HomeMy Public PortalAbout20191007 - Planning Board - Meeting MinutesHOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
October 7, 2019 7:00 P.M.
Hopkinton Public Library, Large Event Room
13 Main St., Hopkinton, MA
MINUTES
Members Present: Muriel Kramer, Chair, Gary Trendel, Vice Chair, David Paul, Amy
Ritterbusch, Deborah Fein-Brug, Robert Benson, Frank D’Urso, Mary Larson-Marlowe, Jane
Moran
Members Absent: None
Present: John Gelcich, Principal Planner, Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
Ms. Kramer called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Sidewalks. Mr. Gelcich noted a few years ago the Planning Board initiated a town-wide survey
regarding the need for improvements to or expansion of the existing sidewalk network. He
noted it was an on-line survey done in-house resulting in a list of priorities however the DPW
Director has found it challenging to get funding at the last couple of town meetings. He noted it
may be time for a new survey, and Mr. Trendel suggested getting some background information
on the previous one.
Ms. Ritterbusch noted the last major project was in 2014 for the continuation of the Ash St.
sidewalk to Blueberry Lane, which was very expensive and took a long time, and it would be
good to know how people feel about doing more of these on a regular basis. Mr. D’Urso stated
it appears the survey results did not quite match the reality at town meeting, and part of that was
the funding. He noted there was an effort to connect the east to the west side of Town so that
people could walk to Lake Maspenock from downtown, but the cost of dealing with the state
with respect to the crossing of the Rt. 495 exchange put people off. He noted he thinks doing
smaller chunks would be more realistic and affordable and he referred to progress made for the
Chestnut St. neighborhood. He stated he is however not ready to give up on a connection
between the east and west side of Town, maybe with the help of grants which has worked well
in other towns. Ms. Moran noted there also seems to be a lot of talk about repairs and
maintenance and that should be part of the survey.
Mr. Paul noted he typically is in favor of more sidewalks, but connecting Lake Maspenock to
downtown is probably not something they want to take on, especially because of costs and
safety issues related to crossing the Rt. 495 ramps. He noted sidewalks are expensive anyway -
$150/ft. for asphalt plus curbing, the last time he checked, plus expenses to address potential
drainage issues. He noted he believes the last survey was not successful because it was more or
less free form. It was suggested using a different technique this time including some options
and cost estimates as a means to find out people’s priorities. Ms. Kramer noted costs are
definitely a major factor, and she asked if anyone has ever brought up elevated walkways as a
way to cross the Rt. 495 exchange, and a comparison was made with the approach used in
Milford. Mr. Trendel stated it sounds as if the Board feels this is a worthwhile issue, and he is
willing to take the lead on generating a new survey. Mr. Benson stated he does not know all the
details as this relates to trails, but he thinks the sidewalk discussion is more or less part and
parcel to the trail system as a means of navigating by foot or bike in various places in Town.
Mr. Paul stated he thinks they should work with the DPW in an effort to get a better price for
materials because it appears other towns are making much more progress with sidewalk
construction. Ms. Kramer stated it may be easier to negotiate pricing if there is an actionable
plan for contractors to count on going forward.
Ms. Larson-Marlowe moved to open the new/continued public hearings scheduled for tonight,
Mr. D’Urso seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Ms. Kramer
summarized the agenda providing an estimated time schedule and noting that the new meeting
format seems to be more efficient.
Continued Public Hearing - Maspenock Woods/5 West Elm St. - Proposed Amendments to
Approved Garden Apartment Development Special Permit and Approved Site Plan -
Maspenock Woods Realty Trust
Mr. Paul moved to continue the public hearing to December 9, 2019, Mr. Trendel seconded the
motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Continued Public Hearings - Bucklin St./Leonard St. - 1) Petition to Construct Paper
Road; 2) Stormwater Management Permit Application - Wall Street Development Corp.
Lou Petrozzi, Wall Street Development Corp., applicant, appeared before the Board. He noted
at the last meeting they finished with Waiver #7 (Type of Street/Pavement Width), and Ms.
Kramer noted that was actually more a determination that it is a rural way, not a waiver.
Waiver #8 - Sec. 8.2.5A, B, and C (Dead End Streets/Turnarounds - Hammerhead Turnaround
with Emergency Access)
Mr. Petrozzi stated Bucklin St. will have a hammerhead turnaround and he is proposing a
connection between Bucklin St. and Maple St. Ext. creating limited (gated) access for
emergency vehicles only, but a waiver may be needed with respect to dead-end streets. He
stated municipal water and sewer extensions as well as sprinkler systems for the new homes are
being offered in terms of mitigation. Mr. Petrozzi noted the turning radius is adequate for
smaller emergency vehicles such as ambulances and police/fire cruisers, but a regular fire truck
would have difficulties, hence the proposal for sprinkler systems. Ms. Kramer asked if there is
an agreement with the abutter on Maple St. Ext., and Mr. Petrozzi stated yes. It was noted that
Maple St. Ext. is a partially accepted road, and Phil Paradis, BETA Group, Inc., the Board’s
consultant engineer, noted it could become a significant issue if the road is not maintained
properly. Mr. Gelcich noted he does not think it is necessarily a zoning or subdivision issue, but
it may matter from a fire code and emergency access perspective. Stephen Slaman, Fire Chief,
noted they have a bylaw to cover access to 1- and 2-family homes, and he essentially works
backwards to see what can be done in terms of mitigation if needed, for example a water main
extension and/or sprinkler systems in the homes. He noted there are some unknowns but he
feels that the applicant in this case has made reasonable public safety arrangements. Ms.
Kramer asked for additional information, and Mr. Petrozzi noted he proposes to extend the
water main to the end of Bucklin St. and install a new hydrant on Maple St. Ext. Chief Slaman
stated the proposal is workable and would also benefit the rest of the neighborhood. Mr.
Petrozzi noted the proposed design includes a hammerhead turnaround providing the ability to
turn around on both sides of the street as part of the agreement with the Maple St. Ext. abutter.
Mr. Trendel asked if fire trucks will end up having to back out onto Pleasant St., and Chief
Slaman noted the driveway design will provide the ability for them to turn around. Mr. Petrozzi
noted a fire truck cannot make the turning radius onto Maple St. Ext. because of elevation
changes, and they have not been successful in getting an easement.
Mr. D’Urso noted the homeowners at the end of Maple St. Ext. park their cars in the area
proposed for the turnaround, and Mr. Petrozzi stated he believes the Town uses that area for
snow storage so he proposes to create a driveway with a hammerhead turnaround to provide
parking and eliminate blockage of the road. Mr. D’Urso stated he feels they can avoid a lot of
these waivers if they were to look at Maple St. Ext. in terms of a true connection to other streets
instead of going halfway with an emergency access only. Mr. Petrozzi noted Maple St. Ext. is
very narrow and not suitable as a through street, and he is sure the current residents don’t want
more traffic. Mr. Paul stated Maple St. Ext. is not accepted according to Town records, and Ms.
Kramer noted the Town apparently plows it anyway.
Mr. Trendel asked about the purpose of gated emergency access and whether a fire truck could
even get that far. Mr. Petrozzi stated the gate won’t be locked and only the larger emergency
vehicles will have difficulty making the turn. Chief Slaman stated the layout will not solve all
safety issues but it will be an improvement. Mr. Paul noted he is in support of a full connection.
Mr. Petrozzi noted Bucklin St. will be maintained and kept passable by the homeowners
association, and the Town currently plows Maple St. Ext. and stockpiles the snow at the end of
the street but he does not know what kind of accommodations would be made when they have
to plow the other portion of the street.
Mr. Paul suggested constructing Bucklin St. as a public way, considering the Town’s problems
with private ways which have deteriorated over time and residents looking for ways to make
repairs. Ms. Kramer asked whether there is a mandate that a road has to be built as a public
way. Mr. Gelcich noted he does not think so but for public ways he assumes they would need
input from the DPW regarding the waivers that have been voted on and are still to be voted on.
Mr. Trendel asked about the proposed use of impervious asphalt, and Mr. Petrozzi noted he
believes this was already established as one of the reasons why the DPW Director wanted the
homeowners to be responsible for maintenance. Mr. Trendel noted in all fairness the developer
is proposing this as a private way. Ms. Kramer summarized the voting eligibility of the
members. It was noted Bucklin St. is about 600 ft. long and the regulations limit dead-end
streets to 500 ft. Mr. Gelcich read from the Subdivision Rules and Regulations, Sec. 8.2.5.a.,
b., and c. Mr. Trendel moved to grant the waiver, Ms. Larson-Marlowe seconded the motion,
and after further discussion and clarification the Board voted 1 in favor (Trendel), 5 opposed
(Fein-Brug, Ritterbusch, Kramer, Larson-Marlowe, Paul), 3 abstentions (D’Urso, Benson,
Moran). Mr. Paul stated it would be better if the roads were connected, and Mr. Petrozzi asked
if eliminating the gate would make a difference - although then there would be no requirement
for a waiver, and Ms. Kramer agreed. Mr. Paul noted they would have to confirm that Mr.
Petrozzi has the right to use that approach, and Mr. Petrozzi stated he is pretty sure that portion
of Maple St. Ext. is privately owned and the decision would be up to the homeowners. Ms.
Kramer suggested checking with the DPW for further clarification. Mr. Paradis noted the
proposed through-road alternative may need other waivers if this road connects with another
road that is substandard, and Mr. Petrozzi stated he understands. Ms. Ritterbusch noted another
option would be to limit the length of Bucklin St. to 500 ft. Mr. Petrozzi noted they are trying
to reduce the amount of impervious surface, but they are dealing with the Conservation
Commission for wetlands and the Planning Board regarding safety and roadway, and the two
objectives don’t always match. He noted the through-road alternative may require a bigger
retention basin and result in more disturbance.
Waiver #9 - Slide Slopes - Sec. 8.2.6.A. Mr. Petrozzi noted in this case there is a variable width
right of way, a stone wall demarking the edge of the right of way, and the road is slightly
elevated beyond the existing contours. He noted he does not own the slope so he has to be able
to work within the right of way. Ms. Ritterbusch asked if the waiver is for one side only, and
Mr. Petrozzi stated yes, on the north side. After further discussion, Ms. Ritterbusch moved to
approve the waiver for the side slope on the north only, and Mr. Paul seconded the motion. Mr.
Benson suggested moving the right of way, and Mr. Petrozzi noted he does not want to get into
legalities, but the right of way has been laid out since 1946 and if they continue to move
everything they will get into a problem with the Conservation Commission. Ms. Fein-Brug
asked for additional details, and after further discussion, the Board voted 4 in favor
(Ritterbusch, Larson-Marlowe, Kramer, Paul), 2 opposed (Trendel, Fein-Brug), and 3
abstentions (Benson, Moran, D’Urso), so the motion failed.
Waiver #10 - Sidewalks, Driveways, etc. - Sec. 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.3 and 8.3.4. It was noted that
sidewalks are normally required although just on one side of the road. Mr. Petrozzi noted that
in this case based on existing conditions and width of the right of way there is not enough room
for a sidewalk and associated features, and compliance with the requirement would result in
further encroachment on the properties of the Pleasant St. abutters. It was noted the first 165 ft.
section from Pleasant St. is a complicated issue, but the applicant has room to work with on the
property he owns further down. Mr. Petrozzi asked about Town Counsel’s guidance on the
ability of the Board to require improvements outside the right of way, and Ms. Kramer noted
she feels from a legal perspective it is clear that the Board can require compliance and
historically has done so. After further discussion Ms. Ritterbusch moved to grant the waiver,
and Ms. Fein-Brug seconded the motion. Ms. Fein-Brug stated she is in favor because the
Board already determined this will be a rural road with only 4 homes and there is precedent,
most recently in the case of the Chesmore Funeral Home site plan application. Ms. Kramer
noted future homeowners will know they will be living on a street without a sidewalk. Mr. Paul
noted he is willing to vote in favor, but if they vote for a true connection to Maple St. Ext., he
will probably change his mind. Mr. Trendel stated he normally would insist on compliance but
in this case there would be a substantial negative impact on the Pleasant St. abutters. Ms.
Kramer questioned whether the Board should vote now in view of potential plan changes, and
Mr. Trendel noted this is what is being presented. Ms. Larson-Marlowe stated a vote on this
issue now will provide guidance to the applicant. It was decided to proceed with a vote with the
understanding that the Board will revisit this issue if there is a major change to the plan. The
Board voted 6 in favor (Kramer, Ritterbusch, Fein-Brug, Larson-Marlowe, Trendel, Paul) with
3 abstentions (Benson, Moran, D’Urso). Mr. Gelcich referred to Whisper Way and noted the
applicant in that case was able to revisit a waiver request after it was initially denied.
Waiver #11 - Sec. 8.4.10 - Stormwater Basin Setback. Reference was made to the relevant
section of the Rules and Regulations, and Mr. Petrozzi explained the reason for the waiver
request. Ms. Ritterbusch asked how close the basin will be to the property line, and Mr.
Petrozzi noted it will be right next to it. Mr. Trendel asked about the potential implications of
allowing this design, and Mr. Paradis noted it could limit what the abutters could do on their
side of the property line. Mr. Fein-Brug asked for clarification with respect to the potential of
overflow onto the Terry property in case of a 100-year storm. Mr. Petrozzi noted that currently
all the water goes into that direction but the stormwater management system is designed to
contain and basically mimic the current flow. Ms. Kramer stated she is not comfortable with
the potential negative impact on adjacent property, and Mr. Petrozzi noted he is actually making
things better for the abutter. Ms. Kramer noted the rule is there for a reason and other Board
members agreed. After further discussion, Mr. Trendel moved to grant the waiver, Ms.
Fein-Brug seconded the motion, and the Board voted 6 opposed (Kramer, Ritterbusch,
Fein-Brug, Larson-Marlowe, Trendel, Paul) and 3 abstentions (Benson, Moran, D’Urso).
Waiver #12 - Section 8.7.2 - Street Lights. Mr. Gelcich noted they dealt with this issue in the
case of Whisper Way, and a waiver is only needed if the applicant is actually proposing street
lights, which is not the case here. Mr. Petrozzi noted it is up to the Board, but he is not required
to have street lights. Ms. Ritterbusch asked about the possibility of requiring wayfinding lights
at the end of driveways, and other Board members did not think that would be necessary. Mr.
Paul suggested the Zoning Advisory Committee review this requirement. After further
discussion, Ms. Fein-Brug moved to grant the waiver, Mr. Paul seconded the motion, and the
Board voted 6 in favor (Kramer, Ritterbusch, Fein-Brug, Larson-Marlowe, Trendel, Paul), 3
abstentions (Benson, Moran, D’Urso).
Waiver #13 - Sec. 9.11 - Bounds. Mr. Petrozzi described the reason for the waiver request. Mr.
Trendel asked for clarification, and Mr. Petrozzi stated it will make it easier from a site work
standpoint because of the presence of boulders and ledge. Ms. Kramer asked for additional
information, and Mr. Gelcich quoted from Sec. 9.11, Sec. 9.11.1 to be specific. After further
discussion, Ms. Kramer stated this seems to be a matter of anticipatory inconvenience. Ms.
Larson-Marlowe moved to grant the waiver, Mr. Paul seconded the motion, and the Board voted
4 in favor (Ritterbusch, Larson-Marlowe, Paul, Fein-Brug), 2 opposed (Trendel, Kramer), and 3
abstentions (Benson, Moran, D’Urso), and therefore the motion did not pass.
Waiver #14 - Sec. 9.12.4 - Street Trees. Mr. Petrozzi explained the reason for the request,
noting he can install street trees but just not in the right of way. After further discussion, Ms.
Ritterbusch moved to grant the waiver, and Mr. Paul seconded the motion. Reference was made
to this section of the Rules and Regulations, and the Board voted 6 in favor of the motion
(Kramer, Ritterbusch, Larson-Marlowe, Trendel, Paul, Fein-Brug) and 3 abstentions (Benson,
Moran, D’Urso).
Mr. Petrozzi noted the stormwater management permit application is still outstanding. He noted
theoretically stormwater management is not required for this project, but he had to submit a
stormwater management permit application because more than 1 acre of land will be disturbed.
He noted he may have to come back if they have to move the basin.
The Board discussed the next step with respect to Mr. Petrozzi’s applications, and Mr. Gelcich
noted that based on discussions and votes taken to date moving forward with this plan may not
be the best approach. Mr. Gelcich noted it appears the plan will have to be redesigned to meet
the requirements, or the applicant can leave it the way it is and request a vote. Ms. Kramer
asked if the Board can take a vote, and Mr. Gelcich stated it can vote to deny the application.
Ms. Kramer stated the would prefer voting on a plan that can be approved instead of ending up
in court and Mr. Gelcich noted that would be the outcome. Mr. Petrozzi stated he would like to
continue the hearings, and update the Conservation Commission with respect to the Planning
Board’s actions, and hopefully he will not end up in the middle of two boards working from
different perspectives. Ms. Ritterbusch moved to continue the public hearings to November 25,
2019, and extend the decision deadlines to December 9, 2019, by mutual agreement. Mr.
Gelcich stated the applicant’s other option is to withdraw the applications and start a new public
hearing at the same time as long as application deadlines and advertising requirements are met.
The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion.
Public Hearing - 27 Lumber St. - Hopkinton Tennis Club - Application to Amend
Approved NMU Development Project Site Plan - Crandall-Hicks Company, Inc.
Robert Green and Don Satterfield, Crandall-Hicks Company, Inc., applicant, Jesse Johnson,
Bohler Engineering, engineer, and Luis Lobao, aF+S Applied Form + Space, architect, appeared
before the Board. Mr. Green thanked Ms. Kramer, Mr. Gelcich, Mr. Khumalo, Town Manager,
and Ms. Lazarus, Assistant Town Manager, for providing guidance, and Jay Porter, Police
Lieutenant, and Stephen Slaman, Fire Chief, for willing to meet with them, and he thanked the
residents of Hopkinton for their support and patience. He noted the project was initially
approved in 2015, and although site work was started, the applicant decided to make changes to
and reduce the scope of the facility. Mr. Johnson referred to the approved plan, and described
the proposed changes. He noted the parking is still in the front but the size of the building has
been reduced from 39,000 to 30,000 sf, the number of tennis courts will change from 10 to 8,
some of them covered year-round, and the location of the swimming pools will be changed to
the south side of the building. Mr. Green noted the number of parking spaces has been
increased from 123 to 143, and they have addressed some concerns regarding adequate parking
flow and circulation. He noted they are upgrading the drainage design and will be making some
minor grading changes but the drainage basin will be the same as before and they will make
sure it all still works. He noted the septic design has not changed but they will have to resubmit
the application because the prior Board of Health approval has expired. Mr. Green noted the
lighting plan and parking lot landscaping will be updated as part of the revised proposal. He
noted the applicant in general did not take exception to BETA’s comments and/or
recommendations except perhaps the one related to the requirement for additional test pit
information included as a condition for the original plan because they feel good about the data
provided so far.
Mr. Lobao referred to the plan and described the changes from an architectural standpoint. He
noted the square footage has been reduced by 9,000 and the front of the building will now be
facing the street, but the interior uses are essentially the same, including child care,
administration and fitness, as well as a restaurant/snackbar combination. He noted the original
air-supported structure design created obstruction issues and this has been addressed with the
revised design. Mr. Lobao continued his description of the interior layout of the facility and
noted that the exterior of the building essentially will be using the same architectural language
as before.
Mr. Gelcich noted he has received comments from the DPW Director, basically the same ones
as before, and he believes the Board of Health issues can be addressed through conditions of
approval. He noted the revised plans have to be consistent with the Neighborhood Mixed Use
(NMU) district and Master Plan Special Permit standards, but essentially they are going to have
fewer tennis courts, move things around and change the footprint of the facility. Mr. Paradis
noted he feels the changes will result in an improved project, better compatibility with major
features, and additional parking. He noted the lighting plan includes 18 ft. poles, in excess of
the maximum allowed but approved for the original plan, but also some 22 footers and the
Board will have to decide whether that is a significant change. Mr. Paradis noted he feels
additional test pit data should be provided due to the increase of the size of the infiltration
system to avoid problems during construction later on. He noted the changes to the stormwater
management system will also make it necessary to provide an updated Operations &
Maintenance (O&M) Plan and an updated illicit discharge statement, however none of this
would be considered “heavy lifting”. It was noted the applicant will be before the Conservation
Commission tomorrow and discuss the proposed changes with the Design Review Board next
week. Ms. Kramer asked about the status of the Board of Health process and Mr. Johnson noted
he expects comments within a week. There were no public comments at this time, and
reference was made to the Public Hearing Outline prepared for this application. Mr. D’Urso
stated in 2015 they talked about the importance of at least a walkway along Lumber St. Mr.
Johnson noted at that time they contemplated a sidewalk within the project down Lumber St.,
but it has not been installed and they are asking for a waiver because they don’t think it is
necessary. He noted they would rather have landscaping, and the sidewalk was initially
considered as a connection to a satellite parking lot. Mr. D’Urso suggested talking about pole
height which was a topic of conversation the last time. Ms. Moran asked if the trails in the back
are under the applicant’s purview, and Mr. Green stated no, they don’t cross their property, but
it is something they are actively exploring. Walkways/sidewalks and trails were added to the
Public Hearing Outline.
The Board proceeded to go through the Public Hearing Outline. Ms. Kramer asked about
emergency access, reference was made to the new driveway access bylaw, and Chief Slaman
stated this will be covered by the building code. Reference was made to the intended uses. Mr.
Benson asked for additional information regarding the restaurants, and Mr. Green stated one of
the pools will have a “golf club” type snack bar with a full beverage license downstairs, while
another pool will include an upstairs sports bar/food court cafe. Mr. Trendel asked about the
building elevations with the air-supported structures in place. Mr. Green stated he does not
think they have updated information, and reference was made to the dimensions of the original
design. It was noted the revised plan will be an improvement in that respect with less of it being
visible to anyone driving by. Ms. Kramer stated BETA comments were just delivered today,
but it appears there will be some stormwater management related conditions, and it was decided
to leave that item open for now.
The Board discussed the proposed lighting plan. Mr. Johnson noted he remembers it was an
active topic when the project first came before the Board, when they tried to explain that
limiting the poles to a 15 ft. height would result in a site littered with poles in order to achieve
the required lighting levels. He noted light cannot spill over onto abutting properties, and they
have some challenges here. Ms. Ritterbusch referred to complaints in this regard from abutters
about the lights at the High School turf fields, and she asked if this could be an issue here. It
was noted McIntyre Loam is across the street, while abutters on the Tennis Club side of the road
are the Rod & Gun Club to the south and the Windsor at Hopkinton apartments to the north.
Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked about the lighting plan for the pools and tennis courts during the
summer and Mr. Johnson noted they will be lit and, although the design has not been fully
completed, lighting should not be a problem based on elevations. Mr. D’Urso stated he does
not see an explanation for incorporating 18 ft. poles, and Mr. Johnson stated it is related to the
configuration of the parking lot. Ms. Ritterbusch noted it will be discussed at the Design
Review Board meeting. Mr. Paul asked about underground utilities, and Mr. Johnson stated
utilities will be taken off the existing pole and then go underground. It was noted the facility
will just have some security lighting when closed. It was noted that stormwater management
and feedback from the Design Review Board will be discussed at the next meeting. Mr. Trendel
asked if they could use the pool/tennis court lighting approach for the parking lot, and Mr.
Johnson stated that is not possible.
Ms. Ritterbusch asked the applicant to update the locus plan to show recent area development
and new streets. Mr. Paul asked the applicant to work with the utility company with respect to
underground utilities. Ms. Kramer noted there should be some collaboration with the schools
with respect to sidewalks as part of a long term plan. It was noted students would have to cross
the street twice and Ms. Kramer agreed that presents a challenge. Ms. Fein-Brug moved to
continue the public hearing to October 28, 2019, Mr. Trendel seconded the motion, and the
Board voted unanimously in favor. Ms. Kramer noted she won’t be there on October 28.
Continued Public Hearings - 0 Wood St./5 Mechanic St. - Commercial Solar Photovoltaic
Installation - 1) Special Permit Application; 2) Stormwater Management Permit
Application - Borrego Solar Systems, Inc.
Matthew Swansburg, product development manager, Brandon Smith and Louisa Deering, civil
engineers, Borrego Solar Systems, Inc., applicant, appeared before the Board. Mr. Smith noted
they submitted revised plans, and he described the changes made and the status of outstanding
issues. He noted after talking with the Fire Chief they reconfigured the access road and did
some calculations to make sure the roadway can support emergency vehicles, and Chief Slaman
has indicated the design is acceptable. He noted they have to make a few changes, specifically
regarding signage denoting maintenance and parking, to make sure there are no obstructions to
emergency vehicles. He noted in response to comments from BETA they added a swale
stormwater feature along the west side of the site to capture any runoff heading towards
Whitehall Brook. He noted the main change to the plan however is related to the location of the
electrical equipment. He noted Borrego Solar last Tuesday met with Eversource Energy and
Nancy Peters of the Woodville Historic District Commission, and they were able to work with
Eversource and be permitted to move the electrical equipment away from Wood St. and a close
residential abutter, also avoiding issues with respect to the Historic District so this change is a
win/win situation for everyone involved. He noted it includes one additional pole on Wood St.
and it is the best possible scenario for Borrego.
Mr. D’Urso noted he is pleased to see the new location of the electrical equipment, and the
applicant noted they are too. Ms. Kramer asked for clarification about the role of the utility
company in this regard, and Mr. Smith noted they have meet their standards and it also depends
on the configuration of the solar facility they are proposing, so there were a few things that fell
into place and they are just allowing one additional pole. Mr. Paradis stated the applicant
addressed the two outstanding issues and added a Low Impact Development (LID) infiltration
swale to mitigate runoff, addressed the turnaround issue - and if the Fire Chief is satisfied, he is
too. It was noted BETA’s September 19, 2019 letter predates these changes which just came
out last Tuesday and Borrego has not yet officially submitted plans showing the revised design.
Mr. Smith noted he is requesting a couple of outstanding items to be addressed through
conditions, including the requirement for geotechnical reports showing that the roadway can
handle the weight of the fire trucks, as well as the capacity of the culvert crossing. Mr. Smith
noted they will get those calculations ahead of the building permit application if that is ok with
the Board. There were no public comments. It was noted there are no issues with the intended
uses.
Mr. Paradis stated BETA is satisfied with the stormwater management design. Reference was
made to site lighting, and Mr. Smith lighting on the site complies with the bylaw and consists of
9 ft. tall LED fixtures, one on each equipment pad, facing down and used only when needed.
Reference was made to utilities - water and sewer - and it was noted it does not apply in this
case, and the applicant has figured out a solution for the undergrounding. In response to a
question of Mr. Paul, Mr. Smith explained the need for the additional pole and noted there is
essentially no way around it. It was noted the applicant already has requested a waiver for this
particular item.
Ms. Kramer referred to the parking lot layout, dumpster location, and snow storage/removal
items on the Public Hearing Outline, and stated she does not think there are any issues. Mr.
Smith noted they have to make sure there is access to the equipment areas, however Mr. Paradis
has asked about dedicated snow storage areas which will mostly be on the shoulders of the road,
as indicated on the plans. Ms. Kramer referred to noise, and noted they don’t anticipate any
issues in this respect. Ms. Kramer referred to crosswalk/sidewalk locations, and building
design/landscaping, and it was noted those items should be ok. Mr. Trendel stated he is curious
about screening because some of the past solar projects have been quite a challenge in terms of
appropriate screening from the abutters. Mr. Smith noted this is a great place for a solar farm
because of.the size of the parcel and actual location of the facility within the site. He described
the overall site layout, and noted the closest abutters would be members of the property owner’s
family, while the other closest residential abutter is 2,000 ft. away on Wood St. He noted the
site is adjacent to Rt. 495 to the east, and Town property to the west. He noted there is basically
zero visibility to the Town’s residents although it may be somewhat visible from Rt. 495. Ms.
Kramer asked if the applicant has to go before the Woodville Historic District Commission, and
Ms. Ritterbusch stated it would be up to the District whether or not a certificate of
appropriateness is required. Mr. Smith noted they met with the Commission last week and
asked them to submit their recommendations to the Planning Board in writing. He stated Ms.
Peters seemed quite pleased when leaving the meeting, but he will follow up if necessary.
Ms. Kramer asked about signage, and Mr. Smith noted they will provide what is required by the
national electric code, some signage on the gate with emergency contact information, and any
signage requested by the Fire Chief. Mr. Smith provided additional details as to placement and
locations at the request of the Board. It was noted there would be no impact on schools or value
of abutting residential properties. Mr. Gelcich noted there are no outstanding comments from
other boards and committees. Ms. Kramer noted the hearing will be continued pending
submittal of revised plans. It was determined that comments from the Zoning Enforcement
Officer with respect to the status of Mechanic St. were included in the meeting packet for
tonight. There were no public comments. It was noted the applicant is before the Conservation
Commission but the process has not yet been completed, and there have been some pretty
significant plan changes since the initial filing. Ms. Fein-Brug asked if the plan before the
Board tonight shows the wetlands vs. the new location of the electrical equipment, and Mr.
Smith noted there is some overlap but it represents a previously disturbed area. Mr. D’Urso
moved to continue the public hearings to October 28, 2019, and extend the decision deadline for
the Stormwater Management Permit application to November 7, 2019, Ms. Fein-Brug seconded
the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Continued Public Hearings - Hopkinton-Ashland Transfer Line Replacement Project - 1)
Earth Removal Application; 2) Stormwater Management Permit Application - Eversource
Energy
Matthew Waldrip, Eversource Energy, applicant, and Richard Paquette and Sean Berthiaume,
TRC, engineers, appeared before the Board. Mr. Paquette noted since the last meeting they had
submitted a response to BETA, and then in response received feedback from BETA as well as
Town Counsel. He stated at the last meeting they had not yet heard back from the Board of
Health, but since then received an email response. Mr. Paquette noted he also provided Mr.
Gelcich with a redacted version of the archeological report discussed at the last meeting. Ms.
Kramer asked about sending the report to the Hopkinton Historical Commission, and Mr.
Gelcich noted they talked about it and he does not know if a decision was actually made, but a
redacted version has now been made available to him and the Board, so he is not sure whether it
is still necessary to send it to them. Mr. Paradis noted the major issues will be during
construction, namely erosion control and making sure there is no impact on stormwater
management.
Mr. Gelcich stated he has no additional comments at this time.
Ms.Kramer asked for public comments. Mavis O’Leary, 11 Curtis Rd., stated she would like to
add abutter concerns to the discussion, and Ms. Kramer asked for clarification. Ms. Kramer
asked how the applicant will address construction as they go through the various properties,
exercising their easement rights. Mr. Berthiaume noted they have sent out several notices to
direct abutters and abutters within 300 ft., have held 2 public information meetings as of today,
and they will send a letter and/or place door hangers to notify abutters of the project well in
advance. He noted a large portion of the construction site abuts Liberty Mutual and it involves
about 10 different property owners in Hopkinton. Ms. O’Leary stated she is here on behalf of
the Hopkinton Area Land Trust (HALT), and they just want to know what is happening. Mr.
Berthiaume stated assuming all permits will be in place, construction will start in the spring of
2020 (March/April time frame depending on the weather), getting to the HALT parcel later in
the year, and they would probably continue the work for a short period in 2021. Ms. O’Leary
noted there are some structures in the easement, such as a Boy Scouts bench and HALT
information signs, and it is her understanding they would be removed and put back. Mr.
Berthiaume noted they are aware of this issue, and will protect the HALT structures whether in
or away from the easement, and Eversource has no objection to cover this via a condition of
approval. He noted they will also make sure the walking trails will have signage alerting people
to ongoing construction activities.
Mr. Trendel noted when they talked about access to the areas to be dug up, it was noted that the
lack of space for equipment was one of the reasons for not removing the existing pipe. He
asked whether there has been any additional discussion on this issue. Mr. Berthiaume noted
access to the site will be from Cross St., both east and west, and they are working with the
owner of the last property in Hopkinton regarding potential access to the easement in that
location. He noted the old line will remain active until the new section is installed, and then be
decommissioned. Mr. Trendel asked how they propose keeping mud and debris off the public
roads during construction and Mr. Berthiaume noted they plan to utilize a “track pad”. Mr.
Waldrip noted they will also have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Mr.
D’Urso asked how they will switch from the 6 in. to the 12 in. pipe, and Mr. Berthiaume
explained the process noting there won’t be anything left above ground. There were no
comments regarding intended uses, stormwater management, site lighting, utilities and parking,
snow and noise. Reference was made to the noise bylaw/construction hours, and Mr.
Berthiaume noted the only operation that potentially could go beyond normal hours would be
the pressure test performed by a handful of technicians but with no machines or noise associated
with it. There were no comments on crosswalks, landscaping, and it was stated there would be
temporary signage warning people of ongoing construction activities. It was noted that there
will be no impact on the schools or other municipal services. Mr. Trendel asked if there will be
any notification to the schools, in case there is a need to close the road for a period of time,
which would also be an issue for garbage collection, etc. Mr. Berthiaume noted that is
definitely something they can do, although they do not intend to close the road in connection
with this project. Ms. Kramer asked about any open issues brought up by other Town
departments, boards and committees, and Mr. Gelcich noted he does not know of any. Mr.
Trendel asked if there is anything in the Board of Health letter that needs to be addressed, and
Mr. Gelcich noted there are some issues but they can be addressed by means of a condition. Mr.
Benson expressed concerns about leaving the decommissioned 6 in. pipe in the ground. He
asked how long it will take for the pipe to start rusting, and Mr. Berthiaume noted he cannot
provide a timeline.
Mr. D’Urso referred to comments he made at the September 9 meeting with respect to ongoing
gas leak problems in Town. He noted that based on the information provided on www.heet.org,
out of the 57 leaks reported, only 9 were repaired. He noted he would like the utility company
to do a better job addressing this problem and he does not see the point in moving forward with
something that could make things worse. Mr. Berthiaume stated he cannot speak to that issue.
Mr. Paul stated the project before the Board concerns improvements to the Hopkinton-Ashland
transfer line, and he does not think the Board can hold the applicant hostage on account of the
leaks. Mr. D’Urso stated the improvements will increase capacity from one region to another
and increase the risks. Ms. Kramer asked the Board members about their level of concern with
the reported leaks, and Ms. Ritterbusch stated it is a statewide problem but fixing the pipeline
would be an improvement. Mr. Berthiaume noted the pressure in the line will remain the same.
He stated the most serious (Level 1) leaks when detected are fixed immediately. Mr. Waldrip
noted he will look into the issue and review the data. Mr. Paul stated he appreciates Mr.
D’Urso’s concern, and Ms. Moran agreed although it is off topic. Ms. Larson-Marlowe noted
she is concerned and it would be nice if the company could give them some information, but she
is not in favor of holding up this project because of this, and Mr. Benson agreed. Mr. Trendel
noted he shares some of Mr. D’Urso’s frustration, but agrees that this issue is not in the purview
of the current applications. Ms. Fein-Brug noted the website refers to 57 leaks, but it does not
give additional information on the issue at the Wilson St. LNG facility which releases gas
intentionally from time to time. She noted she agrees the issue is not related to the transfer line
replacement project. It was noted the hearings will be continued giving the applicant an
opportunity to respond, but the Town has not enjoyed a lot of responsiveness from Eversource.
It was noted the information is posted on www.heet.org and the Board would also like to see the
numbers for 2019. Mr. Trendel stated decommissioning pipelines is standard practice, although
he is not saying that the way this is done is right or wrong. Mr. D’Urso moved to continue the
public hearings to October 28, 2019 and extend the decision deadlines to November 7, 2019, by
mutual agreement, Ms. Ritterbusch seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in
favor.
Other Business - 6th Amendment to Legacy Farms Host Community Agreement (HCA)
/Museum Parcel Issue - Discussion
Ms. Kramer noted Ms. Fein-Brug has drafted a letter to the Select Board, which is now in the
public purview but not on the agenda, so she has mixed feelings about discussing the specifics
tonight. She suggested Board members provide input/comments to her directly and she will
make a decision on whether to send the letter or not. She noted it concerns a letter asserting that
the HCA language identifying the museum parcel as the museum parcel seems a little
premature, considering that at town meeting the residents were asked about adding cultural uses
to the municipal parcel on East Main St. so that a museum could potentially be there. Mr.
D’Urso noted there are some general good points in the letter, and Ms. Kramer asked Mr.
D’Urso to comment to her directly. After further discussion, Ms. Kramer suggested Mr. D’Urso
research this issue and include the results in his comments sent directly to her.
Mr. Trendel moved to adjourn the meeting, Mr. D’Urso seconded the motion, and the Board
voted unanimously in favor.
Adjourned: 10:20 P.M.
Submitted by:Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
Approved:November 25, 2019
Documents used at the Meeting:
●Agenda for Hopkinton Planning Board meeting, October 7, 2019
●Memorandum to Planning Board from John Gelcich, Principal Planner, dated October 3, 2019, re: Items
on Planning Board Agenda, October 7, 2019
●Subdivision Rules and Regulations - Town of Hopkinton - Amended 2014
●Plans entitled Site Use Plans 0 Wood Street, Hopkinton, MA, 01748, revised through 9/30/19, prepared by
Borrego Solar
●Plans entitled Eversource Energy Hopkinton-Ashland Transfer Line Replacement Project Towns of
Hopkinton & Ashland Middlesex County, Massachusetts, dated March 18, 2019, prepared by Tri-Mont
Engineering Company; Letter to John Gelcich, Principal Planner, Land Use, Planning & Permit
Department, from Shaun McAuliffe, Health Director, dated September 25, 2019, re: 2nd Response to
Comments/Storm Water & Earth Removal Plan, Review Comments, Eversource Energy-Transfer Line
Pipeline Easement Wilson Street, Hopkinton, MA
●Draft Letter to Select Board, re 6th Amendment to Legacy Farms Host Community Agreement