HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180514 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes
1
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
Monday, May 14, 2018 7:00 PM
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, Irfan Nasrullah
MEMBERS ABSENT: Cliff Kistner
Present: Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner, Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
Mr. Ferrari opened the meeting. He noted he was not able to attend annual town meeting and
thanked Mr. DeYoung for helping out with the Planning Board presentations regarding proposed
zoning changes.
1. Continued Public Hearing – 84, 86, 88 and 92 West Main St. - Minor Project Site Plan
Review Application - Global Companies.
Peter Barbieri, Fletcher Tilton PC, attorney, Jesse Johnson, Bohler Engineering, engineer, Jason
Adams, McMahon Associates, traffic engineer, and David Avery, architect, appeared before the
Board. Mr. Barbieri stated the plans have been revised with respect to stormwater management,
traffic circulation, and building design, based on comments received from the Planning Board,
BETA Group, Inc., the Town's consultant engineer, and the Design Review Board (DRB). He
summarized the changes and referred to his consultants for further details. He noted the most
recent changes made based on last week's meeting with the DRB are not reflected in the current
plans. He noted he does not see anything in BETA's most recent comments that will cause
additional major changes, and he hopes to wrap up the Conservation Commission (ConCom)
process pending resolution of outstanding stormwater items.
Mr. Johnson referred to the revised plan. He noted the site layout is essentially the same but they
had to substantially change the stormwater management design as a result of updated soil and
groundwater test results. He noted they realized that the existing drainage structure next to the
wetlands is not functioning properly and basically in or right up to the groundwater. He noted
they pulled back the edge of pavement in that area significantly and replaced it with a low profile
settling area with grass swales to allow the runoff to go through pretreatment before it reaches
the wetlands. He noted the design will include an outflow pipe with a valve that can be shut off
in case of a spill, and the basin will be lined with an impermeable barrier. He noted they were
asked to rethink the open detention area at the corner of Elm St. and Lumber St. Ext., and
replaced it with an underground system enabling them to have landscaping at a prominent
intersection. He stated they have updated the landscaping in several areas. He noted they were
able to extend the sidewalk from Lumber St. Ext. over to Elm St. into the site with a crosswalk to
the patio, but extending it further is challenging because of a number of obstructions such as
utility poles and stone walls. He stated they showed the revised stormwater design to the
ConCom and they were initially on board although BETA asked them to look into adding a
water/oil separator and perhaps one more BMP before the runoff reaches the wetlands. He noted
with respect to the Planning Board aspects, he did not see any major issues in BETA's most
2
recent review letter, but heard there was some concern about lighting intensity. He noted they
can reduce levels around the perimeter, but have to make sure there is sufficient lighting
underneath the canopies from a safety and operational standpoint, and also between the canopies
and the store itself. Mr. Paul thanked the applicant for working with the Board. Mr. DeYoung
stated he was not at the first hearing but watched the video, and appreciates the changes to the
plan. He asked for further information regarding the impermeable barrier separating the basin
from the groundwater, and Mr. Johnson stated they could use dense clay type soil but prefer a
poly liner which is a little bit easier to install, will be more uniform, is not exposed to the
elements and will last a very long time. Mr. Johnson stated with respect to traffic circulation,
they introduced a center island to the easterly West Main St. access point, and changed it to right
in/right out only. He stated BETA reviewed the design and asked to them refine it to make it
more pronounced.
Mr. D’Urso arrived at this point.
Mr. Nasrullah noted he is concerned about people taking a left out of the site from the westerly
entrance on West Main St. Ms. Ritterbusch noted she thinks they will have to go out through the
back to the intersection, and Mr. Johnson stated he agrees and there will be wayfinding signs
within the site to direct people to Elm St. Ms. Ritterbusch asked for clarification regarding the
lighting plan, and Mr. Johnson noted it has changed since the last Planning Board meeting but
does not reflect the DRB’s most recent recommendations. Ms. Ritterbusch stated according to
the photometric plan lighting levels outside the canopies on the east side are still bright, and this
is the area facing the Elm St. neighbors. Mr. Johnson stated they can look at it. Ms. Ritterbusch
stated the revised plan shows a sidewalk up to the parking lot, and she asked about a connection
to accommodate people walking from the Rt. 495 side of Elm St. She noted there may be offices
there in the future, and Mr. Ferrari stated it is also part of the Hotel Overlay District and
potentially could be developed as such. Mr. Barbieri stated having a sidewalk there on the
applicant's side would encourage people to cross midstream, and it would be better having a
sidewalk on the other side connecting to the intersection with the protection of a crosswalk. Ms.
Kramer asked if there is the ability to increase screening on the Elm St./Lumber St. Ext. corner
for the benefit of the residential abutters, and Mr. Johnson stated yes. Ms. Kramer asked the
applicant to minimize lighting levels while maintaining safety along the perimeter, and Mr.
Johnson stated they are in a good position overall, but will take another look. Mr. D'Urso stated
he echoes other Board members' comments regarding lighting and screening, and noted he would
like to see the sidewalk on Elm St. extended and the number of access points on that side
reduced to one. Mr. Johnson stated further extending the sidewalk would result in a significantly
different project without really improving safety. Mr. Ferrari noted he is not suggesting to
necessarily install a sidewalk across the entire site but maybe from the northwestern driveway to
the edge of the property. Mr. Johnson stated there are wetlands issues there. Ms. Kramer asked
if trucks will still be backing into the property, and Mr. Johnson stated no. Ms. Kramer asked
about the new entrances relative to the Cumberland Farms and Mr. Johnson noted the new curb
cuts won't line up anymore with anything across the street. Mr. Paul asked if it would be
possible to install a sidewalk behind the store 5 or 10 ft. in from the street, and it was noted that
may not make sense. Mr. Paul asked if the new sidewalk section would be concrete, and Mr.
John stated yes - to match the existing portion.
3
Phil Paradis, BETA Group, stated BETA reviewed this project for the Planning Board, as well as
the Board of Appeals and the ConCom. He noted in general the applicant has incorporated a lot
of their comments/recommendations in the revised plans. He noted the project is before the
Board of Appeals for relief from the minimum front setback requirement, among other things,
and he is not sure about the status. He noted they are proposing 24 parking spaces while only 12
are required, apparently to accommodate the added indoor/outdoor cafe seating. He noted BETA
asked for clarification regarding water demands, commented on additional sidewalks, and had
some concerns regarding lighting levels. He noted the applicant provided updated soil tests and
groundwater data, which impacted the project because of the timing, with groundwater levels all
over eastern Massachusetts currently above seasonable levels. He noted because this concerns a
gasoline service station they are required to provide additional BMP's and BETA has asked for a
water/oil separator. Reference was made to the public hearing outline prepared for this
application. Mr. D'Urso stated a discussion of solar panels is already on the list, and there were
no other changes and/or additions.
Reference was made to vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow. Mr. Adams addressed the Board.
He noted they studied the site itself and the West Main St./Lumber St. (Ext.) intersection,
collected turning movement counts and projected those volumes into future years, looked at
known adjacent development as well as the full buildout of retail/residential development on
Lumber St. He noted the site will mostly serve existing users but anticipates an increase of 16
new entering/exiting trips during the AM peak hour, and 24 new entering/exiting trips in the PM.
He noted they expect most of the customers to come in from West Main St. and then continue
towards Rt. 495 while trips going east are assumed to go out through Elm St. to the signalized
intersection. He noted they don't expect the intersection to be impacted significantly. He noted
based on BETA comments and input from the Planning Board, they have changed the easterly
West Main St. entrance to a right in, right out only configuration but continue to allow left turns
out of the westerly entrance as a matter of convenience and to relieve pressure on the
intersection. He noted the need for a second entrance on Elm St. was questioned at the previous
meeting, but the applicant feels it reduces circulating trips within the site and they cannot
connect the Elm St. entrances or move the building. Mr. Paul stated he agrees full access for the
westerly West Main St. entrance would be convenient, but suggested prohibiting left turns
between 7:00 and 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM. Mr. Adams stated they can certainly take a
look at that. Mr. DeYoung noted with left turns allowed only at the westerly entrance, he is
concerned about potential backups for people wanting to take a right and the applicant is
anticipating 24 more trips during the PM peak hour. Mr. Ferrari asked about the possibility of
totally prohibiting crossing the street to Cumberland Farms, which is still a concern, even more
so because the entrances will no longer line up. Mr. Barbieri suggested signage indicating that
during the AM and PM peak hours it is right turns only, and it was felt that is a good idea. Mr.
D'Urso questioned the applicant's traffic numbers considering that the Dunkin' Donuts business
is moving a short distance down the road, and Mr. Adams noted they wanted to present a
conservative scenario with the primary focus on safe, efficient circulation, and show that the site
and surrounding area can accommodate additional traffic. Mr. D'Urso stated he guesses a
conservative estimate is better, but it does not warrant two access points on Elm St. and
eliminating the easterly exit would make it more pleasant for people sitting out on the patio. Mr.
Ferrari stated more people would then be directed to West Main St. and he feels getting people to
use the signal is more important. Board members agreed. Ms. Ritterbusch asked if tankers will
4
use the back entrance, and it was noted they will not. Mr. D'Urso asked if the applicant has
taken the upcoming changes to the intersection into consideration, and it was noted the plans
show the right hand turning lane to Lumber St. Mr. Paradis noted BETA recently provided the
design for the turning lane for review by the Town engineer, but it is only from the Cumberland
Farm driveway to the corner. Mr. D'Urso noted this was negotiated with the developer of
various commercial/residential projects on Lumber St., and has been years in the making. Mr.
Adams explained how people will typically travel to and from the site and conduct business
while they are there. Mr. DeYoung referred to potential changes to the design of the island
within the easterly West Main St. entrance, and noted the current shape may be confusing. Mr.
Johnson stated there will signage and pavement markings but BETA recommended making that
piece more prominent.
Mr. Ferrari asked about parking, and Mr. Barbieri stated there are currently 12 spaces, but the
future use will have indoor/outdoor seating and they propose to double the amount. Board
members noted it can be very busy there now and having extra parking is a good idea knowing
the situation across the street. Mr. Johnson described traffic flow to and from the site with 4 curb
cuts, 3 with full access and 1 with right in/right out movements only. He noted he feels the site
has been designed properly considering the challenges.
Mr. DeYoung asked about BETA comments with respect to traffic and parking. Tyler de Ruyter,
BETA Group, Inc., traffic engineer, noted they reviewed the applicant's traffic study and most of
BETA's comments have already been brought up. He noted the study was done in accordance
with industry standards and BETA's comments are related to the impact on overall safety and
adequate level of service at the West Main St./Lumber St./Lumber St. Ext. intersection. He
noted BETA has suggested making the island at the easterly West Main St. entrance more
pronounced to get the message better across and they are looking forward to an improved design.
He noted he believes using the Elm St. access for traveling east is the best way to go as long as
the signalized intersection can handle the additional traffic. He noted another concern is people
making left turns on West Main St. from the westerly entrance, and he knows the applicant has
provided a response today but they have not had a chance to review it. Mr. D'Urso asked about
the status of the traffic analysis as part of the Board of Appeals process, and Mr. de Ruyter noted
the applicant just today responded today to comments provided by BETA in April. Mr.
DeYoung noted he is in favor of moving traffic away from West Main St., but is a little
concerned about the capacity of the signalized intersection where occasionally even now traffic
gets backed up right to the Perkin Elmer stop sign. Mr. de Ruyter stated based on the study the
applicant is not concerned about conditions getting worse as a result of the project. He noted
BETA looked at their numbers, and there is not a huge difference between no-build without the
project vs. future conditions with the project in place, but this might be something they should
keep track of. Mr. Nasrullah asked if the impact of potential development of the adjacent
property in the Hotel Overlay District has been considered, and Mr. de Ruyter stated it was not
and they cannot expect the applicant to design for something way in the future.
Reference was made to stormwater management. Mr. Johnson offered a brief overview, and
noted that the drainage design had to be modified due to updated soil tests and groundwater data.
He noted the design is pretty much split across the site, and he explained the proposed
approaches for either side of the property, in accordance with Massachusetts stormwater
5
guidelines and Town regulations. Ms. Kramer asked about the status of the ConCom process,
and it was determined that although the revised design was well received this is still an open
item. Mr. D'Urso noted he would like Mr. Paradis' input with respect to the potential of a
sidewalk along the northwestern edge of the site and asked what could be done to protect the
wetlands. Mr. Paradis noted there are different techniques for sidewalks along wetlands,
however in this case it may be challenging to meet the treatment standards unless the applicant's
basin is part of the design but they would then be mixing municipal and private stormwater
which is typically not a good position to be in. He suggested asking the ConCom for guidance.
Mr. Ferrari asked if BETA has any additional recommendations in this respect beyond what the
applicant is doing, and Mr. Paradis stated their review was only related to the project, and the
only recommendation was for an additional water quality unit. Mr. Paul asked if just curbing
would work to keep out salt and sand, and Mr. Paradis noted he is not familiar with the grading
but obviously when restricting stormwater flow they have to make sure the receiving end has the
capacity and functions properly. Mr. Paul asked for the applicant's input, and Mr. Johnson stated
there are a couple of drains, however these are not at the edge of the pavement but off in the
shoulder area. Mr. D'Urso stated he would still like a sidewalk along the site but it appears this
is a question for the ConCom and BETA, and although he is not in favor of mixing private and
municipal stormwater he would like to find a way to prevent stormwater from the project site
from going into the wetlands. Mr. Johnson noted the discharge from the site is treated to the max
before it reaches the wetlands, and the system is designed to keep their stormwater separate from
the Town's. Mr. Paradis noted BETA as part of their review determined that the on-site
stormwater management system had not been maintained for a long time, so they recommended
that the ConCom include a special condition requiring a report from a professional engineer on
an annual basis to verify ongoing maintenance, especially because this concerns a gas station
near wetlands. Mr. Paul asked if Cumberland Farms has this requirement, and Mr. Paradis noted
he does not know and BETA did not review that project. Mr. Barbieri noted the site plan
application includes an O&M plan including reporting requirements.
Lighting - Mr. Johnson described the photometric plan, prepared by their lighting consultant,
listing the intensity levels throughout the site. He noted they want to make sure there are safe
levels under the canopies, in the parking areas, and around the building. He noted they have
been asked to see if they can lower these levels going towards Elm St., Lumber St. Ext. and West
Main St., and he will see if they can do better. Mr. Paradis referred to BETA's comments and
noted he feels the lighting levels are appropriate especially for the area under the canopies at the
pumps. Mr. Ferrari asked about the rules with respect to spillage over the property lines. Mr.
Paradis stated it is different in each town, but he believes the site has cutoff features that will
take care of that. He noted spillage over to a street is typically not an issue and it is good to have
a little light on the sidewalk sides, but the light should not spill over onto private property,
including residential areas, and that does not appear to be the case here. Mr. DeYoung asked
how lighting will compare with today's levels, and Mr. Johnson stated it will probably be similar
to Cumberland Farms. It was noted that perhaps the lighting levels on the Lumber St. side can
come down a little bit. Mr. Paul asked if more screening would help, and Mr. Johnson noted
lighting is not an exact science and they cannot take existing or proposed vegetation into
account, but they plan to increase screening on that side. Ms. Kramer asked about the Elm St.
side of the building which is not intended for access but closest to the neighbors. Mr. Johnson
noted there is a sidewalk to the patio on that side which requires some safety lighting. He noted
6
the plan shows 2 building-mounted gooseneck fixtures on the back of the building, and lighting
is essentially concentrated on the sidewalk but drops considerably before one gets to the edge
pavement. Mr. D'Urso asked about the hours of operation, and Mr. Barbieri noted it will be
same as those for Cumberland Farms. Ms. Kramer stated it was discussed previously and the
applicant had indicated there would be no change. Mr. Ferrari noted it will be discussed as part
of the review. Mr. Avery described the changes made as a result of additional discussions with
the DRB. He noted the applicant initially presented their prototype design, but the DRB felt it
was too bright and contemporary, so they made a number of changes to soften the look and allow
it to blend in better with the neighborhood. He presented renderings and noted changes included
residential clapboard instead of vertical siding, changing the colors to just white for the trim and
green for the general body of the building, different roof materials, more windows, and a pergola
over the patio instead of stretch canvas awnings. He noted here is no entrance on the back of the
building, but there is a service door with an awning with a light underneath and one more
building mounted complementary fixture. Mr. Ferrari asked about seating vs. the number of
parking spaces, and Mr. Barbieri noted there will be 12 seats inside, 24 under the trellis, and
parking spaces will be right next to the building. Ms. Ritterbusch noted, as discussed at the
DRB, the roof line was designed so as to better screen rooftop equipment. The Board discussed
dates and times for a continued public hearing, noting the applicant will go back to the Board of
Appeals on May 23 and the ConCom on June 5. Ms. Kramer moved to continue the hearing to
June 11, 2018 at 9:00 P.M., Mr. D'Urso seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously
in favor.
The Board took 5 minute break.
Mr. DeYoung noted this is the last meeting for Mr. Ferrari and Mr. Nasrullah who will not be
returning to the Board after the elections, and he would like to recognize both of them on behalf
of the Board for their dedication and efforts. He noted Mr. Nasrullah was on the Board for only
a year but his contributions are very much appreciated. Mr. Nasrullah stated it has been an
interesting experience and it was an honor to serve. Mr. DeYoung thanked Mr. Ferrari for his
leadership and effort over the years, and noted he feels the members have grown individually as
well as collectively because of that. Mr. D'Urso presented Mr. Ferrari with a gavel as a token of
appreciation for his chairmanship and half a decade of service to the Planning Board. Mr. Ferrari
thanked the members, and noted it has been a pleasure to serve. He noted it has not always been
easy, but everyone stepped up and they were able to bring a sense of clarity to the process. Ms.
Kramer thanked Mr. Ferrari for his leadership and noted she feels Mr. Ferrari deserves a lot of
credit for building a terrific team and the ability to deliver a better result through more openness
and public involvement.
2. Continued Public Hearing - Maspenock Woods - Proposed Changes to Approved Site
Plan & Building Design - Maspenock Woods Realty Trust
Bruce Wheeler, Maspenock Woods Realty Trust, applicant, Wendy Walton, Art Form Design,
architect, and Peter Barbieri, attorney, appeared before the Board. Mr. Nasrullah, the Board’s
liaison for this proposal, described the application and turned the discussion over to the
applicant. Mr. Wheeler noted Maspenock Woods Realty Trust filed an application for changes
to the approved site plan and the architectural design for duplex units 9/10, 11/12, and 29/30. He
noted the application originally also included changes to a 4th unit but they decided to leave it the
7
way it is. He noted the proposed modifications were reviewed by the DRB, and they made
additional changes based on their input and recommendations.
Ms. Walton presented the overall site plan with proposed changes as well as the topographic plan
which was taken into consideration by the DRB as part of their review. She noted the proposed
changes represent a little shift in floor plans in response to feedback from the market place. She
noted there was a lot of discussion of the proposed change to Unit 9 to address the concerns of
the owner of Unit 8 because it would significantly reduce the distance in between the units. Ms.
Walton stated they were able to address the neighbor’s concerns by moving the sunroom to the
back and narrowing the unit, and she illustrated the changes by showing the revised floor plans.
The applicant showed existing vs. proposed elevations. In response to questions of the Board,
Ms. Walton stated she does not have the exact dimensions but the elevations of the units are
essentially staying the same. Mr. D'Urso stated it seems the buildings are getting closer to the
lake, and he is concerned that this type of after-the-fact changes tends to get lost in the mix. The
applicant noted they will still be within the already approved limit of work, and Mr. D’Urso
stated that is not clear from the plan. The Board discussed the issue and determined it is satisfied
with the documentation provided and the project is obviously still outside the buffer zone. Mr.
Nasrullah noted Mr. D’Urso’s point is well taken but in this case it concerns a previously
approved work area. Mr. D’Urso asked about the required setbacks between the buildings, and
Mr. Wheeler noted 35 ft. is required and the revised plans comply.
Mr. Ferrari reminded the applicant of a previous meeting with the Board, when the former
Chairman talked about the conditions on the site. He stated this issue is not related to the this
application but as mentioned at the time the site looked bad and it is getting worse, and it should
be cleaned up for the benefit of current neighbors as well as prospective buyers. He noted the
former Chairman also mentioned the developer should talk to the Board if he decided to take
down the existing single family house and do something more in line with the new development.
Mr. Wheeler noted they will clean up the site, and could demo the house and leave the
foundation to remove the eyesore, or work on a new design and come back to Board. It was
determined that the developer will clean the site within the next 30 days, and the Board would
like to see the developer’s plan with respect to the house before taking it down. Heidi Edwards,
16 Lakepoint Way, asked to see the plans for the unit next to hers. Ms. Walton noted the
setbacks between Units 8 and 9 are 35.5 ft. at the front, 42 ft. on the other side, and 60.5 ft. from
the back, and Ms. Edwards thanked the applicant for the information. Mr. Paul moved to
approve the changes for the 3 buildings, and Ms. Ritterbusch seconded the motion. It was agreed
that Mr. Wheeler will clean up the site within 30 days and come back to the Board to share his
plans for the existing house within 90 days. It was noted there is no need to make this part of the
decision. The Board voted unanimously in favor. Ms. Kramer moved to close the public
hearing, Mr. Nasrullah seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
3. Public Hearing - Bucklin St./Leonard St. - Stormwater Management Permit
Application - Wall Street Development Corp.
Ms. Kramer moved to open the hearing, Mr. D'Urso seconded the motion, and the Board voted
unanimously in favor. Louis Petrozzi, Wall Street Development Corp., applicant, and Robert
Truax, GLM Engineering, engineer, appeared before the Board. Ms. Kramer referred to a letter
received from Town Counsel regarding this proposal. She noted it was distributed to the Board
8
members as part of the meeting packet, but she will not will not read it out loud as it is public
record. Mr. Paul asked if the applicant is aware of this letter, and Mr. Petrozzi stated no. The
applicant was given a copy of the letter at this time. Ms. Wilson noted the Board received the
application, but it was determined that is incomplete for a number of reasons as outlined in her
memorandum to the Board. She noted a number of items were missing and there was some
discussion based on the determination of the project being subject to the Subdivision Control
Law vs. an approval not required (ANR) process. She noted Town Counsel’s letter explains the
reasons in more detail and includes suggestions as to the process moving forward. She noted
there are a couple of options, and the most recent Town Counsel letter suggests the applicant
withdraw the application, and if he refuses, recommends that the Planning Board deny the
application because the project is subject to the Subdivision Control Law. Ms. Kramer noted the
1998 legal decision regarding this property is not supported by the current Town Counsel who
feels the paper street does not enable the argument for the proponent to create the lots without
filing a definitive subdivision plan. Mr. Ferrari noted the applicant therefore can come back with
the required documentation or the Board can deny the application because it is incomplete. Mr.
Paul suggested the Board advise the applicant to do the right thing, withdraw the application, and
come back come with a complete application. Ms. Kramer read from Town Counsel's letter.
Mr. Petrozzi noted he understands the Board’s position regarding the rights of the paper street,
but respectfully disagrees with Town Counsel's opinion, and his attorney is preparing a legal
opinion. He noted if the Board is not prepared to discuss the application under the
circumstances, he suggests they continue the hearing until the attorneys have had a chance to
discuss the issues. He noted if the Board were to decline, he would like to point out that he had
the option to file an ANR plan along with the stormwater permit application but did not want to
put the Board under the pressure of the 21-day decision deadline. He noted they therefore
withheld the ANR plan so that they could focus on the stormwater management aspect of the
proposal. He noted he does not want to get into litigation but the prior Town Counsel's opinion
is a lot different and case law has not changed since 1998. The Board noted it cannot ignore the
opinion of the current Town Counsel. Mr. Paul suggested continuing the hearing at this point.
Ms. Wilson stated they can extend the action date as long as the Board and the applicant agree on
a time for the applicant to submit the required supplemental information. Ms. Wilson read from
Town Counsel's letter. Ms. Ritterbusch stated the Board will have 3 new members, and asked if
that is a problem. It was determined that the Planning Board has 9 members and stormwater
management permits need a simple majority or 5 members. Mr. Paul noted he believes they can
continue the hearing without asking the applicant for additional documentation. After further
discussion, Ms. Kramer moved to continue the hearing to June 25, 2018 at 7:30 PM, and extend
the decision deadline to July 9, 2018 by mutual agreement. Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion,
and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Petrozzi asked if the Board's consultant engineer
can proceed with his review in the meantime, and it was determined that no review can take
place until the application is deemed to be complete.
4. Wilson St. - Scenic Road Issues - Drainage Problems
Roy MacDowell, Legacy Farms LLC, developer, appeared before the Board. Mr. Ferrari turned
the discussion over to Ms. Kramer, and Ms. Kramer asked Mr. MacDowell for an update. Mr.
MacDowell stated he spent some time last week with Mike Dryden of Bohler Engineering, and
walked the length of Wilson St. and a portion of Legacy Farms North. He noted they watched
the flow on the corner of Wilson St. and Legacy Farms North, and stated there is a catch basin in
9
the street but the water runs right by it and serves no purpose. He noted Mr. Paradis of BETA
Group looked at this with him and it was determined the issue can be addressed by locating the
outlet pipe and cleaning out the catch basin and putting in a headwall. Mr. MacDowell noted
they also identified the reason for water running off his property onto Wilson St. towards Kruger
Rd. He stated the neighbors were right and the problem is related to the construction of Legacy
Farms North. He noted it has been determined that the detention area built as part of the project
is not large enough, and Bohler believes that it should be enlarged, probably as much as 50 to
75%. He noted he has Bohler working on this and will go back to Vanasse Hangen Brustlin
(VHB) who designed the system to check the original calculations and hopefully they will have
the information within a week or so. He noted the asphalt around the Wilson St. drain has to be
removed and recontoured.
Mr. MacDowell noted Mr. Paradis and he also looked at Legacy Farms North. He noted the final
coat has not been installed yet and in some areas the grass is higher than the road causing the
water to run down the road itself, and he believes that lowering the grass will help. Mr. Paradis
stated the stormwater management system in Wilson St. is inadequate and there is a catch basin
that is not functioning correctly causing the water to flow into the street and puddle in the tire
grooves formed over time. He noted in addition the cross slope on Wilson St. is not very defined
both at the intersection and a little further down, which contributes to the problem. Mr. Paradis
noted there is no formal drainage on Wilson St. in the Kruger Rd. area, which is where the swale
for Legacy Farms North is overflowing into the street, but there are a number of changes that can
be made to improve the situation. Mr. MacDowell stated the catch basins are in the right of way
and he would be happy to work with the DPW towards a solution. He noted the proposed
changes will help but not solve the problem entirely because Wilson St. is not perfectly pitched
and car tires have created a swale in the road itself.
Mr. Nasrullah asked if it is possible to abate the water coming off the LNG facility, and Mr.
MacDowell noted there are 2 catch basins in front of their driveway one on either side but not
much is known about them, and according to Mr. Paradis there is another one halfway down
towards Legacy Farms North. He noted it would be a matter of regrading and properly pitching
the road to keep the water from crossing over, making sure that there is a place for the water to
go. Mr. Paul asked if curbing would help. Mr. Paradis noted the Legacy Farms North design is
based on elevation, and it is not working now because the loam and seed is too high relative to
the binder course. Mr. Paul suggested just using curbs at the section with the basin itself, and
Mr. MacDowell stated he thinks it would make it worse.
Ms. Ritterbusch asked about the process going forward, and Mr. MacDowell noted he is going to
get the calculations from VHB, ask Bohler to prepare a more definitive plan to be reviewed by
BETA, and then in conjunction with the DPW work on a solution to be presented to the Board.
Ms. Wilson stated Mr. Westerling was not able to be here tonight, but she assumes Mr.
MacDowell already talked to him and it makes more sense for the DPW to jump in once there is
a more concrete plan. Ms. Kramer asked about a time frame and Mr. MacDowell stated he
should be able to have something ready for review by BETA and the DPW within the next 1-1/2
to 2 weeks. Mr. DeYoung stated it appears it will be a two-prong approach, namely 1) address
drainage on Wilson St. from the LNG facility down to Legacy Farms North, and 2) prepare a
plan to remove the stream created by an overflowing detention area on Legacy Farms property.
10
He noted Wilson St. in this area is especially problematic in the winter because of the pitch and
condition of the road, and he asked if there is a way for Mr. MacDowell to work with Mr.
Westerling to come up with a solution. Mr. MacDowell stated Mr. Paradis already pointed out
the issues with the road itself and he believes in a perfect world an overlay would be the best
solution, but for now he would prefer following the process he laid out tonight. Mr. D'Urso
stated there were some good points made tonight, and asked for clarification. Mr. Paradis stated
he identified at least two catch basins in the right of way that are not working properly and there
may be more. Mr. D'Urso stated he understands they should be working with the DPW on this
issue, but he feels they should also reach out to the LNG facility about maintenance of drainage
features on their property.
Ms. Towner stated she objects to the statement made tonight that there was an existing swale in
Wilson St. from Legacy Farms North to Kruger Rd., and she showed pictures of the street before
and after the earth work done for the construction of Legacy Farms North. She noted the
problem started after the contractor disturbed a significant amount of land, which was not a
meadow, essentially removing trees, bushes and all kinds of other vegetation which absorbs the
water, and no one is taking responsibility. Ms. Towner stated the bylaws require a mitigation
plan in a case like that, and any such mitigation should take place on the developer's property.
She stated there is no room to reshape the road, and creating a swale is not a solution. Ms.
Towner noted she agrees that the detention basin was not designed correctly, but although Mr.
Westerling told her there are specifications he was not able to produce them. She noted in
accordance with the construction management plan the developer is required to report problems,
and the Board is supposed to order him to come up with a mitigation plan within 30 days -
however the drainage problems have now been going on for 3 years. Mr. D'Urso apologized to
Ms. Towner for not being able to get all this figured out tonight, but it appears there is more to it
from an engineering standpoint, and they are working on a plan. He noted some of the trees
were taken down on Wilson St. by Eversource, and others were removed from Legacy Farms
property. He stated they have to identify the trees in the right of way, after which the issue can
be addressed by the Planning Board under the scenic road bylaw. Mr. MacDowell stated no
stone walls were touched, and Mr. D'Urso stated it is possible that as part of the remedial work
some of the walls may be disturbed temporarily. Mr. D'Urso noted he does not remember a
swale on Wilson St. in the section beyond Kruger Rd. and he thought they would be talking
about a solution for the remainder of Wilson St. along this property as part of the entire package
for the Legacy Farms North/Wilson St. intersection. He noted hopefully the DPW Director or
one of his representatives will be able to attend the next meeting to cover all the bases.
Ms. Kramer asked if the Board is amenable to find out the status of the tree replacement fund
established through fines and payments in lieu of tree planting, just to be prepared in case the
Board wants to use some of that money for mitigation in this case. Mr. D'Urso noted that is a
good idea. Ms. Kramer stated she also understands the DPW places buckets with road salt
during the winter so that people at the intersection can continue to keep the road safe, clearly an
indication that everyone knows it is dangerous. Rod Towner, 9 Kruger Rd., asked for assurance
that this time the work will be done correctly. He showed photos to the Board showing the
puddles in the road. Mr. MacDowell stated it is clear the detention basin is undersized and he
intends to address the problem by substantially oversizing it this time. Ms. Kramer stated she
appreciates the neighbors' concerns, and safety is first priority but from her perspective there is
11
also a need to restore some of the aesthetics. Mr. MacDowell stated he never talked about an
existing swale and did not take down any trees, and reminded everyone he already offered to
plant 5 significant maple trees when the time is right and if the neighbors are interested. Mr.
Paul stated the Board understands the issues but at this point should focus on a solution. He
noted he also wants to thank Mr. MacDowell for his willingness to work on this. He stated the
Board only recently starting talking about the problem which apparently has been going on for
years.
Chris Small, 5 Reservoir Rd., stated he was able to find the scenic road designation plan from
2008. He referred to the half a dozen or so big trees taken down by Eversource, or some other
entity, at Wilson St./Rafferty Rd. (Legacy Farms North), and stated there were another 37 trees,
3 in. or larger and therefore subject to the scenic road bylaw, that were removed about 650 ft.
away from the intersection towards Kruger Rd. He stated he is not saying Mr. MacDowell was
responsible, but asked what he could do about replacing those or creating some type of buffer.
Mr. MacDowell asked for clarification of the scenic road designation plan. He stated Eversource
cut down a lot of trees when they put in the new poles, but he does not know how many. Mr.
Small asked if the Town will maintain the drainage system once it is fixed, because they are still
waiting for someone to maintain the catch basins installed on Rafferty Rd. (now Legacy Farms
North). Mr. D'Urso asked for copy of the scenic road designation plan, and it was noted it is on
record. Ms. Ritterbusch asked about check points on a seasonal basis once the plan is in place.
The Board continued the discussion to June 25, 2018 at 8:30 PM, and Ms. Kramer stated
hopefully the required documentation will be available by then and someone from the DPW will
be present to answer questions. Mr. Small asked if there anything is happening with respect to
the Tree Warden position which is now taken on by the DPW Director, and whether there is
anything the Board can do in this respect. Ms. Kramer stated she does not know. Ms.
Ritterbusch stated maybe they should find out the status, and then decide if a letter to the Board
of Selectmen is in order.
5. Approval-Not-Required Plan - Legacy Farms North - Legacy Farms LLC
Mr. Ferrari asked for clarification regarding the naming of Legacy Farms North and Legacy
Farms South. He noted everyone refers to them as Legacy Farms Road North and South, and
perhaps they should ask the Board of Selectmen to assign the names people use anyway. Mr.
MacDowell stated they initially asked for the entire road to be called Legacy Farms Road but the
Town preferred Legacy Farms North and Legacy Farms South.
Mr. MacDowell explained the approval-not-required plan. After discussion Ms. Kramer moved
to endorse the plan as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, Ms.
Ritterbusch seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
6. Administrative Business
Minutes - Ms. Kramer moved to approve the Minutes of April 9, 2018, Mr. D'Urso seconded the
motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Future Meeting Dates - Ms. Wilson listed the dates of future meetings, and asked the Board to
check their schedules.
12
Ms. Kramer moved to adjourn the meeting, Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion, and the Board
voted unanimously in favor.
Adjourned: 10:10 PM
Submitted by: Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
Approved: June 25, 2018
Documents used at the Meeting:
Agenda for Hopkinton Planning Board for May 14, 2018
Memorandum from Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner, to Planning Board, dated May 10, 2018, re: Items on
May 14, 2018 Planning Board Agenda
Missed Meeting Certificate - Fran DeYoung (April 9, 2018, re: 84-92 West Main St., Minor Project Site Plan
Review Application/Global Companies)
Draft Planning Board Minutes, April 9, 2018
Plan entitled Approval Not Required Plan of Land for 0 Wilson St./Legacy Farms North, dated 5/8/18, prepared
by Control Point Associates, Inc.
Public Hearing Outline – 84, 86, 88, 92 West Main St., Public Hearing Date: May 14, 2018; Site Development
and Elevation Plans for 84, 86, 88 & 92 West Main St./Montello Group Corp. (Alltown Fresh), dated 10/11/17
rev. through 5/4/18, prepared by Bohler Engineering; Letter from Philip F. Paradis, Jr. and Christopher
Luppino, BETA Group, Inc., to Department of Land Use, Planning and Permitting, dated May 14, 2018, re: 84-
92 West Main Street – Gas Station and Convenience Store Planning Board Peer Review Update
Site Overview Plan, entitled Garden Apartments Definitive Presentation Plan of Land for Maspenock Woods,
dated 11/3/17 revised/received 5-7-18, prepared by Guerriere & Halnon, Inc.; Garden Apartments Definitive
Layout Plan of Land for Maspenock Woods, dated 7/24/17, prepared by Guerriere & Halnon, Inc.; Architectural
Renderings for Emily Duplex Units, rev. through 5/10/18, prepared by Art Form Architecture, Inc.;
Letter from Rebekah Lacey, MiyaresHarrington, to Hopkinton Planning Board c/o Elaine Lazarus, Director of
Land Use and Town Operations, dated May 11, 2018, re: Wall Street Development Corp., Assessors’ Parcel ID
U19 52 0 (off Leonard Street) - Stormwater Management Permit Application
Presentation Plans for Wilson St. and Legacy Farms North; Photo of Legacy Farms North/Wilson St., showing
flooding conditions submitted by abutter