Loading...
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