HomeMy Public PortalAbout20190624 - Planning Board - AgendaHOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
Monday, June 24, 2019 7:30 P.M.
Hopkinton Town Hall, 18 Main Street, Hopkinton, MA
Room 215/216
AGENDA
7:30 Continued Public Hearings – Bucklin St. & Leonard St. – 1) Stormwater Management
Permit; 2) Petition to Construct a Paper Street – Wall Street Development Corp.
Proposal to construct a paper street entitled “Bucklin Street”;Proposal to construct four (4)
single-family homes with driveways,utilities and associated grading.A stormwater management
permit is required because the project will result in land disturbance of one acre or more and it is
not a “subdivision”.
8:00 I-90/I-495 Presentation
8:20 Growth Study Committee Appointment Process Discussion
8:30 Wilson Street Drainage Discussion
Discussion about the drainage issues associated with the Legacy Farms development on Wilson
Street.
9:00 Public Hearing - 9 B Street - Special Permit, Lots with Historic Structures - Newbridge
Investments, LLC
Proposal to allow the creation of a new lot with a historic structure that does not meet the
minimum frontage and area requirements.
9:30 Affordable Housing Discussion with REC Hopkinton
Regarding off-site affordable housing units associated with the Chamberlain Street/Whalen Road
Subdivision
Business to be considered by the Board at any time during the meeting:
●Approval of Minutes - May 2, 2019, May 13, 2019, May 29, 2019
●Hehn’s Farm Request for Bond Release
●Presentation regarding Lumber Street/West Main Street improvements
●Legacy Farms North - School Bus Issue (follow-up to May 18 site walk)
●Legacy Farms North (Section formerly known as Rafferty Road) - Discussion about disrepair
●Peloquin Estates - No-cut easements
●Downtown Corridor discussion
●Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness and Climate Change discussion
●Affordable housing/payments-in-lieu/off-site units discussion
●Future agenda items, correspondence
Town of Hopkinton
Department of Land Use, Planning and Permitting
18 Main Street, Hopkinton MA 01748
(508) 497-9745
DATE: June 20, 2019
TO: Planning Board
FROM: John Gelcich, Principal Planner
RE: Items on Planning Board Agenda, June 24, 2019
Contents:
1.Continued Public Hearings –Bucklin St.&Leonard St.–1)Stormwater Management
Permit; 2) Petition to Construct a Paper Street – Wall Street Development Corp.
2.I-90/I-495 Presentation (Dave Paul)
3.Growth Study Committee Appointment Process Discussion
4.Wilson Street Drainage
5.Public Hearing - Special Permit, Lots with Historical Structures - 9 B Street
6.Affordable housing discussion with REC Hopkinton re: Chamberlain/Whalen units
7.Zoning Board of Appeals Decisions
8.Miscellaneous Items
a.Minutes - 5/2/19, 5/13/19, 5/29/19
b.Hehn’s Farm Subdivision
c.Presentation re: Lumber St/Main St Improvements
d.Legacy Farms North - school bus issue
e.Legacy Farms North (section formerly known as Rafferty Rd.) - disrepair
f.Growth Study Committee - followup to 5/29 discussion
g.Peloquin Estates - No cut easements
h.Climate change impact - MVP
1.0 Continued Public Hearings –Bucklin St.&Leonard St.–1)Stormwater Management
Permit; 2) Petition to Construct a Paper Street – Wall Street Development Corp.
1.1.Background
Proposal to construct a paper street entitled “Bucklin Street”;Proposal to
construct four (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
1
are included with the meeting materials,and BETA’s outstanding comments are
noted below.
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 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 1/28/19,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.
1.2.Relevant Materials Submitted for this Meeting
●Letter from Wall Street Development Corp, dated 6/17/19
●Truck Turning Plan, dated 2/21/19
●Grading and Drainage Plan revised with Fire Access,dated 3/29/19,
revised 6/13/19
2
●Maple Street Extension Sewer Plan and Profile, dated August 1986
●Previously included: Revised Site Plans dated 3/29/18, last revised 3/12/19
●Previously included:Stormwater Management Report dated 3/30/18,last
revised 3/12/19
●Previously included: Comment Letter from BETA dated 3/19/19
●Previously included:Response to BETA Letter from GLM,dated 3/12/19 (for
all comments)
●Previously included:Response to BETA Letter from GLM,dated 4/4/19
(relative to comment SW4.b.)
1.3.Comments Received
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
3
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)
#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
BMPs.
Not Applicable Not Applicable
#6 – Critical Areas –
Stormwater discharges to
critical areas must utilize
certain stormwater BMPs
approved for critical areas.
Not Applicable Not Applicable
#7 – Redevelopment –
Redevelopment of
previously developed sites
must meet the Stormwater
Management Standards to
Not Applicable Not Applicable
4
the maximum extent
practicable.
#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)
3) 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)
#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.BETA recommends including a condition that requires positive drainage
around the existing house at 62 Pleasant Street. (G1)
2.New driveway for house at 62 Pleasant St. shown on plan; will require
approval by owner of 62 Pleasant St. (G3)
5
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)
1.4.Board Actions
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.
The Board’s votes on the submitted materials will consist of:
●For the SMP -Decision is due by 5/24/19 and a majority vote is required
for approval. Patrick Atwell and Robert Benson are not eligible to vote.
●For the Petition to Construct a Paper Street -Decision is due by 5/24/19.A
majority vote is required for approval.Patrick Atwell and Robert Benson
are not eligible to vote.
●Determination as to whether Bucklin St.was a way in existence in 1953,
for the purposes of ANR endorsement.BOARD VOTED 2-7-0 (1/28/19)
on a motion to determine that Bucklin St.was a way in existence in
1953.When the Applicant submits an ANR plan,the Board will vote on
whether to endorse it.Patrick Atwell and Robert Benson will be eligible to
vote.
1.5.Other
2.0 I-90/I-495 Presentation
Dave Paul will present the proposed interchange improvement project which is
expected to be undertaken between 2022 and 2026.
3.0 Wilson Street Drainage
To discuss and hear findings from BETA on the issue of drainage on Wilson Street
associated with Legacy Farms North.
6
4.0 Public Hearing (new)-9 B Street -Special Permit,Lots with Historic Structure -
Newbridge Investments, LLC
4.1.Background
The proposed development is located at 9 B Street,Assessors Lots 16-93-0 and U
16-94-0.The property is located within the Residential A (RA)district.The
dimensional requirements of the RA district are as follows:
Minimum Lot Area: 15,000 square feet (with Town water)
Maximum Lot Coverage: 25%
Minimum Lot Frontage: 100 feet
Lot Frontage Depth: 60 feet (at 90 feet in depth)
Minimum Setback from the Street:40 feet
Minimum Side Yard Width: 10 feet
Minimum Rear Yard Depth: 20 feet
The property is currently comprised of two lots,both with the address of 9 B
Street.The existing structures on-site include the single-family house and an
accessory garage.The Proponent proposes to relocate the existing house
entirely onto Lot 2 and construct a second (new)house in place of the existing
accessory garage building on Lot 1.
The Proponent proposes two separate lots,one of which (Lot 2)will be
nonconforming with respect to frontage,frontage depth,and lot size.The new
lot (Lot 1) will meet the minimum requirements of the RA district.
The existing structure was previously declared by the Hopkinton Historic
Commission (HHC)to be a “Historically Significant Structure.”The HHC has
issued a letter,included as part of these meeting materials,that states the HHC
further endorses the proposal to relocate the existing structure on the proposed
non-conforming lot in order to allow a second house,as proposed in this
application.
4.2.Zoning Bylaw Review
§210-117.2 Lots with Historic Structures
A.A lot may be created which does not meet the size and setback requirements
of this Chapter upon the issuance of a special permit by the Planning Board,
if the following criteria are met:
(1)The lot to be created will contain an Historic Structure;
(2)The Historic Structure which will be located on the lot is either:
7
(a)Presently situated on a lot for which an application has been
submitted to the Town for approval of any single or multi-family
residential development,an approval-not-required plan pursuant to
MGL c.41 §81P,or a construction project subject to Article XX,Site
Plan Review,and the Historic Structure will remain in its present
location; or
(b)Planned to be moved from a lot or within a lot for which an
application has been submitted to the Town for approval of any single
or multi-family residential development,an approval-not-required
plan pursuant to MGL c.41 §81P,or a construction project subject to
Article XX, Site Plan Review.
(3)The Planning Board finds that the proposed lot is in harmony with the
general purpose and intent of this Chapter.
B.The special permit shall be subject to such conditions and safeguards as the
Planning Board may prescribe,including the recording of an historic
preservation restriction. [Amended ATM 5-6-2015, Article 39]
C.Administration.Within seven days of receipt of the special permit application,
the Planning Board shall transmit a copy of the application to the Historical
Commission for comment and recommendations.
Principal Planner comments:
●§210-117.2.A.:The nonconforming lot does not provide the required
frontage or frontage depth,both of which are not generally classified as
“lot size”or “setback”dimensions.If the Planning Board concurs with this
interpretation,a Special Permit may be issued to allow for the lot to be
subdivided with relief given for lot size,however,the Proponent will likely
still need to go before the Board of Appeals for a Variance for relief from
the frontage and frontage depth dimensions,as these appear to be
unwaivable by the Planning Board.
●§210-117.2.A.(1):The HHC has confirmed that the existing house (not the
garage)is a historic structure.The proposed nonconforming lot will
contain the historic structure.
●§210-117.2.A.(2)(b):The historic structure is proposed to be relocated to
be located solely upon the nonconforming lot (it currently straddles the
lot line for the two lots).
●§210-117.2.A.(3):The proposed use is generally accepted as being in
harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Chapter,however,I
defer to the Planning Board to make this determination.
●§210-117.2.B.:The Proponent has provided no statement contrary to this
provision.
8
●§210-117.2.C.:This action was undertaken upon receipt of the application
by the Land Use Department.
4.3.Relevant Materials Submitted for this Meeting
●Special Permit Application Package containing application form,narrative,
plans, letter from HHC, and other information, dated 5/16/19
●ANR Plan, dated 3/20/19
●Section 210-117.2 of the Hopkinton Zoning Bylaw
●Letter from Hopkinton Board of Health, dated 6/13/19
●Email from John Westerling,Hopkinton DPW,dated 5/20/19 (stating no
comment on the application)
●Memo from the Hopkinton Building Department, dated 6/19/19
4.4.Comments Received
The Board of Health submitted comments on the proposed development.These
comments are detailed below.
Board of Health
●The two homes are to be serviced with municipal water and sewer
service, as such, well or septic installation is not a concern.
●The existing water service connection should be confirmed to be lead free
(DPW requirement pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act).
●The construction and demolition work must be completed in accordance
with all applicable rules and regulations as promulgated by the
Commonwealth of MA (Asbestos, Lead, Dust and Pest Controls).
●Efforts should be taken to minimize nuisance conditions during the
development process.
Building Department
●The Hopkinton Building Department is concerned that the lots,once
merged,cannot become unmerged,and therefore have stated that,
should the Planning Board issue a Special Permit and endorse the ANR
plan as submitted by the Proponent,the Building Department will deny
any building permit submitted for the relevant work,allowing the
Proponent to appeal to the Board of Appeals for final judgement.
4.5.Board Actions
●For the Special Permit for Historic Structures,decision due 90 days after
close of public hearing.A ⅔majority vote of the Board is required for
approval. All members are eligible to vote.
The Proponent,while including the ANR plan with the application package,has
not officially submitted an ANR plan for approval.When submitted,the Board
9
will have 21 days from submission to endorse or determine that the
development is required to be reviewed as part of a subdivision review process.
4.6.Other
5.0 Affordable Housing Discussion with REC Hopkinton, LLC re: Chamberlain/Whalen
REC Hopkinton,LLC is pursuing off-site units to convert to affordable housing units in
order to meet their requirement for three affordable units as part of the
Chamberlain/Whalen development.The Proponent has met with the Planning Board
Chair,the Affordable Housing Trust representative (Beth Malloy),and the Principal
Planner on this issue.The Proponent expressed a desire to discuss this issue in front of
the entire Planning Board.
6.0 Downtown Corridor Discussion
At the Board’s request at the prior Planning Board meeting,I have included the
following documents related to the Downtown Corridor project:
●Downtown Corridor Project Frequently Asked Questions
●Utility Plans
●Roadway Layout Renderings
●Before and After Renderings overlaid onto photographs
7.0 Zoning Board of Appeals Decision Notices
●24 Cross Street - Hannigan - 6/18/19
●223 Hayden Rowe - Hunt - 6/10/19
●84, 86, 88, 82 West Main Street - Global Companies - 6/10/19
●22-24 Main Street - Dunne & Oliveira, Bittersweet - 6/19/19
8.0 Miscellaneous Items
●Approval of Minutes - May 2, 2019; May 13, 2019; May 29, 2019
●Trail Coordination and Management Committee Planning Board Appointee
●Presentation regarding Lumber Street/Main Street improvements
●Legacy Farms North - School Bus Issue (follow-up to May 18 site walk)
●Legacy Farms North (Section formerly known as Rafferty Road) - Discussion
about disrepair
●Hehn’s Farm Request for Bond Release
●Peloquin Estates - No-cut easements
●Downtown Corridor discussion
●Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness and Climate change discussion
●Affordable housing/Payments-in-lieu/Off-site units discussion
●Future agenda items, correspondence
10
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.
I-495 and I-90 Interchange Project
Hopkinton Planning Board Discussion
Presented on 4/22/2019
By Dave Paul
Interchange Concept 22-3 Notes
•The Interchange of I-495 and I-90 is a project to improve traffic flow and safety of
the Interchange. Construction is expected to run from 2022 to 2026.
•The reason for the project is well documented and will greatly benefit the
Metrowest area. Therefore, the rational for the project will not be discussed in
this presentation.
•One concern for the Town of Hopkinton is that the design includes 2 flyovers that
would be 50 feet tall and would be visible from the Roosevelt Farms (Roosevelt
Lane, etc…) neighborhood and possibly the Oak Hill neighborhood (Huckleberry
Rd).
•A second concern for Hopkinton and towns west of Hopkinton, would the impact
on traffic while the Fruit Street bridge over I-495 is being reconstructed.
•The following slide is a map of one of the 3 proposed options for improving the
Interchange of I-495 and I-90.
4/18/2019 2
Interchange Concept 22-3 Map
4/18/2019 3
•The following slides show 2 maps of a proposed ‘Half Exit’ for I-90 at State Route
135. This proposal is be presented to the Planning Board by Dave Paul, speaking
as an individual resident of Hopkinton.
•The first map shows a heavy use traffic flow from the Grafton, Upton, Uxbridge,
Northbridge suburbs into Boston/Framingham.
•The second map shows 2 current exits that are used for official use only.
•The proposal is to convert these 2 ‘official use only’ exits into ‘public use’ exits.
•This proposal would take a heavy flow of traffic off of the back roads of Hopkinton
and Southboro and get the traffic to and from I-90 sooner and more efficiently.
•In addition, if the proposal could be implemented before the I-90/I-495 project,
then the rebuilding of the Fruit Street bridge over I-495 would have a much lesser
impact on traffic.
4/18/2019 4
Half-Exit Proposal Large Map
Note: This is a proposal presented by Dave Paul and has not been reviewed by the Planning Board.
4/18/2019 5
Half-Exit Proposal Small Map
Note: This is a proposal presented by Dave Paul and has not been reviewed by the Planning Board.
4/18/2019 6
PUBLIC HEARING OUTLINE
Special Permit, Historic Structures
9 B Street
6/24/19
1.Project introduction and review - Applicant
2.Staff Report
3.Consultant Review
4.Planning Board members and Public – Add to Detailed Discussion items
5.Detailed Discussion, with Public Comment for each topic
5.1.Vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow; truck traffic flow; emergency vehicle
access
5.2.Intended uses
5.3.Stormwater management
5.4.Site lighting
5.5.Utilities; Water/Sewer use
5.6.Building design and landscaping
5.7.Historic Structures
5.8.Solar Panels/alternative energy
5.9.Impacts on: 1) schools; 2) other municipal services; 3) value of neighboring
residential properties
5.10.Town Department and Board/Committee Comments not covered above
6.Additional or New Comments and Information
7.Standards/Findings
7.1.Discuss Special Permit findings
8.Discuss conditions of approval
9.Final public comment
10.Vote to close public hearing
11.Vote on Permits being requested
5/21/2019 Town of Hopkinton, MA Mail - Planning Board - Special Permit Application - 9 B St. - Newbridge Investments LLC - Lots with Historic Stru…
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=47ea419b37&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1634100123942426453&simpl=msg-f%3A16341001239…1/1
John Gelcich <jgelcich@hopkintonma.gov>
Planning Board - Special Permit Application - 9 B St. - Newbridge Investments LLC -
Lots with Historic Structures
John Westerling <jwesterling@hopkintonma.gov>Mon, May 20, 2019 at 8:41 PM
To: Cobi Wallace <cobiw@hopkintonma.gov>
Cc: Mike Mansir <mikemansir@hopkintonma.gov>, Eric Carty <ericc@hopkintonma.gov>, Judi Regan
<judir@hopkintonma.gov>, John Gelcich <jgelcich@hopkintonma.gov>
Cobi
The DPW has no comment on this application.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
John K. Westerling, MPA
Director of Public Works, Hopkinton Department of Public Works
Past-President, New England American Public Works Association
83 Wood Street
PO Box 209
Hopkinton, MA 01748
Email: jwesterling@hopkintonma.gov
Phone: 508-497-9740
Fax: 508-497-9761
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR PROJECT
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Where is this project located?
This project affects Main Street from just west of Wood Street to Ash Street or 0.83 miles.
Why is Undergrounding of Utilities being presented at Town Meeting Again?
The article presented at a previous Town Meeting was to underground utilities from Wood Street to Ash
Street at an estimated cost of $8,000,000. The message was received and understood that at a cost of
$8,000,000 the residents of Hopkinton did not want to pursue undergrounding for this project.
Since that vote there have been changes to the original Article including;
1. The length of undergrounding has been reduced from Wood Street to Ash Street to Fire/Police
stations to Ash Street.
2. Town has secured over $3,000,000 for undergrounding of utilities through Host Community
Agreements.
3. Town has received firm construction costs from the utility companies for undergrounding utilities
for Hopkinton’s Project. The original $8,000,000 was based on typical industry standards and
comparisons to other projects.
Based on these three changes the Town is presenting the Project again at a much reduced and reliable
cost estimate.
Renderings are available online and at Town Hall, 80 South Street, depicting the significant improvements
the Project will make to the Downtown.
The 2010 and 2012 votes were all related to the appropriation or borrowing of funds and do not address
whether such a project should be pursued otherwise. Further, it is not uncommon for a project to be
resubmitted to Town Meeting.
Why is this Project being presented at Town Meeting?
The Town is responsible for non-eligible Project costs which are estimated at $3,000,000 and include:
undergrounding utilities, ornamental street lighting, acquiring right-of-way and easements and designing
the project to a MassDOT standards.
MassDOT is funding all eligible Project costs which is around $8,000,000 which includes new; pavement,
curbing, sidewalks, traffic signal equipment, stormwater system, roadway striping, etc,.
See a detailed estimate on the next page.
Downtown Corridor Project
Estimated Costs
*To be confirmed during 75%-100% Design* TIP Eligible Non-Eligible
W/O UG W/ UG
VHB 25% Design Estimate, June 2017 $ 7,979,806
VHB Design to Complete $ 313,000 $ 313,000
Construction Services $ 33,700 $ 33,700
Eversource UG Estimate $2,295,350
Other UG Utilities (Verizon, Comcast, Lightower, Comtract) $1,225,000
Verizon Design Fee $ 20,000
UG Services - Private Property (Cost to be Finalized) $ 250,000
Appraiser Cost (estimated) $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Right-of-Way (estimated) $ 250,000 $ 250,000
Non Participating Items (To be Verified at 100% Design) $ 176,000 $ 176,000
VHB Estimate Street Lighting (TBV) - only w/UG $1,178,975
$7,979,806 $ 872,700 $5,842,025
What happens if the Town Meeting does not approve Article 20 - $3,000,000 for the Project?
The Board of Selectmen have the authority to accept the funding from MassDOT and move the Project
forward without undergrounding of the utilities, ornamental street lighting, acquiring right-of-way and
easements and designing the project to a MassDOT standards.
The Board of Selectmen may pursue alternate funding sources.
Why do we need this project and what are the benefits?
To improve traffic flow, safety of pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists and to provide significant
streetscape and aesthetic improvements all of which create a safer more useable downtown.
The existing Main Street corridor is an urban arterial with two lanes of traffic with no shoulders for bicycles
along most of the corridor, and where shoulders are provided, the width is not sufficient for bicycle use
and sidewalks are not provided on both sides. The pavement and sidewalks need repairs and
rehabilitation and it would be costly for the Town to fund the construction on our own. To handle current
and projected traffic, and meet current design guidelines, the roadway requires some widening to
accommodate all users of the roadway.
The main benefits of this plan are;
Realignment and Lane Revisions at Route 85 at Route 135. Realign the intersection to improve
traffic flow and operations by removing the Route 85 split phase, which is required today due to
the offset roadway alignment. Traffic Modeling results show a queue reduction of 400-500 feet
on Main Street during peak hours.
Improving the Safety and Efficiency of the Corridor for All Level of Users. Including pedestrians,
handicap accessibility, all levels of bicycle riders, patrons of downtown businesses, and motorists.
The Project provides separate and distinct travel ways for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists.
Improvements to traffic signals will provide crossing times for pedestrians and bicyclists to
improve safety. New sidewalks and accessibility improvements are being provided on both sides
of Main Street from Wood Street to Ash Street.
Separate Bicycle Lane. To provide a dedicated and protected connection between the Center
Trail (near Wood Street), downtown, and the proposed Upper Charles Trail. The separated bicycle
lane limits on-road conflict between bicycles and motorist as well as bicycles and pedestrians. It
also encourages recreational use for bicyclist for all skill levels that would typically not use Main
Street.
Pavement. Pavement improvements are needed on Main Street at a cost of approximately
$2,000,000. The Town will not be responsible for this cost should as it is an eligible MassDOT
cost. The life expectancy of a full reconstructed pavement is 15-20 years during which time the
Town will realize savings as a result of minimal roadway maintenance over that time.
Complete New Drainage System. The project proposes all new drainage structures to improve
stormwater runoff and isolated puddling. The Town will realize savings of hundreds of thousands
of dollars not being responsible for replacing and upgrading the existing stormwater system in
Main Street.
New sidewalks. New sidewalks and wheelchair ramps are proposed throughout the project limits.
Similar to pavement this reduces the Town’s future cost for maintaining these facilities. The
estimated cost for this is approximately $1.8M.
New Traffic Signals. New traffic signals provide more efficient operations for the corridor,
including a new emergency signal at the fire station and a blinking light at Hayden Rowe.
Significant Aesthetic Improvements. Potentially Undergrounding Utilities, Increased Green Space,
Period Lighting, Ornamental Traffic Signals, Streetscape Improvements (benches, trash
receptacles, bike racks).
Benefits to businesses. Better delineation of on-street parking, improved pedestrian facilities
including sidewalks, wheelchair ramps, and crosswalks. Driveway aprons to businesses within the
project limits will be reconstructed.
Benefits to environment. – Reduces idling and improves traffic operations. Project enhances
facilities for non-motorized modes of travel and increased green space.
For a more detailed summary of the benefits see the attached VHB memorandum, dated March 27th.
What are the Design Changes since the MassDOT Design Public Hearing on January 9, 2018?
The following provides a summary of the changes since the Design Public Hearing.
1. Re-established Marathon Way adjacent to Town Common, which removed three previously
proposed on-street parking spaces on Ash Street.
2. Removed westbound through lane on Main Street at Grove Street and Cedar Street.
3. Added southbound right-turn lane from Cedar Street onto Main Street eastbound.
4. Provide a two-way separated bicycle path on the southerly side of Main Street east of Cedar
Street to Hayden Rowe Street; eliminate the separated path on the northerly side of this section.
5. Added approximately 17 on-street parking spaces from just west of the signalized intersection of
Cedar Street/ Main Street to Ash Street. It is noted that some parking spaces have been striped
to be 20’ for inside spaces and 18’ feet for end spaces, this is a reduction of 2’ over the previous
plan.
For a more detailed summary of these changes see the attached VHB memorandum, dated March 27th.
What type of improvements are planned for the intersection of Main Street at Cedar Street?
The improvements include widening of Cedar Street on both the northerly and southerly sides of Main
Street to accommodate additional turn lanes and significantly improve the alignment. The current
improvement plan provides the best opportunity to maintain or improve on-street parking, accommodate
bicyclist and pedestrians and accounting for future traffic growth. An exclusive traffic signal phase for
bicycles will be provided to accommodate the two-way bicycle lane through this intersection. See
attached memorandum for more details on benefits of these improvements.
Will the Project reduce the number of existing on-street parking spaces?
No, the Project will increase the number of on-street parking spaces from 98 to 104 between Ash Street
and Summer Street. The 104 includes;
The proposed numbers of on-street parking spaces on Main Street itself is 78, however 26 additional
spaces have been added;
6 spaces it the Public Parking Lot at the Police Station
4 spaces on Grove Street at the 85/135 intersection
2 spaces on Walcott Street at Main Street
14 spaces in the Library Parking Lot – patrons now park in the lot and not on Main Street
In addition to the 104 spaces the Project is adding another 12 spaces on Main Street between Summer
Street and Mayhew Court.
The Town has also signed a parking agreement with St, John’s Church on Church Street that allows
parking in their lot for Town business. There are dozens of spaces available in this lot.
The Town continues to investigate potential parking agreements with property owners on Main Street.
Will I be able to access businesses and residences during construction?
Access to residences and businesses along Main Street and any of the intersections where construction
takes place will always be provided during construction. There may be instances where on-street parking
could be limited to allow for work to sidewalks, retaining walls, or other construction activities along the
curb line. At times there could be a need for very short-term one lane access or for temporary closure of
both lanes. It is not anticipated the duration of either of those possibilities would require a detour.
Will my property or business along Main Street or otherwise within the project area be impacted
during this construction?
If your property will be impacted as a result of the proposed project (temporary or permanent easement)
you will be contacted by the Town and one of its authorized representatives. Whatever the case, any
property being impacted will be included in the federal right-of-way process which ensures the property
owner will be fairly compensated if they decide to take compensation instead of donating which will
reduce the overall cost of the Project.
Will there be nighttime construction on this project?
This has yet to be determined and will be coordinated with MassDOT during the next steps of design.
There will be no nighttime construction in areas that are residential. It is not anticipated nighttime work
will be required.
Will on-street parking be displaced during construction?
During construction on-street parking could be restricted during some activities. The improvement plan
currently maintains a similar number of on-street parking spaces when compared to existing conditions.
Some spaces may be shifted or moved depending on crosswalk locations, locations of driveways, and
other features proposed such as turn lanes.
How are these roadway improvements funded?
Including undergrounding of utilities the Project is estimated to cost around $14M. As previously stated,
MassDOT is funding around $8M and the Town is responsible for the remaining costs of the Project which
would be $6M. Since the Town has already secured half of that funding since the previous Town Meeting
vote the funding the Town is now responsible for is $3M.
What are the next steps for the project if it passes?
If Article 20 passes the Town has a consultant ready to advance the final engineering phase for this
project. There are two more design submissions that need to be made to MassDOT. The final schedule is
dependent on the outcome of this Town Meeting, subsequent meetings and review with MassDOT. It is
anticipated that construction would commence in 2020.
10
11
12
13
14
N 48° 36' 31" E
5
2
9
.
1
2
'
W
O
O
D
S
T
R
E
T
(
R
O
U
T
E
1
3
5
)
(P
U
B
L
I
C
)
10
11
12
13
14
N 48° 36' 31" E
5
2
9
.
1
2
'
W
O
O
D
S
T
R
E
T
(
R
O
U
T
E
1
3
5
)
(P
U
B
L
I
C
)SAWCUTMEET EXIST1950 TOWN LA
Y
O
U
T
1950 TOWN LAY
O
U
T
CONSTRUCTI
O
N
ADJ
LIMIT OF WO
R
K
STA 11+96.5
6
N:2906696.06
7
3
E:647705.897
4
CBCI
ADJ
ADJ
DMH
RET UP
RET HYD
RET UP
ADJ (BO)
REM
REM EX CB
7 FT - 12" RCP
19 FT - 12" RCP
158 FT - 24" RC
P
3 FT - 12" RCP
9 FT - 12" RCP
3
2 1
4
FED. AID PROJ. NO.STATE
MA
SHEETS
TOTALSHEET
NO.
PROJECT FILE NO.
HOPKINTON
MAIN STREET
----45 62
606043
UTILITY PLANS
CONTINUED ONSHEET NO. 46606043-HD(UT).DWG9-Nov-2018 5:37 PMPlotted onSCALE IN FEET
020 20 40
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
PC +29.12 100101
102
PC +33
.45
PT +
8
1
.
8
5
PC
+
1
5
.
8
2
PT
+
6
5
.
9
7
110111120121CLAFLIN PLACE(PUBLIC)W
O
O
D
S
T
R
E
T
(
R
O
U
T
E
1
3
5
)
(P
U
B
L
I
C
)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
PC +29.12 100101
102
PC +33
.45
PT +
8
1
.
8
5
PC
+
1
5
.
8
2
PT
+
6
5
.
9
7
110111120121CLAFLIN PLACE(PUBLIC)W
O
O
D
S
T
R
E
T
(
R
O
U
T
E
1
3
5
)
(P
U
B
L
I
C
)SAWCUTMEET EXISTSAWC
U
T
MEET E
X
I
S
T
SAW
C
U
T
MEET
E
X
I
S
T
CONSTRUCTION
ADJ (BO)
ADJ (BO)
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ (BO)
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ (BO)
REM
ADJ
REM
ADJ
ADJ
DMH
REM
ADJ (BO)
REM
DMHREMODEL
CBCI
CBCI
CB
1950 COUNTY
L
A
Y
O
U
T
1950 COUNTY
L
A
Y
O
U
T
1955
C
O
U
N
T
Y
L
A
Y
O
U
T
190
2
C
O
U
N
T
Y
L
A
Y
O
U
T
1884 COUNTY LAYOUT
ADJ (
B
O
)
REM EX DMH
& PIPE
R&R UP(BO)
R&R UP (BO)
R&R UP & GUY (BO)
REM
CBCI
REM
DMH
REM
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
R&R UP (BO)
R&R UP
RET UP
ADJ
ADJ (BO)
REM
REM
REM
RET
RET
RET
RET RET
RET
RET
RET
REM
RET
ADJ (BO)
REM
RET
RET
RET
RET
CIT
REM EX DMH,
CB & PIPE
REM EX CB
& PIPE
5
158 FT - 24" R
C
P 40 FT - 12" RCP3 FT - 12" RCP
227 FT - 24" R
C
P
2 FT - 12" RCP
58 FT - 24" RCP
13 FT - 12" RCP
286 FT - 24" RCP
47 FT - 12" RCP
22 FT - 12" RCP3 FT - 12" RCP
5
16
15
14
11
12
13
8
9
6
5
7 CONTINUED ONSHEET NO. 47CONTINUED ONSHEET NO. 45FED. AID PROJ. NO.STATE
MA
SHEETS
TOTALSHEET
NO.
PROJECT FILE NO.
HOPKINTON
MAIN STREET
----46 62
606043
UTILITY PLANS
606043-HD(UT).DWG9-Nov-2018 5:37 PMPlotted onSCALE IN FEET
020 20 40
20
21
22 23 24 25
26
L=1087.73'R =5 500.00'
Δ =11°19'5 3 "130131140141CLAFLIN AVENUE(PUBLIC)COMMONWEALTH AVENUE(PUBLIC)22
20
21
22 23 24 25
26
L=1087.73'R =5 500.00'
Δ =11°19'5 3 "130131140141CLAFLIN AVENUE(PUBLIC)COMMONWEALTH AVENUE(PUBLIC)SAWCUT
MEET EXIST
SAWCUT
MEET EXIST
CONSTRUCTION
ADJ
ADJ (BO)
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ (BO)ADJ
ADJ (BO)CIT
ADJ (BO)
ADJ
ADJ (BO)
1884 COUNTY LAYOUT
1884 COUNTY LAYOUT
R&R UP (BO)
R&R UP (BO)
R&R UP (BO)R&R UP (BO)
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ (BO)
ADJ (BO)
R&R UP (BO)
R&R UP (BO)
R&R UP REM
REM CIT
RET
5' - 6" DIP
RET
RET
RET
RET
RET
RET
RET
ADJ (BO)
RET
R&D 12" RCP
RET
RET
27 28
106
18A
23
22
18
17
11 FT - 12" RCP
47 FT - 12" RCP
10 FT - 12" RCP
71 FT - 24" RCP
30 FT - 24" RCP
22 FT - 12" RCP
6 FT - 12" RCP
47 FT - 18" RCP
9 FT - 12" RCP
262 FT - 18" RCP
31 FT - 12" RCP
40 FT - 12" RCP
211 FT - 18" RCP 16 FT - 12" RCP
19
17
26
24
20
21
16
DMH
CB W/
R&C
GICI
CBCI ABAN EX PIPE
DMH
CBCI
GICI
ADJ HYD
PROP GUY (BO)
DMH
CB W/
R&C
GICI
PROP GUY (BO)
R&R HYD
XX FT - 6" DI CONTINUED ONSHEET NO. 48CONTINUED ONSHEET NO. 46FED. AID PROJ. NO.STATE
MA
SHEETS
TOTALSHEET
NO.
PROJECT FILE NO.
HOPKINTON
MAIN STREET
----47 62
606043
UTILITY PLANS
606043-HD(UT).DWG9-Nov-2018 5:37 PMPlotted onSCALE IN FEET
020 20 40
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
PT +16.85
PC +77.51
N 59° 56' 24" E 460.67'180181170171PC +26.81PT +72.68150151151MAYHEW STREET(PUBLIC)MT.AUBURN STREET(PUBLIC)160161PLEASANT STREET(PUBLIC)MARSHALL AVENUE(PUBLIC)26
27
28
29
30
31
32
PT +16.85
PC +77.51
N 59° 56' 24" E 460.67'180181170171PC +26.81PT +72.68150151151MAYHEW STREET(PUBLIC)MT.AUBURN STREET(PUBLIC)160161PLEASANT STREET(PUBLIC)MARSHALL AVENUE(PUBLIC)SAWCU
T
MEET E
X
I
S
T
SAWCUT
MEET EXI
S
T
SAWCUT
MEET EXIST
SAWCUT
MEET EXIST
CONSTRUCTION ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ ADJ
ADJ (BO)
ADJ
ADJ (BO)ADJ
ADJ
ADJ (BO)
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ (BO)
CIT
REM
ADJ (BO)
ADJ
ADJ ADJ
CBCI
ADJ
ADJ (BO)
CBCI
CBCI
CIT
CBCI
CBCI
1884 COUNTY LAYOUT
1884 COUNTY LAYOUT
1884 COUNTY LAYOUT
CBCI
R&D 15" CMP
R&D 12" CMP
R&R UP (BO)
R&R UP (BO)
R&R UP (BO)
R&R UP (BO)
R&D 12" CMP
ADJADJ (BO)
ADJ
REM
DMH
R&D 15" CMP
REM
ADJ
ADJ ADJ (BO)
DMH
R&R UP (BO)
R&R HYD
PROP 12" GAS LINE TO BE
INSTALLED PRIOR TO
ROADWAY PROJECT BEGINNING
(BY OTHERS)
REM
RET REMREM
CBCI
REM
RET
RET
25' - 6" DIP
ADJ
RET
ADJ (BO)
R&D 12" CLAY PIPE
REM 12" CMP
R&D 12" DI
R&D 12" RCP
ADJ
RET
RET
RET
RET
36
39
35
38
40
37
34
32
30
31
33
29
16 FT - 12" RCP 4 FT - 12" RCP
52 FT - 12" RCP
49 FT - 12" RCP
30 FT - 12" RCP 4 FT - 12" RCP
49 FT - 18" RCP
241 FT - 18" RCP
33 FT - 12" RCP
BEGIN PROP 12" GAS LINE TO
BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO
ROADWAY PROJECT (BY
OTHERS)
33
36A
33
DMH
CIT
22 FT - 12" RCP
4 FT - 12" RCP
PROP UP (BO)
ADJ (BO)
GICI9 FT - 12" RCP
CB W/
F&C
CONTINUED ONSHEET NO. 49CONTINUED ONSHEET NO. 47FED. AID PROJ. NO.STATE
MA
SHEETS
TOTALSHEET
NO.
PROJECT FILE NO.
HOPKINTON
MAIN STREET
----48 62
606043
UTILITY PLANS
606043-HD(UT).DWG9-Nov-2018 5:37 PMPlotted onSCALE IN FEET
020 20 40
MAIN STREET
(ROUTE 135)
(PUBLIC)SUMMER STREET(PUBLIC)CLAFLIN COMMONS(PRIVATE)32
33
34
35
36
37PRC +88.84
L=611.33' R=30000.00'
Δ=1° 10' 03"200201+50190191MAIN STREET
(ROUTE 135)
(PUBLIC)SUMMER STREET(PUBLIC)CLAFLIN COMMONS(PRIVATE)32
33
34
35
36
37PRC +88.84
L=611.33' R=30000.00'
Δ=1° 10' 03"200201+50190191SAWCUT
MEET EXIST SAWCUT
MEET EXIS
T
CONSTRUCTION
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ (BO)
ADJ (BO)
ADJADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ (BO)
ADJ
ADJ ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
GI
ADJ
CIT
1884 COUNTY LAYOUT
1884 COUNTY LAYOUT
1884 COUNTY LAYOUT
R&R UP (BO)
R&R UP (BO)
R&R UP (BO)
R&R UP (BO)
REM UP (BO)
REM UP (BO)
ADJ
PROP UP (BO)
PROP UP (BO)
RET
R&R HYD
PROP 12" GAS LINE TO BE
INSTALLED PRIOR TO
ROADWAY PROJECT
BEGINNING (BY OTHERS)
ADJ
RET
RET
RET RET
RET RET
RET RETRET
RET
RETRET
REM
CIT
3' - 6" DIP
RET
ADJ
RET
CBCI
RET
RET
RET
REM
ADJ (BO)
RET
CBCI
CBCI
DMH
DMH
RET
GI
42
44
43
108
45
46A
46
109
47
48
49
110 FT - 12" RCP
6 FT - 12" RCP68 FT - 12" RCP
22 FT - 12" RCP
212 FT - 12" RCP
21 FT - 12" RCP
19 FT - 12" RCP
11 FT - 12" RCP
4 FT - 12" RCP
PROP UP & GUY (BO)
CB W/
F&C
DMH
THM
CMH
EMH
CMH
TMH
MH"AA"
PROP CONDUIT
FOR VERIZON
PROP CONDUITS FOR
COMCAST & COMM-TRACT
PROP ELECTRICAL
CONDUITS FOR
EVERSOURCE
38 FT - 12" RCP
2-5" PVC EB CONDUIT
2-5" PVC EB CONDUIT2-5" PVC EB
CONDUIT
2-5" PVC EB CONDUIT
9-5" PVC EB CONDUIT
9-5" P
V
C
E
B
C
O
N
D
U
I
T
CONTINUED ONSHEET NO. 50CONTINUED ONSHEET NO. 48FED. AID PROJ. NO.STATE
MA
SHEETS
TOTALSHEET
NO.
PROJECT FILE NO.
HOPKINTON
MAIN STREET
----49 62
606043
UTILITY PLANS
606043-HD(UT).DWG9-Nov-2018 5:37 PMPlotted onSCALE IN FEET
020 20 40
7
4 CEDAR STREET (ROUTE 85)(PUBLIC)MAIN STREET (ROUTE 135)
(PUBLIC)
38
39
40 41
42
43PT +90.06
N 76° 56' 53" E 270.17'214215216217PC +14.69PT +59.90
PC +75.75
200L=501.22' R=1580.00'
Δ=18° 10' 32"CEDAR STREET (ROUTE 85)(PUBLIC)MAIN STREET (ROUTE 135)
(PUBLIC)
38
39
40 41
42
43PT +90.06
N 76° 56' 53" E 270.17'214215216217PC +14.69PT +59.90
PC +75.75
200L=501.22' R=1580.00'
Δ=18° 10' 32"
SAWCUT
MEET EXIST
CONSTRUCTION
ADJ
REM
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ ADJ
ADJ
ADJ (BO)
ADJ (X3)
ADJADJADJ
GI
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ (BO)
CIT
ADJ
ADJ (BO)
CB
CBCI
CB
CBCI
1884 COUNTY LAYOUT
PROP 12" GAS LINE TO
BE INSTALLED PRIOR
TO ROADWAY PROJECT
BEGINNING (BY
OTHERS)
REM 15" CMP
R&D 12" CMP
REM 18" CMP
REM UP
(
B
O
)
REM UP (BO)
REM UP (BO)
REM UP (BO)
R&R UP (BO)
ADJ
R&D 24" CMP
ADJ
ADJ (BO)
ADJ
DMH
DMH
DMH
DMH
CBCI
DCB
DMH
ADJ (BO)
ADJ ADJ ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJADJ
(BO)ADJ (BO)
ADJ
ADJ
CBCI CBCIADJ
REM UP (BO)REM UP
(
B
O
)
PROP 12" GAS LINE TO BE
INSTALLED PRIOR TO
ROADWAY PROJECT
BEGINNING (BY OTHERS)
R&R UP (BO)
R&R UP (BO)
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ ADJ
ADJ
REM
CIT
RET
RET
RET
ADJ
RET
REM
REM
REM
REM
RETREM REM
REM
REM
REM
RET
RET
RET
RETRET
RET
RETRET
ADJADJ
ADJ ADJ ADJ
RET
RETADJ
ADJ
RET
RET
ADJ ADJ (BO)
REM
REM
REM
ADJ (BO)
REM
ADJ
R&R HYD
20' - 6" DIP
REM
REM UP (BO)
ADJ (BO)
R&D 12" CMP
RETRET
109
48
49
110 FT - 12"
R
C
P
6 FT - 12" RCP
17 FT - 12" RCP
143 FT - 12" RCP
7 FT - 12" RCP
32 FT - 30" RCP
25 FT - 12" RCP
135 FT - 30" RCP
40 FT - 24" RCP52 FT - 24" RCP
17 FT - 12" RCP
21 FT - 12" RCP
47 FT - 12" RCP
14 FT - 12" RCP
8 FT - 12" RCP
7 FT - 12" RCP74 FT - 24" RCP 29 FT - 12" RCP49 FT - 12" RCP
11 FT - 12" RCP
54 FT - 12" RCP
27 FT - 12" RCP
68 FT - 12" RCP
33 FT - 12" RCP
11 FT - 12" RCP
54
68
66
67
6360
60A
62
65
64
59
6157
58
52
53
51
54A
50
52A
DMH
DCB
DCB
DCB
54 FT - 12" RCP
CBCI
RETADJ
(BO)
RET
RET
ADJ
69
CIT
PROP STUB POLE
& GUY (BO)
CMH
TMH
EMH
EMH
TMH
CMH
EMH
TMH
CMH
PROP 4" CONDUITS TO BE
INSTALLED DURING
ROADWAY PROJECT
1- 4" VERIZON
CONDUIT
6 - 4" VERIZON
CONDUIT
2 - 4"
VERIZON
CONDUIT
2 - 4"
VERIZON
CONDUIT
6 - 4" VERIZON CONDUIT
HH
1 - 4"
VERIZON
CONDUIT
1 - 4"
VERIZON
CONDUIT
2 - 4" VERIZON CONDUIT
PROP ELECTRICAL
CONDUITS FOR
EVERSOURCE
PROP CONDUITS FOR
COMCAST & COMM-TRACT
6 - 4" VERIZON
CONDUIT
9-5" PVC EB CONDUIT
1-4" PVC CONDUIT
1-4" PVC CONDUIT
1-4" PVC CONDUIT
6-5" PVC EB CONDUIT
9-5" PVC EB CONDUIT
1-4" PVC CONDUIT
6-5" PVC
EB CONDUIT
CONTINUED ONSHEET NO. 51CONTINUED ON
SHEET NO. 53
CONTINUED ONSHEET NO. 49FED. AID PROJ. NO.STATE
MA
SHEETS
TOTALSHEET
NO.
PROJECT FILE NO.
HOPKINTON
MAIN STREET
----50 62
606043
UTILITY PLANS
606043-HD(UT).DWG9-Nov-2018 5:38 PMPlotted onCONTINUED ON
SHEET NO. 53
SCALE IN FEET
020 20 40
MAIN STREET (ROUTE 135)
(PUBLIC)CHURCH STREET(PUBLIC)WALCOTT STREET(PUBLIC)44
45
46 47 48 49PC +60.22
PT +99.82 PC +73.46
N 76° 56' 5
3
"
E
2
7
0
.
1
7
'
N 66° 56' 59" E 273.64'L=139.60'R=800.00'
Δ=9°59'5 4"230231220221MAIN STREET (ROUTE 135)
(PUBLIC)CHURCH STREET(PUBLIC)WALCOTT STREET(PUBLIC)44
45
46 47 48 49PC +60.22
PT +99.82 PC +73.46
N 76° 56' 5
3
"
E
2
7
0
.
1
7
'
N 66° 56' 59" E 273.64'L=139.60'R=800.00'
Δ=9°59'5 4"230231220221SAWC
U
T
MEET
E
X
I
S
T
SAWCUT
MEET EXIST
CONSTRUCTION
R&R
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ (BO)
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ (BO)
ADJ
CB
CBCI
ADJ (BO)
ADJ
ADJ (BO)
CBCI
1884 COUNTY L
A
Y
O
U
T
1900 COUNTY LAYOUT
R&R HYD
7' - 6" DIP
PROP 12" GAS LINE
T
O
BE INSTALLED PRIO
R
TO ROADWAY PROJE
C
T
BEGINNING (BY
CBCI
CBCI
DMH
DMH
REM UP (BO)
REM UP (BO)
ADJ (BO)
REM UP (BO)
REM UP (BO)
REM
REM
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
R&R HYD
10' - 6" DIP
REM UP (BO)
REM UP (BO)
REM UP (BO)
PROP 12" GAS LINE TO BE
INSTALLED PRIOR TO ROADWAY
PROJECT BEGINNING (BY
OTHERS)
RET
RET
RET
RET
PROP UP (BO)
ADJ (BO)
RET
RET
ADJ (BO)
REM
REM
ADJ
(BO)
ADJ
REM
REM
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ (BO)
ADJ (BO)ADJ (BO)
RET RET
RET
RET
RET
R&D 12" CMP
RETREM
REM
ADJADJ (BO)RET75
73
54 FT - 12" RCP 92 FT - 18" RCP
6 FT - 12" RCP
61 FT - 12" RCP
143 FT - 18" RCP
36 FT - 18" RCP56 FT - 12" RCP23 FT - 12" RCP 14 FT - 12" RCP
18 FT - 12" RCP
27 FT - 12" RCP
98 FT - 18" RCP
75
78
79
80
75
77
76
110
74
72
71
70
68
GICI
CBCI
DMH
DMH
CB
CMH EMH TMH CMH
TMH
PROP 4" CONDUITS FOR
COMCAST & COMM-TRACT
PROP 4" CONDUITS
T
O
B
E
INSTALLED DURING
ROADWAY PROJECT
HH
1 - 4"
VERIZON
CONDUIT
1 - 4"
VERIZON
CONDUIT
2 - 4" VERIZON CON
D
U
I
T
1 - 4" VERIZON
C
O
N
D
U
I
T
2 - 4" VERI
Z
O
N
CONDUIT
6 - 4" VERIZ
O
N
C
O
N
D
U
I
T
1 - 4" VERIZ
O
N
CONDUIT
HH
1 - 4" VERIZON CONDUIT
1 - 4" VERIZON CONDUIT
1 - 4" VERIZON CONDUIT
6 - 4" VERIZON CO
N
D
U
I
T
6 - 4" VERIZON CONDUIT
1 - 4" VERIZON
CONDUIT
4 - 4" VERIZON
CONDUIT
2 - 4" VERIZON
CONDUIT
1 - 4" VERIZON CONDUIT
1 - 4" VERIZON
CONDUIT
1 - 4" CROWN CASTLE
CONDUIT
PROP CONDUITS FO
R
COMCAST & COMM-
T
R
A
C
T
PROP CONDUITS FOR
COMCAST, COMM-TRACT &
CROWN CASTLE
9-5" PVC EB CONDUIT
6-5" PVC EB CONDUIT
1-4" PVC CONDUIT
9-5" PVC EB CONDUIT
1-4" PVC CONDUIT
9-5" PV
C
E
B
C
O
N
D
U
I
T
1-4" PVC CONDUIT
1-4" PVC CONDUIT
1-4" PVC CONDUIT
1-4" PVC CONDUIT CONTINUED ONSHEET NO. 52CONTINUED ONSHEET NO. 50FED. AID PROJ. NO.STATE
MA
SHEETS
TOTALSHEET
NO.
PROJECT FILE NO.
HOPKINTON
MAIN STREET
----51 62
606043
UTILITY PLANS
606043-HD(UT).DWG9-Nov-2018 5:38 PMPlotted onSCALE IN FEET
020 20 40
STARTMAIN STREET (R
O
U
T
E
1
3
5
)
(PUBLIC)HAYDEN ROWE STREET(PUBLIC)ASH STREET(PUBLIC)25025125225250
51
52
53
54
55
5656
PRC +82
.
5
9
L=609.13'R=1100.00'
Δ=31°43'40"
L =11 7 .4 2 'R =5 0 0 0 .0 0 'Δ =1 °2 0 '4 4 "240241242242MAIN STREET (R
O
U
T
E
1
3
5
)
(PUBLIC)HAYDEN ROWE STREET(PUBLIC)ASH STREET(PUBLIC)25025125225250
51
52
53
54
55
5656
PRC +82
.
5
9
L=609.13'R=1100.00'
Δ=31°43'40"
L =11 7 .4 2 'R =5 0 0 0 .0 0 'Δ =1 °2 0 '4 4 "240241242242SAW
C
U
T
MEE
T
E
X
I
S
T
SAWCUT
MEET EXIST SAWCUTMEET EXISTCONSTRUCTION
RET
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ (BO)
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
REM
ADJ
ADJ (BO)
REMOD
ADJ
REMOD
ADJ
ADJ
CBCI
CBCI
CB
1884 COUNTY LAYO
U
T
1884 CO
U
N
T
Y
L
A
Y
O
U
T
1884 COUNTY LAYOUT
RET 12" CMP
RET 12" CMP
R&D 12" CMP
R&D 12" CMP
LIMIT OF
W
O
R
K
STA 55+
8
0
.
0
5
N:290894
9
.
9
1
5
6
E:651396
.
4
8
7
3
R&D 12" CMP
R&D 12" CMP
DMH
DMH
REM UP (BO)
PROP UP (BO)
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
REM UP (BO)
REM UP (BO)
REM
U
P
(
B
O
)
REM UP (BO)
RET
RET
REM
ADJ
PROP 12" GAS LINE TO BE
INSTALLED PRIOR TO
ROADWAY PROJECT (BY
OTHERS)
R&R HYD
10' - 6" DIP
RET
RET
RET
RET
RET
REMOD
RET
RET X3
REM
REM
REM
REM
ADJ
RET
REMOD
RET RET
CBCI
CBCI
RET
ADJ (B.O)
R&R HYD
RET
RET
RET
RET
CBCI CIT
ADJ
ADJ
83A
86
94
9 FT - 12" RCP
4
7
6
F
T
-
1
2
"
RCP
14 FT - 12" RCP
8 FT - 12" RCP
4
8
F
T
-
1
2
"
R
C
P
43 FT -
1
2
"
R
C
P
153 FT - 12" RCP
38 FT - 12" RCP
4 FT - 12" RCP
42 FT - 1
2
"
R
C
P
5 FT - 12" RCP
END PROP 12" GAS LINE TO
BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO
ROADWAY PROJECT (BY
OTHERS)
83A
85
86
94
83A
83
82
81
86
84 89
81A
83B
94
88
90
91
92
93
95
81B
81C
RET
RET
RET
ADJ
ADJ
CB
EMH
EMH
TMH
EMH
CMH
TMH
CMH
PROP CONDUITS FOR VERIZON
4 - 4" VERIZO
N
C
O
N
D
U
I
T
1 - 4" VERIZON CON
D
U
I
T
2 - 4" VERIZON CON
D
U
I
T
1 - 4" VERIZON CONDUIT
28 FT - 12" RCP
2 - 4" VERIZON
CONDUIT
PROP CONDUITS FOR
COMCAST, COMM-TRACT &
CROWN CASTLE
MARATHON WAY (
P
U
B
L
I
C
)
2-5" PVC EB CONDUIT
9-5" PVC EB CONDUIT
6-5" PVC EB CONDUIT
9-5" PVC EB CONDUIT
1-4" PVC CONDUIT
2-5" PVC
EB CONDUIT 1-4" PVC CONDUIT
9-5" PVC EB CONDUIT
CONTINUED ONSHEET NO. 51FED. AID PROJ. NO.STATE
MA
SHEETS
TOTALSHEET
NO.
PROJECT FILE NO.
HOPKINTON
MAIN STREET
----52 62
606043
UTILITY PLANS
606043-HD(UT).DWG9-Nov-2018 5:38 PMPlotted onSCALE IN FEET
020 20 40
211212213PC +16.45PRC +10.99PT +72.21
211212213PC +16.45PRC +10.99PT +72.21
SAWCUT
MEET EXIST LIMIT OF WORKSTA 210+83.75N:2907854.434E:650326.849ADJ
ADJ (BO)
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ (BO)
RET
RET
RET
RET
RET UP (BO)
RET
R&R UP (BO)217218218PC +75.75
PT +21.47
217218218PC +75.75
PT +21.47
CEDAR STREET (ROUTE 85)(PUBLIC)LIMIT OF WORKSTA 218+66.76N:2908609.2693E:650127.1034R&R UP (BO)
ADJ
RET CB
ADJ
ADJ
ADJ
RET
RET
RET
57C
13 FT - 12" RCP
57C
57A
57C
57B
CB
CB
CIT
PROP STUB POLE
& GUY (BO)
FED. AID PROJ. NO.STATE
MA
SHEETS
TOTALSHEET
NO.
PROJECT FILE NO.
HOPKINTON
MAIN STREET
----53 62
606043
UTILITY PLANS
606043-HD(UT).DWG9-Nov-2018 5:38 PMPlotted onCONTINUED ON
SHEET NO. 50
CONTINUED ON
SHEET NO. 50
SCALE IN FEET
020 20 40
PROPOSED FULL DEPTH PAVEMENT
PROPOSED BIKE LANE
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
PROPOSED LANDSCAPED AREA
PROPOSED WHEELCHAIR RAMP
PROPOSED TEXTURIZED BUFFER
PROPOSED CEMENT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
MAIN STREET
(ROUTE 135)
(PUBLIC)SUMMER STREET(PUBLIC)PROPOSED FULL DEPTH PAVEMENT
PROPOSED BIKE LANE
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
PROPOSED LANDSCAPED AREA
PROPOSED WHEELCHAIR RAMP
PROPOSED TEXTURIZED BUFFER
PROPOSED CEMENT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
11.0'6.5'5.5'10.0'12.0'1.0'14.0'MAIN STREET
(ROUTE 135)
(PUBLIC)CLAFLIN COMMONS(PUBLIC)CEDAR STREET (ROUTE 85)(PUBLIC)SCALE IN FEET
30 0 30 60
100'L=115'5.5' min
7.0'
13.0'
11.0'
13.0'
10.0'
5' min
MAIN ST
R
E
E
T
(
R
O
U
T
E
1
3
5
)
(PUBLIC)GROVE STREET(ROUTE 85)(PUBLIC)WALCOTT STREET(PUBLIC)L=125'
PROPOSED FULL DEPTH PAVEMENT
PROPOSED BIKE LANE
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
PROPOSED LANDSCAPED AREA
PROPOSED WHEELCHAIR RAMP
PROPOSED TEXTURIZED BUFFER
PROPOSED CEMENT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
20.0'
20.0'
6.0' BUFFER
10.0'
10.0' MIN
MAIN STREET (RO
U
T
E
1
3
5
)
(PUBLIC)
MAIN S
T
R
E
E
T
(
R
O
U
T
E
1
3
5
)
(PUBL
I
C
)CHURCH STREET(PUBLIC)HAYDEN ROWE STREET(PUBLIC)ASH STREET(PUBLIC)SCALE IN FEET
3003060
5.5' min
7.0'
13.0'
11.0'
13.0'
10.0'
5' minWALCOTT STREET(PUBLIC)PROPOSED FULL DEPTH PAVEMENT
PROPOSED BIKE LANE
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
PROPOSED LANDSCAPED AREA
PROPOSED WHEELCHAIR RAMP
PROPOSED TEXTURIZED BUFFER
PROPOSED CEMENT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
Hopkinton
View 1-Before
Hopkinton
View 1-After
Clearly define pedestrian
crossing separated from bike lane
Grade separated
sidewalk
Grade separated 2-way bike lane
Improved bike accommodations within intersection
(signalized)
Buried Overhead
Electrical Lines
New Pavement
Hopkinton
View 2-Before
Hopkinton
View 2-After
Bike lane width to accommodate 2-way travel
Grade separated
side walk
At grade driveway
access
Grade separated
bike lane
Buried Overhead
Electrical Lines
Hopkinton
View 3-Before
Hopkinton
View 3-After
Bike lane width to
accommodate 2-way travel
Grade separated side walk
At grade driveway
access
Grade separated
bike lane
Buried Overhead Electrical Lines
Hopkinton
View 4-Before
Hopkinton
View 4-After
Expanded Open space
Re-Aligned Roadway
Fully maintained
access
Proposed retainingWall
2-Way BikeLane
Added RightTurn Lane
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
Thursday, May 2, 2019 7:30 P.M.
Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton, MA
Lower Level
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Muriel Kramer, Chair; Fran DeYoung, Vice Chair; David Paul;
Deborah Fein-Brug; Mary Larson-Marlowe; Gary Trendel; Carol DeVeuve, Amy Ritterbusch
MEMBERS ABSENT: Frank D’Urso
Present: John Gelcich, Principal Planner; Elaine Lazarus, Assistant Town Manager and Director
of Land Use; Vin Gately, Heritage Properties; Roy MacDowell, Baystone Development
Ms. Kramer opened the meeting at 7:32 PM.
Discussion of Planning Board Presentations
Ms. Kramer wants Mr. Gelcich to send out notes for the Planning Board presentation that Ms.
Lazarus sent out earlier in the day. The Board will discuss this before annual town meeting.
Mr. Paul would like to have someone give an introduction at annual town meeting explaining
that there are eight Planning Board articles and three are specific to OSMUD.
Citizens petitions are mixed in with the Planning Board articles, so the Board will not present all
eight articles in a row.
Ms. Kramer will mention that the Board voted to support the citizens petition to change the name
of the Board of Selectmen. Ms. Kramer stated she signed the petition, and perhaps someone else
should present the Board’s support of this article at annual town meeting. Ms. Ritterbusch said
someone should mention how the Board voted on this issue. The Board determined that this
issue is not controversial and collectively thinks Ms. Kramer should make the presentation.
Mr. Trendel asked if the Board can toggle back and forth between map and slides during the
presentation of the articles at town meeting. Ms. Kramer said that she thinks this is possible, but
would like the map to stay up throughout the presentation. She said that the map may not be
readable if both the map and the presentation slides are on the screen. The Board suggested
having a large scale zoning map in the lobby. Ms. Kramer asked if they can hand out small size
maps to attendees, but the Board determined it would be prohibitively expensive. Ms. Kramer
said they will likely have the map on the screen instead.
Mr. Trendel said he would rather have the map up longer than the text. Ms. Fein-Brug said she
thinks they can repeat the map every time with a split screen.
The Board asked Mr. Gelcich to coordinate with the IT Department to see if there is an easy way
to have map and slides at the same time. Ms. DeVeuve suggested to hand out slides and have the
map stay up on the screen. Ms. Kramer said she thinks this is probably the best idea.
Mr. Paul suggested the Board move forward with the presentation method that Ms. Kramer is
most comfortable with, as she will present.
Ms. Kramer thinks that the Planning Board articles will be on the second night of town meeting.
Ms. DeVeuve had comments on the slides, and said with respect to the OSMUD age restriction,
the Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC) recommendation was listed but not the Planning
Board’s.
Mr. Paul said he would like to vote on Article 37 tonight. Ms Larson-Marlowe said the Board
can't recommend both Articles 36 and 37, since it’s an either or situation. Ms. Kramer said that
is not the case, and if both articles pass it would not be a problem, but if neither passes it is an
issue. Ms. Kramer wants the Board to make a recommendation on both. Ms. DeVeuve thinks the
Board should make a recommendation for the sake of guidance for town meeting.
Ms. Kramer asked if the ZAC voted on the car wash article and if the Board modified it. Ms.
DeVeuve said they did vote but not on the change.
Ms. Kramer stated the ZAC had no issue the OSMUD article regarding cultural land. Ms.
Kramer and Ms. DeVeuve confirmed that the ZAC made changes and voted on the banners
article, but did not vote on the Board's modification to that article.
Ms. Kramer asked the Board members to make adjustments to slides and send to Mr. Gelcich.
Mr. Trendel asked if he could send comments to Ms. Kramer and Mr. Gelcich, and the Board
member determined that they could, as long as no other Board members were copied on the
email.
Ms. Kramer said that the Board’s meeting on May 6 is to go over the presentation and make sure
everyone is OK with it. Ms. Kramer confirms that the meeting on May 6 will be in Room 255 of
the Hopkinton Middle School.
Ms. Kramer asked if any discussion is needed on other articles.
Ms. Kramer made general comments about the dog park article.
Mr. Trendel asked if anyone has any additional details as to why more money is needed for
school bus parking lot.
Mr. DeYoung arrived (7:55).
Ms. Larson-Marlowe said it was for raising the ground level to have a better grade for drainage.
Higher costs for underground catch basins to capture diesel and other pollutants were also a
factor. Screening and lighting were changed as well. Ms. DeVeuve thought screening was going
to be over a couple of years and would not impact the budget. Ms. Kramer didn’t think the
Planning Board has any say in this.
Mr. Paul said that Article 36 removes a section that, if passed. would also remove it for Article
37, where Article 37 does not mention this section.
Ms. Lazarus arrived.
Ms. Lazarus gave some background that Article 37 is a standalone article that cannot assume that
Article 36 will pass. Therefore, if both are passed, the Board has the option to receive
payments-in-lieu.
Ms. Kramer asked about the consequences if town meeting passes both Article 36 and Article 37.
Ms. Lazarus said if someone wants to propose payment-in-lieu, they would then be able to do so,
but they may not need to. If both pass, the age restriction is gone.
Ms. Ritterbusch suggested changing “retains” in Article 37.
Mr. MacDowell said the Town Moderator approved small handouts for the public. Mr.
MacDowell will give Ms. Kramer a copy to review. Mr. MacDowell read the current flyer aloud
to the Board. Mr. MacDowell said that if both articles pass, the developer would have the option
of doing the affordable units on-site or off-site, subject to Board approval.
Ms. DeVeuve said that the flyer appears to indicate that is the article passes, there will be 18
units added to the affordable housing inventory. Mr. MacDowell said yes, but it gives developer
an option.
Mr. Trendel asked if the developer is required to provide 18 units if both articles pass. Mr.
Gately said no, he thinks it gives them the option for payment-in-lieu.
Ms. DeVeuve said it should be made clear that if the Town votes yes on Article 36, the
affordable units will be located on-site, and if the Town votes yes on Article 37, the affordable
units will be located off-site or the Town will receive a payment-in-lieu.
Ms. Kramer doesn't want Mr. MacDowell to distribute the flyer, as she thinks it doesn’t help the
Planning Board. Ms. Ritterbusch and Ms. Lazarus asked if the name of the author is listed on the
flyer. Mr. MacDowell said no, but that it will be added.
Mr. DeYoung suggested bringing up Article 36 and Article 37 together. He further suggested
that they lay out the consequences if both articles pass, one passes, or neither passes.
Mr. Trendel said there are four outcomes and all should be stated before town meeting.
Ms. Kramer asked about the process for engaging in conversation on both articles at the same
time. Ms. Lazarus said the slides are together, so both articles should be able to be discussed
together.
Mr. Paul makes a motion to revote on Article 36 and Article 37 to determine the Board’s
recommendation. Ms. Fein-Brug seconded.
Mr. Trendel asked the developer if it was still important to maintain the age restriction. Mr.
MacDowell said he wants to see both pass, but that Article 36 is more important.
Mr. Paul said he would like to remove the age restriction language in the slideshow since Article
37 does not affect the age restriction.
Ms. DeVeuve asked if the age restriction will come out of Master Deed if both articles pass. Mr.
Gately said he is comfortable if both pass and he is able to put affordable units on his property,
but if Article 37 passes he has an option. Ms. DeVeuve said a major difficulty identified by the
developer is marketing for a property that would then allow children under 18 years old. She
asked that, if he has the option, he would take the age restriction out of the Master Deed. Mr.
Gately said yes he would, the prospective owners only have a draft Master Deed which does not
go on record until the first buyer closes.
Ms. Kramer asked the developer why it is critical that he has the option to make
payments-in-lieu or build units. Mr. Gately said he just wants options since the rules have
changed from when he purchased the project, and he doesn't know how he will deal with the
situation yet.
Mr. Trendel clarified that if the age restriction goes away, the developer needs flexibility. Ms.
Kramer said she sees the “want” but not the “necessity.”
Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked if there will still be 180 units in the Trails development if Article 37
passes. Ms. Lazarus said yes unless the Board amends the approval documents. Ms. Lazarus
said it could change if the developer asked to modify the plan. Mr. MacDowell said it will likely
be modified because the change in zoning will alter the required units.
Ms. Ritterbusch said the rules changed for the Town as well, since it was voted in favor by one
vote at town meeting in 2015.
Mr. Paul asked if the developer has to go before the Board if both articles pass and he wants to
build nine units onsite and nine units offsite. Ms. Lazarus said yes, the approval documents
would need to be amended. Mr. MacDowell confirmed that all the approvals would need to
change, including Board approvals and the Host Community Agreement.
Ms. Fein-Brug said she thought the Board was meeting to listen to a more detailed plan from the
developer, but Ms. Kramer that was not the intent. Ms. Ritterbush agreed with Ms. Fein-Brug.
Mr. Paul asked the Board, generally, if there is any reason not to approve both articles. Ms.
Ritterbusch said she would rather have one article or the other.
Mr. DeYoung confirmed that the Board had previously voted on Article 37. Ms. Kramer
clarified that the Board voted on Article 37 because Article 36 was taken off the town meeting
warrant. Ms. Kramer thinks the Board needs to revote a recommendation on Article 36 and
Article 37.
Ms. Kramer suggested that the Board take a straw poll about their anticipated vote.
Mr. Paul said he plans to vote yes on both Article 36 and Article 37.
Ms. Ritterbusch said she plans to vote yes on Article 37, then yes on Article 36, but not on both.
She said she is concerned about removing the prohibition on children at the development since
she thinks that's why it was approved at town meeting in 2015.
Ms. Ritterbusch asked the developer how many bedrooms are allowed. Mr. Gately responded
that two bedrooms is the maximum allowed and that the average size of a unit is 2,100 square
feet. Mr. Trendel asked if there is an office proposed in the unit floor plans. Mr. Gately
responded no and that the deed restriction prevents owners from creating more than two
bedrooms.
Mr. Trendel said he is less concerned about the affordability threshold and doesn't know how he
plans to vote.
Mr. DeYoung said he plans on voting yes on Article 37 and yes on Article 36, but is concerned
about removing the under 18 prohibition, saying he thinks half the development will be filled
with children. Mr. Gately said that likely will not happen. Mr. DeYoung said he plans on voting
yes on both articles.
Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked the Board to clarify whether children would be allowed in all units in
the development if the prohibition is removed, not just the affordable units. The Board said yes.
Ms. Larson-Marlowe said she plans to vote on Article 36 and no on Article 37. She said she
thinks it is important to get affordable units built.
Ms. DeVeuve said she plans to vote yes on Article 36, and no on Article 37. She said she thinks
there is no risk of an “onslaught of children” on this development. Ms. DeVeuve asked Mr.
Gelcich to clarify the “aging out of affordability.” Mr. Gelcich explains that some affordable
units have their affordability provision set to expire on a certain date and are not affordable in
perpetuity. Ms. DeVeuve said she believes relying on the calculation providing 25% affordable
units in a development while counting 100% of the units is not in the spirit of meeting the goal of
10% of units being affordable in Town and that payments-in-lieu will end up losing affordable
housing in Town.
Ms. Fein-Brug asked to clarify the titles of Article 36 and Article 37. Ms. Kramer clarified that
the Board would decide if payments-in-lieu would be allowed on a case-by-case basis. Ms.
Fein-Brug said that she plans to vote yes on Article 36, and will abstain on Article 37, because
she is disappointed that the developer did not bring a more robust plan for payments-in-lieu
before the Board.
Mr. Paul clarified that the articles are standalone and votes need to be made on each article.
Mr. Trendel asked Mr. Gelcich to clarify the unit count for the Trails affordable units in the SHI
summary calculation. Mr. Trendel thinks that the Town has an affordable unit “cushion” as of
right now. Mr. Trendel changes his plan to vote no on Article 36 and yes on Article 37.
Ms. Kramer said she plans to vote yes on Article 36, and no on Article 37. Ms. Larson-Marlowe
clarified that this vote is about a recommendation to town meeting and not about taking the
articles off the warrant.
Mr. DeYoung said he thinks town meeting will get fixated on the age restriction issue. Ms.
Lazarus clarified that there is no prohibition on children in off-site units. Ms. DeVeuve said that
if Article 36 doesn't pass, the Board’s only choice is payment-in-lieu or off-site units. Ms.
DeVeuve asked if the developer wants payment-in-lieu and the Board said no, what tools does
the Board have to compel them build off-site units. Ms. Lazarus said the Board decides how the
units are to be provided and could take cost to the developer into account.
Ms. Kramer asked who pays the fine per child, and Mr. MacDowell said it is the homeowners
association of the development. Mr. MacDowell said getting town meeting to both articles gives
the developer flexibility. Mr. Paul said he thinks the Town is better off with both articles
passing. Mr. DeYoung agreed that passing both gives the Board better options.
On the original motion by Mr. Paul, seconded by Ms. Fein-Brug, to vote on a recommendation
for Article 36 and to revote a recommendation for Article 37, the Board voted 7 in favor
(Kramer, DeYoung, Paul, Trendel, Larson-Marlowe, DeVeuve, Fein-Brug), 1 abstention
(Ritterbusch).
Mr. DeYoung moved that the Board vote in favor of Article 36 - OSMUD District - Residents of
Age-Restricted Housing, Ms. Larson-Marlowe seconded the motion, and after no further
discussion, the Board voted 5 in favor (DeYoung, Paul, Larson-Marlowe, DeVeueve, Fein-Brug)
and 3 opposed (Kramer, Ritterbusch, Trendel).
Ms. Ritterbusch moved that the Board vote in favor of Article 37 - OSMUD District - Affordable
Housing, Mr. Trendel seconded the motion, there was no further discussion, and the Board voted
5 in favor (Kramer, DeYoung, Paul, Ritterbusch, Trendel), 2 opposed (Larson-Marlowe,
DeVeuve), and 1 abstention (Fein-Brug)
Ms. DeVeuve said that she may consider changing her vote to fully support Article 37 if Ms.
Larson-Marlowe would change hers, so as to give near-unanimous support for Article 37, should
Article 36 fail, however, Ms. Larson-Marlowe said she will not change her vote, and Ms.
DeVeuve keeps her vote as it was.
Ms. Kramer said she wants to see whatever handout Mr. MacDowell authors prior to distribution
at town meeting. Ms. Kramer said she would like Ms. Ritterbusch and Ms. DeVeuve to assist
her on preparing for the town meeting presentation, as they would provide opposing views. The
Board concurs.
Ms. Ritterbusch and Ms. Fein-Brug stepped off the Board to present the one-year restriction
materials, related to Article 42.
Ms. Kramer requests adding a future agenda item. She said Mr. Mastroanni would like to have a
conversation about issues with providing affordable units in his development.
Mr. Paul requests adding a future agenda item, namely discussion of the OSMUD as an actual
district instead of an overlay district. Ms. Kramer said it is very intentional, but the Board can
discuss.
Ms. Ritterbusch and Ms. Fein-Brug provided a brief, general overview of Article 42 and stated
that they will recommend no action on Article 41. They said the Hopkinton Chamber of
Commerce is against both Article 41 and Article 42.
Mr. Trendel commented that he would like to see school enrollment numbers over a longer
period of time and building permits per year overlaid with school enrollment. He said the data
include Legacy Farms but Article 42 does not impact Legacy Farms. Ms. Larson-Marlowe said
that the issue is town-wide services. Ms. Kramer clarified that this moratorium doesn't impact
the largest growth driver. Ms. Fein-Brug said she is concerned about larger developments
without a plan for how to address services and infrastructure. Ms. Ritterburch said the growth
study committee is the most important item to come out of this Article.
Ms. Ritterbusch said she thinks the findings in the 1995 growth study need to be updated for
2019.
Ms. DeVeuve asked about the building permit numbers used, and if they were typical. Ms.
Lazarus said that there has been an increase in building permit requests from Pulte Homes in
response to the potential moratorium.
Ms. Kramer requests adding a future agenda item regarding Legacy Farms North and the school
bus issue that has been raised. Ms. Kramer asked to have the site visit noticed, in case other
Board members would like to join. Mr. Trendel suggested that the site visit be on a school
morning. A member of the audience, associated with the citizen group addressing the bus issue
said that “8:15 - 8:25 is peak time.”
Ms. Fein-Brug said she wants to talk to the developer to see if there could be control over
delivery trucks. Ms. Kramer said to discuss this at a future meeting. Mr. Trendel said he doesn’t
know how the bus stop issue falls under the jurisdiction of the Board, and that the Board’s
agenda is full, so it may be best to assign a representative of the Board to work with Town
officials. Mr. DeYoung said he wants a representative of Pulte to be involved. Ms. Kramer
asked Mr. Gelcich to post the site visit for May 18, 2019.
Ms. Fein-Brug requests adding a discussion about how Rafferty Road adjacent to the LNG site is
falling into disrepair.
Ms. Ritterbusch requests to add Master Plan implementation items to a future agenda. Ms.
Kramer said to add it to the June 10, 2019 agenda and that each Board member is to choose an
item to undertake.
Ms. Fein-Brug said that other towns are forming climate concern committees. She said that
funds are available to study this. Ms. Lazarus said that the Town recently received funding to
undertake the Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) program. Mr. Gelcich briefly
explained what the MVP program entails. Ms. Fein-Brug said she would like to try to organize a
MetroWest consortium for climate change and include communities that underwent MVP
planning.
Mr. Trendel made a motion to adjourn, and Ms. DeVeuve seconded the motion. The Board
voted unanimously in favor.
Adjourned: ____ P.M.
Submitted by: John Gelcich, Principal Planner
Approved: _________________
Documents used at the Meeting:
●2019 Town Meeting Warrant
●2019 Town Meeting Warrant Articles and Motions
●Planning Board Zoning Articles Proposed for 2019 Annual Town Meeting
●Planning Board Presentation – Annual Town Meeting 2019
1
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
Monday, May 13, 2019 7:00 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: John Gelcich, Principal Planner, Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
Ms. Kramer opened the meeting.
1. Continued Public Hearings – 76 Main Street – 1) Site Plan Review; and 2) Flexible
Community Development (FCD) Special Permit – REC Hopkinton, LLC
Ms. DeVeuve moved to open the public hearings, Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion, and the
Board voted unanimously in favor. It was noted the applicant has requested a continuance, and
after further discussion Mr. DeYoung moved to continue the public hearings to June 10, 2019 at
7:35 P.M., Mr. Trendel seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
2. Other Business
The Board discussed the public hearing for proposed changes to the Maspenock Woods garden
apartment development advertised months ago, perpetually continued and never actually started.
Mr. Trendel suggested asking the applicant to withdraw and come back when ready, or at least
come in to explain what is going in. After further discussion, it was decided that if the applicant
again requests a continuance, the Board will inform him to either keep the appointment or withdraw
the application and resubmit when he is ready.
Ms. Kramer stated the Board will meet on May 29, 2019, to talk about structuring a growth study
committee, and she provided a general outline of discussion items to be considered. Mr. Trendel
suggested moving up the reorganization of the Board scheduled for June 10, and Ms. Kramer stated
that is a good idea as that is typically done at the first meeting after the elections.
The Board was also reminded of the informal gathering planned for May 15, 2019 at TJ’s to thank
Ms. DeVeuve and Mr. DeYoung for their service and contributions.
Ms. Kramer noted she is going out to Legacy Farms North on Saturday, May 18, to follow up on
school bus concerns brought up by the residents. It was confirmed she will be at 16 Redwood Path
at 9:00 A.M. and the site walk has already been posted in case other members decide to join her
there. Ms. Kramer noted she may also go out there on her own during school bus hours as
previously suggested.
Ms. Kramer suggested scheduling liaison reports, updates on important items such as the growth
study efforts, Master Plan Implementation, and Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC) work on the
agenda on a regular basis, unless the new Board feels differently. After discussion, the Board
assigned specific times at the June 10 meeting to Mr. Paul’s I-90/I-495 presentation and a Master
Plan discussion at 8:30 P.M. and 9:00 P.M. respectively. Ms. Kramer noted the beginning of a new
2
Planning Board session would be a good time to get an update on the ZAC work items currently
under consideration and do some brainstorming. Ms. Fein-Brug stated she would like to know what
is going on with the climate change impact work/Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP)
program, and suggested having a liaison from the Planning Board, working with Mr. Gelcich. Ms.
Kramer encouraged members to take the lead on challenges or projects they are particularly
interested in from a Planning Board perspective.
Minutes – The Board reviewed the draft minutes of April 8, 2019 and Ms. DeVeuve made a few
changes. Ms. DeVeuve moved to approve the draft minutes of April 8, 2019, as amended, Ms.
Ritterbusch seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
“Clarkie’s Creed” – Reference was made to a mission statement prepared years ago by Ron Clark,
former longtime Planning Board member and chair, with advice for current and future members,
distributed in the meeting packet for tonight. It was suggested bringing this up after the elections
and sharing it with the new Planning Board members.
3. Hayden Woods/Davenport Village – Request for Bond Release
John Parsons, developer, appeared before the Board. Mr. Gelcich noted Mr. Parsons has requested
the release of the remaining performance guarantee for Hayden Woods aka Davenport Village. He
stated Matt Crowley, BETA Group, Inc., the Board’s consultant engineer, initially informed him
that everything is ok but called this afternoon looking for photos showing the status of the
vegetation, and the proponent’s engineer reached out to the developer on this issue. Mr. Parsons
stated they took note of the request and presented photos to the Board. Mr. Gelcich noted he has
not seen the pictures yet, and Ms. Kramer asked for input from BETA Group. Phil Paradis, BETA,
reviewed the pictures and stated he would like to see a little more grass growing there, and Mr.
Trendel stated his vote will depend on whether BETA is satisfied or not. Mr. Paradis stated there
has been plenty of rain lately and he is curious when the area was hydro-seeded. Mr. Parsons noted
it was done in the fall and reseeded in April but they would be happy to do it again, and cooler
temperatures especially at night probably have been an issue. Mr. DeYoung asked if BETA is ok
with the result, and it was noted they are. Ms. Kramer stated she would be willing to release the
bond as long if the developer agrees to follow up with reseeding. Mr. Parsons noted he has no
objection and is confident that the grass will come in within a month or so. Mr. Trendel moved to
release the performance guarantee for the Hayden Woods/Davenport development, Ms. Fein-Brug
seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
4. Other Business
Ms. Ritterbusch asked if they should ask Mr. Gelcich to start emailing potential growth study
committee participants. Ms. Kramer stated they should definitely reach out but prefers to hold off
until after the May 29 discussion.
Mr. Paul noted he would like the Board to get a brief update on the Downtown Corridor project.
Ms. Kramer noted she does not mind putting this on an agenda although she is not sure about the
Board’s role in this. Ms. Ritterbusch noted the project is now at 75% submittal status. It was noted
that groundbreaking is scheduled for May 20, 2020, and people can subscribe to email updates via a
government website dedicated to this project. The item was tentatively placed on the June 10
agenda. Mr. Trendel stated he would like to see some information added to the meeting packet to
see what is in the existing plan.
3
5. Public Hearing – Whisper Way OSLPD – Amendment to Special Permit/Concept Plan;
Continued Public Hearing – Whisper Way OSLPD – Definitive Subdivision Plan – 20th
Century Homes
Ron Nation, 20th Century Homes, applicant, and Dan Hazen, Guerriere & Halnon, Inc., engineer,
appeared before the Board. Ms. Fein-Brug moved to open the public hearings, Mr. Trendel
seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Amended Special Permit/Concept Plan
Mr. Nation stated he previously, informally, presented an amended plan, and the plan before the
Board tonight is essentially the same. He noted they ended up with one more common driveway,
carved out enough land for a common septic system if needed, and the plan complies with the
bylaw. He noted most of the driveways are under 500 ft., but two of them are in the 600 ft. range
and in accordance with the new driveway bylaw will include widened sections to enable two
vehicles to pass and they are willing to install residential sprinkler systems to address public safety
concerns. Mr. Paul asked who will be responsible for maintenance, and Mr. Nation stated there will
be deed language requiring expenses to be shared between the homeowners. It was noted the open
space bylaw limits the road length to 1,000 ft., the number of homes to 10, and the number of
homes on a common driveway to 2, but there is no limit on the number of sets of common
driveways. Mr. Nation noted there also is a slope requirement, although he is not sure about the
process but they will make it work.
Mr. Gelcich stated this is a 2-part hearing, and they should start with the amended special permit
application in terms of process. He noted the plan originally was approved for a total of 24 lots
with 2 access points off Wood St., and it is now a cul-de-sac with 10 lots, 3 existing and 7 new. Mr.
Gelcich noted at this point all members can vote on the amended special permit and everyone
except Mr. D’Urso is eligible to vote on the definitive plan.
Mr. Paradis noted the development requires an amendment to the special permit, followed by
definitive subdivision approval, and the creation of 2 lots on a common driveway off Wood St.
would be another step. He noted according to the bylaw the applicant has to provide a conventional
sketch to determine the maximum number of lots that can be achieved on the concept plan. He
noted that was done the first time around, but the applicant decided to change the plan because of
complications with vernal pools and costs. He noted the applicant assumed that the 24 lots shown
on the original conventional sketch were still in play, but the new acreage does not cover the same
site which is now much smaller and the new subdivision road is essentially going out of the
subdivision. He noted he questions whether this plan is still viable considering the vernal pools. He
noted the second part of the process is the equation relative to the new plan which provides for 19
lots, so clearly an open space layout is more advantageous. Mr. Paradis noted BETA in the
meantime is working through the comments for the definitive plan which was revised today, and
there are a number of outstanding items, including the design and layout of the common driveways.
It was noted the site was reduced from 45 acres to 31, and the number of lots went down from 24 to
10, and Mr. Paul noted it seems the project was reduced proportionally. Mr. Paradis noted this
obviously is a better plan, but the process requires a conventional proof plan to determine the
number of lots allowed on the concept plan. Ms. Kramer noted she believes this is a fixed part of
the process, and Mr. Gelcich stated it is his understanding there is no set number but it is typically
the maximum number of lots shown on the conventional plan. Mr. Hazen noted there are 3
guidelines: the conventional subdivision, the general potential of the land, and the equation
4
mentioned by Mr. Paradis. Ms. DeVeuve noted she likes the new plan much better, but questions
whether it still meets the 1st criterion showing that the property is doable as a conventional plan.
She asked why the applicant has taken out a portion of the land, and what he plans to do with it.
Mr. Nation noted they submitted a conventional plan with a through road which complies with all
the rules and regulations, as well as the open space ratio to the wetlands and the entire tract itself.
Ms. DeVeuve stated the new conventional proof plan has an in and out but appears to go over
property now excluded from the site, and Mr. Nation noted it excludes the land for the last 600 ft. of
roadway. Ms. DeVeuve asked how this can still be viable as a conventional plan under those
conditions, and Mr. Nation noted he just wants to do a cul-de-sac. Ms. DeVeuve asked about the
remaining 12 to 15 acres, and Mr. Nation noted he plans to create two approval-not-required (ANR)
lots, as discussed in the past. Ms. Kramer stated applicants typically are required to show a
conventional plan for the acreage that will be used for the concept plan to calculate the number of
available lots, and she is not necessarily in favor of deviating from that process. Mr. Nation
referred to a scenario possibly requiring an excessive amount of additional land to demonstrate the
viability of a conventional proof plan, and stated he looked for guidance in the subdivision rules and
regulations but could not find anything specific.
Mr. Paradis suggested using this as the proof plan and updating the open space plan to include the
two additional ANR lots, and Mr. Nation noted that was considered but they are now well into the
alternative process. Mr. Paul stated he likes the approach, but it seems as if the plan is being gerry-
rigged to get a cul-de-sac. Mr. DeYoung stated he too feels this is outside of what they have done
in the past, and perhaps things can be realigned. He asked if the Conservation Commission has seen
the plans, and Mr. Nation stated yes and they were much happier with the new plan. Ms. Kramer
noted the two ANR lots are outside of this plan and they need to have a predictable process for both
the Board and the public. Ms. Larson-Marlowe noted she believes the proposed design would
lessen wetlands impact, and that could balance the dead-end street issue. It was noted the Flexible
Community Development bylaw does no longer apply because there are only 7 new lots. Mr.
Nation explained there will be a total of 10 lots in the open space plan, with 3 existing homes, one
of which will definitely stay and one will be razed.
Ms. Kramer noted it appears the Board agrees on the need for a new first step conventional plan.
She asked about the need for additional waivers from the subdivision rules and regulations, and Mr.
Hazen referred to his letter to the Planning Board dated 5/13/2019 which indicates 2 additional
waivers. Mr. Hazen noted as far as the zoning bylaw is concerned, they need a waiver from the
requirements for the open space buffer which will be reduced to about 77 ft. in one area, and a
waiver from the lot frontage depth requirement.
Ms. Kramer asked about proposed changes/additions to the public hearing outline, and the Board
proceeded with detailed discussions. Ms. Kramer asked about comments from other Town
departments, and it was noted there is a letter from the Fire Chief. Ms. Kramer asked about the
need for another site walk. It was noted it has been at least a year and some people missed it. Ms.
Kramer suggested to have one for the 2 new members only.
Mr. Nation referred to the possible bait and switch from 24 lots to 10 plus 2 ANR lots. He noted his
conventional proof plan has a road that runs throughout the land of the original plan and he does not
understand why this plan has to include the entire area. He noted he gets the “road” part, and
perhaps it can be left as a paper street but it seems there should be a way to make this happen. Ms.
5
DeVeuve noted she likes the new plan much better because of the reduced impact, but the rules and
regulations require proof that the land can be developed conventionally with the available acreage.
She noted the applicant cannot take out acreage and use it somewhere else, and allowing him to do
that would set a huge precedent. Ms. Ritterbusch suggested a plan showing 12 lots. Ms. Kramer
stated Board it appears members in general prefer the open space layout and she encouraged the
applicant to work with the Land Use Dept. and BETA to find a solution. Ms. Kramer asked about
the Conservation Commission process, and Mr. Nation noted a public hearing is coming up within
the next couple of weeks, and the filing will include a 1,000 ft. cul-de-sac, 1 wetlands crossing,
detention basins and common driveways. It was noted the applicant is requesting waivers from the
zoning bylaw requirements with respect to the minimum buffer width and lot frontage depth, and
Ms. Kramer noted the Planning Board would be willing to entertain granting them. Reference was
made to the need for a traffic study, and Mr. Paradis stated there were no issues with 24 lots so it
will be even less with 10.
Ms. Kramer asked if there are any particular stormwater concerns. Mr. Paradis noted he has some
typical comments, and he does not think the approach is far off. Ms. Kramer noted they will leave
it open for now.
Reference was made to utilities, including water, electric and septic. Mr. Nation noted he had
already been given the ok for Town water, but there is no Town sewer. Ms. Kramer asked about the
common septic system, and Mr. Nation stated he believes 2 lots will be hooked up to the common
system, and the others will have their own. Mr. DeYoung asked what triggers the need, and Mr.
Nation noted it concerns high groundwater, type of soil, and amount of ledge, but 10 lots will be
easier than 24. Mr. Trendel asked if there will be homeowners association documents and a
maintenance budget. Mr. Nation stated the design will be approved by the Board of Health or
whoever is involved, in the proper manner, and the system will be maintained by the association.
Ms. Kramer asked whether there still is a possibility for access for horse trailers, and Mr. Nation
stated that is probably out of the picture at this stage and explained why. In response to a question
of the Board, Mr. Nation noted the plan still shows existing/proposed trails, and 2 homes will have
direct access to the open space while there is already access to Cameron Highlands right there on
the existing Whisper Way. Ms. DeVeuve asked about the disposition of the open space, whether it
would be a third party or a homeowners association, and Mr. Nation stated he would probably
prefer a homeowners association. Ms. Kramer asked if the open space will be open to the public,
and Mr. Gelcich read from the zoning bylaw which lists the available options noting he will have to
check whether it has to be open to the public. Mr. Nation noted there are hundreds of acres of open
space in that area, and Ms. Kramer stated it would be nice if it is open to the public and Mr. Nation
stated he has no problem with that.
The Board noted it has exhausted its possibilities for now until BETA has completed its review
including a new conventional sketch plan, and Mr. Nation noted they will start working on it. The
Board discussed voting eligibility in view of the upcoming Board turnover, and it was noted there
will be 7 voting members for the special permit amendment and 6 for the definitive plan, so one
vote each as wiggle room. The Board asked Mr. Gelcich to check into voting eligibility of new
members with respect to ongoing applications. After further discussion, Ms. Larson-Marlowe
moved to continue the public hearings to June 10, 2019 at 9:30 P.M. and extend the time to file the
decision for the definitive subdivision application to June 17, 2019, Ms. Fein-Brug seconded the
motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
6
6. Public Hearing – 17 Wilson Street- Scenic Road Application – TJA Solar
Ms. Larson-Marlowe moved to open the public hearing, Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion, and
the Board voted unanimously in favor. Chris King, Atlantic Design Engineers, engineer, appeared
before the Board. Mr. King noted as part of the special permit process the original entrance to the
facility was changed to an alternate location shown as “Option B” on the plan, which triggered the
scenic road hearing process. He noted he communicated with John Westerling, DPW
Director/Acting Tree Warden, and after review of additional photos taken of the area Mr.
Westerling has indicated he is comfortable with a condition requiring any trees that meet the criteria
for removal to be flagged prior to any preconstruction meeting. He noted their intent is to save the
larger diameter trees shown in the photos. Mr. King noted they are now also required to do some
work around the stone wall area, and, as pointed out, the wall is not in the best condition, so he is
envisioning disturbing about 30 ft. of stone wall while offering a 2 to 1 mitigation ratio, essentially
rebuilding 60 ft. on either side or just in one location at the discretion of the Board, and they will
certainly try to harvest as many of the stones as possible and reuse them to mimic the character of
the original stone wall.
Mr. D’Urso arrived at this time.
Mr. D’Urso noted he likes what he hears about the stone wall, especially the offer of 2 to 1
mitigation. Mr. King stated he is not familiar with the scenic road process, but they are definitively
willing to provide additional details as they are progressing. Ms. Kramer stated the stone wall
replication is easier compared to replacing trees, so if it turns out that it is necessary to remove trees
that are subject to the scenic road bylaw, the Board would be amenable to a condition requiring
them to be replaced in kind in the right of way, as long as the applicant flags them prior to
construction and notifies the Board in advance.
Ms. Fein-Brug referred to the plan, and noted she is concerned that the equipment will actually be
visible as one approaches the site in the vicinity of the existing cart path driving north towards
Legacy Farms. Ms. Kramer noted she knows what Ms. Fein-Brug is referring to, and although she
would be happy to ask the question, it would actually be outside of the scope of the scenic road
application. She noted she hopes the applicant is sensitive to the challenges regarding this project
and would appreciate any consideration for the abutters in terms of the viewscape. Mr. King noted
he absolutely agrees, and referred to a special permit condition requiring them to go back and
reevaluate screening over time so there is a mechanism in place. Ms. Larson-Marlowe stated she
assumes they are not proposing to rebuild the area of the existing cart path, and Mr. King noted they
graphically showed mitigation of a total of 60 ft. as directed by the Board.
Ms. Ritterbusch noted the Board typically would like to see before and after photos of the stone
wall. Mr. Paul noted he has no further comments. Mr. Trendel noted the applicant in this case is
offering to rebuild more wall than they are actually removing, and it would be helpful to provide
additional guidance. He noted some of the existing stone wall is in poor shape and he would rather
put additional efforts into improving those areas as opposed to extending somewhat mediocre stone
walls. Ms. Fein-Brug stated there are resources out there and there is a way to cleverly mix in some
nice looking moss-covered stones. The Board paused the discussion to open up the next scheduled
agenda item.
7. Continued Public Hearings - Bucklin St. – 1) Stormwater Management Permit
Application; 2) Petition to Construct Bucklin St. – Wall Street Development Corp.
7
Mr. D’Urso moved to open the public hearings and continue them until after the conclusion of
scenic road discussion, Ms. DeVeuve seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in
favor.
8. Continued Public Hearing – Scenic Road Application – 17 Wilson St. – TJA Solar
Tom Shambo, 15 Wilson St., noted he likes the proposed approach but would prefer not to end up
with a 3 ft. high wall and perhaps limit it to 2 ft. or so. Mr. Shambo stated they should be able to
utilize some stones from the interior existing walls since they will be taken away anyway.
Mary Arnaut, 51 Teresa Rd., asked whether any of the stones they are planning to move or remove
are part of the preservation plan for the Native American ceremonial stones, and if input is needed
from the Indian Tribes. Ms. Kramer stated she does not think the walls along the border of the
property are included in the plans, and they definitely don’t want to use any of the ceremonial
stones from within the property for this purpose, but as part of the special permit the Tribes will be
consulted as the construction project goes forward. Ms. Arnaut noted she wants to make sure that
this issue is addressed properly in advance. Ms. Kramer asked the applicant if the stone walls along
the road are involved in the Native American preservation effort in any way. Mr. King stated they
walked the entire frontage of the site and there was one grouping, but it was outside the right of way
and further north of any of the alternative options A, B or C. He stated there also is a construction
protocol in place, and there are some stones within the site they may not be able to use for the stone
wall mitigation effort. He noted he agrees a 3 ft. high wall would not be in character, and they
would be amenable to a condition that a final directive be issued at a preconstruction meeting. Ms.
Kramer stated she is also wondering whether the applicant would be willing to make it at least
obvious that the existing cart path will no longer be used and do some scenic character reclamation
effort in that area. Mr. King noted that would make sense and suggested taking a leaf blower to see
what is under there, and he is willing to work with the Board to find the most appropriate way.
Mr. Trendel proposed the following priorities with respect to the mitigation effort: 1) rebuild the
area of the existing cart path, 2) repair any parts of the existing wall where appropriate to make it
consistent, 3) make sure that the remaining area is as continuous as possible. Ms. Kramer stated she
would also like to make sure the work is in keeping with the character of the surrounding walls and
it will be ok if it does not end up looking “perfect”. Mr. King suggested starting with a 10 ft. stretch
as an example for the Board's review. Ms. Fein-Brug noted she would also like a condition
requiring the applicant to replace the trees to be removed with similar ones to provide screening and
maintain the scenic character of the road. Mr. Paul suggested involving the DPW director, and Ms.
Kramer noted that would be a good idea although the Board typically uses Land Use staff. Ms.
Ritterbusch stated they usually ask that replacement trees are planted a little further in, and Mr.
King stated there is a mechanism for filling in any gaps if needed. In response to a comment of
Ms. Fein-Brug about the species to be used, Mr. King noted the Acting Tree Warden initially asked
them to use trees in kind, and in this case that would mean some that are deciduous in nature. He
suggested adding some language indicating that this be done as directed by the Acting Tree Warden
or the Board to allow a little flexibility.
The Board reviewed the findings and facts for the criteria of approval under the Scenic Road Bylaw,
and it was determined that the proposal is in compliance with the conditions under consideration,
based on previous decisions made by the Board, proposed mitigation, and changes made to the plan
at the request of the Board.
8
After further discussion, Mr. DeYoung moved to approve the scenic road application, with the
following conditions, Ms. DeVeuve seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in
favor.
1. The Applicant shall rebuild the 60 linear feet of stone wall as proposed, prioritizing mitigation efforts in the
following order: reconstruct the stone wall in the area of the existing cart path, repair existing portions of the stone
wall that have fallen into disrepair, and maintain continuity to the maximum extent possible.
2. The Applicant shall rebuild the stone wall in a manner similar to the existing stone wall in terms of height, width,
and general appearance.
3. The Applicant shall replace the removed trees with trees of similar size and species elsewhere within the right of
way.
4. The Applicant shall consult with the Acting Tree Warden prior to the tree replacement efforts and shall obtain
written confirmation from the Acting Tree Warden that replacement is complete
5. The Applicant shall consult with the Principal Planner prior to and during the reclamation and rebuilding efforts
related to stone walls as set forth in this Decision and shall obtain written confirmation from the Principal Planner
that the reclamation and rebuilding of the stone walls is complete.
6. The Applicant shall provide the Principal Planner with photographs depicting the stone walls in the current state, as
of or around the date of this Decision as well as after reclamation and rebuilding efforts are complete.
Mr. DeYoung moved to close the public hearing, Mr. Paul seconded the motion, and the Board
voted unanimously in favor.
9. Continued Public Hearings - Bucklin St. – 1) Stormwater Management Permit
Application; 2) Petition to Construct Bucklin St. – Wall Street Development Corp.
Lou Petrozzi, Wall Street Development Corp., applicant, appeared before the Board. It was noted
all current members can vote on the applications. Mr. Petrozzi noted at the last meeting they left off
with a discussion regarding waiver requests, and with respect to the stormwater management permit
he believes the only remaining issue was related to maintenance of the permeable pavement
proposed for the first 150 ft. of the proposed roadway. He noted they are proposing maintenance to
be the sole responsibility of the homeowners association.
Ms. Kramer noted the public hearing outline combines the two applications, and it was decided to
leave it that way. She asked if there are any outstanding BETA items regarding stormwater
management, and Mr. Petrozzi noted he does not think so. It was noted that item 5b, Road Design,
was discussed, and it is appropriate to check off item 5c, Lot Layout Design. Ms. Kramer asked
about the length of the dead-end street, and Mr. Petrozzi noted he is not sure but believes it is
around 650 ft. Ms. Kramer referred to item 5d, Public Safety, and asked about additional input
from the Fire Dept. Mr. Petrozzi noted there is nothing new since the last meeting, but in the
meantime he has reached an agreement with the homeowner at 12 Maple St. Ext. to create a
connection for emergency vehicles. Ms. Kramer asked for clarification, and Mr. Petrozzi noted it
will provide a connection between the two roadways and he has it in writing. He noted the property
owners prefer a gate, not locked, to discourage any kind of through traffic.
Mr. D’Urso stated it is encouraging to see that the applicant is working with the neighbors, and Mr.
Petrozzi stated he is trying. Ms. Kramer asked if the applicant is going to provide a copy of the
agreement, and Mr. Petrozzi noted he still has to check on the actual agreement but will have the
elements on the plan to enforce compliance. Ms. Kramer asked about access on the Pleasant St.
side, and Mr. Petrozzi stated he believes they previously provided a truck turning plan, that
complies with the parameters provided by the Fire Dept. but there have been no additional
comments. Ms. Kramer stated the plan as designed shows a fire truck having to use both lanes of
Pleasant St. and Mr. Petrozzi stated the plan was based on the dimensions provided by the Fire
9
Chief. Ms. Kramer noted this will also require the applicant to reconstruct a new driveway for the
neighbor at 62 Pleasant St., and Mr. Petrozzi stated it is proposed as part of their plan at the
neighbors’ discretion but they are in litigation and there has been no further dialogue at all.
Ms. DeVeuve stated it is her recollection that in order to turn into the property a fire truck has to
cross into the other travel lane on Pleasant St., and she believes that is not allowed so the radius
needed to be changed. Mr. Petrozzi noted he cannot speak to that but he would say that for the
types of fire trucks used in Hopkinton this will typically be necessary just about everywhere in that
neighborhood. Ms. Kramer noted the requirements have changed as a result of the new driveway
bylaw, and Mr. DeYoung noted this probably needs to be clarified with the Fire Chief. Ms.
DeVeuve asked if Maple St. Ext. complies in this respect, and Mr. Petrozzi noted he knows Maple
St. Ext. won’t comply with anything and the main reason for a Maple St. Ext. connection is to deal
with a long dead-end street and although this will not solve everything it will make it better. Mr.
DeYoung noted potential Fire Dept. concerns with the design will be a big sticking point. The
Board suggested getting something in writing, but hopefully the Fire Chief will be at the next
meeting to discuss this in person. Ms. Kramer noted Public Safety will still be an open issue.
Ms. Kramer asked about traffic impact. Mr. Petrozzi noted it will only be 4 homes and there will be
no significant impact. Mr. Paradis stated he agrees, and it was decided to check off this item.
Ms. Kramer asked about stormwater management/impact on the Pleasant St. abutters, and Ms.
DeVeuve noted there were general concerns about increased runoff. Mr. Paradis stated based on the
design they have asked for additional grading and it would be wise to have a condition to make sure
there is positive drainage for the abutting property at 62 Pleasant St. It was noted this is also the
area proposed for porous pavement, and Mr. Trendel asked if there is additional information on its
use in terms of longevity and maintenance. Ms. DeVeuve stated sand was one of the major concerns
especially because this road will remain private. Mr. Paradis stated porous pavement will actually
require less salt/sand and the road therefore is less likely to refreeze which is a good thing. He
noted 4 homes will not generate a lot of traffic or significant truck load, which is the usual detriment
and, if constructed properly, the surface should last as long as conventional asphalt pavement.
Mr. Paul noted he would like to see a little more clarity regarding the private road aspect of this
application, and asked whether it is within the Board's purview to require a private vs. public road.
Mr. Gelcich noted he would have to check. Mr. Paul noted the Board already voted to determine
that Bucklin St. was not a way in existence in 1953, and Ms. Kramer noted this is listed as a
discussion item on the outline. Ms. Ritterbusch asked if waivers are needed to make it a public road
or if it is sometimes allowed, and Ms. Kramer noted she does not know. Ms. Ritterbusch noted
homeowners often are ok with a private road at first but later ask for street acceptance with Town
trash pickup and snow removal. Ms. Kramer noted with only 4 homes that is an important issue,
and maintenance is very expensive. Mr. Paul stated they probably need the Assistant Town
Manager's help on this, and Mr. Gelcich stated Ms. Lazarus is not here this week but prepared a
handout for him on this matter. Ms. Kramer noted she is not sure if they can mandate it to be a
public way, or if they even want to do that.
Ms. Kramer referred to the impact of stormwater on the abutters on Maple St. Ext. Mr. Paradis
noted the applicant provided an analysis of the existing conditions and has provided swales and an
infiltration basin for mitigation so that there will be no increase in post-development runoff. Ms.
Kramer noted she feels that the stormwater management piece can be checked off. Ms. Larson-
Marlowe asked if the issue regarding porous pavement and the subdrain connection to be reviewed
by the DPW is still pending. Mr. Paradis noted they always recommend construction to Town
standards, because inevitably someone in the future will ask for acceptance of the road as a public
10
way, although perhaps this can be addressed through a condition of approval. Mr. D’Urso stated the
Fire Chief prefers the roads to be built to standard for public safety reasons. Reference was made to
the emergency connection to Maple St. Ext., and Mr. Paradis noted he has not yet reviewed the
plans but it would be done in concert with the Fire Chief. Ms. Kramer asked if the additional
connection would impact stormwater management aspects, and Mr. Paradis noted he does not think
it will be hugely significant but it can be looked at.
Ms. Kramer noted it appears the Board should hold on to this piece until it is prepared to vote on the
road petition. Mr. Paradis noted they obviously also have to make sure the area stays clear during
the winter, in other words they need to address snow removal, so there are probably a few
outstanding issues. Ms. Kramer suggested addressing snow removal and perhaps additional
stormwater mitigation at the road petition stage, and asked whether the Board is comfortable with
moving forward with the stormwater management permit application at this point. Mr. DeYoung
noted it appears the snow would have to be pushed into the drainage easement on the left, and Mr.
Paradis noted it will probably will end up there, fairly close to the house on the corner, and that may
be a concern. Mr. Petrozzi noted they have a 10 ft. pathway around the detention basin, and they
could push the snow into that direction. Mr. Paradis noted they should probably address under Best
Management Practices in case it becomes an issue in the future. Mr. Trendel stated the applicant
previously indicated there were no outstanding stormwater management issues, but now there are
new questions and this is a concern. Mr. Paradis noted he just learned about the potential for this
connection and he is not sure where it stands right now. Mr. Petrozzi noted this will make it better
for the neighbors, because the proposed design will intercept and reduce some of the flow.
Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked for clarification of the plan with respect to the layout of Pleasant St. at
the entrance to the site, and it was noted that perhaps Pleasant St. was relocated at some point in
time. Mr. Paul stated he noticed the bylaws require all roads to intersect at a roughly 90 degree
angle and no less than 60 degrees, and he would like Mr. Paradis to take a look at that. Mr. Petrozzi
noted he does not think that requirement applies to a pre-existing private roadway and Mr. Paradis
stated he will verify the plan but thinks it is about 75%.
Ms. Kramer stated she feels at least for closing out stormwater management they need additional
information about the extension of the road and the snow removal. She asked about the request for
a waiver from Section 8.4, and Mr. Petrozzi noted that concerns the subdivision rules and
regulations and they applied for a stormwater management permit under the Stormwater
Management Bylaw and he thinks they are both the same. Ms. Kramer asked about the reason for
the waiver, and Mr. Petrozzi stated he is not sure because it has been so long. After further
discussion, Mr. Paradis noted he believes the proposal meets the standards and this particular
waiver is not needed.
Ms. Kramer asked the Board members as to their opinion regarding the standards they would like to
be met for the road design. Mr. Paul read from Mr. Gelcich's notes regarding 81FF exclusions and
stated Town Counsel agrees that the applicant appears to follow that process. Ms. Larson-Marlowe
noted she feels this means they are treating this as any other subdivision roadway, and things are
different only when it gets to the lotting level. Mr. Paul, Ms. Ritterbusch, Ms. Kramer, and Mr.
D'Urso noted they feel the same way, and Ms. Kramer noted this will give the applicant some
guidance. Mr. Petrozzi stated he understands from case law that section 81FF allows him to apply
the regulations to the extent practical given the existing right of way. Ms. DeVeuve stated maybe
the Board cannot hold the applicant to the standard 50 ft. right of way but it can hold him to road
construction standards, including buried utilities, etc. Mr. Petrozzi noted he needs some waivers
from the subdivision rules and regulations because of limitations with respect to the right of way,
11
and he thinks in terms of construction standards they have designed a roadway that meets the design
parameters within his control.
Mr. Paul noted that unless Mr. Petrozzi goes back and takes another look at some of these things, he
does not think it will end well because Board members tonight clearly indicated they feel the project
should meet the standards. He noted the applicant owns the entire property and beyond the first
house the applicant the limited right-of-way argument is no longer valid, and he is asking for a lot
of exceptions. He noted the Board is willing to work with the applicant where possible, but if any
of the waivers are shut down, the entire application is shut down and the applicant will have to
reapply. Mr. Petrozzi disagreed. Ms. Kramer stated they definitely will have to go through the
waivers, but she would like the applicant to understand that this Board is very much committed to
trying to do what is best for the Town, and that means that a road has to be built in compliance with
the rules and regulations to the maximum extent possible but if that is not possible then the project
cannot happen. Mr. Petrozzi stated he understands but all he did was simply duplicating a similar
previous application approved by the Board and he is not trying to reinvent the wheel. It was
determined Mr. Petrozzi is referring to the Box Mill Rd. subdivision across the street. Ms. Kramer
stated the applicant's mere statement about including a secondary emergency access is not good
enough, especially if there is no input yet from the Fire Chief on that issue. Mr. Petrozzi stated
some of the information was new to him as well. Ms. Kramer stated the applicant also has to
address additional snow removal/stormwater drainage issues involving the emergency access. Mr.
DeYoung noted that will require a detailed plan and impact study because this area is essentially a
swamp. Mr. Petrozzi noted he will agree to another continuance but he was under the impression
that the snow removal issue in terms of stormwater management could be conditioned. Ms. Kramer
noted an emergency access has been added to the plan, according to the applicant at the request of
the Fire Chief, so they need his input first.
The Board discussed a possible continuation date and decision deadline extension and it was noted
that June 24 would be the first opportunity based on the Planning Board’s schedule. In response to
a question of Ms. Larson-Marlowe, Mr. Petrozzi indicated this should give him enough time to be
ready. The applicant noted he is willing to extend the decision deadline to July 1.
Peter Barbieri, Fletcher Tilton, attorney for the Pleasant St. abutters, noted the comment has been
made that the applicant is only obligated to comply with the regulations to the best of his ability,
however once he reaches the Wall Street Development Corp. property with his road there is no
reason why the right of way cannot be extended to accommodate a sidewalk, grass strips, etc. He
noted as it stands now Mr. Petrozzi is asking for 11 waivers and now the Board’s consultant has
identified 2 more. He noted he feels the Board should require the applicant to provide a written
justification on each waiver individually, and in his opinion it will be obvious that the project just
does not comply with anything.
Ms. Ritterbusch moved to continue the public hearings to June 24, 2019 at 7:30 P.M. and extend the
decision deadline to July 1, 2019 by mutual agreement, and Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion.
The Board voted unanimously in favor.
10. Wilson Street Drainage Discussion
The Board considered a time for this discussion on a future agenda. Mr. Gelcich noted Mr. Paradis
won’t be available at the next (June 10) meeting but they really need him there. The Board
considered starting early, perhaps on a regular basis, and it was decided to talk about this with the
new Board. After further discussion, the Board scheduled the discussion regarding Wilson Street
drainage issues on June 24, 2019 from 8:30 to 9:00 P.M.
12
11. Other Business
Mr. D’Urso thanked Mr. DeYoung for his service on the Board through 3 different chairs, and noted
that even though they did not always agree, they got along well and covered a lot of ground. He
noted he worked with Ms. DeVeuve on the Sustainable Green Committee and she came back to the
Board at an important time. He noted he hopes to see her during the growth study efforts.
Mr. DeYoung noted it was his pleasure to serve on this Board, and it was good working with Mr.
Paradis, and with Mr. Gelcich and his predecessors Jennifer Burke and Georgia Wilson. He noted
the group works well together and its efforts don’t go unnoticed. He noted the Board typically
engages quickly and looks for the truth, applies the rules of the law, and that comes from good
leadership. He wished the Planning Board candidates good luck in the elections.
Ms. Kramer thanked Mr. DeYoung for his service over the years, both as member and Vice Chair,
and noted Ms. DeVeuve was willing to come back to the Board when it needed her.
Mr. Paul moved to adjourn, Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously
in favor.
Adjourned: 10:15 P.M.
Submitted by: Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
Approved: ___________________
Documents:
Hopkinton Planning Board Agenda for May 13, 2019
Memo to Planning Board from John Gelcich, Principal Planner, dated May 9, 2019 re: Items of Planning Board
Agenda, May 13, 2019
Public Hearing Outline - Whisper Ridge Subdivision, Meeting Date: 5/13/19; letter to Muriel Kramer, Chair,
Hopkinton Planning Board, from Daniel Hazen, Guerriere & Halnon, Inc., dated May 13, 2019, Re: "Whisper Way
- Definitive Open Space Subdivision" Off of Wood Street, Hopkinton, MA; Plans for Whisper Way, a Definitive
Open Space Subdivision in Hopkinton, Massachusetts, Date: May 24, 2018, Revised: May 13, 2019, prepared by
Guerriere & Halnon, Inc.
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, 5/13/19; Plans for Bucklin & Leonard Street, Hopkinton,
Massachusetts, dated March 29, 2018 revised through April 15, 2019, prepared by GLM Engineering; Truck
Turning Plan – Bucklin Street, Hopkinton, Massachusetts, dated February 21, 2019.
Photos - Hayden Woods/Davenport Village
Draft Planning Board Minutes – April 8, 2019
13
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
Wednesday, May 29, 2019 8:00 P.M.
Hopkinton Town Hall, 18 Main Street, Hopkinton, MA
Room 215/216
MINUTES
Members in Attendance: Muriel Kramer, Gary Trendel, Mary Larson-Marlowe, Patrick
Atwell, Amy Ritterbusch, Deb Fein-Brug, Robert Benson, Frank D’Urso
Members Absent: None.
Meeting called to order at 8:08 PM.
1.Nomination for Chair/ Vice Chair
Ms. Larson-Marlowe nominated Ms. Kramer for Chair, seconded by Mr. Trendel.
No other nominations were put forth, the Board unanimously voted to approve Ms. Kramer
as Chair.
Ms. Kramer nominated Mr. Trendel for Vice Chair. Ms. Fein-Brug seconded the motion.
Ms. Larson-Marlowe nominated Ms. Ritterbusch, seconded by Mr. D’Urso.
Ms. Ritterbusch and Mr. Trendel spoke to each of their qualifications and reasons to be
elected as Vice Chair.
Ms. Kramer abstained from the vote to provide an odd number of votes.
Mr. Trendel was elected Vice Chair, with four votes (Ms. Ritterbusch, Ms. Fein-Brug, Mr.
Trendel, and Mr. Benson; Ms. Ritterbusch received three votes: Ms. Larson-Marlowe, Mr.
Atwell, and Mr. D’Urso; Ms. Kramer abstained.)
2.Growth Study Initiative
Ms. Larson-Marlowe discussed her draft mission statement. Ms. Larson-Marlowe went
over each bullet point in the draft.
The Board discussed that action items need to be added.
Ms. Kramer commented that she would like to make sure that the Growth Study doesn’t
lose the “character” of Hopkinton. Ms. Larson-Marlowe suggests that the language be
changed from her draft regarding “rural character” and read aloud the definition of rural
character.
Ms. Ritterbusch said she liked the mission statement and agrees with changing some
language and adding action items. Ms. Fein-Brug referenced bullet point 4 and would like
to see a financial model the committee would be reviewing.
Ms. Fein-Brug stated that the committee should be using the most modern version of a
financial model for the growth study.
Mr. D'Urso said he liked the mission statement and is for keeping “rural character” in the
Statement.
Mr. Trendel commented on the structure of the statement and suggested that the
statement be split into two parts: the first part being the mission statement, and the
second part listing the deliverables.
Mr. Trendel said he will work on a statement and that he will email a draft to the Board.
Mr. Benson voiced his agreement with Mr. Trendel and generally discussed financial
impacts of growth. Mr. Benson discussed identifying a top ten of development projects
moving forward.
Mr. Atwell agreed with Mr. Trendel and asked if there is a timeline for the new committee.
Ms. Kramer responded that there was and Ms. Ritterbusch has the draft timeline. Ms.
Ritterbusch handed out copies of timeline.
Ms. Kramer and Ms. Fein-Brug said they would like to see an earlier kick-off meeting. Ms.
Fein-Brug recommended mid-June.
The Board had a general discussion on the proposed timeline.
Ms. Kramer recommended that Ms. Ritterbusch and Ms. Fein-Brug work on a revised
schedule. Ms. Ritterbusch and Ms. Fein-Brug agreed.
Mr. D'Urso Durso left meeting at 8:49 PM.
Ms. Kramer discussed issues she believed to be significant as part of this effort, including:
●Financial debt service
●Mitigation strategies
●Investments in professional staffing
●Revisiting Fruit Street to see what might be strategically possible
●Preservation, conservation of properties
●Mitigation pamphlet, How Much is Enough
●Conservation-Friendly Zones
●More transparency, more visibility with the new committee
●Assessment of large land parcels including Town owned property
●Ongoing assessment of professional support
Mr. Trendel asked Ms. Kramer if there could be a list of the top five deliverables, Ms.
Kramer consented.
Ms. Kramer read the Ch. 61 review guideline from the Town of Stow.
Ms. Fein-Brug commented that she wants to invite guest speakers from other towns who
have done growth studies. Ms. Kramer said it would be up to the Committee.
Ms. Kramer discussed Natural Resource Protection Zoning.
Mr. Trendel commented that there are members of the public who could possibly share
some notes. General discussion on this point followed.
Ms. Larson-Marlowe commented that the Board “should be careful we don’t take on too
much from this committee, we need hard evidence and real data collected from this
committee.”
Mr. Trendel commented that the Board should keep things simple.
Ms. Ritterbusch commented that there has to be a balance for everyone’s needs.
Ms. Kramer stated that the financial piece is going to be important.
Mr. Benson commented on the financial impact with the committee. Commented that
there needs to be a deliverable from the Committee to make sure the Town sees progress
was made.
Ms. Kramer made the recommendation that Mr. Trendel and Mr. Benson work on a new
draft of mission statement including 3-5 deliverables. Mr. Trendel and Mr. Benson agreed.
Ms. Kramer made the comment that the committee should be small.
Ms. Fein-Brug questioned how many members, and what number makes a committee
“small.”
Chair opened the meeting to public comment at 9:18 PM.
Peter Lavoie talked about the 1995 committee
●Recommended a larger group, 15 people: five appointed by the Planning Board, five
within the development community, and five at-large members
●Need to have a great facilitator
●At first meeting, identify what they want for the town.
●One large committee with smaller sub committees to get work done may be more
efficient
●Growth Study Implementation committee - small group, 4 people - was very
effective at getting tasks done
●Hopkinton is on the outer beltway, I495; different than inner belt towns like
Needham. Can’t stop growth, need to plan for it. Identify which inner belt town
Hopkinton would like to “be like”.
Ron Foisy (Chamber of Commerce)
●Chamber doesn’t want to stop growth - message may get out to commercial sector
and make it difficult to attract businesses to Hopkinton.
●Brought up issue with impending vacancy of EMC office space.
●Stated there needs to be care in forming language used in Mission statement.
Chief Steve Slaman (Fire Department)
●Would like to be involved as a stakeholder in the process.
●Economic growth is a concern to help ensure public safety for all of town.
Chair asked Board to identify list of stakeholders.
Ms. Kramer referred to Ms. Larson-Marlowe’s 2007 handout and the Board considered
adding CPC, Developers, PB, ZBA, Parks and Rec, and Senior Center.
Ms. Kramer recommended Fran DeYoung, Ms. Ritterbusch, Shahidul Mannan, School
Committee, Chamber of Commerce for the Committee, and Public Safety.
Mr. Trendel asked Chief Slaman if the Committee would need both Fire/Police chief on
committee or could one department represent both adequately.
Chief Slaman said it would be appropriate for public safety to serve as a stakeholder rather
than Committee member.
Mr. Trendel recommends that a representative from the Finance Department should be on
Committee. Mr. Trendel also recommends Town Planner be involved.
Ms. Larson-Marlowe said there may be benefits to focusing five people for a Steering
Committee. Ms. Ritterbusch recommended that multiple Planning Board members serve
on the Committee.
Mr. Trendel reviewed that the committee would include the following:
●From a professional staff perspective, Town Planning and Finance;
●From a Board perspective, Planning Board, Appropriations, Select Board, School
Committee;
●Chamber of Commerce;
●One member at-large.
Ms. Kramer clarified that professional staff generally do not serve as voting members of
committees.
Ms. Kramer also recommended including Carol DeVeuve.
Mr. Trendel recommended having a general application for members at-large rather than
identifying individual people.
Mr. Benson reiterated that there be more than one Planning Board member on the
Committee.
The Board continued general discussion about the composition of the Committee.
Ms. Ritterbush recommended the Committee include two Planning Board members, three
at-large members, and two members recommended by the Chamber of Commerce, and up
to two alternates.
Mr. Foisy explained the role of the Chamber of Commerce.
Ms. Kramer asked for a motion that the Growth Study Committee be comprised of two
Planning Board members, three at-large members, and two members recommended by
the Chamber of Commerce, and two alternates.
Mr. Trendel made the motion and Mr. Atwell seconded.
The Board aimed to have the applicants identified by the June 24th Planning Board
meeting.
The Board generally discussed the motion.
The motion passes 6-1-0; Ms. Fein-Brug opposed.
Ms. Fein-Brug commented that she would like the Committee to be larger.
Meeting adjourned at 10:00PM.