Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180927 - Planning Board - Agenda TOWN OF HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD Monday, October 1, 2018 7:30 P.M. Hopkinton Town Hall, 18 Main Street, Hopkinton, MA ______________________________________________________________________________ AGENDA 7:30 Misc. Administrative Business 120 Pond Street – Scenic Road approval compliance review – Vincent D’Eramo 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.) 8:45 Continued Public Hearing – Whisper Way OSLPD – Definitive Subdivision Plan Application – 20th Century Homes Proposed 24-lot single family subdivision off Whisper Way and Wood Street. 9:30 Public Hearing – 55 Wilson Street – Stormwater Management Permit Application – Eversource Energy Proposed stormwater management associated with the construction of a secondary access road for the Hopkinton Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facility located at 55 Wilson Street. Business to be considered by the Board at any time during the meeting:  East Main Street Sidewalk Completion – Legacy Farms, LLC  Approve minutes of 8/27/18  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: September 27, 2018 TO: Planning Board FROM: Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner RE: Items on October 1, 2018 Planning Board Agenda Miscellaneous Administrative Business: 120 Pond Street – Scenic Road approval compliance review – Vincent D’Eramo This is continued discussion from the 8/27/18 meeting. As requested, the applicant is back before the Board to discuss the current wall construction at 120 Pond Street. The Board approved the repair and rebuild of a scenic stonewall located at 120 Pond Street at its hearing on 6/11/18. Both the minutes and the decision indicate that the wall was to be rebuilt with existing weathered stones. Staff has been made aware that the wall appears to be built with a mix of new and original stone. The Board should discuss with the applicant measures for corrective action if necessary. Photos of the wall before/after and previous meeting minutes are included in the packet. Chapter 160 (Scenic Roads) of the general bylaw states the following in regards to enforcement. §160-7. Enforcement: The Planning Board is responsible for the enforcement of this chapter. Whoever violates any provisions of this chapter or any conditions of any permit granted pursuant hereto shall be liable for a fine of not more than the maximum permitted by law for each citation for any violation and shall be required to restore any damage. Removal of each individual tree shall be considered a separate violation. Removal of each linear foot of stone wall shall be considered a separate violation. 1) 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 August 27, 2018 meeting. Two applications have been submitted to the Board, relative to a proposal to construct a solar facility at 17 Wilson 2 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 10/9/18 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. Historical Stone Features: Please see Ceremonial Stone Preservation Plan dated 9/25/18 and summary letter from the Applicant dated 9/25/18. At the last hearing, the Board requested an expert review of the ceremonial stone structures found on site. Doug Harris from the Narragansett Indian Tribe Historic Preservation Office (NITHPO) surveyed the site with his team, the Aquinnah Tribe Historic Preservation Office (ATHPO) team, and the applicant’s representatives. The survey identified 20 stone features throughout the site, some of which are located outside of the array. The proposed protection measures for each stone location are noted on the submitted preservation plan. Methods of protection include adjusting grading, landscaping and racking systems to avoid sensitive areas. Construction fencing and wooden boxes will also be placed around the stones to protect them during construction. The Applicant has stated that the construction protocols were reviewed and approved by NITHPO/ATHPO. The submitted plan notes that adjustments to a swale and detention basin are required in order to implement protective measures. Photos of the stones and locations are included in the Applicants summary letter. 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. I have included conditions relative to protection in the draft Special Permit conditions for the Board to consider. Vegetative Screening: Please see revised landscape plans dated 9/25/18. 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 3 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. Interconnection: The Applicant enlisted their electrical consultant, LIG Consultants, to review the feasibility of the interconnection point on Cedar Street. A summary of their findings and recommendations are included in the packet for the Board’s consideration. Please see interconnection consultant letter dated 9/25/18. BETA Group: Portions of the stormwater management system had to be redesigned to preserve certain ceremonial stones. The Applicant provided revised stormwater calculations to BETA on 9/25/18 for the redesign areas (Basin 1c and swales) and BETA review is currently ongoing. I have included BETA’s previous review from 7/30 which outlines all resolved issues for the project. 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. Abutter/Resident Correspondence: Please see email from Tom Shambo dated 9/13/18. I have compiled all the previous emails/correspondence the Board received from residents/abutters and placed them in a google drive folder. Link to the drive: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1QTI2JPfNFrqztxjYgxWQqTAtj-NjZl0r?usp=sharing 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 4 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. 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.” 5 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 included in the packet 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: 6 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. 2) 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 a decision is due by 10/23/2018. Materials Received: Revised definitive plans and response comments to BETA are included in the packet. A revised Stormwater Report was submitted and can be accessed via the google drive link below: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1JzFUjP523fL_vIiWL9zlVrjkOYhgBwi5?usp=sharing BETA: BETA provided peer review comments on 8/8. Response comments and revised plans from the Applicant were received on 9/25. BETA review of the second submission is ongoing. 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. Conservation Commission: The project proposes one wetland crossing. The Applicant has filed a Notice of Intent with the Commission and the next scheduled hearing is set for 10/2/18. 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 7 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: §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. 8 3) Public Hearings – 52 & 55 Wilson Street – 1) Stormwater Management Permit Application; 2) Earth Removal Permit Application – Eversource Energy An application for a stormwater management permit (SWMP) has been submitted to the Board pursuant to Chapter 172 of the General Bylaws, Stormwater Management and Erosion Control. A majority vote is required for approval and a decision is due by 10/20/18. A SWMP is required because there will be more than one acre of overall disturbance. Eversource has filed a petition with the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) requesting zoning exemptions for the project. The DPU process is ongoing, and a decision has not been issued. However, the DPU has granted Eversource's requested zoning exemptions in the past. The Stormwater Management bylaw is a General Bylaw, which the DPU does not have authority to waive. Project: The Applicant proposes a 20 ft. wide gravel roadway off Legacy Farms Road North (Rafferty Road) leading south to the LNG facility at 55 Wilson Street. The project proposes to cross an intermittent stream with a new culvert, outlet protection and stormwater swale. The site is located in the Agriculture and WRPOD zoning districts. The total land area of the project is 51.5 acres with an estimated land disturbance of 1.93 acres. Conservation Commission: The Applicant has filed a Notice of Intent with the Conversation Commission. The hearing opened and was continued to the Commission’s 10/2/18 meeting. Materials Submitted to date: The SWMP application, narrative, and plans are included in the meeting packet. The following application appendices were too large to include in the packet but can be accessed via the link below: Appendix C: Stormwater Report Appendix D: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Appendix E: Operation & Maintenance Plan Comments: BETA: Please see BETA review letter dated 9/19/18. Applicant response comments are pending. Board of Health: Please see BoH comments dated 9/7/18 Stormwater Management Criteria: The project is subject to the Stormwater Management Standards. The following are the 10 standards, what is proposed, and BETA’s comments to date. Stormwater Standard Proposed BETA comment #1 – No untreated stormwater – No new stormwater conveyances (e.g. outfalls) may discharge Applicant proposes modifications to an existing rockfill drainage swale. Existing drainage patterns 1) Revise model to utilize 6 minute time of concentration. 9 Stormwater Standard Proposed BETA comment untreated stormwater directly to or cause erosion in wetlands or waters of the Commonwealth. are maintained to maximum extent possible. 2) Provide calculations for discharge velocities of proposed flared-end sections and all rip-rap. #2 – Post-development peak discharge rates – Stormwater management systems must be designed so that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-development peak discharge rates. Post-development peak discharge rates for the 10- year storm event exceeds the pre-development peak discharge rate. 1) Provide additional BMPs to bring the stormwater management system into compliance with standard. Consider extending drainage swale along entire length of access road, grade access road to drain towards swale with check dams. Provide 2 ft. crushed stone below swale to provide runoff infiltration. #3 – Recharge to groundwater – Loss of annual recharge to groundwater should be minimized through the use of infiltration measures to the maximum extent practicable. Application states recharge is not required because the project does not design for any new impervious surfaces. 1) The Hopkinton Stormwater Regulations include gravel and compacted dirt surfaced roads in its definition of impervious surface. Provide documentation that the required recharge is included in the design. #4 – 80% TSS removal – For new development, stormwater management systems must be designed to remove 80% of the annual load of total suspended solids. Application states water quality treatment is not required because the project does not design for any new impervious surfaces. 1) Hopkinton Stormwater Regulations include gravel and compacted dirt surfaced roads in its definition of impervious surface. Provide documentation that the required water quality treatment is included in the design. #5 – Higher Potential Pollutant Loads – Stormwater discharges from land uses with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads required the use of specific stormwater management BMP’s. Application states additional water quality treatment is not required because the project does not design for any new impervious surfaces. 1) Hopkinton Stormwater Regulations include gravel and compacted dirt surfaced roads in its definition of impervious surface. Provide documentation that the required additional water quality treatment is included in the design. #6 – Critical Areas – Stormwater discharges to critical areas must utilize certain stormwater BMP’s approved for critical areas. Not Applicable Not Applicable #7 – Redevelopment – Redevelopment of previously developed sites Applicant is proposing to reconstruct an existing gravel driveway. A new Standard will be met if all comments are addressed. 10 Stormwater Standard Proposed BETA comment must meet the Stormwater Management Standards to the maximum extent practicable. section of roadway will be constructed in the northern portion of the site. #8 – Construction Period Erosion and Sediment Controls – Erosion and sediment controls must be implemented to prevent impacts during construction of land disturbance activities. A draft Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) was provided with the application. 1) Recommend condition to provide signed SWPPP prior to construction. 2) Show locations of stockpiles on plans. 3) Show locations for storage of materials, snow, soil, etc. on erosion control plan. 4) Provide intended sequence and timing of activities for proposed construction. 5) Provide description/schedule of interim and permanent stabilization practices for the site. 6) Show direction of stormwater flow and approx. slopes after major grading on the erosion control plan. 7) Include the following Erosion and Sediment Control criteria in the plans: a) Sediment shall be removed when design capacity has been reduced by 50% b) BMPs used for infiltration after construction shall not be used as BMPs during construction unless approved by the Board. c) Soil stockpiles must be stabilized or covered at the end of each workday. d) Disturbed areas remaining idle for more than 14 days shall be stabilized. #9 – Operations/Maintenance Plan – A long-term operation and maintenance plan shall be developed and implemented to ensure that stormwater management A Long Term Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan was included. 1) Include prohibition of snow storage within proposed drainage swales. 2) Provide a Maintenance Agreement including the following items: 11 Stormwater Standard Proposed BETA comment systems function as designed. a) Contact information of responsible parties. b) Person(s) responsible for financing maintenance and emergency repairs. c) List of easements with the purpose and location of each (if applicable). d) Signature(s) of the owner(s). #10 – Illicit Discharges – All illicit discharges to the stormwater management systems are prohibited. An unsigned Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement has been submitted. 1) Recommend condition that a signed Illicit Discharge Statement is provided prior to construction. Board Action The Stormwater Regulations adopted by the Board states that the Planning Board’s action, rendered in writing, shall consist of one of the following 4 options:  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,  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,  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.  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. See the table above for the referenced criteria. Chamberlain-Whalen Curve During the Chamberlain-Whalen endorsement discussion at the Board’s meeting on 8/27, questions were asked about the Conservation Restriction (CR) amendment process for the roadway curve at the end of Chamberlain St. I have included a letter from Elaine Lazarus to Paul Mastroianni that provides background on who was involved with the preliminary process and what the next steps are for amending the CR. The Hopkinton Area Land Trust (HALT) holds the Conservation Restriction for the area and they are amenable to amending the CR to accommodate the roadway curve. A draft of the amended CR has been reviewed and approved by HALT. Next steps in the process include School Department and Town Counsel review of the draft CR before formally submitting to the State. 12 Future Meetings October 15, 2018 7:30 – Misc. Administrative Business 7:45 – Public Hearing – 18 Cedar Street – Off-site Parking Special Permit Application – Janice Brown. 8:15 – Public Hearing – 52&55 Wilson Street – SWMP/Earth Removal Application – Eversource 9:00 – *Tentative* Public Hearing – 55 Wilson Street – SWMP - Secondary Access Road – Eversource 9:30 – Misc. Board Discussion (ZAC, website updates, scenic bylaw wall criteria) October 29, 2018 7:30 – Misc. Administrative Business 7:45 – Continued Public Hearing – Bucklin St./ Leonard St. – SWMP/ Roadway Petition – Wallstreet Development Corp. PUBLIC HEARING OUTLINE SOLAR SPECIAL PERMIT/STORMWATER  MANAGEMENT PERMIT 17 WILSON STREET - TJA SOLAR   Public Hearing Date:   10/1/2018  • ​√​Project introduction and review – Applicant  • ​√​Consultant Review – BETA Group  • ​√​Planning Board – Add to outline  • ​√​Abutters and Public – Add to Outline  • Detailed Discussion  ●√​Site Layout  ●√​Lighting  ●√​Array Size  ●√​Stormwater Management  ●Access and Entrances  ●Screening  ●Underground Utilities  ●Historical Structures  ●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  September 25, 2018 Muriel Kramer, Chair Hopkinton Planning Board  Town Hall 18 Main Street Hopkinton, MA 01748 RE: Summary of Revised Information and Understanding of Outstanding Issues Wilson Street Solar Project - Hopkinton, MA ADE Project #2928.01 Dear Ms. Kramer: This response letter, along with the revised Site Development Plans dated September 25, 2018, the revised Landscape Screening Plans dated September 25, 2018, the Ceremonial Stone Landscape Preservation Plan dated September 25, 2018 and supporting documentation for the Wilson Street Solar Project address the comments received during the Planning Board public hearing process. Please note that the remaining issues to be addressed are italicized and our responses follow in bold. 1) Provide additional information regarding the interconnection. The proposed point of interconnection remains along Wilson Street. To protect the scenic nature of Wilson Street, the applicant has revised the plans to show the infrastructure associated with the interconnection underground, all the way to utility pole 59/18 at the east side of Wilson Street as required by the Town of Hopkinton. Infrastructure is limited to equipment cabinets situated on concrete pads. The applicant is amenable to making this a condition of approval. Additional screening has also been added to this area to block the view from Wilson Street. Information received from the Utility as part of the pre-application screening process pertaining to the viability of an interconnection along Cedar Street will also be provided under separate cover. 2) Provide adequate alternative screening. The revised Landscape Screening Plan incorporates changes requested by the abutters and provides adequate screening for adjacent properties. The project also proposes to reclaim lawn and enhance existing forested areas as an added screening benefit. More than 600 plantings area proposed as part of screening. In addition, the Landscape Screening Plan requires additional evaluation to ascertain the effectiveness of the initial installation and provides flexibility for species selection, spacing and size depending on location. The Applicant respectfully requests a finding from the Planning Board in accordance with §210.121.1.E Planning Board Outstanding Issues Wilson Street Solar Project September 25, 2018 – Page 2 P.O. Box 1051 Sandwich, MA 02563 (508) 888-9282 * FAX (508) 888-5859 email: ade@atlanticcompanies.com www.atlanticcompanies.com 3) Provide additional information regarding the Native American ceremonial stone landscapes identified in the letter from James L. Haskins of the Hopkinton Historical Society dated July 19, 2018. The Applicant contacted Doug Harris from the Narragansett Indian Tribe Historic Preservation Office (NITHPO) and scheduled a site visit on September 13, 2018. Representatives from the NITHPO, the Aquinnah Tribe Historic Preservation Office (ATHPO) and Ceremonial Landscapes Research (CLR) visited the site on September 13, 2018 and identified ceremonial stone landscapes throughout the project. These locations were surveyed by CLR and the data was provided to Atlantic Design Engineers. The locations are shown on the Ceremonial Stone Landscape Preservation Plan dated September 25, 22018. The project has been redesigned in an effort to preserve the locations and avoid disturbing the areas. Additional information added to the plan regarding construction protocol has been reviewed and approved by the NITHPO/ATHPO. Additional information will be provided by the NITHPO/ATHPO. Please refer to the attached pictures with brief narratives for more information at each location. 4) Provide information to BETA Group to ensure project changes meet the intent of overall stormwater design. The project has been redesigned to preserve the Ceremonial Stone Landscapes referenced above. The array has been reconfigured and panels removed from selected areas. Although the grading has been adjusted to avoid disturbing identified areas, the drainage patterns remain unchanged. Stormwater Basin 1c needed to be revised to preserve a large boulder. The attached HydroCAD information demonstrates that the revised pond is larger than previously proposed, therefore the peak rates of run-off have been reduced. The 100-yr storm report has also been provided demonstrating that one-foot of free board is still being provided. Swales needed to be adjusted and equipment pads relocated to avoid impacting identified areas. The additional gravel area and increased pond size have been accounted for in HydroCAD and shown on the attached subcatchment report summaries. The changes described above only impact flows at Design Point 1. The attached report for Design Point 1 for each storm event demonstrates that the project is in compliance and consistent with the initial overall design. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (508) 888-9282. Sincerely, ATLANTIC DESIGN ENGINEERS, INC. Christopher M. King Project Manager cc: P. Paradis, BETA Group T. Vautour, TJA Solar Hopkinton, Massachusetts Proposed Cedar Street Solar Array Initial Ceremonial Stone Landscape Assessment 1 Figure 1: Hopkinton Solar Array overview between Cedar Street and Wilson Street. Green lines represent parcels from MassGIS; orange line represents the approximate area of fenced solar array. Dotted lines represent stone rows and yellow dots represent features. Figure 2 Hopkinton Solar Array between Cedar Street and Wilson Street. Green lines represent parcels from MassGIS; orange line represents the approximate area of fenced solar array. Dotted lines represent stone rows and yellow dots represent features. Hopkinton, Massachusetts Proposed Cedar Street Solar Array Initial Ceremonial Stone Landscape Assessment 2 Figure 3: Overview Area 1 LiDAR Map showing bare earth topography. Green lines represent parcels from MassGIS; orange line represents approximate area of fenced solar array. Feature 1 Manitou Stone; appears to be outside array area. Hopkinton, Massachusetts Proposed Cedar Street Solar Array Initial Ceremonial Stone Landscape Assessment 3 Figure 4: Feature 2 Stone Arrangement; appears to be outside array area. Figure 5: Feature 3 Stone Arrangement/Possible Alignment. Hopkinton, Massachusetts Proposed Cedar Street Solar Array Initial Ceremonial Stone Landscape Assessment 4 Figure 6: Feature 15 Stone Row ending approximately 10 feet west of Feature 4 at edge of wetlands area. Some of the stone row is outside array area. An opening exists in the middle of the stone row at this time. Figure 7: Feature 4 with stone row (Feature 15) in background; appears to be outside array area. Hopkinton, Massachusetts Proposed Cedar Street Solar Array Initial Ceremonial Stone Landscape Assessment 5 Figure 8: Feature 5 Possible Shadow Casting Stone requiring further evaluation. Figure 9: Feature 5 from another view point. Hopkinton, Massachusetts Proposed Cedar Street Solar Array Initial Ceremonial Stone Landscape Assessment 6 Figure 10: Split boulder complex near Wilson Street requiring further evaluation; appears to be outside of solar array area. Figure 11: Feature 19 Possible Stone Arrangement /Alignment requiring further evaluation; outside array area. Hopkinton, Massachusetts Proposed Cedar Street Solar Array Initial Ceremonial Stone Landscape Assessment 7 Figure 12: Overview Area 2 LiDAR Map showing bare earth topography. Figure 13: Feature 6 Apparent Stone Grouping, requiring clearing and further evaluation. Hopkinton, Massachusetts Proposed Cedar Street Solar Array Initial Ceremonial Stone Landscape Assessment 8 Figure 14: Apparent Stone Grouping requiring clearing and further evaluation; appears to be outside solar array area. Figure 15: Stone Row Feature 20; requires clearing and further evaluation. Hopkinton, Massachusetts Proposed Cedar Street Solar Array Initial Ceremonial Stone Landscape Assessment 9 Figure 16: Feature 8 Marker Stone for viewing sunset through split boulder Feature 9. Figure 17: Feature 9 Split Boulder through which the sunrise would be viewed on August 13 / February 12. Hopkinton, Massachusetts Proposed Cedar Street Solar Array Initial Ceremonial Stone Landscape Assessment 10 Figure 18: Stone Row Feature 14, starts within solar array area and continues outside the array area to the wetlands down the hill. Figure 19: Stone Row Feature 17, hidden beneath undergrowth; appears to be outside solar array area. Hopkinton, Massachusetts Proposed Cedar Street Solar Array Initial Ceremonial Stone Landscape Assessment 11 Figure 20: Overview Map Area 3 LiDAR Map showing bare earth topography. Green lines represent parcels from MassGIS; orange line represents approximate area of fenced solar array. Figure 21: Feature 10 U-Shaped Stone Arrangement on side of hill. Hopkinton, Massachusetts Proposed Cedar Street Solar Array Initial Ceremonial Stone Landscape Assessment 12 Figure 22: Feature 11 Stone Arrangement of triangular shaped stones. Figure 23: Feature 12 Manitou Stone. Hopkinton, Massachusetts Proposed Cedar Street Solar Array Initial Ceremonial Stone Landscape Assessment 13 Figure 24: Feature 13 Split Boulder with chocked stones. Hopkinton, Massachusetts Proposed Cedar Street Solar Array Initial Ceremonial Stone Landscape Assessment 14 Figure 25: Feature 18 Outcropping requiring further evaluation; appears to be outside array area. Figure 26: Feature 18 Additional photo of outcropping requiring further evaluation; appears to be outside array area. Hopkinton, Massachusetts Proposed Cedar Street Solar Array Initial Ceremonial Stone Landscape Assessment 15 Figure 27: Off property feature 21 to the south of Area 3; owner unknown. Figure 28: Stone Row Feature 22, off-property, owner unknown. Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.37"2928.01-POST R3 Printed 9/26/2018Prepared by Atlantic Design Engineers, Inc Page 1HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 00480 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach DP-1: DP1- Northwest Wetland System Inflow Area = 1,102,957 sf, 4.99% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.50" for 2-yr event Inflow = 26.28 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 137,823 cf Outflow = 26.28 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 137,823 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 1.00-73.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=5.22"2928.01-POST R3 Printed 9/26/2018Prepared by Atlantic Design Engineers, Inc Page 2HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 00480 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach DP-1: DP1- Northwest Wetland System Inflow Area = 1,102,957 sf, 4.99% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.04" for 10-yr event Inflow = 63.30 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 279,053 cf Outflow = 63.30 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 279,053 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 1.00-73.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=6.38"2928.01-POST R3 Printed 9/26/2018Prepared by Atlantic Design Engineers, Inc Page 3HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 00480 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach DP-1: DP1- Northwest Wetland System Inflow Area = 1,102,957 sf, 4.99% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.07" for 25-yr event Inflow = 89.88 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 374,003 cf Outflow = 89.88 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 374,003 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 1.00-73.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=8.15"2928.01-POST R3 Printed 9/26/2018Prepared by Atlantic Design Engineers, Inc Page 4HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 00480 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach DP-1: DP1- Northwest Wetland System Inflow Area = 1,102,957 sf, 4.99% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.70" for 100-yr event Inflow = 136.16 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 523,961 cf Outflow = 136.16 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 523,961 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 1.00-73.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=8.15"2928.01-POST R3 Printed 9/26/2018Prepared by Atlantic Design Engineers, Inc Page 1HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 00480 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 1C: Stormwater Basin Inflow Area = 98,702 sf, 15.54% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.00" for 100-yr event Inflow = 14.35 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 49,370 cf Outflow = 13.91 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 49,370 cf, Atten= 3%, Lag= 1.4 min Primary = 13.91 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 49,370 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 1.00-73.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 335.41' @ 12.14 hrs Surf.Area= 4,616 sf Storage= 5,437 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 45.1 min calculated for 49,370 cf (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 44.9 min ( 844.6 - 799.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 333.00' 8,621 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregular) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq-ft) (feet) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) (sq-ft) 333.00 543 135.0 0 0 543 334.00 1,766 312.0 1,096 1,096 6,843 335.00 3,651 477.0 2,652 3,748 17,210 336.00 6,206 590.0 4,872 8,621 26,820 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 333.00'4.0" Round Culvert L= 15.0' CPP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 333.00' / 332.85' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.09 sf #2 Primary 335.00'20.0' long x 4.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.38 2.54 2.69 2.68 2.67 2.67 2.65 2.66 2.66 2.68 2.72 2.73 2.76 2.79 2.88 3.07 3.32 Primary OutFlow Max=13.90 cfs @ 12.14 hrs HW=335.41' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.56 cfs @ 6.37 fps) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 13.34 cfs @ 1.63 fps) Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=8.15"2928.01-POST R3 Printed 9/26/2018Prepared by Atlantic Design Engineers, Inc Page 1HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 00480 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1Sb: Remaining South Area to Northwest Wetland Runoff = 37.04 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 132,401 cf, Depth= 5.77" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 1.00-73.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=8.15" Area (sf) CN Description 155,638 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 22,589 73 Brush, Good, HSG D 50,954 89 Dirt roads, HSG D 37,015 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 9,363 96 Gravel surface, HSG D 275,559 80 Weighted Average 275,559 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 9.1 50 0.0400 0.09 Sheet Flow, Woods Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 3.37" 0.7 169 0.0592 3.92 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 9.8 219 Total Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=8.15"2928.01-POST R3 Printed 9/26/2018Prepared by Atlantic Design Engineers, Inc Page 1HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 00480 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1Sc: Northeast Area to Northwest Wetland Runoff = 14.35 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 49,370 cf, Depth= 6.00" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 1.00-73.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=8.15" Area (sf) CN Description 15,638 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 67,722 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 1,978 98 Existing Paved Driveway, HSG D * 7,158 98 Proposed Impervious, HSG D * 6,206 98 Water Surface, HSG D - Pond 1c 98,702 82 Weighted Average 83,360 84.46% Pervious Area 15,342 15.54% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.3 50 0.1000 0.13 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 3.37" 0.3 68 0.0735 4.36 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woods Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 1.8 431 0.0626 4.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grass Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 8.4 549 Total 510 Chapman Street, Suite 202 ● Canton, MA 02021 ● Phone: 508-381-3371 ● Fax :774-206-2155 www.ligconsultants.com LIG Consultants September 25, 2018 Tim Vautour TJA Solar, LLC 150 John Vertente Blvd New Bedford, MA 02745 Tim, Please see the attached screening information for the Hopkinton, MA site. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 978.394.5377. Sincerely, Anthony M. Morreale, P.E. Principal Engineer LIG Consultants LIG Consultants Page 2 Project Name TJA Solar – Hopkinton Project Address 17 Wilson Street, Hopkinton, MA Project Size 2.77 MW LIG reviewed the above referenced location to provide a high-level fatal flaw screening for the installation and interconnection of a solar photovoltaic project on the parcel. As part for our efforts we reviewed and considered: • Available Pre-Application Report (PAR) Data from the local electric utility Eversource o Most recent PAR dated 9/24/2018 o Previous PAR dated 6/14/2017 • Distributed Generation Databases • Transmission and Substation Maps • Historical information from LIG projects that provide guidance on the treatment by the Local Distribution Company Based on our review of the above items, LIG’s findings and recommendations are as follows: • The circuit located on Cedar street is circuit number 126-H4 and is operated at 13.8 kV. o The circuit is three-phase in the area of project location. o There is less than 1.0 MW of pending and existing DG on the circuit. o The circuit’s peak load was 3.3 MVA in 2017. o The circuit’s normal rating is 11.6 MVA. • The circuit is fed from the Hopkinton Substation (Station Number 126). o The substation is reported to have two (2) 115 kV to 13.8 kV step-down transformers for a total capacity of 116. o According to the DOER, the substation has approximately 9.8 MW of pending and existing DG, but there is an additional 21 MW of DG proposed for interconnection in the Town of Hopkinton that does not have an identified circuit. o Eversource stated in the PAR that there are applications queued ahead and the impact of these applications needs to be addressed before any proposed installation could proceed. • The PAR states that the stiffness factor is between 10 and 25 and is an extreme concern. This could result in major utility system modifications to interconnect the proposed project. Additionally, the proposed project is over 5 miles from the substation. Eversource stated in the previous PAR that “Installation is impractical to pursue further”. • LIG has identified a possible fatal flaw with interconnection to the 126-H4 circuit on Cedar Street due to the concerns with stiffness factor and the high-cost system modifications that could result. Eversource Distributed Generation Pre-Application Report Date September 24, 2018 Author Eversource Energy System Planning Work Order 02297856 Proposed Point of Interconnection 42.233886,-71.523220 Town, Street Address 42 Cedar Street, Hopkinton MA Proposed Size and Type of DG 3,000 kW (Solar PV Array Standalone) #Processed as per GPS Coordinates. No. Item Response 1 Circuit voltage at the substation 13.8 kV 2 Circuit name/number 126-H4 3 Circuit voltage at proposed Facility 13.8 kV 4 Is the service near the proposed Facility single phase or three phase Three Phase 5 If service near the proposed Facility is single phase, what is the distance from three phase service to the proposed Facility N/A 6 Aggregate connected facilities (kW) on the circuit +/- 166 kW’s 7 Submitted complete applications of Facilities (kW) on circuit that have not yet been interconnected +/- 0 kW’s ND UPDT 8 Proposed Facility served by an Area Network, a Spot Network or Radial System Radial 9 Listing/Identification of feeders within ¼ mile of the proposed interconnection site through a snap- shot of GIS map 455-H3 10 Other potential system constraints or critical items that may impact the proposed Facility TBD Stiffness for the proposed project would be +/- 10 to 25 and is an extreme concern. A SIS study would be required. Islanding, reverse flow, flicker, and interaction with series pole top regulators, step-downs and existing large customer loads on the circuit would need to be looked at. The proposed installation is more than 5 miles from the closest source and further from all other sources. There are applications queued ahead and the impact of these applications needs to be addressed before any proposed installation could proceed. The proposed installation appears to border wooded swamp land and presume installation of facilities that may traverse or are adjacent to wetlands and/or protected species areas. Environmental review and permitting would be required and the applicant would be responsible for all costs associated with this consideration. "In the event that the proposed installation moves forward as an application, please confirm whether or  not the resource is participating in any of the ISO NE markets.  It is the customer's responsibility to provide  prior notification to Eversource, because, pursuant to the ISO NE Market Rules and Open Access  Transmission Tariff, such participation imposes obligations on the Market Participant as well as the  Transmission/Distribution Owner.  For example, if local transmission lines (i.e., non‐PTF lines owned by  Eversource) are used to deliver the project’s output to the market, the applicant must execute a Schedule  21 Local Service Agreement with Eversource and pay the ongoing transmission wheeling charges.   Moreover, participating in the ISO NE markets constitutes wholesale transactions, which could change  the regulatory jurisdiction of the interconnection facilities from state to federal."    Primary Circuit Diagram Pre-app DG 126-H4 Wetland Areas September 13, 2018 Planning Board Hopkinton, MA 01748 RE: Solar Photovoltaic farm at 17 Wilson St and 0 Cedar St Dear Planning Board members: At the meeting on the night of August 27th, several topics were raised and discussed but little resolution came from the discussion. Some topics received more discussion time then they might have deserved and some too little. A few topics I personally am most concerned with include: 1) Electrical connection to the Grid on Cedar St vs Wilson St 2) Connection lines going overhead within the solar farm and near the Tennessee Gas Pipeline contrary to the Bylaw stating they should be underground 3) The need for a scenic Road permit and keeping the road scenic 4) Proper Screening, Buffering and the American Indian stone placements The one topic I am writing to you about in this letter is the buffering at 15 Wilson St. It received very little time in discussion on Monday the 27th and no resolution. I have provided some information below on the topic of granting 75 ft of buffer for all my property. PB Meeting packet 8-27-18: “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.” From Atlantic Design (file – “Response to PB outstanding issues -8-21-18”): “7) Respond to letter from Charles E. Kadlik Director of Municipal Inspections/Zoning Enforcement Officer dated July 23, 2018 regarding zoning interpretation pertaining to the Agricultural District (A) relating to § 210-117.1(A) and § 210-121.1 (A) & (B) from ARTICLE XVIII. For the record, the Applicant does not agree with this interpretation. Please refer to the letter from Attorney Joseph M. Pacella to the Planning Board dated July 17, 2018. Although the Applicants legal opinion differs from that of the Zoning Enforcement Officer, the revised Site Plans and Landscape Screening Plans provide alternative screening and sufficient detail hereby allowing the Applicant to respectfully request a finding from the Planning Board in accordance with §210.121.1.E. Atty. Pacella letter attached representing Atlantic Design.” My position is: 1) 95+% of my property at 15 Wilson St. is zoned Agricultural and therefore the rest of the property should be considered and buffered the same as the largest piece. I believe the zoning team in Hopkinton (Mr Kadlik) agreed. Furthermore, the Commercial Solar Bylaw 210.202 itself requires that “All setback, yard, buffer and screening requirements applicable in the zoning district in which the installation is located shall apply” and as the solar farm is installed in an agricultural zone, it must satisfy agricultural zone requirements. 2) As you look from Wilson St West and down my driveway and large grass area, there will be 600+ ft of open space separated by less than fifty 10-12 ft trees, with a small portion of the existing forest left uncut to provide buffering of the solar farm on the scenic road. 3) I strongly believe that the 75 ft buffer is needed for all 4 seasons to properly buffer/screen this large solar array and the clear cutting of so much of the forested trees between Wilson St and Cedar St.; and 4) There are no compelling circumstances which warrant a waiver. The area involved is at the exterior of the solar array and the Applicant is simply attempting to maximize panels (second time) to my detriment. I decided not to bring this topic up at the end of the discussion on August 27th as we had run long and the room was quite uncomfortable with the heat and respectfully knew you all had other matters pending. I would like to ask that this topic get resolution and my concerns heard at the October 1st meeting with a favorable position of maintaining the 75 ft buffer around my property line at 15 Wilson St. Respectfully submitted, Tom Shambo 15 Wilson St Hopkinton, MA 01748 508-435-7852 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. 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 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 indicang you have reviewed and approved. Also – BETA has asked me to add inspecon and maintenance to the gravel access drive as part of the long term operaon and maintenance plan which also addresses our conversaons. If you have any quesons or comments outstanding please do not hesitate to call me directly. Thank you again for your me and aenon to this maer 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: Aached please find the addional detail we discussed. Also please see the aached response leer to BETA Group further discussing some of the roadway condions, parcularly maintenance. This leer is signed by our Professional Engineer. The drawings most recently submied to Con Comm contain the informaon shown on the aached part plans. The only thing they do not have are the cerficaons we discussed. Maybe a statement from the engineer can be provided in conjuncon with the revised site plans as a condion of approval. If we have to revise the plans again I will make sure to add these cerficaons to the plans as well. Any quesons, comments or if you require addional informaon – please let me know. Thank you again for your me and aenon to this maer, 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 Georgia Wilson <gwilson@hopkintonma.gov> RE: Wilson Solar Maps 3 messages Chris King <cking@atlanticcompanies.com>Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 12:02 PM To: Jane Moran <jmoran2045@aol.com> Cc: Georgia Wilson <gwilson@hopkintonma.gov> Jane, Attached please find our formalized response as discussed at the last Planning Board Hearing. I will send you a hard copy of everything as well. I will send it to Town Hall to your attention. If you have any questions or comments let me know. Best Regards, Chris From: Jane Moran [mailto:jmoran2045@aol.com] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 11:47 AM To: Chris King <cking@atlanticcompanies.com> Cc: 'Timothy Vautour' <tvautour@tja.energy>; 'William Depietri' <wad@cgpllc.net> Subject: FW: Wilson Solar Maps Chris, Thank you again for taking the time to reach out in regards to the Hopkinton Upper Charles Committee’s request to the Planning Bd to consider an easement of approximately 25’ wide area from Cedar St to Wilson St. for a future multi-use path. I’ve attached three different “conceptual maps” and two pdf maps to help you better understand the overall concept of a contiguous multi-use path from Milford, through Hopkinton incorporating the Center Trail and ultimately reaching Ashland via Hopkinton State Park near Howe St in Ashland. The pdf UCTC map-6 shows the conceptual path from the Milford town line to the beginning of the Center Trail. The pdf -UCTC- overall 1 shows the conceptual trail using the Center Trail , through the downtown, to the east using Town property then crossing Rt 135, then heading north through Town property, Legacy Farms and eventually to Hopkinton State Park in Ashland. Map 1 shows the conceptual path from the east, crossing Rt 135 however it also identifies 17 Wilson and the blue line indicates at alternative path that would enter using Cedar St, then cross 17 Wilson, then enter Town property that leads toward Hopkinton State Park. As mentioned before, the Board of Selectmen has charged our committee with providing alternative routes so the citizens and BoS can make an informed choice. Map 2 shows a larger perspective of the area described above. Map 3 (which is not shown in the pdf’s) indicates a conceptual path of the alternative route from the Center Trail crossing Main St., through Town property heading north, crossing Cedar St, entering Town property, then 17 Wilson, where the path would again head north to Hopkinton State Park. Ultimately the UCTC is looking for a contiguous path from Cedar to Wilson and although I have not seen a delineated map of the 17 Wilson area I can understand the challenges. Perhaps the partners you represent could consider at a minimum a legal easement in or along the buffer zone from Cedar St to the 8 acre parcel, where the developer could incorporate a multi-use path either along the construction/maintenance road or along the outside parameter fence area to gain access to Wilson St. This may provide the connection that our committee is seeking to add to our conceptual plans and at the same time provide an opportunity for a substantial mitigation suggestion for our Planning Board. Thank you again for taking the time to consider our requests, Regards, Jane Moran Chair, Hopkinton Upper Charles Trail Committee Response to UCTC Comments 8-15-18.pdf 10402K Jane Moran <jmoran2045@aol.com>Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 9:18 AM To: Chris King <cking@atlanticcompanies.com> Cc: Georgia Wilson <gwilson@hopkintonma.gov> HI Chris, Since you and I last spoke I spoke with the property owner (William Depeitre) who indicated that if the project passed that most likely he would have no objection to the Town pursuing a trail system, at our expense, further down the road, if the situation were to arise. Going forward if a trail opportunity arises we would contact Mr. Depeitre. Hopefully your client would be willing to work with us as well as long as we did not interfere with the security, etc. Please let me know your thoughts. I appreciate all your efforts on our behalf. Best of luck with the project, Jane Moran 508-326-7584 From: Chris King <cking@atlanticcompanies.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 12:02 PM To: 'Jane Moran' <jmoran2045@aol.com> Cc: 'Georgia Wilson' <gwilson@hopkintonma.gov> Subject: RE: Wilson Solar Maps [Quoted text hidden] Chris King <cking@atlanticcompanies.com>Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:26 PM To: Jane Moran <jmoran2045@aol.com> Cc: Georgia Wilson <gwilson@hopkintonma.gov>, Timothy Vautour <tvautour@tja.energy>, Bill Depietri <wad@cgpllc.net> Hello Jane. That is great news. We are happy your conversation with Bill Depietri went well. As you have indicated in your e-mail, Mr. Depietri should be the one contacted moving forward as he will remain the land owner for the entire parcel. TJA is only operating within a small lease area. As outlined in our response letter – due to the physical constraints, the secure nature of the solar facility and the fact that TJA will only control a small portion of the parcel within the lease area – an easement for future recreational access is not feasible within the TJA Solar project limits. Therefore – any future consideration and/or agreement would have to be initiated and approved by Mr. Depietri as the location would be on land under his control and not located within the solar operating facility. TJA is committed to working with the host community and is certainly amenable to working with the Upper Charles Trail Committee where practicable if this project is approved. As you know we are scheduled to appear before the Planning Board this evening. Any positive feedback regarding this project and my clients commitment to being a good corporate neighbor would be appreciated. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me directly. Thank you, Chris From: Jane Moran [mailto:jmoran2045@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2018 9:19 AM To: 'Chris King' <cking@atlanticcompanies.com> [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] For 10/01/18 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 October__, 2018 to grant the Special Permit, subject to the following conditions: ●The vegetative planting shown on the submitted Landscape Screening Plan dated August 20, 2018 revised through September 25, 2018, 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 and the Principal Planner to coordinate the installation of plantings that are proposed on the property of 21 Wilson Street as shown on the provided Landscape Screening Plan dated August 20, 2018 revised through September 25, 2018. ○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. ■Following planting, 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 and approval. ●Prior to the start of construction, the Applicant shall flag all Ceremonial Stone Landscapes as shown on the submitted Ceremonial Stone Landscape Preservation Plan dated September 25, 2018. ●Prior to the start of construction, protection measures such as construction fencing, wooden boxes, and other temporary protection measures shall be constructed around each Ceremonial Stone Landscape location as shown on the submitted Ceremonial Stone Landscape Preservation Plan dated September 25, 2018. Protection measures may be removed once construction is complete. ●A designated construction monitor shall be present to ensure petroglyphs and other significant features are not disturbed during tree clearing and racking system installation within the Ceremonial Hill Landscape area as shown on the submitted Ceremonial Stone Landscape Preservation Plan dated September 25, 2018. ●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 10/01/18 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, 10/01/18 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. √Planning Board members and Public – Add to outline 6. √Schedule Site Walk 7. Detailed Discussion a. Road and lot layout design b. Traffic a. Offsite Improvements – Whisper Way i. Impacts to Abutters from any road widening b. Sidewalks c. 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. Final BETA issues 8. Discuss standards and plan revisions to be made 9. Discuss conditions of approval with applicant 10. Public comment 11. Vote 12. 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. 315 Norwood Park South, 2nd Floor, Norwood, MA 02062 P: 781.255.1982 | F: 781.255.1974 | W: www.BETA-Inc.com September 19, 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: LNG Liquefaction Project, Stormwater Management Permit (Secondary Access Road Project) Peer Review Scope and Fee Dear Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam: BETA Group, Inc. reviewed the proposed Secondary Access Road for the LNG Liquefaction Project Stormwater Management Permit in Hopkinton, MA. This letter is provided to outline BETA’s findings and recommendations of submitted documents. BASIS OF REVIEW BETA received the following items via email:  Stormwater Management Permit Application dated August 2018 prepared by Tighe & Bond, Westfield MA including the following attachments: o Cover letter o Stormwater Management Permit Application o Project description o Appendix A – Project Plans o Appendix B – Abutters Information o Appendix C – Stormwater Report o Appendix D – Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (SWPPP) o Appendix E – Operation & Maintenance Plan SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The predominately wooded parcel is located on the west side of Wilson Street. The site is located within Agricultural Zoning (A) District and the Water Resources Protection Overlay District (WRPOD-1). The site is not located within a critical area (MassDEP Approved Zone II). MassDEP Priority Resource Map indicates the project is not located with NHESP estimated habitats of rare wildlife or rare species. The site is not located within the 100 year FEMA mapped flood zone (Zone A). NRCS maps indicate soils are Canton fine Narragansett-Hollis Rock outcrop complex with a Hydrologic group rating (HGR) of A (high infiltration potential) and Udorthents, loamy (unclassified). The Applicant proposes to construct a secondary access road from Rafferty Road south to LNG site located at 55 Wilson Street. The secondary access road is proposed as a 20-foot wide gravel road Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam September 19, 2018 Page 2 of 5 primarily for emergency access. The proposed road crosses an intermittent stream located between Rafferty Road and the existing LNG site. The project will directly impact buffer zones to bordering vegetated wetland. Therefore, the project requires compliance with the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and Town of Hopkinton Bylaws. REQUESTED WAIVERS REVIEW The Applicant is not seeking any waivers from the Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Bylaw. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The proposed project includes the construction of a secondary access road for the previously reviewed LNG Liquefaction Project (located on the east and west sides of Wilson Street, south of Rafferty Road). The access road is proposed as a gravel road, 20 feet in width with security features such as gates and light poles. The new road will be an extension and modification of an existing, partial access road on the northwest portion of the LNG site. Runoff from the site drains to multiple areas across the site. The project area includes a wetland area and an intermittent stream within the northern portion of the site, along Rafferty Road. The project proposes work within regulated wetland resource areas. The existing site includes a rip rap swale along the southwestern edge of the site, adjacent to LNG Tank C. The proposed stormwater management design includes modifying the swale to capture, filter and reduce the velocity of runoff. A total of three drainage culverts and two flared-end sections are proposed along the new access road. The total area expected to be disturbed is 1.93 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 Town of Hopkinton Stormwater Regulations (HSWR) R1. Include the tax reference parcel identification number of the property of properties affected (Appendix B, No. 1). R2. Include the existing zoning and land use at the site and abutting properties (Appendix B, No. 5). R3. The Board should discuss whether a drainage easement should be provided for the proposed culvert within the right-of-way of Rafferty Road (Appendix B, No. 7). R4. Provide a landscape plan describing the woody and herbaceous vegetative stabilization and management techniques to be used within and adjacent to the stormwater practice (Appendix B, No. 20). General G1. Clarify top course material and gravel sizing of access road noted in detail. BETA recommends gravel containing minimal fines to prevent sediment migration to adjacent wetlands. G2. Show surface materials on drainage area maps. Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam September 19, 2018 Page 3 of 5 G3. Clarify drainage swale detail; include proposed stone sizing, swale depth and any rip rap to be reused. G4. BETA recommends including the existing culvert crossing Rafferty Road (east of the new access road) on the plans to confirm that the project will not increase flows through the culvert. 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 the construction of a new gravel access drive and modifications to an existing rockfill drainage swale. The existing drainage patterns are maintained to the maximum extent practicable. SW1. Revise stormwater model to utilize a minimum 6 minute time of concentration. SW2. Provide calculations for discharge velocities of proposed flared-end sections and all rip rap sizing. 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. The proposed peak discharge rate for the 10-year storm event exceeds the pre- development peak discharge rate. SW3. Provide additional BMPs to bring the stormwater management system into compliance with this standard. Consider extending the proposed drainage swale along the entire length of the access road and grading the access road to drain towards the swale with intermittent check dams. BETA also recommends providing 2 feet of crushed stone below the swale to provide infiltration for runoff to facilitate meeting Standards 3 & 4. 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. Project documentation states “The proposed project does not design for any new impervious surfaces; therefore, no recharge is required.” However, the HSWR includes “gravel and compacted dirt surfaced roads” in its definition of impervious surface (Appendix E.1.a). SW4. Provide documentation that the required recharge is included in the design. 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. Project documentation states “The proposed project does not design for any new impervious surfaces; therefore, no water quality treatment is required.” However, the HSWR includes “gravel and compacted dirt surfaced roads” in its definition of impervious surface (Appendix E.1.a). SW5. Provide documentation that the required water quality treatment is included in the design. 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. Project documentation acknowledges that the facility is considered a LUHPPL then states “The proposed project does not design for any new impervious surfaces; therefore, no additional water quality treatment is Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam September 19, 2018 Page 4 of 5 required.” However, the HSWR includes “gravel and compacted dirt surfaced roads” in its definition of impervious surface (Appendix E.1.a). SW6. Provide documentation that the required additional water quality treatment is included in the design. 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 critical areas – 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 proposed project includes new and redevelopment areas. Provided all comments, herein, are addressed the project will meet this standard. 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. The project included the submission of an unsigned stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). SW7. BETA recommends a condition that requires the submission of the signed SWPPP prior to commencement of construction. SW8. Show locations of stockpiles on the plans. SW9. Show locations for storage of materials, waste, vehicles, equipment, soil, snow and other potential pollutants on the erosion control plan (Appendix C, No. 2.e). SW10. Provide intended sequence and timing of activities for the proposed construction (Appendix C, No. 3.c). SW11. Provide a description of interim and permanent stabilization practices for the site, including a schedule of when the practices will be implemented (Appendix C, No. 3.e). SW12. Show direction(s) of stormwater flow and approximate slopes anticipated after major grading activities on the erosion control plan (Appendix C, No. 2.a). SW13. Include the following Specific Erosion and Sediment Control Criteria in the plans (Appendix F, No. 2): a. Sediment from sediment traps or sedimentation ponds shall be removed when design capacity has been reduced by 50 percent. b. BMPs to be used for infiltration after construction shall not be used as BMPs during construction unless otherwise approved by the Board. c. 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. d. Disturbed areas remaining idle for more than 14 days shall be stabilized with seeding, wood chips bark mulch, tarpaulins, or any other approved methods. 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 Operation and Maintenance Plan is provided. Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam September 19, 2018 Page 5 of 5 SW14. Include prohibition of snow storage within proposed drainage swale(s). SW15. Provide a Maintenance Agreement including the following items (Appendix D, No. 3.a-b): e. The names, addresses and phone numbers of the responsible parties. f. The person(s) responsible for financing maintenance and emergency repairs. g. A list of easements with the purpose and location of each (if applicable). Refer to comment SW3 above. h. The signature(s) of the owner(s). Illicit Discharges (Standard Number 10): All illicit discharges to the stormwater management systems are prohibited. An unsigned Illicit Discharge Statement is provided. SW16. BETA recommends a condition to provide a signed statement prior to construction. WETLANDS AND CULVERT The proposed site includes one isolated wetland within the northern portion of the site. The project proposes to cross and intermittent stream with a new culvert, outlet protection and stormwater swale. The Applicant has submitted a Notice of Intent for proposed work within the wetland area. W1. Provide profile and sections (to scale) through the culvert and riprap to show relationship of culvert with edge of Rafferty Road and proposed access road. W2. Provide culvert sizing calculations. W3. Confirm that the proposed culvert meets the Massachusetts River and Stream Crossing Standards by the River and Stream Continuity Partnership. W4. Since the culvert will be within the Town right-of-way, provide documentation that DPW approves the material (corrugated metal) for this culvert. 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\6163 - Hopkinton - LNG Access Road\Engineering\Reports\Wilson St LNG - Access Road Stormwater Review 09-19-2018.docx For 10/01/18 meeting Stormwater Management Permit Draft Conditions: 55 Wilson Street – LNG Secondary Access Road 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 Legacy Farms Road North 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 signed Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan shall be provided to the Board prior to the commencement of construction. 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. TOWN OF HOPKINTON DEPARTMENT OF LAND USE, PLANNING AND PERMITTING TOWN HALL 18 MAIN STREET HOPKINTON, MA 01748 508-497-9745 www.hopkintonma.gov September 12, 2018 Paul Mastroianni REC Hopkinton, LLC 77 West Main Street, Suite 213 Hopkinton, MA 01748 Re: Chamberlain St. – Whalen Rd. Subdivision; Chamberlain Street Curve Dear Mr. Mastroianni, As you know, when the Planning Board approved the Chamberlain St.-Whalen Road Subdivision, one of the items to be studied further was the near right-angle curve on Chamberlain St., a public way, and whether it could be rounded to improve public safety access. Specifically, the Certificate of Planning Board Action contained the following condition: 28. The Board recognizes that the abrupt curve at the end of existing Chamberlain Street presents challenges for vehicles, especially large vehicles such as fire trucks, to navigate the curve within the current roadway. The Subdivision Plan shows some improvement in this area, but it is limited to the existing right of way, which is a public way. The Applicant provided a sketch plan of how the curve could be expanded, using an existing easement on the property at 49 Chamberlain Street. However, additional study and discussion with the property owner and the Fire Department would be required in order for the solution, or a similar solution, to go forward. Therefore, in order to alleviate public safety concerns raised during the public hearing, the Applicant shall work with the direct abutters and the Fire Department in an attempt to smooth out/expand the curve’s radius to accommodate a wider turning radius if possible, provided, however, that: 1) the relocated road shall not extend more than 10 feet into the easement on the property at 49 Chamberlain Street; and 2) if the easement is to be used for this purpose, documentation which demonstrates that the easement can be used for a permanent roadway (public way) shall be provided to the Board. If the outcome of this effort is to create a curve in the roadway which does not comply with the minimum centerline radius required for streets in Section 8.2 of the Subdivision Regulations, then a waiver is granted by the Board for a reduced radius. The Board grants the waiver with the recognition that the existing roadway does not conform to the current requirements, the new curve would improve 2 public safety, and the area available for a curve improvement is limited by the existing right of way and any easements that may exist for this purpose. Following the Board’s approval, we met on site with your team, abutters and Fire Department representatives to discuss the curve and the options available. It was decided to find out whether it would be possible to use town-owned land on the inside corner of the curve to improve access. Because the land is subject to a Conservation Restriction held by the Hopkinton Area Land Trust (HALT), I offered to contact HALT to see if they would be willing to discuss using a small amount of land for a softening of the curve. I contacted David Goldman, HALT President, who indicated that HALT would be amenable to the use of the area, but noted that there is an amendment process and State approval would be needed. Therefore, we have begun a process that could allow the softening of the curve on the inside corner. We are working on a draft amendment to the Conservation Restriction that would accommodate the curve, and it would also add additional land to the Restriction in accordance with an unrelated vote at the 2018 annual town meeting. This is a public process which requires review and approval by local boards and the Mass. Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs, and it may require approval by Town Meeting and the Massachusetts Legislature, depending on the approach and the outcome of the review process. Therefore, until this formal process is concluded, no activity of any kind can occur within the existing Conservation Restriction area. Please contact me if you have any questions or if you need more information. Sincerely, Elaine Lazarus Director of Land Use and Town Operations Cc: Hopkinton Area Land Trust HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD Monday, August 27, 2018 7:00 P.M. Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton, MA MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Muriel Kramer, Chairwoman, Fran DeYoung, Vice Chairman, David Paul, Deborah Fein-Brug, Mary Larson-Marlowe, Gary Trendel, Carol DeVeuve, Amy Ritterbusch, Frank D'Urso Present: Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner, Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant Ms. Kramer opened the meeting. 1. Echo Brook Lane/Lumber St. – South Mill Realty LLC – Discussion Ron Nation and Chris Nation, South Mill Realty LLC, proponents, and Mark Kablack, attorney, appeared before the Board. The proponents submitted a color-coded plan of the area for discussion purposes. Mr. DeYoung noted in January 2018 the Board endorsed an approval-not- required (ANR) plan for property at 191 Lumber St. and 1 Echo Brook Ln. to reconfigure 2 lots into 4. He noted since that time additional information was discovered including past Planning Board decisions regarding the Echo Brook subdivision that required a full application for any additional subdivision or re-subdivision as a condition of approval. He noted the developer, his attorney and the Board are looking for clarification whether what the Board approved through the ANR process is correct. Mr. Kablack noted this goes back to two Planning Board decisions, one from 1976 and the other from 1988. He referred to the plan submitted to the Board tonight and noted he thinks the issue ultimately is fairly simple. He noted the area in red was subject of the 1976 Echo Brook subdivision plan, the blue area was added as a result of the 1988 amendment, and the green area includes a portion of the ANR plan endorsed by the Planning Board earlier this year. Ms. Ritterbusch arrived at this time. Mr. Kablack noted in 1976 the Board approved a 3-lot subdivision creating frontage for Echo Brook Lane, stipulating that any further subdivision will require a formal application. He noted the subdivision was formally amended in 1988, but instead of focusing on the additional lots, Condition #3 in the Decision requiring the developer to come back for any further (re)subdivision applies to the entire development but there is nothing in the Minutes that supports this determination. He described the changes made by the ANR approved earlier this year and noted he feels these are not restricted by the 1988 decision. Mr. D’Urso arrived at this time. Mr. Kablack noted the newly created lots were ready to go but when they submitted building permit applications, the Assistant Building Inspector asked for clarification. He noted another argument relates to Condition #3’s reference to the (re)subdivision of the land, but ANR lot line modifications or perimeter plan changes are not considered a subdivision within the definition of Chapter 41 of the Subdivision Control Law. He noted he would like the Board to clarify the issue both to them and the Building Department so that they can move forward. Mr. DeYoung noted the first argument is about the interpretation of the Minutes from 1988, but he feels the 2nd argument is very clear and the one to fall back on. He stated the lots in question have the required access, frontage and area, and the ANR plan endorsed by the Board is not a true subdivision, rather a reallocation of the lot lines. Ms. Kramer noted the new lot 4 is not even an issue, but lot 3 needed a small piece from the original lot 1 in order to get the appropriate frontage which would not be considered a subdivision, and the new lot 1 has different lot lines but does not meet the criteria of a formal subdivision modification. She noted she is not at all comfortable with the first argument trying to interpret old minutes. Mr. D’Urso noted the Board has to go by what was voted on in the past and just recently and is it kind of a hybrid situation which falls within what was reiterated by other Board members. He asked for clarification of the Echo Brook Lane cul-de-sacs on the plan, and Mr. Kablack noted the original cul-de-sac became redundant in 1988 and the “blue” turnaround is what exists now. Mr. D’Urso asked if the original lots 3 and 4 can be built on, and it was determined these are buildable lots. Ms. DeVeuve noted she does not necessarily have an issue with changing the lot lines, but both the 1976 and 1988 decisions refer to the requirement of bringing Echo Brook Lane up to subdivision standards. She asked about the condition of the road, and if the proponents intend to improve the road. Mr. Kablack noted that if there is a further subdivision, there will be a requirement to come back before the Board formally and they can talk about improving the road then. Mr. Trendel asked if the fact that Echo Brook Lane is a private road has anything to do with this, and it was noted access has to be either from a public way, a way shown on an approved/endorsed subdivision plan, or a way in existence prior to adoption of the Subdivision Control Law, and in 1976 and 1988 the Board waived the construction standards. Ms. Kramer noted the Board already endorsed the ANR and it was recorded, adding another layer of complexity. Mr. Trendel asked for clarification, and Ms. Wilson noted this development was considered a “family” subdivision for a couple of lots only. Ms. Kramer noted at one point prior to 1988 the family asked to extend the cul-de-sac for one more lot, but the request was denied in writing but without an official decision, however in 1988 the Board agreed to amend the plan allowing 2 additional lots with 30 ft. water main easement to the Town in return. Mr. D'Urso stated he thought the developer at the January 8, 2018 meeting indicated that Echo Brook Lane would be paved at least up to Lot 1, and Chris Nation stated the Board only asked about the number of driveways and it was determined there would be one more off of Echo Brook Lane. The Board asked for clarification, and Ron Nation noted according to the Minutes improvements to Echo brook Lane were not discussed, which is just another part of the puzzle because the Town plows the road, and South Mill Realty LLC does not intend to finish the road to subdivision standards. Mr. Paul stated it appears everybody wants their road to be private but without the responsibility for maintenance. A discussion followed regarding current ownership of the existing subdivision lots and the potential of further development. Chris Nation stated there has been no interaction with the neighbors, and Mr. Kablack noted there is a good ability to develop lots 3 or 4. Ms. Fein-Brug asked about the condition of the road, and Chris Nation stated it is a highly used gravel road with 3 homes, one of which is vacant. Ms. DeVeuve noted based she understands the property was family owned and the Town initially approved a “family” subdivision waiving some of the construction requirements, and the Town is being kind if it is plowing the road, but she believes at this point based on the 1976 and 1988 decisions it should be brought up to standards. Ms. Fein-Brug agreed. Mr. Kablack noted they have easement rights but don’t control the road. He noted the road is road and passable for practical access, and they do not intend to bring it up to standard. The Board suspended the discussion pending opening and continuing of a scheduled public hearing. 1. Public Hearing – 17 South Mill St. – Scenic Road Permit – Robert and Angela Rizzo Ms. Larson-Marlowe moved to open the public hearing and continue it until after the Echo Brook Lane discussion, Mr. D’Urso seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 2. Echo Brook Lane/Lumber St. – South Mill Realty LLC – Continued Discussion Ms. Kramer noted Michael Shepard, Assistant Building Inspector, is here tonight to answer questions, and from his perspective the Board needs to clarify the issue to avoid future confusion. Mr. Paul moved that the Board ask for a legal opinion, as it is a difficult situation and there is a potential for additional lots. Mr. D’Urso noted the Board has to determine how the 3 separate Planning Board decisions add up in a broad sense. He noted the road at some point may be under consideration to become a public way, and he would feel better if the Board’s clarification is backed up by Town Counsel. Mr. Kablack stated his clients don’t have the right to do anything with the road, and the issue before the Board is strictly a request for administrative clarification. Mr. DeYoung noted he believes Mr. Kablack is right, and Ms. Kramer noted based on the law the plan was entitled to endorsement and a legal opinion will not make this any simpler. Ron Nation referred to Mr. Paul’s concern about additional driveways, and stated the ANR just created on more driveway off a relatively well-maintained gravel road, although he is not sure what it is like further out back. Mr. Paul thanked Mr. Nation for his clarification, and noted he is concerned other people will be making the same argument for instance with respect to Lot 5, and this will go on and on. Ron Nation noted that is where the subdivision requirements will come into play. Ms. Kramer noted the Board approved the additional lots and extension of the cul-de-sac despite the 1976 decision because of the water easement. Mr. Paul asked for clarification, and Ms. Wilson stated further subdivision on Echo Brook Lane would only be possible if the lots have sufficient area and frontage, and it was noted that according to the Minutes of 1988 any further subdivision will require a formal application to the Planning Board. Mr. Paul stated he is now ok with proceeding without asking for a legal opinion knowing that the Board endorsed the ANR and the decision from 1988 does not sanction additional driveways going forward. Mr. Trendel asked what happens if the Board declines to clarify this matter, and Ms. Wilson stated they still will have a conflict with respect to issuing building permits. Mr. Kablack noted in case of a denial, the applicant would appeal the Building Inspector’s decision to the Board of Appeals. Mr. D’Urso stated he would like to hear from Mr. Shepard and feels the Board should have legal representation as well to make sure the Board is doing the right thing, also with the future property owners in mind. The Board suspended discussion of this matter to open and continue a scheduled public hearing. 3. Continued Public Hearing – 17, 0, 0 Wilson St., 0 Cedar St. – 1) Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Special Permit Application; 2) Stormwater Management Permit Application – TJA Solar Mr. Paul moved to open the public hearing and continue until after the already continued scenic road hearing for 17 South Mill St. Ms. Ritterbusch seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 4. Echo Brook Lane/Lumber St. – South Mill Realty LLC – Continued Discussion Mr. Paul stated he changed his mind and moved that the Board vote on the need for legal assistance. Ms. DeVeuve noted she would first like to hear from Mr. Shepard. Michael Shepard, Assistant Building Inspector, joined the discussion. Mr. Shepard noted the proponents applied for building permits 6 weeks ago and due to wetlands issues with one of the lots they looked at the 1976 and 1988 decisions and felt that issuing the permits could be a potentially costly mistake to the Town. He noted ANR lots don’t have to be on a public way, but after reading the past Planning Board decisions he felt this should be clarified. He noted the Planning Board used to approve “family” subdivisions allowing a couple of lots on dead-end streets, waiving the requirement for pavement or sidewalks. He noted in this case Joe Colella who owned the land to the north was looking for a way to get to Lumber St., and the Board’s approval of the Echo Brook “family” subdivision was essentially a reaction to public fear for a through road. He noted in retrospect he feels he could very well go ahead and issue the building permits and everyone makes mistakes. He stated the Gorman family wants to keep road as is, and they can talk about building the road to standards if there is ever a proposal to further subdivide lot 5. He noted he had told the Nation’s they could get approval through the Board of Appeals but suggested going to the Planning Board first for clarification. Mr. D’Urso asked if there has been contact with the people at the end of Echo Brook Lane, and Mr. Shepard stated no and it was determined there is no public notice for ANR plans. Mr. DeYoung asked about the Board's position regarding the need for legal assistance. Mr. D’Urso noted he feels better after hearing Mr. Shepard’s input. After further discussion, Mr. Paul stated he does no longer feel Town Counsel’s input is necessary, and Ms. Kramer she noted she feels it is ok with proceeding without. The Board discussed the language of the motion to be used to clarify the Board’s January 8, 2018 endorsement of the ANR Plan for 191 Lumber St. and 1 Echo Brook Lane. Mr. Kablack stated he prefers an official vote to be reflected in the Minutes clarifying that the Board has determined that Condition #3 of the Planning Board’s 1988 decision does not apply to an ANR endorsement. It was further clarified that the Board has determined that Condition #3 of the July 8, 1988 Planning Board decision specifically does not apply to the ANR Plan endorsed by the Board on January 8, 2018. Mr. Paul stated he is withdrawing his motion to ask for a legal opinion. Ms. Kramer moved that the Board confirm that the lots shown on the ANR plan endorsed on January 8, 2018 for property at 191 Lumber St. and 1 Echo Brook Lane are not a subdivision or re-subdivision of land under the criteria of the Subdivision Control Law, and approve the clarification that the ANR plan endorsed by the Board on January 8, 2018 for property at 191 Lumber St. and 1 Echo Brook Lane is not restricted by Condition #3 of the Planning Board’s July 8, 1988 decision. Mr. Shepard asked that this clarification be in a format to be recorded in the Registry along with the ANR plan for future reference and to protect further homeowners. Ms. Larson-Marlowe seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 5. Public Hearing – 17 South Mill St. – Scenic Road Application – Robert and Angela Rizzo Robert Rizzo and Angela Rizzo, applicants, appeared before the Board. Ms. Kramer thanked the applicants for their patience. Mr. Rizzo stated they love the scenic nature of South Mill St. and propose to restack a section of stone wall along their property in keeping with the overall scenic character of the road. He referred to pictures submitted as part of the application. He noted he reviewed his plans with his neighbors on South Mill St., and all have expressed their support. Ms. Kramer thanked the applicants for reaching out to their neighbors, and noted the Board received a copy of the neighborhood petition in support just tonight. Mr. Trendel asked what the applicants intend to use for restacking/restoring the wall, and Mr. Rizzo stated he plans to take the stones from a pile near the lot line to the left and they can also have New England field stones brought in. Mr. D’Urso noted he is a proponent of the scenic road bylaw, and stated the applicants have done a good job on the application and he is in support. Ms. Wilson noted she reviewed the Planning Board files on this property and it is one of 6 lots purchased by a developer in 2016. She noted 3 of them required scenic road approval, affecting 20 ft. of stone wall in the aggregate with 5-6 ft. for this lot in particular. She noted the Planning Board does not does not have a closeout process for scenic permits, but using the leftover stones at #5 South Mill St. was a condition of approval. Ms. Ritterbusch stated there are photos documenting current conditions, and Ms. Wilson stated according to the Minutes the existing stone wall was pretty sparse. Mr. Paul noted he is in support of the plan, and asked about the ability to match colors if field stones have to be brought in. Mr. Rizzo noted they will talk to a landscaping company but they have access to the extra piles. ______ Perkins, 14 South Mill St., noted she is in support of the proposal. Ms. Kramer read the criteria of approval under the Scenic Road bylaw, and it was determined that each item is in compliance. Mr. D’Urso moved to approve the scenic road application for 17 South Mill St. as submitted, Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. DeYoung moved to close the public hearing, Mr. Trendel seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 6. Continued Public Hearing – 17, 0, 0 Wilson St., 0 Cedar St. – 1) Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Special Permit Application; 2) Stormwater Management Permit Application – TJA Solar Chris King, Atlantic Design Engineers (ADL), engineer, and Joseph Pacella, attorney, appeared before the Board. Ms. Kramer asked if the Board now has the final plans, and Ms. Wilson stated yes. Mr. King noted he believes they have final signoff from BETA Group regarding engineering and technical issues, and since the last meeting received approval from the Conservation Commission with an Order of Conditions to be issued soon. He noted it sounds as if the Board has received a series of comment letters which address and outline the issues they talked about. Mr. King referred to the question regarding the proposed interconnection point, and referred to an email from the applicant noting they have done due diligence and determined that they will use Wilson St. for that purpose. He noted it is understood that this concerns a scenic road, and therefore some of the customer equipment will be relocated underground. The Board suspended the discussion to continue the public hearing for Bucklin St./Leonard St. 7. Continued Public Hearing – Bucklin St. & Leonard St. – Stormwater Management Permit Application – Wall Street Development Corp. Mr. Trendel moved to continue the public hearing to September 17, 2018 at 8:35 P.M., Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 8. Continued Public Hearing – 17, 0, 0 Wilson St., 0 Cedar St. – 1) Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Special Permit Application; 2) Stormwater Management Permit Application – TJA Solar Mr. King noted the landscaping plan will include screening around the equipment on Wilson St. He noted they will install a security gate close to Wilson St., and it will be an ornamental style to fit in with the character of the street. He referred to the letter received from Jane Moran, Chairman, UCTC, and noted that the applicant at the last meeting and in further discussions with Ms. Moran, has determined that this site is not suitable for a trail connection for a number of reasons. Mr. King noted the landowners are aware of Ms. Moran’s proposal and any future contacts and agreements will be directly with them. He noted he also received correspondence from James Haskins of the Hopkinton Historical Society, and referred to a letter from Deborah Cox, Public Archeology Laboratory (PAL). He noted the PAL is very familiar with this area because of their work on the Tennessee Gas Pipeline and Legacy Farms and has determined there are no historical assets based on knowledge and records. He noted there is a legal opinion letter from Mr. Pacella in response to Mr. Haskins’ comments, and ADL has prepared an overlay of the site plan showing the approximate locations of the stone landscapes with a chart from PAL as to the potential impact due to construction. He noted some of them will not be disturbed, but they may not be able to protect all of them, for instance the ones in the middle of the project. Mr. King stated he heard from the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer regarding the buffer zone issue. He noted they do not agree with his opinion, but it is somewhat of a moot point since they are working very closely with the abutters in terms of screening, particularly with respect to the borders shared with 15 and 21 Wilson St. He noted they crafted a landscape plan with adequate screening, and in addition they beefed up frontage screening along Wilson St. in an effort to further protect the integrity of the scenic road. He noted they had some requests for changes to the landscape plan, and the applicant is amenable if the Board agrees. Mr. King noted the general intent is to identify the areas subject to potential visual impact, and they are leaving it up to their landscape designer to come up with effective and appropriate screening. He stated they discussed offsite plantings with the owner of 15 Wilson St., and there will be a pre-installation meeting to make sure the final design is as agreed upon. Ms. Kramer asked if there will be some offsite screening to address the concerns of property owners across the street, and Mr. King stated no. Mr. King noted there will be screening along the edge of the area because they understand that tree clearing will open up the view corridor and things may look different depending on the season. He noted the owner of 21 Wilson St. asked them to move a small section of the fence back approximately 18 ft. along the top of the hill and take some screening out of the existing forest, and they will make that change if the Board agrees - either by revising the landscape plan or through a condition. Phil Paradis, BETA Group, Inc., the Board's consultant, noted all engineering issues have been addressed. Ms. Kramer referred to site layout. Mr. Trendel asked about the impact on Wilson St. from a scenic road perspective and stated he does not understand the applicant's decision to connect there if there is an alternative. Ms. Kramer stated from her perspective she too still is concerned about this. Ms. Wilson noted the applicant does not have to file a scenic road application if not triggered by the proposed activities. Ms. Kramer referred to site access. Mr. D’Urso stated he is all in favor of solar power, but would prefer the applicant use Cedar St. for access. Ms. Fein-Brug asked for clarification regarding the “Approximate Location Plan”. Mr. King stated they prepared the plan based on the information submitted to the Board by Mr. Haskins and the construction protocol recommended by the PAL. Ms. Fein-Brug noted at some point this will have to be discussed in more detail as she has some misgivings about potentially destroying future heritage on the site, and Ms. Kramer stated they will talk about it now. Ms. Fein-Brug noted this may also have something to do with access and perhaps there are alternatives. She asked how many of these monuments there are in Massachusetts and what the effect would be of the Planning Board decision. Mr. Pacella asked the Board to consider the detailed preservation of the law on this issue, and the credentials of Ms. Cox who indicates that there is no reference of the stones in the National Registry of Historic Places. He noted he called the Massachusetts Historical Society and was told these stone landscapes are considered cultural resources, not historic properties, and therefore not within their jurisdiction. He noted he feels there is a dispute about these types of monuments, but they will try to make everyone happy to the best of their ability. He noted the applicant is suggesting a $5,000 donation to the Hopkinton Historical Society if they are willing to flag the structures to make sure everyone is on the same page because they rather not get into a battle of the experts. The Board halted the discussion to open and continue a scheduled public hearing. 9. Public Hearing – Whisper Way OSLPD – Definitive Subdivision Plan Application – 20th Century Homes Mr. D’Urso moved to open the public hearing and continue it at the conclusion of tonight’s discussion of the Wilson St./Cedar St. solar project, Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 10. Continued Public Hearing – 17, 0, 0 Wilson St., 0 Cedar St. – 1) Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Special Permit Application; 2) Stormwater Management Permit Application – TJA Solar Ms. Kramer thanked the applicant for the clarification. Ms. Larson-Marlowe stated she appreciated the applicant’s review of late breaking information and his willingness to see what can be done, but she too would like to consider the possibility of bringing in an expert, as this is an issue worthy of additional investigation as to its historical significance. She noted it appears these particular sites were not identified and therefore not recorded as an archeological historic resource. Ms. Kramer noted there is a difference between cultural vs. historical resources which is another argument. Ms. Ritterbusch asked if these are comments from Mr. Haskins as an individual member or whether the matter is under the purview of the Hopkinton Historical Society or the Planning Board. Mr. DeYoung asked how they were identified, and Mr. Pacella noted it appears to have occurred by trespass. Mr. Pacella referred to his experience with another Massachusetts town where they denied last minute letters such as the one from Mr. Haskins. He noted his client wants to move forward and is offering to protect these resources to the best of his ability, and he would like the Board to know this may have implications for instance for future Town projects. Ms. Kramer thanked Mr. Pacella for his input. Mr. D’Urso noted he appreciates the developer’s willingness to not disturb the stones recklessly and asked for additional information regarding the chart on the plan. Ms. Kramer noted they would ask Mr. Haskins to help flag the stones, and she does not think the Board has enough information. It was determined that 4 of the 7 voting members want professional input on this issue. Mr. DeYoung stated he believes this is a first for the Board and Ms. Ritterbusch stated a similar issue came up in connection with the Chamberlain/Whalen subdivision. Mr. King stated he finds it interesting that this came up last minute, and Ms. Kramer noted this is the final plan with the ability of the public to impact the project and in her opinion the submission of the additional information was made in a timely manner. Mr. D’Urso stated these may be items that go back thousands of years and deserve respect, and he is concerned even though he is not eligible to vote on the application. Ms. Kramer noted they will ask for additional input. Ms. Fein-Brug stated she would like to point out that the applicant had indicated they would address the concerns of the owners across the street (Hanewich). Reference was made to access. Ms. Fein-Brug noted the Town has used the Cedar St. access as a way to get to the snow dump for a long time, and perhaps there can be some negotiation with the applicant to come up with a slightly altered access in return for giving up Wilson St. as the point of interconnection. She noted she is interested in the story behind the access to the snow dump, how it was obtained and how it can be looked at, also in the context of a possible trail connection and preservation of the stone landscapes recently identified. Mr. King noted he has no information on that issue. Ms. Kramer referred to open issues, including screening for the Hanewich property, array size, and the possibility of underground utilities if Wilson St. is used as the point of interconnection. She asked whether there are stormwater management issues. She noted she appreciates the applicant’s willingness to work with the UCTC and would like to see a reference to this in the decision. Mr. Pacella noted that will be between the UCTC and the landowners. Mr. DeYoung asked if it is the applicant’s position to have 2 points of access, and Mr. King stated yes as there is no upland connectivity due to the wetlands on site and the Conservation Commission’s request to avoid direct impact. Ms. Kramer stated she does not believe they have an answer to the question about the interconnection point, other than that Wilson St. is preferred by the utility and that there are time constraints. She stated she would like to know more about the reason why and feels it would make common sense to connect from industrially zoned land. Anne Zettek, 39 East Main St., asked for clarification regarding the applicant’s statement that construction materials will be underground. It was noted this concerns the plan to install some of the electrical equipment underground. Ms. Zettek stated she is concerned about the construction activities and equipment in view of the location on Wilson St. with a hill and a curve in the road. Ms. Kramer stated there will be a police detail to ensure safety. Ms. Zettek asked how long construction would take, and Mr. King noted 3 to 4 months. Ms. Zettek stated a scenic road is not the right place for commercial use. Ed Cutter, 21 Wilson St. asked if the point of interconnection is still an open issue, and Ms. Kramer stated yes. Mr. Cutter noted it seems obvious that Cedar St. is the preferred location, and based on a recent email exchange with the applicant it is not clear that the utility company could not possibly approve it, and he thinks that it is TJA Solar's preference to stay with Wilson St. because of timing and cost concerns. He noted he feels there should be more consideration for the abutters, and Ms. Kramer stated she agrees, personally. Mr. Trendel noted the developer has gone to great length to reduce the impact, particularly in terms of screening. He asked Mr. Cutter if he would rather have more landscaping or see the point of interconnection moved away from Wilson St. Mr. Cutter noted that is not a fair question, and he is here to protect his interest as well as that of the other abutters and he does not feel there should be a choice. Tim Valtour, TJA Solar, asked if he can offer some input, and Ms. Kramer stated he is welcome to comment but it will have to be at the next meeting. The Board considered the date and time for a continued hearing. Mr. Pacella asked the Board to vote on the requirement for an expert on the stone landscapes, and Ms. Kramer stated the Board agreed on that issue and a vote is not necessary. Mr. D’Urso moved to continue the public hearing to October 1, 2018 at 7:45 P.M., and extend the deadline for the decision on the stormwater management permit application to October 9, 2018, Ms. Larson-Marlowe seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 11. Public Hearing – Whisper Way OSLPD – Definitive Subdivision Plan Application – 20th Century Homes Mr. DeYoung moved to continue the hearing until after the Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC) and Design Review Board (DRB) appointments, Mr. Trendel seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 12. Appointments – Design Review Board; Zoning Advisory Committee Design Review Board – It was noted there is a vacancy for an alternate position, but all other current members have asked to be reappointed. Ms. Ritterbusch moved to reappoint Jeanette Thomson, Sue-Ellen Stoddard, Rina McNamara, and Jeffrey Doherty for terms to expire on 7/31/19, Mr. D’Urso seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Zoning Advisory Committee - Ron Foisy, 25 Chamberlain St., Elyse Barret Mihajloski, 9 Norcross Rd., and Madhumitha Chandrasekar, 18 Rocky Woods Rd., appeared before the Board. It was noted Mr. Foisy has been designated by the Chamber of Commerce for a 1-year term, and Ms. Barret Mihajloski and Ms. Chandrasekar have applied for 1-year associate positions. Ms. Larson-Marlowe provided a brief introduction on the purpose and structure of the Committee, and summarized some of the changes voted by the Planning Board at the previous meeting. She noted appointments in the past were for 1 year with meetings starting in September finishing in February with recommendations to the Planning Board. She noted going forward the Committee will meet year round so that it is ready to start working on items for the next town meeting as soon as the current proposals are wrapped up. She noted the Committee will have 3 at-large voting members for 2-year terms, 2 at-large voting members starting with 1-year terms to begin with and 2 years on a rotating basis going forward, as well as 4 liaisons to be designated by other boards and committees for 1 year. She explained the reasons for the change. It was noted 2 candidates are not here tonight, namely Ria McNamara who has applied for a 1-year at- large voting slot and Ted Barker-Hook who will be a Conservation Commission representative. She noted they may encourage more applicants to come forward. Ms. Ritterbusch noted typically associates can vote until they get enough full-time members, and Ms. Kramer noted that is a process question. Ms. Chandrasekar noted she moved to Hopkinton in 2012, is a software engineer, has a 5-year old daughter, and would like to be more involved. She noted she heard about the ZAC and felt that may be a good starting point. Ms. Barret Mihajloski stated she moved here a year ago and lived in Massachusetts for 1-1/2 year, and before that lived in Miami, Florida, and has been involved with town and city government before. She noted she really likes Hopkinton and would like to contribute to its future in a positive way. Mr. Foisy noted he has lived in Hopkinton since 1989, has been involved with the Chamber for most of the time. He noted he feels economic development and diversity can go hand in hand, economic growth means more tax revenue and that is part of the reason he wants to join the ZAC. Mr. DeYoung noted the ZAC typically means twice a month, and it was noted the schedule might be a little different if year round. Ms. Fein-Brug asked the applicants what they would like the ZAC to study. Ms. Chandrasekar stated they need more industrial/commercial development to keep residential taxes down, and she would like the ZAC to look into the proper balance. Ms. Barret Mihajloski stated she has not lived here long enough to be able to answer the question as to how real estate works in Town, but she would like to build on the potential for more commercial development on Main St. Mr. Foisy noted they need to simplify and better coordinate the process between boards and committees to get things through more quickly. Mr. Trendel asked if Ms. Chandrasekar and Barret would be interested in full appointments, and both noted they are. The Board discussed Planning Board representation, and Ms. Larson-Marlowe volunteered for the position and Ms. DeVeuve noted she may be interested if needed. Ms. Ritterbusch voted to appoint the following to the Zoning Advisory Committee for a term to expire on 8/31/19: Ria McNamara (at-large position); Ted Barker-Hook (Conservation Commission), Mary Larson-Marlowe (Planning Board); Ron Foisy (Chamber of Commerce); and the following for a term to expire on 8/31/20: Elyse Barret Mihajloski (at-large) and Madhumitha Chandrasekar ((at-large). Mr. D’Urso seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor. It was noted the Board of Appeals slot remains to be determined, and it was decided to re-advertise for the remaining positions. 13. Public Hearing – Whisper Way OSLPD – Definitive Subdivision Plan Appication – 20th Century Homes Chris Nation, 20th Century Homes,applicant, Dan Hazen and Elizabeth Mainini, Guerriere & Halnon, engineers, appeared before the Board. Mr. Hazen described the plan for a 24-lot definitive subdivision pursuant a special permit concept plan approved by the Board in March 2018. He noted this is a ____ acre site with 4 existing homes, including one on Wood St. dating from 1950, and 3 newer homes off Whisper Way built in the 1990’s. He noted Whisper Way is a 900 ft. long, private, gravel road off of Wood St. He noted it is steep, in disrepair, with a parking area towards the end for access to trails on Town property. He noted the speed limit in that area on Wood St. is 35 mph. He noted the applicant has filed a Notice of Intent with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Hazen stated there is a vernal pool along the front of the property and 2 more in the back. He noted the new road is proposed at 3,500 ft., will be 22 ft. wide, with a sidewalk on one side, and the subdivision will be served by a private Oakwood septic system which is formally before the Board of Health for review. He noted the development will have municipal water. He described lot layout, road design and explained the drainage system. He described the location of the wetlands and noted there will be a couple of crossings as part of the design. He noted they propose 2 parking areas for horse trailers, and will re-gravel the existing parking lot near the Town land. He noted the two existing homes at the top of the hill will stay, but the house on Wood St. will be demolished. Mr. Hazen noted there will be 26.2 acres of permanent open space, which is more than the 50% required, although the figure will change a little bit in response to a BETA comment. He noted they are asking for some waivers, including cross-sections, which is a waiver that has been asked for in the past, and also from the location of street trees, and the installation of street lights which has not been required in subdivisions for a long time. Mr. DeYoung left the room. Mr. Hazen noted they are asking for a waiver from the 25% grade requirement. Ms. DeVeuve asked for particulars and Mr. Hazen stated he is not sure about the exact numbers. Mr. Hazen noted they also would like a waiver from the 100 ft. buffer zone requirement with respect to the property line in the back, and this is related to the placement of the septic system. He noted the Board during the concept phase had indicated a desire for a sidewalk on Wood St., but that would be difficult because of the vernal pool, steep grade off the backside of the guardrail, and an existing utility pole, but perhaps they can do something similar to what is being done along East Main St. and they will talk to BETA and the DPW. Mr. DeYoung returned. Mr. Hazen described the challenges with respect to the drainage system. Phil Paradis, BETA Group, Inc., appeared before the Board and introduced Jill Borkoff, his associate. He noted BETA is reviewing the project for the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission. He referred to the open space special permit decision, and stated this is a very challenging site in terms of wetlands, topography, soils and ledge for a dense development with a special septic system and some amenities to connect to adjacent open space. He noted he feels there is a lot of work to be done because of topography, and has asked the developer to make changes to the stormwater management design. He noted BETA found some conflicting information with respect to soil data and other engineering issues. Ms. Kramer thanked Mr. Paradis for his comments. Ms. Wilson stated they just received revised plans right before for the meeting. She stated these plans are not being presented tonight and she has a feeling they will be revised again. The Board discussed a date and time for a site walk. It was noted some members have walked the site already but it would be beneficial for the new members. After discussion the site walk was scheduled for September 8, 2018 at 9:00 A.M., starting at the Whisper Way parking area. Mr. Paul moved to continue the public hearing to October 1, 2018 at 8:45 P.M. and extend the decision date to October 23, 2018 with mutual agreement, Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Paradis asked if it's ok to work with the applicant's engineer offline, and Ms. Kramer stated yes. Ms. DeVeuve and Mr. Trendel stepped off the Board at this time. 14. Chamberlain-Whalen Subdivision Paul Mastroianni and Kathy Sherry, REC Hopkinton, LLC, applicants, appeared before the Board. Ms. Sherry stated they are submitting the definitive plans for endorsement as well as other associated documents for the Board’s signature. She noted they intend to start the infrastructure within the next few weeks. Ms. Sherry stated REC Hopkinton, LLC is asking to defer a vote on the Homeowners Association documents to the start of construction of the first home. Ms. Kramer thanked the proponents for the clarification and asked them to walk the Board through the changes to the plan with respect to the Tedstone property. Ms. Sherry stated the proposed layout at the end of Chamberlain St. did not meet the required center radius, and the Board ended up approving the proposal including the use of a 10 ft. of the easement on Mr. Tedstone's property. She noted since that time Elaine Lazarus, Dir. Of Land Use & Town Operations, and the Hopkinton Area Land Trust (HALT) entered into negotiations, and it was agreed to use 1,400 sq.ft. of the land under conservation restriction. She noted looking at the revised plan, the Tedstone property including the stone wall in that location will now not be affected at all. Ms. Sherry noted Ms. Lazarus presently is working with the state for further approvals. Ms. Wilson stated the Town process is complete, and the changes can be recorded as soon as the state portion of the process is finished. Ms. Kramer stated she is pleased to see there will be no impact on the Tedstone's. Mr. D'Urso noted he feels the Town should not have given up 1,400 sq.ft. of conservation land to address private concerns, and Ms. Wilson stated it is in return for adequate emergency access and turning radius. Mr. D'Urso stated if the plan did not meet the requirements it should not be built, and he does not like after-the-fact changes. Ms. Kramer noted she appreciates Mr. D'Urso's comments but from a process standpoint but from a process standpoint they can only look at what is in front of the Board. Mr. D'Urso stated agreement made without consulting the Planning Board, an elected board that works for the Town, would be a very serious problem. Mr. Paul suggested asking Ms. Lazarus and the Town Manager for clarification. Ms. DeVeuve, 47 Chamberlain St., speaking as a resident as not as member of the Board, noted she remembers that during the site walk there were concerns about the road being able to support the anticipated type and volume of traffic. The applicant noted they brought his contractor who can speak to that, and Ms. Sherry stated she believes there are no issues but will follow up. Ms. DeVeuve asked if she will have to deal with headlights shining into her bedroom window as a result of the change to the plan at the Tedstone corner, and Ms. Sherry stated there should be sufficient landscape screening but they will look at it. Ms. Fein-Brug left the room at this time. Ms. Kramer asked the Board members whether they feel they should pursue Town officials' decision regarding the use of conservation land. Mr. DeYoung noted he is interested in the information but not sure whether it is germane to the discussion tonight. Mr. Mastroianni stated they did this as a courtesy to the Tedstone's, but the Board approved the subdivision and they can build it as approved. Mr. D’Urso suggested asking Ms. Lazarus to come before the Board and explain. Ms. Wilson referred to the Certificate of Planning Board Action, and Condition #28, which is related to this issue. Ms. Kramer stated the Board at the time did not think using some of the conservation land was a realistic option. Ms. Kramer noted she too is interested what transpired but she is not interested to hold up a decision tonight, and she believes in respect between boards. Mr. DeYoung moved to sign the Conditional Approval Agreement, and Mr. Paul seconded the motion. Ms. Fein-Burg stated she is not necessarily defending Mr. D'Urso's objection, but the Town should not set precedent and give away Town land, especially conservation land, and she would like the minutes to reflect that there was a comment made to this point. She stated the Town is losing a lot of open land due to development, and if the Town is starting to give away land to contractors, where does it draw the line. Ms. Kramer stated she understands the concern and the Board in principle agrees it would like to understand what happened, but is not really their decision. The Board voted __ in favor, 1 opposed (D'Urso). Mr. DeYoung moved to endorse the definitive plan for Chamberlain St./Whalen Rd., Mr. Paul seconded the motion, and after further discussion, the Board voted __ in favor, 1 opposed (D'Urso). The Board discussed the outstanding item with respect to approval of the Homeowners Association documents. Ms. Fein-Brug stated she is concerned about yet another item that has to come back to the Board, and she feels, for the sake of streamlining the process, applicants should be aware that this type of item cannot be put off. Mr. Mastroianni noted he prefers to do this later. Ms. Fein-Brug stated there is standard language for these types of documents, and they can always be amended. She noted cannot keep revisiting these things all the time but there will be future reports, etc., so hopefully they will be consolidated at that time. Ms. Larson-Marlowe moved to extend the approval of the Homeowners Association documents, Ms. Fein-Brug seconded the motion, and the Board in ___ in favor, 1 opposed (Fein-Brug), 1 abstention (D'Urso). 15. BETA Group, Inc. – Peer Review Contract Extension Ms. DeVeuve left the room for a couple of minutes. After a brief discussion, Mr. Trendel moved to extend the engineering peer review services contract with BETA Group, Inc. for 1 year, and Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion. Mr. D'Urso stated he is in favor of extending the contract for another year, but they have had a lot of changes and it is probably time to go out for bids again, which he believes is typically done every three years. Ms. DeVeuve returned to the meeting, and Ms. Kramer noted the Board is considering the extension of BETA's contract for 1 year. Ms. Kramer noted she is not opposed to understanding the history of peer review services but they should start talking about it now. Ms. Kramer stated she is very pleased with BETA's services, thinks they have done a professional job and are often unbelievably responsive. Mr. DeYoung noted the Board typically goes out to bid every three years and interviews applicants, but he agrees a 1-year extension is warranted. Mr. DeYoung asked if BETA would have the same principals, and it was noted Mr. Paradis was accompanied tonight by Ms. Bokoff and it assumed she will start coming to the meetings. 16. Administrative Business / Minutes The Board reviewed the draft Minutes of June 25, 2018 and July 9, 2018. Mr. DeYoung moved to approve the Minutes of June 25, 2018, as written, Mr. Trendel seconded the motion, and the Board voted 8 in favor with 1 abstention (DeVeuve). Mr. D'Urso moved to approve the Minutes of July 9, 2018, as written, Ms. Fein-Brug seconded the motion, and the Board voted 8 in favor with 1 abstention (DeVeuve). Mr. Trendel moved to adjourn, Mr. DeYoung 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 August 27, 2018 Planning Board meeting  Memo from Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner, to Planning Board, dated August 23, 2018, re: Items of August 27, 2018 Planning Board Agenda  Exhibit Plan – Echo Brook Lane, dated August 2, 2018, prepared by Precision Land Surveying, Inc.  Handout – Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC)  Public Hearing Outline – Whisper Way Subdivision, Definitive Subdivision Plan application showing 24 building lots. Meeting Dates: 8/27/18  Public Hearing Outline Solar Special Permit/Stormwater Management Permit 17 Wilson Street – TJA Solar Public Hearing Date: 8/27/18; Site Development Plans, Wilson Street Solar Project, dated March 7, 2018 rev. through July 30, 2018, prepared by Atlantic Design Engineers; Approximate Location Plan for Wilson Street Solar Project, dated August 20, 2018, prepared by Atlantic Design Engineers; Landscape Screening Plan for Wilson Street Solar Project, dated August 20, 2018, prepared by Atlantic Design Engineers; Email to Muriel Kramer, Chair, Hopkinton Planning Board, from James Haskins, dated Aug. 27, 2018, re: Wilson St. Solar Project, Hopkinton, MA Ceremonial Site; Letter to Muriel Kramer, Chair, Hopkinton Planning Board, from Joseph M. Pacella, dated August 19, 2018, re: Legal Opinion Letter, Application by TJA Solar, Wilson Street Solar Project, Hopkinton, MA;  Draft Planning Board Minutes for June 25, 2018 and July 9, 2018