HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180823 - Planning Board - Agenda
TOWN OF HOPKINTON
PLANNING BOARD
Monday, August 27, 2018 7:00 P.M.
Hopkinton Town Hall, 18 Main Street, Hopkinton, MA
______________________________________________________________________________
AGENDA
7:00 Echo Brook Lane – Ron Nation
Discussion of previous Board approvals relative to Echo Brook Lane subdivision.
7:30 Public Hearing - 17 South Mill Street – Scenic Road Permit – Robert and Angela
Rizzo
Proposal to repair/rebuild an existing 200 ft. section of stonewall at 17 South Mill Street.
7:45 Continued Public Hearing - 17, 0, and 0 Wilson St., 0 Cedar St. - 1) Commercial
Solar Photovoltaic Special Permit Application; 2) Stormwater Management Permit
Application - TJA Solar.
Proposed commercial solar photovoltaic installation on approximately 34.3 acres of land
(Assessor's Map U12 Block 1 Lot A & Block 2 Lot A, and Map U11 Block 30 Lot 0 &
Block 26 Lot B.)
7:50 Continued Public Hearing – Bucklin St. & Leonard St. – Stormwater Management
Permit – Wall Street Development Corp.
Request for continuance of the hearing to September 17, 2018.
8:30 Public Hearing - Whisper Way OSLPD – Definitive Subdivision Plan Application –
20th Century Homes
Proposed 24-lot single family subdivision off Whisper Way and Wood Street.
9:00 Committee Appointments - Design Review Board; Zoning Advisory Committee
The Board will appoint applicants to the Design Review Board and the Zoning Advisory
Committee.
9:30 Chamberlain-Whalen Subdivision
Approve conditional approval agreement; endorse definitive subdivision plan; review
and approve pre-construction documents.
Business to be considered by the Board at any time during the meeting:
BETA one year contract extension
Approve minutes of 6/25/18 and 7/9/18.
Planning Board member reports and future agenda items
Correspondence
1
Town of Hopkinton
Planning Board
18 Main Street, Hopkinton MA 01748
508-497-9745
DATE: August 23, 2018
TO: Planning Board
FROM: Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner
RE: Items on August 27, 2018 Planning Board Agenda
1. Echo Brook Lane – Ron Nation
Ron Nation and Chris Nation have requested to meet with the Board to discuss an issue that was
recently discovered regarding previous Board approvals for Echo Brook subdivision. The Board
approved a definitive subdivision plan for the creation of 3 lots in 1976 and a definitive
subdivision plan for the creation of 2 additional lots in 1988. The conditions outlined in the
Boards 1988 decision included language that required the resubmittal of new preliminary and
definitive plans if there was to be any resubdivsion of lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 as shown on the 1988
plan. In early 2018, the Board endorsed an ANR plan which showed the creation of 4 building
lots. The lots were created by combining abutting 191 Lumber St. and Lot 1 (as shown on 1988
plan). The lots shown on the approved ANR plan had the required frontage and met the
requirements for endorsement.
Before the Building Department can issue building permits for the lots, the Board needs to
discuss and determine their interpretation of “resubdivsion” as used in the 1988 decision
conditions and whether the lots created by the approved 2018 ANR are in conflict with the
intention of the 1988 decision.
I have attached the following for the Board’s review:
- 1976 & 1988 Decisions and Minutes
- Plan overlay of 1976, 1988 and 2018 ANR lot lines.
2. Public Hearing – 17 South Mill Street – Scenic Road Permit – Robert and Angela Rizzo
The Applicant proposes to repair and restack (dry) a 200 ft. section of stonewall in front of their
home. No tree removal is proposed and no public shade trees are impacted. Pictures of the
existing wall and a plan denoting location is attached. DPW had no comment on the application.
2
Scenic Road Permit application – a decision is due 21 days from the close of the public
hearing and a majority vote is required for approval.
Approval Criteria § 160-6: The Planning Board’s decision on any application for proposed work affecting scenic roads shall be based on consideration of the following criteria:
A. The degree to which the proposed work would adversely affect the scenic and aesthetic values upon which the scenic road designation was originally based.
B. The necessity for the proposed work in terms of public safety, welfare, or convenience.
C. Compensatory action proposed, such as replacement of trees or walls.
D. Availability of reasonable alternatives to the proposed work which could reduce or eliminate anticipated damage to trees or stone walls. E. Whether the proposed work would compromise or harm other environmental or historical values. F. Consistency of the proposed work with previously adopted Town plans and policies.
3. Continued Public Hearing – 17, 0, and 0 Wilson St., 0 Cedar St. – 1) Commercial Solar
Photovoltaic Special Permit Application; 2) Stormwater Management Permit Application –
TJA Solar.
These hearings have been continued from the July 9, 2018 meeting. Two applications have been
submitted to the Board, relative to a proposal to construct a solar facility at 17 Wilson Street. The
two public hearings are being held concurrently.
Special Permit application pursuant to Zoning Bylaw Article XXXI – a decision is due
90 days from the close of the public hearing and a 2/3 vote is required for approval.
Frank D’Urso and Carol DeVeuve are not eligible to vote. All other members are
eligible to vote.
Stormwater Management Permit application pursuant to General Bylaw Chapter 172 – A
decision is due by September 6th, 2018 and a majority vote is required for approval.
Frank D’Urso and Carol DeVeuve are not eligible to vote. All other members are
eligible to vote.
BETA Group: Please see most recent comments from BETA dated 7/30/18 and response
comments from the Applicant dated 7/30/18. Technical and Stormwater issues have been
resolved and BETA defers to the Board on remaining issues relative to screening and
recommended conditions.
3
Fire Chief: The Applicant and Chief Slaman have discussed access, road conditions, and
entrance details. Overall, the Chief thought the proposed access looked adequate for public
safety personnel and the provided plan details were acceptable. Please see email correspondence
from Chief Slaman dated 7/27/18.
Conservation Commission: The Commission issued an Order of Conditions at its 7/31 meeting.
Vegetative Screening: The project is required to maintain a buffer area around the perimeter of
the lot that is sufficient to separate/visually screen the use from abutting properties (see Zoning
Bylaw Section 210-121.1) The buffer can be no less than 25’ wide in the Residence A District;
50’ wide in the Residence B District; and 75’wide in the Agricultural district. The Applicant is
requesting a finding from the Board for a reduction in the buffer width in two areas:
1) Portion of area adjacent to the proposed Wilson Street access Road.
2) Portion behind 15 Wilson Street. Pursuant to 210-117.1(A), if a lot is located in two or
more residence districts, the lot shall be considered as lying entirely within the district that has
the largest area and frontage requirements. 15 Wilson Street is primarily zoned Agricultural with
a small portion being Residence A. Please see attached correspondence from the Applicants
representative dated 7/17 and the Zoning Enforcement Officer’s opinion letter dated 7/23. Based
on the Zoning Enforcement Officers interpretation, the Applicant is required to maintain a 75’
buffer in the Residence A portion of 15 Wilson Street.
Historical Stone Features: Please see letter from Hopkinton Historical Society member, James
Haskins, dated 7/19 regarding believed to be archaeological, Native American stone landscapes,
in the proposed project area. The Applicant’s representatives have provided two response letters:
1) Public Archaeology Laboratory dated 8/17 and 2) Joe Pacella dated 8/19. The Applicant has
also included an Approximate Location Plan outlining the location of the structures and proposed
construction notes/protocol. I have added this item to the public hearing outline for the Board to
discuss.
Authority to Condition: §210-200 of the zoning by-law gives the Board the authority to
minimize impacts on residential neighborhoods and scenic, natural and historic resources. Based
on this provision, the Board has the authority to conclude that the Native American stone
landscapes are historic resources and can take measures to minimize impacts to them.
Additionally, §210-203 of the zoning bylaw states that before granting a Special Permit, the
Board must determine that the installation conforms to the provisions of the Article, won’t be
detrimental to the neighborhood or the Town, and that the environmental features of the site are
protected. These measures are broad enough to support a condition on the Special Permit to
protect the stone landscapes, if the Board chooses to do so. It will be important for the Board to
discuss and determine 1) what needs protection; 2) how certain it is that there are Native
American stone landscapes on site; 3) how significant they are; 4) how much will be disturbed
by the proposed project and work; 5) what measures are appropriate and reasonable for
protection.
4
Resident Letters: Emails to the Board have been received from Ed Cutter, Tom Shambo, Matt
Zettek, and a collective neighbor group. Letters are attached to the memo.
Approval Criteria – Solar Special Permit
Before the Planning Board issues a special permit, it shall determine each of the following:
§210-203.D Approval Criteria
1. The commercial solar photovoltaic installation conforms to the provisions of this Article. (Abbreviated below - see §210-202 Use Regulations) 2. The commercial solar photovoltaic installation will not be detrimental to the neighborhood or the Town;
3. Environmental features of the site and surrounding areas are protected, and specifically
surrounding areas will be protected from the proposed use by provision of adequate surface water drainage. §210-202 Use Regulations
A. Three acre minimum parcel B. Setback, yard, buffer and screening requirements applicable in the zoning district apply. C. Security fences shall be set back from the property line a distance equal to the setback requirement applicable to buildings within the zoning district in which the installation is located.
D. Site Plan Review is not required. E. The visual impact of the installation, including all accessory structures and appurtenances, shall be mitigated. All accessory structures and appurtenances shall be architecturally compatible with each other. Whenever reasonable, structures shall be shielded from view by vegetation and /or joined and clustered to avoid adverse visual
impacts. Methods such as the use of landscaping, natural features and fencing may be
used. F. Lighting shall not be permitted unless required by the Planning Board or by the State Building Code. Where used, lighting shall be directed downward and full cut-off fixtures
shall be used. G. All utility connections from the installation shall be underground unless otherwise specifically permitted by the Board in the special permit. Electrical transformers and inverters to enable utility interconnections may be above ground if required by the utility provider.
H. Clearing of natural vegetation shall be limited to the minimum necessary for the
construction, operation and maintenance of the commercial solar photovoltaic installation except as otherwise prescribed by applicable laws, regulations and bylaws or the special permit. I. The installation owner or operator shall maintain the facility in good condition. Maintenance shall include painting, structural repairs, continued compliance
with landscaping and screening requirements, and integrity of security measures. The owner or operator shall be responsible for the maintenance of any access roads serving the installation.
5
The Board must give due consideration to promoting the public health, safety, convenience and welfare; and shall not permit a use that is injurious, noxious, offensive or detrimental to its neighborhood except as otherwise specified in the bylaw (Sec. 210-223).
Special permits shall be subject to whatever appropriate conditions and safeguards the Board may prescribe. The Board’s authority in this matter is tempered by the provisions of MGL c.40A Sec. 3, which
states “No zoning ordinance or bylaw shall prohibit or unreasonably regulate the installation of
solar energy systems or the building of structures that facilitate the collection of solar energy, except where necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare.”
The Attorney General advised the Town in its approval of the solar bylaw of the following:
A. “These special permit standards in Section 210-203 (D) appear to be consistent with the Town’s general zoning power and the power to impose reasonable regulations on solar uses “where necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare.” G.L. c. 40, § 3. However, the
Town should consult closely with Town Counsel throughout the special permit review process to ensure that the standards in Section 210-203 (D) are not applied in a manner that contravenes the protections granted to solar energy systems in G.L. c. 40A, § 3.”
B. “Section 210-203 (E) authorizes the Planning Board to impose conditions and other
safeguards on a special permit issued for a Solar Installation. Specifically, Section 210-203 (E) authorizes the Planning Board to require a performance bond, or other type of security deposit to guarantee proper maintenance and removal of the Solar Installation. Any financial surety requirements imposed by the Planning Board do not become Town
funds unless and until the applicant defaults on the obligation imposed under the by-law
or special permit. If the Town must use the financial surety to pay for work required under the bylaw or special permit, the Town must appropriate the funds before an expenditure is made to do the work. General Laws Chapter 44, Section 53, provides that “[a]ll moneys received by a city, town or district officer or department, except as
otherwise provided by special acts and except fees provided for by statute, shall be paid
by such officers or department upon their receipt into the city, town or district treasury.” Under Section 53 all moneys received by the Town become part of the general fund, unless the Legislature has expressly made other provisions that are applicable to such moneys. In the absence of any general or special law to the contrary, performance
security funds of the sort contemplated in Section 210-203 (E) must be deposited with the
Town Treasurer and made part of the Town’s general fund pursuant to G.L. c. 44, § 53. The Town must then appropriate the money for the specific purpose of complying with the conditions relating to removal of the Solar Installation. We suggest that the Town discuss the application of this section.”
Draft Special Permit conditions are attached to the memo.
6
Approval Criteria – Buffer Reduction
210-121.1.E.- Upon a finding by the Planning Board that a buffer of lesser width would be sufficient to screen and/or separate the use from adjacent property, the width of the buffer may be reduced. In those circumstances, it is the intent of the Board not to waive the buffer requirement, but, rather, to provide alternative screening arrangements, such as fencing and planting where possible.
Approval Criteria – Stormwater Management Permit
With respect to Planning Board action, the Stormwater Regulations adopted by the Board in 2008 states: The Planning Board’s action, rendered in writing, shall consist of either:
1. Approval of the SMP application based upon determination that the proposed plan meets the Standards in Section 7.0, will adequately protect the water resources of the community and is in compliance with the requirements set forth in the Bylaw and the Regulations,
2. Approval of the SMP application subject to any conditions, modifications or restrictions
required by the Planning Board which will ensure that the project meets the Standards in Section 7.0 and adequately protects water resources, set forth in the Bylaw and the Regulations, 3. Disapproval of the SMP application based upon a determination that the proposed plan,
as submitted, does not meet the Standards in Section 7.0, does not adequately protect
water resources, or does not comply with the provisions of the Bylaw or the Regulations. 4. The Planning Board may disapprove an application “without prejudice” where an applicant fails to provide requested additional information or review fees that in the Planning Board’s opinion are needed to adequately describe or review the proposed
project.
Draft Stormwater Management Permit (SWMP) conditions are attached. I have incorporated the conditions that have been recommended by BETA.
4. Continued Public Hearing – Bucklin St. & Leonard St. – Stormwater Management
Permit – Wall Street Development Corp.
Request to continue the public hearing to September 17, 2018.
5. Public Hearing – Whisper Way OSPLD – Definitive Subdivision Plan Application – 20th
Century Homes
An application for definitive subdivision approval has been submitted to the Board. A majority
vote is required for approval and the decision deadline has been previously extended by the
applicant to 9/27/18.
BETA: Peer review comments were received with respect to compliance with the Subdivision
Rules & Regulations and proposed stormwater management. Please see BETA letter dated 8/8.
7
Definitive Plan: The design of the subdivision is consistent with the concept plan shown to the
Board in March of this year. It shows 24 lots on an extension of the existing roadway known as
Whisper Way.
The project requires one wetland crossing. The Applicant will be required to file a Notice of
Intent with the Conservation Commission.
Waiver Requests:
Section 7.1 of the Towns Subdivision Rules and Regulations state the following in regards to the
Board’s action on waiver request:
7.1 Waiver Compliance: In accordance with MGL Ch. 41 Sec. 81R, strict compliance with these
regulations may be waived when, in the judgement of the Board, such action is in the public
interest and not inconsistent with the intent of the subdivision control law or these regulations.
All waiver request must be in writing, identify the regulation being considered, and be submitted
to the Board at the time of plan submittal. Construction waivers may be considered by the Board
after the plan is approved.
The below waivers from the provisions of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations have been
requested.
§5.4.1 N Cross Sections: The Applicant seeks a waiver from providing cross sections of
each street at 50 foot intervals.
§5.4.1.R Trees: The Applicant seeks a waiver from providing location, variety, and size
of proposed street trees and trees to be retained within right-of-way. The application
states that no trees will be able to be retained within the right of way due to its narrow
width and the grading required to create the roadway.
§5.4.1 Y Street Lights: The Applicant seeks a waiver from showing location of proposed
street lights. The Applicant is requesting that street lights not be installed within the
subdivision.
§8.2.7 A Disturbance to Natural Topography: The Applicant seeks a waiver from fill of
an area in excess of 8 feet in depth. Depth of fill greater than 8 feet are required for
wetland crossing at station 1+50 and 30+00.
§ 8.2.7 B Disturbance to Natural Topography: The Applicant seeks a waiver from the
construction of roads, stormwater management systems, driveways, pipes, or other
infrastructure construction on land area where slopes are at a grade of 25% or more.
The following waiver from the Hopkinton Zoning Bylaw is requested:
8
§210-113.C.1 Buffer minimum of 100 feet: The Applicant seeks a waiver from providing
a 100’ buffer at the perimeter of the site to separate and/or screen the development from
abutting properties. The proposed subdivision includes a roadway within the 100’ buffer
of the project site on the southeast corner in order to minimize impacts to slopes greater
than 25% and to accommodate Board of Health septic system regulations.
Comments from the Board of Health and the Department of Public works are pending at the time
of this memo.
6. Committee Appointments – Design Review Board; Zoning Advisory Committee
ZAC Applicants:
The following applicants have applied for various positions on ZAC:
Ria McNamara (at large for one year term)
Madhumitha Chandrasekar (associate member)
M. Elyse Barret Mihajloski (associate member)
The following liaisons have been recommended by their respective boards:
Ted Barker-Hook (Conservation Commission liaison)
Ron Foisy (Chamber of Commerce liaison)
Design Review Board
Zoning Bylaw Article XXI requires that the Planning Board appoint members to the Design
Review Board for one year terms. The bylaw includes specific skill sets that are to be
represented, which are listed below. Current terms expired on July 31, and all members wish to
be reappointed. New terms would expire July 31, 2018.
One person qualified by training and experience in the fine arts or landscape design - Sue
Ellen Stoddard (interior design)
One person qualified by training and experience in the art or design profession – Jeanette
Thomson (architect)
One member of the Historic District Commission or a designee of the Planning Board – Ria
McNamara (designee)
One person doing business in the Town or a citizen at large – Jeffrey Doherty (Angel’s
Garden Center)
7. Review and Execute Documents and Plans for Chamberlain-Whalen Subdivision
The final plans need to be endorsed and executed for this subdivision. Endorsing the plan and
signing the Conditional Approval Agreement (Form E), codifies the decision issued by the Board
and allows the developer to record the plan in the Registry of Deeds and proceed with
9
construction. The Conditional Approval Agreement is the initial form of performance guarantee
which is required in condition #12 of the Board’s approval. Please see attached letter from REC
Hopkinton, LLC. dated 8/13 for a list of pre-endorsement and pre-construction requirements the
Applicant has addressed. I have attached the Boards decision, final plans and relevant documents
the Board must review and approve prior to construction/endorsement, in accordance with the
Board’s subdivision approval. The SWPPP that has been submitted to the Board as required by
Condition #24 of the decision is too large to include in the meeting packet. A direct link is
provided here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/13PjKhtnt7emk2hL8cM3biNa_9_-
lBfbC?usp=sharing
The Applicant has requested that the Homeowners Association documents that are required to
be provided prior to construction (condition #2) be deferred until construction begins on the first
house, and staff sees no issues with granting this change. Members that did not participate in the
approval process can sign the plan and covenant. A majority number of signatures is required for
endorsement.
Order of Vote:
1. Vote to sign the Conditional Approval Agreement.
2. Vote to endorse the plan.
BETA Contract Extension
BETA’s contract with the Town will end on August 31, 2018 unless the Planning Board votes
for a 1 year extension. A copy of the contract is attached to the memo.
Future Meetings
September 17, 2018
7:45 – Continued Public Hearing – 90 Hayden Rowe – Site Plan Review
8:15 – Public Hearing – Saddle Hill Road Lots 5A-11A – Scenic Road Permits
8:35 – Public Hearings – Bucklin St. & Leonard St. – SWMP & Roadway Petition
9:00 – Continued Discussion – Wilson St./ Legacy Farms North – Drainage
9:30 – Public Hearings – 52&55 Wilson Street – SWMP, Earth Removal Permit
PUBLIC HEARING OUTLINE SOLAR SPECIAL PERMIT/STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT PERMIT 17 WILSON STREET - TJA SOLAR Public Hearing Date:
8/27/18
• √Project introduction and review – Applicant
• √Consultant Review – BETA Group
• √Planning Board – Add to outline
• √Abutters and Public – Add to Outline
• Detailed Discussion
• Site Layout
• Access and Entrances
• Lighting
• Screening
• Array Size
• Underground Utilities
• Historical Structures
• Stormwater Management
• UCTC
• Discuss status of other permits (Conservation Commission)
• Discuss special permit/stormwater management standards and plan revisions to be made
• Discuss conditions of approval with applicant
• Public comment
• Vote on Special Permit approval and conditions
• Vote of Stormwater Management Permit
• Close Public Hearing
BETA GROUP, INC.
315 Norwood Park South, 2nd Floor, Norwood, MA 02062
P:781.255.1982 | F:781.255.1974 | W:www.BETA-Inc.com
July 30, 2018
Ms. Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner
Department of Land Use, Planning and Permitting
Town of Hopkinton
80 South Street
Hopkinton, MA 01748
Re: Wilson Street Solar Project – Site Plan Peer Review Update
Dear Ms. Wilson:
BETA Group, Inc. (BETA) has reviewed supplemental/revised documents for the Application for Special
Permit and Stormwater Permit for the proposed Wilson Street Solar Project located at 17 Wilson Street,
Hopkinton MA in accordance with BETA’s agreement with the Town dated March 31, 2016. This letter is
provided to update BETA’s findings, comments and recommendations.
BASIS OF REVIEW
The following documents were received by BETA and will form the basis of the review:
•Response to Comments dated July 25, 2018 prepared by Atlantic Design Engineers, Inc.,
Sandwich, MA
•Stormwater Addendum 2 for Wilson Street Solar Project at 17 Wilson Street, Hopkinton,
Massachusetts dated July 23, 2018 prepared by Atlantic Design Engineers, Inc., Sandwich, MA
•Site Plans (7 sheets) entitled “Site Development Plans for Wilson Street Solar Project
Hopkinton, Massachusetts” dated March 7, 2018 and revised to July 23, 2018 prepared by
Atlantic Design Engineers, Inc.,
•Screening Planting Recommendations letter to the Hopkinton Planning Board dated July 24,
2018 from Goddard Consulting, LLC
•Long Term Operations & Maintenance Plan – Revision 2 dated July 27, 2018
COMPILED REVIEW LETTER KEY
BETA reviewed this project previously and provided additional review comments in letters to the Board
dated March 29, 2018 and July 25, 2018 (original comments and responses in standard text). Atlantic
Design Engineers, Inc. (ATLANTIC) provided responses (responses in italics) and BETA provided
comments on the status of each (status in bold standard text). Note comments not yet addressed have
no update and previously resolved comments have been removed from this review letter.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The 34.3± acres project site is located at 17 Wilson Street and includes 3 adjacent lots. These parcels are
currently wooded. The site is located within the Residential A (RA), Agriculture (A) Zoning and Industrial
B Districts and portions are within the Water Resources Protection Overlay District (WRPOD-1). There
are mapped wetlands shown on the plans and the MassDEP Priority Resource Map. Portions of the west
side of the lots are within a FEMA mapped 100-year Flood Zone. NHESP maps do not show habitat for
rare or endangered species within proximity of the proposed work. NRCS maps indicate soils are
Department of Land Use, Planning and Permitting
July 30, 2018
Page 2 of 9
comprised of Whitman fine sandy loam and Hollis-Rock outcrop Charlton complex both with a
hydrologic group rating of D (very slow infiltration rate)
The submitted documents indicate that the solar array installation will occupy 10.75± acres.
The project proposes work within wetland resource areas that requires conforming to the
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and Hopkinton Wetlands Protection Bylaw and obtaining an
Order of Conditions from the Hopkinton Conservation Commission. The project is proposing stormwater
management system(s) which will need to comply with the MassDEP Stormwater Management
Standards and the Hopkinton Stormwater Management Bylaw and regulations.
GENERAL
G1.Provide details or catalog cuts for equipment to be installed (inverters, switchgear, etc.).
ATLANTIC: Panels, Inverters, switchgear and other A/C related equipment haven not been
selected at this time and will be provided as part of the building permit application during the
procurement phase.BETA2: BETA recommends including a conditions that catalog cuts of all
equipment to be installed be provided to Planning Board for review prior to pre-construction
meeting.
G2.Provide vehicle turn plan that indicates access drive and turnaround can accommodate
maintenance and emergency vehicles.ATLANTIC: Additional information has been added to the
site plan demonstrating adequate access has been provided for maintenance and emergency
vehicles. This includes roadway dimensions and radius information.BETA2: Provide vehicle turn
swept path (AutoTURN) plan showing maintenance and largest fire department vehicles can
access and turn around within the site. Recommend direct coordination with the fire
department.ATLANTIC:Vehicle turn information has been added to the site plans demonstrating
that adequate access has been provided throughout the site. The access road is 12 wide with a
minimum of 2 –foot shoulders. Turn-around areas have also been provided. The size of the
vehicle considered as part of the turning analysis has been coordinated with the Hopkinton Fire
Chief. Additional notes have been added to the detail for the gravel access road requiring filter
fabric/geo-grid as required to ensure the gravel access can sustain vehicle loading associated
with emergency response vehicles. The Long Term Operation and Maintenance Plan will require
regular maintenance of the proposed gravel access road as required to ensure adequate access
for the maintenance vehicles/activities prescribed within. This will also ensure proper access for
emergency vehicles. Based on coordination efforts to date, written confirmation from the Fire
Chief stating the project meets the required standards, is anticipated. BETA3: AutoTURN
provided and inspection and maintenance of gravel roads is included in the in the Long Term
Operation and Maintenance Plan – issue resolved.
G3.Provide dimensions for proposed roadway widths and setbacks from wetlands on the plans.
ATLANTIC: Proposed roadway widths have been added to the site plan. 100-foot, 75-foot and 50-
foot buffer zones and the proposed limit of work are also shown on the site plans.BETA2:
Proposed roadway widths and wetland setbacks have been added to the plans – issue
resolved.
G4.Provide detailed grading of access roads and parking areas for vehicles.ATLANTIC: Additional
grading information has been added to the site plan.BETA2: Additional contours have been
added to the site plans for the parking areas – issue resolved.
Department of Land Use, Planning and Permitting
July 30, 2018
Page 3 of 9
G5.Provide site distance measurements at proposed driveways to show that site access during and
post construction will be safe.ATLANTIC: Site distances have been added to the site plan. A note
has also been added to the plans requiring a police detail during construction deliveries as
required to ensure vehicle/pedestrian safety. Due to the nature of the project, anticipated future
traffic generation is limited to maintenance activities less than 12 times per year.Therefore the
site distances provided are adequate for this type of use.BETA2: Clarify site distance – the
way the note is written it appears that there is on 60 feet of site distance on Wilson Street.
ATLANTIC: BETA3: BETA recommends that inspection and maintenance be included in the
Long Term Operation and Maintenance Plan that includes trimming of small brush/trees to
improve provide site distance at Wilson Street access drive.
ZONING
BETA reviewed the Hopkinton Zoning Bylaws in the following applicable sections:
RESIDENTIAL A (RA)
The majority of the project is located within the Residential A District. The project meets the minimum
dimensional requirements of this section including frontage, lot area, lot coverage, setbacks and
building coverage.
Z1.Provide boundary lines on the plans to better define zones.ATLANTIC: Additional information
has been added to the site plan to clarify existing zoning. BETA2: Information provided – issue
resolved.
Z2.Provide side yard dimension for Proposed Cedar Street Solar Array.ATLANTIC: The side yard
dimension has been added to the site plan.BETA2: Dimension provided – issue resolved.
AGRICULTURE (A)ZONING
The project meets the minimum dimensional requirements of this section including frontage, lot area,
lot coverage, setbacks and building coverage.
INDUSTRIAL B DISTRICTS
The project meets the minimum dimensional requirements of this section including frontage, lot area,
yard setbacks, lot coverage and building coverage.
WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT(WRPOD-1)
The project is also located within the Water Resources Protection Overlay District. MassDEP requires
that solar arrays be modeled as impervious area, unconnected, therefore the project will exceed the
threshold for impervious area. The project, however, incorporates required systems of groundwater
recharge.
ARTICLE XVIII SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS (AS APPLICABLE)
The project proposes clearing up to the property line. The proposed nonresidential use does not meet
the minimum required buffer zone (25 feet for Residential A District and 75 feet for Agricultural District).
The following sections of the Zoning Bylaw are applicable.
§210.121.1.A. - A lot which contains a nonresidential use in a Residence A, Residence B,
Residence Lake Front or Agricultural District shall contain a buffer area at the perimeter of the
lot. The buffer area shall consist of trees, shrubs, vegetation and topographic features sufficient
Department of Land Use, Planning and Permitting
July 30, 2018
Page 4 of 9
to separate and/or visually screen the use from abutting properties in a residential district and
shall be located on the same lot as the nonresidential use.
§210.121.1.B. - The buffer shall be no less than 25 feet wide in a Residence A District; 50 feet
wide in a Residence B and Residence Lake Front District; and 75 feet wide in an Agricultural
District….
§210.121.1.E. - Upon a finding by the Planning Board that a buffer of lesser width would be
sufficient to screen and/or separate the use from adjacent property, the width of the buffer may
be reduced. … In those circumstances, it is the intent of the Board not to waive the buffer
requirement, but, rather, to provide alternative screening arrangements, such as fencing and
planting where possible.
Z3.Revise the design to provide required buffer/screening or provide alternative screening
arrangements and request finding from the Planning Board in accordance with §210.121.1.E.
ATLANTIC: The design meets buffer requirements for each prescribed zoning district with
exception to the portion immediately adjacent to the proposed Wilson Street access road. This
portion is located within the Agricultural A District and requires a 75-foot buffer. Due to the
topography of the site and the fact that Wilson Street is Scenic Road, the project proposes to
utilize the existing cart path in an effort to eliminate tree removal and the need to disturb the
stone wall along Wilson Street. Alternative screening has been provided and shown on the site
plans. The Applicant will request a finding from the Planning Board in accordance with
§210.121.1.E.BETA2: BETA defers to the Board on this issue.
ARTICLE XXXI COMMERCIAL SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC INSTALLATIONS
A.A commercial solar photovoltaic installation may be erected, upon the issuance of a special
permit by the Planning Board, on a lot containing a minimum of three (3) acres.Lot contains in
excess of 3 acres – conforms.
B.All setback, yard, buffer and screening requirements applicable in the zoning district in which
the installation is located shall apply.See Z3 above.
C.All security fences surrounding the installations shall be set back from the property line a
distance equal to the setback requirement applicable to buildings within the zoning district in
which the installation is located. Fencing conforms
D.The provisions of Article XX, Site Plan Review, shall not apply to commercial solar photovoltaic
installations.Site Plan Review not required.
E.The visual impact of the commercial solar photovoltaic installation, including all accessory
structures and appurtenances, shall be mitigated. All accessory structures and appurtenances
shall be architecturally compatible with each other. Whenever reasonable, structures shall be
shielded from view by vegetation and/or joined and clustered to avoid adverse visual impacts.
Methods such as the use of landscaping, natural features and fencing may be utilized.See Z3
above.
F.Lighting shall not be permitted unless required by the Planning Board or by the State Building
Code. Where used, lighting shall be directed downward and full cut-off fixtures shall be used.No
lighting proposed – conforms.
G.All utility connections from the commercial solar photovoltaic installation shall be underground
unless otherwise specifically permitted otherwise by the Planning Board in the special permit.
Electrical transformers and inverters to enable utility interconnections may be above ground if
Department of Land Use, Planning and Permitting
July 30, 2018
Page 5 of 9
required by the utility provider.Plans indicate underground electric except for interconnection
points and wetland crossings. Plans indicate proposed equipment pads; provide additional
information for any above-ground mechanical equipment.
APPROVAL CRITERIA:
In reviewing any application for a special permit pursuant to this Article, the Planning Board shall give
due consideration to promoting the public health, safety, convenience and welfare; shall encourage the
most appropriate use of land and shall permit no building or use that is injurious, noxious, offensive or
detrimental to its neighborhood. Before the Planning Board may issue such a special permit, it shall
determine each of the following:
(1)The commercial solar photovoltaic installation conforms to the provisions of this Article.Besides
buffer zone requirement (Z3), project conforms.
(2)The commercial solar photovoltaic installation will not be detrimental to the neighborhood or
the Town.The project will not generate traffic, noise and light impacts. It will not require town
services. See Z3 above.
(3)Environmental features of the site and surrounding areas are protected, and specifically
surrounding areas will be protected from the proposed use by provision of adequate surface
water drainage.See comments on stormwater management and wetlands below.
(4)The proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Chapter.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT REVIEW
The project was reviewed for stormwater management compliance in accordance with both the Town of
Hopkinton Stormwater Management Regulations and the MassDEP Stormwater Management
Standards. The below review comments summarize BETA’s recommendations based on the Hopkinton
stormwater regulations (Appendices A&B) followed by the MassDEP Stormwater Standards.
SW1.Indicate any existing or proposed easements on the plans.ATLANTIC: The existing Tennessee
Gas Company easement is shown on the drawings. We believe the requirement to show
proposed easements relates to subdivision roadways and does not apply to a private
development project site such as this.BETA2: Easement(s) not required – issue resolved.
SW2.Provide proposed contours at 2 foot intervals on the plans. Provide grading for all proposed
swales to assure runoff can and will be directed to stormwater basins.ATLANTIC: Additional
contour information has been added to the site plan.BETA2: Grading provided – issue resolved.
The project is subject to the Stormwater Management Standards (Stormwater Regulations (SWR) 7.0).
The following are the 10 standards and relative compliance provided by the submitted documentation.
NO UNTREATED STORMWATER (STANDARD NUMBER 1): No new stormwater conveyances (e.g., outfalls) may
discharge untreated stormwater directly to or cause erosion in wetlands or waters of the
Commonwealth.The project does not propose untreated stormwater discharges to wetlands. Provided
other comments as it relates to stormwater management are addressed –complies with standard.
POST-DEVELOPMENT PEAK DISCHARGE RATES (STANDARD NUMBER 2): Stormwater management systems
must be designed so that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-development peak
discharge rates.Calculations provided indicate the project will not increase in peak runoff flows for the
2, 10, 25 and 100 year storm events. Proposed stormwater basins are sized to infiltrate 1” of runoff.
Department of Land Use, Planning and Permitting
July 30, 2018
Page 6 of 9
NRCS soil maps indicate that the site is comprised primarily of Whitman fine sandy loam and Hollis-Rock
outcrop Charlton complex both with a hydrologic group rating of D (very slow infiltration rate). The
Stormwater Report notes that HSG B has been utilized for all stormwater modeling in accordance with
standard practice for development sites in Hopkinton.
SW3.Revise “B/D” designation to “D” on watershed plans for soils 104C and 52A.ATLANTIC: Soil
Designation has been changed to D for soils 104C and 52A.BETA2: Watershed plans have been
revised to indicate “D” soils for 104C and 52A – issue resolved.
SW4.Revise stormwater models to reflect NRCS mapped soil conditions with a D hydrologic group
rating.ATLANTIC: Stormwater models have been updated with the D hydrologic group rating
accordingly.BETA2: Stormwater model has been revised to reflect a D hydrologic group rating
– issue resolved.
SW5.Revise model to include a minimum Time of Concentration (Tc) of 6 minutes.ATLANTIC:
Although the actual Time of Concentration was calculated to be less than 6 minutes for several
subcatchment areas, HydroCAD Calculations have been set to override this lower value with a
minimum of 6 minutes. This is shown on the individual node reports under the Time of
Concentration portion where applicable.BETA2: Revised model includes a minimum time of
concentration of 6 minutes – issue resolved.
SW6.To utilize “grass” cover for solar arrays (instead of impervious, unconnected recommended by
DEP) BETA recommends including stone trenches installed level (along contour line) to spread
concentrated flows over grass areas at regular intervals depending on steepness of slope.
ATLANTIC: Stone trenches have been added to the site plan. Trenches are proposed along
contour lines and at regular intervals depending on steepness of slope. For a conservative
approach, these features have not been accounted for in the stormwater model.BETA2: Stone
trenches have been included in the site plans and details – issue resolved.
SW7.To avoid double counting infiltration, surface area for proposed stormwater basins should be
modeled with a CN value of 98.ATLANTIC: Stormwater models have been updated to include the
surface area of basins with a CN value of 98.BETA2: Calculations revised – issue resolved.
SW8.Provide a minimum of 1’ freeboard for proposed stormwater basins for 100 year storm event.
ATLANTIC: Stormwater basins have been updated to include for 1’ freeboard. Top of berm
information has been added to the site plans for clarity. BETA2: Revise plans to show two
interim contours a minimum of 5 feet apart at top of basin berm to direct contractor to
construct a level berm at the 1 foot freeboard elevation.
SW9.Provide draw down mechanism for basin outlet for maintenance purposes.ATLANTIC: The
basins are designed to draw down within 72 hours allowing for proper maintenance without
providing an additional draw down mechanism.BETA2: Recommend replacing flared end
section in lieu of an outlet control structure to prevent clogging of 4 inch diameter pipe –
possibly a cage type device. BETA3: Note to provide trash racks at outlets – issue resolved.
RECHARGE TO GROUNDWATER (STANDARD NUMBER 3): Loss of annual recharge to groundwater should be
minimized through the use of infiltration measures to maximum extent practicable.Due the poorly
draining “D” soils recharge is required only to the maximum extent practicable.
SW10.Provide soil test data within limits of stormwater basins to identify seasonal high groundwater
elevations and to confirm soil classification.ATLANTIC: Notes have been added to the site plans
Department of Land Use, Planning and Permitting
July 30, 2018
Page 7 of 9
requiring test pits to be performed prior to the start of construction by a licensed soil evaluator
to determine estimated seasonal high groundwater (ESHGW) and confirm soil classification. In
addition, the stormwater model does not account for infiltration in any of the basins, all of which
have outlet devices at the bottom of the basins.BETA2: Although the soils are poorly draining,
all basin bottoms are 3 feet or greater than the surface elevation of the adjacent wetlands.
Recommend that a condition be included that requires observation of soil tests and excavated
basins prior to loam and seed.
SW11.Revise exfiltration rates to be in accordance with NRCS mapping and Rawls rates or provide in-
situ infiltration tests.ATLANTIC: The minimum Rawls exfiltration rate of 0.17 in. / hr. has been
applied for D soils. BETA2: Design includes no credit for infiltration rate and outlets are shown
at basin bottoms, see also SW9 – issue resolved.
SW12.Indicate whether the proposed stormwater basins are to be utilized during construction and
provide protective measures accordingly.ATLANTIC: The stormwater basins will most likely be
utilized during construction and protective measures and sequencing information will be
included as part of the SWPPP and in accordance with applicable standards and regulations. The
SWPPP will be completed and submitted prior to the start of construction during the building
permit application/procurement process.BETA2: BETA recommends including a condition that
all basins be cleaned once site is stabilized.
SW13.Provide drawdown calculations to show basins will empty in 72 hours.ATLANTIC: Drawdown
calculations have been included in the Stormwater Addendum that demonstrates the basins will
empty within 72 hours.BETA2: See SW11 above – issue resolved.
80%TSS REMOVAL (STANDARD NUMBER 4):For new development, stormwater management systems
must be designed to remove 80% of the annual load of Total Suspended Solids.TSS removal calculations
were provided for each treatment train. Calculations include credit for grassed channels, vegetated filter
strips, and extended dry detention basins with sediment forebay pretreatment.
SW14.Provide backup design information for vegetated filter strips and grass swales that documents
compliance with the design requirements outlined in the Massachusetts Stormwater
Management Standards.ATLANTIC: The vegetated solar field will serve as the vegetated filter
strip. These areas are in excess of 50 feet wide and vegetated with medium-high grass cover.
Additional information been also included in the stormwater addendum demonstrating that the
swales are in compliance with Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standards.BETA2:
Provide stone check dams to swales (spaced based on slope) to control velocity and provide
sediment removal. BETA3: Check dams provided – issue resolved.
HIGHER POTENTIAL POLLUTANT LOADS (STANDARD NUMBER 5): Stormwater discharges from Land Uses with
Higher Potential Pollutant Loads require the use of specific stormwater management BMPs.The
proposed site is not a LUHPPL –standard does not apply.
CRITICAL AREAS (STANDARD NUMBER 6): Stormwater discharges to critical areas must utilize certain
stormwater management BMPs approved for critical areas.The proposed project is not located within
critical areas –standard does not apply.
Department of Land Use, Planning and Permitting
July 30, 2018
Page 8 of 9
REDEVELOPMENT (STANDARD NUMBER 7): Redevelopment of previously developed sites must meet the
Stormwater Management Standards to the maximum extent practicable.The proposed project is not a
redevelopment project –standard does not apply.
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS (STANDARD NUMBER 8):Erosion and sediment
controls must be implemented to prevent impacts during construction or land disturbance activities.
Plans and details indicate erosion control measures. NRCS maps indicate that the soils are poorly
draining (hydrologic group rating of D). Clearing and regrading of large areas will expose soils to erosion.
The steep, (10 to 15% grades) poorly draining soils containing silts and fine particles are highly
susceptible to erosion and sediment transport. The project will require additional erosion measures to
prevent migration of sediments to wetland resource areas. The plans indicate intermediate and
perimeter rows of erosion controls and stone construction entrances.
SW15.Provide draft stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for review.ATLANTIC: The SWPPP
will be completed and submitted prior to building permit. If required, a draft SWPP will be
submitted to the Stormwater Permitting Authority for review/approval.BETA2: BETA
recommends a condition to require a copy of SWPPP to be provided to the Board prior to the
building permit.
SW16.Provide detailed information on erosion control measures for all proposed swales, trenches and
detention basins both during and after construction. ATLANTIC: Detailed information is included
on the site detail sheet for each BMP under construction period stormwater operations and
maintenance notes. This information is also contained in the Long Term Operation and
Maintenance Plan. Additional information will also be included in the SWPPP which will be
completed and submitted prior to building permit. If required, a draft SWPP will be submitted to
the Stormwater Permitting Authority for review/approval.BETA2: See SW15.
SW17.Indicate temporary stockpile and storage areas of material and equipment with appropriate
erosion controls on the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.ATLANTIC: The exact location of
stockpile areas is undetermined at this time. A note has been added to the plans prohibiting
stockpiles within the 100-foot wetland buffer and requiring protective erosion and sediment
controls. Additional information will also be included in the SWPPP which will be completed and
submitted prior to building permit. If required, a draft SWPP will be submitted to the Stormwater
Permitting Authority for review/approval.BETA2: See SW15.
SW18.Provide methods to protect infiltration capacity of stormwater basins.ATLANTIC: Protective
measures for detention basins are under construction period stormwater operations and
maintenance notes. This information is also contained in the Long Term Operation and
Maintenance Plan. Additional information will also be included in the SWPPP which will be
completed and submitted prior to building permit. If required, a draft SWPP will be submitted to
the Stormwater Permitting Authority for review/approval.BETA2: Revised plans include notes
for protective measures of stormwater basins during construction and post-rain events. Refer
to SW12 above.
OPERATIONS/MAINTENANCE PLAN (STANDARD NUMBER 9):A long-Term Operation and Maintenance Plan
shall be developed and implemented to ensure that stormwater management systems function as
designed.A Long Term Stormwater Operation & maintenance Plan has been submitted as part of the
Stormwater Report.
SW19.Provide Owner signature(s).
Department of Land Use, Planning and Permitting
July 30, 2018
Page 9 of 9
SW20.Provide BMP plan indicating locations of all BMP’s with discharge points. Include on plan the
delineation of vehicular access routes to all stormwater basins for maintenance.
SW21.Include an estimated operations and maintenance budget.
ILLICIT DISCHARGES (STANDARD NUMBER 10): All illicit discharges to the stormwater management systems
are prohibited.An Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement was not provided.
SW22.Provide illicit discharge statement.
BETA2: Responses were not provided for SW19-22 – issues remain outstanding. BETA3: Comments
SW20-22 are addressed in submitted Long Term Operations and Maintenance Plan. Final document
should include signature as well as address G2 above.
WETLANDS
Portions of the development area are located within the buffer zone of wetland resources and require
an Order of Conditions from the Hopkinton Conservation Commission and MassDEP. Limits of work are
shown just outside of the 50 foot buffer zone of bordering vegetated wetlands and within the 100 foot
buffer zone. A potential vernal pool exists to the north of the Proposed Wilson Street Solar Array.
The existing parcels slope downward towards existing bordering vegetated wetlands that connect to a
single existing wetland north of the site. The proposed plan includes swales that intercept runoff at the
buffer zone and route it towards proposed infiltration basins.
W1.BETA recommends upgrading the surface material for proposed access road to Cedar Street
Solar Array containing minimal fines to prevent sediment migration to adjacent wetlands.
ATLANTIC: A note has been added to the site plans to address this.BETA2: Revise note to include
specification for all gravel surfaces. BETA3: Note revised – issue resolved.
If we can be of any further assistance regarding this matter, please contact us at our office.
Very truly yours,
BETA Group, Inc.
Jillian Bokoff Philip F Paradis, Jr., PE
Engineer Associate
cc: Don MacAdam
O:\5900s\5978 - Hopkinton - Wilson St Solar\Engineering\Reports\Hopkinton - Wilson Street Solar Peer Review 7-30-2018.docx
July 30, 2018
Jillian Bokoff
Beta Group Inc
6 Blackstone Valley Place Suite 101
Lincoln, RI 02865
RE: Response to Beta Group Inc. Comments; July 30, 2018
Wilson Street Solar Project - Hopkinton, MA
ADE Project #2928.01
Dear Ms. Bokoff:
This response letter, along with our revised Site Development Plans dated July 30, 2018, Long
Term Stormwater Operation and Maintenance Plan Revision #2 dated July 27, 2018 and
supporting documentation for the Wilson Street Solar Project address the comments received
from Beta Group Inc., dated July 30, 2018. Please note that only outstanding comments have
been included for clarity. Beta Group comments are italicized and our responses follow in bold.
General
G5. BETA3: BETA recommends that inspection and maintenance be included in the
Long Term Operation and Maintenance Plan that includes trimming of small brush/trees
to improve provide site distance at Wilson Street access drive.
Notes have been added to the plans and the Long Term Stormwater
Operation and Maintenance plan has been revised to include required
vegetation maintenance at the Wilson Street Driveway entrance.
Maintenance includes pruning/removing branches less than 5” diameter
as measured 6 inches from the tree trunk and trees less than 3” diameter
as measured from a height of four and one half feet above the ground to
maximize sight distances. Areas shown on drawing Sheet 4.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (508) 888-9282.
Sincerely,
ATLANTIC DESIGN ENGINEERS, INC.
Richard J. Tabaczynski, P.E. - Vice President
cc: Town of Hopkinton Planning Board
Town of Hopkinton Conservation Commission
T. Vautour, TJA Solar
Georgia Wilson <gwilson@hopkintonma.gov>
FW: Wilson Street Solar
1 message
Chris King <cking@atlanticcompanies.com>Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 4:00 PM
To: Phil Paradis <PParadis@beta-inc.com>
Cc: Georgia Wilson <gwilson@hopkintonma.gov>, Stephen Slaman <sslaman@hopkintonfd.org>
Please see below regarding Fire Department Review.
Thank you
From: Chris King [mailto:cking@atlanticcompanies.com]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 2:33 PM
To: 'Stephen Slaman' <sslaman@hopkintonfd.org>
Subject: RE: Wilson Street Solar
Great.
Thank you Chief Slaman.
When you get a chance could you please dra a quick memo to BETA or the Planning Board indica ng you have reviewed
and approved.
Also – BETA has asked me to add inspec on and maintenance to the gravel access drive as part of the long term
opera on and maintenance plan which also addresses our conversa ons.
If you have any ques ons or comments outstanding please do not hesitate to call me directly.
Thank you again for your me and a en on to this ma er and have a great weekend.
Chris
From: Stephen Slaman [mailto:sslaman@hopkintonfd.org]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 10:27 AM
To: Chris King <cking@atlanticcompanies.com>
Subject: Re: Wilson Street Solar
Good morning Chris,
Thanks for all of the additional information that I requested. The details all look acceptable, I appreciate the additional
testimony and certifications on maintenance and structure of the access roads and I will review betas comments. Thanks,
Chief Slaman
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Chris King <cking@atlanticcompanies.com> wrote:
A ached please find the addi onal detail we discussed.
Also please see the a ached response le er to BETA Group further discussing some of the roadway condi ons,
par cularly maintenance. This le er is signed by our Professional Engineer.
The drawings most recently submi ed to Con Comm contain the informa on shown on the a ached part plans.
The only thing they do not have are the cer fica ons we discussed.
Maybe a statement from the engineer can be provided in conjunc on with the revised site plans as a condi on of
approval.
If we have to revise the plans again I will make sure to add these cer fica ons to the plans as well.
Any ques ons, comments or if you require addi onal informa on – please let me know.
Thank you again for your me and a en on to this ma er,
Chris
From: Stephen Slaman [mailto:sslaman@hopkintonfd.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 10:25 AM
To: Chris King <cking@atlanticcompanies.com>
Subject: Re: Wilson Street Solar
Good morning Chris,
Thanks for the call today, I will be awaiting the details for the hammerheads and entrances as discussed along with the
added notes to the plans covering the road conditions meeting the town's driveway bylaw criteria. Overall, the access looks
adequate for public safety personnel based on our conversation and this additional information coming in. Thanks, Steve
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Chris King <cking@atlanticcompanies.com> wrote:
Good morning.
I apologize for the delay in getting the plan information to you for review.
Attached please find the latest revision of the site plans showing the 12’ access drive with two foot shoulders. We have
also increased the size of turnaround areas and added radii information.
As discussed we ran an SU-30 through the site and increased turning radii as required to accommodate the vehicle
simulation. The vehicle path is shown on the attached site plans.
You had also mentioned confirmation that the access road will be able to withstand emergency vehicle loading. Sheet 7
contain the detail for the proposed gravel access road. We currently spec 6” of compacted gravel per MassDOT spec
M1.03.0 Type B, placed on suitable sub-base. We also have a note requiring filter fabric or geo grid as required. This
will also be incorporated into the construction specification. It is important to note that this type of application has been
used on other projects and is proven to withstand heavy construction equipment traffic/loading. Lastly – the presence of
rock throughout the site make the subbase extremely stable. Hopefully this addresses your concern regarding vehicular
loading.
When you get a chance please take a look and let me know if you have any questions, comments or concerns.
I am hoping the revised plans contain the information you need to provide confirmation that you are satisfied with the
current design.
I would like to coordinate any changes well in advance of our next Planning Board hearing which is 8/27.
FYI - We will also be resubmitting another revision that addresses Conservation Commission issues within the next
week. These revisions will not impact the vehicular route information referenced above.
I am hoping once we are good with the design form an emergency vehicle access standpoint, we could get a letter
confirming this sent to the Planning Board.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter and I look forward to working with you.
Chris
Christopher King
Project Manager
Atlantic Design Engineers, Inc.
P.O. Box 1051
Sandwich, Massachusetts 02563
P: (508) 888-9282 Ext 16
M:(508) 292-3910
F: (508) 888-5859
www.atlanticcompanies.com
Facebook | LinkedIn
--
Stephen T Slaman
Fire Chief
Emergency Management Director
Jul y l 7, 20 18
Page 2
give effect 'to all its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous.' " Connors v.
An nino, 460 Mass. 790, 796 (20 I I), quoting Wheatley v. Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency
Fund, 456 Mass. 594, 60 L (20 1 0).
As applied to the case at hand, the express language in section 21 0-117.1 which refers to
"residence districts" is plain and unambiguous. Therefore, it would be incorrect, arbitrary and
capricious for the board to ignore the use of "residence" and interpret this section to mean all
"districts". As such, section 210-11 7.1 is clearly not applicable to the project at hand which only
impacts one residence district. Further, there is no definition in Section 210-4 for "Residence
Districts", which would expand on the plain meaning of the phrase to include any other zoning
district for the purpose of this analysis.2 The Hopkinton Zoning Bylaws contain Articles II and
III which establish two Residence Districts A and B, therefore a literal construction of the statute
would not yield an absurd result or lack meaning.3 Therefore, it would be an incorrect
interpretation of the zoning bylaw to apply section 210-117.1 to the proposed project which
would most certainly be overturned under the standard set forth under Massachusetts law. See
Wendy 's Old Fashioned Hamburgers of New York, Inc. v. Board of Appeal of Billerica, 454
Mass. 374,381-82 (2009) (citations omitted), citing Manning v. Boston Redev. Auth., 400 Mass.
444, 453 (l987)(an "incorrect interpretation of a statute ... is not entitled to deference.''
Atlanticare Me d. Ctr. v. Commissioner of the Div. of Me d. Assistance, 439 Mass. 1, 6 (2003),
quoting Massachusetts Hosp. Ass'n v. Department of Med. Sec., 412 Mass. 340, 345-346 (1992).
Please call me with any questions or concerns.
Very truly yours, _../ /)
~ 'l1tifad4.__
CC: TJA Solar
2 In contrast, there is no definition for "Residence District" which included both residence districts and any
agricultural di strict.
3 For instance, if the Bylaws only provided for one residence district, it could be argued that I must be interpreted
differently to provide for the section to be operative.
1
July 19, 2018
James L Haskins
26 Chamberlain St.
Hopkinton, MA 01748
508-435-3001
jhaskwri@gmail.com
Planning Board Members
Town of Hopkinton Massachusetts
18 Main St.
Hopkinton, MA 01748
RE: Wilson Street Solar Project
Dear Members of the Planning Board,
I would like to make the Hopkinton Planning Board aware of Indigenous Ceremonial
Stone Structures, stone groupings and stone rows on the property between Wilson
Street and Cedar St in which the Wilson Street Solar Project is proposed to be built.
I have been doing Native American Ceremonial Stone Landscape research in the
Hopkinton area for the past three years. Prior to colonial expansion west of
Framingham Massachusetts the Nipmuc Nation inhabited Quansigomog, the lands
now called Hopkinton. The remaining forests of Hopkinton are dotted with living
prayers of stone and stone rows (Ceremonial Stone Landscapes) created by the
indigenous people of this area. The traditional belief is that these stone structures
were placed to create and restore harmony between human beings and Mother
Earth. The prayers they embody continue to live as long as the stones are kept
intact.
When I first moved to town I was told by several of the towns people of a long
rumored Indian Burial Ground between Cedar and Wilson Street. With this location
being proposed for developed I initiated a cursory survey of the land identified to
me having the Indian Burial Grounds. I have documented a stone structure (Photo
#1). Above the stone structure are a Manitou (God) Stone (Photo #2) and a stone
Niche (Photo #3) (a place to leave offerings for the spirits). Within 250 feet of this
stone structure is a 400 foot stone row which has a Manitou (God) Stone
incorporated into it (Photo #4), Manitou stone next to it (Photo #5) and other a
teardrop stone placed in a split rock (Photo #6).
After discovering the stone structure and Ceremonial Stone Landscape, which
surrounds it, I widened my investigation and found 2 more ceremonial stone rows
2
and multiple stone groupings (See Google Earth Photo, SW1, SW2, SW3). I
forwarded this information to Doug Harris, Narragansett Indian Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer. His reply stated, “ This is unquestionable a Ceremonial Stone
Landscape. Whatever we have to do it must be protected.” This site and other sites
in Hopkinton have religious and cultural significance to Four Tribes in southern
New England, the Aquinnah Wampanoag Nation of Gay Head, Pequot Tribal Nation,
Mohegan Tribal Nation and Narragansett Tribal Nation.
Everyday we lose Indigenous Cultural and Ceremonial sites to development. In
Hopkinton, land that has not been developed due to wetlands and extreme stony
landscape are now being developed. It is in these lands we find what remains of the
Indigenous Ceremonial Stone Landscapes. We need to survey, research and save the
history of the original inhabitants of this land.
Respectfully,
James L Haskins
Hopkinton Historical Society
CC: Elaine Lazarus, Michael Roughan, Claire Wright
3
Photo #1
4
Photo #2
5
Photo #3
6
Photo #4
7
Photo #5
Photo #6
8
9
Georgia Wilson <gwilson@hopkintonma.gov>
TJA Solar Project
Georgia Wilson <gwilson@hopkintonma.gov>Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:10 AM
To: Georgia Wilson <gwilson@hopkintonma.gov>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ed Cutter <edcutter@verizon.net>
Date: Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:02 AM
Subject: TJA Solar Project
To: Georgia Wilson <gwilson@hopkintonma.gov>
Cc: edcutter@verizon.net
Hopkinton Planning Board
C/O Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner
We would appreciate the Board’s consideration of the following comments with respect to the current plans on file in this
matter.
On any consideration of neighborhood impact, the connection should be on Cedar Street. Not only is that area zoned for industrial, but
also it would not cause any detriment to that neighborhood.
Screening is the key tool to lessen harmful impact on Wilson street residents, and we appreciate the Applicant’s assurances that mature
plantings would be provided to provide immediate screening. We are dismayed that a proposed location by specific types of plantings is
not provided. We are trying to be realistic, and we understand that it is difficult to be precise to the last foot, but some guidance would be
appreciated.
The plans filed by the Applicant prior to a change on July 30,2018, listed evergreens-as per the following note on page 7:
“THE EVERGREEN SCREENING TREES SHALL BE TYPE 3 OR TYPE 4 CONIFERS SELECTED FROM THE FOLLOWING
SPECIES, WITH EMPHASIS ON DEER-RESISTANT VARIETIES; SIZED AND DELIVERED IN CONTAINERS PER ANSI Z60.1-2014;
AUSTRIAN PINE (Pinus Nigra),
JAPANESE UMBRELLA PINE (Pinus Densiflora), GREEN GIANT ARBORVITAE (Thuja), COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE (Picea
Pungeans), NORWAY SPRUCE (Picea Abies), EASTERN RED CEDAR (Juniperius Virginiana), AND LEYLAND CYPRESS
(Cupressocyparis Leylandii).”
In the plans adjusted on July 30, 2018, this listing of evergreen species was stricken and replaced by reference to a report provided by
Goddard Consulting, date July 24,2018. The listing of plants filed by the Applicant on August 21, 2018 appears to follow the guidelines
set forth in the report.
The listing of plants does not provide adequate screening for the Northern Screening Area. The report’s recommendation is predicated
on the erroneous assumption that the entire area from our boundary southward is “within forest”, whereas there is more than 40 feet of
open sun field moving south away from the Proposed Tree Line. Indeed, the Applicant’s own prior plans recognized this area as being a
sunny area as it proposed panels in part of it. As the Applicant has removed some panels in the 75-100 foot zone, we would suggest
that the fence should move correspondingly, but even if that doesn’t occur there is so much unshaded area here that there should be
no limitation on planting evergreen trees which will provide year-round screening ,and many more types of evergreens should be
considered such as those mentioned in other parts of the report or in the prior note quoted above.
Additionally, the report offers only deciduous shrubs. This is inappropriate as it disregards the sunny areas, and additionally there are
evergreen shrubs which don’t required full sun, including the widely used rhododendron and mountain laurel. Attached are pictures of
some of the 20+ rhododendron plants which are thriving in shady areas around our home, and Tom Shambo, next door, has the similar
thriving plants.
According to the specifications, the solar panels will tilt up to 8 feet. The land between our home and the panels slopes upward, as
much as 6-8-feet from our property line, so it is key that the trees being planted are tall enough to cover not only the 8 feet of panels but
also the change in elevation going upward. The screening evergreens should be planted as close as reasonably possible to the highest
level on the slope to minimize this offset. When Timothy Vautour, Vice President Operations of TJA Solar, met with neighbors on June
21, 2018 he volunteered a broad range of evergreens and indicated that they would be 15 feet when planted. We would appreciate
getting closer to this standard and reducing distances between new trees.
It would be appreciated if we might be informed as to what is proposed to assure that the plantings come with suitable guaranties and
that they will receive appropriate watering and other good care. There are many respected landscaping companies operating in
Hopkinton. Might there be consideration of a local resource?
We appreciate that the Applicant has been very considerate in committing that in the fall/ winter there would be a review for fall/winter
loss of shielding. Will the Board be involved in this if any issues arise on this or others matters in the courses of installation?
We also appreciate the Applicant’s agreeing that a substantial amount of fencing would be black vinyl.
At the last hearing on July 9, 2018, it was indicated that the Applicant would agree to bury under the street the wire from the connection
on the western side of Wilson to the pole on the eastern side. We don’t believe that has been confirmed in a document.
We thank the Board for the consideration that has given to our concerns and for the dedication of its members, the Principal Planner,
and other staff to the well-being of Town residents.
Sincerely yours,
Selma F. Cutter and Edward J. Cutter
noname.eml
7536K
August 21, 2018
Planning Board Members
Hopkinton Town Hall
18 Main Street
Hopkinton, MA 01748
Whereas a commercial solar farm with several thousand solar panels is being proposed to be
developed between Cedar Street (Rt. 85) and Wilson Street and:
the developer is proposing access to the site from both Cedar Street and Wilson Street;
there is an existing road that historically has been providing access to commercial sized
vehicles on the Cedar Street side, and a new entrance would need to be created on the
Wilson Street side;
there is access to the electric grid on both sides of the project (the same side of the street
on the Cedar St. side; the other side of the street on Wilson St.);
the 2018 Town Meeting supported Town leaders longstanding efforts to minimize blight
caused by telephone poles and related infrastructure;
Wilson Street is a Town designated Scenic Road and Cedar Street is a major road;
the land at the Cedar Street entrance is zoned commercial and the land on the Wilson
Street side is zoned residential/agricultural;
To make sure the proposed commercial solar project is not detrimental to the neighborhood or
the Town, we would like to offer our support for Town officials to consider:
I. Having the electric related infrastructure connecting the project to the electric grid be
placed at the Cedar Street side and not on the Scenic Road side.
II. Having the Cedar Street side, and not the Scenic Road side, be used as the main
construction access point for building the commercial solar field.
Thank you for the consideration.
Sincerely,
Charles Battikha 8 Tammer Lane
Nikki Battikha 8 Tammer Lane
Nancy E. Kelleigh 40 East Main Street
Nancy MacMillan 17 Ash Street
Helen Seward 20 Alexander Road
David S. Spengler 43 East Main Street
Anne E. Zettek 39 East Main Street
August 22, 2018
Planning Board Members
Hopkinton Planning Board
18 Main Street
Hopkinton, MA 01748
Dear Members of the Planning Board,
Thank you for the opportunity to offer these comments as part of the Public Hearing process
regarding the proposed commercial Wilson Street solar farm. The process is appreciated and, if
the project is approved, we encourage the Board to include conditions we believe best protect the
neighborhood and Town’s interests.
As residents of a Town designated Scenic Road, several of our primary concerns relate to the
negative impact the project will have on the neighborhood as currently proposed by Atlantic
Design Engineering, Inc. (“Atlantic Design”). Our family appreciates living on a street with
protection designed to help preserve the character of what makes Hopkinton a special place to
reside.
Although the Town has approved other commercial solar projects, this project is unique as one
side of the project is on a Scenic Road (zoned residential/agricultural) and the other side is on a
major roadway (zoned industrial).
Background
This land has been explored for development in many ways over the years. After the owner
received resistance to a condominium plan in 2008, a request was made to Town Meeting to
change the zoning on the Cedar Street side as stated in an April 5, 2009 memo to the Planning
Board from the Planning Director, “The proponent owns 34.34 acres which extends from Wilson
Street to Cedar Street. 14 acres of which would be rezoned from Residence A (RA) to Industrial
B (IB). The parcel to be rezoned would have 120 feet of frontage on Cedar St. The remaining
20.34 acres with frontage on Wilson St. would remain residentially zoned, and the owner intends
to submit a subdivision plan to the Planning Board showing 7 house lots in the future.” The
neighborhood and Town supported that successful request. Most recently, the owner submitted a
conceptual plan for a 26 unit condominium development in 2014.
Connecting the solar panels to the electric grid
Despite input provided earlier in the Public Hearing process, Atlantic Design continues to
propose connecting the energy generated by the solar panels to the electric grid on the residential
side of the property (picture below). Electricity would need to be brought across the Scenic
Road to connect to the grid.
We request the Planning Board to consider putting a condition on project approval that will
require the applicant to connect the commercial solar farm to the grid on the industrially zoned
side (Cedar Street). As shown below, the poles are on the same side of the street as the project,
have been an eyesore on the approach to downtown and the work involved in connecting to the
grid would not detrimentally impact a residential neighborhood.
To date, we don’t believe sufficient information has been provided to the Planning Board that
demonstrates it is not economically feasible for the applicant to connect to the grid on Cedar
Street as an alternative to Wilson Street. Most recently, Atlantic Design included two pictures in
their August 21, 2018 correspondence to the Town to support their belief that Wilson Street
should be the point of connection to the grid. Please note that the pictures submitted seem to
more accurately depict the Cedar Street setting compared to the residential setting on Wilson
Street.
Construction Access
We are requesting the Planning Board put a condition on project approval that will require that
Cedar Street be the main entrance used for vehicles preparing the land and constructing the solar
farm. Along with the zoning differences for the different sides of the project site as mentioned
above, the picture below depicts the current viewscape at the proposed Wilson Street entrance.
There is an established entrance and access to the site on Cedar Street as shown below during the
Planning Board site walk.
We don’t believe sufficient information has been provided to the Planning Board that
demonstrates it is not economically feasible for the applicant to use Cedar Street as the main
construction access point as an alternative to Wilson Street. With an existing entrance that
historically has been providing access to commercial sized vehicles on the Cedar Street side, we
don’t believe the need has been demonstrated for the Scenic Road side of the project to be the
main construction access point. In fact, recent Scenic Road related violations (e.g. up Wilson
Street, Saddle Hill Road) highlight the need to take preventive steps and avoid further
infractions.
Screening
The Planning Board’s focus on the importance of screening while reviewing similar projects is
appreciated. We believe progress has been made from the original proposal as the applicant has
been working in particular with the two neighbors most directly impacted by the project. For
other residences on the south end of Wilson Street, we request that additional details be provided
that guarantee they will not be negatively impacted by the solar arrays as proposed. We mention
this as residents who were surprised to be able to see the reflection from the solar farm on East
Main Street when the leaves fell last autumn. If it is determined these homes will be affected,
additional screening measures should be incorporated.
Whatever screening can be put in place at the beginning of the land clearing/ construction
process will be greatly appreciated as it will help offset noise, dust and site related impacts in the
neighborhood. This was suggested as a way to improve the process and reduce negative impacts
by a resident who has lived with the construction of another solar farm in Town.
Environmental Impact
While appreciative of the sun based energy entering the electric grid, the project’s environmental
benefit to the Town of Hopkinton is not clear as currently proposed. In particular, details about
the clear cutting of trees that will be necessary both to construct the commercial solar farm and
to provide sunlight to the panels, appear to be lacking. We have roof mounted solar panels, as do
some of our neighbors, but we did not clear cut trees in the process. As far as we know, the
Town of Hopkinton, as an original Green Community, does not promote the clear cutting of trees
for said purpose and, as stated in the 2015 Guide “Clean Energy Results: Q & A Ground
Mounted Solarvoltaic Systems” (P. 20) produced by the Mass. Dept. of Energy Resources, Mass
Dept. of Environmental Protection and Mass. Clean Energy Center, “Because trees offer multiple
water management, cooling and climate benefits, clear-cutting of trees for the installation of
ground mounted solar PV is discouraged.”
We are not sure whether this issue falls under the jurisdiction of the Planning Board but wanted
to mention it since the March 22, 2018 Lucas Environmental, LLC. memorandum to the Town’s
Conservation Commission states, “A large portion of the work associated with the solar array
installation will take place outside of jurisdictional buffer zones and resource areas.”
Thank you again for the opportunity to submit these written comments for consideration as part
of the record and for your service on the Planning Board. Please do not hesitate to contact us
with any questions.
Sincerely,
Matt and Cindy Zettek
16 Wilson Street
Georgia Wilson <gwilson@hopkintonma.gov>
Fwd: Eng Hold - Path Fwd by 7/13/18 WO2230376, Hopkinton- 17 Wilson
St
2 messages
Tom Shambo <tom.shambo@verizon.net> Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 12:40 PM
To: gwilson@hopkintonma.gov
Cc: Mezettekjr@aol.com, edcutter@verizon.net
Georgia - I would like to make this email thread available to the planning board.(I do not have the
original from TJA to Eversource)
Please note the email from Melanie at Eversource does not say that Cedar St is not an option for the
study and interconnection, but a decision needs to be made.
Or in my opinion, do two studies in parallel to determine feasibility.
Have a good weekend and we will see you on Monday night
Tom Shambo
tom.shambo@verizon.net
508-864-2799
-----Original Message-----
From: Timothy Vautour <tvautour@tja.energy>
To: Tom Shambo <tom.shambo@verizon.net>
Cc: cking <cking@atlanticcompanies.com>; Zachary Thomas <zthomas@atlanticcompanies.com>
Sent: Fri, Jun 29, 2018 12:50 pm
Subject: RE: Eng Hold - Path Fwd by 7/13/18 WO2230376, Hopkinton- 17 Wilson St
Tom,
Sorry I forgot to mention that Atlantic is working to show some of the interconnection work
underground so it will be less visible along Wilson St.
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy Vautour, Developer
150 John Vertente Blvd. | New Bedford, MA 02745 | 508-717-0214
M. 774-573-5726
From: Timothy Vautour
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 11:24 AM
To: 'Tom Shambo' <tom.shambo@verizon.net>
Cc: cking@atlanticcompanies.com
Subject: RE: Eng Hold - Path Fwd by 7/13/18 WO2230376, Hopkinton- 17 Wilson St
Good Morning Tom,
1. At this point we are moving forward as designed with the point of interconnection on Wilson
St. Last summer this project was screened by our civil and electrical engineers and through
conversations with Eversource, wetlands scientist, etc… it was determined that the Wilson St.
point of interconnection was the best point of interconnection (evaluating wetland impacts,
feeder capacity, interconnection costs, construction, etc…). I recently reached out to
Eversource to ask if there was any new information available that would allow and/or make
for an easier interconnection on Cedar St. Their response is in the email below. One of the
biggest issues with withdrawing the application is that there are other projects in the que
behind ours on that same feeder. If we withdraw, not only will it cost us a great deal of time
and money, but those projects will move ahead of us and take up capacity on the
feeder. Once the capacity on the feeder is gone, we would not be able to move forward with
our project. Melanie is stating that there is another impact study project under review on the
Cedar St. feeder. I submitted our interconnection application to Eversource in Sept. 2017
and they just recently started the review. There was another project ahead of ours that
delayed the review by 9-10 months. I don’t know what impact the project ahead of mine had
on the Wilson St. feeder and I don’t know what impact projects have had on the Cedar St.
feeder. Unfortunately you don’t find out without spending a great deal of time and money and
Eversource engineers complete the Impact Study.
2. Eversource will take 2-3 months to review the interconnection. Their engineers will drive the
design of the interconnection. I can not speculate at this time what options (if any) there will
be if they inform us that the Wilson St. interconnection is not viable.
3. Chris King will be providing a written response to the board’s concerns.
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy Vautour, Developer
150 John Vertente Blvd. | New Bedford, MA 02745 | 508-717-0214
M. 774-573-5726
From: Tom Shambo <tom.shambo@verizon.net>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 8:25 AM
To: Timothy Vautour <tvautour@tja.energy>
Cc: cking@atlanticcompanies.com
Subject: Re: Eng Hold - Path Fwd by 7/13/18 WO2230376, Hopkinton- 17 Wilson St
Tim - Thank you for sharing the email below and your response.
Based on my reading of the email from Melanie @ Eversource, she is saying they would cancel your
current request for the Wilson St study and start a new one which will put you further back in the
queue. Correct me if I am missing the interpretation of her response. So it is more that you do not
wish to change the interconnection because it will put you further behind in this study/evaluation
process for the interconnection than "We cannot change the point of interconnection"? How long
does the study take? Is there a cost to it?
Additionally - if the study shows the Wilson St interconnection is not viable from Eversource in 2-3
months, would you then pursue a Cedar St interconnection study and work order? Can both
connections be done at the same time? I did not see your original question, so not sure if two
interconnections can be done in tandem.
Lastly - the idea of Cedar St interconnection was mentioned to the Planning Board as well as the
Conservation Commission in the last 2 meetings. Do you have a plan on how to communicate this
decision not to pursue the Cedar St interconnection to them?
Have a good weekend and Happy 4th!
Tom Shambo
tom.shambo@verizon.net
508-864-2799
-----Original Message-----
From: Timothy Vautour <tvautour@tja.energy>
To: Tom Shambo <tom.shambo@verizon.net>
Cc: Chris King <cking@atlanticcompanies.com>
Sent: Thu, Jun 28, 2018 6:02 pm
Subject: FW: Eng Hold - Path Fwd by 7/13/18 WO2230376, Hopkinton- 17 Wilson St
Tom,
Email below from Eversource regarding changing point of interconnection. We cannot change the
point of interconnection.
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy Vautour, Developer
150 John Vertente Blvd. | New Bedford, MA 02745 | 508-717-0214
M. 774-573-5726
From: Khederian, Melanie A <melanie.khederian@eversource.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 12:33 PM
To: Timothy Vautour <tvautour@tja.energy>; 'Timothy Vautour' <tvautour@tja-solar.net>
Cc: 'Alan Alves' <aalves@tja-solar.net>; Heidi Freitas <hfreitas@lighthousemasonry.com>;
Khederian, Melanie A <melanie.khederian@eversource.com>
Subject: Eng Hold - Path Fwd by 7/13/18 WO2230376, Hopkinton- 17 Wilson St
Importance: High
Hello – This WO has been placed on hold due to the question below
In order to proceed with this study, the Point of Interconnection can not change.
If you change the Point of Interconnection to Cedar St side, the interconnect circuit will be different,
and it will be placed in Queue behind a WO in Process
Because there are applicants in queue behind this WO, please confirm how you would like to
proceed within the next 10 business days – by Friday July 13,2018 to remain a viable project
Melanie Khederian
508-790-9035 - Office
617-775-9119 – Cell
Business Center for Billing Questions 800-340-9822
Outage Reporting 800-592-2000
Georgia Wilson <gwilson@hopkintonma.gov> Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 2:01 PM
To: Tom Shambo <tom.shambo@verizon.net>
Hi Tom,
I will send this out to the Board and have copies printed for Monday's meeting.
Have a great weekend,
Georgia
[Quoted text hidden]
--
Georgia P. Wilson
Principal Planner
Town of Hopkinton
(P) 508-497-9745
Temporary location: 80 South St.
Mailing address: 18 Main St.
Hopkinton, MA 01748
For 8/27/18 meeting
Solar Special Permit
Draft Conditions: Wilson St., Cedar St. Solar
Special Permit Criteria
Section 210-203.D of the Zoning Bylaw states that before the Planning Board may issue the
special permit, it shall determine each of the following:
●The commercial solar photovoltaic installation conforms to the provisions of the Article;
●The commercial solar photovoltaic installation will not be detrimental to the
neighborhood or the Town.
●Environmental features of the site and surrounding areas are protected, and specifically
surrounding areas will be protected from the proposed use by provision of adequate
surface water drainage.
Section 210-223 of the Zoning Bylaw states that the Board must also determine that the grant of
the special permit will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Bylaw.
The Planning Board may approve the special permit with conditions, which may include: a) the
requirement of a performance bond posted with the Town to guarantee proper maintenance
and/or removal of the commercial solar photovoltaic installation, and performance bond to
guarantee proper construction; and b) the requirement for additional screening of the facility.
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 3, states in part:
No zoning ordinance or by-law shall prohibit or unreasonably regulate the installation of solar
energy systems or the building of structures that facilitate the collection of solar energy, except
where necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare.
Decision and Conditions:
In view of the foregoing findings, the Board voted on August__, 2018 to grant the Special
Permit, subject to the following conditions:
●The vegetative planting shown on the submitted Landscape Plan dated 8/21/18 plan shall
be completed concurrently with the installation of the solar facility, with the exception
that if the facility is constructed in the winter months, planting may be deferred to the
beginning of the next growing season.
●Prior to the start of planting installation, the Wetland Scientist or Landscape Architect
shall meet with the homeowner of 21 Wilson Street to coordinate the installation of
plantings that are proposed on the property of 21 Wilson street as shown on the provided
Landscape Plan dated 8/21/18.
○Additional conditions for the Board to consider based on discussion at
previous hearings:
■Prior to planting, the specific placement of screening plantings shall
be determined by a qualified Wetland Scientist or Landscape
Architect to maximize screening effectiveness and ensure successful
establishment of plantings.
■The effectiveness of the installed screening shall be re-evaluated
during the non foliar season by a qualified Wetland Scientist or
Landscape Architect. Areas where additional screening is required
shall be identified and screening shall be installed in said identified
area. A report detailing the evaluation shall be submitted to the Board
for review.
●The solar facility shall be constructed in conformance with the approved plan, the
Stormwater Management Permit and the Order of Conditions issued by the Conservation
Commission, said Order to be enforced by the Hopkinton Conservation Commission.
●The Director of Municipal Inspections will inspect the solar facility’s construction and
operations for compliance with the Special Permit. If the Director of Municipal
Inspections determines at any time before or during construction that a registered
professional engineer or other such outside professional is required to assist with the
inspections, the Applicant shall be responsible for the cost of those inspections.
●Prior to the commencement of construction, the Applicant shall submit a detailed
performance bond estimate detailing the appropriate cost for proper maintenance and/or
removal of the installation, which shall not exceed the estimated cost of the installation’s
removal, for review by the Board’s engineer. The Applicant shall return to the Board for
approval of the performance bond estimate prior to the commencement of construction.
●The owner of the property and the owner/operator of the solar facility shall have a
decommissioning agreement in place for as long as the solar facility is located on the
property.
●In accordance with the provisions of § 210-203.E, the Applicant shall post a performance
bond with the Town, in an amount equal to the estimated cost to remove all components
of the solar facility from the property. A letter of credit or other surety instrument in an
amount equal to the estimated cost to remove all components of the solar installation
from the property issued by a bank doing business in the Commonwealth pursuant to
proper licensure from the Massachusetts Division of Banks shall be one acceptable form
of the performance bond, subject to a confirmatory review by Town Counsel. The Town
shall be a dual obligee with the Applicant/Owner under the decommissioning
performance bond to ensure that the Town may avail itself of the bond in the event that
the Applicant/Owner or TJA Solar fails to decommission the installation. No
construction or preparation for construction shall commence on-site until the Applicant
has posted a performance bond with the Town, in a form acceptable to Town Counsel,
pursuant to this Condition.
●All signage at the solar facility site must comply with Article XXVII of the Zoning
Bylaw and the grant of this Special Permit is not an approval or authorization of any such
on-site signage.
●The operator of the solar facility shall conduct vegetation control on-site. No pesticides,
herbicides or other chemical products shall be used. Vegetation control by mechanical
means may occur only between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM Monday through
Friday and Saturdays between 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM pursuant to Chapter 141, Article 1
of the Town of Hopkinton General Bylaws.
●The solar facility shall be subject to all setback, yard, buffer and screening requirements
applicable in the Agricultural (A) and Residential A (RA) Districts pursuant to Section
210-202.B of the Zoning Bylaws. If the Board grants the requested findings, a
separate motion granting such finding should be made.
●All security fences surrounding the installation shall be set back from the property line at
a distance equal to the setback requirement applicable to buildings within the Agricultural
(A) and Residential A (RA) Districts pursuant to Section 210-202.C of the Zoning
Bylaws.
●No lighting shall be permitted at the solar facility site except as required by the
Massachusetts State Building Code. All lighting must be directed downward, and full
cutoff fixtures shall be used pursuant to Section 210-202.F of the Zoning Bylaws.
●As required by Section 210-202.I of the Zoning Bylaws, the owner or operator of the
solar facility shall maintain the facility in good condition. Maintenance is to include
painting, structural repairs, continued compliance with the landscaping and screening
requirements, and the integrity of the on-site security measures. The owner or operator
shall also be responsible for maintaining any access roads serving the installation site.
●If the Director of Municipal Inspections determines, pursuant to Section 210-204 of the
Zoning Bylaws, that the commercial solar photovoltaic installation has been
discontinued, the owner shall remove the installation, including all structures, equipment,
security barriers and transmission lines, and stabilize or re-vegetate the site as necessary
to minimize erosion and sedimentation, at the owner’s sole expense within three (3)
months of receipt of the Notice of Discontinuance pursuant to that section.
●The solar facility shall be maintained in compliance with all noise level requirements
under the Bylaws and Zoning bylaws of the Town of Hopkinton.
●Prior to any construction or preparation for construction, the Applicant/Owner will
provide a surety in the amount of $10,000 to secure future maintenance of the required
screening for up to 5 years. The surety shall be in the form of a perpetual surety bond or
by a deposit of money. In the event that the owner does not follow maintenance
procedures or that the screening dies within the 5 year period, the Board shall have the
authority to expend any portion of said security for this purpose.
●Prior to any construction or preparation for construction, the Applicant/Owner will
provide a surety in the amount of $10,000 to secure future maintenance of the stormwater
management system for up to 5 years. The surety shall be in the form of a perpetual
surety bond or by a deposit of money. In the event that the owner does not follow
maintenance procedures and programs as approved by the Planning Board, the Board
shall have the authority to expend any portion of said security to provide for such
maintenance. At the end of the 5 year period, the surety shall be renewed for an
additional 5 years.
●Catalog cut sheets of all equipment to be installed shall be provided to the Principal
Planner for review prior to the pre-construction meeting.
For 8/27/18 meeting
Stormwater Management Permit
Draft Conditions: Wilson St., Cedar St. Solar
1. All erosion and sediment controls shall comply with the following performance criteria:
A.Minimize total area of disturbance and protect natural features and soil.
B.Sequence activities to minimize simultaneous areas of disturbance. Mass clearings and
grading of the entire site shall be avoided.
C.Minimize peak rate of runoff in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater
Standards.
D.Minimize soil erosion and control sedimentation during construction, provided that
prevention of erosion is preferred over sedimentation control.
E.Divert uncontaminated water around disturbed areas.
F.Maximize groundwater recharge.
G.Install and maintain all Erosion and Sediment Control measures in accordance with the
manufacturer’s specifications and good engineering practices.
H.Prevent off-site transport of sediment.
I.Protect and manage on and off-site material storage areas (overburden and stockpiles of
dirt, borrow areas, or other areas used solely by the permitted project are considered a
part of the project).
J.Comply with applicable Federal, State and local laws and regulations including waste
disposal, sanitary sewer or septic system regulations, and air quality requirements,
including dust control.
K.Prevent significant alteration of habitats mapped by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage
& Endangered Species Program as Endangered, Threatened or Of Special Concern,
Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife and Certified Vernal Pools, and Priority Habitats of
Rare Species from the proposed activities.
L.Institute interim and permanent stabilization measures, which shall be instituted on a
disturbed area as soon as practicable but no more than 14 days after construction activity
has temporarily or permanently ceased on that portion of the site.
M.Properly manage on-site construction and waste materials.
N.Prevent off-site vehicle tracking of sediments.
O.Dust shall be controlled at the site.
P.Divert offsite runoff from highly erodible soils and steep slopes to stable areas.
2. The project shall comply with the following Erosion and Sediment Control requirements:
A.Prior to any land disturbance activities commencing on the site, the developer shall
physically mark limits of no land disturbance on the site with tape, signs, or orange
construction fence, so that workers can see the areas to be protected. The physical
markers shall remain in place until a Certificate of Completion has been issued.
B.Appropriate erosion and sediment control measures shall be installed prior to soil
disturbance. Measures shall be taken to control erosion within the project area. Sediment
in runoff water shall be trapped and retained within the project area. Wetland areas and
surface waters shall be protected from sediment.
C.Sediment shall be removed once the volume reaches ¼ to ½ the height of a hay bale.
Sediment shall be removed from silt fence prior to reaching the load-bearing capacity of
the silt fence which may be lower than ¼ to ½ the height.
D.Sediment from sediment traps or sedimentation ponds shall be removed when design
capacity has been reduced by 50 percent.
E.Soil stockpiles must be stabilized or covered at the end of each workday. Stockpile side
slopes shall not be greater than 2:1. All stockpiles shall be surrounded by sediment
controls.
F.Disturbed areas remaining idle for more than 14 days shall be stabilized with seeding,
wood chips, bark mulch, tarpaulins, or any other approved methods.
G.For active construction areas such as borrow or stockpile areas, roadway improvements
and areas within 50 feet of a building under construction, a perimeter sediment control
system shall be installed and maintained to contain soil.
H.A tracking pad or other approved stabilization method shall be constructed at all
entrance/exit points of the site to reduce the amount of soil carried onto roadways and off
the site. Wilson St. and Cedar St. in the vicinity of the project shall be swept as needed
throughout the construction process.
I.Permanent seeding shall be undertaken in the spring from March through May, and in
late summer and early fall from August to October 15. During the peak summer months
and in the fall after October 15, when seeding is found to be impractical, appropriate
temporary stabilization shall be applied. Permanent seeding may be undertaken during
the summer if plans provide for adequate mulching and watering.
J.All slopes steeper than 3:1 (h:v, 33.3%), as well as perimeter dikes, sediment basins or
traps, and embankments must, upon completion, be immediately stabilized with sod, seed
and anchored straw mulch, or other approved stabilization measures. Areas outside of the
perimeter sediment control system must not be disturbed.
K.Temporary sediment trapping devices must not be removed until permanent stabilization
is established in all contributory drainage areas.
L.All temporary erosion and sediment control measures shall be removed after final site
stabilization. Disturbed soil areas resulting from the removal of temporary measures shall
be permanently stabilized within 30 days of removal.
3. A minimum of seven days prior to the start of construction, a detailed construction sequence
shall be submitted to the Principal Planner by the site contractor for review and approval. The
approved construction sequence shall be followed throughout the course of the construction and
shall be altered only with prior review by and written approval from the Principal Planner.
4. A copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan shall be provided to the Board prior to the
building permit.
5. All required SWPPP Stormwater Construction Site Inspection Reports shall be submitted to
the Principal Planner within 14 days of each inspection.
6. An adequate stockpile of erosion control materials shall be on site at all times for emergency
or routine replacement and shall include materials to repair or replace silt fences, hay bales, stone
filters, berms or any other devices planned for use during construction.
7. The disturbed area shall be temporarily stabilized by hydroseeding if construction of the
commercial solar facility is not commenced within 30 days of lot clearing.
8. Soil testing and excavation of the sites stormwater basins must be observed by the Board’s
engineer prior to laying loam and seed.
9. All stormwater basins must be cleaned once the site is stabilized.
PUBLIC HEARING OUTLINE
Whisper Way Subdivision
Definitive Subdivision Plan application showing 24 building lots.
Meeting Dates: 8/27/18
1. Principal Planner Overview of Site and Project
2. Project introduction and features of the site – Applicant & Engineer
3. Principal Planner Comments
4. Consultant Review – BETA Group
5. Other Town Departments Comments
6. Planning Board members and Public – Add to outline
7. Schedule Site Walk
8. Detailed Discussion
a. Road and lot layout design
b. Traffic
a. Traffic Study
b. Possible Need for Traffic Calming Measures
c. Offsite Improvements – Whisper Way
i. Impacts to Abutters from any road widening
d. Sidewalks
e. Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety
c. Stormwater management
d. Utilities – Water/Fire Cistern, Sewer, Gas, Electric, Phone, Cable
a. Septic Systems/Bedroom Numbers
e. Open space/remaining land ownership & access
a. Trails
f. Review by other Boards/Committees
a. Conservation
g. Construction Management
a. Impacts to abutters during construction
b. Construction Process
h. Affordable Housing – Flexible Community Development
i. Historical Features
j. Final BETA issues
9. Discuss standards and plan revisions to be made
10. Discuss conditions of approval with applicant
11. Public comment
12. Vote
13. Close public hearing
ATTACHMENT C
Form C Item 4 – Deeds of Property
Assessor Map R16 – Parcel 26
Deed Bk 21308 – Pg 114
Assessor Map R16 – Parcel 55
Deed Bk 66837 – Pg 245
Assessor Map R16 – Parcel 56
Deed Bk 28059 – Pg 538
Assessor Map U14 – Parcel 27
Deed Bk 48558 – Pg 556
Assessor Map U14 – Parcel 28
Deed Bk 13760 – Pg 100
Assessor Map U14 – Parcel 28A
Deed Book 13760 – Pg 100
BETA GROUP, INC.
www.BETA-Inc.com
August 8, 2018
Department of Land Use, Planning, and Permitting
Town Hall
18 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Hopkinton, MA 01748
Attn: Ms. Georgia Wilson Mr. Don MacAdam, M.S.
Principal Planner Conservation Administrator
Re: Whisper Way Definitive Subdivision Peer Review
Dear Ms. Georgia and Mr. MacAdam:
BETA Group, Inc. reviewed the proposed Whisper Way Definitive Residential Subdivision Plan in
Hopkinton, MA in accordance with BETA’s agreement with the Town dated August 31, 2016. This letter
is provided to outline BETA’s findings and recommendations of submitted documents.
BASIS OF REVIEW
BETA received the following items:
•Form C - Application for Approval of Definitive Plan, from Guerriere & Halnon, Inc., dated May 24,
2018 including the following documents:
o Form D Designer’s Certificate (2)o Certified Abutters List
•Plans (20 sheets) entitled Whisper Way a Definitive Open Space Subdivision in Hopkinton
Massachusetts,dated May 24, 2018 prepared by Guerrier & Halnon, Inc., Milford, MA
•Stormwater Report “Whisper Ridge Open Space Subdivision” Hopkinton, MA dated March 24, 2018
prepared by Guerrier & Halnon, Inc.
•Plans (3 sheets) entitled Pre- and Post-development Drainage Plans,dated May 24, 2018 prepared
by Guerrier & Halnon, Inc.
•Special Permit Decision for Open Space and Landscape Preservation Development received by the
Town of Hopkinton on March 12, 2018
•Supplemental Materials including the following:
o Requested waivers
o Stormwater Management System Operation and Maintenance Plan
o Form 11 – Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal
o Form 12 - Percolation Test
o Environmental Impact Analysis
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 39.9± acre parcel includes three lots and is located on the south side of Wood Street and on the
west side of Route 495. The site is located within the Agricultural Zoning (A) District, Residence B (RB)
District and the Water Resources Protection Overlay District (WRPOD-1).
The site is predominately wooded with mapped wetlands and exposed ledge/rock. Whisper Way is
currently a 12 to 14 foot wide stone dust access road 800 feet long providing access to three existing
Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam
August 8, 2018
Page 2 of 8
residences and a parking area at the cul-de-sac for the open space to the north. A forth residence is
located on the northeast corner of the lot where Wood Street intersects with Route 495. There are no
FEMA mapped 100 year flood zones within the project limits. NRCS soils maps indicate a variety of soils
which may make it challenging to infiltrate stormwater on site. The plans indicate that there is public
water available in Wood Street but no public sewer therefore on-site sewer treatment will be necessary.
The proposed subdivision plan depicts the reconstruction and extension of Wisper Way a total of 3,515±
feet of road to provide access to 22 new lots, 2 of the existing 4 homes on the site will remain and the
project will create of 26.2± acres of open space.
REQUESTED WAIVERS REVIEW
From Rules and Regulations Relating to the Subdivision of Land, Town of Hopkinton, December 15,
2014
W1.§5.4.1.N Definitive Plan Contents: The Applicant seeks a waiver from providing cross sections of
each street at 50 foot intervals (71 cross sections total).
W2.§5.4.1.R Definitive Plan Contents: The Applicant seeks a waiver from trees to be retained within
the right-of-way. Due to the narrow width of the right-of-way and proposed grading, trees are
not proposed to be retained within the right-of-way.
W3.§5.4.1.Y Definitive Plan Contents: The Applicant seeks a waiver from providing street lights
within the subdivision.
W4.§8.2.7.A Disturbance to Natural Topography: The Applicant seeks a waiver from fill of an area in
excess of 8 feet in depth. Depths of fill greater than 8 feet are required for wetland crossings at
stations 1+50 and 30+00.
W5.§8.2.7.B Disturbance to Natural Topography: The Applicant seeks a waiver from the construction
of roads, stormwater management systems, driveways, pipes or other infrastructure
construction on a land area which slopes at a grade of 25% or more.
From Zoning Bylaws: Chapter 210, Town of Hopkinton, September 2017
W6.§210-113.C.1 Buffer areas: The Applicant seeks a waiver from providing a 100 foot buffer at the
perimeter of the site to separate and/or screen the development from abutting properties. The
proposed subdivision includes a roadway within the 100 foot buffer of the project site on the
southeast corner in order to minimize impacts to slopes greater than 25% and to accommodate
Board of Health septic system regulations.
ZONING
ARTICLE III RESIDENCE B (RB)DISTRICT
The proposed subdivision complies with setback, yard requirements and lot coverage; however, it does
not comply with minimum lot area. The zoning requirements for Residence B are superseded by zoning
requirements for Open Space and Landscape Preservation Development.
Z1.Clearly label proposed lot frontage for each lot on the plans.
Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam
August 8, 2018
Page 3 of 8
ARTICLE V AGRICULTURAL (A)DISTRICT
The proposed subdivision complies with setback, yard requirements and lot coverage; however, it does
not comply with minimum lot area. The zoning requirements for Agricultural are superseded by zoning
requirements for Open Space and Landscape Preservation Development.
ARTICLE XI FLEXIBLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BYLAW
Z2.Indicate the number of affordable units provided on the plans.
ARTICLE XII WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT
The project is located within the Water Resources Protection Overlay District and requires approval for
any use that renders impervious more than 15% or 2,500 square feet of any lot, whichever is greater.
Refer to Stormwater Management section for review of required infiltration practices.
The shared septic system will require approval by Hopkinton Board of Health and in accordance with
MassDEP Title 5.
ARTICLE XVII OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPE PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT
The proposed development meets the requirements of the Open Space and Landscape Preservation
Development with the exception of the 100 foot buffer requirement. The Applicant is seeking a waiver
for this requirement as described in comment W6 above. A Concept Plan was previously submitted for
the proposed subdivision on January 8, 2018.
Z3.Provide confirmation that structures used for residential purposes meet the height requirements
of §210-121.
ARTICLE XVIII SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS (AS APPLICABLE)
The proposed subdivision meets all supplementary regulations as applicable.
RULES AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND
CONTENTS (§5.4)
Individual lots will be serviced by Town water systems. The shared septic system providing sewer
services to new residences will require approval. No street lighting is proposed at this time.
C1.All lots shall be assigned street numbers in consultation with the Director of Municipal
Inspections (§5.4.E).
C2.Show location of the subdivision in relation to the existing street system on the locus plan
(§5.4.1.F.).
C3.Provide proof of secured easements outside the area where conditions exist requiring such
easements (§5.4.1.G.).
C4.Include a typical cross section for each street on the Profile Plan (§5.4.1.M.).
C5.Show locations of percolation tests for proposed septic system on the plans. Indicate dates of all
soil tests on the plans (§5.4.1.BB.).
Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam
August 8, 2018
Page 4 of 8
DESIGN STANDARDS (§8)
Streets
The plans depict a 22 foot wide road with profile grades between 0.67% and 8.57%. The road consists of
modified Cape Cod berms and a 5 foot wide sidewalk on one side.
D1.Revise plan to provide a minimum required curve radii of 150 feet at STA 26+00± (§8.2.1.D).
D2.Show dimensions for proposed sight distances on the plans in conformance with §8.2.1.D-E.
D3.Show curb radii on the plans in conformance with §8.2.1.G.
D4.Show and label proposed right-of-ways on the plans in conformance with §8.2.3.A.
D5.Provide an explanation for a different typical section for road from STA 0+00 to 3+29. Grading
plan should match. Also consider impact on flow to catchbasins at STA 3+29.
D6.Revise profile so new road meets the existing grade at Wood Street at STA 35+63.
CONSTRUCTIONSTANDARDS (§9)
The applicant seeks a waiver for street trees, fill in excess of 8 feet and construction on areas with slopes
greater than 25% as noted above in section, Requested Waivers Review.
C1.Show proposed sidewalk material and subgrade details per §9.7.3., refer to comment D5 above.
C2.Provide a detail for proposed driveway aprons in conformance with §9.9.
C3.Provide stone or reinforced concrete bounds (not rebars) on both sides of street right-of-way at
all angle points and at beginning and end of all curves (§9.11.1).
C4.Provide a street tree planting plan with planting schedule in accordance with §9.12.
ADDITIONAL PLAN COMMENTS
G1.Provide full-size original PDF’s (including watershed maps) of all plans (not scanned).
G2.Turn off layout data on grading plans to make them more legible.
G3.Enlarge text/details for better clarity/visibility (minimum .10 inch text height).
G4.Provide north arrow on grading plans.
G5.Provide all grid elevations on profiles.
G6.Provide disposition of pipe crossing road at STA 5+65, this appears to feed wetland/vernal pool
on northwest side of road. If it is to remain, report on it’s condition. Correct the elevation on
profile.
G7.Show delineation of wetland on lots 23 & 24 more definitively on grading plan.
G8.Identify structure/detail for half circle at approximately STA. 5+50 to 70 right.
G9.Provide access to existing open space parking area at STA 7+20 right.
G10.Show proposed driveway or any changes to the existing driveway for Lot 2.
Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam
August 8, 2018
Page 5 of 8
G11.Label, dimension, and detail all parking areas locations on the plans. Revise Lotting Plan to
match locations. Coordinate with current and potential path locations.
G12.Provide a label and detail for the sidewalk area proposed at approximately STA. 5+50.
G13.Provide earth removal calculations. Include provisions for erosion control and dust control in
accordance with Town of Hopkinton General Bylaws §96-3 (September 2017).
G14.Provide a minimum of 15 feet wide vehicle access and maximum 5:1 slope for maintenance for
each stormwater basin.
G15.Revise plan to relocate sidewalk along Wood Street, it appears to be proposed in the existing
street.
TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT
A traffic impact assessment was not provided for review at this time.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
The 39.9± acre parcel includes three lots and is located on the south side of Wood Street and on the
west side of Route 495. The site is predominately wooded with mapped wetlands and exposed
ledge/rock with a variety of soil types ranging from HSG A (high infiltration rates) to HSG D (poor
infiltration rates). Whisper Way is currently a 12 to 14 foot wide stone dust access road 800 feet long
providing access to three existing residences and a parking area at the cul-de-sac for the open space to
the north. Runoff from the site drains to existing wetlands at the northeast and southeast portions of
the site. The northeast wetland is connected to another wetland area on the east side of Route I-495 by
an existing culvert. The project proposes work within regulated wetland resource areas.
The proposed stormwater management design includes capturing pavement runoff through deep sump
catch basins. The Stormwater Management Report includes geotechnical test pit data conducted at the
proposed locations of the infiltration basins.
Runoff is then directed to sediment forebays, and is then discharged to one of three infiltration basins.
There will be a net increase of impervious area at the site of approximately 186,600 square feet (4.3±
acres).
The site is not within the 100-Year FEMA Flood. The project will disturb greater than one acre of land
and is subject to the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standards, Chapter 172 Stormwater
Management and Erosion Control Bylaw of the Town of Hopkinton and Town of Hopkinton Stormwater
Regulations.
From Subdivision Regulations
SW1.Provide updated calculations utilizing the required rainfall data specified in §8.4.2.
SW2.Revise catch basin detail to include a 5 foot granite guttermouth per §8.4.5.
SW3.Provide catch basins at low point at STA. 1+00 and at Wood Street at STA 35+30± (§8.4.5.) .
SW4.Provide a detail for drainage drop manhole per§8.4.6.
SW5.Indicate size and material of all proposed drainage pipes on the plans. The discharge end of all
pipes greater than 15 inches in diameter shall have a protective barrier (§8.4.8.).
Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam
August 8, 2018
Page 6 of 8
SW6.Provide pipe sizing calculations including velocities for all proposed drainage pipes in accordance
with (§8.4.8.).
SW7.Show top of basin contour lines on the plans to confirm a 25 foot setback from house, roadway
or property lines (§8.4.6.).
SW8.Provide cross sections for proposed infiltration basin including method and materials of
constructing embankments (§8.4.6.).
SW9.Provide adequate screening of proposed infiltration basins (§8.4.10.).
General
SW10.Label all drainage structures and infiltration basins on the plans. Include bottom, top and
contour elevations as well.
SW11.Provide a detail for catch basin hoods.
SW12.BETA recommends proposing a cross slope of 3% and installing double grates for all catch basins
for all roadway slopes greater than 5% to maximize capture of stormwater runoff.
SW13.Revise the proposed drainage pipe design at STA. 29+00± to avoid reverse flow.
Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standards:
The project is subject to the Stormwater Management Standards (Stormwater Regulations (SWR) 7.0).
The following are the 10 standards and relative compliance provided by the submitted documentation.
No untreated stormwater (Standard Number 1): No new stormwater conveyances (e.g., outfalls) may
discharge untreated stormwater directly to or cause erosion in wetlands or waters of the
Commonwealth.The proposed project includes deep sump catch basins to collect stormwater runoff
and direct it to new three new sediment forebays and infiltration basins with overflow to existing
wetlands.
SW14.Clearly label basins on post-development watershed plans.
SW15.Provide rip rap sizing calculations to confirm scour mitigation.
Post-development peak discharge rates (Standard Number 2): Stormwater management systems must
be designed so that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-development peak
discharge rates.Calculations have been provided to confirm that post-development peak discharge
rates do not exceed pre-development rates – standard has been met.
Recharge to groundwater (Standard Number 3): Loss of annual recharge to groundwater should be
minimized through the use of infiltration measures to maximum extent practicable.
SW16.Soil test data provided is inconsistent, clarify the following:
a.Forms for test holes B, C, D, & E, indicate standing water in holes observed at 36 inches
while estimated depth to high groundwater was much lower.
b.Forms for test hole F & G show a checked the box for groundwater observed but no
elevation was given.
c.Clarify dates of test pits D, E, F & G, logs indicate a date of 8/16/18/.
Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam
August 8, 2018
Page 7 of 8
d.Provide Frimpter analysis for tests completed in July and August to determine seasonal
high groundwater elevation (Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook (MSWH), Volume 2,
Chapter 2, page 90).
SW17.Revise infiltration basin grading and designs to maintain 2 feet of separation from seasonal high
groundwater elevation (SHGWE). “Greater separation is necessary for bedrock” (MSWH V2 Ch2 p
89).
a.Basin A – TP 13 indicates SHGWE at 397.5± while basin bottom is proposed at elevation
394.
b.Basin C – After completing Frimpter Analysis on assumed SWGWE, tests may not be deep
enough.
c.Basin D - TP B indicates SHGWE at 384.3± & TP B indicates SHGWE at 383.5± while basin
bottom is proposed at elevation 379.
d.Basin E – TB D indicates refusal at 357.5±, TB E indicates refusal at 356.5± while basin
bottom is proposed at elevation 358.
SW18.Revise the design of Basin E. The minimum acceptable infiltration rate is 0.17 inches per hour
(MSWH V 2, Ch2, p90). Label proposed contour elevations.
SW19.Provide locations, dimensions and elevations of emergency over flow for infiltration basins on
plans and extend over flows to bottom of exterior fill.
SW20.Provide a minimum of 1 foot of freeboard for 100 year storm event for all stormwater basins.
SW21.Provide methods to prevent clogging of small orifices in outlet control devices for basins.
SW22.BETA recommends providing roof runoff recharge system for each lot.
80% TSS Removal (Standard Number 4):For new development, stormwater management systems must
be designed to remove 80% of the annual load of Total Suspended Solids.The proposed project includes
stormwater collection and treatment via deep sump catch basins, sediment forebays and infiltration
basins. TSS removal calculations have been provided to indicate 89% total TSS removal.
SW23.Provide sediment forebay for Basin B.
SW24.A sediment forebay is required to obtain 80% TSS removal credit. Do not list it separately for
credit, revise TSS removal worksheets.
Higher Potential Pollutant Loads (Standard Number 5): Stormwater discharges from Land Uses with
Higher Potential Pollutant Loads require the use of specific stormwater management BMPs.The
proposed project does not generate stormwater from LUHHPPL – standard does not apply.
Critical Areas (Standard Number 6): Stormwater discharges to critical areas must utilize certain
stormwater management BMPs approved for critical areas.The proposed project does not discharge
stormwater to a critical area – standard does not apply.
Redevelopment (Standard Number 7): Redevelopment of previously developed sites must meet the
Stormwater Management Standards to the maximum extent practicable.The project does not meet the
definition of a redevelopment project – standard does not apply.
Construction Period Erosion and Sediment Controls (Standard Number 8):Erosion and sediment
controls must be implemented to prevent impacts during construction or land disturbance activities.A
Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam
August 8, 2018
Page 8 of 8
draft SWPPP was submitted for review, which includes construction period pollution prevention
measures
SW25.Revise reference or provide a copy of the referenced “Bear Hill Village Erosion Control Plan of
Land” for review.
SW26.Show locations of stabilized construction entrance/exit on the plans.
SW27.Provide silt sacks for all catch basins within the project limits and directly downstream. Include a
silt sack detail on the Details sheet.
Operations/maintenance plan (Standard Number 9): A long-Term Operation and Maintenance Plan
shall be developed and implemented to ensure that stormwater management systems function as
designed.An Operations and Maintenance Plan has been submitted for review.
SW28.Include all BMP operations and maintenance requirements set in Appendix A of the Hopkinton
Subdivision Rules and Regulations.
SW29.Provide an estimated maintenance budget.
SW30.Include a signature line for all responsible parties of the Operations and Maintenance Plan.
SW31.Provide a BMP map, drawn to scale, showing the location of all stormwater BMP’s in each
treatment train with the discharge point.
Illicit Discharges (Standard Number 10): All illicit discharges to the stormwater management systems
are prohibited.A signed Illicit Discharge statement has been provided – standard met.
WETLANDS
The proposed site includes a wetland crossing at approximately sta. 30+00. The crossing is to be 36 feet
in length and 12 feet in width and is noted as designed by others.
W1.Provide clearer delineation of wetland on lots 24 and 25.
W2.Provide plans and details for wetland crossing, including any calculations for sizing the crossing
and area to be disturbed.
W3.Show limits of wetland disturbance on the plans.
If we can be of any further assistance regarding this matter, please contact us at our office.
Very truly yours,
BETA Group, Inc.
Jillian Bokoff Philip F Paradis, Jr., PE
Staff Engineer Associate
O:\6100s\6118 - Hopkinton - Wisper Way\Engineering\Reports\Whisper Way Subdivision Review 08-08-2018.docx
1
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD Monday, June 25, 2018 7:00 P.M. HCAM-TV Studio, 77 Main St./Lower Level, Hopkinton, MA MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Muriel Kramer, Chairwoman, Fran DeYoung, Vice-Chairman, David
Paul, Amy Ritterbusch, Mary Larson-Marlowe, Deborah Fein-Brug, Frank D’Urso MEMBERS ABSENT: Gary Trendel Present: Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner, Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant Ms. Kramer opened the meeting. She noted the Board of Selectmen has officially announced the
current vacancy on the Board. She read the announcement and stated the deadline for
applications is Friday, June 29, 2018 with joint Board of Selectmen/Planning Board interviews tentatively scheduled for July 10. Ms. Kramer stated she would like to cancel the August 13 meeting if the schedule allows.
1. General Discussion - Planning Board Meetings & Leadership Opportunities
Ms. Kramer stated over the past year the Board has allowed members to take turns on leading different public hearings, which is helpful to her and prepares other members individually for future leadership roles. The Board members indicated they are interested in continuing that approach, and Ms. Kramer noted the Vice Chairman and she will be happy to offer support in
this respect while former Chairman Ferrari has also offered to help. She noted there are other
leadership opportunities as well, such as 1) spearheading the Master Plan Implementation efforts, and 2) participation on the Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC) depending on how it gets structured. Ms. Kramer encouraged the members to consider any other leadership ideas and submit suggestions for new agenda topics and initiatives to her and/or Ms. Wilson.
Ms. Kramer noted she has been informed that the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board would like to come in and talk to the Board, the Upper Charles Trails Committee is interested in making a presentation, and she just heard from Meenaskhi Barath who is looking for input to make her position as the Planning Board's new School Committee liaison more meaningful. She stated she
also wants to set up the frame work for a more formal discussion with other Town boards and
departments to address the impact of increased development on Town services. Mr. DeYoung asked Ms. Wilson about the possibility of sharing ideas with other towns or access to other external support groups. Ms. Wilson stated planning officials from the communities within the various sub-regions of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) meet on a regular basis,
and she also relies on Massplanners Listserve, an on-line forum with lots of information on a
variety of topics. Ms. Kramer stated more specifically she would like to see how they can communicate on these issues internally, because increased development is putting pressure on Town departments and there are some decisions to be made. Ms. Fein-Brug stated this may be a good liaison opportunity for one of the members to do some fact gathering and bring it back to
the appropriate people. Ms. Ritterbusch stated the Master Plan Implementation Plan includes an
action item requiring applicants to identify the Town services needed as part of their project. She noted the goal was to do this by the end of last year, but it probably got lost when the
2
previous Principal Planner left. It was noted the Fire and Police Chiefs made a PowerPoint
presentation to the Board several months ago, and Mr. Paul stated he had requested they provide some year-to-year statistics to be included in the Master Plan. The Board discussed the functions and value of official and sometimes unofficial liaisons between the Planning Board and other boards and committees.
2. Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC) Ms. Kramer stated based on last year's experience with the ZAC, she feels it is time to make some changes, however Mr. Trendel has indicated he wants to be part of this conversation so they don't necessarily want to form any hard opinions tonight. She stated she would like to see the Committee meet year-round, limit the number of members, and start the first year with
staggered terms so that each following year 2 or 3 members would be up for reappointment. Ms. Ritterbusch suggested having full and alternate members. She stated she wants to encourage new people to get involved, and is curious about the attendance records from last year. Ms. Larson-Marlowe stated it may be helpful for future applicants to know the meeting schedule ahead of time, and it was noted it is typically established amongst the members once the group is formed.
In response to a question of Mr. DeYoung, Ms. Wilson noted in the past there were no specific criteria for membership. Ms. Wilson stated the Committee has a number of typical liaisons, including representatives from the Board of Appeals, Conservation Commission, Planning Board, and the Chamber of Commerce, and Ms. Kramer stated that has been established through precedent but could be a point of discussion going forward. Ms. Kramer noted she also wonders
if everyone necessarily has to be a voting member. It was noted the typical ZAC appointment cycle tightened up preparation time for town meeting last year, and Ms. Kramer stated this will be the case again this year but hopefully changes in committee procedures and makeup will help. Ms. Ritterbusch stated she would like to have a
diverse group without discriminating against anyone, and Mr. D'Urso stated he feels there was a good balance last year in spite of the number of participants. Ms. Kramer stated setting a specific meeting schedule ahead of time may be helpful, but it may not be fair to set strict rules on attendance. She noted she has also given some thought to the need for more constructive input from the Planning Board, and it may make sense to review the Master Plan for items that
need specific attention. Ms. Fein-Brug offered to look for highlights in the Master Plan and come up with an outline. Ms. Kramer noted she has reached out to Mark Hyman, Board of Appeals Chairman and current ZAC member, for input on this issue. 3. Continued Public Hearing – Bucklin St./Leonard St. – Wall Street Development Corp. – Stormwater Management Permit Application Mr. DeYoung moved to open the public hearing, Mr. D'Urso seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Ms. Kramer noted Louis Petrozzi, applicant, has requested a continuation to July 23, 2018. She noted the applicant expects the Board to agree to the continuation, but she wants him to understand that he needs to have a complete package for
review by July 9 in order to be guaranteed sufficient time for further discussion on July 23. Ms.
Fein-Brug noted that requiring complete application packages should be standard procedure. The Board discussed submission procedures and deadlines. Ms. Kramer clarified that according to staff and Town Counsel in this case specific items are missing, and BETA Group, the Board's consultant, will not start the review until the application is complete. Mr. Paul moved to
3
continue the public hearing to July 23, 2018 at 7:30 P.M., Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion,
and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Ms. Larson-Marlowe moved to extend the time to file the decision with the Town Clerk to August 10, 2018, Ms. Fein-Brug seconded the motion, and the Board voted 6 in favor, and 1 opposed (D'Urso). 4. Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC) – Continued Discussion The Board continued its discussion of proposed changes to the ZAC. Ms. Larson-Marlowe referred to aspects discussed earlier, such as the need for meeting year-round, voting vs. non-voting members, and terms. She noted she feels this is a committee for people trying to get involved and a limited commitment would be good from that perspective, suggesting perhaps 1 year for non-voters, and a longer commitment for voting members. She noted last year was her
first experience with the ZAC and she liked having a large group. She stated it is important to have a lot of different perspectives, and therefore recommends having at least 12 members and the only requirement should be being a resident because any other required credentials such as a legal, construction or planning background will put people off. Ms. Kramer stated she thought about making sure the ZAC has precinct representation across Town, and members should be
residents of the Town. She noted the Chamber of Commerce representative has not always been a resident, which is something to be contemplated. She noted she does not totally disagree with limiting associate terms, but resignation is always an option. She suggested Ms. Wilson reach out to the Town Manager and the Director of Land Use & Town Operations to see what their thoughts are on potentially expanding the ZAC meeting schedule to year-round.
5. Planning Board Appointments The Board reviewed the deadlines for appointments to other committees. It was noted the ZAC appointments have to be made by August 31, Design Review Board no later than July 31, the Open Space Preservation Committee spot is currently vacant therefore without an end date, and
the Center School Reuse Advisory Team terms are not very well defined. Mr. D'Urso noted he is the current Center School Reuse Committee Team liaison, with Ms. Ritterbusch as a backup, and he would prefer to switch roles. After further discussion, Mr. D'Urso moved to make the following appointments: Open Space Preservation Commission - Fran DeYoung; Community Preservation Committee - Gary Trendel; Design Review Board - Amy Ritterbusch, and Deborah
Fein-Brug as an alternate; Center School Reuse Advisory Team - Deborah Fein-Brug, with Frank D'Urso as an alternate. Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 6. Planning Board Meeting Procedures Mr. D’Urso asked if it would make sense starting all hearings at the same time, similar to what is being done by the Conservation Commission and the Board of Appeals, with the flexibility to move times around on the night of the hearing. Ms. Kramer stated it is something they could consider, but it could also complicate matters.
7. Planning Board Action Items/Master Plan Implementation Plan
Ms. Ritterbusch stated one of her action items was to help work on the website, and perhaps she can follow up with Ms. Wilson and the IT Director over the summer. Ms. Kramer encouraged the members to continue working on their action items, look at the status and evaluate priorities. She stated she has asked Mr. Hyman to look at the possibility of getting a consultant for a total
4
review of the Zoning Bylaw, which she believes is one of the Master Plan goals. Mr. Paul noted
his action item involved contacting the owners of large parcels to see if they are interested in donating land for open space, and Ms. Wilson stated the Open Space & Recreation Plan has a list of properties. Ms. Ritterbusch referred to the list of action items in the meeting packet, and noted there a few open assignments due to the departures of Mr. Nasrullah, Mr. Ferrari and Mr. Kistner. It was noted Ms. Fein-Brug has offered to go through the Master Plan in preparation for
the next ZAC session, and Ms. Fein-Brug suggested having a joint meeting to come up with a preliminary list to start the process. 8. Approval Not Required (ANR) Plan – Lots 7-11, Parcels 7A-11A Saddle Hill Rd. - Saddle Hill Realty LLC Ms. Wilson noted the plan is a continuation of the ANR previously endorsed by the Board and proposes the further subdivision of the site, creating lots 7 to 11 and unbuildable parcels 7A to 11A. She noted the frontage lots have adequate area and frontage. She explained this is similar to the previous plan, and the parcels in the back have been labeled non-buildable. After further discussion, Ms. Ritterbusch moved to endorse the plan as not requiring approval under the
Subdivision Control Law, Mr. D'Urso seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 9. Administrative Business – Minutes The Board reviewed the draft Minutes of May 14, 2018. Ms. Kramer made a change to the
language. Mr. Paul moved to approve the Minutes of May 14, 2018 as amended, Mr. D’Urso seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 10. Other Business – Training Opportunities Ms. Kramer stated she had asked Ms. Wilson to look into the possibility of on-site training
opportunities for Board members. Ms. Wilson asked how many members are familiar with the Citizens Planning Training Collaborative, and it was noted a few current and past Planning Board members recently attended some of their workshops. She stated the Citizens Planning Training Collaborative may also offer on-site workshops or perhaps they can coordinate with other towns and piggyback on that type of opportunity. She noted she will follow up with
planners in other towns. Ms. Wilson stated there are also short tutorial videos on ANR plans and subdivision applications. The Board took a 15 minute break.
11. Wilson St. - Drainage & Scenic Road Issues Roy MacDowell, Legacy Farms LLC, developer, appeared before the Board. Mr. Westerling, DPW Director, and Phil Paradis, BETA Group, joined the discussion. Ms. Kramer noted this is not a typical public hearing, rather a community effort to come up with an approach to correct ongoing drainage issues on Wilson St.
Mr. MacDowell stated he contacted Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB), the engineers who originally designed the plans for Legacy Farms North, and asked them to come out to look at the issues identified by BETA with respect to the detention pond and road construction. He noted the detention basin as currently designed is not working adequately, and he wants to fix this once
5
and for all. He noted VHB suggests increasing the size of the pond, redoing base materials and
adding check dams. He noted VHB is confident this will fix the problem, and has sent sketches to BETA for review but more information is needed. Mr. MacDowell presented some historical/technical information on the project, and noted there is a little disconnect because the original design was reviewed by the Town’s previous consultant. He noted he will not get into the technical details of the report tonight, and suggested setting up a meeting with BETA, Mr.
Westerling and VHB to review the proposed remedial action. He noted they also met with Mr. Westerling to look at catch basins and pavement issues in the street. Mr. Westerling stated he met with Mr. MacDowell on site, and identified a number of issues. He noted the catch basins are not full but some are blocked by leaves. He noted they will clean the
catch basins and make sure the outlets are clear, and then they will reevaluate conditions during the next storm. Ms. Kramer asked about addressing the grade, and Mr. Westerling noted this concerns an old roadway with formal drainage, however the pitch is not appropriate and he hopes that cleaning out the catch basins in combination with an improved detention pond design will improve the situation, because any additional major work would require more Chapter 90 or
town meeting funding. Mr. DeYoung asked for clarification as to the source of the problems. Mr. MacDowell stated he agrees with Mr. Westerling’s explanation although he would word it a little differently, noting the catch basins would function appropriately but the water does not even get close to them. Ms. Kramer stated it appears this is a road issue, and Mr. Westerling stated the pitch in the vicinity of the LNG facility is incorrect and in addition the surface is
rutted. He noted they will see what can be done short of reconstructing Wilson St. from the LNG plant to the Ashland town line. Ms. Fein-Brug asked if the appropriate conversation has been held with the LNG facility as to what will happen if there were to be a gas leak. She stated the gas in its liquid form would find
the lowest point, and she is wondering whether catch basins especially designed for chemical distribution have been considered to make sure a potential gas leak is contained. Mr. Westerling noted he will refer that issue to the Fire Chief. Ms. Kramer noted this issue is not necessarily related to the drainage problems on Wilson St., but it is a good question. Mr. D’Urso noted he feels this is more a Board of Selectmen’s issue, but it concerns stormwater going down the hill
and he is not sure whether Eversource’s responsibility in this matter has been addressed. Mr. Paradis noted they have identified several issues. He stated he thinks the information provided by VHB indicates an attempt to increase the size of the detention basin, however, BETA needs more information regarding the original design of the basin to make sure that an
increase will indeed solve the problem or whether they need some other solution. He noted cleaning out the catch basins and making sure the water gets to them probably won’t solve everything, but in combination with a larger detention basin it is likely to reduce the flow coming down to Wilson St.
Ms. Ritterbusch stated it sounds as if there is a chance that they will not be able to permanently
fix the problems before the winter, and Mr. Westerling stated that if that is the case they would have to wait until next town meeting to get funding for more major work. Mr. Westerling asked if there were water problems prior to the construction of Legacy Farms North. Ms. Kramer stated she does not know, and Mr. MacDowell stated he did see water and icy conditions before
6
and it has gotten worse. Mr. MacDowell noted he agrees with Mr. Westerling’s approach. It
was noted the DPW can start work on the catch basins within the next 10 days, and rebuilding the detention basin and adjusting the loam height along Legacy Farms North would take about 2 months from design through review and actual construction. Mr. D'Urso stated it appears there have been drainage problems before, further aggravated
because of tree cutting by Eversource and other unidentified parties, and certainly the construction of Legacy Farms North has changed the scenario on Wilson St. going north. He noted there were some scenic road violations and it appears they never got to the bottom of that. Mr. D’Urso stated this involves a Town project with a private contractor but he would like to determine to what extent Eversource is responsible because he has seen water coming from their
property flowing north. He noted if Eversource is found to be partially responsible and the Town has to reshape Wilson St., the Town should not have to pay for all of it. Mr. Westerling stated he would have to check to determine which trees were cut, and whether there was prior approval from the former Tree Warden. Ms. Kramer asked whether the responsible parties were ever identified, and Mr. Westerling noted he vaguely remembers there were a few smaller diameter
trees that were removed most likely by Verizon for installation of new utility poles. In response to a follow-up question of Mr. D’Urso, Mr. Westerling stated the DPW did not approve the tree cutting for the utility poles and was not involved with the other tree removal along Wilson St. near Kruger Rd. and the Department has no jurisdiction over scenic road trees.
Mr. DeYoung summarized the 3 components to be addressed in an effort to fix the drainage problems along Wilson St. He noted they probably won’t have a good read on the outcome until next spring, and Mr. MacDowell noted he is confident their approach will fix the north section but is not sure about the water going down the north side of Wilson St. which in his opinion will remain problematic because of the contour of the road. Ms. Kramer stated that particular area of
the road is especially dangerous if it freezes over. She asked whether the proposed expansion of the detention pond will further affect the scenic road, and Mr. MacDowell stated no. Kathleen Towner, 9 Kruger Rd., stated she has lived here since 1984 and there was never a drainage problem on Wilson St. until the construction of Legacy Farms North. She noted before
that there was a large number of trees on both sides of road, and acres of vegetated land that served to suck up the water. She stated according to the information provided by Mr. MacDowell tonight it is clear that the stormwater drainage design for Legacy Farms North in this location was inadequate to mitigate the effects of site work and road construction. She noted she asked for specifications and did not get an answer, and the report presented tonight does not
provide the required information. She noted Wilson St. itself was never the problem and there is no need to top the road, as it was the removal of all surrounding vegetation that caused the issues. She noted it is the developer’s responsibility to fix the problem on his property according to the regulations, and reconstruction of Wilson St. should not even be on the table. She stated Ms. Fein-Brug over a short amount of time has been researching the problem and came across a
problem with the catch basins in the vicinity of the LNG facility which are not designed to
contain a potential liquid gas leak and it is definitely not a good idea to build more of them. Ms. Kramer asked about the inability to locate the design and construction records, and Mr. Westerling stated he has reached out to VHB on this issue and hopefully all this is available electronically. Mr. Westerling noted he is glad to hear there were no prior issues on Wilson St.
7
Ms. Towner stated this is not just about the scenic road, and the developer is typically within his
right to remove trees but it was done without putting the necessary mitigation in place. She noted it is hard to believe that nobody appears to be able to produce any real design and inspection documents on the construction of Legacy Farms North. Mr. MacDowell noted he too will contact VHB to get the electronic records of all plans and specifications, and hopefully he will be able to pass the reports of the Board’s previous consultant on to BETA.
Chris Small, 5 Reservoir Rd., referred to the current condition of Legacy Farms North, and asked if water coming down the road would go into the swale once the final top coat is in place. Mr. MacDowell states yes, except in a few areas where the loam is a little too high which will be adjusted as part of the solution. Mr. Small stated it would result in more water going into an
existing swale which is already undersized. He noted in 2015 he approached Mr. Westerling after a series of trees were cut down along Wilson St. in front of where the detention area is currently located, and the only way to determine the right of way was by using the developer’s plans. He noted those drawings as well as the scenic road designation plan prepared by his wife prior to 2015 show the exact number and size/diameter of trees between Rafferty Rd. past Kruger
Rd. to the Ashland town line. He noted the Board has all this information readily available, and the underlying problem here is a lack of oversight on this entire project. He noted it is his opinion that this Board is responsible for protecting the Town’s interest and should have followed through on the option to get a Clerk of the Works. Mr. Westerling noted the Board had a full-time engineer out there during construction, and what they have here is a potential design
flaw. In response to a question of Ms. Kramer, Mr. Westerling noted he feels the approach described tonight is a good first step towards a solution. Ms. Ritterbusch stated Mr. MacDowell has offered 5 replacement trees, and they talked about the possibility of using money collected from scenic road fines. She asked if the Board should vote
on using those funds. Ms. Wilson stated it appears there is some confusion, and apparently fines go into the general fund while there is a tree gift account with about $1,000 from donations or payments in lieu of planting. The Board indicated it would like further clarification, and Ms. Wilson stated the Finance Dept. will track what happened with the fines collected from the Saddle Hill Road scenic violations for instance. Mr. D’Urso referred to the scenic road
designation plan for the section of Wilson St. in question, and recommended some research on which trees were taken down in order to determine an appropriate fine to be imposed on the responsible party, perhaps with the help from some volunteers. He noted it is good to hear that the DPW was not involved at all with the removal of the trees in question.
Reference was made to the potential redesign of the detention basin. Mr. DeYoung asked if there is any value in getting another set of eyes, and Mr. MacDowell stated he feels the revisions should be monitored by VHB as well as BETA, and he will be there too. Ms. Kramer stated they have identified water damage on Wilson St. which seems to have worsened since the construction of Legacy Farms North, resulting in safety issues especially in the winter. She
noted this needs to be resolved as soon as possible and she feels they are on the right path.
Mr. Paul stated he wants to focus on drainage but also would like to know Mr. MacDowell’s timeline with respect to his offer to plant replacement trees. Ms. Ritterbusch asked if the Mary Holman Trust Fund could be used to pay for replacement trees, and Ms. Kramer stated she
8
believes it is intended for planting trees on the Common and the cemeteries. Ms. Ritterbusch
checked on her computer and stated it appears the fund can be used to make the Town more attractive by planting shade trees along Main St. in the center of Town. Ms. Kramer stated she would like to determine what types of funds are available and she feels it is worth the effort to try and beautify Wilson St. if possible.
Mr. D’Urso moved to ask the acting Tree Warden to work with the abutters to identify the trees that may have been cut down in violation of the Scenic Road bylaw. Mr. Westering stated he is offering to work with Ms. Wilson to see what was submitted as part of the scenic road designation vote, and take it from there. Ms. Kramer stated Verizon was mentioned as a possible responsible party, and Mr. Westerling stated he believes that may have been the case for 3 or 4
trees south of the intersection next to utility poles. He noted the vegetation taken down north of the intersection, potentially in the right of way, consisted of trees and scrub brush, but it is adjacent to nursery land that had hundreds of trees absorbing water which now makes a mad rush for Legacy Farms North, the detention basin, and Wilson St. Ms. Kramer thanked Mr. Westerling for his willingness to work with Ms. Wilson, and indicated she will take him up on
this offer on behalf of the Board. Mr. D’Urso thanked Mr. Westerling and withdrew his motion. Mr. Paul asked about the proposed timing for the 5 replacement trees, and Mr. MacDowell stated mid-September may be a good time. He asked for guidance as to location and offered to space them appropriately in case the Board would like to do more. After further discussion, the Board scheduled a continued discussion of this matter for July 23, 2018 at 9:45 P.M.
Ms. Kramer provided additional information on the Mary Holman Trust Fund. She noted there is a little more than $3,000 in the fund to be used for the Common but perhaps they can ask the Trustees whether it can be used elsewhere. It was noted the Claflin Trust Fund is designated for work on the Common and Town parks.
9. Scenic Road Hearings - 6 Saddle Hill Rd. & 8 Saddle Hill Rd. – Saddle Hill Realty LLC David Anderson, Saddle Hill Realty LLC, applicant, appeared before the Board. Ms. Larson-Marlowe moved to open the public hearings, Ms. Fein-Brug seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Anderson described the scenic road proposals for 6 and 8
Saddle Hill Rd. He noted this concerns two single family homes under construction on Saddle Hill Rd., and the stone walls in those locations have to be disturbed in order to get power to the buildings. He noted they propose to temporarily remove 4 ft. sections of stone wall, and upon completion will restore the walls to existing condition. Mr. Paul referred to previous problems with this developer in terms of scenic road violations, and asked what is being done to put back
trees and provide screening in between homes. Mr. Anderson noted additional plantings will mostly be in the form of landscape trees, and it will be somewhat up to the individual homeowners. He explained some of the limitations in that respect are based on site work for individual detention areas, but things will start shaping up within a month or so. Mr. DeYoung stated anything they will be able to do will be appreciated. Mr. D’Urso stated he feels the
developer has done a good job coming back from the previous issues, and he has no problem
with granting approval for temporarily disturbing the stone walls for utilities. Mr. DeYoung asked about timing, and Mr. Anderson stated they plan to close on the homes in September, and will start the work as soon as they get approval in writing, estimating it will take 1 to 1.5 months to complete. Ms. Ritterbusch asked if work on the walls will be monitored, and Ms. Wilson
9
stated she is not sure if there is such a process in place but they have photos of existing
conditions. After further discussion, Mr. D’Urso moved to approve the scenic road applications to temporarily remove 4 ft. each of stone wall at 6 Saddle Hill Rd. and 8 Saddle Hill Rd., and Ms. Ritterbusch seconded the motion. Ms. Kramer read the criteria of approval, and it was determined the proposals are in compliance. Mr. D’Urso asked whether the previous fines were paid, and it was determined they were. The Board voted unanimously in favor. Ms. Larson-
Marlowe moved to closing the public hearings, Ms. Fein-Brug seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 10. Public Hearing – Joint Hearing with (Acting) Tree Warden – 84 Winter Street – John Cardillo Mr. D’Urso moved to open the public hearing, Ms. Larson-Marlowe seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Westerling, DPW Director and Acting Tree Warden, joined the discussion. John Cardillo, applicant, appeared before the Board. He noted he is requesting approval to widen his driveway from 10 ft. 6 in. to 14 ft. and referred to photos submitted with his application to explain current conditions. He noted he would like to remove
a couple of trees and rebuild a section of stone wall to the left of his driveway which was destroyed as part of work done in the past. He noted there are several trees proposed for removal along the road, and another one deeper into his property, and although perhaps not all of them need to be removed it would greatly improve sight line distance. He noted the main reason for widening his driveway is to provide safe access for emergency vehicles if needed. Mr.
Westerling noted based on his review only one of the trees tagged for removal is actually in the right of way and subject to the Scenic Road bylaw. In response to a question of Ms. Kramer, Mr. Westerling stated they typically use the stone walls to determine the right of way absent any other markers in the area. Mr. Westerling stated he recommends that the Board allow the trees to be cut for safety reasons, but is somewhat concerned about the wall being rebuilt in the
appropriate location. Mr. Cardillo stated he will rebuild the wall in the same location in line with the existing wall with the same look and feel. Ms. Kramer asked for input from the Fire Chief. Steve Slaman, Fire Chief, stated this is an existing driveway and he is not sure it is subject to the new driveway bylaw, but they have a template the homeowner could use to check the radius and he is willing to offer his apparatus to test conditions on the ground to see if the opening is wide
enough. Ms. Kramer suggested that Mr. Cardollo take the Fire Chief up on his offer, and Chief Slaman stated it appears Mr. Cardillo may have a challenge. Mr. D’Urso asked if the Board should wait for the results from the Fire Chief, before voting on this application, and Ms. Kramer stated she does not believe so. Mr. D’Urso moved to approve
the scenic road application for 84 Winter St., retaining the black cherry tree on the right closest to the street. Mr. Cardillo stated that is the tree he really would like to take down but he is willing to keep the tree on the left near the mailbox. After further discussion Mr. D’Urso changed the wording and moved to approve the application with the understanding that the tree closest to the mailbox will be retained, and Mr. Paul seconded the motion. Ms. Kramer reviewed
the criteria of approval for compliance. Ms. Ritterbusch suggested a condition requiring the
stone wall to be rebuilt in the exact location, and Mr. Cardillo noted it will match the existing wall as closely as possible with respect to location and structure. Mr. Westerling stated the wall has to be rebuilt in the same location but the stones have been dispersed, but he is not going to ask for a surveyed plan. Mr. Paul asked if it is possible to come to some agreement in
10
cooperation with the homeowner and the contractor, and Mr. Westerling stated no because that
would mean he would be determining the property line. After further discussion, it was decided to use the other side of the driveway to determine the right of way, and Mr. Westerling offered to help Mr. Cardillo with this after the meeting. Mr. Paul referred to the Fire Dept.’s standards for driveway width, and noted he would like the applicant to come back to the Board if the driveway is widened further than proposed. Ms. Kramer stated she feels it is reasonable to ask the
applicant to come back to the Board if the driveway is further widened for instance to 18 ft. She noted the Board is approving a plan to widen the driveway to 14 ft., giving the applicant the opportunity to make sure this is adequate for safety purposes, and Board members agreed. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion.
Mr. D’Urso moved to close the public hearing, Ms. Larson-Marlowe seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Paul moved to adjourn the meeting, Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Adjourned: 10:05 P.M. Submitted by: Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
Approved: ___________
11
Documents used at the Meeting:
Agenda for Hopkinton Planning Board for June 25, 2018
Memorandum from Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner, to Planning Board, dated June 21, 2018, re: Items on
June 25, 2018 Planning Board Agenda
Approval Not Required Plan for “Tall Pine Estates”, Lots 7-11 and Parcels 7A to 11A, dated June 19, 2018, prepared by WDA Design Group
Plan/Details for Bioretention Basin & Regrading for Legacy Farms North, Hopkinton, Massachusetts, sheet 1 of 1, dated June 2018, prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB), including drainage calculations; email from Phil Paradis, BETA Corp., Inc., to Georgia Wilson, dated June 21, 2018, RE: Legacy Farms Basin Modifications
Scenic Road Application for 6 Saddle Hill Road, including photos and plan entitled 6 Saddle Hill Rd., received May 25, 2018
Scenic Road Application for 8 Saddle Hill Road, including photos and plan received May 25, 2018
Scenic Road Application for 84 Winter Street, including plan entitled “As Built Sewage Disposal Plan”, dated
September 30, 2003, prepared by Guerard Survey & Assoc., marked up and received June 4, 2018
Draft Planning Board minutes for May 14, 2018
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
Monday, July 9, 2018 7:30 P.M. HCAM-TV Studio, 77 Main St./Lower Level, Hopkinton, MA
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Muriel Kramer, Chairwoman, Fran DeYoung, Vice-Chairman, David
Paul, Amy Ritterbusch, Mary Larson-Marlowe, Deborah Fein-Brug, Gary Trendel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Frank D’Urso
Present: Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner, Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant Ms. Kramer opened the meeting.
1. Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC) - Discussion The Board discussed the structure of the ZAC in preparation of a more formal discussion scheduled for July 23. Mr. Trendel noted he missed the previous meeting when the Board discussed this issue but he served on the ZAC last year for the first time and agrees with a lot of
the comments made. He noted to him the ZAC is the "planning arm" of the Planning Board and
he believes that are some things that might be improved. He noted he appreciates the desire for a diverse set of perspectives but feels membership should be limited to 9 people to make it more efficient and maximize output. He noted he likes the idea of having some non-voting members as a way for people to get some experience, and feels members should be Hopkinton residents.
He noted he too feels meetings should be year-round, perhaps less frequent in the off-season, so
that people can be proactive and won't feel rushed. Mark Hyman, Chairman, Board of Appeals, joined the discussion. He noted he agrees last year's group with 20 members was too large. He stated he likes the idea of including non-voting
members and keeping the number of voting members low to avoid quorum problems. He stated
he believes between 7 and 11 members would be reasonable, and perhaps they should consider the ability of members to resign if they don't want to continue, or the possibility of dropping them from the quorum. Ms. Ritterbusch stated membership was 9 in 2016, 13 in 2105 and 10 in 2014. Ms. Kramer noted it typically was in the 7 to 9 or 9 to 11 range, but last year they had
more applicants than ever before, and the Board did not have time to come up with applicant
criteria or some type of selection process. Mr. Hyman stated a little more professional input from potential members would be appropriate especially if the ZAC becomes a year-round committee and takes on a larger role for instance in doing a more comprehensive review of the zoning bylaws. Ms. Ritterbusch asked if the Board as the entity that creates the ZAC can set a
rule to automatically remove a member from the committee after missing 3 meetings. Ms.
Kramer stated they can definitely talk about it, but as far as she is concerned they should reach out first and find out what is going on. Mr. DeYoung noted often joining the ZAC is someone's first volunteering experience, and defining tasks and expectations up front may help identify applicants with the experience or willingness to serve either as full or associate members. He
noted in his opinion a year-round committee may have a better opportunity to be involved with a
total review of the Zoning Bylaw and look at issues that have lingered from year to year, such as lighting and signage. Ms. Kramer noted she believes a comprehensive review of the Zoning
Bylaw is one of the action items in the most recent Master Plan update, and she would like to
check on that. She invited Mr. Hyman to attend the ZAC discussion scheduled for July 23, and it was decided to also invite representatives of the Board of Selectmen, Conservation Commission, Chamber of Commerce, John Ferrari as the former ZAC chairman, and well as last year's members. Ms. Kramer summarized potential topics for the July 23 discussion, including group size, terms, appointment criteria, increased Planning Board involvement, and potential ZAC
work items. Ms. Larson-Marlowe suggested adding training for new ZAC members. Ms. Fein-Brug stated they really need a job definition, or at least a rough outline of what the ZAC is trying to achieve, and she really likes the idea of alternate, perhaps non-voting members, offering some flexibility for people to decide whether they want to participate in a particular issue scheduled for that night. Mr. Trendel stated he is not in favor of that type of limited commitment, and if
people want to pick and choose it would be better for them to participate as a member of the public. Ms. Ritterbusch stated the application could include the option to join as a full or associate member or either. Ms. Kramer cautioned the members not to expect a big change in functionality right away this year, but hopefully efficiency will improve in the long run. Ms. Kramer stated she would envision topics that carry forward to next year, and Ms. Fein-Brug
stated discussions could include the definition of commercial/residential dark sky community, fascinating concepts that could take a couple of years to figure out.
2. Continued Public Hearing - 17, 0, 0 Wilson St., 0 Cedar St. - Commercial Photovoltaic
Solar Facility - Special Permit and Stormwater Management Permit Applications - TJA
Solar Mr. DeYoung moved to open the public hearing and continue when the applicant arrives, Ms. Fein-Brug seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
3. Administrative Business The Board discussed the possibility of an alternative meeting location starting with the 2nd meeting in August, potentially returning to the Town Hall. The Board discussed the schedule for July 23, relative to the site plan application for 84 to 92 West Main St. which has to be continued because they do not have enough voting members tonight, and the continued public hearing on the stormwater management permit application for Bucklin St. which may or may not be
sufficiently complete to warrant a full time slot. Ms. Kramer noted it has been suggested to follow the example of other boards and committees scheduling all hearings at the same time, she feels the Board should utilize that approach with some discretion as it may be convenient for the Board but costly for applicants when their paid consultants have to wait an entire night.
4. Continued Public Hearing - 17, 0, 0 Wilson St., 0 Cedar St. - Commercial Photovoltaic
Solar Facility - Special Permit and Stormwater Management Permit Applications - TJA
Solar Chris King, Atlantic Design Engineers (ADE), engineer, appeared before the Board on behalf of TJA Solar, applicant. Mr. King noted he has handouts, including plans, a response letter, and
information on the Upper Charles Trail (UCT) master plan. Ms. Kramer noted the plans were
revised just today, and she reminded the applicant of the Board's submission deadline for additional documentation, and stated that they will listen but will not be able to make a decision tonight. Mr. King noted he understands, but the intent is to provide an update of the changes
made. He noted BETA, the Board's consultant, has not seen the revised plans but he has talked
to Mr. Paradis, and Atlantic Design's letter describes the changes.
Mr. King referred to the issue of sight line distance on Wilson St. He stated as noted in ADL's response letter, Wilson St. is a scenic road and they are trying to utilize an existing cart path for access which does not require tree or stone wall removal. He noted Wilson St. does not have a
posted speed limit, typically used to determine the required sight line distance, but, although
there is some level of interpretation, the ultimate goal is to create safe conditions. He stated when exiting the Wilson St. driveway, the sight line to the north is impeded by existing trees and vegetation which they do not want to disturb. He stated they feel they have addressed safety with a note on the plan indicating a police detail during construction to ensure vehicle and
pedestrian safety, and they are amenable to having this as a condition of approval as well. He
noted after construction, vehicular traffic will be very infrequent, just for maintenance and inspection purposes and much less frequent than a single family residential use, and it is assumed that experienced drivers will use caution when exiting.
Mr. King noted another outstanding issue is screening, and basically BETA indicates it is up to the Board to determine whether the proposal is satisfactory in that respect. He noted they met
with the abutters on site viewing the proposed arrays from their properties, and he believes they
have come up with a sound program providing mature plantings for immediate screening 3 to 4 months after construction is finished. He noted the applicant has agreed to come back during the non-foliage seasons to determine if additional plantings are required to adequately screen the
project from the neighbors, particularly the abutters at 15 and 21 Wilson St., and the proposed
plantings are on the plan. He noted they will also try to do a forest restoration for lower to mid level canopies or try to block the view from Wilson St. itself to preserve the integrity of the scenic road. Mr. DeYoung asked if the abutters are amenable to this approach.
Tom Shambo, 15 Wilson St., noted they spent 1 to 1-1/2 hour with the proponents on site. He stated there was some good conversation with a number of ideas, but he cannot say whether the
screening is satisfactory because until he saw the plan tonight he did not know the details. Ed Cutter, 21 Wilson St., noted he is not satisfied because there was no specificity. Mr. Cutter stated he had not seen any new plans until tonight and it appears the plans always seem to come in within the last hour. Matt Zettek, 16 Wilson St., stated he did not attend the meeting with the developer, and although it sounds as if there was some good initial conversation, he does not
think it is appropriate to comment now because of outstanding issues, such as the infrastructure on the Wilson St. side, and the exact location of the panels. He noted he is looking forward to comment on the proposal when the screening details are worked out.
Mr. Trendel asked for more details regarding additional screening. Mr. King noted they have some specific character planting details on the plans, but currently the majority of the plantings is
located within the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission and therefore his wetlands professional is preparing a more detailed plan that caters to these specific needs. He noted it is difficult to provide additional details until they start clearing and identify the potential gaps.
Ms. Fein-Brug noted her big concern is the difference of elevations, with the homes on Wilson St. up high and the solar project down below, and screening will be a challenge. Mr. King stated
they looked at the site from Susan Hanewich's property at 14 Wilson St., and it appears that any necessary screening would have to be done on her property and the applicant is amenable. He
stated it was thought at the time that leaving 75 ft. along Wilson St. with forest in front of her
home would provide plenty of screening, and Ms. Fein-Brug noted that may not be the case in the winter. Mr. Trendel referred to the construction of the new Marathon School, and noted in that case the Town set aside money for additional screening and worked with the abutters. He noted he thinks that worked reasonably well, and he asked if the applicant would be willing to do something similar to make sure that fall/winter screening is achieved with input from and to the
satisfaction of the abutters. Mr. King stated he cannot speak for his client and will bring this to his attention but based on prior conversations he is pretty sure he would be agreeable to creating some type of flex fund.
Mr. King referred to BETA's comments regarding the stormwater management design. He noted
they have slightly revised the detention basins and in working with BETA were able to eliminate
2 of the ponds pulling the limit of work away from the wetlands. He noted they have also changed the outlet structures within each basin to prevent the pipes from clogging, and based on comments received from the Conservation Commission, they will install a series of French drains to pick up groundwater discharge and redirect it into their stormwater system, to protect the integrity of the access driveway and the adjacent Shambo property. Mr. DeYoung asked who
will be responsible for monitoring the detention basin outlet pipe, and Mr. King stated during construction it will be the site contractor as outlined in the SWPPP, and once the facility becomes operational it will be the owner's responsibility. He noted there will be a long term Operation & Maintenance (O&M) plan with best management practices for maintenance and inspections included as details on the plans. Mr. DeYoung asked about the Town's recourse in
case of long term implications downstream as a result of a malfunction, and Mr. King noted some towns require weekly inspections and reports as a condition of approval. At the request of Ms. Fein-Brug, Mr. King referred to the plans and provided additional details regarding the proposed French drains along the side of the road. Ms. Fein-Brug noted she finds it hard to understand how the detail sections relate to the overall plans, and Mr. King noted they will try to
make it easier to navigate.
Mr. King referred to the BETA comments, and noted some of their comments may be addressed through conditions of approval, and the applicant has no objection. Ms. Kramer asked about the status of the Conservation Commission process, and Mr. King noted the next meeting is on July
17. Mr. King stated the delineation has now been finalized and the Commission had some minor
comments with respect to the wildlife evaluation study. Mr. Paul asked Mr. Paradis to comment on the requirement for underground utilities, and Mr. Paradis noted some of them are above ground, which is typical, but the majority are below, similar to the solar project recently approved on Lumber St. The Board noted in this case there are additional above-ground utility
connections between the Cedar St. and Wilson St. array sections, and Mr. King stated this is due
to topography, the amount of ledge in the area, and the proximity to the Tennessee Gas pipe line.
Mr. Paradis noted he appreciates the Board's emphasis on getting additional information ahead of time. Mr. King apologized for the last minute submittal, but one of BETA's comments was related to making sure that both Cedar St. and Wilson St. have adequate turning radii. Mr. King noted they worked with the Fire Dept. on this issue, and the turnarounds on the site have now
been adjusted for an SU30 vehicle. Steven Slaman, Fire Chief, noted he has not seen the plans
but has given the applicant guidance on what he feels is a first good step. He noted he has been evaluating each solar project on a case-by-case basis, and stills needs more information.
At the request of Mr. Paul, Mr. King provided additional details on the utility interconnections.
Mr. Trendel asked about the benefit of connecting on Wilson St. vs. Cedar St. Mr. King stated typically these decisions are made by the utility company based on an impact development study. He noted he was not directly involved during that phase of the project and he is not sure why Wilson St. was identified as the point for interconnection, but factors usually include existing infrastructure and the proximity to wetlands, and it has a lot to do with other projects in the
pipeline. Ms. Kramer stated it appears the utility company is driving the preferred connection, but based on existing conditions and abutter feedback she would like to find out from the utility company through the applicant what it would take to change. Mr. King stated he understands TJA Solar has reached out to Eversource in recent days, and he is willing to follow up on this issue. Ms. Kramer noted she has seen the email thread on this issue, and understands the current
connection is preferred by Eversource but not necessarily by anyone else for a variety of reasons. Mr. King noted that in the event the project is stuck with a Wilson St. interconnection, there are things they can do to reduce the impact from an aesthetical standpoint, such as installing some of the equipment underground and providing supplemental screening. Mr. Paul noted it appears from the email exchange that changing the location now would result in significant delays, and
Ms. Kramer stated yes, but she would still like to find out if a change is possible. Mr. King stated in the meantime he will check if it is at least possible to install the last portion of the run underground across the street with minor disruption.
Reference was made to a possible UCT connection through the site. It was noted Jane Moran, Chair, Upper Charles Trail Committee (UCTC), sent out documentation showing the UTC
Master Plan alternatives for connecting the northeast to the southwest portion of Town. Mr. King stated he has not had a chance to follow up with Ms. Moran formally, but the topography, amount of ledge, and wetlands completely bisecting the property, would make it impossible to have a bike path in that area. He noted TJA Solar is only going to be leasing a small area limited by a fence line within the 34-acre parcel, and from a logistics standpoint he does not think this
parcel is the right way to connect Wilson St. and Cedar St.
Jane Moran, 70 East Main St., Chair, UCTC, noted the Board of Selectmen has asked the UCTC to provide several options for increased continuity of trails throughout the Town, and this alternative would create a connection from the Center Trail around St. John's cemetery via the
recently purchased Fecteau property to Wilson St. She stated she realizes TJA Solar is only
leasing a portion of the site, but she would like to know if the property owner would consider giving the Town a 25 ft. easement, around the perimeter so as not to impede further development. She noted the Town would then follow up with funding and permitting for boardwalks etc. through the wetlands. Mr. Trendel noted that based on topography there may be
some way to get a trail through the property but certainly not within 25 ft. of the property edge.
Mr. King stated this site has too many challenges, and from his experience building boardwalks through the wetlands will be just about impossible due to the proximity to the gas pipe line. The Board suspended the discussion pending the opening and continuation of the public hearing regarding the minor site plan review application for 84 to 92 West Main St.
5. Continued Public Hearing - Minor Site Plan Review Application - 84, 86, 88, 92 West
Main St. - Global Companies
It was noted that the Board does not have enough eligible members tonight to vote on this application. After further discussion, Mr. Paul moved to continue the public hearing to July 23,
2018 at 7:35 P.M., Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in
favor. Mr. Paul moved to extend the deadline for filing the decision with the Town Clerk to July 30, 2018, Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
6. Continued Public Hearing - 17, 0, 0 Wilson St., 0 Cedar St. - Commercial Photovoltaic
Solar Facility - Special Permit and Stormwater Management Permit Applications - TJA
Solar Chad Klazna, 10 Wilson St., stated he just moved here in January of this year, did not receive notification regarding this project, and is now seeing the plans for the first time. He noted the point was raised earlier that the houses on the other side of Wilson St. are up a little higher, and it appears that the eastern most panels will be quite visible from his second floor, especially during
the fall and winter. Mr. Shambo stated he is in favor of solar energy and has installed panels on his roof, but he wants to make sure this is the right thing for him and the Town. He noted he agrees there is a problem with new/revised plans being submitted last minute, and it is frustrating to come to a
meeting prepared one way and then find that things have changed. He appreciates the discussion about the option to have the electrical connection on Cedar St. vs. Wilson St., on industrially vs. residentially zoned property. He noted he understands that all connections within the solar arrays need to be underground but now sees utility poles and overhead connections between the southern and northern arrays, and perhaps this could be allowed in return for changing the utility
interconnection to Cedar St. He noted 95% of his property is located in the Agricultural zoning district, with a small portion in Residence A which apparently only requires a 25 ft. buffer zone between his property and a commercial use. He referred to the Town's zoning bylaw section 210-117.1 which states that lots in split zones are considered to be located in the most restrictive zone with respect to certain dimensional requirements and asked that this rule be applied in his
case. He stated that when he decided to install solar panels on his roof, the solar company came out with apparatus and did all kinds of research, and asked whether this has been done here. Mr. Shambo stated he appreciates the conversation they had with the proponents and it appears they are willing to address fall/winter screening but he would like see a landscape plan first to determine whether it will be adequate. He noted he is a little concerned about snow removal.
Mr. Cutter stated he has lived on Wilson St. since 2000. He stated using Wilson St. for the electrical interconnection will be extremely disruptive and detrimental to the neighborhood. He noted Cedar St. makes a lot of more sense in that respect, and although Tim Vautour, TJA Solar, indicated that the utility company had made the decision, Mr. Vautour informed the neighbors later that he was asking Eversource to reconsider making it sound as if it was not impossible
after all to change the location. He noted he does not know what the Town or the Planning Board can do about this, and it might cost the applicant a few more dollars, but this concerns the impact on the abutters and that should weigh heavily, and as far as causing additional delays is concerned, there have been delays already for other reasons, including significant discrepancies with respect to the wetlands delineation. He noted Cedar St. would be an ideal place, especially
considering this is property rezoned Industrial without objections from the abutters.
Chief Slaman stated it appears the access roads will have permeable surface, and he asked the applicant, BETA or the engineer to demonstrate whether it can support the Department's emergency vehicles.
Mr. Paul asked for clarification regarding Mr. Shambo's comment regarding buffer requirements
for non-residential uses from properties in more than one zoning district. Ms. Wilson noted she will check her notes, but according to the Zoning Bylaw they have to use the buffer required for a specific district, in other words 75 ft. against property in the Agricultural district and 25 ft. in the Residence A district. Mr. King noted he does not know the answer, but they will provide a 75 ft. buffer if possible or address deficiencies through additional screening. He noted there is
mention of a number of panels within the 75 to 100 ft. buffer zone, but that is strictly a Conservation Commission issue. He noted in response to one of Mr. Shambo's questions, they can do actual shading studies, but typically they build these types of facilities on already cleared property, and at this point they can only do their best guess. He noted with respect to the differences in wetlands delineation, it was pretty much straightforward for the majority of the
site but there were some transition areas with shallow sloped wetlands and plant communities subject to interpretation. He noted snow removal should not be a problem, but there is not a lot of room for snow storage without impacting the panels, and if necessary it will then become a snow disposal operation. He noted with respect to the ultimate location of the electrical interconnection, Cedar St. in an Industrial district would be a better choice, but if not possible, an
additional pole along Wilson St. with some underground cabinets and additional screening should not be too objectionable. He noted the access road on Wilson St. will have a farm gate with the actual chain-link fence around the facility far away from Wilson St. Ms. Kramer asked if a scenic road hearing will be required, and Ms. Wilson noted the applicant knows he has to submit an application, but she will confirm whether a scenic road permit is required prior to the
issuance of the solar special permit. Mr. Paul asked for a determination regarding possible
waivers with respect to the required buffers for nonresidential uses prior to the next meeting.
Mr. DeYoung moved to extend the time to file the decision on the stormwater management permit to September 6, 2018, Mr. Paul seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Paul moved to continue the public hearings to August 27, 2018 at 8:45 P.M.
contingent on having the required additional documentation in place during the week of August 21, 2018, to warrant a full time slot, Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
7. Public Hearing - Major Project Site Plan - 90 Hayden Rowe - Town of Hopkinton
School Department Ms. Larson-Marlowe moved to open the public hearing, Ms. Fein-Brug seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Susan Rothermich, Director of Finance & Operations, and Tim Persson, Director of Buildings and Grounds, Hopkinton Public Schools, and Bill Mertz, WorldTech Engineering engineer, appeared before the Board. Mr. Mertz stated the
School Dept. proposes to convert Field 9 to a bus parking lot. He provided background on the
proposal, and stated they are working with the School Dept. to improve internal circulation within the school campus. He noted as Board members know, the current bus and parent/student drop-off area is currently in front of the High School, which causes conflicts and safety issues because of queues extending onto Hayden Rowe. He noted they are about to start the improvements to Hayden Rowe working with the DPW, and the driveway to the school campus
will be widened to 2 lanes approaching the main road. He noted they propose to use the existing loop road for parent/student drop-off, and feel that using Field 9 for the bus parking lot seems to make the most sense. He stated they need 30 bus spaces and will provide 33, as well as 35 spots for the drivers. Mr. Mertz explained the exact location, described existing conditions, and noted
they plan to raise the area 1 ft. or so, and install gravel base for the roadway. He noted the
design will be very simple with a rectangle lot and some channelization through landscaped traffic islands, and a new walkway. He described the traffic navigation and circulation pattern on a daily basis. He noted another benefit of a bus parking lot on the school property would be $50,000 in excise taxes, and a reduction in the School Dept.'s contract with the bus company by having buses closer to the school representing an annual savings of $100,000. He noted they
also had to file with the Conservation Commission and that process is ongoing. He noted there are some stormwater issues, basically related to sheet flow through a stone-lined swale going into an existing detention basin, and they are modeling the design to make sure there are no adverse impact downstream. Mr. DeYoung asked for clarification, and Mr. Mertz noted parking for the drivers will be around the perimeter of the lot, and those spaces are specifically intended
for them. He noted 2 handicapped spaces were added to the layout since it was originally submitted. Ms. Ritterbusch asked about the potential for expansion in case more bus routes are added, and Ms. Rothermich noted they currently have 28 buses and the lot will accommodate 33 in total. Mr. Mertz described the lighting plan, consisting of 4 poles, each on one corner, 1 more compared to the original proposal, for security reasons particularly at night. He noted he knows
the Board would prefer 15 ft. poles, but they are proposing 25 ft. consistent with the rest of the campus. He stated it will be a dark sky concept with cutoff fixtures, pretty much screened by the building and woods. Mr. Paul noted the Design Review Board had concerns about all night lighting, and asked if the applicant has had a chance to check on the possibility of using motion-activated features. Mr. Mertz stated he does not think there is motion-activated lighting on the
rest of the campus, and Ms. Kramer stated that does not matter because this would be a big beam of light and there are residences nearby. Ms. Rothermich stated the Police Chief prefers the lights to be on all night, and Ms. Kramer stated she would like to hear from the Police Chief on this issue.
Ms. Kramer asked about refueling procedures. Ms. Rothermich stated this is done in a variety of ways, and they also have a refueling truck that comes around. Mr. Mertz stated having a local bus parking lot will result in fewer trips through the neighborhood, and less emissions. Ms. Kramer asked if refueling on site would be a concern in this case, and Ms. Rothermich noted there are MassDOT regulations and Hazmat certification requirements for this type of activity
with a number of precautionary measures to follow. Ms. Wilson noted she believes this will be covered under the stormwater design aspect of the proposal especially in view of the site's proximity to wetlands. It was noted that Mr. Trendel is an abutter to the site. Mr. Trendel stepped off the Board at this
time. Ms. Fein-Brug stated she has a feeling this is a very tight spot for the proposed number of buses and asked whether all turning radii have been vetted. Chief Slaman noted the Fire Dept. did not evaluate the access road, but they can take a look at it. Ms. Fein-Brug noted this will put a lot of
traffic on a small piece of land with a lot of backing up to get the buses in there. Mr. Mertz
stated the layout seems to work based on the templates they used but they will look at it again to make sure. Board members expressed concerns with respect to safety, and Mr. Mertz stated he feels it will work fine. Ms. Wilson clarified the Board will have 90 days from the close of the hearing to make a decision and there is no need to extend the deadline. She noted she has no
other comments. She stated reference was already made to the Design Review Board's concerns
regarding all-night lighting, and Mr. Paradis will address the stormwater issues which are a main concern. In response to a question of the Board, Mr. Persson noted the School Dept. would like to start work before the start of school and it will take 1 month to 6 weeks to complete.
Mr. Paradis noted several of BETA's comments have been addressed. He stated he expects
turning radii will be addressed satisfactorily. He noted the applicant has added 2 handicapped
spaces as recommended but has been asked to make sure these are ADA compliant with respect to the grade. He noted there are some stormwater issues, and he has some concerns with respect to refueling on site which would require additional bmp's to capture potential fuel spills. He noted BETA wants to make sure that the existing swale can handle the runoff, but they need
more information on the swale itself and the detention basin to make sure they will work together
hydrologically. He noted there were no utilities other than lighting and BETA recommended a 4th pole to make it more uniform but obviously the pole height is subject to the Board's interpretation. Mr. Paradis noted there is a landscaping component that was not addressed, and although the site is not immediately next to residences BETA is asking whether the Board wants the applicant to comply in this respect. He noted wetlands issues are being reviewed by the
Conservation Commission. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked whether this proposal will impact the
new trails that have been added in this area, and Mr. Mertz stated no.
Gary Trendel, 31 Chamberlain St., speaking strictly as a resident, asked if town meeting voted just to fund the feasibility study or the entire project. Ms. Rothermich noted the feasibility study
was paid for through this year's operation budget, so the vote at town meeting was for actual
construction. Mr. Trendel asked about the impact of the loss of this field on the athletic programs, and Ms. Rothermich noted this field was not used often so there is no impact. Mr. Trendel stated there will always be vehicles in this lot, and he asked if they will still be able to use this area for tents during the Marathon, in an effort to preserve other fields used for that
purpose. Ms. Rothermich noted there was a lot of damage last because of the severe weather,
and at the post-Marathon meeting they talked about possible solutions. It was noted at the time that this particular field would become a parking lot, and the Committee knows that continuing to use this are for staging will be challenging. Mr. Trendel asked if there is any consideration of security cameras as an option opposed to lighting, and Ms. Rothermich noted they will evaluate
what the camera funding approved at town meeting can accomplish throughout the campus.
Martin Bayes, 106 Hayden Rowe, commented on the proposal. He noted the site is very tight, and he is concerned about snow plowing. He noted he hopes the Board is open to allowing this parking lot to be different from the rest of the campus and will ask the applicant to reduce the height of the light poles. Ms. Rothermich stated the Town plows the parking lots, and snow is not stored on campus. Mr. DeYoung asked if the bus lot and surrounding area will be salted
during snowing conditions, and Ms. Rothermich stated yes. Mr. DeYoung noted this will mean
salt, oil and other fluids ending up in the detention basin and beyond and asked whether this is something to be considered in the broader analysis. Mr. Mertz noted there is a stone-lined swale but currently an oil/water separator is not proposed, and he expects this issue to be brought up by the Conservation Commission.
Chief Slaman noted he has no further comments at this time.
Mr. Paul stated he feels the proposed design does not pass the eye test in terms of functionality,
and he asked whether there is a backup plan. Ms. Kramer noted the math has been done and it works. Ms. Fein-Brug stated now that she understands the proposed design, it is really tight in there, and she is also concerned about the environmental impact on the area. Ms. Kramer stated she trusts the Conservation Commission on this. Mr. Mertz stated BETA raised concerns about turning radii and he ran autoturn tests to make sure it will work. He distributes copies of the
autoturn plan to explain the internal navigation based on the design. Further discussion followed, and Mr. Mertz noted they will have to work with the bus company. Mr. DeYoung asked if Mr. Paradis is ok with that, and Mr. Paradis stated yes.
Mr. Bayes stated he is interested in what will happen in the winter with respect to snow removal,
and what will be done to clear the spaces while the buses are out on their routes. Ms. Kramer
noted she believes the DPW prioritizes the schools. Mr. Bayes stated he is concerned about timing and piles of snow left behind. Ms. Kramer stated she believes this is a normal challenge and she will leave this in the capable hands of the DPW and the School Dept. Mr. Trendel stated he realizes this is a common problem but he does not know how many schools have buses and drivers parking in the same lot. Mr. Persson noted they will work with the DPW, but if there is a
significant amount of snow there will be no school anyway and they would not have to deal with
the drivers spaces.
It was noted the project would need waivers for the pole height requirement as well as landscaping. Ms. Wilson referred to the letter from WorldTech requesting a waiver from the
landscape requirement, and Mr. Mertz stated in this case they are starting with a wide open,
cleared site, and there are money constraints. Ms. Ritterbusch noted they talked about this at the Design Review Board, and the site will be visible from the cafeteria. She asked if they could add some plantings between the building and the lot, perhaps funded through donations. Ms. Rothermich noted there are some trees in that area, and Ms. Ritterbusch stated she will take
another look. Mr. DeYoung stated he is familiar with this area and he feels it would benefit from
some additional landscaping so that people would not be looking at the backs of the buses. Ms. Kramer stated she understands the financial issue but it is worth thinking about, and the Board understands the School Dept. is requesting a waiver. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked if there is any other reason to keep the poles at 25 ft. other than consistency throughout the campus. Mr. Mertz
stated that lowering the fixtures would make it necessary to increase the number of poles to
avoid dark spots which in turn may preclude the number of spaces they need. The Board asked whether he is sure about that and how many more poles would be needed, and Mr. Mertz stated he will check. Ms. Fein-Brug stated there are different types of lighting and maybe they could use bollards to light the area nicely and calmly.
It was noted the Board will start early on July 23 to accommodate the meeting schedule. Mr.
Paul moved to continue the public hearing to July 23, 2018 at 7:00 P.M., Ms. Ritterbusch
seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Mr. Trendel returned to the Board.
It was noted the Board will talk about Design Review Board appointments at a future meeting. Ms. Kramer noted the joint interviews with the Board of Selectmen to fill the vacancy on the
Planning Board have been scheduled for tomorrow, July 10. Mr. Trendel noted he will not be
able to attend.
Administrative Business
Minutes. The Board reviewed the draft Minutes of June 11, 2018. Ms. Fein- Brug asked to amend the Minutes by including additional conversation with respect to lighting issues regarding the 84-92 West Main St. minor site plan application. Ms. Larson-Marlowe moved to approve the Minutes to be amended as discussed tonight prior to filing with the Town Clerk, Mr. DeYoung
seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Mr. Paul moved to adjourn the meeting, Mr. Trendel seconded the motion, and the Board voted
unanimously in favor.
Adjourned: 10:35 P.M. Submitted by: Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
Approved: ________________
Documents used at the meeting:
Agenda for the July 9, 2018 Hopkinton Planning Board meeting
Memorandum from Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner, to the Planning Board, dated July 5, 2018 re Items on July 11 (9), 2018 Planning Board Agenda
Site Plan Review Public Hearing Outline, 90 Hayden Rowe, Public Hearing Date: July 9, 2018; Site Plan entitled “Town of Hopkinton, Hopkinton Public Schools, Bus Parking Lot at Hopkinton High School”, dated July 2018, prepared by WorldTech Engineering, for use at July 9, 2018 meeting; Letter from Philip Paradis and Jill Bokoff, BETA Group, Inc., to Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner, dated July 5, 2018, re: Hopkinton High School Bus Parking Lot Peer Review; Response dated July 9, 2018 (from WorldTech Engineering) to Comments Letter from BETA Group, Inc. to Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner of the Hopkinton Land Use, Planning and Permitting Department Dated July 5, 2018
Public Hearing Outline Solar Special Permit/Stormwater Management Permit, 17 Wilson Street – TJA Solar,
Public Hearing Date: July 9, 2018; Site Plan Development for Wilson Street Solar Project, dated March 7, 2018 revised through July 9, 2018, prepared by Atlantic Design Engineers, Inc.; Letter to Jill Bokoff, BETA Group,
Inc., from Richard J. Tabaczynski, Atlantic Design Engineers, Inc., dated July 9, 2018, re: Response to BETA Group, Inc. Comments; June 15, 2018, Wilson Street Solar Project, Hopkinton, MA, ADE Project #2928.01;
Letter to Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner, from Jillian Bokoff and Philip F. Paradis, BETA Group, Inc., dated July 5, 2018, re: Wilson Street Solar Project – Site Plan Peer Review; Email Exchange Melanie Khederian,
Eversource/Timothy Vautour, TJA Solar/Tom Shambo/Georgia Wilson, from June 28, 2018 through July 6, 2018 – Fwd: Eng Hold – Path Fwd by 7/13/18 WO2230376, Hopkinton – 17 Wilson St.; Letter from Jane Moran, Chair, Hopkinton Upper Charles Trail Commission, dated June 8, 2018
Draft Planning Board Minutes for June 11, 2018