HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180409 - Planning Board - Agenda1
TOWN OF HOPKINTON
PLANNING BOARD Monday, April 9, 2018 7:00 P.M. HCAM-TV Studio A, 77 Main St./Lower Level, Hopkinton, MA
AGENDA
7:00 Continued Public Hearings – Chamberlain Street/Whalen Road: 1) Definitive
Subdivision Plan Application; 2) Flexible Community Development (FCD) Special
Permit Application; 3) Scenic Road Application, Joint Hearing with Tree Warden –
REC Hopkinton, LLC
Proposed 32-lot single family subdivision between Chamberlain Street and Whalen Road;
payment-in-lieu of 3 affordable housing units; and proposed removal of one 6” quadruple
maple, four 8” maples, one 10” double maple, two 12” maples, one 16” maple, one 16” double maple, one 18” maple, one 28” maple, two 24” maples, one 30” maple, one 6”
oak, one 8” oak, one 24” oak, and one 8” pine along the unimproved section of
Chamberlain Street, as well as three 12” maples, one triple 8” maple, one 9” maple, one
12” double maple, one 8” maple along the improved section of Chamberlain Street; plus
temporary disturbance of 48 linear feet of stone wall for road improvements in connection with the construction of said subdivision.
9:00 Public Hearing - Site Plan Review – Minor Project – 84, 86, 88, 92 West Main Street
– Global Companies, LLC Proposed gasoline filling station/retail sales/donut shop on a 1.7 acre property fronting on West Main Street, Elm Street, and Lumber Street Extension, with 24 parking spaces and
driveway access to West Main Street and Elm Street. An existing gasoline filling
station/retail sales/donut shop building and associated facilities, and a single family
home, would be demolished.
10:00 Adjourn
Business to be considered by the Board at any time during the meeting:
Approval Not Required Plan – 32 Lumber Street – Hopkinton Stone and Gardens Inc.
Approval Not Required Plan – 34 Lumber Street – Three Brothers Properties Irrevocable
Trust, Jane Nadeau Cody
Review Street Acceptance Report to Board of Selectmen, for 4/10/18 Public Hearing
Approve Minutes (3/12/18)
Board member reports and future agenda items
Correspondence
TOWN OF HOPKINTON
DEPARTMENT OF
LAND USE, PLANNING AND PERMITTING
TOWN HALL 18 MAIN STREET HOPKINTON, MA 01748
508-497-9745
www.hopkintonma.gov
DATE: March 22, 2018
TO: Planning Board FROM: Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use and Town Operations
RE: Items on March 26, 2018 Planning Board Agenda
1. Continued Public Hearings – Chamberlain St./Whalen Rd. – Definitive Subdivision,
FCD Special Permit, Scenic Road Permit The Planning Board has received three applications:
Definitive Subdivision Plan – decision due 4/30/18 – majority vote
Flexible Community Development special permit – decision due 90 days from close of public hearing – 2/3 vote
Scenic Road permit for work on Chamberlain Street – decision due 21 days from close of public hearing – majority vote The public hearing is continued from 1/22/18, 2/12/18 (no discussion), 3/12/18 and 3/26/18. All members may vote on the applications. The following materials have been received since the
last hearing:
Letter dated 4/2/18 from MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc. regarding traffic calming measures;
Letter dated 4/2/18 from Bohler Engineering responding to BETA review comments;
Revised subdivision plans dated 4/2/18;
Revised drainage report 4/2/18;
Letter dated 4/3/18 from Gary Trendel, 31 Chamberlain St. The following waivers from the provisions of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations are requested:
§8.2.1.D Centerline Radius: The Applicant seeks a waiver from the 150 ft. centerline radius requirement at the bend in the “unimproved” portion of Chamberlain St. Forty feet would be provided – radius is limited by the existing road right of way. §8.2.3 Street Width: The Applicant seeks a waiver from providing a minimum of 22 foot width
for minor streets for the 410± foot section of the “unimproved” portion of Chamberlain Street. §8.3.1 Sidewalks: The Applicant seeks a waiver from providing a sidewalk on one side of the
2
street for the 410± foot section of the “unimproved” portion of Chamberlain Street.
BETA recommends considering that this new development will be within walking distance of public schools. §8.2.5.A Dead Ends: The Applicant seeks a waiver from dead end streets not being approved except where exceptional circumstances existing in the opinion of the Board. Exceptional circumstances may be: severe environmental conditions which render a through road
detrimental to the environment, when such a through road complies with all other local and state regulations, include wetlands regulations; Open Space and Landscape Preservation Development. The Applicant is proposing to create two dead end street extensions and connect them via gated emergency access road. §8.2.5.B Dead Ends: The Applicant seeks a waiver from dead end streets not exceeding 500 feet
in length. Both Whalen Road and Chamberlain Street extension exceed 500 feet. The emergency access road connecting both roads is proposed to be gated and closed to the general public. This will limit any increase in traffic at the site. The Whalen Road extension is 1,333± feet while the Chamberlain Street extension is 2,626± feet. §8.2.5.D Dead Ends: The Applicant seeks a waiver from the prohibition of a dead end street
serving as access to another dead end street. The Applicant has stated that the project will extend two existing dead end streets, not provide access to one another. The emergency access road will be gated off and only accessible to maintenance and emergency vehicles.
BETA Group peer review comments – Letter reports dated 1-11-18 and 2-8-18.
The Board has received the following comments from Town boards/departments – Applicant Responses are noted (no change since the previous hearing):
Department of Public Works (John Westerling, Director of Public Works):
Email dated 2/6/18: I recommend that the drainage basins within the proposed Whalen/Chamberlain subdivision not become the responsibility of the Town. These are a major maintenance issue for the Town and represent a long-term cost to the Town. Their ownership and maintenance should be the responsibility of a neighborhood association or an
otherwise private entity.
Applicant Response: Upon completion of the subdivision, a neighborhood association
will be established that will be responsible for the cost and maintenance of the
stormwater basins.
Email dated 12/20/17 from John Westerling, Director: As Director of Public Works, I have
many questions: 1. The plan proposes an emergency access: i) What are the design elements of that access?
Applicant Response: REC Hopkinton LLC proposes to access the new subdivision
through an extension of two existing dead end streets – Whalen Rd. and
Chamberlain St. – connected via an 18’ wide paved gated Emergency Access
connector. This roadway design would mitigate concerns raised by the Whalen Rd.
and Chamberlain St. neighbors regarding increased traffic through their
neighborhoods with a through road while still providing proper emergency vehicle
and snowplow access. Sliding or swinging electric gates will be installed at both the
Whalen Rd. and Chamberlain St. cul-de-sac entrances to the Emergency Access
3
connector. Gates will be electronically operated and equipped with a means of
opening the gate by both the Fire department personnel for emergency access and
the DPW personnel for maintenance and snow plowing. Emergency opening devices
shall be submitted for approval by the fire code official. ii) Who will maintain that access?
Applicant Response: The Emergency Access connector, along with the extensions of
Chamberlain Street and Whalen Road through the proposed subdivision, will be
submitted to the Town for acceptance upon completion of the construction of the
roads. iii) How will emergency services access the emergency access during winter storms?
Applicant Response: Sliding or swinging electric gates will be installed at both the
Whalen Rd. and Chamberlain St. cul-de-sac entrances to the Emergency Access
connector. Gates will be electronically operated and equipped with a means of
opening the gate by both the Fire Dept. personnel for emergency access and the
DPW personnel for maintenance and snow plowing. Emergency opening devices
shall be submitted for approval by the fire code official. iv) How will access be limited?
Applicant Response: Gates will be electronically operated and equipped with a
means of opening the gate by only the Fire Department personnel for emergency
access and the Department of Public Works personnel for maintenance and snow
plowing.
Upper Charles Trail Committee (Letter dated 2/3/18 with map): The UCTC requests the following (each of which is illustrated on the map provided):
To consider trail accessibility by requesting an easement from the developer from Chamberlain St (to gain access to the Stone Foundation) between lots 14 and 15, that would
connect to the trail on the east side of the property that would connect to HHS Athletic field #11.
Applicant Response: We have included a trail connection between lots 14 and 15 via a
strip of land to be included as Open Space.
To consider widening the proposed trail next to lot #1 to accommodate passage for horse trailers and to allow for a turnaround area for horse trailers on the open space, (in back of lots 1-2) uplands area so that the residents can benefit by having access to the existing bridle paths throughout the proposed Open Space (to the rear of lots 1-32 on the west side), which
ultimately leads to Berry Acres.
Applicant Response: The open space parcel next to lot 1 is not wide enough to support
the creation of a road or cart path adequate in size to allow for a two-way vehicle/horse
trailer passage. In addition, a wetland crossing would be required for vehicle access.
There is not adequate space behind lot 1 and lot 2, outside of the wetland areas and
associated buffer zones, to allow for parking and turnaround for vehicle/horse trailers.
Also, stone walls would have to be permanently removed at the proposed paring area
location within the Open Space. Sections of the “improved” portion of Chamberlain St.
that are proposed to be widened to only 18 ft. and the 90 degree turn into the
“unimproved” portion of Chamberlain St. are not ideal for accommodating horse
trailers.
4
To consider a sidewalk/pathway (on Town property in back of lots 16-20) that would connect the proposed trail in back of lots 14-16, that would ultimately connect to the existing Chamberlain Street.
Applicant Response: The proposed sidewalk/pathway is not on land owned by REC
Hopkinton and therefore not considered within the scope of this definitive plan.
To consider a 2’ wide (or wider where possible) stone dust shoulder along the existing Chamberlain St, to accommodate children and residents for safe passage along the road due to increased traffic.
Applicant Response: REC Hopkinton will defer to direction provided by the Planning
Board in regards to a stone dust shoulder along the existing Chamberlain St. In an
effort to minimize impacts to abutter’s property, to trees and to stone walls along this
section of Chamberlain St., we have proposed to only widen the existing roadway to
allow two-way traffic flow and emergency vehicle access in a manner consistent with
other sections of Chamberlain St.
To grant permission to place “Trail Head” signs to identify access to trails at locations indicated on the map.
Applicant Response: If allowed and approved by the Planning Board, REC Hopkinton
would purchase and install the trail head signs requested by the UCTC.
Definitive Subdivision Plan Approval/Disapproval The Planning Board must approve a definitive subdivision plan which complies with the Rules
and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land adopted by the Board (the “Subdivision Regulations”). Items of noncompliance are those for which waivers are requested.
The Subdivision Regulations provision regarding waivers (7.1) states that (bold added):
In accordance with MGL ch. 41 sec. 81R, strict compliance with these regulations may be waived when, in the judgement of the Board, such action is in the public interest
and not inconsistent with the intent of the subdivision control law or these
regulations. All waiver requests must be in writing, identify the regulation being
considered, and be submitted to the Board at the time of plan submittal. Construction waivers may be considered by the Board after the plan is approved. When a definitive subdivision plan is denied, the items of noncompliance are listed in the
decision so that the applicant may modify the plan to comply with the Regulations, and the
Board’s decision is then revoked and the new plan approved (following a public hearing process). FCD Special Permit:
The FCD bylaw requires that residential developments with 10 lots/units or more provide
affordable housing, by providing a required number of units (1 for every 10 in the development). The Board can approve a payment in lieu of providing units at its discretion. The application proposes making a payment in lieu of providing the 3 units required. The bylaw requires that the payment equal the purchase price of a 3-bedroom home that is affordable to a qualified affordable unit purchaser, and references the state’s Local Initiative Program guidelines. With
respect to timing, the Board’s adopted FCD Regulations which state that “the timing of payments shall be made according to a schedule agreed upon by the Planning Board and the applicant and
5
contained within the Special Permit. It is the intent that payments would be made at about the
same time that the affordable unit, had it been constructed, would have been provided. However, the applicant may propose an alternate schedule subject to approval of the Planning Board.” The bylaw requires that if a unit is provided, it be “provided coincident to the development of market-rate units”.
In accordance with the Board’s adopted FCD Regulations, “the amount shall be calculated and sales price verified by DHCD within 45 days of when the payment will be made, not at the time of special permit application”. Variables include the area median income as determined by HUD and mortgage interest rates. The payment would be deposited into the Town’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Recently, the Planning Board asked for the balance in the Fund – it is
$562,050.58. The financial aspects of the fund are handled by the Town Finance Dept. Administratively, the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board is empowered to undertake various activities/expenditures with the funds. For reference, see General Bylaws Chapter 5, Article VII, Hopkinton Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board, and M.G.L. Ch. 44 Section 55C. The purpose of the Fund is to provide for the creation and preservation of affordable housing in Hopkinton for
the benefit of low and moderate income households. Scenic Road Permit Following the site walk, the Applicant has included additional trees to the list for removal, and temporary disturbance of 45 linear feet of stone wall. Please see the letter dated 3/5/18 from the
applicant, the list entitled “Scenic Road Public Hearing Narrative” and accompanying plans. The Scenic Road By-law provides as follows:
§ 160-6. Criteria for work projects. The Planning Board’s decision on any application for proposed work affecting scenic roads shall be based on consideration of the following criteria:
A. The degree to which the proposed work would adversely affect the scenic and aesthetic values upon which the scenic road designation was originally based. B. The necessity for the proposed work in terms of public safety, welfare, or convenience.
C. Compensatory action proposed, such as replacement of trees or walls. D. Availability of reasonable alternatives to the proposed work which could reduce or eliminate anticipated damage to trees or stone walls.
E. Whether the proposed work would compromise or harm other environmental or historical
values. F. Consistency of the proposed work with previously adopted Town plans and policies.
Subdivision - List of Potential Conditions of Approval
Site Specific Conditions (Unless sufficient details are shown on a revised plan)
6
(a) Traffic calming measures TBD (b) Emergency gate details TBD (c) Signage/markings at the Chamberlain St. bend (d) Sidewalks along Whalen Road (e) Sidewalks along Chamberlain St. – Existing Sections? Proposed Sections?
Standard definitive plan conditions: 1. After finding that it was in the public interest and not inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Subdivision Control Law, the Planning Board waived strict compliance with the following provisions of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations:
(a) LIST WAIVERS GRANTED (see pages 1 & 2 for the list of requested waivers) 2. IF PRIVATE STORMWATER MAINTENANCE: Maintenance of all stormwater management facilities shown on the Subdivision Plan shall be the responsibility of a homeowners association and not the Town of Hopkinton. The Maintenance Agreement shall
include a provision which allows the Town of Hopkinton to perform emergency work, and for reimbursement therefor. IF TOWN MAINTENANCE OF STORMWATER: In order to facilitate compliance with Section 12.1.4 of the Subdivision Regulations, the Applicant shall provide the Board with an
estimate of the cost to maintain the stormwater management system for a period of five (5) years from the date of street acceptance. Such estimate shall be provided to the Board for review at the time a performance guarantee estimate is submitted in accordance with Section 7.6 of the Subdivision Regulations.
3. Roadway and infrastructure construction shown on the Subdivision Plan shall be completed within ___ (_) [5?] years from the start of construction or this approval shall be automatically rescinded, unless such time is extended by the Planning Board at the request of the Applicant. If construction has not commenced within ___ (_) [5?] years from the date of this approval, such approval shall be automatically rescinded.
4. There shall be a maximum of 32 building lots in the subdivision. This condition shall be written on the Subdivision Plan prior to endorsement. 5. Prior to the Planning Board's endorsement of the Subdivision Plan, the Applicant shall
execute an Agreement with the Planning Board, that no lot depending on the new roadways for their legal frontage shall be sold, or buildings or structures erected or placed on, or building permits issued with respect to any such lot, until: a) The work on the ground necessary to adequately serve such lot has been completed in accordance with the contents of the Subdivision Plan and Profile and with the
Subdivision Rules and Regulations and that all other requirements of the Subdivision
Rules and Regulations have been fully complied with; or b) The Applicant has executed a contract with the Planning Board, accompanied by appropriate security to secure performance, to complete construction of the roadways in accordance with the Subdivision Rules and Regulations, on or before a date specified in
7
the contract;
c) The Applicant has recorded in the Registry of Deeds (or Land Court) a certificate executed by the Planning Board that the above conditions with respect to any such lot have been completed or have been amended, modified, revoked, waived or released by the Planning Board.
7. An additional amount shall be added to the performance guarantee for this subdivision to cover potential remedial work required in the event that any element of the stormwater management system shown on the Subdivision Plan does not function as intended during construction.
8. Street trees shall be planted as shown on the Subdivision Plan and in accordance with the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. The Board encourages the Applicant to retain trees in the road right of way when possible. The Applicant shall consult with the Tree Warden with regard to species and location, prior to planting.
9. Tree stumps and building scrap materials shall be removed and shall not be buried on the site. However, material intended for future use may be stockpiled on the Site and maintained in a neat and workmanlike manner. 10. The Applicant shall maintain all portions of any public way used for construction access free
of soil, mud or debris deposited due to use by construction vehicles associated with the subdivision, and shall regularly sweep such areas as necessary. 11. All potential safety hazards that may exist in the subdivision from time to time during the period of construction shall be adequately secured prior to the end of each work day.
12. No earth products shall be delivered to the site which are not for use on the property. No earth shall be stripped or excavated and removed from areas of the site unless for road, infrastructure, home or lawful accessory use construction. No earth processing operations shall occur on the site, unless earth products are to be combined and/or mixed for use on the
property. All piles of stockpiled earth shall be stabilized with adequate dust and erosion controls. All piles of earth shall be removed from the subdivision upon completion of construction of the road and infrastructure. Any piles remaining after that time shall be solely in conjunction with an active permit for construction of sewage disposal system, building or lawful accessory use. Any violation of this provision may result in a stop work
order or plan rescission. 13. Erosion control measures to prevent siltation onto wetlands, neighboring properties and roads during construction shall be implemented. Erosion and sediment control provisions are shown on the definitive Subdivision Plans. The erosion control documentation submitted
shall be implemented and followed during construction. During construction, if these plans
are found to be inadequate by the Planning Board, a new erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted to the Board for review and approval. In the event that erosion and sedimentation problems arise during construction, the Planning Board may require that all work cease until measures necessary to ensure prevention are implemented.
8
14. No building permits shall be issued or any construction in the subdivision allowed until approval for such work has been obtained from the Conservation Commission for areas affected by the Wetlands Protection Act and the Hopkinton Wetlands Protection Bylaw (Chapter 206 of the Bylaws of the Town of Hopkinton).
15. Disturbed areas for roadway and infrastructure construction shall be loamed and seeded during construction as soon as possible. 16. The street names shall be approved by the Board of Selectmen prior to endorsement and
recording of the Subdivision Plan. The street signs shall be erected by the Applicant prior to the issuance of building permits. 17. During construction, streets shall be swept and catch basin sumps shall be cleaned regularly, at least twice a year or as otherwise directed in an Order of Conditions issued by the
Conservation Commission. Proposed FCD Special Permit Condition: The Applicant shall contribute funds to the Town of Hopkinton Affordable Housing Trust Fund in lieu of constructing or providing three affordable housing units on or off-site. The fees shall
be calculated by following the guidelines below, however the final calculated sales price per unit must be verified by the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) as meeting the qualifications for inclusion on the Ch. 40B Subsidized Housing Inventory. (a) The fee shall be an amount equal to the maximum sales price of a 3-bedroom home that is affordable to a qualified affordable housing unit purchaser, as contained in the Local
Initiative Program (760 CMR 45.00), multiplied by the two units which will not be provided. The amount shall be calculated and sales price verified by DHCD within 45 days of when the first payment will be made. (b) The affordable maximum sales price shall be determined based on low and moderate income households spending no more than 30% of their income on housing costs.
Housing costs include all payments made towards the principal and interest of any mortgages placed on the unit, property taxes, and insurance, as well as homeownership, neighborhood association or condominium fee. (c) For the purposes of the calculation, household income applicable to the unit must be based on certain assumptions about the size of the family most likely to occupy the unit.
In order to calculate the sales price of a 3-bedroom unit, the calculation shall assume a four-person household. (d) The timing of payments shall be made according to the following schedule: The calculated amount shall be divided by 30 and a payment made prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first 30 dwelling units in the project.
Scenic Road Permit Conditions Conditions would address/require mitigation, including:
Replacement of stone walls that will be temporarily removed and/or construction of new walls;
9
Planting new street trees or the donation of funds to the Town for planting of new street trees in the general vicinity.
2. Public Hearing – Site Plan Review – 84, 86, 88, 92 West Main Street – Global
Companies, LLC An application for Minor Project Site Plan Review has been submitted to the Board. A decision is due by 4/30/18 and a majority vote is required for approval. Applications have also been submitted to the Board of Appeals (special permit for the use; dimensional variances) and the Conservation Commission. The Board of Appeals hearing opened on 2/28, and has been continued to 4/25. The Con. Comm. hearing process is underway, with the next scheduled for
5/1/18. The Board’s deadline for filing a decision is April 30, but the project requires special permits/variances from the Board of Appeals which must be granted before the Planning Board can approve the Site Plan, because Site Plan Standard H requires that the plan comply with all
zoning requirements. At the conclusion of discussion at this meeting, the Board should request a
continuance of the public hearing to the May 14 meeting, and request that the applicant grant an extension of time to file the decision to May 21 (to give staff and board reviewers one week to write and review the decision before filing with the Town Clerk).
The application proposes the demolition of the existing gas station/retail sales building, gas
island canopy and single family home, and construction of a new gas station/retail sales building on a parcel that currently consists of 4 lots. The parcel will front on West Main St., Elm St. and Lumber St. Extension, with access to Elm St. and West Main St. One condition of approval should be that the lots are combined prior to the application for a building permit.
Zoning District: Rural Business; Water Resources Protection Overlay District Building Size: 3,840 sq. ft. Parking Spaces: 24 provided; 15 required Lot Area: 1.7 acres (73,122 sq. ft.)
Lot Coverage by Buildings: 5.2%
Indoor Seats: 12 Outdoor Seats: 24 Number of service islands: 4
BETA’s peer review report is pending.
Design Review Board – The DRB reviewed the plans at its 3/20 meeting, at which the applicants described the project. Members expressed concerns about the design, as follows (from the draft minutes):
The design looks very modern and out of place. Alltown has a more traditional look in Westborough.
Tone it down quite a bit, like the DRB had requested for Cumberland Farms across the street.
The overall the lot design is better, has good sight lines, and easy access to Elmwood Office Park.
10
The large “A” sign is too big, should be scaled down, 10’ is too large.
Consider some dark green accents rather than aqua. Maybe a green metal roof.
The Board recommended lower light levels, goosenecks for example.
The Board suggested more detail in the rear, since it will be seen from the office park,
maybe staff members will likely be coming from there for lunch and snacks.
The Design Review Board will look at the landscaping and parking lot in more detail at the next meeting.
Section 210-136.2, Decision Criteria, of the Site Plan Review section of the zoning bylaw, states the following with respect to the Board’s action on the application: The Planning Board shall issue a “Decision of Site Plan Review” in one of the following
forms:
A. A written approval of the application subject to any reasonable conditions, modifications and restrictions relating to the Site Plan Standards contained in Section 210-136.1; or
B. Disapproval of the application if the Applicant fails to furnish the information, materials or fees required in this Article or by the Submission Requirements and Procedures adopted by the Planning Board, or if the application and site plan present a problem so intractable so as to admit of no reasonable solution.
Site Plan Standards (§210-136.1): The site plan shall be designed to conform to the following Site Plan Standards. I have indicated after each whether the submitted plan appears to comply with the standard, pending BETA’s more detailed review.
Site Plan Standard Compliance Review A. Site disturbance in wetland buffer zones and to slopes in excess of 25% shall be minimized.
Wetland buffer zones have been delineated and a Notice of Intent has been submitted to the Conservation Commission. The public
hearing process is underway. No steep
slopes.
B. Unique natural and historic features shall
be preserved whenever feasible, and the use of § 210-117.2, Lots with Historic Structures, shall be considered as a mechanism to do so, where appropriate.
The Historical Commission has reviewed the
proposed demolition of the house at 86 West Main Street and has determined that it is not Preferably Preserved (pursuant to the Historic Preservation bylaw). C. Tree, vegetation and soil removal shall be minimized. The existing parcel is predominantly open and generally flat. D. The site activities shown on the Site Plan shall be screened from view from abutting properties in residential use. Methods of screening may include solid fencing,
landscaping or other proposals of the
The Board should determine whether additional screening is needed on the east and north sides of the property (abutting Lumber St. Ext. and Elm St.).
11
Applicant, subject to review by the Planning Board. Such screening may be located on or off-site. If located off-site,
written permission of the off-site property
owner shall be provided to the Board.
E. All utilities shall be underground. Applicant should clarify whether this is the
case.
F. Exposed storage areas, machinery, service
areas, truck loading areas, utility buildings and structures and other similar uses shall be visually screened from abutting properties and those using public ways. Screening methods may consist of solid
fencing, landscaping or similar proposals
submitted by the Applicant, subject to review by the Planning Board.
Additional screening from Elm St. may be
needed, between the building and the street.
G. The site plan shall show measures to
reduce and abate noise and odors generated from the site that will impact surrounding properties.
H. The site plan shall comply with all zoning requirements. The applicant has applied for variances from the Board of Appeals. The Planning Board may not approve the Site Plan until the
variances have been granted and/or variances
are no longer needed.
I. The site plan shall maximize the
convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and to and from adjacent public ways. If supporting documentation, such as a traffic or parking study, submitted to the
Planning Board indicates that the vehicular and pedestrian traffic movement depicted on the site plan and proposed in the application will have a significant negative impact or impacts on the site or
within the adjacent ways, such impacts shall be mitigated by the Applicant.
Review of the traffic study by BETA is
pending.
J. Parking areas shall be designed so that
they are safe and convenient and do not detract from the use and enjoyment of proposed structures. Parking areas shall be designed to facilitate safe pedestrian
access to the structures and other on-site
facilities.
BETA review is pending.
12
K. The site plan shall minimize the number of curb cuts on public ways. Four curb cuts are proposed – two on West Main St. and two on Elm St. The same number of curb cuts exists at this time, for
two separate uses (3 for the gas station, 1 for
the house).
L. Driveways shall be designed to ensure
safe sight distances at interior and exterior intersections and along driveways, in accordance with applicable AASHTO requirements.
BETA review is pending.
M. Sidewalks shall be provided along the entire frontage of the subject property along existing public ways. The Planning
Board may approve alternative provisions
or waive the requirements of this Standard in situations where sidewalk construction or use is not feasible or practical.
A sidewalk is not provided along Elm Street.
N. Levels of illumination shall be provided as follows: (1) No property may have exterior
lighting that exceeds the average
illumination level recommended by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America for such use as set forth in “Lighting Facilities for
Parking Facilities,” Illuminating
Engineering Society, 2014 and “The Lighting Handbook,” 10th Ed., Illuminating Engineering Society, 2011.
(2) For pole mounted lights in parking
and driveway areas, the height of the light source shall not exceed 15 feet, which shall be measured from the ground at the base of the pole to the
bottom of the fixture.
(3) Pedestrian area lighting shall utilize fully shielded fixtures, and the height of light source shall not exceed 12 feet, measured from the ground at the base of the pole to the bottom of the
fixture. (4) No exterior lighting may interfere with the safe movement of motor vehicles on public ways or private ways open to the public.
Review by BETA is pending.
13
(5) Mercury vapor lamps shall be prohibited. (6) Uplighting shall be permitted only
when used in one of the following
manners: (a) To light a primary entrance, when the fixture or lamp is wall-mounted under an architectural
element (e.g., roofs over
walkways, entries or overhanging, nontranslucent eaves) so that the uplighting is fully captured; (b) To light local, state or national
flags; or
(c) To highlight or illuminate a building facade or landscaping, or to highlight or illuminate statues or monuments.
(7) Floodlighting shall be permitted only
if a fully shielded fixture is utilized and no lighting will fall onto the property of others. (8) Safety and security lighting shall use
motion sensors, photocells, or
photocells or timers to control duration of nighttime illumination. (9) Exterior lighting of recreation facilities shall utilize fully shielded
fixtures and, except as authorized by
Special Permit or Site Plan Approval, shall be turned off by 10:00 p.m. or at the conclusion of an activity begun before 10:00 p.m.; provided, however,
that in any event the exterior lighting
shall be turned off by midnight. (10) Blinking, flashing, moving, revolving and flickering lights, as well as lighting that changes intensity or color
shall be prohibited except for lighting
for public safety or traffic control and lighting required by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration for air traffic control and warning purposes.
(11) Notwithstanding any provisions of
this subsection to the contrary, sidewalks that run along the perimeter
14
of a site and are in a public right of way or on abutting property may be illuminated, and illumination may
spill onto abutting non-residential
property if requested in writing by the abutting property owner. Exterior lighting that does not
conform to the provisions of this
subsection may be allowed by special permit from the Planning Board if the Planning Board finds that such exterior lighting will be consistent
with the Purposes of this Article, or
that there are other demonstrable community, health, safety or welfare benefits that will be served by the exterior lighting. No special permit
may be granted pursuant to this
subsection unless the Planning Board determines that the proposed exterior lighting is appropriate for the size and use of the property, any buildings
thereon, and the neighborhood setting.
O. Adequate access shall be provided to each structure for emergency vehicles and
personnel.
P. The site plan shall conform to
applicable Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection Stormwater Management Regulations. The site plan shall show adequate measures to prevent pollution of surface water and
groundwater, to minimize erosion and
sedimentation and to prevent changes in the potential for flooding. Stormwater management facilities shall be designed so that neighboring properties, public ways
and public storm drainage systems will
not be adversely impacted.
BETA review of stormwater is pending.
Q. Mechanical equipment or other utility
hardware on the roof, grounds or buildings shall be screened from view from the ground.
The electric/telecom box between the building
and Elm St. is not screened from view.
R. All dumpsters shall be screened from public view. The dumpster would be within an enclosure.
15
3. ANR Plan – 32 Lumber St. The Approval Not Required (ANR) plan delineates the existing lots and no modifications to them are proposed. The plan appears entitled to endorsement as approval not required under the Subdivision Control Law. A majority vote is required for approval and a decision is due by
4/11/18.
4. ANR Plan – 34 Lumber St. The Approval Not Required (ANR) plan delineates the existing lot and no modifications to it are proposed. The plan appears entitled to endorsement as approval not required under the
Subdivision Control Law. A majority vote is required for approval and a decision is due by 4/11/18.
5. Street Acceptance Report Enclosed is a draft street acceptance report to provide to the Board of Selectmen for its 4/10/18
street acceptance public hearing. I have reviewed the 1/8/18 Minutes of the meeting when the Planning Board voted to submit Singletary Way, Cobblers Way and Legacy Farms South into the warrant for acceptance, and there were/are a few outstanding items:
All streets have been inspected by the Board’s consulting engineers since then, and there
are no outstanding construction items, with the exception of a minor change to a detention pond in Peloquin Estates (Cobblers Way). The inspector has recommended that additional items be added to the Cobblers Way and Singletary Way plans, and has indicated that these items are minor. He has requested that the proponents add the items,
and revised plans are pending.
The Board’s vote on Cobblers Way was to place it on the warrant. The Board should also vote to recommend acceptance of the street.
The Board’s vote on Legacy Farms South was to place it on the warrant. The Board should also vote to recommend acceptance.
Performance guarantees currently held for each subdivision: Legacy Farms South: $193,183.00 Peloquin Estates: $83,833.00
Highland Park III: $16,808.00
Before town meeting, I recommend contacting each developer to request that catch basins be cleaned and roads swept prior to town meeting.
6. Future Meetings
April 23
Continued public hearings - The Trails at Legacy Farms – Site Plan Review & MPSP Amendment
Continued public hearing – Maspenock Woods – Modifications to Garden Apt. Site Plan
Discuss ATM presentations
May 7 – Annual Town Meeting
16
May 14, June 11
PUBLIC HEARING OUTLINE
Chamberlain Street & Whalen Road Subdivision
Definitive Subdivision Plan application showing 32 building lots
Flexible Community Development Special Permit Application
Scenic Road Application
Meeting Dates: 1/22/18, 2/12/18 (no discussion), 3/12/18, 3/26/18, 4/9/18
1. Director of Land Use Overview of Site and Project
2. √Project introduction and features of the site – Applicant & Engineer
3. Director of Land Use Comments
4. √Consultant Review – BETA Group
5. Other Town Departments Comments (Pending – Fire Department)
6. √Planning Board members and Public – Add to outline
7. √Schedule Site Walk
8. Detailed Discussion
a. √Road and lot layout design
a. Emergency Access
b. Traffic
a. √Traffic Study
b. √Increase Traffic from New School
c. Traffic Calming Measures
d. √Offsite Improvements – Chamberlain Street/ Chamberlain & Hayden Rowe
Intersection
i. Increase Traffic from New Marathon Elementary School
ii. Impacts to Abutters from any road widening
e. Sidewalks
f. Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety
g. √Impact of Downtown Corridor Project
c. Stormwater management
d. Utilities – √Water, √Sewer/Septic, Gas, √Electric, √Phone, √Cable, √Solar Energy
e. Open space land ownership & access
a. Trail Connections/Preservation of Existing Trails
f. Review by other Boards/Committees
a. Conservation
g. Construction Management
a. Impacts to abutters during construction
b. Construction Process re: cutting/preservation of vegetation
h. Affordable Housing – Flexible Community Development
i. Historical Features
j. Scenic Road Trees
k. Final BETA issues
9. Discuss plan revisions to be made if any
10. Discuss conditions of approval with applicant
11. Public comment
12. Vote
13. Close public hearing
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
352 Turnpike Road
Southborough, MA 01772
PHONE 508.480.9900
April 2, 2018
Ms. Elaine Lazarus Director of Land Use and Town Operations
Town of Hopkinton 18 Main Street Hopkinton, MA 01748 Re: Chamberlain St. & Whalen Rd. Definitive Subdivision
Dear Ms. Lazarus:
Below please find our res ponse to co mments from BETA Group, Inc., dated January 11, 2018. For clarity, the recommendations/outstanding items summarized in the letter are in italics, and our responses follow in standard font.
Also, per Comment D1 below, please allow this letter to serve as a request for the following waivers from the Rules and Regulations Relating to the Subdivision of Land: 1. Section 8.2.1D. The minimum centerline radius is 150 feet. A m inimum centerline radius of 40
feet is proposed. This request applies only to th e existing Chamberlain Street right of way at
station 4+25. All other proposed roadway radii are design to meet the minimum required radius.
2. Section 8.2.7.A. The maximum earth cut or fill is eight (8) feet. An earth fill of approximately
ten feet is proposed in a small area between station 2+75 and 3+50 of the emergency access road.
Contents (§5.4)
Comment C1: All lots shall be assigned street numbers in consultation with the Director of Municipal
Inspections (5.4.E).
Response: Acknowledged, the Applicant will consult with appropriate Town Officials
regarding assignment of street numbers prior to construction.
Comment C2: Show proposed center line in heavy red line on the street profiles (5.4.L.6).
Response: Street profiles have been revised to show the proposed center line in a heavy line
type. The definitive subdivision plans are not produced in color; however, a color
exhibit plan can be provided at the request of the Planning Board if required for
approval.
Comment C3: Provide, verbatim, the endorsements from section 5.4.S. and 5.4.T. on the subdivision
plan.
Response: The endorsements are provided as requested on the cover sheet of the plans.
Please refer to Sheet 1.
Page 2 of 15
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
Comment C4: Provide street name as approved by the Board of Selectman (5.4.X.).
Response: The proposed roads are extensions of the existing roads (Whalen Road and
Chamberlain Street. The street names are labeled accordingly on the plans. If
required, approval from the Board of Selectmen will be obtained prior to
construction.
Comment C5: Provide two percolation tests along with results for each lot (5.4.BB.).
Response: Percolation test logs were previously submitted with the exception of Lots 25 and
26. As discussed with the Board at the initial public hearing, Lots 25 and 26 will be
tested at a later date when site conditions dry out. The Board of Health Agent
observed soil conditions for these lots and does not foresee any issues regarding
the ability to support septic systems. Final percolation testing will be provided as
part of the on-site septic system permitting.
Comment C6: Delineate existing steep topography (area with slopes over 25%) (5.4.CC).
Response: There are minimal areas with slope greater than 25% (<7,500sf). These areas have
been delineated on Grading Sheets 20-26.
Design Standards (§8)
Comment D1: Provide minimum centerline radius of 150 feet for Chamberlain Street improvement or
request waiver. Provide centerline radii of streets on the plans. Verify that all
horizontal curves provide 200 feet of clear sight distance (§8.2.1.D).
Response: All centerline radii are greater than 150’ with exception of the existing right-of-
way at the end of the improved section of Chamberlain Street. A waiver is
requested to allow for a 40-foot radius in this location. The radii have been labeled
on site plan sheets 13-19. All horizontal curves provide a minimum sight distance
of 200 feet with the exception of the above mentioned existing radius at the
Chamberlain Street right-of-way. Signage indicating “curve ahead” can be added
if desired by the Planning Board at this location.
Comment D2: For safety BETA recommends that a minimum pavement width of 20 feet be provided
for improvements to Chamberlain Street improvements (§8.2.3.C).
Response: As discussed with the Planning Board during the initial public hearing, the
Chamberlain Street travel way is proposed to be widened to 20-feet in most areas.
In some areas a minimum width of 18 feet is proposed as a means to save mature
trees and avoid impacts to stone walls.
Page 3 of 15
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
Comment D3: Profiles indicate that two fill areas will slightly exceed the maximum allowed of 8 feet
in depth. Revise plans or request waiver (§8.2.7.A).
Response: The plans have been adjusted such that no portion of the proposed roadways
exceed 8’ of fill. A small portion of the emergency access road between station
2+75 and 3+50 entails approximately 10 feet of fill which is necessary to
accommodate the proposed stream crossing. A waiver is requested accordingly.
Comment D4: For safety BETA recommends that a sidewalk be provided on one side of road for
improvements to Chamberlain Street improvements (§8.2.3.C). Note: public schools
are within walking distance of this development.
Response: This matter was discussed with the Planning Board during the initial public
hearing and site walk. The Board acknowledged that the addition of a sidewalk on
Chamberlain Street would result in extensive impacts to scenic road elements
including street trees and stone walls. The Applicant has agreed to work with the
Town and the Upper Charles Trail Committee to improve the trail that extends
from behind Lot 14 over Town of Hopkinton land to Field #13 at the high school
as an alternative pedestrian connection to the high school and Center Trail.
Comment D5: Provide detail and section of proposed driveways, following the driveway design
standards (§8.3.3).
Response: A standard curb cut detail has been added to the plan set. Please see Sheet 48 of
the plan set.
Comment D6: Provide layout and details of proposed relocated/improved walking trails (§8.3.4).
Response: The approximate location of the proposed trails is depicted on Sheet 47 of the plan
set. The exact locations may be adjusted slightly in the field based on site
conditions I.E. to avoid material trees, stone walls or other significant landscape
features. A detail of the proposed boardwalk trail within wetland areas is
provided on Sheet 47 of the plan set. All other trails within wooded, upland areas
are to be 3-foot wide nature trails with no imported materials, surface treatment
or soil disturbance. Natural grade will be maintained. The only work anticipated
is selective pruning, removal of fallen trees and branches within the proposed
trails and trail paint markings on existing trees.
Construction Standards (§9)
Comment C1: Provide stone or reinforced concrete bounds (not rebars) on both sides of street right-
of-way at all angle points and at beginning and end of all curves (§9.11.1)
Response: The lotting plans have been revised to specify concrete bounds.
Page 4 of 15
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
Comment C2: Place street trees at approximately 40 foot intervals and no closer than 5 feet or more
than 20 feet from street right-of-way lines (§9.12.1)
Response: The street trees have been adjusted accordingly.
Comment C3: Provide guardrail at proposed retaining wall off Whalen Road Extension station
2+00± right (§9.13).
Response: A guiderail is provided at the proposed retaining wall at station 2+00±. Please
refer to Sheet 13. A guiderail is not required on the right (east) side of the road
based on proposed grades. Please refer to Sheet 20.
Additional Plan Comments
Comment G1: Provide detail for segmental retaining wall.
Response: A typical segmental retaining wall detail has been provided on Sheet 48 of the
plans.
Comment G2: Whalen Road Extension will cross an existing 24-inch corrugated metal pipe. BETA
recommends that the condition of this pipe be evaluated, documented (with photos) and
repaired or replaced if necessary.
Response: The existing 24-inch pipe has been evaluated and found to be deteriorated. The
pipe will be replaced in-kind with a 24-inch HDPE pipe (refer to Sheet 20).
Stormwater Management (from Subdivision)
Comment SW1: Add note on catch basin detail requiring installation with 5-foot granite gutter mouth
(§8.4.5).
Response: A detail for the Town of Hopkinton Granite Vertical Curb Inlet Detail is provided
and is noted to be installed at all catch basin locations within Whalen Road
Extension, Chamberlain Street Extension and the Emergency Access Road. Please
refer to Sheet 51.
Comment SW2: Provide detail for drop inlet and confirm that it can accommodate flows for 25-year
storm event. (§8.4.8).
Response: A detail for the drop inlet (DI-119, previously CB119) and hydraulic/hydrologic
calculations for the 50-year storm event are provided. Please refer to Sheet 50 of
the Land Development Plans and Appendix F of the revised Stormwater Report.
Page 5 of 15
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
Comment SW3: Provide hydraulic sizing calculations for 50-year storm event for both proposed cross
culverts (§8.4.8).
Response: Hydraulic calculations for the 50-year storm event have been provided. Please
refer to Appendix F: Pipe sizing calculations, Culvert Crossing Sizing
Calculations & Culvert Crossing Drainage Area Maps, of the Drainage Report,
respectively.
Comment SW4: Provide detail for protective barrier for outfalls greater than 15 inches (§8.4.10).
Response: A note has been provided on the Detention Basin Outlet Structure detail and the
Flared End Section with Rip Rap Apron/Scour Hole detail. Refer to Sheet 50.
Comment SW5: Provide the following for infiltration basins (§8.4.10):
a. A minimum of one foot of freeboard for all design storms (freeboard not obtained
for the 100-year storm)
b. A minimum separation of 25 from the property line (basin #2 and #5 are within
25 feet of proposed houses)
c. Fencing or other protective measures to exclude people and vehicles from the
area
Response: a. All proposed basins provide a minimum of one foot of freeboard for all design
storms. Please refer to the revised Land Development Plans and Appendix E of
the Drainage Report.
b. A minimum separation of 25 feet has been provided between Basins #2 and #5
and the proposed houses. Please refer to revised Sheets 20 & 21 of the revised
Land Development Plans.
c. 4-foot high, black vinyl chain link fencing has been added to the plans.
Stormwater Management (General)
Comment SW6: Update watershed maps to include soils delineations from Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) maps
Response: Per coordination and recent correspondence from BETA Group, we have
modelled the project using a ‘C’ soil.
Comment SW7: Provide proposed tree clearing limits.
Response: Proposed tree clearing limits have been provided on the Land Development Plans.
Please refer to revised Sheets 20-26.
Page 6 of 15
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
Comment SW8: Revised stormwater analysis based on the hydrologic grouping rating of soils per
NRCS maps.
Response: Please refer to Response to comment SW6 above.
Comment SW9: The project proposes to install two (2) 24-in pipe culverts at station 0+50± and an
open bottom box culvert at station 3+25±.
a. Update hydrologic analysis based on NRCS soils.
b. Recommend reviewing stormwater analysis recently completed for the new
athletic fields at the High School upgradient of the site
c. Provide section, profile and details for box culvert.
Response:
a. Please refer to Response to comment SW6 above.
b. A revised hydrologic analysis was conducted for the proposed culvert
located between station 0+38 and 0+50+ along the Whalen Road Extension.
The two (2) previously proposed 24-in pipe culverts have been replaced with
a 14’W x 15”H box culvert at station 0+50+ along the Whalen Road
Extension. The existing 24” CMP pipe at station 0+38+ shall be replaced in-
kind with a new 24” HDPE pipe.
Per discussions with BETA Group, additional parking lot, roof, and field
area at the High School site was included in the analysis. The culverts have
been sized for the 50-year storm, per the Town of Hopkinton regulations.
The box culvert was designed to pass the difference in flows generated from
the 50-year storm when the 24” pipe is flowing full. Refer to the revised
Culvert Sizing HydroCAD model for calculations.
This analysis also includes revisions made to the drop inlet design at DI-119
(previously referred to as CB-119) due to the change in soil classification.
Per recommendations made by Goddard Consulting, a secondary culvert
crossing is proposed within the Emergency Access drive. A new 24” culvert
crossing is proposed, and the associated drop inlet has been sized based on
the 50-year storm. Refer to calculations provided in the revised Culvert
Sizing HydroCAD model.
c. Please refer to revised Sheet 37 for a section, profile and detail of the
proposed 14’W x 15”H box culvert along the Whalen Road Extension. Refer
to Sheet 39 for a section, profile, and detail of the proposed box culvert at
the Emergency Access drive.
Comment SW10: Provide comparison of pre-development and post-development runoff volumes for the
design points per Appendix B.17.d of the Stormwater Regulations.
Response: A comparison of the pre- and post-development runoff volumes is included in
Table 1, below. It should be noted that the Stormwater Regulations apply to all
activities which require a Stormwater Management Permit (SMP) in accordance
with Section 172-2 of the Bylaw. This project is exempt per Section 172-2.C(14)
which states that a SMP shall not be required for “any construction activity or
Page 7 of 15
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
project requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law where the Planning
Board has approved an application for definitive subdivision approval and any
construction activity or project requiring Site Plan Review, provided that the plans
include stormwater management provisions for the site.”
Table 1: Peak Volumes (af)
2-year 10-year
Pre Post ∆ Pre Post ∆
DP1 0.825 0.802 -0.023 1.899 1.834 -0.065
DP2 6.099 6.145 0.046 14.04 14.594 0.554
DP3 0 0.015 0.015 0 0.025 0.025
25-year 100-year
Pre Post ∆ Pre Post ∆
DP1 2.777 2.662 -0.115 4.698 4.451 -0.247
DP2 20.536 21.419 0.883 34.739 36.165 1.426
DP3 0 0.032 0.032 0 0.045 0.045
Comment SW11: Provide narrative on low impact development techniques considered for this project.
Response: Low impact development techniques are limited onsite due to the existing soil
characteristics. The project entails the construction of six (6) infiltrating
stormwater detention basins to promote recharge and treat stormwater runoff
prior to discharge to onsite wetlands. Small portions of the site that are unable to
flow to detention basins are collected and treated with water quality units prior to
discharge. The project mimics existing conditions to the maximum extent and is in
full compliance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards and Town of
Hopkinton Wetlands Protection Regulations.
Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standard (No Untreated Stormwater)
Comment SW12: Upgrade the existing catch basins on Whalen Road to include proprietary stormwater
treatment unit or other BMPs to provide TSS removal prior to discharge to Indian
Brook.
Response: The two (2) existing catch basins on Whalen Road are proposed to be replaced
with 450i Stormceptor water quality inlets to provide TSS removal prior to
discharge. Please refer to revisions provided on Sheet 20 and in Appendix F of the
stormwater report.
Page 8 of 15
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standard (Post-Development Peak Discharge
Rates)
Comment SW13: In the existing conditions model revise time of concentration (Tc) calculations to reflect
woods surfaces rather than grass.
Response: The (Tc) calculations have been revised in the existing and proposed models to
reflect “woodland” surfaces rather than “grassed waterways”. Refer to
Appendices C & E for revised calculations.
Comment SW14: Verify that a CN value of 98 was used to model the surface area of the proposed
infiltration basins.
Response: The hydrologic model has been revised to indicate a CN value of 98 for the bottom
surface area of the proposed infiltration basins. Please refer to revised Appendix
E.
Comment SW15: Provide intermediate contour elevations for bottom of the following basins: Basin #1
(contour 413.5), Basin #3 (contour 439.7), Basin #5 (contour 424.5), and Basin #7
(contour 455.5).
Response: Intermediate contour elevations have been added to the plans as noted above.
Please refer to revised Sheets 20, 21, 25 and 26.
Comment SW16: Revise Manning’s n value for primary outlet culverts to be 0.012 to match the proposed
smooth interior HDPE on the plans.
Response: Manning’s n value has been revised in the hydrologic model to 0.012 as noted
above. Please refer to the revised calculations provided in Appendix E.
Comment SW17: Revise primary culvert pipe lengths in the model to match the lengths shown on the
plans for the following Stormwater Basins: #1, #2, #5, #6, and #7.
Response: Primary culvert pipe lengths have been revised and are within 6-inches of the
lengths shown on the plans.
Comment SW18: Provide top of berm contour on the grading plans for the following basins: Basin #2
(contour 423.25), Basin #3 (contour 442.4), Basin #5 (contour 428.2), and Basin #6
(contour 446.8).
Response: Top of berm contour elevations have been added to the plans as noted above.
Please refer to revised Sheets 21, 24, 25 and 26.
Page 9 of 15
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
Comment SW19: Provide primary culvert pipe length, rims, and inverts on the plans for Basin #3.
Response: Pipe length, rim and invert information has been added to Basin #3. Please refer
to revised Sheet 25.
Comment SW20: Revise inverts for primary outlet culvert for Basin #7 in the model to match the plans.
Response: Inverts for Basin #7 outlet culvert have been revised to match the hydrologic
model. Please refer to revised Sheet 26.
Comment SW21: Provide size of grate on detention basin outlet structure detail.
Response: Dimensions to the grate on the Detention Basin Outlet Structure Detail have been
added to the detail on Sheet 50.
Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standard (Recharge to Groundwater)
Comment SW22: Revise calculations to utilize Rawls (infiltration) rates based on NRCS maps and their
associated hydrologic group rating or provide in-situ infiltration tests consistent with
the MassDEP stormwater handbook.
Response: Please refer to response to comment SW6 above.
Comment SW23: Data presented for Basin #1 (2 feet), and Basin #3 (3.7 feet), show less than the
minimum 4 foot separation between ESHGW and basin bottom and both attenuate the
greater than the 10-Year Storm Event. Provide mounding analysis showing required
recharge volume is fully dewatered in 72 hours or additional test pit data showing
otherwise.
Response: Test Pit (TP) B1-B was conducted at existing surface elevation 412.00 and
groundwater was observed at elevation 409.50 (30” below grade). The bottom
elevation of Basin #1 is 414.00, and was designed within or below the limits of
existing surface elevation 412.50. A 4-foot minimum separation from ESHGW is
provided, and a mounding analysis is not required.
Test Pit (TP) B3-3 was conducted at existing surface elevation 439.30 and
groundwater was observed at elevation 435.30 (48” below grade). The bottom
elevation of proposed Basin #3 is 439.70, and was designed within or below the
limits of existing surface elevation 439.50. A 4-foot minimum separation from
ESHGW is provided, and a mounding analysis is not required.
Comment SW24: Provide approximate location of any onsite septic and soil absorption systems to verify
that infiltration basins meet required minimum offsets.
Page 10 of 15
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
Response: Approximate locations of proposed onsite septic and soil absorption systems have
been added to the plans in order to verify that infiltration basins meet the
required minimum offsets. Please refer to Sheets 13-19. Future septic system
designs will also be subject to review by the Board of Health to ensure that all
required Title V offsets and setbacks are maintained.
Comment SW25: Provide location of test pits on Grading & Drainage Plans.
Response: Locations of test pits were previously provided on the Grading & Drainage Plans.
Please refer to Sheets 20-26.
Comment SW26: Identify location of monitoring wells on infiltration basin floors.
Response: Monitoring wells have been included within each infiltration basin. Please refer to
the revised Grading & Drainage Plans (Sheets 20-26).
Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standard (80% TSS Removal)
Comment SW27: Pretreatment is required for an infiltration basin, however, it is the combination of
pretreatment device and infiltration basin that provides 80% TSS removal, update TSS
worksheet to delete credit for sediment forebay.
Response: TSS worksheets have been revised to delete the credit for sediment forebays.
Please refer to Appendix F for the revised worksheets.
Comment SW28: Revise TSS removal calculations for Stormceptors 450i to reflect removal rates verified
by third-party testing (e.g. MassSTEP – 65±%).
Response: TSS calculations have been revised to indicate 65% removal per MassSTEP
testing. Please refer to Appendix F for the revised calculations.
Comment SW29: Provide explanation/clarification for TSS removal worksheet to vernal pool.
Response: Per the Stormwater Standards, 44% pretreatment is required prior to
discharging to a critical area; in this case a vernal pool. The combination of deep
sump and hooded catch basins and a sediment forebay provides 44%
pretreatment prior to discharge to the infiltration basin and ultimately vernal
pool.
Per the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook Documenting Compliance (Volume
3), Standard 4, Pg. 34, footnote 27, the 25% removal credit given to the sediment
forebay can be used to satisfy the 44% pretreatment requirement prior to
discharge to the infiltration structure for runoff near or to other critical areas.
Page 11 of 15
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standard (Construction Period Erosion and
Sediment Control)
Comment SW30: Provide a Draft SWPPP for review and comments (§6.0.K.2).
Response: A draft SWPPP as required under the EPA Construction General Permit will be
made available to the Town for review and comment prior to construction.
Comment SW31: Recommend a condition requiring a copy of the final SWPPP be made available to the
Town prior to construction.
Response: The Applicant has no objection to this condition.
Comment SW32: Provide detail of stabilized construction access.
Response: A Stabilized Construction Access detail has been added to Sheet 34.
Comment SW33: Revise straw wattle detail to indicate a minimum diameter of 12 inches.
Response: The Straw Wattles detail on Sheet 34 has been revised to indicate a minimum
diameter of 12-inches.
Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standard (Operations/Maintenance Plan)
Comment SW34: Include a map (preferably 11”x17”) showing the location of the systems and facilities
including all structural and nonstructural BMPs and the location of snow storage
areas.
Response: An 11x17 map has been prepared to show the location of the structural and non-
structural BMPs.
Comment SW35: Include maintenance provisions for proposed swales and riprap pads throughout the
site.
Response: Maintenance provisions for these elements have been included in the O & M plan.
Comment SW36: Provide the names, addresses, and daytime telephone numbers of the Responsible
Parties (SWR Appendix D3.a).
Response: As previously mentioned in response to comment SW-10, the project is exempt
from the Stormwater regulations; however, this information will be included as
part of the SWPPP to be provided to the Town prior to construction.
Page 12 of 15
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
Comment SW37: Provide list of easements with the purpose and location of each (SWR Appendix D3.a).
Response: As previously mentioned in response to comment SW-10, the project is exempt
from the Stormwater regulations; however, all of the proposed easements
including labels regarding their intended use are shown on the proposed lotting
plans.
Comment SW38: Add a provision for the Planning Board or its designee to enter the property at
reasonable times and in a reasonable manner for the purpose of inspection (SWR
Appendix D.3.e).
Response: As previously mentioned in response to comment SW-10, the project is exempt
from the Stormwater regulations; however, the Applicant has not objection to this
and anticipates that this will be a condition of approval.
Comment SW39: Provide signatures of owners (SWR Appendix D.3.f)
Response: As previously mentioned in response to comment SW-10, the project is exempt
from the Stormwater regulations.
Comment SW40: Provide an estimated operations and maintenance budget.
Response: Approximate maintenance budgets have been included in the Stormwater
Operation & Maintenance Plan included in Appendix G of the revised
Stormwater Report.
Wetlands
Comment W1: Recommend realigning Whalen Road Extension crossing with existing flagged wetland
area.
Response: The wetland consultant has updated the wetland flagging with in the areas of the
proposed crossing. The area no longer includes stream bank. For this reason, the
alignment remains in the same location as originally proposed.
Comment W2: Provide section through segmental wall proposed at station 2+00± right to define limit
of work/wetland impact.
Response: A schematic section has been provided as requested. Refer to Sheet 48.
Comment W3: Provide narrative and supporting calculations documenting how the proposed culverts
comply with the Massachusetts River and Stream Crossing Standards.
Page 13 of 15
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
Response: The project entails two (2) wetland crossings, one at Whalen Road and one at the
emergency access road. The Whalen Road crossing entails only Bordering
Vegetated Wetland and therefore the stream crossing standards do not apply.
The emergency access road does entail stream bank and is designed to meet the
stream crossing standards. The calculations for bank-full width and openness
ratio are included on Sheet 39 of the plan set.
Comment W4: Consider alternatives to reduce wetland fill at the emergency Access Road crossing.
Response: The alignment of the emergency access road has been revised to minimize direct
impacts to wetland resource areas. Also, in coordination with the Fire
Department and Planning Board, the width of the paved access at the wetland
crossing has been reduced to 16-feet. It transitions to 20-feet wide beyond the
limits of the wetland resource areas.
Open Space and Trail Exhibit
Comment OP1: BETA recommends consideration of the following on the Open Space and Trail
Exhibit:
a. Provide detail of trail connection north of Lot 12 (roadway bank slope is shown
at 2:1 slope)
b. Provide a connection between lots 14 and 15 to the relocated east trail.
c. Provide a connection from the trail on the southwest corner of the office park
parcel to the trail behind lot 4.
Response: a. The trail grades have been adjusted in the area north of Lot 12 to flatten the
slope as much as feasible (refer to sheet 21).
b. A trail connection has provided between Lots 14 and 15 as recommended.
c. The Applicant considered adding a trail connection in this location, but has
determined that significant wetland impacts would be required.
Comment OP2: Board should discuss whether trail head parking should be included.
Response: The Applicant is not proposing trail head parking as part of the project.
In addition t o responding to writte n comments received fro m the Board’s peer review consultant, the
Applicant wishes to address a comment that was made by a Whalen Road abut ter during multiple public hearings. The abutter asked if it were possible to incorporate a r aised center island within the existing Whalen Road cul-de-sac as a traffic calming measure. A response was provided by Bohler Engineering
during the March 12th hearing; however, the comment was raised again during the March 26th hearing.
Page 14 of 15
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
Bohler Engineering analy zed the existing paved circl e to determ ine the feasibility of a center island. It was determined that the diameter of the existing paved circle is not large enough to accommodate a raised center island while maintaining adequate maneuvering room for large vehicles I.E. fire trucks and sem i-
trailers. For this reason, the Applicant is not proposing any such modifications to the exi sting paved circle. Notwithstanding the above, the project traffic cons ultant, MDM transportation, will provide a separat e letter to summariz e recommendations that were pr esented to the Board duri ng the Marc h 26th public hearing regarding traffic/speed cal ming measure s and sidewalks on Cham berlain Street and Whalen Road.
We trust the above is suf ficient for your needs at this time. Please do not hesitate to contact us at 508.480.9900 should you have additional questions or wish to discuss further.
Sincerely, BOHLER ENGINEERING
Michael J. Dryden John A. Kucich, P.E.
Cc: Phil Paradis and Christopher Luppino, BETA Group, Inc. Kathi Sherry and Paul Matroianni, REC Hopkinton
April 3, 2018
Gary Trendel
31 Chamberlain Street
Hopkinton, MA 01748
508-733-5655
Gary.trendel@gmail.com
Dear Members of the Planning Board,
From the day the Mastroianni project between Chamberlain Street and Whalen Road was proposed, my
biggest concern has been pedestrian and bicycle safety. Chamberlain Street is a long and straight road,
approximately three quarter miles in length. While the speed limit is posted at 20mph, vehicles,
particularly those from contractors, delivery services, and visitors, consistently travel in speeds in excess
of 40 mph. To make matters worse, the low volume of traffic produces a false sense of safety on the
street. At my house, it is common for no vehicles to pass for twenty or more minutes. After observing
the presentation at the March 26, 2018 Planning Board Meeting, I’d like to provide some additional
comments.
Traffic Calming – I applaud Mr. Mastroianni’s willingness to propose and financially support traffic
calming measures. Below is additional perspective on several of the options presented.
- Speed humps – this is by far my preferred option. The design makes it very difficult to drive
faster than the speed limit of 20mph, and has no impact if people just drive the speed limit.
They are effective for all types of vehicles and drivers, and safely allow passage of snow plows. I
disagree with Beta Engineering’s comments that they are primarily used to discourage a
particular route. They are used all over New England to control speed on streets by which it is
otherwise easy to drive well beyond the speed limit. Speed humps also provide low up-front
and maintenance costs.
- Electronic speed signs – I believe these are effective in high traffic areas, but seem like overkill
on secondary streets.
- Road diet – I am not supportive of this option on Chamberlain/Whalen. On a rural street, most
drivers tend to travel towards the middle, as there is not oncoming traffic. However, when a
double yellow line is added, drivers hug the side and are reluctant to cross over, even when
there is a pedestrian or bicycle on the side of the road. As a cyclist, I prefer a narrow, unlined
road over a wider, lined road (assuming low traffic volume).
- Stop sign – This was not presented, but I think a stop sign on Chamberlain Street at Angelo
would significantly help control speed. While many people will still blow through the stop sign,
it will actively encourage them to slow considerably before doing so, and provides a clear point
of enforcement for police if the need arises.
Pedestrian Volume – Other than roads downtown or Hayden Rowe near the schools, there are few
roads in Hopkinton that see as much pedestrian traffic as Chamberlain Street.
- The middle school and high school track and cross country teams consistently use Chamberlain
Street between the Center Trail and Hayden Rowe.
- The running club frequently uses Chamberlain Street for the same purpose.
- Numerous residents of Charlesview regularly use Chamberlain Street as a quiet walking area or
to access Center Trail or the schools.
- There are numerous residents of Chamberlain Street and Sanctuary Lane (from small children to
older adults) that walk the street daily.
- Many people park on the loop road and then walk the Center Trail and Chamberlain Street.
Impact of the proposed development – While the increase in traffic from the proposed development
will not necessitate road improvements, it is still significant. The number of homes west of the Center
Trail will increase from 8 to 28, a 250% increase. For a neighborhood that is accustomed to quiet and
tranquility, the impact, even without a thru-road is huge, particularly from a pedestrian safety
perspective.
Sidewalks - The surest means to provide pedestrian safety is with a sidewalk. A sidewalk on
Chamberlain Street from Center Trail, heading East to Hayden Rowe would provide connectivity for an
active walking/running route. Chamberlain Street is only several hundred feet away from Hopkins
School, and when the Marathon School opens next fall, there will be even more walkers on the street.
This section of Chamberlain Street is also wide enough to support a sidewalk. If the new sidewalk in the
proposed development connects to the Center Trail, then walking connectivity would be substantially
improved. It would provide safe pedestrian passage from Main Street to the south side of the schools,
and provide some fantastic running loops where people do not need to walk/run on the roadway. A
sidewalk on Chamberlain Street would offer substantial benefits for many people in Hopkinton.
Sidewalk Funding – While I am a strong advocate for a sidewalk, I personally do not think it is the
financial responsibility of the developers. The benefits of a sidewalk on Chamberlain Street exist
regardless of the development. I propose that Chamberlain Street be included in the next round of
sidewalk construction funded by the town.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
Gary Trendel
cc Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use and Town Operations
Paul Mastroianni, REC Hopkinton, LLC
SITE PLAN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING OUTLINE 84, 86, 88, 92 WEST MAIN STREET Public Hearing Date: April 9, 2018 1. Project introduction and review – Applicant
2. Director of Land Use and Town Operations Report
3. Consultant Review – BETA Group
4. Planning Board – Add to outline
5. Abutters and Public – Add to Outline
6. Detailed Discussion
a. Vehicular and Pedestrian traffic flow -
1) To and from West Main St.;
2) To and from Elm St.;
3) Within the site
b. Parking lot design
c. Stormwater management
d. Lighting – Compliance with standards
e. Building and screening
f. Hours of operation
g. Utilities
h.
7. Discuss status of other permits (Board of Appeals, Conservation Commission)
8. Discuss site plan standards and plan revisions to be made, if any
9. Discuss conditions of approval with applicant
10. Close public hearing
Vote on Site Plan and Conditions
Transportation Solutions Building Better Communities mcmahonassociates.com
Revised Traffic Impact Study
Gasoline Station and Convenience Store
84-92 West Main Street, Hopkinton, MA
Prepared for
Global Partners
April 2018
Prepared by
McMahon Associates, Inc.
120 Water Street, 4th Floor
Boston, MA 02109
617.556.0020
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 4
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................................................... 4
STUDY METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................... 6
STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS ............................................................................................................................. 6
EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 7
ROADWAY NETWORK AND INTERSECTIONS ...................................................................................................... 7
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................................................................................................................. 8
CRASH SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................. 11
FUTURE CONDITIONS .................................................................................................... 13
FUTURE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................................................ 13
BACKGROUND TRAFFIC GROWTH ................................................................................................................... 13
2024 NO BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................................................................. 14
SITE‐GENERATED TRAFFIC ............................................................................................................................... 18
AS‐OF‐RIGHT DEVELOPMENT PARCELS .......................................................................................................... 19
PROJECT SITE DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT ............................................................................................ 20
2024 BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES ....................................................................................................................... 20
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS.............................................................................. 25
LEVEL‐OF‐SERVICE CRITERIA .......................................................................................................................... 25
CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS .......................................................................................................................... 25
SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION ...................................................................................................................... 28
SIGHT DISTANCE ............................................................................................................................................... 28
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 30
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Vehicular Trip Generation .................................................................................................. 18
Table 2: Summary of New and Pass‐by Trips ................................................................................. 19
Table 3: Retail Trip Generation Comparison .................................................................................. 20
Table 4: Signalized Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Results ...................................... 26
Table 5: Unsignalized Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Results ................................. 26
Table 6: Sight Distance Requirements .............................................................................................. 29
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Site Location .......................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2: Existing Weekday Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................... 9
Figure 3: Existing Weekday Afternoon Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .......................................... 10
Figure 4: 2024 No Build Weekday Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................. 16
Figure 5: 2024 No Build Weekday Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................. 17
Figure 6: Directions of Arrival and Departure .............................................................................. 22
Figure 7: 2024 Build Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .......................................................................... 23
Figure 8: 2024 Build Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .......................................................................... 24
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Traffic Volume Data
Appendix B: Seasonal Variation Data
Appendix C: Crash Data
Appendix D: Additional Development Volumes
Appendix E: Traffic Projection Model
Appendix F: Highway Capacity Manual Methodologies
Appendix G: 2017 Existing Capacity/Level‐of‐Service Analysis
Appendix H: 2024 No Build Capacity/Level‐of‐Service Analysis
Appendix I: 2024 Build Capacity/Level‐of‐Service Analysis
Appendix J: Capacity/Level‐of‐Service Analysis Summary
Appendix K: Speed Data
Gasoline Station and Convenience Store Revised Traffic Impact Study
Hopkinton, Massachusetts
4
INTRODUCTION
McMahon Associates has completed a review of the existing traffic operations and potential
traffic impacts associated with the proposed Gasoline Station and Convenience Store project
in Hopkinton, MA. The purpose of this traffic impact study is to evaluate existing and
projected traffic operations and safety conditions associated with the proposed project within
the study area.
The assessment documented in this traffic impact study is based on a review of existing
traffic volumes, recent crash data, and the anticipated traffic generating characteristics of the
proposed project. The study examines existing and projected traffic operations (both with
and without the proposed redevelopment) at key intersections in the vicinity of the project
site. The study area was selected based on a review of the surrounding roadway network
and expected trip generating characteristics of the proposed project. This study provides a
detailed analysis of traffic operations during the weekday morning and weekday afternoon
peak hours, when the adjacent roadway volumes are greatest.
Based on the analysis presented in this study, the project‐related traffic expected to be
generated by the proposed development will have a minimal effect on the area roadways
and intersections. The report documents these findings.
Project Description
The proposed Convenience Store and Gasoline Station would be located at 84‐92 West Main
Street in Hopkinton, MA, as seen in Figure 1. The project site is currently occupied by an
existing gasoline station and convenience market with Dunkin Donuts and four fuel pumps
(eight fueling positions) and an adjacent parcel with a single family residence. The project site is
bound by Elm Street to the north, Lumber Street Extension to the east, West Main Street to the
south, and an office land use to the west.
The proposed project calls for the razing of existing structures on site and the construction of a
new 3,840 square foot gasoline station and convenience store with eight gasoline pumps (16
fueling positions). Access to the proposed gasoline station and convenience store would be
provided via four full‐access driveways; two located on West Main Street and two located on
Elm Street.
Figure 1Site Location MapGasoline Station and Convenience StoreHopkinton, Massachusetts
0 150 30075Feet
S I T ES I T E
Lumber Street³Elm StreetPar
k
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Lu
m
b
e
r
Stre
e
t
E
x
t West Main Street
Gasoline Station and Convenience Store Revised Traffic Impact Study
Hopkinton, Massachusetts
6
Study Methodology
This traffic impact study evaluates existing and projected traffic operations within the proposed
study area for the weekday morning and weekday afternoon peak hour traffic conditions when
the adjacent roadway volumes are greatest.
The study was conducted in three steps. The first step consisted of an inventory of existing
traffic conditions within the project study area. As part of this inventory, manual turning
movement counts were collected at key intersections during the weekday morning and
weekday afternoon peak hours. A field visit was also completed to document intersection and
roadway geometries and available sight distances at the site driveways. Crash data for the
study area intersections was obtained from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation
(MassDOT) to determine if the study area has any existing traffic safety deficiencies.
The second step of the study builds upon the data collected in the first step to establish the basis
for evaluating potential transportation impacts associated with the projected future conditions.
During this second step, the projected traffic demands associated with any planned future
developments that could influence traffic volumes at the study area intersections were assessed.
Consistent with MassDOT traffic study guidelines, the 2017 Existing traffic volumes were
forecasted to the future year 2024 to determine 2024 No Build (without project) conditions and
2024 Build (with project) conditions.
The third step of this study determined if measures were necessary to improve existing or
future traffic operations and safety, minimize potential traffic impacts, and provide safe and
efficient access to the proposed project site.
Study Area Intersections
Based on a review of the anticipated traffic generating characteristics of the proposed gasoline
station and convenience store and a review of the adjacent roadways serving the project site, the
following study area intersections were selected for detailed analysis:
West Main Street at Lumber Street
Elm Street at Lumber Street Extension/Parkwood Drive
West Main Street at West Site Driveway
West Main Street at East Site Driveway
Elm Street at West Site Driveway
Elm Street at East Site Driveway
The traffic impact study presented below documents existing and future traffic conditions
for the study area intersections noted above.
Gasoline Station and Convenience Store Revised Traffic Impact Study
Hopkinton, Massachusetts
7
EXISTING CONDITIONS
An accurate assessment of the potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed gasoline
station and convenience store requires a comprehensive understanding of the existing traffic
conditions with the project study area. The existing conditions assessment included in this
study consists of an inventory of intersection and roadway geometries, an inventory of traffic
control devices, the collection of peak period traffic volumes, and a review of recent crash
data.
Roadway Network and Intersections
The project site benefits from excellent access via the local and regional roadway system. A
brief description of the principal roadways providing access to the project site is presented
below.
West Main Street
West Main Street generally travels in a northeast to southwest direction through the Town of
Hopkinton (referred to as an east‐west roadway for the purposes of this report). West Main
Street generally provides one lane of travel in the eastbound direction of travel and two lanes
of travel in the westbound direction of travel in front of the project site. West Main Street
primarily provides access to commercial land uses and serves as an access roadway to
Interstate 495, west of the project site. The roadway is classified as an urban minor arterial
and west of the project site, West Main Street is under MassDOT jurisdiction. At its
intersection with Lumber Street, West Main Street provides an exclusive left‐turn lane and a
shared through‐right turn lane in the eastbound direction and an exclusive left‐turn lane,
through lane, and shared through‐right lane in the westbound direction. The roadway has a
posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour within the vicinity of the project site. Sidewalks
measuring approximately 5.5 feet in width are provided on both sides of West Main Street to
the east of the existing gas station site.
Lumber Street/Lumber Street Extension
Lumber Street generally travels in a north to south direction through the Town of Hopkinton
and provides one lane of travel in each direction. Lumber Street is classified as a local
roadway under Town of Hopkinton jurisdiction and provides access to commercial land uses
in the vicinity of the study area. At its intersection with West Main Street, Lumber Street
provides an exclusive left‐turn lane and shared through‐right turn lane in the northbound
direction and a shared left‐through lane and exclusive right‐turn lane in the southbound
direction. Lumber Street generally does not provide sidewalks on either side of the
roadway; however, approximately 6 foot wide sidewalks are provided on both sides of
Lumber Street Extension. Lumber Street is signalized at its intersection with West Main
Street. Lumber Street Extension is unsignalized at its intersection with Elm Street and the
northbound approach which operates as a free movement with all other approaches under
stop control.
Gasoline Station and Convenience Store Revised Traffic Impact Study
Hopkinton, Massachusetts
8
Elm Street
Elm Street generally travels in a northeast to southwest direction through the Town of
Hopkinton (referred to as an east‐west roadway for the purposes of this report). The
roadway provides two‐lane, two‐way travel and is classified as a local roadway under Town
of Hopkinton jurisdiction. Elm Street provides a sidewalk on the south side of the roadway,
immediately east of its intersection with Lumber Street Extension; however, the sidewalk
only extends approximately 100 feet. Elm Street is under stop control at its intersection with
Lumber Street and Parkwood Drive and provides access to residential land uses.
Parkwood Drive
Parkwood Drive generally runs in a north to south direction extending from Elm Street and
the Lumber Street Extension and provides two‐lane, two‐way travel. Parkwood Drive is
classified as a local roadway under the Town of Hopkinton jurisdiction. Parkwood Drive
does not provide sidewalks in the vicinity of the site and the posted speed limit on the
roadway is 20 miles per hour. Parkwood Drive is under stop control at its intersection with
Elm Street and the Lumber Street Extension and provides access to office land uses.
Existing Traffic Volumes
Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
To assess peak hour traffic conditions, manual turning movement counts were conducted at
the existing study area intersections during the weekday morning and weekday afternoon
peak periods. Counts were conducted on Wednesday, October 18, 2017 from 7:00 AM to 9:00
AM and from 2:00 PM to 6:00 PM. The results of the turning movement counts are tabulated
by 15‐minute intervals and are provided in Appendix A. The four highest consecutive 15‐
minute intervals during each of these count periods constitute the peak hours that form the
basis of the traffic analysis provided in this report. Based on a review of the peak period
traffic data, the weekday morning peak hour of adjacent street traffic occurs between 7:30
AM and 8:30 AM and the weekday afternoon peak hour of adjacent street traffic occurs from
5:00 PM to 6:00 PM.
Seasonal Variation
Continuous count data from nearby count stations on Interstate 495 in Franklin, MA and
Bolton, MA were reviewed. Based on the seasonal trends of the data, traffic counts collected
during the month of October are shown to be slightly higher than those of the average
month. Therefore, to provide a conservative analysis, the volumes collected for this study
area were not seasonally adjusted downward. The resulting peak hourly traffic flows for the
2017 Existing condition are depicted in Figure 2 and Figure 3 for the weekday morning and
weekday afternoon peak hours, respectively. The seasonal adjustment data from the
continuous count stations is provided in Appendix B of this report.
Gasoline Station and Convenience Store Revised Traffic Impact Study
Hopkinton, Massachusetts
11
Crash Summary
Crash data for the study area intersections was obtained from MassDOT for the most recent six‐
year period available. This data includes complete yearly crash summaries for 2010, 2011, 2012,
2013 2014, and 2015. A summary of the crash data is presented in Appendix C.
The MassDOT Crash Rate Worksheet was used to determine whether the crash frequencies at
the study area intersections were unusually high given the travel demands at each location.
The MassDOT Crash Rate Worksheet calculates a crash rate expressed in crashes per million
entering vehicles. The calculated rate was then compared to the average rate for signalized and
unsignalized intersections statewide and within MassDOT District 3. For signalized
intersections, the statewide average crash rate is 0.77 crashes per million entering vehicles and
the MassDOT District 3 crash rate is 0.90 crashes per million entering vehicles. For unsignalized
intersections, the statewide average crash rate is 0.58 crashes per million entering vehicles and
the MassDOT District 3 crash rate is 0.65 crashes per million entering vehicles.
The intersection of West Main Street at Lumber Street is shown to have experienced 31 crashes
between 2010 and 2015. The resulting crash rate of 0.52 crashes per million entering vehicles is
well below both the statewide and District 3 averages. 11 of the crashes reported at this
intersected were angle collisions, 11 were rear‐end collisions, four were sideswipe crashes, one
was a head‐on collision, and four crashes were reported as other. Of the reported crashes, 23
resulted in property damage and eight resulted in personal injury.
West Main Street at the West Site Driveway is shown to have experienced one crash over the
six‐ year study period. The resulting crash rate of 0.02 crashes per million entering vehicles is
well below both the statewide and District 3 averages. The reported crash at this location was an
angle collision resulting in property damage only.
The intersection of West Main Street at the East Site Driveway/Cumberland Farms Driveway
was shown to have experienced 45 crashes between 2010 and 2015. The resulting crash rate of
0.81 crashes per million entering vehicles is above both the statewide and District 3 averages for
an unsignalized intersection. Of the reported crashes, 23 were angle collisions, seven were rear‐
end crashes, 12 were sideswipe collisions, and three were reported as other. Of the reported
crashes 36 resulted in property damage and nine resulted in personal injury.
No crashes were reported by MassDOT at the intersections of Elm Street at Lumber Street
Extension/Parkwood Drive or Elm Street at the West Site Driveway/F.H. Builder Driveway
for the six‐year period between 2010 and 2015.
Local crash data was requested from the Hopkinton Police Department for the most recent
complete five‐year period available, including data from 2013‐2017. Crash reports were
requested for all study area intersections as well as the West Main Street corridor from just
east of the Interstate 495 northbound ramps to just east of the existing site driveways. The
data provided by the Hopkinton Police Department for this corridor identified a total of 96
Gasoline Station and Convenience Store Revised Traffic Impact Study
Hopkinton, Massachusetts
12
incidents, 51 of which included crash report narratives. Based on a review of the 51 crash
narratives, five crashes were reported to specifically be associated with the vehicles entering
or exiting the existing Mobil site driveways. Three of the reported crashes were angle
collisions and two were rear‐end crashes, all resulting in property damage only. Based on a
review of this data, the great majority of reported incidents along this West Main Street
corridor do not appear to involve vehicles entering or exiting the project site. The incident
log and report narratives provided by the Hopkinton Police Department are provided in
Appendix C of this report for reference.
Gasoline Station and Convenience Store Revised Traffic Impact Study
Hopkinton, Massachusetts
13
FUTURE CONDITIONS
To determine future traffic demands on the study area roadways and intersections, the 2017
Existing traffic volumes were projected to the future‐year 2024, by which time the proposed
project would be expected to be built and occupied. Traffic volumes on the study area
roadways in 2024 are assumed to include all existing traffic, as well as new traffic resulting from
general growth in the study area and from other planned development projects, independent of
the proposed gasoline station and convenience store. The potential background traffic growth,
unrelated to the proposed project, was considered in the development of the 2024 No Build
(without project) peak hour traffic volumes. The estimated traffic increases associated with the
proposed project were then added to the 2024 No Build volumes to reflect the 2024 Build (with
project) traffic conditions. A more detailed description of the development of the 2024 No Build
and 2024 Build traffic volume networks is presented below.
Future Roadway Improvements
Planned roadway improvement projects can impact travel patterns and future traffic
operations. The Town of Hopkinton was consulted to develop an understanding of future
roadway improvement projects in the vicinity of the study area. According to the Town of
Hopkinton, there are plans to add an exclusive right‐turn lane at the West Main Street
eastbound approach to the intersection of West Main Street at Lumber Street. The additional
turn lane is proposed in an effort to accommodate the recently constructed residential and retail
development on Lumber Street. Additionally, as part of the mixed‐use development project on
Lumber Street, signal timing adjustments are proposed at the intersection of West Main Street
and Lumber Street to offset the impacts of the proposed development, as documented in their
July 2014 traffic study. In order to more accurately model future operations at the intersection
of West Main Street and Lumber Street, the exclusive right turn lane was included and signal
timings were optimized in both the 2024 No Build and 2024 Build analyses.
Background Traffic Growth
Traffic growth is generally a function of changes in motor vehicle use and expected land
development within the area. In order to predict a rate at which traffic on the study area
roadways could be expected to grow during the seven‐year forecast period (2017 to 2024), both
planned area developments and historic traffic growth were reviewed.
Site‐Specific Growth
Based on an initial conversation with the Town of Hopkinton Engineering/Facilities
Department in November 2017, no site‐specific developments were identified as being
expected to impact future year traffic volumes within the study area. However, based on
subsequent discussions with Town staff, the future traffic volumes have been adjusted to
account for the full occupation of a recently constructed residential project on Lumber Street
and the future development of a Dunkin’ Donuts restaurant on West Main Street.
Gasoline Station and Convenience Store Revised Traffic Impact Study
Hopkinton, Massachusetts
14
Trip generation estimates for the fully occupied residential development, Hopkinton Mews,
were included in the future volumes for the Proposed Mixed‐Use Development Traffic
Impact and Access Study (TIAS) submitted by MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc.
(MDM) in July 2014. In order to assess the current occupancy of Hopkinton Mews, a
comparison of the 2021 Build Volumes from the MDM study and the 2017 Existing volumes
counted as part of this McMahon study was performed. The 2021 Build volume graphics
from the Lumber Street TIAS are included in Appendix D of this report. Based on the
volume comparison, 2017 Existing traffic volumes on Lumber Street are lower than the
projected MDM 2021 Build volumes which include the Hopkinton Mews project. While the
difference in the MDM 2021 Build volumes and the 2017 Existing volumes collected as part
of this study is not likely tied entirely to the occupation of Hopkinton Mews, the additional
vehicle trips calculated on Lumber Street were included as site‐specific growth within the
2024 No Build traffic volume set.
The Dunkin’ Donuts development, to be located at 78 West Main Street, was initially
approved by the Hopkinton Planning Board in 2013 and was proposed to include a 1,875
square foot Dunkin’ Donuts, 1,612 square feet of retail space, and 3,180 square feet of office
space. The most recent site plan for the development at 78 West Main Street, dated May 24,
2013, includes the construction of a 2,698 square foot Dunkin’ Donuts restaurant. The traffic
volumes expected to be generated by the Dunkin’ Donuts development were determined
using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication, Trip Generation Manual, and
applying available data for Land Use Code 936 (Coffee/Donut Shop without Drive‐Through
Window) based on the square footage. The distribution of project trips to the Dunkin’
Donuts site was determined based on methodology presented in the initial study for the
project, submitted in March 2013 by Conley Associates. The Dunkin Donut’s trip
distribution assumptions are documented in the traffic projection model included in
Appendix E of this report.
Historic Traffic Growth
The Town of Hopkinton Engineering/Facilities Department and the Metropolitan Area
Planning Council (MAPC) were contacted to determine an annual growth rate for the study
area and both recommended an annual growth rate of 0.5 percent per year. The 0.5 percent
growth rate, compounded annually, was utilized to capture traffic growth associated with
general changes in population and other developments that are not known at this time and
to forecast increases in traffic volumes on the study area roadways and intersections.
2024 No Build Traffic Volumes
The 2017 Existing peak hour traffic volumes were grown by 0.5 percent per year (compounded
annually) over the seven‐year study horizon (2017 to 2024) to establish the 2024 base traffic
volumes. Trips expected to be generated by the Hopkinton Mews residential development and
Dunkin’ Donuts restaurant development were then added to the 2024 base traffic volumes
based on the distribution assumptions documented above. The resulting 2024 No Build
weekday morning and weekday afternoon peak hour traffic volumes are illustrated in Figures 4
Gasoline Station and Convenience Store Revised Traffic Impact Study
Hopkinton, Massachusetts
15
and Figure 5, and are documented in the traffic projection model presented in Appendix E of
this report.
Gasoline Station and Convenience Store Revised Traffic Impact Study
Hopkinton, Massachusetts
18
Site‐Generated Traffic
The proposed redevelopment project would consist of the construction of a 3,840 square foot
convenience store and gasoline station with eight pumping stations (16 fueling positions).
Vehicle trip estimates for the proposed gasoline station and convenience store were developed
using the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) publication, Trip Generation Manual, 9th
Edition. ITE is a national research organization of transportation professionals, and the Trip
Generation Manual, 9th Edition provides traffic generation information for various land uses
compiled from studies conducted by members nationwide. Vehicle trip estimates for the project
were calculated based on the ITE data for Land Use Code 945 (Gasoline/Service Station with
Convenience Market).
Additional vehicles projected to be generated by the proposed redevelopment were determined
by reviewing the theoretical difference in trip generation between the existing and the proposed
gasoline station and convenience store based on ITE data for Land Use Code 945. Using this
methodology, the resulting total number of additional project trips is summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Vehicular Trip Generation
Description Size In Out Total In Out Total
Existing Project Site Trips(1)8 vfp 41 40 81 54 54 108
Total Proposed Project Trips(2)16 vfp 82 81 163 108 108 216
‐ Additional Project Trips 4141825454108
Weekday AM Weekday PM
Peak Hour Peak Hour
(1) ITE Land Use Code 945 (Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market), based on 8 vehicle fueling
(2) ITE Land Use Code 945 (Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market), based on 16 vehicle fueling
Not all (driveway) convenience markets with gasoline pumps are considered “new” trips. In
fact, a significant portion of the total trips attracted to such retail uses are “pass‐by” trips.
According to ITE, for the land use category “Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience
Market”, approximately 62 percent of the total weekday morning trips and 56 percent of the
total weekday afternoon trips attracted to this type of retail use are attributed to pass‐by trips.
The additional vehicle trips projected to be generated by the proposed redevelopment are
separated into pass‐by vehicle trips and new vehicle trips, as shown in Table 2.
Gasoline Station and Convenience Store Revised Traffic Impact Study
Hopkinton, Massachusetts
19
Table 2: Summary of New and Pass‐by Trips
Description In Out Total In Out Total
Total Additional Trips 41 41 82 54 54 108
‐ Pass‐By Trips(1)25 25 50 30 30 60
Additional “New” Trips 1616322424 48
(1) Based on LUC 945 62% of AM and 56% of PM peak hour trips are attributed to ʺpass‐byʺ trips.
Weekday AM Weekday PM
Peak Hour Peak Hour
Since pass‐by traffic is already on the adjacent roadways, this portion of the total redevelopment
traffic is reflected in the existing volumes and does not represent additional traffic on the
roadway network. Therefore, the total proposed redevelopment traffic volume is reduced by
the pass‐by trips to estimate the “new” traffic generated by the proposed redevelopment. As
shown in Table 2, the peak hour trip generation of the proposed convenience store and gasoline
station is estimated to result in an increase of approximately 32 “new” vehicle trips (16 entering
vehicles and 16 exiting vehicles) during the weekday morning peak hour and an increase of
approximately 48 “new” vehicle trips (24 entering vehicles and 24 exiting vehicles) during the
weekday afternoon peak hour.
The proposed gasoline station and convenience store is not expected to continue to provide a
Dunkin Donuts as part of the project. Therefore, any trips solely associated with the existing
Dunkin Donuts could be removed from the site under the future Build condition. However, in
order to provide a conservative analysis, no trips were removed from the site as part of the trip
generation analysis.
As‐of‐Right Development Parcels
The parcels adjacent to the existing project site could be redeveloped based on existing zoning
bylaws to allow a land use such as retail space to be constructed. Based on the size of the
adjacent lots, an approximately 16,500 square foot development could be constructed if the
proposed redevelopment project were to not move forward.
In order to compare the proposed redevelopment project to a potential as‐of‐right development
on the adjacent parcels, a trip generation assessment of a retail land use was completed. Trip
generation estimates for the retail land use were calculated using ITE Land Use Code 820
(Shopping Center). A comparison of the number of additional trips associated with the
proposed gasoline station and convenience store and the retail land use is presented in Table 3.
Gasoline Station and Convenience Store Revised Traffic Impact Study
Hopkinton, Massachusetts
20
Table 3: Retail Trip Generation Comparison
Description In Out Total In Out Total
New Project Trips(1)16 16 32 24 24 48
Total Retail Trips(2)99 61 160 69 74 143
‐Pass‐By Retail Trips(3)21 21 42 24 24 48
‐New Retail Trips 78 40 118 45 50 95
Additional As‐of‐Right Trips(4)62 24 86 21 26 47
(4) Difference between New Project Trips and New Retail Trips.
(1) From Table 2.
(2) ITE Land Use Code 820 (Shopping Center), based on 16,500 s.f.
(3) Based on LUC 820 26% of AM and 34% of PM peak hour trips are attributed to ʺpass‐byʺ trips.
Weekday AM Weekday PM
Peak Hour Peak Hour
As shown in Table 3, compared to the proposed redevelopment, the retail land use would
generate approximately 86 additional new vehicle trips (62 additional entering vehicles and 24
additional exiting vehicles) during the weekday morning peak hour and approximately 47
additional new vehicle trips (21 additional entering vehicles and 26 additional exiting vehicles)
during the weekday afternoon peak hour.
In addition to generating more vehicle trips than the gasoline station and convenience store
redevelopment, a retail development project on the adjacent parcels would also likely introduce
additional active curb cuts along West Main Street. Based on a review of the trip generating
characteristics of a possible development on the adjacent parcels and the potential means of
access for that development, the proposed gasoline station and convenience store
redevelopment would be expected to have less of an impact to the overall roadway system.
Project Site Distribution and Assignment
The traffic expected to be generated by the proposed development was distributed onto the
study area roadways and intersections based on the existing travel patterns of the adjacent
roadways. New vehicle trips expected to access the project site were assigned to the site
driveways based on the most convenient means of access. The resulting arrival and
departure patterns are presented in Figure 6.
2024 Build Traffic Volumes
To establish the 2024 Build peak hour traffic volumes, the project‐related traffic was assigned to
the surrounding roadway network based on the distribution patterns presented in Figure 6.
These project trips were then added to the 2024 No Build peak hour traffic volumes to reflect
the 2024 Build peak hour traffic volumes. The resulting 2024 Build weekday morning and
Gasoline Station and Convenience Store Revised Traffic Impact Study
Hopkinton, Massachusetts
21
weekday afternoon peak hour traffic volumes are presented in Figure 7 and Figure 8, and are
documented in the traffic projection model presented in Appendix E of this report.
Gasoline Station and Convenience Store Revised Traffic Impact Study
Hopkinton, Massachusetts
25
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
In previous sections of this report, the quantity of traffic at the study area intersections has been
discussed. The following section describes the overall quality of the traffic flow at the study
area intersections during the weekday morning and weekday afternoon peak hours. As a basis
for this assessment, intersection capacity analyses were conducted using the Synchro capacity
analysis software at the study area intersections under the 2017 Existing, 2024 No Build and
2024 Build peak hour traffic conditions. The analysis is based on Synchro capacity analysis
methodologies and procedures contained in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), which
are summarized in Appendix F. A discussion of the evaluation criteria and a summary of the
results of the capacity analyses are presented below.
Level‐of‐Service Criteria
The operating level‐of‐service (LOS) for each intersection approach is reported on a scale of
LOS A to LOS F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (little or no delay) and
LOS F representing the worst operating conditions (long delays). A more detailed description
of the LOS criteria is provided in Appendix F.
Capacity Analysis Results
Intersection capacity analyses were conducted using Synchro capacity analysis software for the
study area intersections to evaluate the 2017 Existing, 2024 No Build and 2024 Build traffic
conditions. As mentioned previously, the peak hour traffic volumes utilized as part of this
analysis are provided in the traffic projection model, attached in Appendix E of this report.
The Synchro capacity analysis results for the 2017 Existing, 2024 No Build and 2024 Build traffic
conditions are presented in Appendix G, Appendix H, and Appendix I, respectively. The
overall results of the intersection capacity analysis for the signalized study area intersection are
presented in Table 4 below. A more detailed summary of the capacity analysis for each study
area intersection is provided in Appendix J. The results of the specific capacity analysis at the
study area intersections are discussed below.
Gasoline Station and Convenience Store Revised Traffic Impact Study
Hopkinton, Massachusetts
26
Table 4: Signalized Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Results
Intersection LOS(1)Delay(2)V/C(3)LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C
West Main Street at AM C 27.2 0.95 C 28.8 0.81 C 28.5 0.80
Lumber Street PM C 32.0 >1.00 C 30.5 0.82 C 30.6 0.85
2017 Existing 2024 No Build
(1) Level‐of‐Service
(2) Average vehicle delay, in seconds
(3) Volume to capacity ratio
2024 Build
West Main Street at Lumber Street
Based on a review of the capacity analysis, the signalized intersection of West Main Street at
Lumber Street is shown to currently operate at overall LOS C during the weekday morning
and weekday afternoon peak hours. Under 2024 No Build and 2024 Build conditions with the
prosed signal timing optimization, the intersection is projected to continue to operate at
overall LOS C during both peak hours studied. Under the 2024 Build condition, all
movements are projected to operate under capacity.
Table 5 summarizes the level‐of‐service results for the critical movement at the unsignalized
intersection of Elm Street at the Lumber Street Extension/Parkwood Drive and at the four
unsignalized site driveways during the weekday morning and weekday afternoon peak hours.
A more detailed summary of the capacity analysis is provided in Appendix J. The results of the
capacity analysis conducted at the unsignalized study area intersections are discussed below.
Table 5: Unsignalized Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Results
Intersection Movement LOS(1)Delay(2)V/C(3)LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C
Elm Street at AM C 20.3 0.67 C 22.3 0.72 C 22.8 0.73
Lumber Street Ext./Parkwood Drive PM F >50.0 1.00 E 40.7 0.88 E 44.2 0.91
West Main Street at AM E 41.6 0.55 F >50.0 0.67 F >50.0 0.82
West Site Driveway PM D 27.1 0.44 E 49.5 0.62 F >50.0 0.72
West Main Street at AM E 48.7 0.16 F >50.0 0.18 E 41.8 0.14
East Site Driveway PM E 40.7 0.26 F >50.0 0.34 F >50.0 0.32
Elm Street at AM A 9.2 0.07 A 9.0 0.05 A 9.1 0.07
West Site Driveway PM A 9.8 0.07 A 9.5 0.04 A 9.5 0.06
Elm Street at AM n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a A 8.7 0.01
East Site Driveway PM n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a A 8.9 0.01
NB LR
(2) Average vehicle delay, in seconds
(3) Volume to capacity ratio
(1) Level‐of‐Service
2017 Existing
NB LTR
WB LTR
2024 No Build 2024 Build
SB LTR/LR
SB LR
Gasoline Station and Convenience Store Revised Traffic Impact Study
Hopkinton, Massachusetts
27
Elm Street at Lumber Street Extension/Parkwood Drive
The capacity analysis indicates that under the 2024 No Build conditions, the westbound Elm
Street approach to the intersection of Elm Street at Lumber Street Extension/Parkwood Drive is
shown to operate at LOS C during the weekday morning peak hour and at LOS E during the
weekday afternoon peak hour. With the proposed project in place, the Elm Street westbound
approach is projected to continue to operate at LOS C during the weekday morning peak hour
and at LOS E during the weekday afternoon peak hour. It should be noted that due to the
limitations of the capacity analysis software, the intersection was analyzed as an all‐way stop
intersection.
West Main Street at the West Site Driveway
The capacity analysis indicates that the southbound exiting movement from the West Site
Driveway onto West Main Street is shown to currently operate at LOS E during the weekday
morning peak hour and at LOS D during the weekday afternoon peak hour. Under the 2024 No
Build condition the southbound approach is projected to operate at LOS F during the weekday
morning peak hour and at LOS E during the weekday afternoon peak hour. With the proposed
redevelopment in place, the southbound approach is projected to operate at LOS F during the
weekday morning and weekday afternoon peak hours; however, it is expected to operate under
capacity during both peak hours studied. Although the exiting movements are shown to
operate at LOS F during the analyzed peak hours, the increase in delay is shown to only be
experienced by onsite vehicles at this driveway location. The eastbound and westbound
movements on West Main Street are both projected to operate at LOS A under all conditions.
West Main Street at the East Site Driveway
The capacity analysis indicates that the southbound exiting movements from the East Site
Driveway onto West Main Street are shown to currently operate at LOS E during both the
weekday morning and weekday afternoon peak hours. Under the 2024 No Build condition, the
exiting movements from the East Site Driveway are projected to operate at LOS F the weekday
morning and weekday afternoon peak hour. Under the 2024 Build condition, the southbound
exiting movements are projected to operate at LOS E during the weekday morning peak hour
and at LOS F during the weekday afternoon peak hour. The improvement in operations for the
southbound driveway movement is due to the offset of the East Site Driveway under the Build
conditions. The critical southbound movement is also projected to operate well under capacity
during both the weekday morning and weekday afternoon peak hours under the 2024 Build
condition. The eastbound and westbound movements on West Main Street are projected to
operate at LOS A under all conditions.
Elm Street at the West Site Driveway
Under the 2017 Existing condition, the capacity analysis indicates that the critical northbound
movements exiting the West Site Driveway onto Elm Street are shown operate at LOS A during
both the weekday morning and weekday afternoon peak hours. Under the 2024 No Build and
2024 Build conditions, the critical northbound movements are projected to continue to operate
Gasoline Station and Convenience Store Revised Traffic Impact Study
Hopkinton, Massachusetts
28
at LOS A during both the weekday morning and weekday afternoon peak hours and well
under capacity.
Elm Street at the East Site Driveway
The capacity analysis indicates that under the 2024 Build condition the northbound exiting
movements from the East Site Driveway onto Elm Street are projected to operate at LOS A
during both the weekday morning and weekday afternoon peak periods and well under
capacity.
Site Access and Circulation
Access to the gasoline station and convenience store is proposed to be provided via four
unsignalized, full access driveways; two on West Main Street and two on Elm Street. The
proposed West Site Driveway would be relocated between the existing site driveways and
the Cumberland Farms driveways on West Main Street. The proposed East Site Driveway
would be located at the approximate location of the existing residential driveway. The
driveways are proposed to be shifted slightly from their existing position so that they no
longer align with the Cumberland Farms driveways. The proposed West Site Driveway and
East Site Driveway on Elm Street are also proposed to be shifted slightly in order to
accommodate the proposed reconfiguration of the convenience store and gasoline fueling
pumps on site.
Sight Distance
A field review of the available sight distance was conducted at the four proposed driveway
locations on West Main Street and Elm Street. West Main Street has a posted speed limit of
40 miles per hour in the vicinity of the project site. Vehicle speeds collected through a speed
study of the corridor indicate that the 85th percentile speed on West Main Street is
approximately 36 miles per hour in the eastbound direction and approximately 37 miles per
hour in the westbound direction. Therefore, in order to provide an analysis reflective of the
posted speed limit, a speed of 40 miles per hour was utilized in the sight distance review.
Elm Street does not have a posted speed limit in the vicinity of the study area. Vehicle speeds
collected by speed counts indicated that the 85th percentile speed on Elm Street was
approximately 20 miles per hour in the eastbound direction and approximately 18 miles per
hour in the westbound direction. Therefore, a speed of 20 miles per hour was utilized in the
sight distance review presented below. A summary of vehicle speeds collected on Elm Street
and West Main Street are presented in Appendix K.
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
publication, A Policy on Geometric Design, 2011 Edition, defines minimum and desirable sight
distances at intersections. The minimum sight distance is based on the required stopping
sight distance (SSD) for vehicles traveling along the main road. The desirable sight distance
allows vehicles to enter the main street traffic flow without requiring the mainline traffic to
slow to less than 70% of their speed and is referred to as intersection sight distance (ISD).
Gasoline Station and Convenience Store Revised Traffic Impact Study
Hopkinton, Massachusetts
29
According to AASHTO, “If the available sight distance for an entering or crossing vehicle is
at least equal to the appropriate stopping sight distance for the major road, then drivers have
sufficient time to anticipate and avoid collisions.”
Table 6 summarizes the AASHTO sight distance standards for a speed of 40 miles per hour
on West Main Street and 20 miles per hour on Elm Street and the available sight distance at
each of the proposed site driveways.
Table 6: Sight Distance Requirements
Vehicle Location Direction
SSD
Required
(ft)(1)
ISD
Recommended
(ft)(2)
Available Sight
Distance Measured
(ft)
Meets SSD/ISD
Requirements
Looking Left (East)(2)305 385 >500 Yes
Looking Right (West)305 445 >500 Yes
Looking Left (East)(2)305 385 >500 Yes
Looking Right (West)305 445 >500 Yes
Looking Left (West)115 195 >500 Yes
Looking Right (East)(3)115 225 >500 Yes
Looking Left (West)115 195 >500 Yes
Looking Right (East)(3)115 225 >500 Yes
(1) AASHTO stopping sight distance (see AASHTO Table 3‐1) for operating speeds of 40 mph for
West Main Street and of 20 mph for Elm Street.
(2) AASHTO intersection sight distance (see AASHTO Table 9‐6 for Case B1, Left Turn from Stop and Table 9‐8 for Case B2,
Right Turn from Stop).
(3) Sight lines for West Main Street extend beyond the intersection of West Main Street and Lumber Street.
(4) Sight lines for Elm Street extend beyond the intersection of Elm Street at Parwood Drive/Lumber Street Ext.
West Main St ‐ West
Site Driveway
West Main St ‐ East
Site Driveway
Elm Street ‐ East Site
Driveway
Elm Street ‐ West Site
Driveway
As shown in Table 6, the sight distance for a vehicle exiting the proposed driveways on West
Main Street looking to the left (east) or looking to the right (west) is greater than 500 feet. The
available sight distance at the proposed West Main Street driveways exceeds the minimum
SSD of 305 feet and the minimum ISD of 385 feet and 445 feet for vehicle speeds of 40 miles
per hour, which is greater than the documented 85th percentile speed on the roadway. The
available sight distance is expected to allow vehicles to safely exit the project site. The sight
distance for a vehicle exiting the proposed driveways on Elm Street looking to the left (west)
or looking to the right (east) is greater than 500 feet. The available sight distance at the
proposed driveways exceeds the minimum SSD of 115 feet and the minimum ISD of 195 feet
and 225 feet for vehicle speeds of 20 miles per hour, allowing vehicles to exit the site safely
from the Elm Street driveways.
Gasoline Station and Convenience Store Revised Traffic Impact Study
Hopkinton, Massachusetts
30
CONCLUSION
The proposed 3,840 square foot gasoline station and convenience store with eight gasoline
pumps (16 vehicle fueling positions) would be located at 84‐92 West Main Street in Hopkinton,
Massachusetts. Access to the site is to be provided via four unsignalized, full access driveways;
two on West Main Street and two on Elm Street. The four driveways would provide one lane
entering the site and one lane exiting the site.
Based on the analysis presented in this assessment, the gasoline station and convenience
store project is expected to generate approximately 32 new vehicle trips (16 entering vehicles
and 16 exiting vehicles) during the weekday morning peak hour and approximately 48 new
vehicle trips (24 entering vehicles and 24 exiting vehicles) during the weekday afternoon
peak hour. This estimate of the increase in project trips to the project site is considered to be
conservative based on the proposed redevelopment which is not expected to contain a
Dunkin Donuts. Therefore, a number of existing site trips may no longer access the site
which would decrease the overall increase in project trips. The proposed redevelopment is
also projected to result in fewer new project trips and access points along West Main Street
than an as‐of‐right retail development that could be constructed on the adjacent parcels.
The capacity analysis indicates that the proposed project would not have an appreciable
impact on the operations of the study area intersections or roadways. The intersection of
West Main Street at Lumber Street is expected to continue to operate at overall LOS C
between the 2017 Existing and 2024 Build conditions. The project site driveway approaches
are expected to generally maintain their existing operations and the movements along West
Main Street and Elm Street are expected to operate at LOS A at the proposed site driveways
under the 2024 Build condition. The site driveways have been designed to provide sufficient
sight distance to allow vehicles to enter and exit the site safely.
Based on a review of the analysis contained within this traffic impact study, the proposed
gasoline station and convenience store project is not expected to have an appreciable impact
on the traffic operations of the study area roadways and intersections.
April 9, 2017
John Coutinho, Chair Board of Selectmen 18 Main Street Hopkinton, MA 01748
Re: Street Acceptance Report Dear Mr. Coutinho:
Pursuant to the requirements of MGL. Ch. 41 Sec. 81I, the Planning Board provides this report relative to the three streets proposed for acceptance as public ways at the 2018 annual town meeting. All three were shown on subdivision plans approved by the Planning Board as further described below. The Board voted on Jan. 8, 2018 to submit the following streets into the annual town meeting warrant for acceptance as public ways:
Singletary Way – Highland Park III subdivision The Highland Park III subdivision was approved by the Planning Board in 1990. The road and infrastructure was constructed in the mid/late 1990’s. There is 475 feet of roadway which serves 7 lots. The road is within an Open Space and Landscape Preservation Development (OSLPD)
subdivision, and the open space has been conveyed to the Highland Park Association. Cobblers Way – Peloquin Estates subdivision The Peloquin Estates subdivision was approved by the Planning Board in 2009. The road and infrastructure was constructed shortly thereafter. There is 950 feet of roadway which serves 9
lots. Peloquin Estates is an OSLPD subdivision, and the open space will be conveyed to the Hopkinton Area Land Association. Legacy Farms South – Legacy Farms Road South subdivision The Legacy Farms Road South subdivision was approved by the Planning Board in 2011, and
road construction began shortly thereafter. Development of the residential portion of the south side of Legacy Farms has been completed, and the Open Land has been placed under covenant. Most of the residential development uses Legacy Farms South for access. Legacy Farms South is 5,174 feet long. The Host Community Agreement between the Town and the master developer states that the Town will accept Legacy Farms South as a public way. Only two
streets in Legacy Farms will become public ways – Legacy Farms South and Legacy Farms North. The Board has voted to recommend that these three streets be accepted as public ways.
Sincerely,
John Ferrari, Chair
1
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD Monday, March 12, 2018 7:30 P.M. HCAM-TV Studio, 77 Main St./Lower Level, Hopkinton, MA
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: John Ferrari, Chair, Fran DeYoung, Vice-Chair, Frank D’Urso, David Paul, Amy Ritterbusch, Frank D’Urso, Muriel Kramer, Cliff Kistner
Members Absent: Kelly Karp
Present: Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use & Town Operations; Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
1. Continued Public Hearing – Proposed Zoning Bylaw and Zoning Map Changes Amend Section 210-125, Conversion of Residential Property. Ms. Lazarus noted the Board was
interested in hearing from the Board of Appeals regarding the proposed change. Mark Hyman,
Chair, Board of Appeals, member of the Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC), noted the Board of Appeals asked the ZAC to take a look at the Conversion bylaw mainly as a result of a recent application to convert a single family house with an accessory family dwelling unit to a 2-family dwelling. He noted the changes proposed by the ZAC would add an owner occupancy
requirement and limit the number of units. Ms. Kramer noted she thought owner occupancy
could not be enforced, and Ms. Lazarus noted it would be difficult. It was noted that Town Counsel has stated that an existing provision requiring that the units be for rental purposes is no longer legal, and this will be removed from the article. Ms. Kramer noted it appears conversion of single family to multifamily homes is not a big problem that should be addressed this year.
She stated she is not in favor of the change and prefers to keep the flexibility for property owners
and would like to see more converted apartment situations. Mr. Hyman stated the existing bylaw essentially makes it possible to get around the very specific regulations under the Accessory Family Dwelling Unit and Duplex bylaws, especially since according to Town Counsel the rental piece is not enforceable now, and in this context the ZAC has proposed changes to the Accessory
Family Dwelling Unit bylaw. Ms. Ritterbusch noted she is ok with changing the maximum
number of units from 4 to 2, and the examples of permits granted since 1997 indicate that the majority of cases involved a change from a single family to a two-family home. Mr. DeYoung noted he feels a single family home going from 1 to 3 or 4 units will affect the existing neighborhood, because of more cars and traffic, for instance. Ms. Kramer stated they are not
supposed to make planning decisions based on real estate values, and single family homes can
also have a lot of activity. Mr. DeYoung moved to recommend the article to Town Meeting using Town Counsel's language. Ms. Ritterbusch seconded the motion and the Board voted 4 in favor (Ritterbusch, Paul, DeYoung, Ferrari), 3 opposed (D'Urso, Nasrullah, Kramer), with 1 abstention (Kistner).
Accessory Family Dwelling Unit Bylaw - Mr. Hyman stated this proposed change was also based on Board of Appeals experiences. He noted the Board has seen an uptick in requests for special permits for Accessory Family Dwelling Units, some also including variances because the current bylaw requirements seem too restrictive by today’s standards. He noted the ZAC
reviewed the purpose of the bylaw and as part of the process looked at model bylaws. Mr.
2
Hyman noted there are two important changes: a) allow certain categories of Accessory Family
Dwelling Units by right, involving small units entirely within the existing dwelling; and b) require a special permit for detached units where building an addition or making accommodations within the existing footprint does not make sense, cutting down on the number of variance requests.
Mr. DeYoung stated he thinks this change is open to more discussion, specifically with respect to
limiting the mini accessory unit one third of the entire gross floor area of the existing dwelling. Mr. Hyman stated he personally is not a fan of this restriction but there was concern on the ZAC whether a 1,000 sf addition to a 1,800 sf home for instance constitutes an accessory unit. Mr. Kistner stated an addition needs to provide functional living space. Ms. Ritterbusch stated she is comfortable with the article as presented by the ZAC. Ms. Kramer stated there could be a valid
reason for wanting a larger unit, such as medical needs or specialized equipment, and she is also comfortable with allowing a detached structure. Mr. Nasrullah noted he is ok with the 1,000 sf limit but the additional restriction to 1/3 of the existing dwelling seems arbitrary and could be seen as adversely affecting certain income groups vs. others. Ms. Kramer moved to recommend the article as proposed, and Mr. Ritterbusch seconded the motion. Mr. Nasrullah offered an
amendment to the motion to eliminate the 1/3 requirement, and Ms. Kramer accepted the
amendment. After further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of the amended motion.
2. Continued Public Hearings - Chamberlain St./Whalen Rd. - 1) Definitive Subdivision
Application; 2) Flexible Community Development Special Permit Application; 3) Scenic
Road Application/Joint Hearing with Tree Warden - REC Hopkinton, LLC Ms. Kramer moved to open and continue the public hearings until after the discussion of proposed amendments to the Zoning Bylaw and Zoning Map. Mr. D'Urso seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
3. Continued Public Hearing - Proposed Zoning Bylaw and Map Changes Recreational Marijuana. Ms. Lazarus noted the laws on this matter have continued to evolve since the 2017 town meeting, and in order to complete the “no” process to not allow the uses in Hopkinton, a bylaw needs to be adopted. She stated that this wasn’t a requirement in 2017. She noted the ZAC has proposed language to this effect.
Denise Hildreth, Director of Youth & Family Services, requested that the Board move forward with and recommend the article to town meeting. Ms. Ritterbusch stated she watched the video of the 2017 town meeting where the article for a temporary moratorium passed after a 20 minute discussion, and she was surprised to then see a ballot question on a permanent ban. She noted it
sounded as if there would be additional discussion, and perhaps the public did not understand the question. She asked if the temporary moratorium could be extended for another year, and Ms. Lazarus stated probably through the fall at the latest. Ms. Lazarus noted that after the 2017 ATM vote, the ballot measure on a permanent ban passed, and therefore this was taken as the Town’s direction. Therefore, the ZAC decided to go ahead with an article to ban the uses, following the
will of the voters.
In response to a question of Mr. Kistner, Ms. Lazarus noted at this point the Town either has to prohibit recreational marijuana facilities or allow some or all of them, perhaps by special permit or other administrative means. Mr. Nasrullah noted if they decide to extend the moratorium until
3
the State comes up with regulations, it would be very difficult to shut down and remove a facility
that has opened up here in the meantime. Ms. Lazarus stated a prohibition is not necessarily permanent, and town meeting could repeal the bylaw and allow recreational marijuana facilities in the future. Mr. Nasrullah noted other towns in Massachusetts will have these facilities, and banning them in Hopkinton would mean missing out on a potential source of tax revenue. Mr. D'Urso noted Massachusetts residents in 2016 overwhelmingly voted in favor of legalizing
recreational marijuana. He noted town meeting last year voted for a temporary moratorium, and he feels pushing forth a total prohibition would mean more regressive politics which will also affect medical marijuana. He noted if people really cared about public health and safety, they should also not want alcohol and tobacco in Town.
Mr. DeYoung stated it appears the Town wants to prohibit recreational marijuana facilities, and
he is in favor of prohibition. Mr. Hyman noted the ballot vote was fairly close while the town meeting vote pitched as a temporary moratorium was more lopsided. He noted there may have been some confusion at the ballot box, although based on Town Counsel’s comments that vote apparently is irrelevant now, and at this point they should just let town meeting decide. Ms. Kramer noted the Town from a planning perspective is not prepared to move forward without
giving town meeting a chance to vote on this but she is comforted by the fact this is not
necessarily the end, if someone is willing to work on ways to make it possible to support the use. Mr. Kistner suggested rewording the article, noting he does not want to vote on it the way it is written. Ms. Ritterbusch stated she believes that cities and towns that voted against legalizing
had more flexibility in terms of regulating it, and either the Board of Selectmen or Planning
Board can work on draft regulations at any time. Ms. Lazarus noted that to modify this article to exempt certain uses (i.e. allow them) a new public hearing would be required. The Board further discussed the matter.
Carol DeVeuve, 47 Chamberlain St., suggested the Planning Board explain at town meeting that the temporary moratorium is about to end in August, and that unless the Town votes to make the
prohibition permanent it will be subject to the regulations put in place by the State. She noted if there is Town interest to allow the use in the future, it can take the upcoming year to draft regulations. Ms. Kramer moved to recommend the article as drafted to town meeting, and Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion. Mr. D'Urso proposed amending the motion to exclude cultivation. After discussion, Ms. Kramer agreed to accept the amendment. Ms. Ritterbusch
reiterated the need for clear regulations, including buffer zones, based on experiences in other states, and Ms. Lazarus noted Town Counsel stated that another public hearing is required if the article is amended to allow any of the uses, because the advertised public hearing notice was for prohibition of all the uses. On the amended motion, the Board voted 2 in favor (Kistner, D'Urso) and 6 opposed (Ferrari, DeYoung, Paul, Ritterbusch, Kramer, Nasrullah. On the original motion,
the Board voted 4 in favor (DeYoung, Kramer, Paul, Ferrari) and 4 opposed (Nasrullah, D'Urso, Kistner, Ritterbusch), and the motion failed.
Lighting Bylaw. Ms. Kramer stated she prefers the standalone bylaw option, so that any cases where internal light becomes an external feature, excluding lights for safety, security, backup lighting, become part of a specific process in front of the Planning Board. She noted she feels
this is an important conversation, without singling out particular businesses, but realizes this may
not be the right time.
4
Scott Richardson, Hopkinton Chamber of Commerce, member of the ZAC, stated he feels that
arbitrarily enacting something that refers to internal lighting as not being in good taste or distracting may have unintended consequences, and the Chamber is very opposed to the article. He noted in terms of zoning the Site Plan Review process will address lighting issues taking input from the neighbors into consideration. Mr. D'Urso stated they are talking about interior lighting that has exterior purposes making it part of the inside display, and it would be nice to
have some control. Mr. DeYoung asked about seasonal lighting, and Ms. Kramer stated it came up at the ZAC discussions but the article is not intended to interfere with items such as temporary holiday decorations or safety/security lighting, and the bylaw should be specific in that respect. Ms. Kramer moved to recommend the article as written, and Mr. D'Urso seconded the motion. After discussion, Ms. Kramer amended her motion to include holiday lighting and
security lighting to the list of exceptions. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion as amended.
Ms. Kramer moved to close the public hearing, Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Ms. Kramer asked the Board to schedule a future agenda item regarding the structuring and focus
items of the ZAC going forward.
The Board took a 5 minute break.
4. Continued Public Hearings - Chamberlain St./Whalen Rd. - 1) Definitive Subdivision
Application; 2) Flexible Community Development Special Permit Application; 3) Scenic
Road Application/Joint Hearing with Tree Warden - REC Hopkinton, LLC Paul Mastroianni and Kathi Sherry, REC Hopkinton, LLC, applicant, and Michael Dryden, Bohler Engineering, appeared before the Board. Mr. D'Urso moved to open the public hearing, Ms. Kramer seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Ms. Kramer asked the applicant to provide a detailed review of road and lot layout design,
including the emergency connection. Ms. Sherry noted they propose to extend the Whalen Rd. and Chamberlain St. cul-de-sacs with a gated emergency access road, and widen Chamberlain St. basically from the Center Trail entrance up to the unimproved section of the street that leads into the new development. She stated in preparation of tonight's discussion they have submitted
some alternatives based on input from the Conservation Commission (ConCom) and the Fire
Dept. Mr. Dryden described the 103 acre site between the Whalen Rd. and Chamberlain St. culs-de-sac. He noted both new roadways will be 22 ft. wide curb to curb, with bituminous curbing,
grass strips, and 5 ft. sidewalks. He noted the culs-de-sac will be connected via an emergency
access road, the alignment of which has changed slightly since the last meeting. He noted the road is about 450 ft. long and includes a wetlands crossing with box culverts and guardrails on both sides. He referred to the revised Chamberlain St. plan exhibit and noted they looked at stone walls and trees to be impacted or saved in the area intended for widening. In response to a question of Ms. Kramer, Mr. Dryden stated they are trying to balance existing constraints, such
as mature trees, stone walls, utility poles and mailboxes, but plan to widen the road wherever possible to a minimum of 18 to 20 ft. He stated in some areas they will only be able to widen to 18 ft. and there will be some meandering to avoid features worthy of saving. Mr. Dryden
5
provided additional details on the proposed improvements. He referred to the Tedstone property
on the corner at the end of the improved section of Chamberlain St. and stated they have agreed to shift the driveway somewhat allowing the stone wall to be extended and evergreen screening to be installed to block car headlights. Ms. Kramer asked if this was discussed with the homeowners, and Mr. Dryden replied yes.
Mr. Dryden noted there were some changes to the scenic road plan to identify all trees to be impacted even if they are already dead. He noted the revised plan also quantifies stone walls to be impacted, primarily because of the need to relocate 6 utility poles. He noted the proposed improvements will require temporary removal of small sections of stone wall, and they will stockpile the stones, move the poles, and then put the wall back together approximately in its
original location. Mr. D'Urso noted he had the impression that utilities would be undergrounded for the first 3 or 4 poles, and Mr. Dryden stated someone may have suggested it during the site walk but undergrounding in this particular area is not proposed due to significant challenges.
Mr. Dryden described the layout of the emergency access road. He noted it is just under 450 ft. long, and they have since changed the alignment to respond to the latest wetland flags. He
described the changes to the wetlands crossing and noted the plan shows a pavement width of 16
ft. through the resource area flaring out to 20 ft. He stated the road will be gated on both ends. Phil Paradis, BETA Group Inc., the Board's consultant, noted the plan in general meets the requirements, and remaining items are related to the emergency access road and offsite
improvements. He referred to the Subdivision Regulations and noted the proposed widths of 18
to 20 ft. for offsite improvements to Chamberlain St. do not meet the requirements. He noted he applauds the applicant for efforts to save mature trees and limit the impact on the stone walls with respect to the proposed improvements to Chamberlain St., but there are definite challenges relative to safety with this design and some analysis of the travel path may be in order. Ms.
Kramer asked if it would make sense to add traffic calming measures in the more challenging
spots, and Mr. Paradis noted it may be an option.
Mr. Kistner stated that construction activities that disturb the tree’s root system or the gravel base typically have a significant impact on a tree’s life expectancy. Mr. Dryden agreed, but noted they are only proposing changes to the opposite side of the street, widening only where necessary, and they are not planning to disrupt the gravel base. In response to a question, Mr.
Dryden stated there are 3 points where widening to only 18 ft. is proposed. Mr. Paradis noted another issue is the bend in the road where the design obviously cannot meet the minimum 150 ft. radius requirement. He noted people driving down the road will suddenly come to a row of evergreens, and he recommended some signage to protect the neighbors. Mr. Paul asked if the bend requires a waiver, and Mr. Paradis stated yes.
Mr. Paradis stated the plans indicate a sidewalk on one side of the new roads, except for the extension of and upgrades to the improved section of Chamberlain St., and although there won’t be a lot of traffic under the current design, pedestrians will have to walk along the road. Ms. Kramer noted this came up during the site walk, and asked if there is some type of hybrid solution where they would not put in a sidewalk but possibly extend the trail to create a safe
walking path on adjacent property. Mr. Paradis noted that is a great idea. Ms. Kramer suggested
addressing the scenic aspect separately at a later time, but she would like the Board to decide tonight whether it wants to get a consultant to see what is going on with the trees.
6
Ms. Kramer asked the applicants whether there is a plan to permanently protect the open space
adjacent to the emergency access road through a conservation restriction (CR). Mr. Dryden noted the emergency access road was originally contemplated as an easement, but it will be part of the open space itself and they have no objection to a CR. Ms. Ritterbusch asked if it was narrowed to 16 ft. at the ConCom's suggestion. Mr. Dryden stated yes, to limit the impact, and Ms. Sherry noted it is 16 ft. only over the wetlands area.
Ms. Ritterbusch asked if the Fire Dept. has weighed in on the width of the access road. Bill Miller, Deputy Fire Chief, stated they are aware of the proposal and are now ok with it. Mr. Nasrullah asked for details on the emergency gate mechanism, and Mr. Dryden stated the plans will refer to the specifications of the Fire Dept. in terms of the locking mechanism and gate design itself. Ms. Sherry stated they are proposing a swing gate to be electronically operated,
similar to a garage door opener, available to the Fire Dept. and the DPW, which can also be manually operated in case of power outage. Ms. Sherry stated they had some informal discussions on this issue with the Director of Public Works, responded to his comments, and are open to his suggestions to make sure the system is successful.
Gary Trendel, 31 Chamberlain St., asked for clarification regarding Mr. Paradis' comments
regarding safety, and Mr. Paradis noted he is mainly referring to vehicular traffic at this point, but he thinks there will also be a discussion about pedestrian and bicycle safety and would recommend a sidewalk.
Ms. Kramer referred to the impact of increased traffic as a result of the proposal. Ms. Sherry noted their traffic consultant could not be here tonight, but the study presented as part of the
proposal and reviewed by BETA was in support of the emergency only access which obviously would result in reducing the impact on surrounding intersections. She noted recommendations primarily included widening Chamberlain St. to support the additional trips to and from the new development, increasing the width to 20 ft. where possible, and adding pavement markings on the Whalen Rd. approach at West Main St. Mr. Paradis noted BETA has no additional
comments. Ms. Kramer stated she is particularly interested in traffic calming measures, especially with respect to Chamberlain St., however Whalen Rd. may have some issues as well. Mr. D'Urso stated he shares the residents’ concern that traffic issues are not being addressed. He asked about the process for setting speed limits and Ms. Lazarus noted the Planning Board is not involved in establishing speed limits. It was noted the speed limit along the entirety of
Chamberlain St. is 20 mph but it is not marked. Amanda Faucher, 39 Chamberlain St., Co-Chair, Chamberlain St./Whalen Rd. Coalition, stated she feels meandering the road will naturally slow people down.
Phil Totino, 17 Whalen Rd., asked whether the current Whalen Rd. cul-de-sac could be changed
into a rotary, forcing people to slow down. Mr. Dryden stated they considered adding a center
island, but based on the geometry, emergency vehicles cannot make the turn. He noted there are also wetlands resources and existing driveways to complicate matters, but they are willing to explore other ideas. Ms. Kramer stated she feels Mr. Totino has a good point and there should be some mechanism to control the new traffic when it enters onto existing Whalen Rd.
Mr. Totino noted Whalen Rd. has families with children and people that are retired, and they all
walk a lot. He noted primarily for safety reasons it would be good to have a sidewalk on one side of the street, ultimately connecting to other areas of Town for additional walkability. Ms. Kramer asked for the developer's thoughts on this issue. Ms. Sherry stated this is not something
7
they have considered yet, but they will look at it. Ms. Kramer stated that although she would
like the developer to look at this, they do not necessarily intend to cut into the narrow and scenic parts of Chamberlain St. to put in a sidewalk.
Mr. Paul stated he heard about the possible hybrid solution building a path through the woods along Chamberlain St. starting at Center Trail to the end of the road, but he feels they should consider a sidewalk from there to Hayden Rowe. He stated they know Whalen Rd. residents
would like sidewalks, but he would also like to hear from the Chamberlain St. neighbors. Mr. Dryden noted they will have to consider constraints, and don’t have the plans to determine if any of this is even possible.
India Nolen, 26 Chamberlain St., stated her traffic concerns are mostly related to safety. She
noted she lives near Sanctuary Lane and always notices groups of children either walking to and
from the Hopkins School or going in the other direction towards Center Trail, and it is not just children living on Chamberlain St., but also kids from adjacent neighborhoods. Mr. Trendel stated he is in favor of a sidewalk from Center Trail to Hayden Rowe, because the new school will open later this year and he expects traffic to increase threefold with the addition of 22 more homes at the end of Chamberlain St. Ann Marie Rocheleau, 16 Whalen Rd., stated she would
like to see a sidewalk on Whalen Rd. because it is wide enough and people tend to drive too fast.
Mr. Paul noted one of the residents asked about traffic calming measures. Mr. Dryden noted they can ask their traffic engineer but as stated previously the meandering nature of the road design inherently will keep speeds down. Ms. Kramer stated from her perspective she would like the applicants to consult with their traffic engineers particularly with respect to Chamberlain
St., which will undergo a big change as a result of the additional development. Isabel Hart, 17 Chamberlain St., noted she lives at the Hayden Rowe end, and asked the Board to consider traffic calming measures there as well. She stated the street is a straight shot, wider compared to the other end, and some people drive fast. Ms. Kramer noted this item will be left open on the hearing outline.
John Fitzgerald, 46 Chamberlain St., noted he lives in the last house on the right, has a young child and moved here because of the street’s scenic character and opportunity for people to walk and bicycle without having to worry about safety. He noted in spite of the expectation that meandering the street will lessen the impact, he feels the proposed change is a mess waiting to
happen. He noted he is very concerned about children’s safety, considering the way people drive
and are easily distracted, and he asked the Board to consider this proposal very carefully. Ms. Kramer noted she understands Mr. Fitzgerald’s concerns and, although a lot of work is being done to address the issues, the neighborhood will change and to some extent will require parents’ involvement in educating their children to deal with the new conditions. She noted safety is one
of the Board’s priorities. Mr. Fitzgerald urged the Board to consult an arborist with respect to
the trees to be impacted. Ms. Hart stated there are tremendous problems with solar glare especially late in the afternoon at certain times of the year, and she was recently told that because of that a child was hit by a car on the street years ago.
After further discussion, it was determined to check off “offsite improvements”, but leave traffic calming measures and sidewalks open on the list. Mr. Paul asked if the developers are willing to
plant new trees to deal with road glare and similar items, and Ms. Kramer noted they will get to that when they address the scenic road aspect. Mr. D'Urso asked about the Chamberlain St./Hayden Rowe intersection which will be significantly impacted, and noted previous boards
8
were of the opinion that “if you break it, you fix it”. He noted perhaps having left and right
turning lanes may alleviate some of the additional backups, stating this issue is on the public hearing outline but has not been discussed. Mike Wasielewski, BETA Group, stated they looked at the traffic volume projections submitted by the developer, and do not feel they justify requiring left or right turn lanes. He noted he was involved with the traffic assessment for the new school, and the increased traffic volume was taken into consideration by the developer of
the Chamberlain St./Whalen Rd. subdivision. Ms. Kramer asked about the potential impact on the downtown corridor project, and Ms. Ritterbusch noted she was the one who included the item, but is no longer concerned after seeing a recent presentation on the project. Mr. Nasrullah stated he sees cars backed up to Whalen Rd. on West Main St. all the time and perhaps additional discussion is warranted. Mr. Wasielewski stated he believes that the Main St. Corridor Project
addresses that by adding a turn lane at the Wood St. intersection. The Board determined it is ok with this issue.
Ms. Sherry noted they will take a look at the possibility of sidewalks on Whalen Rd. and the remainder of Chamberlain St. and asked for additional guidance from the Board. Ms. Kramer stated she thinks as a board they are trying to get safe and sensible connectivity because of the
influx of pedestrians. Ms. DeVeuve stated there is an existing path a little further down the
unimproved section, going around the back and connecting with the Center Trail, and wetlands impact using that approach would be less compared to the hybrid walking path proposed earlier, and with minimal impact on vegetation. Ms. Sherry asked if it would be on town-owned
property, and Mr. DeVeuve stated yes.
At the suggestion of Mr. Paul there was further discussion regarding utilities. Mr. Dryden offered an overview of utilities available to the site, including an 8 in. water pipe connecting a 6 in. pipe at the end of Whalen Rd. with an 8 in. pipe on Chamberlain St., which will be an improvement for the neighborhood in general. He noted they will have on-site septic systems, and power/cable connections are readily available on both ends. Mr. Paul referred to earlier
comments regarding underground utilities at the end of Chamberlain St., and Mr. Dryden confirmed utilities will be underground in the new development only. Mr. Paul noted they have to move the 5 or 6 poles along the north side of Chamberlain St. anyway, and Mr. Dryden noted it is a vast undertaking to underground utilities in Chamberlain St., and he is not sure the project can support that.
Mr. D'Urso stated he feels the 32 new homes should be outfitted with rooftop solar panels making the homes more affordable for the homeowner and more profitable for the developer, and asked that this be considered. Mr. Mastroianni stated individual homeowners may want to install solar panels, but he will not incorporate them in the design. Mr. D’Urso stated he disagrees with that approach, and Mr. Nasrullah stated he would encourage incorporating south
facing rooflines to make the idea more viable. Mr. Kistner asked the developer to reconsider extending the underground utilities beyond what is currently proposed, improving safety as well as aesthetics. Mr. Kistner moved to continue the hearings to March 26, 2018 at 9:30 P.M. Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
5. Legacy Farms North Signage – Pulte Homes of New England Mr. Ferrari noted the Board received apologies from Pulte Homes for the offsite real estate advertising sign installed on Legacy Farms North. He noted Ms. Lazarus and he met with Pulte representatives regarding some ideas to address this matter. He referred to Pulte's proposal
9
including photos of a variety of signs to be installed in locations along Legacy Farms North, and
noted the Board had indicated previously it would entertain directional signs at certain points to get people to use the Legacy Farms North bypass road. He noted they would have directional signs at the intersections with public roads, and the proposed signage will change once Legacy Farms North is accepted as a public road.
Reid Blute, Pulte Homes of New England, appeared before the Board. He thanked the Board for working with them and listening to their request. Mr. Blute noted they are proposing a number of temporary signs at the perimeter of the Legacy Farms North development. He noted these are in compliance with the Open Space Mixed Use Development (OSMUD) regulations and Legacy Farms Master Plan Special Permit.
Mr. Blute noted Pulte proposes to install directional signs at the Legacy Farms North/East Main St. and Rt. 85 (Cedar St)/Legacy Farms North intersections to direct people to use Legacy Farms North to get to Southborough or Ashland using the new bypass road as a way to avoid downtown Hopkinton. He noted in discussions with the Design Review Board on the proposed signs it was suggested to refer to Southborough and Ashland specifically and Pulte is ok with those tweaks.
Mr. Blute pointed to the exact locations for these particular signs on the map. He noted in
addition Pulte is proposing complimentary signs at the intersections of Legacy Farms North with Frankland Rd. and Wilson St. to direct people further into the Legacy Farms North site. He noted Pulte would also like 3 small directional signs to attract attention to the North Villages
homes.
Mr. Kistner moved to accept Pulte's proposal as submitted. Mr. D'Urso seconded the motion, and discussion followed. Mr. Nasrullah noted he is not sure it is a by-right situation, and he is not worried about people’s ability to find the development. Mr. Blute noted there are two overriding concerns: 1) related to ways to get people to use the bypass road, and 2) how to direct potential customers to the new Pulte development. Mr. D'Urso stated he likes the adjacent towns
mentioned on the signs but would also like to keep the route numbers and would prefer the sign near East Main St. moved closer to Rt. 135. He asked for additional clarification, and Mr. Blute stated they are proposing a total of 7 signs as shown on the map. Mr. Blute submitted a letter from Legacy Farms, LLC into the record. Mr. Paul noted he is ok with the proposal as the signs are temporary. Ms. Ritterbusch noted the Design Review Board thought the signs at the Cedar
St., East Main St., Frankland Rd. and Wilson Street intersections were a good idea, but preferred to add them to Mr. MacDowell's signs because in the near future the new age-restricted development will want similar signs and they did not want more signs than necessary. Ms. Ritterbusch noted the Design Review Board also felt the signs were a little bit large and that the sales office directional signs were not really necessary. Mr. Blute noted they looked at the sign
criteria in the Master Plan Special Permit and his proposal is in compliance as far as that is concerned. Mr. DeYoung stated perhaps Pulte does not need this many signs. Mr. Blute noted he would be willing to reduce the number of sales office signs or remove them altogether, if that is the Board's direction. Ms. Kramer offered an amendment to eliminate the smaller sales office directional signs from the proposal and to add the names of the abutting towns on the signs
proposed for the major route intersections. Mr. Kistner did not accept the amendment. The Board voted on the original motion 7 opposed (Ferrari, DeYoung, Ritterbusch, Paul, Kramer, D’Urso, Nasrullah) and 1 in favor (Kistner). Ms. Kramer moved to approve Pulte's request for signage, eliminating the small sales office directional signs from the list and adding the names of
10
the abutting towns to the signs proposed for the major intersections with Legacy Farms North.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Ritterbusch. Mr. Kistner proposed an amendment to allow one of the sales office signs, to be located in a central location, and Ms. Kramer accepted the amendment. After further discussion, the Board voted 4 in favor (Kistner, Paul, Nasrullah, D'Urso) and 4 opposed (Ritterbusch, DeYoung, Ferrari, Kramer) on the amendment. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the main motion to approve Pulte's request for Legacy Farms
North signs, requiring them to add the names of the neighboring towns on the signs at the major intersections and eliminating the sales office directional signs.
6. Administrative Business - Minutes The Board reviewed the draft minutes of the January 22 and February 12, 2018 meetings. Ms. Kramer moved to approve the minutes of January 22, 2018 and February 12, 2018 as written.
Mr. Kistner seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
7. Other Business Future Agenda Items - Mr. D'Urso noted they recently talked about the Town Planner position, however he does not see it mentioned in the minutes and would like the issue put on a future
agenda. Mr. Paul noted he would like to discuss ways to get consistency with respect to
maximum height in the Industrial A (IA) and Industrial B (IB) districts. Mr. Ferrari noted they interviewed candidates for the Principal Planner position and a recommendation has been made. Ms. Ritterbusch asked about putting the recreational marijuana issue on a future agenda to talk
about regulations and perhaps some type of forum over the summer.
Chamberlain St./Whalen Road Scheduling Issues - Ms. Kramer asked to reserve time for the Chamberlain St./Whalen Rd. public hearing at the April 9, 2018 meeting. After discussion it was decided the Board will start at 7:00 P.M. and set two hours aside for a continued discussion. It
was noted the Board also has tentatively scheduled a public hearing for a minor site plan public
hearing for that date. It was noted the decision deadline for the definitive subdivision aspect of the Chamberlain St./Whalen Road proposal ends on April 30. It was noted Ms. Kelly will not be able to vote on Chamberlain St./Whalen Rd. because she has now missed more than one meeting, and Ms. Lazarus noted there is an option to extend the deadline by mutual agreement.
Form K for Peloquin Estates - Ms. Lazarus noted this concerns a request to sign a duplicate Form
K for recording in the registered land section of the Registry of Deeds. Mr. Nasrullah stated he looked at the form and believes it will be rejected by the Land Court as written. Ms. Lazarus stated the form has been provided by applicants' attorney. Mr. Nasrullah moved to sign the duplicate Form. Mr. D'Urso seconded the motion and asked for clarification, and Mr. Nasrullah stated he expects the form to be rejected by the Land Court and the Board should be prepared to
be asked to sign this again. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion.
Ms. Kramer moved to adjourn the meeting, Mr. D'Urso seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Adjourned: 10:15 P.M.
Submitted by: Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
Approved: ___________
11
Documents used at the Meeting:
Agenda for Hopkinton Planning Board for March 12, 2018
Memorandum from Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use & Town Operations, to Planning Board, dated March
8 , 2018, re: Items on March 12, 2018 Planning Board Agenda
Four Zoning Bylaw and Zoning Map Amendments – Comparisons: Existing Language, ZAC Proposal, Town Counsel Review – 3-8-18
Public Hearing Outline, Chamberlain Street & Whalen Road Subdivision; Exhibit Plans for Chamberlain St. & Whalen Rd. Definitive Subdivision Plan, dated 03/06/2018, prepared by Bohler Engineering; Letter to Hopkinton Planning Board from BETA Group, Inc., dated February 8, 2018
Legacy Farms Signage, dated Jan. 29, 2018, prepared by Fourae Advertising; Legacy Farms North Proposed Temporary Wayfinding Sign Location Site Plan, Bohler Engineering, dated Jan. 29, 2108, including Photos and Specifications; Letter from Roy S. MacDowell, Jr., Manager, Legacy Farms, to Reid Blute, Pulte Homes of New England, dated January 29, 2018, Re: Signage
Draft Planning Board minutes of January 22, 2018 and February 12, 2018