HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180423 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes
1
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
Monday, April 23, 2018 7:00 P.M.
HCAM-TV Studio, 77 Main St./Lower Level, Hopkinton, MA
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: John Ferrari, Chairman, Fran DeYoung, Vice-Chairman, Frank
D’Urso, David Paul, Amy Ritterbusch, Muriel Kramer, Cliff Kistner, Irfan Nasrullah
Present: Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use & Town Operations; Georgia Wilson, Principal
Planner; Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
Mr. Ferrari opened the meeting. Ms. Lazarus introduced Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner, and
stated this is Ms. Wilson's first day. Mr. Ferrari summarized the agenda, noting the Board will
schedule a discussion regarding the drainage and tree removal issues on Wilson St. at a separate
meeting because it does not relate to the Trails at Legacy Farms application scheduled for
continued public hearing tonight. Kathleen Towner, 9 Kruger Rd., stated she disagrees and the
issues are relevant.
1. Continued Public Hearing – The Trails at Legacy Farms – 1) Site Development Plan, 2)
Minor Amendment to Legacy Farms Master Plan Special Permit (MPSP)– Heritage
Properties
Vin Gately, Heritage Properties, applicant, Roy MacDowell, Legacy Farms LLC, developer,
Peter Barbieri, Fletcher Tilton PC, attorney, and Michael Dryden, Bohler Engineering, project
manager, appeared before the Board. Mr. Kistner, the Board's liaison for this application, asked
for an update. Mr. Dryden noted they met with the abutters and others on April 7 to review the
proposed Wilson St. access and referred to 3 revised layout sheets used in the field and submitted
to the Board. He noted the plans now only show remnants of the road which has been stubbed
off and will only be used for access to the amenities within the development, and decided on a
new location for a gated emergency access road further down the road requiring them to move
one unit to Phase 4 to accommodate the change. Mr. Dryden noted the construction access will
still be over a temporary driveway through an open field off Legacy Farms North because they
don’t want construction vehicles going through Phase 1. Mr. Kistner asked for input from the
Fire Dept., and Stephen Slaman, Fire Chief, noted Mr. MacDowell showed him the proposal and
it meets the all of the requirements of the Fire Dept. Mr. Kistner asked about line of sight and
turning radius, and Chief Slaman noted the applicant will be responsible for providing a
satisfactory swept path analysis, and he will leave the road issues up to the Board. Mr. D’Urso
asked about accessibility for fire trucks coming from either Ashland or Southborough for
assistance, and Chief Slaman noted it will be required if it is going to be a road. Mr. D’Urso
stated the plan shows a string of cul-de-sacs, and he asked if a layout with two entrances from
Legacy Farms North would be better so that they would not need an emergency road. Chief
Slaman stated he has no concerns with the "boulevard" layout proposed here based on field
examples of emergency incidents. Ms. Ritterbusch asked if this design would result in backups.
Mr. Gately stated he does not expect queues, and although most people in age 55+ developments
are still working, their work schedules typically are more spread out. Mr. D’Urso noted he is not
convinced, and the applicant noted the design has been reviewed and was not identified as an
2
issue. Phil Paradis, BETA Group Inc., the Board’s consultant, stated the location of the proposed
emergency road is acceptable, but they have to make sure it is accessible for fire trucks, and that
no one parks there potentially blocking access. Mr. DeYoung asked for clarification with respect
to additional analysis, and Mr. Dryden noted there will be no issues here and in an emergency
trucks can use the entire width of Wilson St. Mr. D’Urso asked for Mr. Paradis' opinion on the
pros and cons of gated access roads. Mr. Paradis stated he assumes if not gated some residents
may want to use Wilson St. as an alternative. Mr. D’Urso stated he feels they should consider
more than one regular entrance, and full access from Wilson St. would take traffic away from the
Wilson St./Legacy Farms North intersection by giving people another option to get to and from
Ashland. Mr. Paradis stated the original plan had two access points, and Legacy Farms North
was designed as a cut-through road to take traffic away from the existing streets. Mr. Kistner
stated this was already vetted, and Mr. D'Urso noted the alternative design including an
emergency access off Wilson St. just came up a couple of weeks ago. John Villa, 1 Kruger Rd.,
noted the point is not to have a road there at all. Ms. Towner stated the proposed access is
located along a dangerous curve on a very narrow road. She noted she would like the plan to
show the 200 ft. drainage structure illegally draining onto Wilson St. in violation of Town
bylaws, turning it into skating rink in the winter. She stated it is the responsibility of the Planning
Board to order the developer to take care of the drainage on his own property. Mr. Paul asked
for clarification, and Ms. Towner asked why the drainage structures are not on the map or
documented in terms of design or inspection reports. Board members noted this issue is outside
of the scope of tonight’s discussion, and Mr. MacDowell has indicated he is willing to work
towards a solution. Ms. Kramer stated this is a somewhat unique situation and she would like to
establish a process to address the neighbors' concerns. Mr. Kistner asked if this was vetted in
2015, and Ms. Lazarus stated yes. Mr. DeYoung stated he knows how Wilson St. in that location
has deteriorated over the last couple of years creating dangerous conditions especially in the
winter, and he hopes it can be looked at here in context to find a solution. Mr. Ferrari noted this
issue is outside the scope of this particular proposal and Heritage Properties has not even touched
this property yet. Mr. Nasrullah asked if there will be gates on both ends of the emergency road,
and Mr. Gately stated yes, and even their own residents will not be allowed to park there. Ed
Cutter, 21 Wilson St., asked if he can be assured that Wilson St. will not be used for construction
vehicles, and Mr. Gately stated yes. Ms. Kramer moved to continue the hearing until after voting
to continue the public hearing regarding Maspenock Woods, Mr. Kistner seconded the motion,
and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
2. Continued Public Hearing – Maspenock Woods - Proposed Changes to Approved Site
Plan and Building Design
Ms. Kramer moved to continue the public hearing to May 14, 2018 at 8:30 P.M., and Mr. Kistner
seconded the motion. Heidi Edwards, 16 Lakepoint Way, stated she objects to the continuation,
because in spite of several requests the developer still has not provided a revised site plan. She
noted the proposed changes will directly affect her unit, and she is asking the Board for help.
Mr. Ferrari noted the Board will discuss the issue at the continued hearing when the applicant is
in attendance. Ms. Edwards noted the applicant's attorney is here. The Board voted
unanimously in favor.
3. Continued Public Hearing – The Trails at Legacy Farms – 1) Site Development Plan, 2)
Minor Amendment to Legacy Farms Master Plan Special Permit (MPSP) – Heritage
Properties
3
Ms. Kramer moved to reopen the public hearing, Mr. Kistner seconded the motion, and the
Board voted unanimously in favor. The Board continued following the public hearing outline.
Mr. Dryden referred to the overview map, and stated the site drains to the middle. He noted they
cannot connect the road because of the grade differential but they are trying to work as closely as
possible with the terrain to reduce cuts and fills. Mr. Dryden referred to the buildable area map,
which was submitted to the Board as part of the application, noting that compared to the concept
plan presented at the 2015 town meeting, the buildable area went from about 31.84 to 28.02
acres. Ms. Towner asked why the Board did not talk about the MPSP amendment as to the
determination of a minor vs. major change because none of the abutters remembers it being
discussed. Board members indicated this item was addressed already, and Ms. Lazarus stated at
this stage it is a moot point, because it was included in the legal advertisement and covered as a
major change. Julia Linnell, 5 Reservoir Rd., stated she is a little confused and surprised it was
not going to be discussed. She asked about the difference between a minor vs. major change,
and read from the 2012 MPSP amendment document, included in the meeting materials for
tonight, which defines the purpose of the OSMUD in terms of finding a balance between
conservation and development. She stated this is still an open question in her mind and she feels
it is a major change since the development is being moved closer to the State Park and the scenic
road, and the plan keeps changing. Ms. Kramer stated the classification of major/minor has been
addressed, but the item is still open to discussion.
Reference was made to trails. Mr. Dryden provided an overview of the trail network within the
development site and the main trail network in Legacy Farms. He noted they are aware of trail
networks over the Town line, but are only providing provisions for ultimate connectivity.
Ms. Towner stated the buffer zone was changed pushing the development closer to the existing
Wilson St./Kruger Rd. neighborhood, and she asked if it would have been possible to put the trail
there.
Terry Anthony, 22 Kruger Rd., referred to Mr. D'Urso' s previous comments about the need to
reduce density, and asked about the status of that discussion. Mr. Kistner noted that although the
buildable area was reduced by about 3 acres, the scope of the project has not been expanded and
is in compliance with the setback regulations. Reference was made to the restricted land, and
Ms. Linnell asked for clarification about public access to these areas and whether they are
accessible in practical terms. Mr. Ferrari noted there are different kinds of restricted land,
namely areas that are accessible to everyone, and small strips of private restricted land, all
counting towards to the total amount of restricted land required as part of the overall Legacy
Farms development. Ms. Linnell stated she understands the impact of the LNG safety issue and
wetlands difficulties, but it seems strange that the development ends up being closer to Wilson
St. given the language in the OSMUD bylaw about protecting the quality of existing
neighborhoods, the scenic road and the view shed from the State Park. Mr. D'Urso stated he had
asked the applicant to consider another layout perhaps with an additional entrance/exit off
Legacy Farms North but they are not interested, and instead are now proposing an emergency
access further away from Kruger Rd. He noted he feels the MPSP as amended allows the
developer to build up to 180 units, but they do not have to, and in his opinion density should be
reduced. Ms. Towner stated this plan, by taking away open space and effectively putting it in the
middle of the development, does not seem to equally benefit everybody. Mr. Kistner asked the
4
applicant to comment on the various kinds of restricted land. Mr. Dryden referred to the
restricted land map, and described the locations and types of restricted land included in this
development.
Reference was made to the architectural design. Mr. Dryden noted the applicant has met with
the Design Review Board (DRB) twice, resulting in generally positive feedback. It was noted
the DRB had a number of recommendations and has asked to see the final club house design.
Reference was made to the limit on bedrooms under the MPSP. Mr. Gately stated every unit can
have a maximum of 2 bedrooms, and this can never be changed. Mr. D’Urso stated based on
what he has seen in other similar communities, they should be careful about adding space that
could potentially be used as a bedroom, and Mr. Gately stated he must be referring to another
developer. Mr. DeYoung asked for clarification, and Mr. MacDowell stated under the agreement
with the Town, children under 18 are not allowed to live here permanently, and there will be a
penalty for children using the school system, starting with the homeowner and then the
association as well.
Reference was made to landscaping and screening. Mr. Dryden noted in addition to plantings
around the units and the club house, they will also preserve the natural vegetation along Wilson
St., supplementing it with a mixture of evergreens and deciduous trees where needed for the
benefit of the neighbors. Mr. Kistner asked about the area near the newly proposed emergency
access, and Mr. Dryden stated the area across the street is quite wooded already. Mr. Paul asked
if the developer would be willing to reevaluate the amount of screening once the buildings are up
and people move in, and Mr. Gately stated he is willing to install supplemental plantings if
needed. Ms. Linnell stated she is concerned about car headlights shining in their direction at the
corner, and asked for additional screening. A discussion followed regarding proposed screening
vs. the benefit of existing elevations. Mr. DeYoung stated Ms. Linnell has a good point, and Mr.
Dryden stated the slope will mask the facades to a degree but of course the units will not totally
invisible.
Ms. Anthony noted she feels there is a good possibility of seeing children from this development
in the school system, and Mr. MacDowell stated in that case the child will be asked to leave the
system and the homeowners association as well as the individual homeowner will be fined. Mr.
D’Urso stated he would like to see where this is spelled out, and Mr. MacDowell stated it is one
of the conditions in the Host Community Agreement although perhaps not in so many words.
Ms. Towner asked the developer to show the 80 ft. of undisturbed land along Wilson St. as
promised at the site walk, and Mr. Dryden noted that statement is taken out of context and it was
just an estimate.
Reference was made to road design. Mr. Dryden noted the new roadways will have a 20 ft. wide
pavement width curb to curb with a sidewalk on one side of the road and a grass strip in between.
He noted the development will generally have grades less than 5% with connections to the trail
system and will therefore be quite walkable. Mr. D'Urso stated he does not like the roadway
layout, and would like to see it changed to a horseshoe entrance design for safety reasons, even
though it would require the first building adjacent to the LNG safety zone to be pulled back. Mr.
Paul stated he agrees with Mr. D'Urso on this but the OSMUD does not call for a 2nd outlet and
they cannot force the developer. Reference was made to the scenic road impact on Wilson St. as
5
well as past scenic road issues. Mr. Dryden noted as far as the current plans are concerned there
will be no impact on the scenic road. Ms. Kramer noted that although the proposed emergency
access on Wilson St. will not trigger a scenic road application, the neighbors were initially
assured Wilson St. would not be affected at all and she feels there is room here to talk about a
certain level of mitigation to further screen the development from the existing neighborhood and
she will do some research. Mr. MacDowell stated he believes reference is made to trees taken
down a number of years ago and, although the issue of responsibility was not resolved, he is sure
something can be worked out for the sake of harmony. Linda Machiz, 1 Reservoir Rd., stated
she feels the Town does not care and nothing was done about it. Ms. Towner noted this is about
the removal of hundreds of trees, all documented on a scenic road plan prepared in connection
with the request for scenic road designation. She noted everyone should understand the time and
effort this took and the impact of then seeing the destruction that followed.
Ms. Anthony noted she feels the traffic study underestimates the amount of traffic at the Legacy
Farms North/Wilson St. intersection. Mr. Paradis noted this was initially vetted when the MPSP
was developed and with each additional site development plan, traffic conditions are reviewed
based on a comparison between what was previously evaluated and what is currently proposed.
Mr. Paradis stated he believes the revised Wilson St. access to the new development is far away
from intersection, and he does not think there will be a significant impact on the Kruger Rd. area.
Ms. Towner expressed concern about the Legacy Farms North section formerly known as
Rafferty Rd. and the need for a guardrail there to prevent cars from flipping over into a ditch.
Mr. Kistner noted this would concern an area outside the scope of the current project. Mr.
Kistner asked for BETA's input regarding a traffic signal at the intersection of East Main St. and
Legacy Farms North/South. Mr. Paradis stated as part of this development they asked the
developer to do a traffic count to see if a signal is warranted and it appears the situation is now
border line. He noted there is an opportunity to take credit for the right hand turning lane, but
BETA recommends a recount in 6 months to 1 year because Legacy Farms North/Pulte is going
gangbusters. Mr. Paradis stated the electrical circuit is already in, and the signal is essentially
ready to go. Mr. D’Urso stated he thinks they should go ahead with it now, especially since
residents in Legacy Farms are frequently asking about it, and hopefully it will be operational
before the next Marathon. Mr. Kramer suggested asking the DPW for their input on this matter.
The Board asked for a reevaluation of traffic counts 6 months from now, making sure it happens
when school is in session, as part of the conditions of approval.
Reference was made to internal site lighting and signage. Mr. Dryden stated this was reviewed
by the DRB, and they will only utilize low level pedestrian lights at the entrance to the project
and at all interior intersections. Mr. Dryden stated they have a photometric plan, and Ms.
Kramer stated the allowed level of lighting is called out in the MPSP. Mr. Kistner asked about
signage, and reference was made to the Design Guidelines in the MPSP in that respect. Mr.
DeYoung asked about marketing signs and Mr. Gately stated they are pursuing a system similar
to what was recently approved by the Board for the Pulte development, but it is not part of the
this application. Mr. Dryden referred to their proposal for a development sign at the main
entrance, and Ms. Lazarus noted permanent development signs are not allowed but in the past the
Board has allowed the street name to be used for that purpose instead. Mr. Gately noted they
prefer the name of the development because that is an important part of the project and they
consider it separate from the rest of Legacy Farms. After further discussion, it was suggested to
6
use the street name for wall signage as a means of identification, subject to approval by the
Board of Selectmen.
Reference was made to stormwater management, including offsite impact. Mr. Dryden stated he
previously provided an overview of the general location of detention and infiltration basins. He
noted the details were reviewed by BETA with no outstanding technical issues at this point. Mr.
DeYoung asked about the potential impact on Wilson St. because of the angle, and Mr. Dryden
stated they propose to construct a swale to direct the water away from Wilson St. to the
development site. Ms. Towner stated there is not enough room for a swale along Wilson St. and
drivers need that area to pull over if necessary, and it will degrade the stone wall. Mr. Paradis
stated there can be no increase in the peak rate of runoff under existing conditions compared to
proposed conditions, and although an earlier design showed some water going onto Wilson St.,
the swale they are now proposing will address that issue even though it is not part of the project.
Mr. MacDowell stated water comes from the top of the hill near the LNG facility, and they could
run a swale from there to Legacy Farms North as part of a possible solution. Mr. Paradis stated
the residents have noticed a substantial amount of runoff coming from the LNG area, and it
would need a little study. Ms. Towner referred to the swale along Rafferty Rd., now Legacy
Farms North. She noted it is currently full of debris, and another swale is not a solution
especially since the Town objects to taking on additional maintenance responsibilities. The
Board decided to schedule an additional meeting on Tuesday, May 1, 2018, starting at 7:00 P.M.
Ms. Kramer moved to continue the public hearing to May 1, 2018 at 7:00 P.M., Mr. Kistner
seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
The Board took a 5 minute break.
4. Continued Public Hearings - Chamberlain Street/Whalen Road - 1) Definitive
Subdivision Application; 2) Flexible Community Development (FCD) 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, project manager, appeared before the Board. Ms. Kramer, the Board's
liaison for this application, provided the status of discussions to date and determinations yet to be
made.
Mr. Dryden noted after the last meeting they reviewed and responded to BETA's additional
comments, and subsequently revised 13 sheets of the plan to address outstanding issues. He
referred to BETA's most recent follow-up comments, and stated essentially everything has been
resolved. He noted they met with representatives of the Fire Dept. on site, walked Chamberlain
St., and discussed the proposed widening and the trees to be removed for that purpose. He noted
the DPW was also there to discuss the gate mechanism from their perspective. Mr. Paradis
stated the Fire Dept. is still concerned about the bend of the road at the end of Chamberlain St.
He noted they reviewed the turn analysis provided by the applicant's engineer, and discussed
possible improvements by increasing the radius on the inside of the parcel. He noted this
solution would involve Town-owned land, however, Ms. Lazarus did further research and
informed them there is a conservation restriction which prohibits paving for a road. He noted
they also talked about the gates for blocking the emergency access, and the DPW prefers a lock
7
and chain to be left only open prior and during a storm. Mr. Paradis stated they also discussed
the proposed road improvements of Chamberlain St. He noted the DPW Director wants a thin
overlay after gravel compacting and paving, and removal of one more tree will improve safety.
It was noted it concerns a 28 in. tree directly across from the Center Trail, and the DPW Director
recommended it be removed for safety reasons. Ms. Kramer stated she assumes the developer is
ok with that, and Mr. Mastroianni stated yes. Mr. Kistner referred to his initial concern
regarding tree removal on Chamberlain St. vs. safety, and noted he is satisfied with the proposed
design as long as the road has a uniform width and potentially dangerous trees are removed. It
was determined there was no issue with the DPW's decision regarding the use of chains to block
off the emergency access.
Mr. Dryden referred to the issue regarding the turning radius at the end of Chamberlain St., and
presented sketches prepared last minute to show a possible solution. He noted as indicated by
the Fire Dept. the curve is too snug and using Town-owned land is not possible because of a
conservation restriction. He noted the other option would be the 20 ft. wide easement over the
Tedstone property which is something they were trying to avoid. He noted they now propose
using the easement, but only as much as needed to accommodate the satisfactory turning radius
for emergency vehicles in the opinion of the Fire Dept. Ms. Kramer asked if this was discussed
with the Tedstones, and Mr. Mastroianni stated they talked to Mr. Tedstone about 1-1/2 hour ago
explaining the worst case scenario which would be to use a very small portion of the easement,
and told him they will do whatever is needed in terms of screening. Ms. Ritterbusch asked what
they propose to do with the stone wall on the Tedstone property, and Mr. Dryden noted they
would consider relocating the stones right there but it would depend on the type of berm to be
installed. Ms. Ritterbusch asked if it could be moved to the opposite site, and Mr. Dryden noted
he does not want to speak for the property owner. Ms. Kramer asked if safely widening and
improving Chamberlain St. can be achieved without taking the additional tree, and Mr. Dryden
stated they walked the entire length of the section in question and it was determined that this was
the only tree that is in the way. Tom Poirier, Safety Prevention Officer, confirmed that the 28 in.
tree in question is the only one that literally abuts the pavement. In response to further questions
of Ms. Kramer, Officer Poirier stated a uniform 18 ft. width is much better, and he asked for
reworking the turning radius at the end of Chamberlain St. to the best of their ability. Mr.
D'Urso stated the changes presented tonight are not at all in line with what they were told at the
site walk, especially the removal of one additional tree on a scenic road, which makes him feel
less pleased with the project. Mr. Paul asked about the existing driveway on the Tedstone
property, and Mr. Dryden noted it is paved now and they will relocate and rework it. Mr.
DeYoung stated the changes are based on new information, impacting only one more tree while
everything else theoretically is being reworked to make sure the abutters are satisfied. Ms.
Kramer noted she would like to avoid cutting more trees and feels badly about the use of the
Tedstone easement and the impact on his stone wall, but unfortunately it is part of a complicated
permitting process. She stated she had asked about the possibility of a sidewalk extension across
Lot 1, and the applicant noted it is feasible for that small section and will be added to the plan.
Ms. Kramer stated it appears the emergency access is all set from the Board's perspective, and
final BETA issues have been addressed. Mr. Paradis showed a picture of the tree in question on
his phone to the members of the Board, and agreed to email it to Ms. Lazarus for the record. Ms.
Lazarus stated they should check the language of the easement on the Tedstone property, and it
was determined this issue is open pending verification.
8
The Board addressed the FCD/affordable housing aspect of the application. Ms. Kramer noted
she had brought it up before and she wants to make it clear to all developers that this is an
important issue. Ms. Sherry noted they prefer to handle this aspect with a payment in lieu but
realize there are other options. She noted from an economic standpoint providing affordable
units on site is not a viable solution, but another option, although late in the process, would be to
increase density to 35 units to reduce the financial burden somewhat. She noted alternatively
they are willing to provide offsite units by rehabilitating three existing single family units and
then turning them over to the Town, 1 for every 10 units as they go along. Ms. Lazarus stated
the developer has to provide 1 unit for every 10 new lots, and the bylaw offers a number of
options, either by providing the units on site, offsite, or through a payment in lieu which would
be a good solution if the Town has a plan or initiative but it would take a long time. She noted
there are pros and cons for each of these options and the Town is at 14%, well above the required
10% affordable housing inventory, but they all have the same goal and ultimately the decision is
up to the Board. Beth Malloy, 190 Lumber St., noted, as a citizen and also as the Vice Chair of
the Affordable Housing Fund Committee, she feels the Town needs more affordable units. She
noted historically affordable units are concentrated in certain areas and they should start
spreading them out more. She noted she personally would prefer the actual units here on site,
but her group just recently came back together and will discuss it at their next meeting scheduled
sometime in May and take a vote.
Ms. Kramer stated increasing density may not be an option here because the project was legally
advertised for only 32 units, but they should be more proactive in the future trying to make
Hopkinton more affordable to low and moderate income people as a whole. Mr. Ferrari stated it
appears actual units on site would mean a significant change to the plan, but he would be
supportive of creating the units offsite. Mr. DeYoung stated he welcomes Ms. Kramer's
suggestions on this issue and the Board should make this part of the punch list going forward.
Mr. Ferrari stated that it seems the Board and the developer are in agreement on this aspect. Ms.
Lazarus noted the Town so far has granted 5 FCD special permits and has currently money
flowing into the Fund from 3 projects under construction. Amanda Faucher, 39 Chamberlain St.,
Co-Chair, Chamberlain Street Whalen Road Coalition, asked about required mitigation for the
removal of scenic road trees. Ms. Kramer stated the developer typically will be asked to plant
replacement trees or make a deposit into the tree fund. She noted replacement would usually be
in the right of way, but if that is not possible there is an option to negotiate with individual
affected property owners to allow planting on private property. Ms. Faucher asked for details on
the mechanism to be used to block the emergency access, and Mr. Mastroianni stated it will be a
metal chain on concrete posts, the exact locations to be determined by the Fire Dept.
Luke Tedstone, 49 Chamberlain St., stated he just arrived at the meeting after being informed
that there has been some talk about the use of the easement on his property to allow a wider
turning radius. He asked the Board to discourage that idea and stated it is not something he and
his family would support. Mr. Mastroianni offered to show the plan and explain the proposal in
more detail. He noted when he talked to Mr. Tedstone earlier today he did not know there was a
conservation restriction on the Town-owned land on the other side, and he is not sure if the
limitation can be lifted. Mr. Dryden stated it appears to be the only way to meet the Fire Dept.
requirements. He noted they are planning to use 10 ft. at the most, perhaps requiring relocation
of the stone wall, but are prepared to provide additional landscaping for further mitigation. Mr.
9
Ferrari asked if a gravel road would be an option, and Mr. Lazarus stated the conservation
restriction will not allow a road regardless of the surface used. Mr. D'Urso stated this approach
is totally different from what was presented at the site walk. Mr. Kistner asked Mr. Tedstone if
seeing the plan eases his mind, and whether he would be amenable to work with the developer.
Mr. Tedstone noted the plan would take a good chunk of their front yard and there is nothing
classy about the proposal which was initially presented as a matter of fencing and additional
landscaping. Ms. Kramer stated this certainly is not a good thing for the Tedstones, but
necessary to comply with the turning radius requirement for fire trucks, and they are not even
requiring the full width in this case. In response to a question of Mr. Ferrari, Ms. Lazarus stated
changing/lifting the conservation restriction would require approval from the appropriate state
agency and town meeting. Ms. Kramer said the Board would like the applicant to work toward
minimizing the impact on the Tedstones, perhaps by trying to further reduce the amount of the
easement to be used.
The Board took a 5 minute break.
Tom Terry, 17 Maple St., stated he is somewhat involved with the Tedstone situation because he
is related to the property owners. He stated he knows there is an easement over the property, but
there are many types of easements and it is not a carte blanche as defined in a court of law. He
noted the developer and the Tedstones talked quite often, and Mr. Mastroianni made it sound as
if Mr. Tedstone is on board with the alternative solution presented tonight to make the Fire Dept.
happy. He noted he does not agree with that assessment and asked the Board to put the
discussion on hold. Mr. Mastroianni noted at the time he believed using the Town-owned land
on the other side was ok, but is committed to work with Mr. Tedstone to use a portion of the
easement which was created for potential future widening of Chamberlain St. Mr. Terry stated
the easement does not say anything about widening of Chamberlain St. Ms. Kramer noted they
will make sure the easement legitimately permits the intended work. Mr. D'Urso asked for a
copy of the easement, and Mr. Mastroianni noted he will send a copy over right now. Ms.
Kramer stated if the Board cannot find a way to approve the proposal as designed, they
unfortunately will end up with a development featuring a through road. Mr. D'Urso suggested
reducing the scope of the project to just 4 homes on each side with long driveways, and Ms.
Kramer noted that is not the proposal in front of the Board.
Ms. Kramer referred to sidewalks. Mr. Paul stated he thought they asked Mr. Mastroianni to
extend sidewalks beyond his property down Chamberlain St. and Whalen Rd., and he said no.
Ms. Kramer stated she is not sure it was a no, more that it is not a priority from the Town's
perspective and therefore not something they are interested in. Ms. Sherry noted REC
Hopkinton is not willing to build a sidewalk on Chamberlain St. from Center Trail out to Hayden
Rowe, and the other sections concern the improved portion of Chamberlain St., which they
referred to the Board for additional guidance. Ms. Kramer stated in her mind it does not make
sense to require additional sidewalks, and Mr. DeYoung noted the Town has a process in the
form of a sidewalk program to determine future needs. Mr. Paul stated he feels this is a
townwide issue and this development will bring in new people close to the downtown area. He
stated he does not think the Board can require sidewalks, and Ms. Kramer noted it could be a
condition of approval. Mr. Paul stated he is ok without sidewalks but it would have been nice.
Ms. Faucher speaking as an individual and not as co-chair of the neighborhood coalition, stated
she is not in favor of taking anybody's property for sidewalks, but conditions on Chamberlain St.
10
will change significantly especially when the new school comes on line, and she would like the
Board to consider that in terms of safety. Ms. Kramer stated it is a tough decision to make with
so much disruption to the scenic road already. Ms. Faucher stated perhaps it could be a
consideration in the future, and Ms. Kramer suggested Ms. Faucher approach the DPW to start
this conversation. Mr. Paul noted they should probably revisit the sidewalk priority list, and Ms.
Kramer agreed. Mr. D’Urso asked about the potential of a sidewalk on Whalen Rd. and Ms.
Sherry stated it will not be part of the project either, but the Town will gain open space, trail
connections, and she feels that is a good amount of mitigation. Further discussion followed
regarding the possibility of additional extensions and the applicant explained the limitations and
whether it would make sense to have more sidewalks in those locations. Ms. Faucher asked if
the trails would be maintained like the Center Trail, which is wide and open. Ms. Kramer stated
Center Trail is unique so it would be a question for the Trails Committee. Mr. Dryden noted the
trails are proposed to be no wider than 4 ft.
The Board reviewed the draft conditions of approval. Ms. Kramer thanked the developer for the
donation of open space and asked if the Board cares whether the open space goes to the
Conservation Commission (ConCom) or the Open Space Preservation Commission (OSPC), and
Mr. Ferrari stated as current OSPC chairman he will suggest the Commission discuss the issue at
a future meeting. Reference was made to the condition regarding notice to prospective buyers
regarding the gun club next door. Ms. Sherry stated they have an issue with the proposed
condition and propose alternative language requiring them to just acknowledge the fact and
commit to not doing anything to halt the operation. Ms. Kramer noted this is amenable to her.
Mr. Mastroianni stated other subdivisions do not have this type of thing in their homeowers
association documents, and he would like to see this handled similarly to the way it was for the
Hopkinton Mews/Modera development and the Tennis Club. Mr. D’Urso referred to the Mews
project, and noted they essentially asked the developer to notify future tenants in order to prevent
complaints to the Police Dept., and he asked whether it has worked out ok. Mr. Mastroianni
stated yes. Reference was made to proposed condition requiring an additional amount to be
added to the performance guarantee to cover potential remedial work if the stormwater
management system does not function properly. Ms. Lazarus noted this is typically done when
the bond is set, and it was it was determined that a $10,000 performance guarantee is sufficient
for a project of this size. Reference was made to additional conditions deemed necessary as a
result of discussions held and feedback received during the public hearing process, including a
pavement overlay as requested by the DPW upon completion of gravel compacting and paving of
Chamberlain St. where widened/disrupted, a sidewalk along the frontage of Lot 1, verification of
the language of the Tedstone easement as well as a requirement to come to an agreement with
the property owner minimizing the portion of the easement to be used as much as possible while
satisfying the safety requirements of the Fire Dept. Ms. Lazarus noted the fallback figure would
be as shown on the sketch presented to the Board tonight, and they also would need to grant the
additional waiver for the turning radius. Ms. Ritterbusch stated she wishes the wording was
better and she is not comfortable with the handout sketch provided by the applicant. Mr. Dryden
stated the plan shows the 10 ft. maximum point, and they will try to minimize this as much as
possible. Ms. Lazarus noted the final configuration is also contingent on the easement language.
Carol DeVeuve, 47 Chamberlain St., stated during the process they talked a lot about improving
the trails between the new development and the Center Trail and then the practice football fields,
and she would like to see a condition to make sure that the developer works with the Town to
11
make that happen. It was determined the fields are offsite, Ms. Sherry noted they are committed
to working with the Trails Committee and the Town.
Mr. Hyman noted he was on the Board of Appeals during the permitting process for the
Hopkinton Mews/Modera development, and was just able to find the language of the
Comprehensive Permit issued for this project on his phone. He noted the decision included a
requirement to inform prospective tenants of the gun club down the street.
Don Keavany, 14 Whalen Rd., noted he is not a fan of using a chain to block access to the
emergency connection and a gate would be a more secure permanent solution, so he would like
the Board to reconsider. Ms. Kramer noted she agrees personally but the DPW and the Fire
Dept. prefer a chain. She noted the road is not constructed to standards for through traffic and
they have to have faith that Town departments don't want the road to be accessed unnecessarily.
Mr. Keavany asked about traffic calming methods, and Ms. Sherry noted the developer will
provide a $10,000 donation toward the cost.
Ms. Ritterbusch stated she would like to keep the gun club condition as drafted, and Mr.
DeYoung noted there is no downside to having it in there. Mr. Mastroianni stated he is not sure
how to go about this and may not even be the one building the development, but does not want to
discourage prospective customers. Mr. Nasrullah stated disclosure is the best option, from his
perspective as an attorney. Mr. Mastroianni stated they considered mentioning the gun club in
the homeowners association documentations, and the Board discussed this option. Mr. D'Urso
stated it sounds as if the Mews had this condition, and Mr. Mastroianni stated he sold the
property and was not involved at that stage. Mr. Hyman stated it was a very lengthy condition,
and understands that Mr. Mastroianni may not be familiar with the details especially if he was
not the applicant.
Definitive Subdivision - Reference was made to the voting guide prepared for this application.
Mr. Nasrullah moved to approve the definitive subdivision plan for Chamberlain Street and
Whalen Road with waivers granted as discussed and the following conditions, and Mr. Kistner
seconded the motion. Mr. Paul stated he feels the Board would set a precedent by approving this
type of development with 2 long dead end streets, and would have difficulty enforcing the zoning
bylaw in that respect in the future. Ms. Kramer stated she does not think they are setting a
precedent, and are approving a layout most beneficial to a lot of people as opposed to approving
a through road affecting two longstanding established neighborhoods. Mr. Ferrari noted he
believes the Board has taken similar action before although that particular project was never
built, and this is a case of potentially destroying two neighborhoods by creating a through road.
Mr. Kistner stated he feels they are not setting a precedent and are doing the right thing in this
case. Mr. DeYoung agreed with Mr. Ferrari that this is an extraordinary situation and the Board
is making the right decision. Ms. Ritterbusch stated it is a unique case, and the Town will get a
substantial amount of open space in return while minimizing the environmental impact, and Mr.
Nasrullah agreed. Mr. D’Urso stated granting this waiver is upsetting, and he feels it is setting a
precedent, making it more difficult to protect scenic roads and preserving the character of the
Town. He noted he is also torn by the importance of public safety vs. last minute changes, and
asked how come it was just found out that there is a conservation restriction on the Town-owned
land across the street from the Tedstone property. He noted he feels they should stick to their
principles, and the plan is too dense, inconveniences two neighborhoods, could not be approved
as an open space concept plan, and significantly impacts a scenic road. Ms. Lazarus noted the
12
relief under consideration is from the Subdivision Rules & Regulations, which allows for this
type of waivers, and the conservation restriction refers to the High School project and has been
in place since 2001. The Board voted 6 in favor of the motion and 2 opposed (Paul, D’Urso).
1. Maintenance of all stormwater management facilities outside the road rights of way 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.
Homeowners Association documents shall be submitted to the Planning Board for review and
approval prior to the commencement of construction.
2. The Emergency Access way, as shown on the Subdivision Plan, is intended to be used for
emergency purposes only. Posts with chain and lock shall be installed at both ends, to the
satisfaction of the Fire Department. It shall be closed at all times, unless opened by Town of
Hopkinton officials for maintenance, repairs and emergency use. The chain and lock shall be
installed after the Emergency Access is paved.
3. The Applicant has offered to donate a 44.8 acre parcel to the Town for open space purposes,
and the Board thanks the Applicant for this gift. It is the Board’s intention that a
Conservation Restriction shall be placed on the parcel. Prior to donating the land to the
Town, trailhead signs shall be installed by the Applicant at key locations. The Applicant
shall work with the Open Space Preservation Commission in this regard.
4. A Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Board for review prior
to the commencement of construction on the site.
5. The Homeowners Association documents shall include an acknowledgement that the
subdivision is in proximity to an active shooting range.
6. Final stamped design plans of the bridge within the Emergency Access shall be submitted to
the Town for approval prior to the commencement of construction. The final plans shall
follow MassDOT’s Design Requirements for Municipal Bridge Projects subject to MGL c.85
s. 35 for NBI bridges (clear span > 20 ft.). Future inspection and maintenance of the bridge
shall be considered when determining the appropriate bridge type and geometry, and a
minimum of 3 feet of clearance shall be provided within the culverts.
7. Final stamped design plans of the culvert replacement in the existing Whalen Road shall be
provided to the Town prior to construction. The Applicant shall be responsible for all
associated permitting and construction activity. Construction shall be coordinated with the
Hopkinton Department of Public Works.
8. In accordance with Section 8.4.10 of the Subdivision Regulations, the outermost edge of
stormwater basins shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any house, roadway or
property line, and shall be screened from adjacent lots and streets by a greenbelt of trees and
shrubs not more than 15 feet apart planted in two staggered rows. Such trees or shrubs shall
be not less than 8 feet in height at the time of planting.
9. Roadway and infrastructure construction shown on the Subdivision Plan shall be completed
within five (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 five (5) years from the date of this
approval, such approval shall be automatically rescinded.
10. There shall be a maximum of 32 building lots in the subdivision. This condition shall be
written on the Subdivision Plan prior to endorsement.
11. Prior to the Planning Board's endorsement of the Subdivision Plan, the Applicant shall
13
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 Regulations and that all other requirements of the Subdivision 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 Regulations, on or before a date specified in 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.
12. An additional amount ($10,000) 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.
13. Street trees shall be planted as shown on the Subdivision Plan and in accordance with the
Subdivision 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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,
including ensuring that the emergency access is not open to public travel.
17. 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.
18. 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 Plan. The erosion control documentation submitted
shall be implemented and followed during construction. During construction, if these plans
14
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.
19. 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).
20. Disturbed areas for roadway and infrastructure construction shall be loamed and seeded
during construction as soon as possible.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. The completed and signed Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided
to the Planning Board prior to the commencement of construction.
24. A Long Term Operations and Maintenance Plan for the stormwater management system shall
be submitted to the Planning Board which shall run in perpetuity with the land, and shall be
provided to the homeowners association.
25. The Subdivision Plan includes a widening of portions of the improved/existing Chamberlain
Street to a uniform 18 feet in width. Following the satisfactory completion of the box
widening, the Applicant shall overlay the roadway with 1” of pavement.
26. The Subdivision Plan shall show the sidewalk extending along the frontage of Lot 1, either
within the road right of way or within an easement on Lot 1, so that it may meander around
natural features as needed. The sidewalk shall be shown on the Subdivision Plan prior to
endorsement.
27. The Board recognizes that the abrupt curve at the end of existing Chamberlain Street presents
challenges for vehicles, especially large vehicles such as fire trucks, to navigate the curve
within the current roadway. The Subdivision Plan shows some improvement in this area, but
it is limited to the existing right of way, which is a public way. The Applicant provided a
sketch plan of how the curve could be expanded, using an existing easement on the property
at 49 Chamberlain Street. However, additional study and discussion with the property owner
and the Fire Department would be required in order for the solution, or a similar solution, to
go forward. Therefore, in order to alleviate public safety concerns raised during the public
hearing, the Applicant shall work with the direct abutters and the Fire Department in an
attempt to smooth out/expand the curve’s radius to accommodate a wider turning radius if
possible, provided, however, that: 1) the relocated road shall not extend more than 10 feet
into the easement on the property at 49 Chamberlain Street; and 2) if the easement is to be
used for this purpose, documentation which demonstrates that the easement can be used for a
permanent roadway (public way) shall be provided to the Board. If the outcome of this effort
is to create a curve in the roadway which does not comply with the minimum centerline
radius required for streets in Section 8.2 of the Subdivision Regulations, then a waiver is
granted by the Board for a reduced radius. The Board grants the waiver with the recognition
that the existing roadway does not conform to the current requirements, the new curve would
15
improve public safety, and the area available for a curve improvement is limited by the
existing right of way and any easements that may exist for this purpose.
28. The Applicant shall work with the Town to improve the trail connection from the
Subdivision into the abutting Town property, connecting to athletic fields and the Center
Trail. The Applicant shall work with the Town to make those trails passable.
29. The Applicant offered to provide $10,000 to the Town to implement future traffic calming
measures on Chamberlain Street or Whalen Road as needed in the future, and the Board
agreed that such measures may be needed. The funds shall be provided to the Town prior to
the issuance of the last occupancy permit in the Subdivision.
Scenic Road Permit - Ms. Kramer referred to the voting guide for this application and read the
motion to be entertained for approval of the scenic road permit for this application. Ms. Lazarus
noted they have to make sure the list of trees proposed for removal includes the additional 28 in.
tree discussed tonight. Ms. Kramer noted if individual affected homeowners do not want a
replacement tree planted on their property, the developer will be required to make the typical
donation to the tree fund instead. Mr. D'Urso asked about recourse for homeowners if they are
not satisfied with the process, and Ms. Lazarus noted they will then probably come back to the
Board. Mr. Kistner moved to grant the scenic road permit with the following conditions, and Mr.
Nasrullah seconded the motion. After further discussion, the Board voted 7 in favor, and 1
opposed (Mr. D'Urso).
1. Prior to the temporary removal of the stone wall, the applicant shall document the existing
wall in photographs, and return the wall to its former condition as closely as possible.
2. Any new walls constructed within the right of way of Chamberlain Street shall be dry laid
fieldstone walls, consistent with the old stone wall.
3. As mitigation, the applicant shall work with the abutting owners on the designated scenic
road portion of Chamberlain Street who are affected by the removal of the living trees within
the right of way adjacent to their property, with the intent to propose the planting of an equal
number of trees on private property, within 20 feet of the Chamberlain Street right of way.
Should the abutting owners decline the planting of new trees, the applicant has agreed to
make a monetary equivalent donation to the Tree Planting Gift Account as an alternative.
Flexible Community Development Special Permit - Ms. Kramer asked Ms. Lazarus for guidance
and Ms. Lazarus stated the Board decided on adopting Option 2, requiring offsite units. Ms.
Ritterbusch moved to grant the special permit pursuant to the FCD bylaw requiring the developer
to provide 3 affordable units in offsite locations, with the following conditions. Mr. Kistner
seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
1. The design, appearance, construction and quality of materials shall be compatible with those
of the market rate units.
2. The affordable units shall be provided on the following schedule: The first unit shall be
provided before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the 11th unit in the subdivision; the
second unit shall be provided before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the 21st unit in
the subdivision; the third unit shall be provided before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued
for the 31st unit in the subdivision.
3. The deeds to the affordable housing units sold to income eligible buyers shall contain a
restriction against renting or leasing of said units during the period for which the housing
units contain a restriction on affordability.
16
4. The proposed deed rider shall be submitted to the Town and the Department of Housing and
Community Development (DHCD) by the Applicant.
5. The location of the off-site units to be provided shall be approved by the Planning Board in
accordance with the FCD Bylaw.
Mr. D'Urso moved to close the public hearings, Mr. Kistner seconded the motion, and the Board
voted unanimously in favor.
The Board scheduled a discussion of the drainage issues on Wilson St. near the intersection with
Legacy Farms North and trees removed from Wilson St., a scenic road, a number of years ago,
on May 14, 2018 at 9:00 P.M. Ms. Towner asked for clarification, and Mr. Ferrari noted there
are 2 separate projects, including The Trails at Legacy Farms proposed by Heritage Properties,
and the overall Legacy Farms development under the control of Mr. MacDowell. Ms. Towner
asked who built the 200 ft. drainage swale, and Ms. Kramer stated it is part of the Legacy Farms
North subdivision plan. Ms. Towner noted she checked the Planning Board's files and was
unable to find any documentation. She asked if the DPW would have this information, and Ms.
Lazarus stated that would be a good next step. Ms. Towner asked about the $10,000
performance guarantee as a condition of approval for The Trails at Legacy Farms, and Ms.
Lazarus stated it is not related.
5. Administrative Business/Minutes
Ms. Kramer moved to approve the Minutes of March 26, 2018, Ms. Ritterbusch seconded the
motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
6. Town Meeting Articles - Planning Board Presentation
The Board discussed the process to be followed with respect to the Planning Board articles for
the upcoming town meeting, and the Board decided to ask the Chairman to make the
presentations.
7. Upcoming Meetings
The Board discussed the status of the joint Board of Selectmen/Planning Board meeting to
interview potential candidates to fill the vacancy on the Planning Board. It was determined that
only 4 of the members are able to attend the meeting scheduled for April 24, and Board members
questioned whether there was enough notice given under the rules of the Town Charter. It was
noted the appointment would only be in effect until the next election. After further discussion
the Board determined it would not be able to participate in the joint interviews scheduled for
tomorrow. Ms. Ritterbusch moved to offer May 22, June 4, or June 5 as an alternate date, Mr.
DeYoung seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. After further
discussion, the original motion was amended to offer May 22, June 5, and June 11 instead.
Ms. Kramer moved to adjourn the meeting, Mr. DeYoung seconded the hearing, and the Board
voted unanimously in favor.
Adjourned: 10:25 P.M.
Submitted by: Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
APPROVED: June 11, 2018
17
Documents used at the Meeting:
Agenda for Hopkinton Planning Board for April 23, 2018
Memorandum from Elaine Lazarus, to Planning Board, dated April 18, 2018, re: Items on April 23, 2018
Planning Board Agenda
Public Hearing Outline – The Trails at Legacy Farms (Heritage Properties) Applications: 1) Site Plan Review –
180 age-restricted dwelling units; and 2) Amendment to Approved Master Plan (Special Permit) – Building
Area – Meeting Dates: 2/26/18, 3/26/18, 4/23/18; Plans entitled “The Trails at Legacy Farms Buildable Area
Exhibit” dated 03/20/2018, prepared by Bohler Engineering, and “Site Development Plans for The Trails at
Legacy Farms – Site Plan D” dated 01/03/2018 revised through 04/16/2018, and “Site Development Plans for
The Trails at Legacy Farms - Wilson Street Exhibit Plans” dated 03/20/2018, both prepared by Bohler
Engineering; Letter to Town of Hopkinton Planning Board from Jaklyn Centraccio and Philip F. Paradis, Jr.,
BETA Group, Inc., dated April 23, 2018, re: The Trails at Legacy Farms Special Condition #49 & #54 Planning
Board Traffic Peer Review
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, 4/23/18;
Chamberlain-Whalen Definitive Subdivision Plan Voting Guide & Draft Conditions, 4/18/18; Letter from
Philip F. Paradis, Jr. and Christopher Luppino, BETA Group, Inc., dated April 20, 2018, re: Chamberlain St. &
Whalen Rd. Definitive Residential Subdivision Plan Peer Review Update; Photo of 28 in. tree proposed to be
removed on Chamberlain St. (on smart phone – Philip Paradis, BETA Group, Inc.); ATM 1937 document
regarding Chamberlain St. easement, ref. Article 30; Concept Sketch dated 4-23-18 showing 49 Chamberlain
St./Tedstone property vs. 20 ft. road widening easement and 75 ft. pavement radius for Fire Dept. purposes
(prepared by Michael Dryden, Bohler Engineering); Plans entitled “Definitive Subdivision Plans for REC
Hopkinton LLC”, dated 12/11/2017 revised through 04/13/18, prepared by Bohler Engineering (for
Chamberlain Street/Whalen Road subdivision)
Draft Planning Board Minutes, 3/26/2018