to prevent impacts during construction or land disturbance activities.A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) was provided as well as an erosion control plan. SW14.Provide estimates of the total area expected to be disturbed by excavation, grading, or other construction activities, including dedicated off-site borrow and fill areas (Appendix C, §3.a).GLM: Revised See Sheet 5.BETA2: Information provided – issue resolved. SW15.Provide the intended sequence and timing of activities that disturb soils at the site and the general sequence during the construction process in which the erosion and sediment control measures will be implemented.GLM:Revised See Sheet 5 BETA2: Notes provided – issue resolved. SW16.Provide provisions to protect the infiltration basin from sedimentation during construction. Provide note that basin is to be initially excavated 12 inches higher than finish grade. Once site is stabilized basin can be excavated to finish grade.GLM:Revised See Sheet 5. (Note 8.)BETA2: Include as a condition. Ms. Lazarus and Mr. MacAdam March 19, 2019 Page 7 of 8 SW17.Recommend including a condition that requires the Applicant provide a final signed SWPPP prior to construction.GLM:No Comment BETA2: Include as a condition. SW18.Recommend a condition that the Town or an agent for the Town observe the excavation of the infiltration basin prior to loam and seed to verify design assumptions including groundwater elevations and infiltration rate.GLM:No Comment BETA2: Include as a condition. Operations/maintenance plan (Standard Number 9): A long-Term Operation and Maintenance Plan shall be developed and implemented to ensure that stormwater management systems function as designed. SW19.Show location of vehicle access to drainage basin and easement on the plans.GLM:Revised See Sheet 3.BETA2: Access provided – issue resolved. SW20.Provide a map showing the location of the systems and facilities including easements, catch basins, manholes/access lids, main, and stormwater devices to be included with the Operation and Maintenance Plan (Appendix D, §2).GLM:Revised See Stormwater O&M.BETA2: Map provided – issue resolved. SW21.Include provisions for the Planning Board or its designee to enter the property at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner for the purpose of inspection within the Operation and Maintenance Plan (Appendix D, §3.e).GLM:Can this be a condition of approval. BETA2: Provisions not provided – issue remains outstanding.GLM2: Applicant is agreeable to this requirement.BETA3: Include provision in O&M Plan.GLM3: Revised O&M See Drainage Report. BETA3: Plan revised – issue resolved. SW22.Provide signature(s) of the owner(s) on the Operation and Maintenance Plan (Appendix D, §3.f). GLM:Revised See O&M BETA2: Signature provided – issue resolved. SW23.Provide an estimated operations and maintenance budget.GLM:Applicant will provide estimates. BETA2: Information not provided – issue remains outstanding.GLM2: Applicant will provide estimates.BETA3: Include condition that estimate be provided. Illicit Discharges (Standard Number 10): All illicit discharges to the stormwater management systems are prohibited. SW24.Provide a signed Illicit Discharge Statement.GLM:Revised See Report BETA2: Statement provided – issue resolved. WETLANDS The proposed project includes work within the 50’ and 100’ buffer zones of two isolated wetlands. The design plans indicates that the development of lots will create a berm on the north, down gradient side of the wetlands. Applicant has submitted a Notice of Intent for the proposed work within the jurisdictional wetland resource areas. W1.Applicant should provide information on the protection of home from potential flooding and/or groundwater issues and that foundation drains and subdrains that could impact wetlands will not be necessary.GLM:Applicant to address this with the Conservation Commission. BETA2: Information not provided – issue remains outstanding.GLM2:The proposed houses as shown on the site plan have cellar floor elevations at or above the existing ground elevation where the house is shown. This will ensure the basement floor is above seasonal high Ms. Lazarus and Mr. MacAdam March 19, 2019 Page 8 of 8 water table.BETA3: Concern addressed. Consider additional protection from surface flow of water for house on lot 4A. Very truly yours, Philip F Paradis, Jr., PE, LEED AP, CPSWQ Associate O:\6200s\6260 - Hopkinton - Bucklin Street\Engineering\Reports\Buckland St Peer Review 2-26-19.docx 1 March 12, 2019 Hopkinton Planning Board Ms. Georgia Wilson 18 Main Street Hopkinton, MA 01748 Re: Bucklin Street Road Construction, Hopkinton, MA Dear Board Members, Our firm revised the plans for the above captioned project to address the comments in the letter from BETA Engineering, dated February 26, 2019. The following is a response to comments: BETA Engineering March 12, 2019, Response: General: G1. Applicant agrees with the condition. G3. Drive will require permission by owner of 62 Pleasant St. G4. Defer to Board Traffic Impact Analysis: T2. Fire Department to review. T3. Fire Department to review Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standards: SW4. The entrance road has been revised to include Porous Pavement. The drainage report and plans have been revised to reflect this modification. SW7. Applicant agrees with the condition. SW12. Board to discuss if seeding is adequate. SW16. Board may include as a condition SW17. Board may include as a condition SW18. Board may include as a condition SW21. Revised O&M See Drainage Report. SW23. Applicant will provide estimates. Enclosed herewith are copies of the revised plans for your review and comment. If you have any questions please don’t hesitate to contact our office. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Yours truly, GLM Engineering Consultants Inc. Robert S. Truax Project Manager/Design Eng. Georgia Wilson <gwilson@hopkintonma.gov>Mon, Nov 26, 3:45 PM to Wayne, Jr., Eric Wayne, This change can be approved administratively. I spoke with Phil from BETA and he is okay with the modification as long as the storage capacity does not decrease, which it appears it is not and you are in fact providing more storage than the approved design. Please forward me an electronic and hard copy of the revised construction plans prior to starting the basin work. Thanks! Georgia On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 5:46 PM Amico, Wayne <WAmico@vhb.com> wrote: Good afternoon Georgia, I hope you are doing well! VHB recently assisted Baystone Development with the Detention Basin Modification along Wilson Street to vastly increase the capacity of the Detention Basin. It was previously sized more for water quality than volume, but the new design handles a much larger volume than before. Baystone is getting ready to construct this basin and because of the vast increase in size of the basin, the costs associated with the Bioretention Soil that were proposed for the entire bottom of the basin are extremely high. We took a look to see if we could modify the area of the bioretention soil to keep the same level of treatment and provide some additional storage. The attached graphics include the design approved by the Commission and a marked up version of the design that would reduce the amount of Biorention soil and deepen the basin. This revised design modification provides the same level of water quality treatment, provides additional storage capacity while balancing the overall construction cost. Could you tell me if this type of a minor change to the design (since the basin is actually getting larger in volume) is something that you as the agent could review with us and make an administrative change? Baystone desperately would like to get this work started now and going through any type of long review and approval of this minor change would compromise the project’s schedule. Can you let me know your thoughts on this? Wayne P. Amico, PE Senior Team Leader Transportation 101 Walnut Street PO Box 9151 Watertown, MA 02472-4026 P 617.607.1577 | M 978.973.3459 | F 617.924.2286 wamico@vhb.com Engineers | Scientists | Planners | Designers www.vhb.com Proud to be named 2018 WTS Employer of the Year This communication and any attachments to this are confidential and intended only for the recipient(s). Any other use, dissemination, copying, or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us and destroy it immediately. Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. is not responsible for any undetectable alteration, virus, transmission error, conversion, media degradation, software error, or interference with this transmission or attachments to this transmission. Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. | info@vhb.com -- Georgia P. Wilson Principal Planner Town of Hopkinton (P) 508-497-9745 18 Main St. Hopkinton, MA 01748 EXIST SEDIMENT FOREBAY BOT EL=422' EXIST OVERFLOW STONE SWALE EL=423' PROPOSED RECONSTRUCTED BIORETENTION BASIN-8 BOTTOM EL=419.5' CONTRACTOR TO EXCAVATE 39" OF MATERIAL FROM BOTTOM OF BASIN AND INSTALL 24" BIORETENTION SOIL AND 3" SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH EXTEND OVERFLOW SWALE TO BOTTOM OF BASIN PROPOSED CHECK DAM PROPOSED OVERFLOW STONE SWALE EL=422' PROPOSED CONC. PIPE DIAMETER=18", LENGTH = 25' +/- START INVERT EL=420.5' END INVERT EL=420' PROPOSED FLARED END SECTION WITH STONE PROTECTION EL=420' PROPOSED EROSION CONTROL BARRIER AT LIMIT OF WORK 6" LOAM & SEED WILSON STREETLIMIT OF WORK COMPACTED LOW PERMEABILITY CORE 0 SCALE: 1" = 40' 40 160100 \\Vhb\proj\Wat-LD\10018.03\cad\te\planset\LFR-North MassWorks\CSK\CSK-19\2018 Files\Revised_Betacomments\CSK 19_redesign_rev_v2.dwg November 28, 2018 CSK-19 Basin 8 Regrading Legacy Farms Road North Hopkinton, Massachusetts Sheet 1 of 4 CONSTRUCTION NOTE: THIS CSK-19 IS SUPPLEMENTING THE APPROVED LEGACY FARMS ROAD NORTH CONSTRUCTION PLANS DATED FEBRUARY 26, 2015. SOME DETAILS ON THIS CSK-19 MAY NEED TO BE REFERENCED ON THESE APPROVED PLANS. THE SCOPE OF WORK OF THIS CSK-19 INCLUDES RECONSTRUCTING THE PREVIOUSLY BUILT BASIN 8 AND ENLARGING IT \\Vhb\proj\Wat-LD\10018.03\cad\te\planset\LFR-North MassWorks\CSK\CSK-19\2018 Files\Revised_Betacomments\CSK 19_redesign_rev_v2.dwg November 28, 2018 CSK-19 Basin 8 Regrading Legacy Farms Road North Hopkinton, Massachusetts Sheet 2 of 4 Overflow Stone Swale N.T.S. Bioretention Basin N.T.S. \\Vhb\proj\Wat-LD\10018.03\cad\te\planset\LFR-North MassWorks\CSK\CSK-19\2018 Files\Revised_Betacomments\CSK 19_redesign_rev_v2.dwg November 28, 2018 CSK-19 Basin 8 Regrading Legacy Farms Road North Hopkinton, Massachusetts Sheet 3 of 4 N.T.S. Flared End Section (FES) with Stone Protection N.T.S. \\Vhb\proj\Wat-LD\10018.03\cad\te\planset\LFR-North MassWorks\CSK\CSK-19\2018 Files\Revised_Betacomments\CSK 19_redesign_rev_v2.dwg November 28, 2018 CSK-19 Basin 8 Regrading Legacy Farms Road North Hopkinton, Massachusetts Sheet 4 of 412"3' PROP BOTTOM OF SWALE DRAINAGE SWALEVARIES3'VARIES CHECK DAM REFERENCE POINT SCALE: N.T.S.DATE: OCTOBER 25 2016SOURCE: VHB CHECK DAM WITH 3:1 TRANSVERSE SLOPE NOTES: 1.CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHECK DAM REFERENCE POINT ELEVATION AND ADJACENT ROADWAY ELEVATION IS NOT LESS THAN 1-FOOT. IF FIELD CONDITIONS DO NOT RESULT IN 1-FOOT ELEVATION DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROVIDED CHECK DAM REFERENCE POINT AND ADJACENT ROADWAY ELEVATION AT EDGE OF PAVEMENT, CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER. 2.MODIFIED ROCK FILL TO BE PLACED IN TWO LIFTS TO ALLOW FOR THE APPLICATION OF COMPOST TOPSOIL. APPLY COMPOST TOPSOIL OVER AND WITHIN THE MODIFIED ROCK FILL. MATERIAL SHOULD BE PLACED SO THAT SETTLED MATERIAL IS AT OR SLIGHTLY BELOW SURFACE PLANE OF STONE AND SHALL BE WORKED INTO THE VOIDS OF THE MODIFIED ROCK FILL. COMPOST TOPSOIL SHALL BE RAKED BY HAND. MEET EXISTING GRADE CHECK DAM HEIGHT VARIES (SEE PLAN) FLOW ORDINARY BORROW 1:1 SLOPE DENSE GRADED CRUSHED STONE CORE EXISTING GRADE 1:1 SLOPE TOP STONE DEPTH VARIES MEET EXISTING GRADE FLOW MEET EXISTING GRADE PLACED MODIFIED ROCK FILL. PLACE COMPOST TOPSOIL OVER AND WITHIN VOIDS WITH SEEDING OVER (SEE NOTE 2) CHECK DAM REFERENCE POINT EXISTING GROUND DENSE GRADED CRUSHED STONE (DEPTH VARIES- SEE CHART) PLACED MODIFIED ROCK FILL. PLACE COMPOST TOPSOIL OVER AND WITHIN VOIDS WITH SEEDING OVER. LIMIT OF STONE VARIES 3:1 CHECK DAM REFERENCE POINT MUST BE A MINIMUM OF ONE (1) FOOT BELOW ADJACENT ROADWAY ELEVATION 3:1 FLOWFLOW PROP BOTTOM OF SWALE SLOPEVARIESSLOPEVARIESCL DRAINAGE SWALE 3 1 3 1 2' 12" 12"SECTION A-A 3%3%12"12"SECTION B-B 3%3%AA B B PLAN12"6"12" PLACED MODIFIED ROCK FILL. PLACE COMPOST TOPSOIL OVER AND WITHIN VOIDS WITH SEEDING OVER. (SEE NOTE 2) MEET EXISTING GRADE 1'1' KEY DEPTH VARIES J.D. MARQUEDANT & ASSOCIATES INC. Land Surveying 6 Walcott Street Hopkinton MA 01748 Phone: 508-435-4145 Fax: 508-435-0157 April 2, 2019 Ms. Elaine Lazerus, Director of Land Use and Town Operations Town of Hopkinton 18 Main Street Hopkinton MA 01748 Re: Approval Not Required Plan Linden Street Dear Ms. Lazerus Peter and Karen Mezitt own the single-family residential building site located at 10 Linden Street Hopkinton MA (Project). The project site is a 4.6 acre parcel on the southerly side of Linden Street. An existing dwelling, house number 10, is the current home of Peter and Karen Mezitt. The Mezitts propose to create a new house lot comprising 2.66 acres of the total parcel in order to construct a new single dwelling with an on-site well, septic disposal system and other amenities associated with residential development. At a Planning Board hearing regarding the Approval Not Required Plan for 10 Linden Street on April 24, 2000 the Board found that Linden Street was a traveled way prior to the adoption of the Subdivision Control Law in Hopkinton MA. During this same time period the design of a gravel access driveway was developed based on input from the Department of Public Works, Hopkinton Fire Department and the Town of Hopkinton Conservation Commission. The current gravel access drive was constructed prior to the occupancy of the home at #10 Linden Street. The Project will include the installation of a proposed bituminous concrete access driveway within the Right of Way of Linden Street to access the proposed building site. The existing gravel drive currently terminates approximately sixty (60) feet westerly of the lot corner of the proposed house lot. The existing gravel access driveway will be upgraded to a more durable bituminous concrete surface from the start of the existing gravel access drive near the driveway to #8 Linden Street, at the residence of David Cioppa, to its end at the proposed house lot. The new access driveway will have a 12' wide surface with a 2' wide shoulder or clear zone for a total clearance of 16' wide. The proposed driveway sub-grade materials and finished pavement shall provide the stability for the driveway outlined in the Hopkinton Fire Department policies. The proposed access driveway will include one "turnout" to facilitate the passing of vehicles along the driveway and a " T-type turn-around" at the easterly end to allow fire and other emergency vehicles to turn and exit the site. The proposed access driveway and "turn-around" will allow access to the proposed dwelling by the Hopkinton Fire Departments Ladder Truck in accordance with department requirements. The proposed driveway design is included on project plans attached to this memo. Potential further development of areas northerly or easterly of the Project appear unlikely. The existence of an intermittent stream and associated wetlands along the northerly side of Linden Street opposite the Project would appear to make access over Linden Street to land northerly of Linden Street difficult. Other points along East Main Street, a public way, may offer the necessary access to these properties for any future development plans, if any. The areas easterly of the Project are contained within the previously developed "Legacy Farms South" multi-family residential development. It is the opinion of the project proponent that the proposed access drive provides the access necessary for the one new dwelling proposed. If in the future more lots are proposed to be built off Linden Street the future access road shall be constructed to the Town standards at the time of the future proposal and at the future developer's expense. Thank you for your consideration of the application. We look forward to meeting with the Planning Board at the public hearing to discuss elements of the Project Designs. Please contact me with any concerns regarding the application or associated information. Regards, Joseph P Marquedant, Project Manager J.D. Marquedant & Associates Inc. cc: Mr. Peter Mezitt TOWN OF HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD TOWN HALL, 18 MAIN STREET, HOPKINTON, MA 01748 (508) 497-9745 www.hopkintonma.gov Findings and Decisions Date: April , 2019 Re: Application of TJA Clean Energy LLC f/k/a TJA Solar LLC for a Special Permit pursuant to Article XXXI, Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Installations, of the Hopkinton Zoning Bylaw Applicant: TJA Clean Energy LLC f/k/a TJA Solar LLC, 150 John Vertente Blvd., New Bedford, MA Owner: The Preservation Trust, Inc., 259 Turnpike Rd., Suite 100, Southborough, MA Subject Property: 17, 0 and 0 Wilson Street, and 0 Cedar Street; Hopkinton Assessors Map U12 Block 1 Lot A, Map U12 Block 2 Lot A, Map U11 Block 30 Lot 0, and Map U11 Block 26 Lot B. A. Procedural History 1. A Decision denying approval of an Application for a Special Permit for a Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Installation pursuant to Zoning Bylaw Article XXXI, submitted by TJA Solar LLC, was filed with the Town Clerk by the Planning Board on November 16, 2018 (the “2018 Decision”). 2. An Appeal of the 2018 Decision was filed with the Land Court by the Applicant on December 3, 2018. 3. The Land Court, upon consideration of both parties’ Joint Motion for Remand, filed January 18, 2019, ordered the case remanded to the Planning Board (Order of Remand, January 29, 2019) so that the Applicant may submit a petition requesting a special permit from the Board to allow the use of the Subject Property as a solar photovoltaic facility pursuant to the Hopkinton Zoning Bylaw. 4. The Applicant submitted a Remand Petition to the Planning Board on March 11, 2019. 5. A duly noticed public hearing was held on March 11, 2019 and March 25, 2019, pursuant to the Order of Remand. 2 6. The Applicant submitted the following plans on March 21, 2019: 1) plan set entitled “Site Development Plans for Wilson Street Solar Project, Hopkinton, Massachusetts,” prepared by Atlantic Design Engineers, Inc., dated March 7, 2018, revised through March 21, 2019 (the “Plans”); 2) plans entitled “Landscape Screening Plan for Wilson Street Solar Project, Hopkinton, Massachusetts,” prepared by Atlantic Design Engineers, Inc., dated August 20, 2018, revised through March 21, 2019 (the “Landscape Screening Plan”); and 3) Ceremonial Stone Landscape Preservation Plan, prepared by Atlantic Design Engineers, Inc., dated September 25, 2018, revised March 21, 2019. 7. At the public hearing, the Board considered new evidence and testimony presented by those in attendance and submitted in writing. 8. Having received new evidence and heard new testimony, the Planning Board closed the public hearing on March 25, 2019. 9. Throughout its deliberations, the Board has been mindful of the statements of the Applicant, its consultants and representatives, and the comments of the general public, all as made at the public hearing. B. Special Permit Criteria Section 210-203.D of the Zoning Bylaw states that, before the Planning Board may issue the special permit, it shall determine each of the following: (a) The commercial solar photovoltaic installation conforms to the provisions of the Article; (b) The commercial solar photovoltaic installation will not be detrimental to the neighborhood or the Town; and (c) Environmental features of the site and surrounding areas are protected, and specifically surrounding areas will be protected from the proposed use by provision of adequate surface water drainage. Section 210-223 of the Zoning Bylaw states that the Board must also determine that the grant of the special permit will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Bylaw. The Planning Board may approve the special permit with conditions, which may include: a) the requirement of a performance bond posted with the Town to guarantee proper maintenance and/or removal of the commercial solar photovoltaic installation, and performance bond to guarantee proper construction; and b) the requirement for additional screening of the facility. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 3, states, in pertinent part: 3 No zoning ordinance or by-law shall prohibit or unreasonably regulate the installation of solar energy systems or the building of structures that facilitate the collection of solar energy, except where necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare. C. Discussion At the public hearing, the Applicant described the proposal to construct a Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Installation (the “solar facility”) on four parcels of land comprising approximately 34.3 acres. The documents and plans submitted with the original application and referenced in the 2018 Decision are incorporated into the record by reference, but were not individually reviewed at the public hearing. The Applicant submitted revised plans during this public hearing process, which removed the need for a waiver pursuant to Zoning Bylaw Section 210-121.1, which was an item of concern raised in the 2018 Decision. The revised plans provide a minimum 75-foot buffer adjacent to 15 Wilson Street, as required. The revised plans also provided three options for access points on Wilson Street for the Board’s consideration, in order to address concerns raised. The general public provided testimony at the public hearing and in writing relative to several issues, including a desire for additional screening, concerns about clear-cutting of the solar array areas, and issues related to the neighborhood impacts of the proposed solar facility. D. General Findings of Fact 1. The Subject Property is located in the Agricultural (A), Residence A (RA) and Industrial B (IB) Districts, and the Water Resources Protection Overlay District. 2. The Subject Property contains 34.3 acres, of which approximately 7.28 acres would be used for the solar arrays. 3. The solar facility consists of one solar array area accessed from Cedar Street, and a second series of arrays accessed from Wilson Street. 4. The site is bisected by a natural gas transmission line. 5. A portion of the work associated with the solar facility is within wetland resource area buffers. The Conservation Commission has issued an Order of Conditions for the project. 6. The solar facility required a Stormwater Management Permit from the Planning Board. The Planning Board issued a Stormwater Management Permit on October 9, 2018. 7. Solar energy systems and the collection of solar energy are uses referred to in M.G.L. c.40A, §3, which may be regulated only to the extent indicated in that section. 8. Hopkinton has been designated a Green Community by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. As such, it is committed to reducing energy consumption and costs, reducing 4 pollution, facilitating the development of renewable and alternative energy resources and creating local jobs related to the building of renewable and alternative energy facilities and the installation of energy-efficient equipment. E. Specific Findings In view of the foregoing and upon review of the record and the testimony provided, the Board voted on March 25, 2019 to find that: 1. The solar facility conforms to the provisions of Article XXXI of the Zoning Bylaw. The solar facility complies with each of the applicable Use Regulations contained in Section 210- 202, as follows: a) Each of the three lots on which the solar facility would be constructed exceeds the required minimum of 3 acres, and the site as a whole exceeds 3 acres in area (§210- 202.A); b) The solar facility will conform to all applicable setback, yard, buffer and screening requirements (§210-202.B); c) Security fences surrounding the solar facility will be set back from the property line a distance equal to the setback requirement applicable to buildings within the zoning district in which the land lies (§210-202.C); d) The visual impact of the solar facility has been mitigated by moving facilities farther from abutting properties on Wilson Street and by providing planting and landscaping as depicted on plans entitled “Landscape Screening Plan for Wilson Street Solar Project, Hopkinton, Massachusetts,” prepared by Atlantic Design Engineers, Inc., dated August 20, 2018, revised through March 21, 2019 (§210-202.E); e) Utility connections from the solar facility to the electrical grid will be underground, as shown on the Plans. The small sections of above-ground utility lines shown on the plan are necessary to cross over the natural gas pipeline and a wetland area. The utility lines are interior to the solar facility and do not connect to the electrical grid (§210-202.G); f) Clearing of natural vegetation is only what is necessary for the construction, operation and maintenance of the solar facility (§210-202.H). The majority of the Subject Property will remain undisturbed. 2. The solar facility will not be detrimental to the neighborhood or the Town. The design of the solar facility, as shown on the submitted plans, and the conditions of approval contained in this Decision will mitigate the detrimental impacts of the solar facility identified during the public hearing process. Visual screening is included on the plans; setback distances meet or exceed the requirement; and Native American cultural landscapes will be preserved. 3. Environmental features of the site and surrounding areas are protected and, specifically, surrounding areas will be protected from the proposed use by provision of adequate surface water drainage. A stormwater management system for the solar facility was designed and peer reviewed, and the Planning Board issued a Stormwater Management Permit in 2018. An Order of Conditions has been issued by the Conservation Commission for work within its jurisdiction. Native American cultural landscapes will be preserved. 5 4. All applicable criteria and standards set forth in the Zoning Bylaw have been addressed as listed above, and grant of the special permit will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Bylaw. A solar facility is a use permitted by Special Permit in the zoning districts in which the land lies, and the facility conforms to all of the Use Regulations in Section 210-202. On a motion to make the above findings, the vote of the Board is as follows: Muriel Kramer Yes Francis DeYoung Yes Deborah Fein-Brug Yes Mary Larson-Marlowe Yes David Paul No Amy Ritterbusch Yes Gary Trendel Yes F. Decision and Conditions In view of the foregoing findings, the Board voted on March 25, 2019 to grant the Special Permit, subject to the following conditions: 1. The solar facility shall be constructed in conformance with the following plans and approvals, as further revised by specific conditions of this Decision: Plan set entitled “Site Development Plans for Wilson Street Solar Project, Hopkinton, Massachusetts,” prepared by Atlantic Design Engineers, Inc., dated March 7, 2018, revised through March 21, 2019; Plans entitled “Landscape Screening Plan for Wilson Street Solar Project, Hopkinton, Massachusetts,” prepared by Atlantic Design Engineers, Inc., dated August 20, 2018, revised through March 21, 2019; Ceremonial Stone Landscape Preservation Plan, prepared by Atlantic Design Engineers, Inc., dated September 25, 2018, revised March 21, 2019; Stormwater Management Permit issued by the Planning Board; and Order of Conditions issued by the Conservation Commission. 2. The vegetative planting shown on the Landscape Screening Plan shall be completed concurrently with the installation of the solar facility, with the exception that, if the facility is constructed in the winter months, planting shall be deferred to the beginning of the next growing season. 3. Prior to the start of planting installation, the Applicant’s Wetland Scientist or Landscape Architect shall meet with the Principal Planner and the owners of 14 Wilson Street and 15 Wilson Street to coordinate the installation of additional planting for screening purposes on the 14 Wilson Street and 15 Wilson Street properties, if additional planting is desired by each of the owners, and if the parties reach mutual agreement on the nature of the plantings. The cost of such plantings to the Applicant shall not exceed $2,500 per property. 4. Prior to the planting of materials listed on the Landscape Screening Plan, the specific placement of screening plantings shall be determined by a qualified Wetland Scientist or 6 Landscape Architect to maximize screening effectiveness and ensure successful establishment of plantings. 5. Following planting, the effectiveness of the installed screening shall be re-evaluated during the non-foliar season by a qualified Wetland Scientist or Landscape Architect. A report detailing the evaluation shall be submitted to the Planning Board for review and approval. Areas where additional screening is required shall be identified and screening shall be installed in the identified area. 6. On behalf of the Applicant, the Narragansett Tribe of Rhode Island and the Wampanoag Tribe of Aquinnah (the “Tribes”) shall complete a survey to identify the features and any associated alignments within the areas of potential effect of any cultural or historic resources, and determine what impact avoidance plan will be necessary in order to protect the resources. In areas identified as requiring protection, the engineering of the solar facility racking systems and associated infrastructure shall be designed to protect and preserve the integrity of the identified cultural and/or historic resources. A final engineering plan shall be provided to the Planning Board and to the Tribes at least seven days prior to the Applicant’s filing for a building permit for the solar facility. 7. The Tribes or their designated representatives shall be given a reasonable opportunity to be present as construction monitors during tree clearing in the areas of identified cultural or historic resources where such clearing is to be allowed by hand, and for the installation of racking systems and associated infrastructure, to determine compliance and to identify any petroglyphs, remains or new cultural or historic resources to be preserved and protected after the land is cleared. The Applicant shall notify the Planning Board if, after given a reasonable opportunity to be present, the Tribes will not be present as construction monitors. 8. The final cultural and historic resources survey and protection plan shall be provided to the Hopkinton Historical Commission upon completion. 9. The Director of Municipal Inspections shall inspect the solar facility’s construction and operations for compliance with the Special Permit. If the Director of Municipal Inspections determines at any time before or during construction that a registered professional engineer or other outside professional is required to assist with the inspections, the Applicant shall be responsible for the cost of those inspections. 10. Prior to the commencement of construction, the Applicant shall submit a detailed estimate of the cost of removal of the installation and to complete all of the obligations contained in Condition #12, for review by the Board’s engineer. Prior to the commencement of construction, the Applicant shall obtain Board approval of this estimate. 11. In accordance with the provisions of Section 210-203.E, the Applicant shall post a performance bond with the Town to guarantee proper maintenance and removal of the solar facility, in an amount equal to the estimated cost approved pursuant to Condition #10. A letter of credit or other surety, issued by a bank doing business in the Commonwealth pursuant to proper licensure from the Massachusetts Division of Banks, shall be one 7 acceptable form of the performance bond. The Town shall be a named obligee under the bond, together with the Applicant and Owner to ensure that the Town may avail itself of the bond in the event that the Applicant or Owner fails to maintain or decommission the solar facility. No construction or preparation for construction shall commence on site until the Applicant has posted the performance bond required by this Condition with the Town, in a form acceptable to Town Counsel. 12. If the Director of Municipal Inspections determines, pursuant to Section 210-204 of the Zoning Bylaw, that the commercial solar photovoltaic installation has been discontinued, the Owner shall remove the installation, including all structures, equipment, security barriers and transmission lines, and stabilize or re-vegetate the site as necessary to minimize erosion and sedimentation, at the owner’s sole expense, within three (3) months of receipt of a Notice of Discontinuance. 13. The Owner of the Subject Property and the Operator of the solar facility shall have a decommissioning agreement in place for as long as the solar facility is located on the property. 14. When decommissioning and removing the solar facility, the Tribes shall be given a reasonable opportunity to be present as monitors to ensure that the historic and/or cultural resources are protected during the decommissioning and removal process. 15. All signage at the Subject Property must comply with Article XXVII, Signs, of the Zoning Bylaw and the grant of this Special Permit is not an approval or authorization of any on-site signage. 16. The Operator of the solar facility shall conduct vegetation control on-site. No pesticides, herbicides or other chemical products shall be used. Vegetation control by mechanical means may occur only between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM Monday through Friday and Saturdays between 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM pursuant to Chapter 141, Noise, Article 1, of the Hopkinton General Bylaw. 17. In accordance with Section 210-202.B of the Zoning Bylaw, the solar facility shall be subject to all the setback, yard, buffer and screening requirements in the Residence A, Agricultural and Industrial B Districts, as applicable. 18. In accordance with Section 210-202.C of the Zoning Bylaw, all security fences surrounding the installation shall be set back from the property line at a distance equal to the requirements applicable to buildings in the Residence A, Agricultural and Industrial B Districts, as applicable. 19. No lighting shall be permitted at the solar facility site except as required by the Massachusetts State Building Code. If so required, all lighting must be directed downward, and full cutoff fixtures shall be used pursuant to Section 210-202.F of the Zoning Bylaw. 8 20. As required by Section 210-202.I of the Zoning Bylaw, the Owner or Operator of the solar facility shall maintain the facility in good condition. Maintenance shall include painting, structural repairs, continued compliance with the landscaping and screening requirements, and the integrity of the on-site security measures. The Owner or Operator shall also be responsible for maintaining any access roads serving the solar facility. 21. The solar facility shall be maintained in compliance with all noise level requirements contained in the General Bylaw or the Zoning Bylaw of the Town of Hopkinton. 22. Prior to any construction or preparation for construction, the Applicant or Owner shall provide a performance guarantee in the amount of $10,000 to secure future maintenance of the required screening for up to five (5) years, such period to commence on the date on which the first plantings are installed. The performance guarantee shall be in the form of a surety bond or deposit of money. In the event that the Owner does not maintain screening plantings in accordance with appropriate procedures or that screening plantings die within the five-year performance guarantee period, the Board shall have the authority to expend any portion of the performance guarantee for this purpose, without consent of the Applicant or Owner, if the Applicant or Owner does not take corrective action within a reasonable period of time. 23. Prior to any construction or preparation for construction, the Applicant or Owner shall provide a performance guarantee for five (5) years, in the amount of $10,000, to secure future maintenance of the stormwater management system. The performance guarantee shall be in the form of a surety bond or by a deposit of money. In the event that the Owner does not follow the maintenance procedures and programs contained in the Stormwater Management Permit and the Long Term Operation & Maintenance Plan, the Board shall have the authority to expend any portion of said security to provide for such maintenance, without consent of the Applicant or Owner, if the Applicant or Owner does not take corrective action within a reasonable period of time. Prior to the end of the initial and any subsequent surety period, the surety shall be renewed for an additional five (5) years, until the solar facility is decommissioned. 24. Catalog cut sheets of all equipment to be installed shall be provided to the Principal Planner for review for consistency with the approved Plans prior to the pre-construction meeting. 25. The portion of the solar facility accessed from Wilson Street is comprised of three distinct solar array areas, each connected by an access drive. The Plans show a narrowing of the fenced area, containing only the access drive between the two solar array areas closest to Wilson Street. In order to allow for a wildlife corridor and wildlife access through this area, the Plans shall be revised to remove the access drive from the fenced area between these two solar array areas. To accomplish this change, the Plans shall be revised to show an 80-foot wide wildlife corridor area between the two adjacent fenced solar array areas. The new gate openings shall include a knox box for emergency vehicle access. 26. The Plans show three alternatives for access onto Wilson Street, options A, B and C. The Board hereby approves option B, and the Plans shall be revised to show this point as the sole access from Wilson Street. The Landscape Screening Plan shall also be revised to show 9 option B as the sole point of access and to modify the “Wilson Street Screening Area” as appropriate. Because Wilson Street is a designated scenic road, a Scenic Road Permit is necessary for any stone wall alteration or tree removal within the road right of way. A Scenic Road Permit requires a separate application to the Planning Board. 27. The Plans show utility equipment on the easterly side of the solar facility, and conceptual landscaping and screening around it. As noted on the Landscape Screening Plan, the number and size of plant material is contingent on the creation of adequate visual screening in the “Wilson Street Screening Area,” shown on that Plan. The specific placement of plantings shall be determined by a qualified Wetland Scientist or Landscape Architect to maximize screening effectiveness and ensure successful establishment of plantings. 28. The Applicant shall coordinate with the Hopkinton Police Department to provide a traffic detail on Wilson Street during construction and when solar facility components are being delivered to the site. 29. The Applicant shall consult with the Hopkinton Police Department as to whether a traffic detail should be provided on Cedar Street during construction or when solar facility components are being delivered to the site. The Applicant shall coordinate with the Department to provide any such traffic detail. On a motion to grant the Special Permit with the conditions, the vote of the Board is as follows: Muriel Kramer Yes Francis DeYoung Yes Deborah Fein-Brug Yes Mary Larson-Marlowe Yes David Paul No Amy Ritterbusch Yes Gary Trendel Yes _____________________________ Muriel Kramer Chair Appeals of this Special Permit, if any, shall be made pursuant to MGL. c.40A, § 17 and shall be filed within twenty (20) days after the date of filing of this Special Permit with the office of the Town Clerk. 1 HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD Monday, February 25, 2019 7:30 P.M. Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton, MA MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Muriel Kramer, Chair, Fran DeYoung, Vice Chair, David Paul, Deborah Fein-Brug, Mary Larson-Marlowe, Carol DeVeuve, Amy Ritterbusch, Gary Trendel MEMBERS ABSENT: Frank D’Urso Present: Elaine Lazarus, Assistant Town Manager, Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant 1. Public Hearing - Proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendments Sign Bylaw - Temporary Banners. Ms. Larson-Marlowe summarized the proposed bylaw changes which were requested by the Board of Selectmen: 1) allow banners over any public roadway, 2) increase the length of time they can be displayed from 14 to 30 days, and 3) increase the maximum size from 75 sq. ft. to 180 sq. ft. She noted the Board of Selectmen still has to approve the applications. She stated Town Counsel recommends referring to public rights of way and modifying the language so as to be clear that the town is not regulating content. Ms. Ritterbusch stated she is ok with allowing banners over all public ways but does not like the increase in duration because banners already tend to stay up longer than allowed. Ms. Kramer noted she has a similar concern. Mr. DeYoung asked if there is a limit on the number of banners, and Ms. Lazarus replied no. Mary Arnaut, 51 Teresa Rd., questioned the definition of public way, and whether it means any road/street the Town is responsible for. Ms. Arnaut stated she is not in favor of allowing banners over all public rights of way and urged the Board to change the wording. Ms. Lazarus stated banners need utility poles directly across the street from each other, and that will limit the number of potential locations. Ms. Arnaut stated she does not like banners in residential areas, and from a traffic safety standpoint it could be distracting to drivers. Claire Wright, 28 Hayden Rowe, Chair, Board of Selectmen, noted Town Counsel in his comments stated they should be careful about restricting content. Ms. DeVeuve stated she feels banners should not necessarily be allowed in all residential areas, especially since content cannot be regulated. Ms. Kramer noted they could narrow it down to major roads such as Routes 135 and 85. Mr. Trendel stated he prefers to leave the maximum duration at 14 days, and limit placement to the major roadways. The Board discussed the definition of a major roadway. Ms. Fein-Brug stated 14 days would be just as effective to get a message across and she is not in favor of increasing the time limit. Ms. Arnaut asked about the number of banners that could go across a major road, and Ms. Kramer stated she feels that issue will be addressed by the Board of Selectmen. Ms. DeVeuve stated banners are expensive and having more of them is not necessarily better. Ms. Larson- Marlowe noted the Town of Holliston at times has multiple banners announcing different events and it appears to work well as long as they are sufficiently far apart. Ms. DeVeuve stated the poles in the downtown are going away eventually. After further discussion and clarification of the current bylaw language, Mr. DeYoung moved to recommend the changes to the bylaw regarding temporary banners as follows: allow the banners 2 over Rt. 135, Rt. 85, and West Main St., retain the duration limit of 14 days, increase the maximum allowed size from 75 to 180 sq. ft., and add the language recommended by Town Counsel. Ms. Ritterbusch seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Installations. Ms. Larson-Marlowe noted the Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC) was asked to look at ways to strengthen the solar bylaw with respect to the visual impact of a solar farm within legal limits. She read the language of the relevant portion of the bylaw, and noted it is proposed to insert a requirement for “forming an effective year round screen” which is borrowed from other bylaw provisions. She stated Town Counsel feels the new language should be more specific but the existing language is not very specific either and she wondered whether they should rewrite this section in its entirety. Ms. Fein-Brug noted the word “effective” is interpretative and it would be up to the Board to decide at the time of application, but she would be in favor of the additional language. Ms. Ritterbusch stated they need to shield direct abutters, and it was noted it is also important to screen the project from roadways. Ms. DeVeuve stated screening requirements depend on site conditions and she would be reluctant to be too specific in the bylaw. Ms. Arnaut referred to the solar farm recently approved at 147 Lumber St. She stated she was horrified to see its impact on the neighborhood. She noted the residents on Alexander Rd. now have a clear view of a solar farm instead of woods, and it will impact their property values. She suggested Board members view the area. Tom Shambo, 15 Wilson St., stated there are multiple references to “whatever reasonable”, and he asked what that means at any point of time. He suggested adding a requirement that “structures be shielded by vegetation”. He noted in his neighborhood TJA Solar will come back to pursue the solar farm on Wilson St./Cedar St. and he really does not want to end up in the same position as the abutters to 147 Lumber St. Mr. Trendel asked if "whatever reasonable" is common language in this situation, and Ms. Lazarus noted it would give the Board the flexibility it needs depending on the site. Ms. Fein-Brug stated she is not sure that "whatever reasonable” makes any difference, and Mr. Paul recommended leaving it in because there may be situations where a solar farm cannot be 100% shielded. Ms. Kramer stated to her it means that a proposed location is not the right place for a solar farm, and a reference to “whatever reasonable” does not make a difference with respect to forming an effective year round screen. Ms. Larson- Marlowe asked for clarification as to whether it will still be possible to enforce the basic wording of the bylaw once the conditions have been written for a specific development. Ms. Lazarus stated that could be difficult if it turns out the plan does not work in practice but the bylaw still applies, and it would be up to the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer to determine compliance. Mr. Trendel stated it sounds as if there is need for some flexibility, and the only change would be the requirement for effective year round screening, and this sounds reasonable. Ms. Fein-Brug noted in this context they have not talked about the effectiveness of earth berming for screening solar farms, and it was noted that it would be considered a natural landscaping feature, which is already in the bylaw. It was suggested to specifically reference earth berms as an option. Ms. Arnaut stated in the case of the 147 Lumber St. project trees do not provide effective screening, and they should do something to obstruct the view from abutters. Ms. Kramer stated there is concern that specifically requiring screening of abutting properties might result in leaving out other screening aspects, and there is a clear, accessible process for people to propose amendments at town meeting. Mr. Trendel noted that asking for obstructive year round screening may be crossing the line legally, but the proposed change would at least partially address the problem. Ms. Fein-Brug 3 asked if there is a definition of effective screening in the bylaw, and Ms. Lazarus stated no. Ms. Lazarus noted they are typically referring to screening from view from the ground. She noted that requiring that views be obstructed means that nothing gets through and then it would have to be a wall. The Board determined it would continue the discussion. Educational Uses/Vocational Schools – Industrial A (IA), Industrial B (IB), Professional Office (P) Districts. Ms. Larson-Marlowe stated the proposal would add language to allow educational uses in the IA, IB and P districts by right, even though they are technically already allowed via the Dover Amendment. She noted the idea was based on a discussion of the Liberty Mutual site on Frankland Rd., and the idea that it would be a great place for a vocational school. Ms. Kramer noted she does not necessarily object to the change, but educational uses are allowed anyway, and she does not think this would be the most effective way to encourage it. Ms. DeVeuve noted she was not there when ZAC discussed this issue, but although she is not necessarily opposed and agrees Frankland Rd. would be good place for a school, the use is already allowed and the proposed zoning bylaw amendment would not necessarily change anything. Mr. Trendel agreed. Ria McNamara, 39 Oakhurst Rd., ZAC member, stated they were trying to identify a non- destructive use for the Frankland Rd. area, and this was one example where people need more direction. She noted the idea was to have a specific area as a candidate for a so-called “friendly" Dover Amendment project, and although she does not know about the other districts it would make sense for Frankland Rd. It was noted that the P district is limited to Frankland Rd., and Ms. DeVeuve stated she would support the change if limited to the P district. Ms. Fein-Brug stated it would be great there, but it is not the Town's job to encourage the use and she does not feel the bylaws need to be changed. Ms. McNamara noted she used to live in a town where a school was a major asset to the community, and as far as potential buyers for the Frankland Rd. property are concerned, she has heard there are obstacles because it concerns big buildings on a large site too far from the highway. Claire Wright noted she believes educational institutions are aware of their rights under the Dover Amendment and she is not in favor of making unnecessary changes, and in addition the Frankland Rd. residents probably don't think the traffic associated with a vocational school is such a good idea. Ms. Arnaut stated Frankland Rd. may be a great location but it is next to a residential area. She asked about the definition of vocational education, and noted the impact of what is being taught could go beyond an increase in traffic. After further discussion, Mr. DeYoung moved to remove the article from the warrant, Mr. Paul seconded the motion, and the Board voted 7 in favor with 1 opposed (Ritterbusch). Indoor Recreation Use, IA and IB Districts. Ms. Larson-Marlowe stated the ZAC recommends allowing indoor recreation by right in the IA district and changing it from a special permit to a by right use in IB. Ms. DeVeuve noted she was not there when this was discussed at the ZAC, and although she has no issues with the use by special permit, allowing it by right would be problematic because of the lack of regulations. The locations of the IA and IB districts were described, and it was noted that some of these areas are close to residents. It was noted the change was proposed by the Chamber of Commerce, and the special permit process is thought to be a disincentive, especially for smaller businesses. Mr. DeYoung stated he does not feel getting a special permit is an undue burden for any business. Ted Barker-Hook, 75 Grove St., ZAC member, noted he was not at the ZAC meeting where it was voted, and is not in favor of the change. The Board paused the discussion to open and continue a scheduled public hearing. 4 2. Continued Public Hearing - Maspenock Woods - Proposed Amendment to Approved Garden Apartment Development Site Plan - Maspenock Woods Realty Trust Ms. DeVeuve moved to continue the public hearing to March 25, 2019 at 8:30 P.M., and extend the decision deadline, by mutual agreement, to April 9, 2019. Mr. Paul seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 3. Continued Public Hearing – Proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendments Indoor Recreation Use - Continued Discussion. Ms. Kramer stated there are some concerns based on noise impact but she would support the changes. Ms. Fein-Brug stated she is ok with adding it as a by right use in IA but prefers keeping it by special permit in IB. Ms. Kramer and Ms. Larson- Marlowe agreed. Ms. Lazarus stated this may make it necessary to advertise a new public hearing on that proposed amendment, and there was no objection from Board members. Mr. DeYoung moved to recommend adding indoor recreation as a use allowed by special permit in the IA district and make no changes to the IB district in this respect. Mr. Trendel seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Ms. Lazarus noted she will review the hearing notice for tonight's hearing, and if necessary re-advertise the proposed change to be included in the public hearing on proposed zoning bylaw changes already scheduled for March 25. Retail Use as Accessory Use to Manufacturing Use. Ms. Larson-Marlowe stated the article proposes to allow retail uses as an accessory use to a manufacturing use within the IA and IB districts by right with a maximum area of 5,000 sq. ft. It was noted that Town Counsel reviewed the article and recommends changing “accessory” to “associated” to clarify the wording from a legal standpoint. Ms. Kramer stated an accessory use is typically on the same lot, and Ms. Larson- Marlowe noted the ZAC intended both to be in the same building. It was noted the reference to an associated use will give people the flexibility to have a small outlet for what they are manufacturing, but not necessarily in the exact same location. Ms. Lazarus noted retail uses are currently allowed in both districts by special permit, but are limited to “convenience” stores no bigger than 2,000 sq. ft. Mr. Paul noted a special permit requirement will provide more control, and Ms. Fein-Brug agreed, especially since they will not necessarily be in the same building. Ms. Kramer stated she is ok with allowing it by right. Ms. Arnaut stated she does not want to see this change open up the Town to something it might not want, and she encouraged the Board members to make it a special permit use with some restrictions. Irfan Nasrullah, 211 Winter St., member, Board of Selectmen, stated he would prefer to see a special permit process. After additional discussion, Ms. Larson-Marlowe moved to accept Town Counsel's changes to the article and recommend allowing retail uses as an associated use within the IA and IB districts by special permit with a maximum area of 5,000 sf, and Ms. Ritterbusch seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The Board paused the discussion to address the next item on the agenda. 4. Box Mill Road – Access for 2 Additional Lots Rick Barbieri, developer, and Dave Marquedant, J.D. Marquedant & Assoc., Inc., surveyor, appeared before the Board. Mr. Barbieri stated he would like to have driveways off Box Mill Rd. to access 2 additional building lots on adjacent land. He described the location, and noted he would rather use Box Mill Rd. for access instead of constructing a new road off Leonard St. to serve the lots. He stated he discussed the driveway regulations with the Fire Dept. In response to a question from the Board, he stated there would be no changes to any part of the cross-country track already on the parcel to be conveyed to the Town. It was noted that the new land to be added to his 5 property is owned by Thomas Terry. Mr. Barbieri stated he initially filed an application to the Board of Appeals but was then told by the Chair that he needed to go through the Planning Board. Ms. Lazarus noted the zoning bylaw requires access across the designated frontage and also requires an amount of frontage for a building lot, and those were the subject of the Board of Appeals application. Issues relative to access from a new street versus Box Mill Road were discussed. Mr. Barbieri noted the current neighbors prefer this approach as opposed to having another road. Mr. Paul asked about a loop road, and Mr. Barbieri stated that would not be the preferred approach. It was noted this is a complicated matter and the Board does not have a clear answer. Elizabeth McBride, 7 Leonard St., referred to a strip of land on the plan and stated Town records have it as “owner unknown” and she is not aware there is a right of way. Mr. Barbieri clarified the issue for Ms. McBride. Mr. Trendel asked if it would be ok to construct a dead-end street, and Ms. Lazarus stated it would be up to the Board. Ms. Lazarus stated it could be designed to look like a common driveway. Nanda Barker-Hook, 75 Grove St., referred to the approval process for the existing homes on Box Mill Rd. She noted the developer originally proposed to build 5 homes and donate the remaining land to the School Dept. She stated the neighbors at the time were very opposed to the plan based on the impact on the neighborhood from a public safety and drainage standpoint, and Mr. Barbieri ended up receiving approval for 3 homes. She noted the neighbors were pleased with the reduction in density, and with this new proposal it feels like they are going backwards after all that. Stephen Slaman, Fire Chief, stated he has been facing several similar developments. Chief Slaman stated there are several open questions, for instance the length of the proposed road, whether and how it will transition to the existing roadway, how Box Mill Rd. came about, and he is somewhat at a loss looking at this tonight. Ms. Kramer noted this is just a preliminary discussion. Mr. Barbieri noted Box Mill Rd. was built to standards, and Ms. Kramer noted the developer wishes to use it for access for 2 additional lots. Ms. Kramer stated she feels the Board cannot figure this out for the developer but philosophically one road would be better than two. Mr. Barbieri noted it appears input from the Building Inspector and Town Counsel will be necessary, and he thanked the Board members for their time. 5. Continued Public Hearing – Whisper Way (Wood St. & Whisper Way) – Definitive OSLPD Subdivision Application – 20th Century Homes It was noted the applicant has requested a continuance of the public hearing. Mr. Paul moved to continue the public hearing to March 25, 2019 at 9:00 P.M. and to extend the decision deadline to April 10, 2019 by mutual agreement. Mr. Trendel seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 6. Continued Public Hearing – Proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendments Remove Requirement for Special Permit for Restaurants with more than 100 Seats in the Hotel Overlay District (HOD) portion of the IB District, so as to allow them by right. Ms. Larson- Marlowe explained the proposed change to allow restaurants with more than 100 seats by right in the IB district, but only that portion which is also in the HOD district, and to keep the special permit requirement in place for IB areas that abut residential neighborhoods. Reference was made to the locations of the IB/HOD districts. Mr. DeYoung asked if there was feedback from the Chamber of Commerce, and Ms. Larson-Marlowe stated no, but it was one of the ideas they came up with because they felt lifting the special permit requirement for certain uses would encourage business. It was noted Town Counsel’s proposed changes to the language are minor in nature and for 6 clarification. Ms. Ritterbusch stated she needs more information, but she would like a special permit requirement for larger scale proposals. Ms. DeVeuve noted she does not think the special permit process is a problem, and Mr. DeYoung noted he has not heard that it is overly burdensome and it will give the Board some control. Mr. Paul agreed. Ms. Larson- Marlowe stated it was felt the special permit process is a disincentive for small businesses, and the change if approved does not mean that people can do whatever they want. She noted there is no one here from the Board of Appeals tonight, and although this did not come from there, they have suggested removing special permit requirements in the past for things they feel do not really require it. Ms. Arnaut stated she is in favor of keeping the special permit requirement. After further discussion, Mr. DeYoung moved to remove the article from the warrant and Ms. DeVeuve seconded the motion. The Board voted 6 in favor (Ritterbusch, Paul, Fein-Brug, D’Urso, Paul, DeVeuve, Trendel) with 2 opposed (Larson- Marlowe, Kramer) on the motion. Allow Car Wash Facilities as a use by Special Permit in the IA District. Ms. Larson-Marlowe noted car wash facilities are currently allowed by special permit in the B and BD districts, and the proposed change would also allow them in the IA district by special permit and add wording requiring them to operate with sustainable and efficient use of resources. Reference was made to Town Counsel’s comments on the proposed amendment, rewording the reference to sustainable/efficient use of resources and requiring such facilities to conserve water and electricity to the extent feasible. Ms. Larson-Marlowe noted this would be consistent with the ZAC proposal. It was noted it would be up to the Special Permit Granting Authority to determine whether a facility would be complying with the resource conservation issue, during the approval process. Ms. DeVeuve stated she would not support changing the language because technology may change and water supply is always an issue. Ms. Kramer asked if there was any discussion about pulling this out of the downtown area as an allowed use. Ms. Larson-Marlowe stated yes it was, and they talked about the problem of queuing on public streets, but it was noted that the Sunoco (formerly Exxon) station had successfully lobbied for this type of business opportunity. Ms. DeVeuve noted changing the article to include the removal of car wash facilities as an allowed use from BD would not fit within the 4 corners of the current proposal. Ms. Lazarus noted there is still time to amend the article by adding the proposed change to the hearing notice for the public hearing scheduled for March 25, and Ms. Kramer suggested that the Board do that. Ms. Fein-Brug stated she is not in favor of the “extent feasible” wording as it could open the door for people not to comply, and other members disagreed. Mr. Trendel stated there is a lot of debate about car wash facilities, but he prefers them in IA and he is in favor of taking it out of BD. Mr. DeYoung asked if there have been any applications for car washes, and Ms. Lazarus stated no. Ms. Lazarus stated it sounds as if this may need a lot more discussion and she suggested postponing it for another year. Mr. Trendel stated in general these facilities are into recycling and in California for example you cannot wash your car in the driveway but car washes are ok. Ms. Larson-Marlowe referred to Ms. Fein-Brug’s comment about the need for efficient use of resources, and noted the ZAC intended facilities that use the best available technology at the time. Mr. Trendel proposed to amend the article to include removal of the use from the B and BD districts, and add it to IA by special permit only with wording to ensure efficient use of resources, without caveats. Ms. Lazarus asked if there is a need for a more holistic discussion, and Mr. Paul noted perhaps they can talk about impact on small town character. Ms. Kramer noted the entire downtown area is now included in the Water Resources Protection Overlay District, and even gas stations would not be allowed today. Ms. Arnaut stated she is opposed to car wash facilities as they use a lot of water and don’t 7 really create any jobs. Ms. DeVeuve stated it was felt that allowing these in IA would also offer an amenity for workers in that area. The Board determined the proposal is worthy of further discussion on March 25, including the amendment removing the use from BD, to be advertised along with the other articles. OSMUD Overlay District – Restricted Land. Ms. Kramer provided background on the proposed change. She noted the amendment is intended to make sure that the requirement for 500 acres of Restricted Land in the OSMUD District won’t interfere with the potential of locating the International Marathon Center (IMC) on the 19-acre municipal parcel on East Main St. Claire Wright stated she is a confused by the proposed change and thought a May 2016 town meeting article was supposed to take care of this issue, allowing the museum to be located there as a cultural use. Ms. Kramer stated the use is allowed but not included in the definition of Restricted Land, and as a result the 19 acres would not count towards the total 500 acres required. Ms. Wright stated she is nervous about adding the words “or education” as part of the proposed amendment, potentially causing the Town to lose control and opening the door to a different educational entity on Town Land. Ms. Kramer noted it is Town-owned land, and Ms. Wright stated they talked about the possibility of Restricted Land owned by a non-profit entity leased to a 3rd party and she is concerned about the reference to educational uses. Reference was made to Town Counsel’s letter regarding this change. Ms. DeVeuve noted the new language would not exclusively refer to this parcel, and after further discussion it was determined that there is no need to maintain the reference to educational uses as part of the proposed amendment. She noted the Town could build a school there if it wanted to. Ms. Arnaut asked what would happen if the IMC does not come about. She asked about the possibility of amending the bylaw to allow less than 500 acres of Restricted Land, and Ms. Kramer stated it is a possibility but not something the Board wants to do. Mr. DeYoung moved to change the language of the proposed amendment by taking out “or education” and recommend the article to the annual town meeting. Mr. Paul seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor. OSMUD Overlay District – Senior Housing Development. Ms. Lazarus noted the developer of The Trails at Legacy Farms age 55+ community approached the Town regarding a problem with the requirement for 10% affordable units vs. the restriction on children under age 18. Ms. Kramer asked Ms. Lazarus for clarification regarding her chart with possible solutions to the problem. Ms. Lazarus stated this concerns the age-restricted development in the Legacy Farms portion initially intended for commercial development, and the zoning bylaw requires 18 of the 180 units to be affordable and does not allow children under 18. She noted the Dept. of Housing & Community Development won’t include the affordable units in the Town’s affordable housing inventory because of the restriction on children under 18. She noted the developer therefore will be in violation of the zoning bylaw unless changes are made either with respect to the requirement for affordable units or the restriction on children under 18. In response to a question of Ms. Ritterbusch, Ms. Lazarus stated she believes changes will apply to OSMUD senior housing developments across the board although Town Counsel will further review this. Vin Gately, Heritage Properties, appeared before the Board. He stated he is the developer of the Trails at Legacy Farms and was before to discuss this issue with the Board. He noted the restriction on children under 18 came with the approved project but is a very important aspect from a marketing standpoint. He noted he has several buyers who have contracts that include the restriction on children under 18, and lifting it would be a big problem for them going forward. He 8 stated his attorney, Peter Barbieri, cannot be here tonight but they looked at several possible solutions and are about to come up with some calculations to show that providing the affordable units via a payment in lieu would work. In response to a question, Ms. Lazarus stated the developer cannot provide additional units at Legacy Farms because there is a cap on the total number, and the number has been reached. Ms. Fein-Brug stated data for housing developments in the age 55+ bracket show that statistically there are very few children under age 18, and she does not think lifting the requirement would be taken advantage of. Ms. Kramer noted she is not so sure about that given the excellent reputation of the Town’s school system, and Ms. Fein-Brug stated that perhaps raising the age for senior developments to 62+ would work. Ms. Arnaut stated she would prefer allowing the developer to comply with the zoning bylaw via a payment in lieu and leave the other aspects in place. Mr. Nasrullah stated he likes the idea of creating off-site affordable units or redeveloping existing properties in that manner, but questioned how the Town will go about using the money it gets through payments in lieu. Ms. Kramer stated she is not sure the Town wants to be in this business and she does not like the idea of creating an identifiable affordable housing area. She noted she prefers the developer to be in charge of building the actual units. It was determined the Board will continue the discussion on March 25. Ms. Kramer noted that the proponent of the self-storage facilities in the IA district as a by right use is not present, so this item should be continued to March 25. Mr. DeYoung moved to continue the public hearing to March 25, 2019 at 7:30 P.M. Mr. Paul seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Ms. Kramer referred to the public hearing scheduled for March 25, 2019 on additional proposed amendments to the zoning bylaw. She noted the Board will review zoning bylaw changes proposed through citizen’s petitions, some of which have signatures by members of the Board, as well as a couple of articles that need to be re-advertised as a result of the discussion tonight. She noted she herself signed one of the petitions, therefore will have to step off the Board and has asked Mr. DeYoung to lead the discussion regarding that particular article. She noted other Board members in this position will be similarly affected. Ms. Kramer noted she knows the two proposed articles regarding a moratorium on growth are attracting a lot of interest, and she encouraged Board members to be prepared to speak to them in a constructive manner. She stated she has asked Ms. Lazarus to look for some historical data to see how growth restriction proposals may impact the Town, whether they will in fact address the problems they are seeing and what it will mean for the Legacy Farms development. 7. Future Agenda Items Ms. Fein-Brug stated a few Board members attended the “Growing Locally” Workshop in Acton on February 13, 2019, and according to the presentation it is clear the amount of farm land in the mid- section of the state has shrunk considerably and it is time to start being proactive if they don’t want to run out of food. Ms. Kramer stated she was unable to attend the workshop, but it sounds as if there were some good ideas and she suggested putting it on the next agenda as a discussion item. 8. Administrative Business –Minutes The Board reviewed the draft minutes of January 14, 2019 and made changes. Ms. Larson- Marlowe moved to approve the minutes of January 14, 2019 as amended. Ms. Ritterbusch seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor. The Board reviewed the draft minutes of 9 January 28, 2019 and made changes. Ms. DeVeuve moved to approve the minutes of January 28, 2019 as amended. Ms. Fein-Brug seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Trendel moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Larson-Marlowe seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Adjourned: 10:00 P.M. Submitted by: Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant Approved: ______________________ Documents used at the Meeting: Agenda for the February 25, 2019 Planning Board meeting Memo from Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use and Town Operations, to Planning Board, dated February 21, 2019, re: Items on February 25, 2019 Planning Board Agenda Draft Planning Board Minutes – January 14, 2019 & January 28, 2019 Plan entitled “Topographical Plan of Land in Hopkinton, Massachusetts, prepared for Rick Barbieri, dated Dec. 20, 2018, prepared by J.D. Marquedant & Associates, Inc. February 19, 2019, Hopkinton Planning Board, Zoning Articles Proposed for 2019 Annual Town Meeting Letter to Planning Board from J. Raymond Miyares, MiyaresHarrington, dated February 21, 2019, re: Car Wash Uses Letter to Planning Board from J. Raymond Miyares, MiyaresHarrington, dated February 21, 2019, re: Accessory to Retail to Manufacturing Use Letter to Planning Board from J. Raymond Miyares, MiyaresHarrington, dated February 21, 2019, re: Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Installations Letter to Planning Board from J. Raymond Miyares, MiyaresHarrington, dated February 21, 2019, re: Educational Uses/Vocational Schools Letter to Planning Board from J. Raymond Miyares, MiyaresHarrington, dated February 21, 2019, re: Indoor Recreation Uses Letter to Planning Board from J. Raymond Miyares, MiyaresHarrington, dated February 21, 2019, re: OSMUD Overlay District – Senior Housing Development Affordable Units Section 210-167 Letter to Planning Board from J. Raymond Miyares, MiyaresHarrington, dated February 21, 2019, re: OSMUD Overlay District – Restricted Land/Recreational Parcel Amendments Letter to Planning Board from J. Raymond Miyares, MiyaresHarrington, dated February 21, 2019, re: OSMUD Overlay District – Residents of Age-Restricted Housing Section 210-166.A Letter to Planning Board from J. Raymond Miyares, MiyaresHarrington, dated February 21, 2019, re: OSMUD Overlay District – Live-In Managers at Assisted Living Facility Letter to Planning Board from J. Raymond Miyares, MiyaresHarrington, dated February 21, 2019, re: Restaurants in Industrial B District Letter to Planning Board from J. Raymond Miyares, MiyaresHarrington, dated February 21, 2019, re: Temporary Banners April 3, 2019 Ms. Cobi Wallace Land Use, Planning and Permitting 18 Main Street Hopkinton, MA. 01748 RE: Box Mill Rd Inspection. Dear Cobi: This is to report that I performed an inspection on March 25 at the site in company of the developer (Rick Barbieri) and the Town Engineer. The focus of the inspection was to discuss the mitigating issues of drainage at the roadway entrance and the land downstream. Two area homes are discharging water overland to that intersection and the original catch basin that was set at the intersection left corner house (facing the subdivision) is still functioning, although the new one was installed within the proposed right of way. It appears that there are on-going discussions between the new owner of the house and the developer to retain the old catch basin. Otherwise, the conditions at the site remains the same since the last inspection. If you have any questions, feel free to call us at (781)724-4214. Respectfully submitted, Luckner Bayas, PE 1 HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD Monday, March 11, 2019 7:30 P.M. Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton, MA MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Muriel Kramer, Chair, Fran DeYoung, Vice Chair, David Paul, Deborah Fein-Brug, Mary Larson-Marlowe, Carol DeVeuve, Amy Ritterbusch, Gary Trendel, Frank D’Urso MEMBERS ABSENT: None Present: Elaine Lazarus, Assistant Town Manager, Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant Ms. Kramer opened the meeting. 1. Continued Public Hearings – Bucklin St./Leonard St. – 1) Stormwater Management Permit; 2) Petition to Construct Bucklin St. – Wall Street Development Corp. Ms. Kramer noted the applicant has requested a continuation of the hearings, but did not inform the Board until late this afternoon. Ms. DeVeuve moved to continue the public hearings to April 8, 2019 at 9:00 P.M. and to extend the time to file the decisions with the Town Clerk to April 24, 2019. Mr. Trendel seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 2. Administrative Business The Board discussed adjustments to the agenda as a result of the continuation of the Bucklin St. hearings. Ms. Kramer referred to the Wilson St. drainage issues scheduled for discussion later in the evening. She noted Roy MacDowell, Legacy Farms, LLC, is unable to be here tonight, and she suggested postponing the discussion to a future meeting so that he can participate. After further discussion it was decided that Kathleen Towner, 9 Kruger Rd., would be allowed to make an introductory presentation during the meeting based on materials she submitted to the Board this morning. 3. Whisper Way (Wood St./Whisper Way) – Concept Plan Ron Nation, 20th Century Homes, developer, presented a conceptual plan showing 10 lots on a 1,000 ft. long cul-de-sac extending Whisper Way, with a common septic system in the back of the property, plus 2 approval-not-required (ANR) lots on Wood St. He noted 2 of the 4 existing homes on the property would remain. Mr. Nation noted this is a rough draft but the layout reduces the impact on wetlands and vernal pools as compared to the 24-lot definitive subdivision plan before the Board. He noted the subdivision plan portion uses about 29 acres of the site and half of it would be open space. He noted to minimize the impact on the wetlands they propose common driveways including one for the frontage lots on Wood St. which would follow and extend the existing driveway for 129 Wood St. Mr. Paul expressed concerns about long driveways and dead end streets without a second access. Ms. Lazarus noted there is no limit on the length of a driveway, and Mr. Nation noted he would comply with the Fire Dept. driveway regulations. Mr. DeYoung asked about sidewalks, and Mr. Nation stated a sidewalk along the new road is not an issue, but one along Wood St. is more problematic. He noted the driveway to 129 Wood St. is actually the old location of Wood St. before Rt. 495 was constructed, and they would follow the cart path behind it for the common driveway. 2 Ms. DeVeuve noted she likes this plan in theory if it did not include lot 3 with the 500 ft. long driveway, and maybe they can use part of it to extend the parking area for the open space. Mr. Nation noted the numbers don’t work if they eliminate the lot but he believes it can be reconfigured. Mr. Trendel asked for clarification of the amount of open space and how it compares to the total acreage. Mr. Nation stated the site is 47 acres in total and the alternative plan proposes to use 29 acres of it, 15 of which will be open space including 2 acres of wetlands. He noted no additional waivers are needed, and he is eliminating the need for a waiver of the 100 ft. perimeter buffer. He stated under the alternative layout there is only one detention basin. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked if the 2 ANR lots will be serviced by the common septic system, and Mr. Nation noted he doesn’t think so but it will be reviewed. Board members expressed concern about the length of some of the driveways, and it was noted the applicant should discuss this with the Fire Chief. Ms. Lazarus stated that the common driveway serving the 2 ANR lots would require a special permit from the Planning Board. Ms. Kramer stated she is glad to hear that there would still be an effort to include a horse trailer parking area, and Mr. Nation stated the initial location along the old Wood St. is really the only option, and he thinks he can make it work. He thanked the Board members for their time. 4. Wilson Street Drainage Kathleen Towner, 9 Kruger Rd., stated she would like to comment on the modified design of the Wilson St. drainage basin approved by the Board and supposed to be built in November 2018. Ms. Towner stated that never materialized, so she submitted a request for public records which showed a change order allowing the removal of the bioretention soil from the structure. She noted the basin is supposed to capture the runoff from Legacy Farms North and The Trails at Legacy Farms development, and she is troubled by the fact that the structure went through several modifications and still was not functioning correctly. She noted that whole area does not drain properly and silt is running down Legacy Farms North and Wilson St., and the neighbors asked a lot of questions during the approval process. She noted they also talked about reportable pesticides, and, when they asked Mr. MacDowell about this directly, they were told it was public record. She noted she did some research and was able to find the information but it is a little disturbing that she had to find it herself. She noted the site qualified for a cleanup exemption but the soil is supposed to stay on the property. She noted bad chemicals such as Dieldrin and DDT bond to soil particles so it is important to have a physical barrier to keep them out of the Town’s stormwater system. She noted she realizes this is expensive but removing the layer of the bioretention soil degrades the structure, and this is the last line of defense and the Town is liable. She noted the contaminated soil is stored in stockpiles which eventually will be spread out over the property but the silt fence has fallen down. She noted the basin is intended to hold lots of water, but water quality was not considered as an issue throughout the various draft designs. She stated there was a mudslide in November and the developer was ordered to do testing but it still has not been done. Ms. Fein-Brug asked for clarification as to the location of the mudslide, and Ms. Towner stated it happened right next to the Hopkinton Reservoir. Ms. Towner stated fines were assessed but the testing was never done. Ms. DeVeuve noted Planning Board records indicate the basin will be deeper and smaller in diameter, and she asked for clarification whether Ms. Towner feels the bioretention layer is inadequate or whether it is totally removed from the design. Ms. Towner stated they left a small square of bioretention soil, just for show, and the structure will not function correctly. Mr. DeYoung asked when and why the change was ordered and by whom, and whether it was approved by the Town. Ms. Towner stated she has the documents, and the record shows it was a money issue. Mr. D’Urso thanked Ms. Towner for coming in, noted he agrees with a lot she is saying, 3 however the Board just got the documents today - long after the submission deadline for this meeting. Mr. DeYoung asked Ms. Lazarus for input, and Ms. Lazarus stated that the property owner should participate in the discussion. Ms. Kramer asked if there is testing to be done, and Ms. Lazarus noted the Conservation Commission is managing that process. In response to a question of Mr. D’Urso, Ms. Towner stated the mudslide affected the Ashland side of the Reservoir, and it was a significant event. Ms. Ritterbusch asked if it would be appropriate to get BETA’s input, and Ms. Larson-Marlowe stated she would like to see documentation on the current design as well as the modifications approved via an administrative change to the previous design. In response to a question of Ms. Kramer, Ms. Towner noted she has discussed this issue with the Conservation Administrator several times. Ms. Towner noted the Conservation Commission wrote the developers of the Trails at Legacy Farms a detailed letter, but they still have not done what they were asked to do. She noted she has asked the Commission to put this issue back on the agenda, and she was told it will be included in their monthly report. After further discussion, the Board continued the discussion to April 8, 2019 with a tentative time of 9:30 P.M. Mr. D’Urso suggested inviting someone from the Conservation Commission, and Ms. Kramer noted they can ask them to attend. In response to a question from Ms. Kramer, it was noted that at the state level the DEP is involved. 5. Approval-not-Required Plan – 92 Main St. – David Duffy David Duffy, applicant, appeared before the Board. Mr. Duffy stated about 20 years ago he entered into an agreement with his neighbor, Evergreen Center, to swap some land to bring a portion of his home into compliance with the minimum setback requirements. He stated an ANR plan was endorsed by the Planning Board in 1995, but never recorded, and he now has to go through the process again to rectify this situation. In response to a question, Mr. Duffy noted Evergreen Center was not interested in attending tonight. Ms. Ritterbusch moved to endorse the plan as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, and Ms. Fein-Brug seconded the motion. After further discussion, the Board voted 8 in favor, none opposed with 1 abstention (Larson-Marlowe). 6. Street Acceptance Report – Hunters Ridge Way & Penny Meadow Ln. The Board reviewed the draft street acceptance report to the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Paul referred to photos of Hunters Ridge Way and noted that he would prefer seeing a cleaner edge to roads than what is accomplished via the country drainage approach. In response to a question of Ms. Kramer, Ms. Lazarus stated there are some minor issues to be addressed by the developer, and the DPW will do a final inspection once the snow is gone. Mr. Paul moved to submit the street acceptance report to the Board of Selectmen as written, Mr. D’Urso seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 7. Public Hearing – 17, 0, 0 Wilson St., 0 Cedar St. - Special Permit Application – Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Installation – TJA Solar Mr. D’Urso moved to open the public hearing, Mr. Paul seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Christopher King, Atlantic Design Engineers, engineer, and Joseph Pacella, attorney, appeared before the Board. Ms. Kramer noted this is a follow-up to previous public hearings, and Ms. DeVeuve and Mr. D’Urso cannot vote on the application. Ms. Kramer stated this is a public hearing to reconsider the Board’s previous decision. Ms. Lazarus noted voting eligibility status remains the same as it was when the previous decision was voted, unless the applicant chooses to review the entire process and record from the beginning. 4 Ed Cutter, 21 Wilson St., stated the Order of Remand from the Land Court indicates the applicant can submit a Remand Petition. He stated it was mentioned multiple times, but he has not seen it and he believes it is needed to start the process. Mr. Pacella noted the Remand Petition was submitted tonight prior to the meeting. Mr. Cutter referred to the Board’s submittal deadline, and noted submitting the Remand Petition just before the meeting does not give the Board and the public a chance to respond. Mr. Pacella stated the Remand Petition is just a formality. Copies were distributed to Board members and those in attendance, and Ms. Kramer read the Remand Petition into the record. Mr. Cutter stated he would like to know what kind of zoning relief is being requested and what TJA Solar is asking for at this time. Ms. Kramer stated the hearing tonight is the result of the Planning Board’s decision and the subsequent appeal filed by the applicant. She noted Land Court issued the Order of Remand at the joint request of the Board and the applicant, and at this point the Board is reconsidering its original decision and the applicant did not submit any new information. She asked if the Board should have received the Remand Order before, and Ms. Lazarus noted it is just an administrative step. Ms. Kramer stated the Board will first consider the applicant’s comments. She noted the Board’s decision read very much like an approval but did not necessarily have the findings or facts necessary for a denial. She noted it would have been challenging and it was not clear to the applicant and the Town how the appeal/denial would be pursued/defended. Mr. Pacella noted he thinks the Board’s prior decision was not sustainable, so both parties asked for it to be annulled. Ms. Kramer described the process for the hearing. Mr. Pacella noted his client, TJA Solar, filed an application for a solar photovoltaic installation at 17, 0, 0 Wilson St., 0 Cedar St. in March 2018. He noted hearings were held starting June 11 through October 1, 2018, resulting in a significant amount of information and subsequent plan changes. He noted the proceedings included testimony by members of the Narragansett and Aquinnah Indian tribes to deal with ceremonial stones identified through trespassing during the course of the public hearing process. He noted the process ultimately resulted in a hearing in which a denial was issued. He noted the decision was appealed to Land Court and in the end the parties agreed to file a motion to remand the case back to the Planning Board. He noted it is the applicant’s intent to ask the Board to reconsider the decision in good faith with the special permit criteria under the bylaw in mind, specifically those dealing with issues such as the amount of tree cutting reasonably needed for construction of the project. Mr. King noted the public hearing process addressed Planning Board, Conservation Commission and abutter issues, as well as the concerns of other interested parties. Mr. King stated the final plans were issued on September 25, 2018, and the Board’s decision was filed on November 16. Mr. King noted they felt the information submitted previously conformed to the requirements of the bylaw, and they don’t think the project as designed will be bad for the neighborhood, and in fact will be beneficial for the Town. Mr. King noted when they found out there could be ceremonial stones, they hired an expert and worked closely with members of the Narragansett and Aquinnah tribes, and felt the outcome was a win-win situation for everyone involved. He noted with respect to the approval criterion for protection of surrounding areas, they received an Order of Conditions from the Conservation Commission after several changes and a significant reduction in scale. He noted the site has less upland area than originally thought and identifying areas for adequate surface drainage was a challenge, but BETA ultimately concluded that stormwater issues were addressed to their 5 satisfaction. Mr. King referred to the special permit criterion requiring the project to be in harmony with the neighborhood. He stated the facility will be connected to the grid and essentially all infrastructure will be underground. He noted wetlands and a natural gas pipeline bisect the site and therefore they need some utility poles to be centrally located, more than 800 ft. away from the closest abutter. He noted they are requesting waivers from the minimum buffer and proposing alternative screening for the residential abutter at 15 Wilson St., as provided for under the bylaw and worked out with the property owner. He noted as part of the solution they are also reclaiming some of the existing lawn area. Mr. King stated they did everything possible to preserve the scenic road character near the entrance on Wilson St., and feel that the proposed alternative screening is above and beyond. Upon the request of Board members, the applicant provided additional dimensional details of the buffer zones in various locations. Mr. DeYoung asked for additional details regarding alternative screening methods, and Mr. King noted the final plan was based on individual input but there is flexibility. He noted the area is somewhat unique but they will use species that will do well and provide immediate screening, making an effort to have native forest vegetation. He stated as part of the last hearing there were references to landscaping performance guarantees as well as specific conditions requiring the developer to go back with a representative of the Town to evaluate the effectiveness of the alternative screening and take remedial action if necessary. He noted there is a note to this effect on the plan, allowing substitutes as long as it is ok with the Town. He noted in summary TJA Solar has proposed over 600 additional plantings, and at the last minute made changes to the plan at the request of Mr. Cutter (21 Wilson St.). Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked the applicant to address fencing around the panels and the location for wildlife to pass through. Mr. King stated they are proposing a black vinyl fence in an effort to soften the look. He noted all infrastructure is underground, and they have added a farm-style fence at the street to prevent people from driving into the site. He noted the wildlife corridor was reviewed by the Conservation Commission and the plan shows critter gaps, and, although this does not accommodate larger animals, they will be able to use the gas easement. He noted there are no breaks in the arrays per se, other than the pipeline itself, because it would create a problem for emergency response vehicles. Mr. King stated the plans show the wires under Wilson St. connecting to the grid. Mr. Paul stated he would prefer the applicant come up with a plan that has everything underground, and Mr. King stated above-ground utilities are limited to the 5 poles over the gas easement as burying them there is not possible because of specific guidelines for gas pipelines and wetlands regulations. Ms. Ritterbusch noted it would be ok as long as they cannot be seen from abutting residential properties, and Mr. King noted these will be standard utility poles 800 ft. away from the nearest abutter, and based on topography and existing wooded vegetation will not be visible from Wilson St. Mr. King addressed the issue of the point of interconnection, with respect to the possibility of using Cedar St. instead of Wilson St. He noted that decision is up to the utility company and it took 2 years to establish before the special permit application was even filed with the Town. Ms. Fein-Brug noted she drove by the cart path opening on Wilson St., and it looks as if the opening in the wall is at a different angle than shown on the plan. She asked the applicant to make sure the plans are correct in this respect. Mr. King noted everything was surveyed and it concerns a cart path which has not been used in years, but he is confident that the plans are accurate. He noted they plan to use the existing cart path for access so that they don’t have to disturb the stone wall. He 6 noted field adjustments may have to be made but the width and location of the cart path at the entrance are correct. In response to a question of Ms. Kramer, Mr. King noted the trees along the cart path are staggered, not in a straight line, but he is confident necessary tree clearing in that location won’t be more than 30 ft. to the edge. Ms. Fein-Brug stated it would not work if the access has to be turned 30% at the entrance and they would have to shift the cart path so that it does not impose on the buffer. Mr. D’Urso encouraged the developer to better communicate with the abutters. He noted it is not clear to him why the interconnection point cannot be on Cedar St. in the industrially zoned portion of the site, and he feels this was not really addressed the last time and should be discussed now. Mr. King noted last minute adjustments to landscape screening were made after emailing back and forth with Mr. Cutter prior to finalizing the plans on September 25. Mr. Pacella noted they met with the abutters several times on site, and he feels they have done a good job making additional changes to increase the buffer and improve screening. He noted the applicant was amenable to additional conditions to maximize the effectiveness of screening following the initial plantings through reevaluation and the posting of a landscape bond in the amount of $10,000, and they are willing to increase the amount to $20,000. Mr. Pacella stated interconnection points are determined by the utility company early on, and the bylaw does not require the applicant to put their interconnection point in one location or another. Mr. Pacella noted the interconnection point is a non-issue, but the developer willingly went through an additional review process ending up with the same result because the utility company determines what is best for them, and he does not think that Land Court will require TJA Solar to move the location. Mr. Paul stated he understands they might then have to come in from both sides, and Mr. Pacella noted that would not resolve the issue and result in more disturbance. Mr. Trendel asked what kinds of changes would be necessary if the Planning Board does not grant a waiver of the buffer requirements, and whether it would mean fewer panels or shifting the location of the cart path. Mr. Pacella stated under MGL 40A Section 3 solar farms cannot be unreasonably regulated. He referred to the Attorney General’s response to the bylaw which indicates that it cannot be used to restrict a solar farm to a degree where it is no longer economically feasible, and he believes that would be the case if they have to reduce the number of panels even further. Mr. Trendel asked how many panels would be lost if the project has to comply with the minimum 75 ft. buffer. Mr. Pacella noted the landscape plan would change significantly, and Mr. King stated they would lose a portion of the arrays near Wilson St., and end up having to disturb the existing stone wall to realign the entrance and grade in a new road which gets very steep near the resource areas. He noted the stormwater management aspect of modifying the access way would possibly result in the loss of about 10% of the number of panels, but it is a difficult question because TJA Solar is looking at this more as a footprint and the final number of panels is up to the contractor. Ms. Ritterbusch noted she is concerned about the Wilson St. panels close to residential abutters but she does not want to see the cart path moved because of the potential disturbance of the stone wall. Ms. Kramer stated the scenic road is one of the reasons she would accommodate the waiver. She noted further discussion and public input is needed, and they may have to continue the hearing. Tom Shambo, 15 Wilson St., stated he is one of the residential abutters to the project, and has attended Conservation Commission and Planning Board meetings regarding this property since 2004/2005. He noted there have been 2 previous proposals by the same landowner but with different engineers, and the associated plans showed wetlands on the southern part of the site. Ms. Kramer stated she is confident that the current wetlands delineation as reviewed by the 7 Conservation Commission is correct. Mr. Shambo noted he has reached out to the applicant and the engineer, and the interaction has been good. He stated under current conditions he just does not have any trees on his own property to provide the necessary screening. He noted he has a list of 5 issues which he feels remain unaddressed. He stated he has seen the impact of the solar farm at 147 Lumber St. where it looks like the panels are right in people’s backyards even though they are more than 200 ft. away, and he is only asking for 75 ft. He noted the applicant is offering to reclaim a portion of the lawn for screening purposes, but he has been mowing that area for years so technically has been trespassing. Mr. Trendel stated he thinks the applicant has offered up substantially more plantings, and without a waiver the applicant will probably only provide the minimum required under the bylaw. He asked if Mr. Shambo would prefer a smaller, densely vegetated buffer or a wider strip with substantially fewer plantings. Mr. Shambo noted it will be impossible to adequately screen the area between 15 and 21 Wilson St. anyway, and in case of a wider buffer he intends to install plantings on his own property and has already checked on the cost. He stated he would like to see the following issues addressed: 1) change the interconnection point to Cedar St., 2) year-round screening with proper integrity, 3) full compliance with the requirement for underground utilities, 4) a 75 ft. minimum buffer, and 5) an animal gate for large wildlife. Mr. Cutter stated the Board should not allow 6,600 solar panels in middle of a residential neighborhood on a scenic road. He stated the project will be detrimental to the neighborhood. He noted he realizes the applicant has made some good efforts but solar farms are unattractive and he does not believe it will be different in this case. He noted he moved to Wilson St. in 2000 and picked this house because of the nice environment and country road, and he is worried that all that is going to be wiped out. He stated the applicant won’t remove the 2 rows of panels between #15 and #21, and these are so close so the street that they will be visible to everyone. Mr. Cutter noted the applicant refuses the take out these panels because they cannot afford to further scale back the project which is already one of their smallest sites. He noted the preservation of the neighbors’ quality of life should not be sacrificed, and as far as further reduction in the number of panels is concerned, potentially killing the project from a financial standpoint, the applicant should have removed the other rows of panels from the wetlands without being asked. Mr. Cutter stated he is still not sure what the story is regarding the potential for interconnecting on Cedar St., but according to the applicant it could be impossible because of the cost, however Cedar St. is the best place. He noted there have been previous proposals, and in 2008 the Cedar St. portion of the site was rezoned Industrial, which was sort of a tradeoff for a proposed residential development of 7 or 8 homes on Wilson St. He referred to the special permit criterion with respect to a project being in harmony with the neighborhood, and noted the general purpose of the zoning bylaw is to ensure residents’ enjoyment of their property, not to be degraded for the financial gain of others. Mr. Cutter expressed concern on the impacts to the other abutters. He noted the solar farm at 147 Lumber St. is a terrible example of what could happen, but perhaps taking out the panels along Wilson St. between #15 and #21 would take away a lot of the curse. The Board discussed a possible date and time for the continued public hearing. It was suggested to start at 6:30 P.M. on March 25, and Mr. D'Urso noted he may not be able to vote on this application but still wants to be part of the process and cannot be there until 7:00 P.M. at the earliest. Ms. Kramer noted they will find out whether Mr. D’Urso can vote or not. She noted approval will require 6 votes in favor, and she would like to point out that resolving this matter at the Planning Board level is the best approach for the Town and the abutters, and a decision via a judicial process could result in the loss of any gains made so far. Mr. D’Urso moved to continue the public hearing to March 25, 2019 at 7:00 P.M. and Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion. After further discussion 8 Mr. Trendel moved to continue the hearing to March 25, 2019 at 6:30 P.M., and Ms. Ritterbusch seconded the motion. Mr. D’Urso objected to the meeting time. The Board voted 8 in favor with 1 opposed (Paul). 8. Approval-Not-Required Plan - Legacy Farms North - Legacy Farms, LLC The Board reviewed the application for endorsement of an ANR plan submitted by Legacy Farms, LLC to create a small non-buildable parcel that would allow the change of a few units at The Trails at Legacy Farms from one phase to another. Ms. Ritterbusch moved to endorse the plan as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, Ms. Larson-Marlowe seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Paul moved to adjourn the meeting, Mr. Trendel seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Adjourned: 10:05 P.M. Submitted by: Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant Approved: ______________________ Documents used at the Meeting: Agenda for the March 11, 2019 Planning Board meeting Memo from Elaine Lazarus, Assistant Town Manager, to Planning Board, dated March 7, 2019, re Items on March 11, 2019 Planning Board Agenda Draft concept plan for land off Whisper Way Remand Petition, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Land Court Department, re TJA Clean Energy LLC f/k/a TJA Solar LLC Plans entitled Wilson Street Solar Project, dated March 7, 2018 revised through September 25, 2018, prepared by Atlantic Design Engineers Letter to Planning Board from Kathleen Towner, 9 Kruger Rd., dated March 10, 2019, re Changes to Design of Wilson Street Bioretention Basin Approval-not-Required Plan for 0 Wilson St./Legacy Farms North, dated February 21, 2019, prepared by Control Point Associates, Inc. Approval-not-Required Plan for 92 Main St. and 7 Mayhew St., dated February 28, 2019, prepared by Guerriere & Halnon Draft Letter to Claire Wright, Chair, Board of Selectmen, from Planning Board, dated March __, 2019, re Street Acceptance Report Legacy Farms Street Name Dec., 2013 April 1, 2014 Oct. 1, 2014 April 1, 2015 Oct. 1, 2015 April 1, 2016 Oct. 1, 2016 April 1, 2017 Oct. 1, 2017 April 1, 2018 Oct. 1, 2018 April 1, 2019 Legacy Farms South Villages (construction complete)7 16 32 39 60 78 109 126 158 159 186 186 Legacy Farms North Villages 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 32 96 119 Woodview at Legacy Farms (construction complete)7 13 40 39 52 37 44 42 41 37 43 37 Total 14 29 72 78 112 115 153 168 207 228 325 342 No. of Occupancy Permits issued (2/28/19) Apartments 168 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 Condominiums 34 45 80 107 137 172 210 243 278 317 370 414 2 BR Attached 19 30 51 68 86 106 131 153 184 197 231 265 2 BR Simplex 0 0 3 3 4 8 8 8 10 16 21 30 3 BR Simplex 15 15 26 36 47 58 71 82 84 104 118 119 Single Family 0 0 0 0 4 8 12 15 15 15 15 15 Total 202 285 320 347 381 420 462 498 533 572 625 669 Students Per Unit with Occupancy Permits Woodview at Legacy Farms (apartment complex)0.04 0.05 0.17 0.16 0.22 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.18 0.15 Legacy Farms South & North Villages 0.21 0.36 0.40 0.36 0.43 0.43 0.49 0.49 0.57 0.58 0.73 0.71 Note: Host Community Agreement #22, provision 1 - if total exceeds 250 students within 6 years of the first Certificate of Occupancy (6/27/2013), Legacy Farms is obligated to pay $500,000 to the schools. Provision 2 - if total exceeds 266 during the period of time expiring 1 year after the date of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the final dwelling unit or the expiration of 18 years from the filing of the Notice (18 years from 7/31/2012), whichever is earlier, a one time payment of $270,000 for each increment of 30 students is required. No. Students at Hopkinton Public Schools