Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20190624 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes1 HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD June 24, 2017 - 7:30 P.M. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Muriel Kramer, Chair, Amy Ritterbusch, Deborah Fein-Brug, David Paul, Robert Benson, Patrick Atwell MEMBERS ABSENT: Mary Larson-Marlowe, Frank D’Urso, Gary Trendel Present: John Gelcich, Principal Planner, Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant Ms. Kramer opened the meeting at 7:30 P.M. 1. Continued Public Hearings - Bucklin St./Leonard St. - 1) Stormwater Management Permit, 2) Petition to Construct Bucklin St. - Wall Street Dev. Corp. Lou Petrozzi, Wall Street Development Corp., applicant, appeared before the Board. Mr. Atwell moved to open the public hearings, Ms. Ritterbusch seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Petrozzi noted the Board at the last meeting had concerns about the turning radius for emergency vehicles. He referred to the truck turning plan submitted previously and noted he talked to the Fire Chief about the difficulties meeting the requirements of the subdivision rules and regulations in this case. He noted he reached an agreement with the homeowner at 12 Maple St. Ext. as part of a proposal to create an emergency connection between Maple St. Ext. and the proposed Bucklin St. He stated plans to install municipal utilities, and he proposes to extend the water main to the intersection with Maple St. Ext., including a hydrant for fire protection. He noted in addition the driveway at 12 Maple St. Ext. will have a hammerhead turnaround to allow emergency vehicles to turn around and he will install sprinkler systems in each of the new homes to give the Fire Dept. extra time for responding to an emergency. Mr. Petrozzi noted he added an area for snow storage behind Bucklin St. where it intersects with Maple St. Ext. He stated Bucklin St. is proposed as a private way and there will be a homeowners association which will be solely responsible for upkeep and maintenance over time, including snow removal. He noted this will be an improvement because now the private portion of the road is just gravel, and there is no place for the snow to go. He noted he has a signed agreement with the owner of 12 Maple St. Ext. but it is not for public disclosure. Phil Paradis, BETA Group Inc., the Board’s consultant engineer, noted this will not affect the stormwater management permit. He noted he would defer to the Fire Dept. with respect to the turning radius and the ability to get up there, but this piece of Maple St. Ext. is probably too steep for a grass/plastic paver type surface so they may want to install crushed stone instead to get more traction. Mr. Petrozzi noted BETA brought this up before and he has no objection to adding crushed stone, but his main objective is to limit the amount of impervious surface and the proposed connection is just meant to provide access for smaller emergency vehicles. Stephen Slaman, Fire Chief, noted the grade issue is new to him, but considering that normal 2 access in compliance with the Town’s regulations is not possible, he feels the applicant has come up with a reasonable solution. He noted it concerns a long dead-end street with a steep grade, but the applicant is willing to install residential sprinklers and it will add some alternative access to Maple St. Ext. in case of an emergency. Ms. Kramer asked if there are any other outstanding BETA items, and Mr. Paradis stated they recommend some conditions but are otherwise satisfied. Mr. Gelcich referred to the letters submitted by Peter Barbieri, attorney for the Pleasant St. abutters. It was determined there are only 4 members here tonight who can vote on the applications, both of which need majority votes, however the absent members will be able to vote the next time if they certify in writing that they have watched the video of tonight’s meeting. It was noted that the only way that the 2 new members can vote is for the applicant to withdraw and start over. Ms. Kramer referred to the minutes of May 13, 2019 and stated the voting members were rather united in their opinion that the roadway be designed to standards. Mr. Petrozzi noted the road itself complies, but he is asking for waivers from sidewalks and trees because the right of way (ROW) is not wide enough. Ms. Kramer stated as a practical matter Mr. Petrozzi owns the property, and Mr. Petrozzi stated yes, however the Conservation Commission (ConCom) wants him to stay closer to Bucklin St. while the Planning Board wants him to include sidewalks. Mr. Petrozzi noted when he submitted his application he essentially copied the application for Box Mill Rd. which also included a petition for construction of a paper street with similar waivers. He stated not all waivers are cast in stone and he may be able to install underground utilities but a sidewalk/grass strip combination would extend well beyond the edge of the ROW. He noted he believes based on the number of homes the road will qualify as a rural street, and the Board asked Mr. Gelcich to confirm the criteria. Mr. Petrozzi stated normally roads have a crown but in this case the road is tilted so that runoff is directed to his property, and he thinks a sidewalk would interfere with the drainage design. He noted he is going back to the ConCom on July 9. Mr. Paul asked for clarification, and Ms. Kramer stated reference is made to the Bucklin St. ROW, however the Board voted not to recognize it as a way in existence prior to the adoption of the Subdivision Control Law (SCL) and there is a difference. Mr. Petrozzi noted there is a way shown on a plan which predates the SCL and he has the right to construct it for access and installation of utilities, separate from the Planning Board process. He noted when he started this process, Town Counsel asked him to design the road as closely as possible to subdivision regulations but creation of the actual building lots through the approval-not-required (ANR) process requires a determination that Bucklin St. was a way in existence prior to 1953. He noted the Board voted to determine that this was not the case, informally because there is no ANR application and therefore no opportunity for appeal, and Ms. Kramer stated it was a formal vote. Mr. Petrozzi stated this property has frontage on Leonard St. and Bucklin St., and he is sure he can prove that Leonard St. was in existence before 1953 and Bucklin St. would be simply used for access. Ms. Kramer stated the plan as submitted does not indicate accessing the lots from Leonard St. Mr. Petrozzi stated without an endorsed ANR plan, he would have to go through the definitive subdivision process, which, if unsuccessful, would require him to access the property from Leonard St., putting the ConCom in a position to grant limited project status for the lots. Ms. Kramer noted she is not sure what the ConCom would have to do in that case. 3 Tom Terry, 17 Maple St., stated he is an abutter and objects to the proposed snow storage location. He noted the applicant indicates that the Fire Chief is satisfied with emergency access using 12 Maple St. Ext., but apparently it will only accommodate a pickup truck or police cruiser, not a fire truck. Mr. Terry stated he understands the roadway will be tilted, and he asked if there will be a berm to prevent runoff from going towards the homes, and Mr. Petrozzi stated no and the drainage will go into swales. Mr. Terry asked how the design will work for snow removal, and Mr. Petrozzi stated he does not know. Chief Slaman noted it was determined that the corner of the fire trucks would not make the corner, but he feels the applicant has addressed his concerns by committing to residential sprinkler systems and extending the water main. Mr. Terry referred to the proposed snow storage location, and noted he feels he will end up with the water when the snow melts based on the grade. Ms. Kramer stated BETA has confirmed the applicant is managing stormwater on his site, and that includes snow melt. Ms. Kramer asked if Mr. Petrozzi has talked to the DPW about his plans for extending the water main and adding a hydrant, and Mr. Petrozzi noted they discussed sewer connections only, and he will follow up. Ms. Kramer noted she believes the Board will first have to consider approval of the petition for road construction and if so to what standards, and the next step would be an ANR plan. She noted they just heard that the roadway design conceivably could impact stormwater drainage, and Mr. Petrozzi stated it depends on the waivers. Ms. Kramer proposed using the next meeting for reviewing the list of waivers and addressing the petition. Ms. Ritterbusch moved to continue the public hearings to July 8, 2019 at 7:00 P.M. and extend the decision deadlines to July 15, 2019, Mr. Benson seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Gelcich noted the applicant has submitted an ANR for Leonard St. with a decision due on July 9, and the new members are eligible to vote. 2. I-90 / I-495 Interchange Improvements Mr. Paul stated the state is working on traffic safety improvements for the I-90/I-495 interchange in Hopkinton, and he has prepared a PowerPoint for discussion purposes. He stated his presentation has 2 different components, 1) comments directly related to the interchange, 2) a discussion of possible changes to the I-90 emergency exit on Rt. 135 a couple of miles to the west. He noted construction of the interchange modifications is scheduled to take place from 2022 to 2026. He noted his presentation does not question the reasons for the improvements and he assumes they will go forward. He noted one of the concepts includes 2 flyovers which would be 50 ft. high and visible from the Roosevelt Ln. neighborhood and potentially also from Huckleberry Rd. He noted another concern is the planned reconstruction of the Fruit St. bridge which could take a couple of years, impacting Hopkinton and other area Towns in terms of traffic disruption. He referred to MassDOT Interchange Concept No. 22-3, and noted it would include 2 flyovers while most everything else is typical cloverleaf. He noted some people prefer a cloverleaf configuration, and others like flyovers which move traffic along at a steadier pace but require more bridges to build and maintain. Mr. Paradis noted flyovers reduce weaving, and Mr. Paul 4 stated he believes a cloverleaf would improve that situation. It was noted that the last public meeting was late last year, and the project may be at 25% design status. Mr. Paul suggested inviting MassDOT to a meeting, and Ms. Kramer stated she is not sure if they would be willing to do that, but alternatively the Board could go see them. Ms. Kramer stated she is not sure if she is prepared to comment on the proposal. She asked about the difference of flyover vs. cloverleaf in terms of noise impact. Mr. Paradis noted he is not an expert but knows flyovers reduce weaving and will be less noisy because big tractor trailers can keep moving. Ms. Fein-Brug referred to the Simarano overpass on Rt. 495 in Marlborough and noted she has found it to be treacherous in the winter because of the metal construction materials. She suggested the installation of sound barriers, and Ms. Kramer noted she has heard they offer only minimal protection. Ms. Fein-Brug stated perhaps a field trip to the area would be beneficial. Mr. Paul stated his presentation also includes the concept for a proposed “half exit” for I-90 on Rt. 135 near the Westborough line, something he has come up with although it has been suggested before. He used a map to describe heavy use traffic patterns in this area, and stated he feels that converting the two “official use only” exits for public use could get traffic to and from I-90 more efficiently and reduce traffic on the back roads. He noted he is not sure how receptive the state would be and it may have unintended consequences, but implementing this before the I- 90/I-495 improvement project would alleviate disruptions due to the Fruit St. reconstruction activities. Robert Falcione, editor, Hopnews, asked if Mr. Paul has discussed this with Harvey’s, and Mr. Paul stated he has not yet asked them to get involved, but knows they asked the state for this option in the past and were turned down. 3. Wilson Street Drainage - Discussion Mr. Paradis stated as a result of concerns expressed by an abutter they reviewed two particular test reports for the soils on the Trails @ Legacy Farms site. He noted there is a continuing issue with Dieldrin, but the 2017 Ransom report did not show unacceptable exposure levels based on the combined results of a number of tests, which is how it is typically done. Mr. Paradis noted Dieldrin is persistent and attaches itself to soil particles so because of erosion issues due to excessive rainfall and site clearing last year they did some additional testing which did not show levels above the threshold for concern. Mr. Paradis stated he talked to Peter Bemis, the developer’s engineer, and followed up with a site visit. He noted 75% of the site is now vegetated and they have been monitoring the developer’s SWPPP reports, and he feels the major issue will be under control as long they continue to monitor the site and make sure erosion controls are kept in line. Ms. Ritterbusch asked about the bioretention basin. Mr. Paradis noted it has not been constructed yet and he does not know the status. Ms. Fein-Brug asked whether the dirt pile along the street has been spread out and if it contains contaminated soil. Roy MacDowell, manager, Legacy Farms, LLC, arrived at this time. Mr. MacDowell stated work on the basin will start after July 4, and he will provide the exact date which was determined to be no later than July 15. He noted there has been some grading of the dirt pile because they intend to move it to another location and he will let the Board know when that will be done. Ms. Fein-Brug asked whether the pile contains Dieldrin, and Mr. MacDowell noted not as far as he knows. It was noted Heritage Properties, developer of the Trails @ Legacy Farms, did some 5 testing for the ConCom, at least for the site itself, but the Commission requested additional tests and he will make sure it includes the dirt pile. Ms. Fein-Brug stated they have been waiting for this information for a month, and after further discussion the Board and Mr. MacDowell agreed on a July 15 deadline. In response to a question, Mr. MacDowell noted testing is overseen by a Licensed Site Professional (LSP) and Mr. Paradis stated credentials can be verified on line. Mr. MacDowell noted typically tainted soil is taken to an approved landfill and he believes that is what happened here. He noted the contaminated soil, which was located in specific areas, was dealt with appropriately, as noted in the Ransom report. Ms. Fein-Brug asked for additional details, and Mr. Gelcich noted the report is on file and was reviewed by BETA as referenced in Mr. Paradis’ letter to the Board. Kathleen Towner, 9 Kruger Rd., noted she acquired the Ransom report through a public records requests, and submitted it to the Board months ago so everybody should have it. She noted the report documents the presence of Dieldrin with the testing methods used, and concludes that the results for the test area apply to the entire parcel. She noted because of the mudslide at the Trails in the fall of 2018 the ConCom ordered additional testing which still has not been done. She noted there is typically a chain of custody, requiring testing to be done by an independent entity, but in this case it was the contractor himself who selected the samples. Ms. Towner stated the EPA already weighed in on this issue, and they know the soil is contaminated and is not to be removed from the site, but additional testing was required to determine whether the chemical migrated to the Hopkinton Reservoir during the mudslide. Ms. Towner noted BETA last year wrote a failure analysis of the original detention basin design, and it was determined the soil on site is not capable of draining at the required rate and the stormwater report was done improperly. She noted after several attempts they finally got a valid design, which replaced the substandard material with bioretention soil so that water actually will actually drain and clean out the contaminants from the road. She noted there are multiple instances of soil being tracked out into the road, and she assumes it will continue. She noted Elaine Lazarus, Assistant Town Manager, in March 2019 wrote a multi-page letter reminding the contractor of his responsibility to clean the road on a daily basis to prevent dirt from being washed into the wetlands. Ms. Kramer noted this would not just concern materials from the Trails, and Ms. Towner stated they have their own dirt pile and there is overland runoff, obviously visible, onto Wilson St. which has been happening for the last 5 years since Wilson St. in that area was cleared in a major tree cutting incident. Ms. Towner noted digging a deeper ditch in substandard soil only will create a pool of stagnant water with associated mosquito problems. She stated EPA standards require a stormwater structure to drain within 72 hours, and that does not ever happen here. Ms. Towner noted the clean is supposed to be discharged through an outfall pipe into the wetlands and she does not quite understand the new design with the outlet pipe above but it appears they made the basin deeper to increase the volume, and that is not a good solution. Ms. Kramer stated it seems that someone at the Planning office approved the change to the basin design without bringing it forward, and it was noted this was before Mr. Gelcich’s time. Mr. MacDowell stated they decided to hold off on construction while waiting for this conversation. He noted he asked his engineer, VHB, to look at the plans again, and the basin as currently proposed will have a larger capacity and should function better. He noted the modified design was presented to the Planning Board, reviewed by BETA, and ok’d. 6 Mr. MacDowell noted he will contact Heritage Properties first thing tomorrow to inform them of the July 15 deadline for the additional testing to be done for the ConCom, and it was noted this does not affect the construction schedule for the basin. Ms. Kramer asked about the dirt getting tracked out onto the road, and Mr. MacDowell stated he will speak to Heritage Properties and also to Pulte Homes about that. It was noted that the Planning office will find Ms. Lazarus’ letter to the contractor and forward it to Mr. MacDowell for further distribution. Mr. Paradis stated the stormwater rain gardens for Legacy Farms were initially built for treatment only, based on an agreement which allowed Weston Nurseries to retain the water for their operations. He noted because of the Wilson St. runoff problems, however, they had to reevaluate the design, and the size of the basin was increased as part of the mitigation. Mr. Paradis stated it was discovered that the original engineer used the wrong soils so they asked them to change it to a C type soil which drains very slowly. Ms. Kramer asked about the specialized bioretention soil. Mr. Paradis noted that particular type of soil is meant to grow plants and provide nutrients, but the issue here was volume. He noted the sediment system can be designed in many ways and Ms. Towner has some valid questions, however the basin is not designed to drain within 72 hours. Ms. Kramer asked who has oversight with respect to pollutants possibly getting into the Hopkinton Reservoir, and Mr. MacDowell noted he believes the ConCom’s consultant is monitoring this and Mr. Paradis noted it is outside their jurisdiction. Mr. Gelcich noted as far as he knows the chemical binds to the soil so if it stays on the site, as required under the SWPPP, there should be no contaminants off site and he guesses it is up to the Planning Board to make sure of that. Ms. Kramer asked for clarification, and Mr. Gelcich noted he believes the soil can either be removed and dealt with or it has to stay on the site. Mr. MacDowell noted there was some bad soil in another section of Legacy Farms that had to removed from the site following appropriate procedures and regulations, but in this situation Dieldrin was found only in some places and the soil is kept on site. After further discussion, Mr. MacDowell stated it should be reasonable to expect the results of additional testing by July 22. The Board paused the discussion to open and continue the next agenda item. 4. Public Hearing - 9 B St. - Special Permit Application - Lots with Historic Structures - Newbridge Investments LLC Mr. Atwell moved to open the public hearing and continue it after tonight’s discussion of the Wilson Street drainage issue. Ms. Ritterbusch seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 5. Wilson Street Drainage - Discussion, Continued Ms. Towner noted the test results will not change anything because all soil is presumed to be contaminated with Dieldrin. She noted efforts to contain the runoff onto Wilson St. so far have been unsuccessful and they now have been talking about this for a year. She noted clear cutting along Wilson St. contributed to the problem and even though there has been no additional clearing there is nothing to prevent them from doing it again. She stated the Board has to focus on better stormwater management and should be very sceptical of the promises being made. Ms. Kramer noted the Board will follow up on the design. 7 6. Legacy Farms - Northwest Villages (Pulte Homes) - Construction Update Mr. Gelchic referred to his email sent to the chair, noting he went out with Bob Lamoureux of BETA Group to look at the Legacy Farms Northwest Villages construction site after a report of some turbid flow. He noted he talked to Mr. Paradis beforehand and plans to meet with the contractor, BETA and a representative of Pulte Homes to discuss a stormwater management redesign to get this under wraps. Mr. Gelcich clarified the location and noted the contractor is doing utility work and getting ready to cut in the road but it is acting as a conduit funneling all the way down to Legacy Farms North and Frankland Rd. Ms. Kramer asked Mr. Gelcich to keep the Board posted. Mr. Benson, Mr. Paul, Ms. Fein-Brug, and Ms. Ritterbusch took a short break. 7. Other Business Mr. Gelcich reminded the Board of the need to make its yearly appointments, and provided a quick update on the proposed amendments to the Trails @ Legacy Farms site plan/special permit approvals. The Board discussed both items in more detail later in the meeting. Mr. Benson, Mr. Paul, Ms. Ritterbusch returned to the meeting. The Board reviewed the Minutes of May 2, 2019, May 13, 2019, and May 29, 2019. Ms. Kramer asked the Permitting Assistant to make a change to the Minutes of May 13, 2019. Mr. Paul moved to approve the Minutes of May 2, 2019 as written, May 13, 2019 as amended, and May 29, 2019 as written, Mr. Atwell seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Ms. Fein-Brug returned to the meeting at this time. 8. Continued Public Hearing - 9 B St. - Special Permit Application - Lots with Historic Structures - Newbridge Investments LLC Scott Miller, Newbridge Investments LLC, applicant, and George Connors, attorney, appeared before the Board. Mr. Connors noted Mr. Miller has a project at 9 B St. on property with an old house and garage. He showed the property on an aerial plan and described the locus. He stated the lot has an area of 27,955 sf and 132 ft. of frontage, consisting of 2 lots merged for zoning purposes for some time. He noted an 1875 historic map actually shows 2 structures, one each on its own lot, but in 1900 it was just one house. He noted the property is in the Residence A (RA) district which requires 15,000 sf and 100 ft. of frontage per lot. Mr. Connors noted the applicant proposes to use the Zoning Bylaw (Sec. 210-117.2) to create a nonconforming lot for the historic structure and another lot that complies. He noted the front portion of the house is from 1900 and there are some additions from the 1960’s in the back. He noted it has the typical gable end facing the street, similar to other homes in this neighborhood and in other areas of the Town. Mr. Connors noted the structure is more than 75 years and therefore subject to the Demolition Delay Bylaw so the Historic Commission looked at this project for 2 reasons, 1) to consider allowing it to be torn down, which they did, and 2) to see if the structure is worthy of preservation. He noted based on the definition in the Zoning Bylaw the Commission voted to determine the structure historically significant and issued a letter in support of the applicant’s proposal to move the historic structure to the nonconforming lot, replicating the front and facade 8 to the extent necessary with better, modern day materials, and create a similar type of structure on the other, conforming, lot. Mr. Connors referred to the application package including photos, and noted he feels this would be in harmony with the neighborhood and the general area, and also in line with the Town’s Master Plan goals and action plan. He noted the DPW is ok with the proposal, the Bd. of Health had no comments, and he does not think one more house will a traffic problem. Mr. Miller noted he purchased the property in January 2019 and is trying to determine his options. He noted the property is in a serious state of disrepair, but rather than just tearing down the existing structures and replace them with something that would be out of character, he discussed his options with the Historic Commission and came up with a plan to preserve the historic front of the house. He noted they encouraged him to go through the special permit process to create a lot for a historic structure, and he even agreed with the Commission to build a similar home on the conforming lot. He noted there is a need in Town to build smaller, more affordable houses, and this is a walk-to-town location. Ms. Kramer asked for clarification about the affordability aspect, and Mr. Miller stated he feels it is better to build 2 smaller, more affordable homes compared to 1 really expensive one. Mr.Paul asked about the rationale of having one lot with 100 ft. and another with 32 ft. frontage as opposed to 2 at 66 ft. each. Mr. Miller stated the minimum frontage in the RA district is 100 ft. and perhaps there should be a village district so that people in these neighborhoods don’t have to get a variance from the Bd. of Appeals for just about everything. Mr. Connors noted he too would prefer two lots with 66 ft., but that requires a variance and they would have to prove hardship. Mr. Gelcich referred to his memo to the Board, noted this concerns a special permit application under Section 210-117.2 which allows a waiver of lot size and setback requirements. He stated in his opinion the Board however cannot waive frontage or frontage depth, which means in the RA district that the lot has to be 60 ft. wide 90 ft. in, and this particular requirement is the main concern based on the plan. Ms. Kramer referred to a letter from the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer that seems to state or reinforce that the Planning Board does not have authority here. Mr. Gelcich noted the Zoning Enforcement Officer is unaware of a provision for merged lots to become unmerged. He noted he does not generally agree with him in this case because the applicant is submitting an ANR plan to unmerge/subdivide merged property which technically is now one lot. He noted the Building Dept. has indicated it will deny future building permit applications for these lots, but the applicant can appeal the decision to the Bd. of Appeals. It was noted the lots were merged in 1965, 7 years after zoning was adopted in Town. Mr. Connors noted the issue here is frontage, and once a merger occurs the lots are looked at as one, and normally it is possible to create a conforming building lot plus a nonbuildable parcel through the ANR process. He stated he agrees with Mr. Gelcich and has talked with and written to the Building Inspector who is not going to agree with him. It was noted Mr. Connors’ letter to the Building Inspector was not submitted to the Board but will be made available for the next hearing. Ms. Kramer asked whether it would have been better for the applicant to go to the Bd. of Appeals first in this case, and Mr. Connors noted they would have to apply for a building permit to be denied. Ms. 9 Kramer asked about the apparent lack of Planning Board authority to waive frontage or frontage depth. Mr. Connors stated it is a good question, but if that is the case the bylaw serves no purpose because it is not possible to do anything unless it concerns a conforming lot. Ms. Ritterbusch noted it seems the word “frontage” is missing from the bylaw language, and Ms. Kramer noted it appears to be more of a legal argument. It was suggested that the wording be reviewed by the Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC). Mr. Benson asked for clarification. He noted he thought Mr. Connors first stated the Historic Commission approved the structure to be torn down, but later noted the Commission had voted to deem the structure historically significant. Mr. Connors stated there was a proposed town meeting article extending the demolition delay from 6 to 18 months, so they asked the Historic Commission for a decision under the current bylaw allowing them to demolish the house even though that’s not what they want to do. Mr. Benson stated he also heard about the very poor condition of the house, and asked if it is going to be the same, historically significant house when all is said and done. Mr. Miller noted they agreed to make the necessary repairs but agreed with the Commission that the architecture will be replicated. Brian Hunt, 5 B St., and Drew Hoyt, attorney, appeared before the Board. Mr. Hoyt distributed photos of Mr. Hunt’s home and immediate environment. He noted his client is concerned about the proposal given the shape of the proposed historic lot and the home to be located very close to his property line. He noted Mr. Hunt expects they will have to remove some very nice trees and he would be looking at a house instead. Mr. Hoyt noted Mr. Hunt supports the applicant’s preservation efforts and wants to work with him to make it happen. He noted his client as a property owner with a surplus of frontage is willing to discuss a land swap or something like that with the developer, and then they would be able to move the house closer to the street, consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. Ms. Kramer noted the Planning Bd. does not object to whatever Mr. Hunt intends to do, but that is not something the Board will decide and definitely not tonight. Mr. Hoyt noted Mr. Hunt also has his own legal objections to the project as proposed but would like to address them with the developer directly instead of voicing them here. Ms. Kramer noted the public hearing has to be continued and there will be an opportunity to add to the public hearing outline, and Mr. Hoyt and his client are welcome to work with the developer in the meantime. John Coutinho, 1 David Joseph Rd., member, ZAC, noted he wants to encourage the Board to take up Ms. Ritterbusch’s suggestion to bring the village district concept back to the ZAC for review. He noted they unsuccessfully tried to do this about 3 years ago because 78 to 80% of the lots in the downtown area are nonconforming and they wanted to bring the lot sizes down to reduce the need for special permits and variances for items such as stairs or decks. Ms. Fein-Brug moved to continue the public hearing to July 22, 2019 at 9:30 P.M., Ms. Ritterbusch seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 9. Affordable Units - Chamberlain St./Whalen Rd. Subdivision - Discussion Kathy Sherry, REC Hopkinton, LLC, representing Paul Mastroianni, and Liz Rust, Regional Housing Services Office, affordable housing consultant for REC Hopkinton LLC, and Beth Malloy,190 Lumber St., chair, Affordable Housing Trust Fund, appeared before the Board. Ms. Kramer noted the Planning Bd. imposed slightly different requirements on the Chamberlain 10 St./Whalen Rd. subdivision with respect to the affordable units as allowed under the zoning bylaw, and she and Mr. Gelcich previously met with the proponents to discuss the process. Ms. Sherry noted this subdivision was approved for 32 residential units, which requires 3 affordable units. She noted the special permit was issued in April 2018, and it was agreed to deliver 3 off- site affordable units in conjunction with the occupancy permits. She noted Ms. Rust is providing guidance as to the process, timelines and who is responsible for what. She noted from REC Hopkinton’s perspective the concern is about the delivery schedule of affordable units vs. their development timeline. Ms. Sherry stated right now the special permit requires them to deliver the 1st unit before occupancy permit #11, the 2nd before #21 and the 3rd before #31, and, in view of the length of the approval process from lottery to closing, they would like to get more flexibility and be allowed to potentially deliver the 1st affordable unit after they build 20 market rates. She noted another issue is the low inventory of and demand for reasonably priced homes in Hopkinton. Ms. Kramer noted in full disclosure to the public and the Board, the preliminary discussion with the proponents focused on flexibility, since this is the first time affordable units are being created in this manner and the developer is helping the Board to develop the process. Mr. Gelcich noted the special permit defines the delivery schedule requiring the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd affordable unit to be delivered before the 11th, 21st and 31st occupancy permits respectively, and Ms. Kramer stated it matches the schedule for payments in lieu. Mr. Gelcich noted changing that condition requires a minor amendment to the special permit, and the schedule could be modified to either having 2 units before the 21st certificate of occupancy, or one before the 20th, then another before the 21st certificate or something like that. Ms. Kramer asked about approval of the actual units, and Mr. Gelcich stated he first thought the Planning Board has to approve the design but is more the location of the unit. He noted maybe this can be addressed as a non-hearing item, and Ms. Kramer suggested allowing the professional staff to make the decision considering the pace of the housing market. Ms. Rust noted the units in this case are administered through the state’s Local Initiative Program (LIP) which includes a 3-part approval process: 1) approval of the Chamberlain/Whalen off-site units, 2) notification to the state of each individual address to be added to the program, 3) approval of the actual buyer. Mr. Gelcich noted he believes the location is important in case it concerns the historic districts and to make sure the affordable units are not sequestered in one area. Mr. Atwell asked for clarification, and Ms.Kramer noted the units do not have to be off-site, but if they want the units within the development itself the Board has to talk about it at the very beginning and add it to the public hearing outline as a specific discussion item. Ms. Malloy noted the developer offered them 3 smaller homes on smaller lots within the development, but the Trust Fund at this points prefers units to be in neighborhoods and blend in, and she hopes the Planning Board would support them in this effort. Ms. Sherry noted REC Hopkinton LLC had proposed increasing the number to 35 units in exchange. Mr. Atwell asked if the state monitors the location of units. Ms. Kramer stated no, and Ms. Rust noted there is more leeway in local permits and as far as off-site units are concerned. Mr. Benson asked Ms. Sherry for a project schedule, because he is not sure that just extending the date is a good thing to do. Ms. Kramer noted from a process perspective this will come before the Board as a minor change to the special permit, and it will include a timeline and dates. Ms. Sherry noted she can provide a project and current sale schedule with an explanation why 11 REC Hopkinton is asking for a change. Mr. Benson asked if there are any properties or homes available that could be purchased today for the purpose of affordable housing without a significant loss. Ms. Sherry noted that is what they are looking at, and there are 3 or 4 places for sale. Mr. Benson asked how long these are on the market on average, and Ms. Sherry noted it varies, but up till now they were hesitant to “jump” on a particular property because they may have to close before the unit is approved by the state. Mr. Gelcich noted the proponent pays market rate for the property, then goes through the Dept. of Housing & Community Development process to convert to it an affordable unit at a certain area median income with a deed rider which prevents the homeowner from later selling the unit at market rate. He noted there is a lottery process, and potential buyers are screened using a formula based on housing costs and income. It was noted there is a waiting list for affordable housing units. Ms. Ritterbusch stated she agrees they need to delegate someone to expedite the approval process. Ms. Kramer asked about the process for the special permit amendment, and Mr. Gelcich noted it depends on whether the Board decides whether it is a minor or major change. Ms. Kramer stated she would suggest that professional staff assist in the unit approval process, and Mr. Gelcich noted it makes sense, but in that case it is important to have approval criteria for future reference. 10. Other Business Mr. Gelcich stated the Town’s fiscal year ends June 30, but appointments somehow usually expire one month later. He noted the Board oversees the Design Review Board (DRB) and now also the Growth Study Committee (GSC), and he wanted the Board to know that they have to make the appointments by July 22. It was noted they also have to make an appointment to the Trails Coordination Management Committee, and it was determined Mr. Paul is interested in staying on but it will have to be done at a next meeting. Mr. Gelcich stated he has asked the DRB members if they want to be reappointed and he has posted a notice advertising the openings. It was stated that so far there is one applicant for the GSC, Ms. Ritterbusch. Mr. Gelcich stated a potential applicant asked him about time commitment and meeting schedule, and it was noted it still has to be determined based on the scope of the mission and goals they want to achieve, but perhaps twice a month. Ms. Kramer stated she is scheduled to meet offline with the chairs of the School Committee and Select Board for a top level discussion of what they hope to achieve collaboratively. Mr. Gelcich stated he met with Vin Gately, developer of the Trails @ Legacy Farms, Peter Bemis, his engineer, Peter Barbieri, his attorney, and Mr. MacDowell of LegacyFarms. He noted they are coming before the Board with a modification to the site plan based on the reduction of units, and proposed changes to the Master Plan Special Permit based on town meeting Art. 37. Mr. Paul asked about the Rafferty Rd. issue, and Ms. Fein-Brug noted she had brought it up earlier because she is concerned about the condition of the road which may have worsened due to LNG construction traffic. Ms. Kramer stated there also is the issue of school buses on Legacy Farms North, and it needs to have the Board’s full attention. Mr. Benson asked about the Planning Board’s authority over the school bus issue, and Ms. Kramer noted the Board is involved in the road acceptance process. Mr. Gelcich asked about the possibility of a special 12 town meeting to expedite matters. After further discussion it was decided to meet early on July 22 and start at 7:00 P.M. with a discussion of Legacy Farms North issues, inviting the DPW, someone from the School Dept. and perhaps a member of the Select Board. Ms. Kramer noted they also should talk about possible repairs to Rafferty Rd. and she would like to understand the difference between the old Legacy Farms North (formerly Rafferty Rd.) and the new section. Mr. Benson asked about the costs associated with street acceptance, and Ms. Kramer stated there is a whole process and cost is a factor in view of the need for a performance guarantee because typically roads are not accepted until everything is finished and there is still a lot of additional development going on. Mr. Paul noted roads are supposed to the built to standard and normally there should be no additional costs, and it was noted special town meeting is not free and there are definitely costs implications in terms of maintenance once the road is accepted. Ms. Kramer stated without formally accepting the road it will be difficult to resolve the school bus issue, and the problems will only get worse. Ms. Ritterbusch stated perhaps the Select Board or the School Dept. have different points to add. Ms. Fein-Brug stated the state was involved with the funding for road construction, and it was noted they are not involved anymore. Mr. Benson asked if this needs to be approved before September, and Ms. Kramer stated no and buses possibly could start picking up kids as soon as the issue is resolved even if it is in the middle of the year. Mr. Coutinho noted when they created the OSMUD district they never adjusted the bylaws to take on decade old projects but have since started accepting private roads built years ago. He noted in the case of Legacy Farms North they opened a road with big fanfare and a ribbon cutting ceremony promoting it as a spine road from East Main St. to Rt. 85. He noted the Town is using it with just the binder coat and he suggested looking at this as a hybrid because they never had a development of this scale before. Ms. Kramer noted they want to find a solution, and there will be a full discussion hopefully with participation from the Select Board and the School Dept. Adjourned: 10:20 P.M. Submitted by: Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant Approved: July 22, 2019 Documents used at the Meeting: ● Agenda for June 24, 2019 Planning Board agenda ● Memorandum to Planning Board from John Gelcich, Principal Planner, re: Items on Planning Board Agenda, June 24, 2019 ● Truck Turning Plan, Bucklin Street, Hopkinton, MA, dated February 21, 2019; Plan entitled “Plan of Land, Parcel A - Bucklin & Leonard Street, Hopkinton, Massachusetts, dated March 21, 2018, revised through 6/13/19 (Fire Access), prepared by GLM Engineering; Letter from Peter R. Barbieri, Esq. to Muriel Kramer, Chair, Planning Board, dated June 21, 2019 re: Wall Street Development, Bucklin Lane; Letter from Louis Petrozzi, President, Wall Street Development Corp., to Ms. Muriel Kramer, Chairwoman, Town of Hopkinton - Planning Board, dated June 17, 2019, re: Application for Stormwater Management Permit - dated April, 2018, Petition to Approve Construction/Bucklin Street - Dated July 24, 2018, Property on Leonard Street and Bucklin Street Assessors Map U19/Lot 52 ● Application for Special Permit for 9 B Street, Newbridge Investments, LLC; Letter to Planning Board from Building Department, Date: 19 June 2019 ● I-495 and I-90 Interchange Project, Hopkinton Planning Board Discussion - presented by Dave Paul ● Draft Planning Board Minutes of May 2, 2019, May 13, 2019, May 29, 2019