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