HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180312 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes
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, Irfan Nasrullah
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. Karp 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: April 9, 2018
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