HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180917 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes1
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
Monday, September 17, 2018 7:30 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. Scenic Road Approval Compliance Review – 120 Pond St.
Reference was made to a scenic road permit issued by the Board a couple of months ago for the
repair/restoration of a section of stone wall at 120 Pond St. damaged by a car. Mr. DeYoung
noted the applicant, Vincent D’Eramo, at the public hearing on June 11, 2018, stated he intended
the design to be consistent with that of existing area stone walls, but it has come to the Board’s
attention that the actual work being done is quite different. He stated he would like the Board to
discuss the issue and consider a possible course of action.
Mr. D’Urso arrived at this time.
Ms. Ritterbusch asked about a post-approval review process for scenic road permits, and Ms.
Wilson noted the Board typically only gets involved when there is a problem. Ms. Kramer stated
maybe decisions should have some built-in specificity in this respect. Mr. DeYoung stated the
Board approved the application based on the bylaw criteria expecting consistency with the
surrounding rural character, but it appears the reconstruction went into a different direction. Mr.
Trendel noted there are 2 issues, 1) this specific case, and 2) the scenic road permitting process
in general. He noted he drove by the site a couple of times and feels there is a clear difference
between the proposed and actual design. The Board reviewed the before and after pictures of the
area, and Board members noted the wall is lacking rural character with respect to shape and the
type of stones used for restoration. Ms. Fein-Brug asked when the pictures were taken, and Ms.
Wilson noted the before pictures were included in the application and she took the new ones last
week when work was still in progress but essentially complete. Mr. DeYoung suggested the
Board follow up with Mr. D’Eramo and establish compliance criteria for future applications. He
asked about available options for remedial action and Ms. Wilson stated it is up to the Board.
Mr. Trendel noted he would like the applicant to come back and explain. Ms. Ritterbusch stated
she too is ok with following up with the applicant, but it is difficult to reproduce a historic stone
wall and she believes an effort was made in this case. Ms. Fein-Brug stated she feels it can be
done although it may require bringing in special stones. Mr. D’Urso referred to the bylaw, and
noted perhaps they can ask for remediation or a fine if the actual design is significantly different.
Mr. Paul suggested a site walk if the Board decides to ask the applicant to come back, and Mr.
DeYoung stated the members can at least go out individually. Ms. DeVeuve noted according to
the minutes the applicant was supposed to achieve the original feel, but it appears he ended up
2
using all new stones, and the old stones are still laying there in front. It was suggested asking a
professional stone layer for input on this issue.
Mr. Trendel and Ms. DeVeuve stepped off the Board at this time.
2. Continued Public Hearing – 90 Hayden Rowe – School Bus Parking Lot – Town of
Hopkinton School Department
Ms. Kramer stated Mr. D’Urso can participate in the discussion but cannot vote on the
application. Ms. Ritterbusch moved to open the public hearing, Mr. D’Urso seconded the
motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Susan Rothermich, Director of Finance &
Operations, Hopkinton School Dept., and Bill Mertz, WorldTech Engineering, engineer,
appeared before the Board.
Mr. Mertz noted outstanding issues included lighting, landscaping, and stormwater management
with peak rate control of runoff as the biggest concern. He noted they were able to increase the
size of the detention basin, shortening the length of the parking lot but losing 3 bus parking
spaces in the process. He noted the plan has been revised to show a minimum 1% slope
throughout the lot to achieve the appropriate grading. He noted they were able to reduce the
height of the light poles to 15 ft., moving them around to achieve better light distribution while
maximizing the number of parking spaces. Mr. Mertz noted they are not proposing to install
landscaping but will put in 5 trees, all red maples at BETA’s recommendation, and perhaps at
this point that can be handled through a condition of approval. Mr. Mertz noted everything else
remains the same since the last time.
Ms. Kramer asked about the construction schedule. Mr. Mertz stated they want to start next year
as soon as school is out and the project will go out to bid all over again over the winter which
hopefully will result in better pricing.
Ms. Kramer asked Phil Paradis, BETA Group, the Board’s consultant engineer, to comment. Mr.
Paradis thanked the Board for extending BETA’s contract and noted he is glad to see the Board
has confidence in their services. He noted with respect to this project, the big concern was the
peak rate of runoff, but as a result of the reengineering and modifications the design now meets
all 10 standards for stormwater management. He introduced his associate Jillian Bokoff, noting
Ms. Bokoff made the recommendation to install maples due to concerns that spacing would not
work otherwise. Ms. Ritterbusch stated she is concerned the parking lot is too small for future
growth. Mr. DeYoung asked if there is a potential secondary location if the lot is outgrown, and
Ms. Rothermich noted they would relocate the spaces intended for the drivers. Mr. D’Urso
stated it appears that they need an extra bus about every 1 or 2 years, and it was noted they had to
add another one this year.
Ms. Fein-Brug stated she is uneasy about diesel fumes in public places and asked if there have
been any thoughts about switching to electric buses. Ms. Rothermich noted as far as alternative
fuels are concerned, diesel is the most preferred, propane is high on the list, and electric is last.
She noted the bus company buys the buses, and perhaps within 5 years there will be a change.
Ms. Fein-Brug noted the Town should be proactive, and asked about the possibility of installing
electrical conduits to be prepared, and Mr. Mertz noted this is not something they have looked at.
3
Mr. D’Urso noted he is in favor of alternative fuels, but parking the buses in Hopkinton will
eliminate several roundtrips to Ashland resulting in less pollution. Ms. Kramer noted that will be
an open item, but other than that parking lot design, access, traffic, and stormwater management
are all set. She noted with respect to lighting it looks like there are some gaps, and Mr. Mertz
noted this will be the maximum level they can achieve without sacrificing more parking spaces.
Ms. Kramer asked if the lights will be on all the time or motion activated, and Mr. Mertz stated
they can go either way. Ms. Kramer stated she would prefer motion-activated lighting but
understands the Police Dept. prefers to have the lights on all the time. She noted if it turns out to
be an imposition on the neighbors, they can always revisit the issue. Ms. Fein-Brug stated she
feels the details for the light pole assembly are weak, and Mr. Paradis stated these are standard
foundation details and they will be fine. Reference was made to signage, and it was noted there
is no signage for the lot itself but the Design Review Board (DRB) had asked to make sure the
directional signage is up to date for the new use. Ms. Ritterbusch suggested asking the applicant
to come back to the DRB for additional review, and Ms. Wilson stated she will check to see if
there are particular standards. Ms. Kramer suggested handling this through a condition of
approval. Mr. Paul stated he is glad the applicant shows wooden guard rails as part of the design,
noting using metal for the base would make it last longer. Ms. Fein-Brug stated she had asked to
cut back the curb in the egress design by 2 ft. to provide a little more leeway for the drivers. Ms.
Kramer asked if that can be done and Mr. Mertz stated he will look into it. Ms. Kramer thanked
the applicant for the trees between the back of the building and the parking lot, and Ms. Fein-
Brug noted the proposed species won't provide year-round screening. It was noted the
Conservation Commission process is all set and won’t result in additional changes.
Mr. Mertz reviewed the draft conditions. The Board suspended the discussion to open and
continue a scheduled public hearing.
3. Public Hearings – Scenic Road Applications, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22 Saddle Hill Rd. –
Saddle Hill Realty LLC
Mr. D’Urso moved to open and continue the public hearings until after the conclusion of the
discussion regarding the bus parking lot, Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion, and the Board
voted unanimously in favor.
4. Continued Public Hearing – 90 Hayden Rowe – Site Plan Review – Bus Parking Lot
Ms. Wilson noted the applicant has agreed to plant red maples so a condition to that effect is no
longer needed. It was stated the Board is looking for additional light pole foundation details, and
Mr. Mertz noted they will add those in. Ms. Fein-Brug asked about the hours of operation listed,
and it was noted these are the standard hours. Ms. Kramer stated they will add a condition
asking the applicant to come back to the DRB to finalize directional signage.
Gary Trendel, 31 Chamberlain St., speaking as an individual, asked if there were other sites on
the school grounds under consideration for parking. Ms. Rothermich noted they looked
everywhere for a suitable site to separate regular vehicle and bus traffic, and this was the only
place that seemed to work. Mr. Trendel asked if other fields were considered, and Ms.
Rothermich noted they have to keep the lot close to the school so students don’t have to walk too
far from the bus to the building. Mr. Trendel noted he does not like another parking lot so close
to the school, and the design leaves no room for growth. He noted he realizes the proposal
4
means cost savings but it does not make sense to store the buses and pick up the kids in the same
location and he feels that in 10 years they may look back and regret this decision. Ms. Kramer
stated the proposal will result in cost savings and improved safety in front of the school. Ms.
Fein-Brug stated she feels this is going to be a mistake because of the diesel fumes back there
and perhaps using Field #10 would be better. She noted they may be too far into the process to
install infrastructure for future electric buses, but changes will happen quickly and she would
feel better being prepared. Mr. Paul asked why Fruit St. was not considered, and Ms.
Rothermich noted they would still need a separate lot at the school for boarding and offloading.
Ms. Kramer asked about the Todaro property, and Ms. Rothermich noted it was too late to look
at it as part of the Marathon school project, but there is a group that is studying potential uses for
the property. Ms. Kramer noted Fruit St. would be challenging because of the Town wells. Mr.
D’Urso stated the Center School Reuse Advisory Team talked about using the Center School
property for parking, but the area directly behind the school is too tight and they would need a
bridge to get to the back land. He noted the plan in front of the Board addresses the issues and
solves a problem.
Mr. Paul moved to approve the plan with the conditions as discussed, and Mr. DeYoung
seconded the motion. Ms. Fein-Brug suggested renting or leasing the 80 South St. property until
they figure out what to do about the diesel fumes, but she realizes it would be out of the way.
The Board voted 5 in favor, and 1 abstention (D’Urso) and 1 opposed (Fein-Brug) to approve the
site plan with the conditions listed below:
1. The Applicant shall be responsible for mitigating all construction-related impacts, including
erosion, siltation and dust control. The Applicant shall maintain all portions of any public
way used for construction access free of soil, mud or debris deposited due to use by
construction vehicles associated with the project, and shall regularly sweep such areas as
directed by the Director of Municipal Inspections in consultation with the DPW Director.
The Applicant shall regularly remove construction trash and debris from the site in
accordance with good construction practice. No tree stumps, demolition material, trash or
debris shall be burned or buried on the site.
2. All construction activity shall adhere to applicable local, State and Federal laws and
regulations regarding noise, vibration, dust, sedimentation, and the use of, interference with
or blocking of Town roads.
3. The northern most curb located on the southeast corner of the lot at the lot exit, shall be
reduced by 2 feet in length to show a driveway exit width of 32 feet.
4. Foundation details of the proposed light poles shall be provided to the Board prior to
construction.
5. The Director of Municipal Inspections inspects Site Plans under construction for compliance
with the approved Decision of Site Plan Review. 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 of the stormwater
management system or any other component of the Site Plan, the Applicant shall be
responsible for the cost of those inspections.
6. Construction 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.
5
Mr. DeYoung moved to close the public hearing, Mr. D’Urso seconded the motion, and the
Board voted unanimously in favor.
Mr. Trendel and Ms. DeVeuve returned to the Board at this time.
5. Continued Public Hearings – Scenic Road Applications, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22 Saddle
Hill Rd. – Saddle Hill Realty LLC
Victor Galvani, Saddle Hill Realty LLC, applicant, and Wayne Belec, WDA Design Associates,
engineer, appeared before the Board. Mr. Belec noted this concerns work in connection with the
construction of a number of single family homes along Saddle Hill Rd. He noted they received
scenic road approval for the first 4 lots and they are now following up with the 7 remaining lots.
Mr. Belec explained the proposed layouts, noting they looked for the least intrusive locations,
factoring in topography and stone walls. He noted they worked closely with the Board and the
Fire Chief, as was the case in the previous phase. He referred to the AutoTurn exhibits, and
stated the driveways will have honeycomb pavers, the same design as used for the first 4 lots,
which was part of the discussion with the Fire Chief to make sure the surface can handle
emergency vehicles. He noted there was previous concern about maintenance of the driveway
openings but this will be addressed with an agreement through the homeowners association. Mr.
Belec noted in addition to the requests for permanent removal of sections of stone wall, they are
also asking the Board for approval of temporary openings for the installation of utilities. He
noted this time they will be doing all this at the same time, and he described the approach for
temporary removal. He noted in order to make sure it gets put together properly, the stone wall
returns into each site will have a natural look. The Board suspended the discussion to open and
continue scheduled public hearings.
6. Continued Public Hearings - Bucklin St./Leonard St. – 1) Stormwater Management
Permit; 2) Bucklin St. – Petition to Construct Paper Street – Wall Street Development
Corp.
Ms. Wilson noted the applicant has requested a continuation of the public hearings to October
29, 2018, and has agreed to extend the date to file the decisions with the Town Clerk to
November 26, 2018. Mr. Trendel moved to continue the public hearings to October 29, 2018 at
7:45 P.M., and extend the decision dates to November 26, 2018. Mr. De Young seconded the
motion.
Denise Hildreth, 19 Leonard St., asked for clarification. It was noted the request for continuation
was submitted on September 14 after the agenda was posted and the meeting packet emailed out.
Ms. Kramer noted the Board at this point will vote to continue the hearings without discussion.
Ms. Wilson noted the applicants want to come in with a fully revised plan, and that is all she
knows. Mr. Trendel asked if the Board can deny the applications, and Ms. Wilson stated they
have to go through the process. Ms. Kramer noted the Board is willing to continue the hearings
to October 29 but they have to make it clear to the applicant that it does not want to continue
doing this, and at the next continued hearing there has to be a conversation no matter what. Mr.
D’Urso noted they also have to consider the neighbors, and Ms. Kramer agreed it is a matter of
inconvenience. Ms. Ritterbusch noted the applicant can withdraw, and Ms. Kramer noted that is
within his rights. The Board voted unanimously to continue the hearings to October 29, 2018
and extend the decision dates to November 26, 2018.
6
7. Continued Public Hearings – Scenic Road Applications, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22 Saddle
Hill Rd. – Saddle Hill Realty LLC
Mr. Belec referred to the details on the plan and stated they represent typical driveway entrances.
He noted the requested openings vary from lot to lot, and they tried to tighten up the width as
much as possible. In response to questions and concerns of Ms. DeVeuve, Mr. Belec stated the
walls will be the same height coming around the corner, and the intent is to have the same look
as before. Stephen Slaman, Fire Chief, noted the applicant has gone out of his way to review the
proposal with him. He noted Saddle Hill Rd. is a challenge, but he is ok with the proposed type
of untraditional pavement although it will be interesting to see what it will look like in 10 years.
He noted there is an agreement through a homeowners association to address maintenance. Ms.
DeVeuve stated it appears the design will accommodate access only from one direction, and
Chief Slaman stated there may be a unique situation requiring multiple response vehicles, but
this is a good solution in the spirit of preservation. Ms. Ritterbusch noted she would like to get a
photo of the end product. Ms. Kramer stated the scenic road issue discussed earlier this night was
a bad example but the Board would like to be able to compare the intent with the end result. Ms.
Fein-Brug suggested asking the applicant to take pictures of his favorite section as an example.
Ms. DeVeuve stated she feels this is asking too much, and Mr. Fein-Brug stated based on the 120
Pond St. issue there should be a common standard of communication to be made part of the
record. Ms. Kramer asked about previous replication work, and Mr. Galvani stated they will do
the work as soon as the equipment has been removed from the site. Ms. Kramer noted she would
like to see before and after pictures, and Mr. Belec agreed. Ms. Fein-Brug stated the images
shown as part of the application have a lot of vegetation, and she asked when the work will be
done. Mr. Galvani noted it depends on whether they have buyers. Ms. Fein-Brug suggested
doing it in the fall. Ms. Kramer reviewed the criteria of approval in the Scenic Road bylaw, and
it was noted they all comply. Mr. D’Urso moved to approve the scenic road applications and Mr.
Trendel seconded the motion. A discussion followed regarding conditions to be imposed, and
the Board voted unanimously in favor with the following conditions:
1) The Applicant shall notify the Dept. of Land Use, Planning & Permitting within 48 hours of
when work on removing the stones will begin,.
2) Photographs of the wall in its current state shall be submitted to the Principal Planner prior to
the start of any stone wall work or removal.
3) The stones relocated for the driveway opening shall be retained on site and shall be rebuilt
within the lot as shown on the submitted plan.
4) The stone wall sections shall be restored to their original condition after installation is
complete, using the same stones. The use of non-original stones and materials to rebuild the
various wall sections is prohibited.
5) Upon completion of stone wall work, photographs of the various sections in their finished
state shall be submitted to the Principal Planner.
Mr. D’Urso moved to close the public hearings, Mr. Trendel seconded the motion, and the Board
voted unanimously in favor.
8. Wilson Street – Drainage Issues, Scenic Road Issues
Roy MacDowell, Legacy Farms, LLC, developer, appeared before the Board. Mr. MacDowell
noted he spent time with Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB) and BETA, hoping to come up with a
7
solution. He noted as a result they have decided to significantly increase the size of the detention
basin and will do other work as well, and they feel confident the end result will be more than
adequate. Mr. Paradis noted he agrees with Mr. MacDowell that the runoff comes from Legacy
Farms North in the area now called The Trails at Legacy Farms. He noted when Legacy Farms
North was first built they provided treatment of the runoff but did not mitigate the volume. He
noted there was some agreement with Weston Nurseries to continue providing water for their
part of the site, resulting in an increase of runoff to Wilson St., but retrofitting the basin should
address this issue.
Mr. Paradis referred to the Google Earth maps, which show that over the last 10 years this
section of the site was not as cultivated as the other sections of Legacy Farms, and therefore they
agreed to change the existing and proposed soils from poor to fair which brought up the rate of
runoff. He noted he does not have experience with this parcel in terms of stormwater data, but
they already have some issues with the Trails at Legacy Farms site which is a good indicator that
the soils are poor for infiltration. He noted they have to realize there was runoff from this parcel
onto Wilson St. before Legacy Farms North was built, and although Mr. MacDowell is now
mitigating his development, he would like the Board to understand there are other parts of
Wilson St. that are contributing to the problem which will require additional remedial action.
Ms. Kramer asked how they can measure success with some surety with this proposal. Mr.
Paradis stated he is not sure that one can measure success, and he feels the right answer is in the
test. Mr. MacDowell noted they looked at current conditions and during heavy rains the basin
can overflow so they have agreed on a much more aggressive approach than VHB thought was
necessary. Ms. DeVeuve asked how this compares to VHB's recommendation, and Mr.
MacDowell noted they thought it could be 60 or 70% of what he is proposing. Ms. Fein-Brug
stated storms are getting worse, and asked if this is taken into consideration at this stage of the
game. Mr. Paradis stated they did not ask Mr. MacDowell to include extreme rainfall data, but
the amount of reduction in runoff will be significant. He noted the original design only
controlled 1/2 in. of runoff, so a design based on 6-1/2 in. constitutes a significant increase. He
added there will still be a significant amount of runoff to Wilson St. from existing conditions,
and Ms. Fein-Brug asked if that would only happen during extreme storm events. Mr. Paradis
noted the development used a previous standard while the Town's current regulations require the
use of data collected through Cornell University based on rainfall volumes closer to 8.5 in. Ms.
Fein-Brug asked if they should make the detention basin even bigger, and Mr. Paradis noted this
concerns a project approved about 10 years ago, and adjusting the design to 8.5 in. of rainfall
would only result in slightly more mitigation. Mr. MacDowell noted the road was designed and
fully vetted by Fay, Spofford & Thorndike (now Stantec), the Board’s previous consultant, and it
was built under contract with the Town. He noted Legacy Farms agreed to step up to the plate to
find a solution, even though it is not really their responsibility, engaged VHB and BETA as part
of the process and went above and beyond. Mr. DeYoung asked if the runoff coming from the
north side going down Legacy Farms North will be captured, and Mr. MacDowell noted it
pitches into a swale, and they will take care of some of the soil which was placed higher than the
road. Mr. MacDowell noted there are a couple of catch basins toward the LNG facility, and he
referred to remedial action promised by the DPW which will help significantly.
8
Ms. Larson-Marlowe referred to the minutes of June 25, 2018, and noted it was determined that
it would take 2 months from design to construction. She stated a follow-up meeting with the
Board was originally scheduled in July but did not happen. She noted there is damage being
done to Wilson St. with more and more significant rainfall events, and the longer this goes on the
worse it will get. She noted according to the minutes it was stated that the DPW could start
working on the catch basins within the next 10 days, and she asked about the status. She asked if
the replacement trees discussed at the previous meeting are a separate issue, and Ms. Kramer
stated yes. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked for clarification, and Mr. Paul noted Mr. MacDowell will
put in 5 maple trees, and he suggested this be done before winter. Ms. Larson-Marlowe noted
there is a connection between trees and drainage, and Mr. MacDowell stated he agrees the work
should be done before winter, but it depends on the Board's approval. Ms. Larson-Marlowe
noted one of the abutters has stated there were no problems until the Legacy Farms North
construction. Mr. Paul noted they should move forward with the proposed increase of the
detention basins, and find out separately if there is anything the DPW can do to help solve the
problem.
Katie Towner, 9 Kruger Rd., noted that if she was the Board she would be outraged about the
ever changing story about the drainage issues. Ms. Towner noted they are now on the 4th design
since Mr. MacDowell took responsibility, and it sounds as if he has now changed his mind. She
noted the first design was no design at all, the 2nd one was off by a factor of 10, and the third
design does not even acknowledge the problem, which brings up the question who is in charge.
She noted this should be properly engineered with all necessary tests, to determine the rate of
drainage. She noted if the principals do not want take ownership of the problem, the Board
should ask for further investigation and assign responsibility, or otherwise take out sanctions
within its power, such as withholding occupancy permits. She noted she appreciates the desire to
do it informally, but it is not good to just take a swag at it without a real design and no one taking
responsibility. Mr. Paradis stated he cannot speak to the history of this project, but it was vetted
at the time. He stated they have a unique issue with additional water being directed to Wilson St.
because of the Legacy Farms North project. He noted some assumptions were made, and based
on his 30 years of experience he understands the challenges. The Board suspended the
discussion to open and continue the next scheduled public hearing.
9. Public Hearings – 52 & 55 Wilson St. – Stormwater Management Permit Application &
Earth Removal Permit Application – Denise Bartone, Eversource Energy
Mr. DeYoung moved to open the public hearing and continue it until after the Wilson St.
drainage discussion, Mr. Trendel seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in
favor.
10. Wilson St. Drainage Issues, Scenic Road Issues – Continued Discussion
Mr. MacDowell noted it is not fair to say they have not done any engineering, considering the
time spent by VHB and BETA Group on finding a solution and it is felt that the revised design is
more than adequate. Board members asked if based on the math this could be designed even
better, what could be done to bring the design up to current standards, and if this is a reasonable
request. Mr. Paradis noted stormwater management is all about risk, and designing everything
for 100-year storms would mean more infrastructure and standards change over time. Mr.
MacDowell noted there are also costs associated with it. Ms. DeVeuve asked about the
9
difference between the proposed design and VHB's recommendation, and Mr. Paradis noted
BETA pushed back on a number of assumptions and he thinks it is about the size it should be.
Ms. Kramer asked what they will do if this does not solve the problem, and how other issues
contribute to the problems on Wilson St. Mr. MacDowell stated there are pavement issues, and
also the road itself where flow goes into wheel ruts instead of into the gutter. Mr. Paul noted
with respect to measuring success, they basically have to monitor progress but they don't have to
solve everything tonight and should start with approving what they have come up with so far.
Ms. Fein-Brug asked for clarification regarding VHB’s drawing of proposed drainage conditions
for the basin redesign, and Mr. Paradis explained there is a culvert there although it is not shown.
Ms. Kramer noted the DPW is aware of the problem in this area and knows the catch basin
should be cleaned out. Ms. Wilson stated she has been informed that the DPW is still monitoring
the situation. Mr. Paul asked if there are any plans to improve the road itself, and Ms. Kramer
stated not necessarily. Mr. MacDowell noted when the DPW cleans out the catch basin they
should also address the outlet pipe which is blocked. Ms. Kramer asked to make sure the lines of
communications are kept open to see what the DPW can do here to help. In response to a
question of Mr. DeYoung, Mr. Paradis noted the applicant provided additional calculations and
BETA submitted a new comment letter as of today. Mr. DeYoung noted it is not just big storms
that cause the problems there. Ms. Kramer noted it is possible that Mr. MacDowell will have to
come back. Mr. Paradis suggested getting an as-built plan. Ms. Fein-Brug asked about the
culvert, and both Mr. D'Urso and Ms. Fein-Brug asked it be added to the plan.
Katie Towner, 9 Kruger Rd., noted the catch basin on Wilson St. at the end of Legacy Farms
North is not part of this redesign at all, but she has pictures to show that it never worked. Ms.
Kramer stated that is the Town’s responsibility, and Mr. MacDowell stated they are just talking
about the detention basin. Ms. Towner noted it is all connected. She asked about the 26 in.
outlet pipe and Mr. Paradis stated that is the pipe at the end of the basin and part of the design.
Mr. D’Urso asked for clarification, and Mr. Paradis stated the water will basically flow onto
Wilson St. in the same amount as before the Legacy Farms North development. Mr. Paul moved
to approve the remedial plan as submitted, Ms. DeVeuve seconded the motion. A discussion
followed about possible conditions, including the requirement to show the culvert on the plan.
The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion.
Ms. Kramer asked Mr. MacDowell if he is willing to talk about the East Main St. sidewalk and
bridge at the next meeting, and Mr. MacDowell agreed.
11. Public Hearings – 52 & 55 Wilson St. – Stormwater Management Permit Application &
Earth Removal Permit Application – Denise Bartone, Eversource Energy
Tracy Adamski, Vice President, and Jean Christy, project engineer, Tighe & Bond, and Jim
Blackburn, Eversource Energy, project manager, appeared before the Board. Mr. Blackburn
used an additional presentation board for discussion purposes. Ms. Adamski noted they are here
on behalf of Eversource Energy in connection with the replacement of the existing LNG
liquefaction facility on the east side of Wilson St. in a new location on the west side of the street
south of the existing tanks. She noted they will also install new pipes where the existing pipe
racks are located on the east side of the street at 52 Wilson St. She noted the project results in
some limited disturbance on the east side due to 4 small isolated wetlands areas subject to the
Town of Hopkinton local bylaw only. Ms. Adamski noted they had 2 hearings with the
Conservation Commission so far and they are waiting for comments from BETA Group to
10
finalize the process, hopefully early October. Ms. Adamski noted the applications before the
Board relate to stormwater management and earth removal operations only and the project is
currently going through Dept. of Public Utilities (DPU) review, which sort of takes the place of
site plan review. She noted in general the balance of earth removal activities will have a net
input of materials coming into the site but there is some rock that they cannot use on the site.
Ms. Kramer asked for an update on the DPU process. Mr. Blackburn noted Eversource filed a
petition with the DPU in July 2017 for zoning exemptions and as part of the process they have to
demonstrate the need for the project. He noted they answered lots of questions both from the
DPU and the Town, as the only intervenor, regarding the impact in terms of aesthetics and noise,
wetlands, and tree clearing. He noted they held 3 days of hearings at the beginning of August
2018 and the process is now in the final stage with a decision expected sometime before the end
of the year. Ms. Kramer asked why the applicant decided to come before the Board before the
DPU issues are resolved. Mr. Blackburn noted the DPU decision is specific to zoning, although
obviously the stormwater management and earth removal aspects would not have any bearing if
the DPU denies the petition because the project would not be able to go forward. Ms. Kramer
noted she is a big fan of transparency and she believes doing it this way makes it more difficult
for the public to impact this big and very complicated project.
Ms. Christy described the stormwater management design for the project in more detail. She
pointed out the proposed impervious areas and noted they have buildings and equipment pads,
with stone/gravel surface in between to avoid grass from growing within the facility itself. She
noted the stormwater management will be a rather traditional system consisting of catch basins,
manholes, and an infiltration basin. She noted the basin is located southwest of the most western
tank and the design includes water quality units for necessary TSS removal, etc. The eastern
portion of the western half of the project right along Wilson St. currently has paved driveways
and loading areas, and, while there will be an increase in impervious surface there, a lot of it is
redevelopment. She noted there is some existing drainage infrastructure within the eastern side
of the project which will be retained and some of the runoff from the new facility will drain to an
area designed for impoundment in case of a natural gas spill. She stated this area was not
designed for stormwater but that is where it will go. She stated water from that area is pumped
out manually with an electric pump as needed to make sure there is impoundment capability if
needed.
Ms. DeVeuve asked why Eversource is moving the liquefaction equipment to the other side of
the street and what will happen to the current site. Mr. Blackburn noted during the summer
months they take gas off the pipe lines, chill it and turn it into liquid. He noted the liquid is then
sent across the street to be stored in the tanks which during the winter become the stored energy
supply for the 12 coldest days of the winter, when gas prices typically go up dramatically, giving
Eversource the ability to stabilize the price of natural gas for its customers. He noted they are
moving across the street because the replacement project will take about 16 months and they
cannot afford losing a whole liquefaction season. He noted it was not possible to replace the
equipment in the same location, so they looked at other areas on the property. He noted it has
been some time since he has been before this Board, but in view of the additional Legacy Farms
residential development since Eversource initially decided to replace the equipment, they felt it
made sense to move the equipment used during the majority of the year to a more relatively
secluded area on the property. He noted Eversource also has purchased deed restricted rights to
11
some of the Legacy Farms land around the eastern portion of the facility to restrict any
residential development, in an effort to build a buffer around the facility. Mr. DeYoung asked
about the noise associated with this equipment, and whether that will go to the other side as well.
Mr. Blackburn noted under the DPU exemption for the existing facility they have to comply with
the federal maximum 55 decibel standard, however under the requested exemption for the newer
section the limits will be much tighter and noise has to be limited to 10 decibel above the
existing lowest measurable condition. He noted this means their equipment will be significantly
quieter than before in this particular location and about 1,500 ft. from any residential
development. Mr. Blackburn stated they still will have the vaporizing equipment in the current
location as well as high pressure send-out pumps, but that equipment operates only 12 days a
year. He noted they also currently have several boil-off gas compression engines in a building
on the east side which take gas out of the tanks, compress it and send it into the distribution
system because the tanks always have some vaporizing within them. He noted these engines
have to operate all the time and produce noise, but they will be moved to the other side of the
street within an enclosed, sound-insulated building, and 2 of them will now be electric which
will reduce noise and significantly reduce emissions. He noted they also have 2 standby gas
driven units.
Mr. Blackburn noted they will still maintain the 2 flares on the east side which currently operate
200 days a year as part of the liquefaction process to dispose of some of the natural gas
components, known as “heavies”. He noted that process has already been limited over the last
10 years via the use of micro-turbines on the other side of the street, but the new facility will use
the heavies as a fuel source for the new compressor, so now the two existing 2 flares as well as 1
new flare at the new facility will be used once in a while for upset emergency conditions only.
He stated the 2 existing flares are 60 and 150 ft. tall, the newer one is much lower at 40 ft. and
also at a much lower elevation. Mr. Blackburn noted under the current operation they have to
cross the street with liquid natural gas 200 days a year, the new facility will however eliminate
that and, although he did not think it was an issue, it addresses concerns brought up by members
of the community. Mr. D’Urso asked for clarification and stated Mr. Blackburn mentioned there
are several hours of emergency and asked whether that is typical. Mr. Blackburn stated yes. He
noted there was an event last summer when a fuse burned out on the transmitter which caused
the system to shut down and vent vapors into the atmosphere quite loudly and resulted in some
community feedback. He noted this was considered an emergency but in reality did not result in
unsafe conditions and the system worked as planned. Mr. Blackburn stated this situation will
also apply to startup and shutdown operations at the beginning and end of the season. Ms.
Kramer asked if Eversource as a company is moving away from the residential side, and Mr.
Blackburn stated have invested significantly in the eastern portion of the facility and will leave
some of the existing operations there, including the recently replaced vaporizing equipment. He
noted they are not abandoning that side of the facility, but see value in moving and consolidating
some of the operations, at least as far as the seasonal aspect of the operation is concerned and
trying to limit the back and forth from one side of the street to the other.
Mr. Paradis asked Ms. Bokoff to speak to the project. Ms. Bokoff stated BETA in general did
not find a lot of issues with the proposal. She noted it proposes more impervious area, and their
comments are more geared around infiltration based on the wide range of soil types encountered
on the site. She noted BETA is asking about limits of proposed curb and surface materials to
better assess runoff, and is looking for soil data, specifically test pit data where borings were
12
performed during non-seasonal high groundwater months. She noted BETA is looking for more
information regarding earth removal as to an estimated volume of removal.
Ms. Towner noted that according to the stormwater standards the applicant is not supposed to
increase post-development runoff, but there is an increase and flow goes underneath Legacy
Farms North, to a stream which goes all the way through the woods to her property line between
9 and 7 Kruger Rd. She noted the stream runs all the way down into the Reservoir pretty much
at capacity, and according to the stormwater report no effort was made to prevent the flow from
increasing because it was determined there was no impact. She noted this is another case of
inadequate engineering. She noted she knows the water is going to her property, and during Fire
Dept. training exercises she has observed foam billowing in the stream behind her house. She
has taken photos, and although she assumes it is a non-toxic training foam she cannot be sure.
She noted she has called the company when this happened, and Eversource has come out and
acknowledged it comes from their facility. She noted she would like an analysis as to the impact
on the stream, as they are supposed to figure out the downstream impact. She noted she would
like to know whether the stream is going to flood her land in the future, cause erosion, or impact
the neighboring wetlands. She noted she will try to dig up those pictures. She noted she is very
interested in the applicant's statement regarding pumping water out of the basin into the stream
that goes behind her house, and does not think they are supposed to do that. Ms. Kramer asked
for input from Chief Slaman, and Chief Slaman noted he is available for questions at this point.
Mr. Paradis stated he would like permission to work with the engineer directly, to resolve a
number of minor and not so minor issues, and the Board stated that is ok. Mr. D’Urso asked if
Mr. Paradis has seen the latest response from Tighe & Bond and Mr. Paradis stated yes, but only
briefly.
The Board discussed decision deadlines and possible dates and times for the continued hearings.
It was noted the stormwater management permit application for the secondary access road has
been scheduled for October 1, and will likely have to be continued as well, and they will try to
reserve time for a possible continuation at the same meeting.
Ms. DeVeuve moved to continue the public hearings to October 15, 2018 at 8:15 P.M., and
extend the time to file the decision for the Stormwater Management Permit application to
October 22, 2018. Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in
favor.
12. Administrative Business - Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of July 23, 2018. Ms. DeVeuve stated she would like to make a
minor change. Mr. DeYoung moved to approve the minutes of July 23, 2018 with a change to be
further explained by Ms. DeVeuve, Mr. D’Urso seconded the motion, and the Board voted
unanimously in favor.
13. Miscellaneous Business
The Board discussed potential agenda items for upcoming meetings, including a discussion of an
update to the website, Zoning Advisory Committee, and a follow-up process for scenic road
approvals. Ms. Kramer stated they should talk to the applicant for the stone wall work at 120
Pond St. and it was decided to ask him to come in at 7:30 P.M. on October 1. It was noted it
may be necessary to start one of the October meetings at 7:00 P.M.
13
Mr. Paul moved to adjourn, Mr. Trendel seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously
in favor.
Adjourned: 10:30 P.M.
Submitted by: Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
Approved: October 15, 2018
Documents used at the Meeting:
Agenda for the September 17, 2018 Planning Board meeting
Memo from Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner, to Planning Board, dated September 13, re: Items on
September 17, 2018 Planning Board Agenda
Site Plan Review Public Hearing Outline – 90 Hayden Rowe – Public Hearing Dates: July 9, 2018, July 23,
2018, August 1, 2018 (no discussion), September 17, 2018; Plans entitled “Hopkinton High School Bus Parking
Lot, Hopkinton;, MA, dated September 2018, prepared by WorldTech Engineering; Draft Conditions 90
Hayden Rowe, Major Project Site Plan Review (for 9/17/18 Meeting)
Plan entitled “Proposed Driveway Entrance Plan 10-22 Saddle Hill Road (Lots 5A-11A) Hopkinton, MA for
Scenic Road Special Permit, dated 07/24/18 revised thru 08/07/18, prepared by WDA Design Group
Letter from Philip Paradis, Jr., PE, BETA Group, Inc., to Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner, dated September
17, 2018, Subject: Wilson Street Drainage Analysis Update; Plan entitled “Legacy Farms Road North/Proposed
Conditions Drainage Figure (Fig-2), dated September 2018, prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB)
Draft Planning Board Minutes, July 23, 2018
Presentation Board – Proposed Layout for 52 & 55 Wilson St. – Eversource Energy – Replacement Project
regarding Liquefaction Equipment (Stormwater Management Permit and Earth Removal Permit applications)