HomeMy Public PortalAbout20181115 - Planning Board - Agenda
TOWN OF HOPKINTON
PLANNING BOARD
Monday, November 19, 2018 7:30 P.M.
Hopkinton Town Hall, 18 Main Street, Hopkinton, MA
______________________________________________________________________________
AGENDA
7:30 Misc. Administrative Business
- The Trails at Legacy Farms – Erosion and Sediment Control Plan update – Peter Bemis
7:45 Continued Public Hearing – 18 Cedar Street – Off-street Parking Special Permit
Application – Janice Brown
Request for continuance of the public hearing to December 3, 2018.
7:45 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.
8:30 1) Approval Not Required Plan – 0 Montana Road – Edward Kelly
2) Approval Not Required Plan – 275 Cedar Street – Peter Carbone
3) Approval Not Required Plan – 18 & 20 Fruit Street – 20 Fruit Street, LLC
4) Approval Not Required Plan – Legacy Farms North, 0 Wilson Street – Legacy Farms,
LLC
5) Approval Not Required Plan – Legacy Farms North, Frankland Road – Legacy Farms,
LLC
8:45 East Main Street sidewalk completion discussion – Legacy Farms, LLC
9:15 Continued Public Hearings – 52 & 55 Wilson St. – 1) Stormwater Management Permit
Application; 2) Earth Removal Application – Eversource Energy
Proposed stormwater management and earth removal associated with the construction of
a replacement Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Liquefaction facility.
Business to be considered by the Board at any time during the meeting:
Approve minutes of 10/15/18
Planning Board member reports and future agenda items
Correspondence
FY20 Budget
1
Town of Hopkinton
Planning Board
18 Main Street, Hopkinton MA 01748
508-497-9745
DATE: November 14, 2018
TO: Planning Board
FROM: Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner
RE: Items on November 19, 2018 Planning Board Agenda
1) Miscellaneous Administrative Business:
The Trails and Legacy Farms – Erosion and Sediment Control Plan update – Peter Bemis
Peter Bemis, Engineering Design Consultants, and onsite engineer for the Trails, is before the
board to provide an update on the Trails at Legacy Farms erosion and sediment control plan. On
11/1 I received a call from Bob Lamoureux of BETA who is the Board's onsite inspector for the
Trails. Bob observed suspended sediments (soil/dirt) flowing from a breach in the erosion control
barrier into a stream channel, then into culverts under Howe Street in Ashland, then into another
stream-culvert-steam channel series into the Hopkinton Reservoir in Ashland. Don MacAdams
(Conservation Agent) and I went out to the site on 11/1 to meet with Bob. Don and I confirmed
what Bob had observed, as well as other stormwater management design issues. As a result of
this visit, I emailed Vin Gately from the Trails and informed him that all erosion controls must
be fixed, and that winter erosion control measures must be implemented (these were to be
implemented starting 11/1). The erosion control barriers were repaired as requested that day, but
the heavy rain storm on 11/3-11/4 posed more runoff issues, and the discharge into the Ashland
Reservoir was more severe than what was observed on 11/1 (see photos dated 11/3 taken during
the rain event).
As requested, Peter Bemis provided both Don and I with a copy of an updated Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) on 11/5 that we further requested be implemented
immediately. Since that time, Peter has been working with the onsite contractor to implement the
protective erosion control measures. This includes hydroseeding exposed soil, installing check
dams, adding filter mat to steep slopes, and adding additional erosion controls to vulnerable
areas. As of 11/9 the site has been fully stabilized and there has been no evidence of sediment
discharging off site into the stream channels and reservoir (see photos dated 11/9 and SWPPP as-
built plan dated 11/9).
2
Conservation Commission: The Conservation Commission issued a violation letter and a cease
and desist order to the Applicant on 11/7. The Applicant provided an update to the Commission
on 11/13 and will be returning to the Commission on 11/27 to assess the fine amount for the
violation and potentially holding the fines in abeyance. The Conservation Commission has also
requested that the Applicant provide water quality testing of the stormwater flow for the presence
of pesticides as suggested by Board of Health Director, Shaun McAuliffe, due to the sites
previous use as a nursery and due to the presence of pesticides found on the Pulte site in the
vicinity of the project. Don informed the Ashland Conservation Commission of the observed
issues on 11/1, and the Ashland Conservation Commission issued an enforcement order to the
Applicant on 11/9.
2) Continued Public Hearing – 18 Cedar Street – Off-Street Parking Special Permit
Application – Janice Brown
Request for continuance of the public hearing to December 3, 2018.
3) Continued Public Hearing – Whisper Way OSLPD – 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 12/3/18. If the Board continues the hearing
to a future meeting, the decision deadline will have to be extended as well.
Materials Received: Revised definitive plans and response to BETA comments were received on
11/2 and 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/file/d/1h77U4ufqIKKvL9twRGFSVN5qepWP0jrm/view?usp=sharing
BETA: BETA review of the Applicants response to comments and revised plans is currently
ongoing. BETA comments will be emailed to board if they are received after the memo is sent
out.
Board of Health: Please see comment letter dated 10/12 from BoH Director, Shaun McAuliffe.
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. The Applicant was last before the Commission on 11/13.
Waiver Requests:
Section 7.1 of the Towns Subdivision Rules and Regulations state the following in regards to the
Board’s action on waiver request:
7.1 Waiver Compliance: In accordance with MGL Ch. 41 Sec. 81R, strict compliance
with these regulations may be waived when, in the judgement of the Board, such action is
in the public interest and not inconsistent with the intent of the subdivision control law or
these regulations. All waiver request must be in writing, identify the regulation being
3
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.
§8.3.1 Sidewalks: The Applicant requested at the 10/1/18 meeting to waive the
requirement to have a grass shoulder between the sidewalk and roadway. The
Applicant has stated that the Conservation Commission requested the grass strip
be eliminated in the three wetland crossing areas to reduce wetland impacts.
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.
4)
Approval Not Required Plan – 0 Montana Road – Edward Kelly
This plan was previously endorsed by the Board in 2011. The plan was never recorded and the
Applicant has resubmitted the same plan to be endorsed again for recording. The plan would
create a parcel for conveyance to an abutter, off the end of Montana Road. The parcel to be
conveyed does not meet the frontage requirement in the Residence A zoning district, and is
labeled as a nonbuildable lot as required. The plan appears entitled to endorsement.
4
Approval Not Required Plan – 275 Cedar Street – Peter Carbone
The plan delineates the creation of a new lot (Lot 1) from the existing lot at 275 Cedar Street.
The plan shows the new lot as having adequate frontage on Lincoln Street. The plan appears
entitled to endorsement.
Approval Not Required Plan – 18&20 Fruit Street – 20 Fruit Street, LLC
This ANR plan was previously endorsed by the Board on 2/26/18 but was never recorded at the
registry. The only plan change from the original endorsed plan is that the house number for 18
Fruit St. has been noted on the plan. The ANR Plan would divide 20 Fruit St. into 3 lots, one
with the existing house. Lots 18 and 20 have legal frontage on Fruit Street, and each has the
required frontage and area required in the Residence A District for building lots. Parcel A, in the
rear, does not meet the frontage or area requirements in the Agricultural District, and has been
labeled as a nonbuildable lot as required. The plan is entitled to endorsement.
Approval Not Required Plan – Legacy Farms North, 0 Wilson Street - Legacy Farms, LLC
The plan delineates six parcels on the North side of Legacy Farms, with parcels having frontage
on Legacy Farms Road North and Wilson Street. The plan appears entitled to endorsement,
which means that approval under the subdivision control law is not required.
Approval Not Required Plan – Legacy Farms North, Frankland Rd.– Legacy Farms, LLC
The plan delineates six parcels on the North side of Legacy Farms, with parcels having frontage
on Legacy Farms Road North and Frankland Road. The plan appears entitled to endorsement.
5) East Main Street sidewalk discussion – Legacy Farms, LLC
This discussion is continued from the 10/15/18 meeting. Roy is back before the Board to
continue discussions on the incomplete sidewalk on East Main Street. I have reached out to John
Westerling, DPW Director, for comment and his response is pending at the time of this memo.
Roy attended the Conservation Commission meeting on 11/13 to discuss the possibility of
shifting the guardrail that is bordering the wetland resource area. The Commission appeared to
have no issue with this idea with the understanding that Roy would have to submit a Notice of
Intent application for the work and that no wetland fill would be required.
6) Continued 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 12/3/18. A SWMP is required
because there will be more than one acre of overall disturbance. The Applicant has also
submitted an application for an earth removal permit pursuant to Chapter 96 of the General
Bylaws, Earth Removal. A majority vote is required for approval and a decision is due by
12/3/18. Both hearings are being held concurrently.
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
5
past. Both the Stormwater Management and Earth Removal bylaws are General Bylaws, which
the DPU does not have authority to waive.
Project: The site is located in the Agriculture and WRPOD zoning districts. The total land area of
the project is 76.6 acres with an estimated land disturbance of 10.75 acres. The stormwater
management and earth removal is associated with the replacement of the Liquefied Natural Gas
(LNG) facility’s existing natural gas pretreatment and liquefaction system. The replacement
system is proposed to be located in the area south of the existing fenced LNG storage tank area.
Conservation Commission: The Conservation Commission approved the project and an Order of
Conditions was issued at the 11/13/18 Conservation Commission meeting.
Materials Submitted to date:
The SWMP/Earth Removal revised plans and most recent response to BETA comments are
included in the meeting packet. The plans submitted with the SWMP are the same plans
submitted with the Earth Removal permit application. The following applications and appendices
were too large to include in the packet but can be accessed via the links below:
Earth Removal Application and Narrative
Stormwater Management Permit Application and Narrative
Appendix B – Stormwater Report
Appendix C - SWPPP
Appendix D – Operation & Maintenance Plan
Stormwater Management Revision Memo 10-9-18
Comments:
DPW: John Westerling, DPW Director, has no initial comments on the application.
BETA: Please see final peer review letter dated 11/14. All outstanding comments have been
addressed. BETA recommended two conditions relative to the SWPPP and stormwater detention
basin to be used during construction. Those recommended conditions have been added to the
draft conditions that are included in the Board’s meeting packet.
Earth Removal Criteria:
I have included the General Requirements (Sec. 96-3) that apply to all earth removal operations
in the packet. The Board has the ability to waive any of the requirements.
Section 96-3.H requires that a 100’ buffer strip of undisturbed land be maintained at all
boundaries of the lot and street lines. The application states that the buffer is less than 100’ in
various areas of the site. A waiver should be requested accordingly.
Approval Criteria
The Earth Removal bylaw (Chapter 96 of the General Bylaws) states in Sec. 96-6 that earth
removal permits may be granted by the Board if it finds each of the following:
1. The proposed earth removal conforms to the purpose of the chapter.
2. The earth removal operation on the permitted lot will not:
6
(a) Be injurious or dangerous to the public health or safety.
(b) Produce noise, dust or other effects detrimental to the normal use of adjacent property.
(c) Have a material adverse effect on the health or safety of persons living in the neighborhood
or on the use or amenities of adjacent land.
(d) The earth removal activity will not result in traffic conditions on roads in the area of the earth
removal activity which will cause unsafe and dangerous conditions.
(e) The regulations contained in this chapter will be complied with.
The bylaw notes that the Board may impose permit conditions, which could include:
A requirement that the operation occur in phases;
The submission of periodic status reports;
Establish hours of operation;
Post a bond to guarantee conformity with the conditions of the permit;
A deposit of funds for engineering review and inspection of the premises during the earth
removal period.
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
untreated stormwater
directly to or cause erosion
in wetlands or waters of the
Commonwealth.
Applicant proposes deep
sump catch basins,
proprietary treatment
devices, and one new
detention basin with a
sediment forebay to capture
and treat stormwater.
Complies – standard has been met.
#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.
Calculations have been
provided to demonstrate that
post-development discharge
rates will not exceed pre-
development rates, with the
exemption of two areas
(design point 4 & 6). No
impact to downstream areas
are anticipated.
Complies – standard has been met.
#3 – Recharge to
groundwater – Loss of
annual recharge to
groundwater should be
minimized through the use
of infiltration measures to
Applicant proposes
directing runoff to an
infiltration basin.
Complies – standard has been met.
7
Stormwater Standard Proposed BETA comment
the maximum extent
practicable.
#4 – 80% TSS removal –
For new development,
stormwater management
systems must be designed to
remove 80% of the annual
load of total suspended
solids.
Please see submitted
stormwater report for a
description of the proposed
treatment trains and TSS
removal rates.
Complies – standard has been met.
#5 – Higher Potential
Pollutant Loads –
Stormwater discharges from
land uses with Higher
Potential Pollutant Loads
required the use of specific
stormwater management
BMP’s.
Applicant proposes to
implement proprietary
treatment devices to capture
and pre-treat the required
water quality for the site.
Complies - standard has been met.
#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
must meet the Stormwater
Management Standards to
the maximum extent
practicable.
Proposed project is
considered a partial
redevelopment and includes
net increase of approx. 4.2
acres. The Applicant
proposes BMPs to capture
and treat stormwater runoff
to maximum extent
possible.
Complies – standard has been met.
#8 – Construction Period
Erosion and Sediment
Controls – Erosion and
sediment controls must be
implemented to prevent
impacts during construction
of land disturbance
activities.
Applicant has provided an
existing conditions and
demolition plan showing
erosion and sediment
control locations. A draft
SWPPP was provided.
1) Recommend condition that a
copy of the final SWPPP will be
provided to the Board prior to
construction.
2) Recommend condition to include
notation on final plans to limit
initial excavation of infiltration
basin (that is to be used as a
sediment basin during construction)
to 6 to 12 inches above finish grade
and once the site is stabilized,
return to excavate remaining soil
and accumulated sediment prior to
loaming and seeding.
8
Stormwater Standard Proposed BETA comment
#9 –
Operations/Maintenance
Plan – 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 (O&M) Plan
was included.
Complies – standard has been met.
#10 – Illicit Discharges –
All illicit discharges to the
stormwater management
systems are prohibited.
A draft Illicit Discharge
Compliance Statement has
been submitted.
Complies – standard has been met.
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.
Draft Earth Removal and Stormwater Management permit conditions are included in the Board’s
meeting packet.
9
Future Meetings
December 3, 2018
7:45 Cont. Public Hearing - Bucklin St. & Leonard St. Stormwater Management Permit –
Request for Withdrawal – Wall Street Development Corp.
7:45 Continued Public Hearing – Bucklin St. & Leonard St. Petition to construct a paper street
– Wall Street Development Corp.
7:45 Public Hearing – Bucklin St. & Leonard St. Stormwater Management Permit – Wall
Street Development Corp.
8:30 Public Hearing – Maspenock Woods – 5 West Elm Street – Garden Apartment Site Plan
Amendment – Maspenock Woods Realty Trust
December 17, 2018
DDD
DD D
D
D DDD
DD
D
D
D
D
D
DDD D
D DD
D
D DD
D DD
D
D
D
DD
D
DDOCTOBER 24, 2018
PSBWMLXXXXXX
0
SCALE: 1" = 40'
40 160100
Turnpike Road
Southborough, Massachusetts
ph:(508) 480-0225 fax:(800)832-5781
Engineering Design Consultants, Inc.
32
TEMPORARY SILTATION BASIN 2 & BASIN 1 MODIFICATIONS
THE TRAILS -HOPKINTON, MA
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SUPPLIED BY HYDROGRASS TECHNOLOGIES
FLOCBLOC (MATCHED TO ONSITE SOILS) & JUTE NETTING
EARTHSTOP 200
HYDROMULCH
AND INSTALLED AS PER PRODUCT SPECIFICATION
STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SUPPLIED BY S&M FARMS INC.
12" COMPOST LOG
SILT FENCE
AND INSTALLED AS PER PRODUCT SPECIFICATION
IMPLEMENTATION OF SWPPP TASKS AS OUTLINED HEREON
AND OPERATION & MAINTENANCE TASKS BY WW CONTRACTING
DDD
DD D
D
D DDD
DD
D
D
D
D
D
DDD D
D DD
D
D DD
D DD
D
D
D
DD
D
DDNOVEMBER 9, 2018
PSBWMLXXXXXX
0
SCALE: 1" = 40'
40 160100
Turnpike Road
Southborough, Massachusetts
ph:(508) 480-0225 fax:(800)832-5781
Engineering Design Consultants, Inc.
32
AS-BUILT COMPLETED TASKS AS OF 11/9/18
THE TRAILS -HOPKINTON, MA
STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION OF SWPPP TASKS AS OUTLINED HEREON
AND OPERATION & MAINTENANCE TASKS WERE COMPLETED
BY WW CONTRACTING
PUBLIC HEARING OUTLINE
Whisper Way Subdivision
Definitive Subdivision Plan application showing 24 building lots.
Meeting Dates: 8/27/18, 10/01/18, 10/29/18, 11/19/18
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
R=435.00'D=032°48'00"L=249.02'CHB=N55° 18' 49"WCHD=245.64R=435.00'D=023°17'47"L=176.87'CHB=N55° 35' 26"WCHD=175.65N67°14'19"W51.60'R=485.00'D=027°46'17"L=235.08'CHB=N57° 49' 39"WCHD=232.79N71°42'49"W188.84'N16°28'51"E163.29'N68°06
'40"E386.35
'S58°56'40"W147.65'S21°26'46"E135.85'S59°38'24"W27.88'S73°31'09"E569.73'S43°46'29"E302.34'S59°27'50"W298.54'S21°08'12"E448.21'N70°21'51"E6.60'S19°38'09"E548.02'S19°38'09"E118.58'S19°36'33"E466.40'N84°08'59"E291.10'S46°02'43"E9.22'S31°45'16"W97.43'S19°08'07"W94.02'S16°23'35"W62.49'S29°08'41"W57.02'S48°10'17"W129.64'S43°52'00"W83.32'S44°24'32"W116.85'N71°13'31"W26.63'R=435.00'D=034°26'50"L=261.53'CHB=N11° 27' 17"WCHD=257.61N28°40'42"W1503.33'R=435.00'D=010°14'06"L=77.71'CHB=N33° 47' 46"WCHD=77.60S67°14'19"E84.36'R=575.00'D=048°32'06"L=487.08'CHB=S35° 17' 02"ECHD=472.65N11°00'59"W145.17'R=550.00'D=044°54'15"L=431.05'CHB=N33° 28' 07"WCHD=420.10N55°55'15"W277.62'R=805.00'D=073°31'17"L=1032.97'CHB=S87° 19' 06"WCHD=963.54S50°33'27"W173.97'R=625.00'D=029°51'49"L=325.76'CHB=N65° 29' 23"ECHD=322.09S80°25'17"W172.66'R=825.00'D=011°54'18"L=171.42'CHB=S74° 28' 07"WCHD=171.11N68°30'58"E200.91'N25°04'07"W105.46'N19°11'39"W160.63'N07°27'44"W459.03'N08°25'17"W397.55'N12°55'48"E30.43'N33°31'10"E129.50'N40°03'25"E240.30'N87°15'37"E1064.07'S73°31'10"E920.26'S16°41'36"E390.69'N74°47'24"E202.34'S73°31'10"E795.78'S16°41'05"E80.22'N74°26'53"E174.01'N74°31'01"E184.43'N74°08'57"E183.11'S60°00'56"W174.94'S59°38'24"W300.67'S21°26'46"E135.86'S21°44'58"E95.73'S22°00'14"E51.83'S21°30'20"E139.23'S19°08'48"E423.63'N43°56'31"W133.45'LEGACY FARMSROAD NORTH(PRIVATE - 50' WIDE)LOT A-1-3LOT A-1-1LOT A-1-2LOT A-1-5TOWN OF ASHLANDTOWN OF HOPKINTONTOWN OF ASHLANDTOWN OF HOPKINTONWILSON STREET(PUBLIC - VARIABLE WIDTH)(NON- BUILDABLE LOT)N16°28'51"E76.51'N11°52'22"W303.08'N73°19'46"E233.65'N21°35'08"E381.96'N09°05'19"
E
343.75'N30°26'58"E158.64'R=575.00'D=007°41'15"L=77.15'CHB=S63° 23' 43"ECHD=77.09LOT A-1-4S73°31'09"E235.55'LOT A-1-10N55°55'15"W408.00'N46°21'17"E558.69'S83°17'46"E385.70'S34°33'45"E459.57'S21°04'00"E256.86'N73°19'46"E5.41'LOT A-1-7LOT A-1-13N62°18'38"E201.38'R=521.00'D=027°47'14"L=252.67'CHB=S48° 25' 00"WCHD=250.21N35°30'50"E206.22'R=1217.64'D=020°56'08"L=444.92'CHB=N46° 09' 54"WCHD=442.45S04°55'11"E200.63'S52°41'59"E131.51'S18°00'5
1
"
E
655.45'N27
°
0
2
'
0
9
"
E
30
8
.
9
3
'135.87'161.89'N12°49'59"W69.21'N41°14'50"W101.16'TOTAL 1361.83'(TOTAL)5
2
.
9
6
'
12
1
.
0
1
'L=398.85'(TOTAL)L=634.12'LOT A-1-14LOT A-1-15LOT A-1-11LOT A-1-12R=1217.64'D=035°20'32"L=751.09'CHB=N74° 18' 16"WCHD=739.24N32°20'17"E173.16'N70°31'50"W368.59'N22°51'19"W890.98'N04°25'09"W145.09'N86°53'45"E240.69'N02°56'14"W129.18'N88°16'20"E164.64'N48°07'11"E197.81'N16°37'27"E112.27'R=1292.55'D=004°23'14"L=98.97'CHB=N75° 05' 57"WCHD=98.95R=159.00'D=037°12'56"L=103.28'CHB=S59° 12' 12"ECHD=101.47N55°09'21"E78.77'R=185.00'D=026°45'51"L=86.42'CHB=N68° 32' 17"ECHD=85.63N81°55'12"E115.69'80.77'196.85'S18°22'31"E169.98'S46°24'53"W124.49'S43°26'52"E24.69'32
3
.
5
1
'(NON- BUILDABLE LOT)FOR REGISTRY USE ONLY1"=800'16G.L.H.E.LOCT.M.09-01-1616-05MAOF11G.L.H.10-3-181"=300'03-110048THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN HAS BEEN PREPAREDIN CONFORMITY WITH THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OFTHE REGISTERS OF DEEDS. NO NEW RIGHT OF WAY LINESARE BEING CREATED AND THOSE SHOWN ARE EXISTINGAND ARE NOT BEING CHANGED OR ALTERED.MASSACHUSETTS PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR #49211GERRY L. HOLDRIGHTDATENOT A VALID ORIGINAL DOCUMENT UNLESSEMBOSSED WITH RAISED IMPRESSION OR STAMPEDWITH A BLACK INK SEALAPPROVAL NOT REQUIREDBAYSTONE DEVELOPMENT 0 WILSON STREETLOT 38, MAP 28MIDDLESEX COUNTY. TOWN OF HOPKINTONCOMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTSDWG. NO.REVIEWED:FIELD CREWDRAWN:FIELD BOOK NO.FIELD BOOK PG.FIELD DATEAPPROVED:DATESCALEFILE NO.CASPL ORTNOSSCOTAIETNIONI, C .508.948.3000 - 508.948.3003 FAX352 TURNPIKE ROADSOUTHBOROUGH, MA 01772CHALFONT, PA 215.712.9800WARREN, NJ 908.668.0099MANHATTAN, NY 646.780.0411MT. LAUREL, NJ 609.857.2099PLAN OF LANDREFERENCE # PLAN 943 OF 2012
NOTES:1. PROPERTY KNOWN AS LOT 38 AS SHOWN ON THE TOWN OF HOPKINTON, MIDDLSEX COUNTY,COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS; ASSESSORS MAP NO. R8.2. EXISTING LOT A-1-9 AREA = 1,402,391 SQUARE FEET OR 32.194 ACRESPROPOSED LOT A-1-10 AREA = 541,874 SQUARE FEET OR 12.440 ACRESPROPOSED LOT A-1-11 AREA = 638,838 SQUARE FEET OR 14.665 ACRESPROPOSED LOT A-1-12 AREA = 221,679 SQUARE FEET OR 5.089 ACRESAREA (TOTAL) = 1,402,391 SQUARE FEET OR 32.194 ACRESEXISTING LOT A-1-8 AREA = 1,254,765 SQUARE FEET OR 28.805 ACRESPROPOSED LOT A-1-13 AREA = 528,007 SQUARE FEET OR 12.121 ACRESPROPOSED LOT A-1-14 AREA = 396,591 SQUARE FEET OR 9.104 ACRESPROPOSED LOT A-1-15 AREA = 330,167 SQUARE FEET OR 7.580 ACRESAREA (TOTAL) = 1,254,765 SQUARE FEET OR 28.805 ACRES3. THIS PLAN IS BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY A SURVEY PREPARED IN THE FIELD BY CONTROL POINTASSOCIATES, INC. AND OTHER REFERENCE MATERIAL AS LISTED HEREON.4. THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT AND IS SUBJECT TO THERESTRICTIONS, COVENANTS AND/OR EASEMENTS THAT MAY BE CONTAINED THEREIN.5.THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN IS TO CREATE LOTS A-1-10 ,LOT A-1-11 AND A-1-12 FROM LOT A-1-9 AND CREATE LOTS A-1-13, LOT A-1-14 AND LOT A-1-15 FROM LOT A-1-8 PER REFERENCE #5.6.NO DECISIONS BY THE ZBA SHOWN HERE ON.7.NO BUILDINGS ON PARCEL TO BE SHOWN.1 inch = ft.( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE03003006003001200150REFERENCES:1.MAP ENTITLED LEGACY FARMS ROAD SOUTH, HOPKINTON MASSACHUSETTS, DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION,"PREPARED BY VANASSE, HAGEN, BRUSTLIN, INC., DATED OCTOBER 28, 2011.2. MAP ENTITLED "APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN OF LAND" BY CONTROL POINT ASSOCIATES, DATED 09-06-16,RECORDED AS PLAN 838 OF 2016.3.MAP ENTITLED "APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN OF LAND" BY CONTROL POINT ASSOCIATES, DATED 05-26-17,RECORDED AS PLAN 558 OF 2017.4.MAP ENTITLED "APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN OF LAND" BY CONTROL POINT ASSOCIATES, DATED JANUARY17, 2018, RECORDED AS PLAN 104 OF 2018.5.MAP ENTITLED "APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN OF LAND "BY CONTROL POINT ASSOCIATES, DATED MAY 8,2018, RECORDED AS PLAN 410 OF 2018.SITE
LOT A-1-3LOT A-1-1LOT A-1-5 LOT)LOT A-1-4LOT A-1-13N80°46'27"E566.01'S38°03'52"E754.51'S87°08'59"E240.03'N15°22'45"E977.17'N79°24'28"E886.36
'N81°33'32"E234.89'N29°39'21"E544.00'S87°07'23"E569.24'S08°57'33"E
1425.35'S79°33'28"W371.45'S68°53'27"W636.81
'S76°41'20"W57.19'S86°46'35"W68.78'S76°12'55"W1061.15
'S08°48'30"E193.87'S12°32'38"E227.50'RAFFERTY ROADN12°34'31"W46.56'WILSON STREET(PUBLIC - VARIABLE WIDTH)S30°37'39"E64.90'R=259.00'D=021°49'09"L=98.63'CHB=N19° 43' 04"WCHD=98.04S36°31'31"E15.67'N10°35'32"W146.00'R=25.00'D=144°14'12"L=62.94'CHB=N79° 02' 06"ECHD=47.58N28°50'47"W153.85'N29°00'19"W295.28'N30°12'07"W267.19'N32°39'10"W132.79'N79°12'36"E116.76'S85°31'31"W143.61'S89°53'54"W82.37'S29°40'50"E667.49'N73°38'53"W24.00'S60°19'10"W33.00'S06°55'00"W51.22'S09°55'16"W42.59'S02°56'47"E11.39'S18°45'09"W19.13'S09°27'00"E13.62'S02°23'47"W112.09'S01°25'56"W42.85'S03°44'47"W37.98'N28°40'42"W1503.33'R=385.00'D=060°09'22"L=404.22'CHB=N01° 23' 59"ECHD=385.91R=385.00'D=043°02'06"L=289.17'CHB=N50° 11' 46"WCHD=282.43S71°42'49"E188.84'LOT A-2-CLOT A-2-DCURVE STREET(PRIVATE - VARIABLE WIDTH)PHIPPS STREET(PRIVATE - VARIABLE WIDTH)LEGACY FARMS NORTH(PUBLIC - 50' WIDE)LOT A-2-1LOT A-2-2LOT A-2-3LOT A-2-6LOT A-2-BFRANKL
A
N
D
R
O
A
D
(PUBLIC - V
A
R
I
A
B
L
E
W
I
D
T
H
)LOT A-1-CN10°35'32"W33.00'N09°54'36"W248.23'S35°07'33"W292.72'N40°36'25"E44.75'LOT A-1-BR=535.00'D=019°46'36"L=184.67'CHB=S61° 49' 30"ECHD=183.75L=86.53'S
5
4
°
5
9
'
3
5
"W
3
9
8
.
0
5
'S68°55
'30"W227.97
'S52°51'32"W334.88'259.71'S29°52'04"W246.98'S02°48'03"W201.92'S38°57'32"E299.39'218.62
'
N21
°
3
6
'
2
3
"
E
420.
1
0
'N65°18'15"E193.91'N68°30'15"E171.85'S42°42'35"E47.74'N80°43'57"E578.82'S36°07'52"E65.47'S65°14'20"E160.94'N89°10'02"E214.78'N79°55'47"E160.20'N46°28'50"W269.30'S87°09'01"E374.02'S
5
2
°
1
1
'
4
5
"
W
2
8
5
.
1
9
'S02°38'19"E186.69'S07°08'54"W182.02'S15°33'40"W245.74'N61°17'01"E184.46'N01°11'25"E
427.33'N07°26'58"W122.19'N32°23'13"W97.98'N59°23'06"E317.28'34.22'N
5
2
°
4
0
'
1
3
"
E
6
2
5
.
7
5
'N00°21'13"W224.25'L=202.64'PHIPPS STREET(PRIVATE - VARIABLE WIDTH)LOT A-2-4LOT A-2-5L=169.04'(NON- BUILDABLE LOT)FOR REGISTRY USE ONLY1"=800'N/AG.L.H.E.LOCS.B.H.10-3-18N/AOF11G.L.H.10-4-181"=300'03-110048THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN HAS BEEN PREPAREDIN CONFORMITY WITH THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OFTHE REGISTERS OF DEEDS. NO NEW RIGHT OF WAY LINESARE BEING CREATED AND THOSE SHOWN ARE EXISTINGAND ARE NOT BEING CHANGED OR ALTERED.MASSACHUSETTS PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR #49211GERRY L. HOLDRIGHTDATENOT A VALID ORIGINAL DOCUMENT UNLESSEMBOSSED WITH RAISED IMPRESSION OR STAMPEDWITH A BLACK INK SEALAPPROVAL NOT REQUIREDBAYSTONE DEVELOPMENT 0 WILSON STREETLOT 8-1, MAP R13MIDDLESEX COUNTY. TOWN OF HOPKINTONCOMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTSDWG. NO.REVIEWED:FIELD CREWDRAWN:FIELD BOOK NO.FIELD BOOK PG.FIELD DATEAPPROVED:DATESCALEFILE NO.CASPL ORTNOSSCOTAIETNIONI, C .508.948.3000 - 508.948.3003 FAX352 TURNPIKE ROADSOUTHBOROUGH, MA 01772CHALFONT, PA 215.712.9800WARREN, NJ 908.668.0099MANHATTAN, NY 646.780.0411MT. LAUREL, NJ 609.857.2099PLAN OF LANDREFERENCE #6
NOTES:1. PROPERTY KNOWN AS LOT 8-1 AS SHOWN ON THE TOWN OF HOPKINTON, MIDDLESEX COUNTY,COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS; ASSESSORS MAP NO. R13.2.AREAEXISTING LOT A-2-A AREA = 5,217,120 SQUARE FEET OR 119.769 ACRESPROPOSED LOT A-2-1 AREA = 824,246 SQUARE FEET OR 18.922 ACRESPROPOSED LOT A-2-2 AREA = 753,536 SQUARE FEET OR 17.299 ACRESPROPOSED LOT A-2-3 AREA = 920,246 SQUARE FEET OR 21.126 ACRESPROPOSED LOT A-2-4 AREA = 154,757 SQUARE FEET OR 3.553 ACRESPROPOSED LOT A-2-5 AREA = 318,507 SQUARE FEET OR 7.312 ACRESPROPOSED LOT A-2-6 AREA = 2,245,828 SQUARE FEET OR 51.557 ACRESAREA (TOTAL) = 5,217,120 SQUARE FEET OR 119.769 ACRES3. THIS PLAN IS BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY A SURVEY PREPARED IN THE FIELD BY CONTROL POINTASSOCIATES, INC. AND OTHER REFERENCE MATERIAL AS LISTED HEREON.4. THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT AND IS SUBJECT TO THERESTRICTIONS, COVENANTS AND/OR EASEMENTS THAT MAY BE CONTAINED THEREIN.5.THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN IS TO CREATE LOT A-2-1, A-2-2, A-2-3, A-2-4, A-2-5 AND A-2-6 FROM LOT A-2-A PERREFERENCE #6.6.NO DECISIONS BY THE ZBA SHOWN HERE ON.7.NO BUILDINGS ON PARCEL TO BE SHOWN.1 inch = ft.( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE03003006003001200150REFERENCES:1.MAP ENTITLED LEGACY FARMS ROAD SOUTH, HOPKINTON MASSACHUSETTS, DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION,"PREPARED BY VANASSE, HAGEN, BRUSTLIN, INC., DATED OCTOBER 28, 2011.2. MAP ENTITLED "APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN OF LAND" BY CONTROL POINT ASSOCIATES, DATED 09-06-16,RECORDED AS PLAN 838 OF 2016.3.MAP ENTITLED "APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN OF LAND" BY CONTROL POINT ASSOCIATES, DATED 05-26-17,RECORDED AS PLAN 558 OF 2017.4.MAP ENTITLED "APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN OF LAND" BY CONTROL POINT ASSOCIATES, DATED JANUARY17, 2018, RECORDED AS PLAN 104 OF 2018.5.MAP ENTITLED "APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN OF LAND "BY CONTROL POINT ASSOCIATES, DATED MAY 8,2018, RECORDED AS PLAN 410 OF 2018.6.MAP ENTITLED "OVERALL LOTTING PLAN/ SHEET INDEX, LEGACY FARMS ROAD NORTH HOPKINTON,MASSACHUSETTS", PREPARED BY VANASSE HANGEN BRUSTLIN, INC, LAST REVISED SEPTEMBER 24, 2012,RECORDED AS PLAN 943 OF 2012.SITELEGACY FARMS NORTH(PRIVATE-50' WIDE)
Civil Engineers + Landscape Architects +Land Surveyors + Planners +Environmental SpecialistsBEALS AND THOMAS, INC.Reservoir Corporate Center144 Turnpike RoadSouthborough, Massachusetts 01772-2104T 508.366.0560 | www.bealsandthomas.comB E A L S + T H O M A S
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT / EARTH REMOVAL PERMIT
PUBLIC HEARING OUTLINE
52&55 Wilson Street – LNG Replacement Project
Eversource
For 11/19/18 Meeting
1. ✔Project introduction and review – Applicant
2. ✔Principal Planner Comments
3. ✔Consultant Review – BETA Group
4. ✔Planning Board – Add to outline
5. ✔Abutters and Public – Add to Outline
6. Detailed Discussion
a) ✔Department of Public Utilities (DPU) status
b) Construction Sequence
- Hours of Operation
- Construction Mitigation/Methods
c) Truck and access routes for earth removal operations
d) Waiver from Earth Removal bylaw
- 100’ buffer strip of undisturbed land (96-3.H)
7. Discuss status of other permits (Conservation Commission)
8. Discuss Stormwater Management & Earth Removal criteria and plan revisions to be
made, if any.
9. Discuss conditions of approval with applicant
10. Close public hearings
Vote on Stormwater Management Permit
Vote on Earth Removal Permit
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
November 14, 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 and Earth Removal Permit
Peer Review Update
Dear Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam:
BETA Group, Inc. reviewed submitted supplemental/revised documents for the proposed LNG
Liquefaction Project Stormwater Management Permit in Hopkinton, MA. This letter is provided to
update BETA’s findings and recommendations of submitted documents.
BASIS OF REVIEW
BETA received the following documents:
Response to Comments, dated October 15, 2018 prepared by Tighe & Bond, Westfield, MA
Plans (21 sheets) entitled LNG Liquefaction Replacement Project Hopkinton, Massachusetts
Permit Drawings revised to November 2018, prepared by Tighe & Bond, Westfield, MA
COMPILED REVIEW LETTER KEY
BETA reviewed this project previously and provided review comments in a letter to the Planning Board
dated August 31, 2018 (original comments in italic text), Tighe & Bond (T&B) provided responses
(responses in standard text), and BETA has provided comments on the status of each (status in bold
italic text).
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The 76.7± acre 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 located within the 100 year FEMA mapped flood zone (Zone A).
NRCS maps indicate soils are Freetown muck with a Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) rating of B/D
(moderate/slow infiltration), Hollis-Rock outcrop Charlton complex with HSG A (high infiltration) and D
(very slow infiltration), Narragansett-Hollis-Rock outcrop complex with HSG A (high infiltration, Montauk
Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam
November 13, 2018
Page 2 of 9
fine sandy loam with HSG C (slow infiltration), Paxton fine sandy loam with HSG C (slow infiltration) and
Udorthents, loamy (unclassified).
The project will directly impact buffer zones to isolated wetland areas. Therefore, the project requires
compliance with the Town of Hopkinton Wetland Bylaws.
REQUESTED WAIVERS REVIEW
The Applicant is not seeking any waivers from the Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Bylaw.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
The 76.7± acre site includes two parcels and is located on the east and west sides of Wilson Street, south
of Rafferty Road. The project site includes the existing LNG facility as well as the area to the south of the
existing facility, which has been previously disturbed from construction of the adjacent facility and some
wooded area. As mentioned above, NRCS maps indicate soils with a range of infiltration rates from A
(high infiltration) to D (very slow infiltration).
Runoff from the site drains to multiple areas across the site. The project area includes isolated wetlands
within the central portion of the site. The project proposes work within regulated wetland resource
areas.
The proposed stormwater management design includes capturing pavement runoff through deep sump
catch basins with hoods, proprietary treatment devices and one new detention basin with a sediment
forebay. The Stormwater Management Report includes geotechnical test pit data conducted at the
proposed location of the detention basin. There will be a net increase of impervious area at the site of
approximately 182,700 square feet (4.2± 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
SW1. Include the existing zoning and land use at the site and abutting properties on the Existing
Conditions Plan (Appendix B, No. 5.). T&B: Zoning and land use information is included on the
revised drawings. BETA2: Abutter information provided, and no change in land use is proposed
– issue resolved.
SW2. Show the location(s) of existing and proposed easements on the plans (Appendix B, No. 7.). T&B:
An existing easement to Tenneco is shown on the Existing Conditions Plans. There are no
proposed easements required for the project. BETA2: Plans revised – issue resolved.
SW3. Provide locations for proposed snow storage (Appendix B, No. 16.g.). T&B: Snow storage areas
are provided on the revised drawings. BETA2: Plans revised – issue resolved.
SW4. Include a landscape plan within the Stormwater Management Plan describing the woody and
herbaceous vegetative stabilization and management techniques to be used within and adjacent
to the stormwater practice as listed in Appendix B, No. 20. T&B: Landscape planting information
for the infiltration basin area is included with the revised drawings. BETA2: Plans revised – issue
resolved.
Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam
November 13, 2018
Page 3 of 9
General
SW5. Extend plan views to the north to show all catch basins on Wilson Street relevant to the project
area. Extended view should also show the connection of existing storm drains from the fire pond
and swale to the north. T&B: Existing catch basins within Wilson Street are to remain and not
anticipated to function substantially different under proposed conditions. No work is to occur
within Wilson Street outside of the two existing curb cuts to the facility,which both drain
westerly toward the project site. However, additional field reconnaissance was conducted to
identify locations of any existing storm drain infrastructure within Wilson Street in the vicinity of
the project area and additional information is provided on the revised drawings. BETA2: Plans
revised – issue resolved.
SW6. Label the existing open concrete drainage trench located near the loading dock as well as the
existing utility poles and overhead wires located near the fire pond on the plans. T&B: Additional
notation is provided on the revised drawings. The existing utility poles and overhead electric
service located near the fire pond are shown on Sheet C-1.02 of the plans as to be removed.
BETA2: Plans revised – issue resolved.
SW7. Provide clarification on existing (apparent) catch basin within the proposed access road area
directly to the east of the fire pond. T&B: The existing catch basin is located within Wilson Street.
An overhead wire connection to the guard house appears to originate from the catch basin
label; however, no catch basin exists at the guard house. BETA2: Clarification provided – issue
resolved.
SW8. Provide a brief narrative of the design intent for the swale adjacent to the Gas Turbine/N2
Compressor Building. Include source(s) and type(s) of discharge, any proposed treatment and
relevant design details of swale. T&B: The LNG swale located north of the Gas Turbine/N2
Compressor Building is a federal code requirement to provide dual containment for LNG
pipelines. The purpose of the concrete swale is not for stormwater, but for any leaks from the
LNG pipeline which traverses over the swale to the Gas Turbine building. This swale is designed
by the LNG engineers and is not a component of the stormwater management system. BETA2:
Clarification provided – issue resolved.
SW9. Clearly define limits of proposed curb on the plans. Consider proposing curbs on the south side of
the new gravel surface area near the flare stack to prevent stormwater from running off site to
the south. T&B: Additional clarification is provided to the revised drawings. The intent is for all
access roads to be equipped with curbing. BETA2: Plans revised – issue resolved.
SW10. Provide existing invert elevations for stormwater system from fire pond to existing swale near
FES-1. T&B: The existing fire pond does not discharge to the existing swale. The fire pond
discharges northerly to an area adjacent to Wilson Road, outside of the LNG facility. Additional
invert information is provided on the revised drawings.BETA2: Clarification provided – issue
resolved.
SW11. Label curb/pavement detail on sheet C-5.01. T&B: Additional clarification is provided on the
revised drawings.BETA2: Refer to comment SW9 above.
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.
Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam
November 13, 2018
Page 4 of 9
No untreated stormwater (Standard Number 1): No new stormwater conveyances (e.g., outfalls) may
discharge untreated stormwater directly to or cause erosion in wetlands or waters of the
Commonwealth. The proposed project includes deep sump catch basins with hoods, proprietary
treatment devices and one new detention basin with a sediment forebay to capture and treat
stormwater on site.
SW12. Provide calculations for rip rap sizing to demonstrate that the proposed stormwater
management design will not cause erosion. T&B: Rip rap sizing calculations is provided in the
Stormwater Management Revisions memorandum. BETA2: Calculations provided – issue
resolved.
Post-development peak discharge rates (Standard Number 2): Stormwater management systems must
be designed so that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-development peak
discharge rates. Calculations have been provided to demonstrate that post-development peak
discharge rates will not exceed pre-development rates, with the exception of Design Point 4: Northeast
for the 2-year storm and 100-year storm as well as Design Point 6: Isolated Wetlands for the 100-year
storm. The Applicant notes that the increase in peak runoff for Design Point 4 is largely due to the
formalization of stormwater controls on site (from overland flow to channelized flow via catch basins
and pipes). A volumetric analysis was performed in Table 3.3 of the Stormwater Report to show existing
and proposed runoff volumes for the 100-year storm. The Applicant has noted that no impact to
downstream areas are anticipated given the increase in stormwater runoff from the 100-year storm due
to the location of the Design Point 4, which is in a depressed area west of Wilson Road.
SW13. Clearly define all final surfaces on the plans for existing and proposed conditions (including, but
not limited to, gravel, grass and pavements). T&B: Additional notation is provided on the revised
drawings to further clarify final surface treatments throughout the project.BETA2: Plans revised
– 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. The project includes
directing runoff to an infiltration basin.
SW14. BETA recommends revising the wording for “detention basin” to “infiltration basin” if the intent
of the design is to infiltrate stormwater rather than to control flow. T&B: The drawings and
Stormwater Management Revisions memorandum have been revised to reflect the intent of the
basin to function as an “infiltration basin”. BETA2: Plans revised – issue resolved.
SW15. For soil borings and test pits conducted during non-seasonal high groundwater months (April-
May), utilize the Frimpter method (Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook, Volume 2, Chapter 2
page 90). T&B: Per MSWH, V2, Ch 2, p90, seasonal high groundwater table can be estimated
based on soil mottles, and the Frimpter method should be used to estimate seasonal high
groundwater if it is difficult to determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation from the
borings or test pits. Additional test pits were performed on September 24, 2018 to further
explore soil and groundwater conditions within the infiltration basin limits. Results of those
explorations and further groundwater determinations are provided in the Stormwater
Management Revisions memorandum. BETA2: Revised soil data provided – issue resolved.
SW16. Conduct a minimum of one soil boring or one test pit for every 5,000 square feet of basin area,
with a minimum of three borings for each infiltration basin (MSWH, V2, Ch2 p89). T&B:
Additional subsurface explorations were performed on September 24, 2018. Results of those
Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam
November 13, 2018
Page 5 of 9
explorations are provided in the Stormwater Management Revisions memorandum. Due to the
known presence of fill placed during the construction of the existing LNG facility, and the
excavation necessary to construct the stormwater basin, the test pits were located in the
northern portion of the basin, where existing ground elevations are lowest. This is necessary in
order to excavate to relative depths of the infiltration system.BETA2: Additional test pits
provided – issue resolved.
SW17. Show soil types on existing and proposed drainage maps. T&B: Revised existing and proposed
drainage area maps, including soil type information, are provided in the Stormwater
Management Revisions memorandum.BETA2: Plans revised – issue resolved.
SW18. Provide a monitoring well in the infiltration basin (Structural BMP Specifications for the
Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook, Volume 2, Chapter 2 page 91). T&B: A monitoring well is
included within the infiltration basin. Details are provided on the revised drawings.BETA2:
Provide detail.
SW19. Include a draw down device within the infiltration basin for maintenance purposes. T&B:
Additional drawdown infrastructure is incorporated into the revised drawings. BETA2: Provide
detail.
SW20. Provide interim contour for top of proposed detention basin to indicate a minimum width of 5
feet at least 1 foot of freeboard above 100 year peak elevation. T&B: Modifications to the
infiltration basin grading have been incorporated to achieve a minimum of 1-foot of freeboard
above the 100-year storm event. Revised calculations are provided in the Stormwater
Management Revisions memorandum.BETA2: Plan revised – issue resolved.
SW21. Consider redirecting emergency overflow of stormwater runoff to the west of the proposed
infiltration basin to avoid flow over the access road. T&B: The emergency overflow spillway has
been redirected northwesterly to avoid crossing of the access road.BETA2: Plans revised – 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. The proposed treatment trains
have been described within the stormwater report, including TSS removal rates.
SW22. Provide TSS removal calculation worksheets for each treatment train. T&B: TSS removal
calculations for each treatment train are provided in the attached Stormwater Management
Revisions memorandum.BETA2: Calculations 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 project site is considered a LUHPPL. The proposed project plans to implement proprietary
treatment devices to capture and pre-treat the required water quality volume for the site – standard
has been met.
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 project site includes the
existing LNG facility as well as an area that has been disturbed by adjacent construction activities. The
Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam
November 13, 2018
Page 6 of 9
proposed project is considered a partial redevelopment and includes a net increase of approximately
182,700 square feet (4.2± acres). The project includes BMPs to capture and treat stormwater runoff on
site to the maximum extent practicable – standard will be met if all comments are addressed.
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. An
existing conditions and demolition plan, showing erosion and sediment controls was provided for
review. Also a draft stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) was provided for review.
SW23. Revise erosion control barrier to provide a minimum of 12 inch diameter straw wattle. T&B: The
erosion control barrier detail has been revised to reflect this requirement. BETA2: Plans revised
– issue resolved.
SW24. Show temporary stockpile location(s) with associated erosion controls. T&B: Temporary
stockpiles will be located in the area marked as “construction staging area” on the plans. As
described in Section 4.2.2 of the Stormwater Management and Earth Removal Permit
Application section, any stockpiles of gravel or other construction-related materials and
equipment will be stored away from the Buffer Zone to prevent impacting the resource areas.
Soil stockpiles will have protective measures (e.g., siltation fence and/or hay bales) around the
perimeter of the stockpile.BETA2: Plans revised – issue resolved.
SW25. Provide provisions to protect the infiltrative capacity of the infiltration basin through
construction period (for example, if infiltration basin is to be used as a temporary sediment basin
limit initial excavation to 6 to 12 inches above finish grade and once site is stabilized return to
excavate remaining soil and accumulated sediment prior to loaming and seeding). T&B:
Additional narrative has been provided on the revised drawings to protect the infiltrative
capacity of the infiltration basin. BETA2: BETA recommends a condition to include notation on
the final plans to limit initial excavation of the proposed infiltration basin to be used as a
temporary sediment basin to 6 to 12 inches above finish grade and once the site is stabilized,
return to excavate remaining soil and accumulated sediment prior to loaming and seeding.
SW26. Provide a separate Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Site Map or include the following items on
the Existing Conditions and Demolition Plans as listed in Appendix C., No. 2:
a. Direction(s) of storm water flow and approximate slopes anticipated after major grading
activities.
b. Locations for storage of materials, waste, vehicles, equipment, soil, snow and other
potential pollutants.
c. Location of any stormwater discharge associated with industrial activity other than
construction at the site.
T&B: An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is provided with the revised drawings.
BETA2: Plans revised – issue resolved.
SW27. Incorporate in the plan notes the specific erosion and sediment control criteria as listed in
Appendix F, No. 2. T&B: While this information is contained in the Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan, an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan is provided as part of the revised
drawings documenting required erosion and sediment control practices. BETA2: Plans revised –
issue resolved.
Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam
November 13, 2018
Page 7 of 9
SW28. BETA recommends a condition be included that requires the submission of the final SWPPP prior
to construction. T&B: The Proponent agrees to provide a copy of the final SWPPP to the Planning
Board prior to the start of construction. BETA2: Include condition.
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 was provided for review.
SW29. Include a Maintenance Agreement for all stormwater maintenance facilities in accordance with
Appendix D, No. 3. T&B: A revised O&M Plan is provided in the Stormwater Management
Revisions memorandum and includes the information required by the Town of Hopkinton
Stormwater Regulations Appendix D, No. 3 as follows:
a. The names, addresses, and daytime telephone numbers of the Responsible Parties are
provided in Section 2: Responsible Parties on page 2-1. When subcontractors are selected for
the project, the Responsible Parties section contact information will be updated and provided to
the Town.
b. The person(s) responsible for financing maintenance and emergency repairs is Hopkinton LNG
Corporation c/o Eversource Energy, with contact information provided in Section 2: Responsible
Parties on page 2-1.
c. An Inspection and Maintenance schedule including routine and non-routine maintenance
tasks to be performed is provided in Section 4: Stormwater Management System, subsection 4.1
Inspections, with inspection frequencies and descriptions provided for stormwater management
system features.
d. A list of easements with the purpose and location of each is not applicable.
e. Provisions for the Planning Board or its designee to enter the property at reasonable times
and in a reasonable manner for the purpose of inspection is provided in Section 4: Stormwater
Management System, subsection 4.1 Inspections on page 4-1.
f. The signature(s) of the owner(s)
BETA2: Plans revised – issue resolved.
Illicit Discharges (Standard Number 10): All illicit discharges to the stormwater management systems
are prohibited. A draft illicit discharge statement was provided.
SW1. Provide a signed Illicit Discharge Statement. T&B: A signed Illicit Discharge Statement is provided
in the Stormwater Management Revisions memorandum to this response. BETA2: A signed
Illicit Discharge Statement provided – issue resolved.
WETLANDS
The proposed site includes four isolated wetlands within the central portion of the site. Work is
proposed within the 100’ foot wetland buffer. The Applicant has submitted a Notice of Intent for
proposed work within the wetland area.
W1. Confirm that the proposed project will not significantly change to or adversely impact each of
the existing wetland areas within the site by altering the quality and quantity of stormwater
runoff. T&B: Existing on-site Isolated Vegetated Wetlands (IVWs) 3A, 4A, and 5A, which are
Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam
November 13, 2018
Page 8 of 9
located in the central portion of the project, will not experience a substantial hydrologic change
as a result of the proposed project. The majority of the contributing drainage area originates
from southeast of the wetlands, comprised of woodland with small areas of previously
disturbed land. Under proposed conditions, a portion of the woodland will be converted to
grass temporarily to serve as the construction staging area; however, this area will be allowed to
revegetate and will not remain as maintained lawn. Additional mitigation measures are
proposed with the inclusion of plantings within the 100-foot buffer zone to the IVWs. At this
time, specific plant species are not proposed; however, the Applicant respectfully requests that
the Planning Board consider a condition of approval to require specific plant species prior to
construction. Planting locations are provided on the revised drawings. Additional information
regarding the quantity of quality of stormwater runoff to the IVWs is provided in the previously
issued Stormwater Management Report. BETA2: Confirmation provided – issue resolved.
EARTH REMOVAL
An Earth Removal application has been submitted in conjunction with the Stormwater Management
application. BETA received the Earth Removal Application on August 6, 2018 with corresponding plans as
listed above under Basis of Review.
E1. Provide estimated volume of anticipated earth removal for this project to be able to better
understand potential impacts to roads and neighborhood due to truck traffic. T&B: While the
project includes substantial earth movement on-site, it not anticipated that a substantial
quantity will be removed from the site. Clean material will be placed within the property limits
to the maximum extent practicable. Based on a preliminary cut/fill evaluation, approximately
25,800 cubic yards will be excavated from the project limits. The project will require
approximately 35,400 cubic yards of fill, indicating that the site will be a net import project. Any
unsuitable materials encountered will be hauled off site and disposed of in accordance with
applicable regulations; however, the quantity of this material cannot yet be determined.
BETA2: Numbers indicate that the project will require a minimum of approximately 10,000 cubic
yards of fill. This will require 500 to a 1,000 truckloads on local roads. Provide information on
proposed truck routes. The Board and DPW may want to include a condition requiring
monitoring (photographic survey) prior to and upon completion earthwork operations and
repair road if damage is observed. T&B2: Traffic impacts were assessed as part of the
Department of Public Utility proceedings. Field observations and conversations with Eversource
indicate that Legacy Farms Road North is generally considered as the primary access to the Site,
especially for heavy vehicles, as Wilson Street is winding and narrow in cross-section. Regional
access is provided via interchange 21 on Interstate 495 (I-495), located approximately 3.3 miles
southwest of the Site.
There are no posted truck restrictions on Wilson Street or Legacy Farms Road North. However,
given the roadway configuration and adjacent land uses, it is expected that Eversource would
continue to use Legacy Farms Road North for construction truck access.
Based on preliminary review, the potential truck routes available for the Site are shown in
Figure 1. The route to/from I-495 (Exit 21) on West Main Street is the shortest (3.3 miles long)
and is not affected by any apparent weight or vertical clearance restrictions, but requires
turning movements at the Route 135/Route 85 signalized intersection. A bridge weight limit
restriction exists to the south in Milford at the location of a crossing over the Charles River. If
Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam
November 13, 2018
Page 9 of 9
delivery trucks do not exceed the specified bridge weight limit, they could use Exit 20 on I-495
to avoid turning at the Route 135/Route 85 intersection. This route requires an approximately
6.2-mile travel on local roads. A low bridge clearance (11 feet maximum) restriction at a
railroad bridge crossing over Route 85 in Southborough precludes truck access to/from the
north on Route 85.
This work will be spread over a minimum 4 week duration; therefore, the number of round
trips anticipated for this effort are around 40 trucks per day. This is not expected to be a
significant impact as the average daily traffic (ADT) counted on the roadways is as follows.
a. East Main Street (Route 135) near Wilson Street: 13,830 vehicles per day
b. Cedar Street (Route 85) near Legacy Farms Road North: 7,780 vehicles per day
c. Legacy Farms Road North near Route 85: 1,050 vehicles per day
BETA3: BETA defers to the Board on this issue.
E2. Include a provision for providing 8” of loam and seed over the entire area where removal has
taken place (§96-3.C.). T&B: Post-construction, the cleared and grubbed areas will be loamed
and seeded with New England Plants New England Conservation/Wildlife mix. This information
has been added to the revised drawings. BETA2: Plans 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
Staff Engineer Associate
O:\6100s\6123 - Hopkinton - LNG Liquefaction Project\Engineering\Reports\LNG Liquefaction Stormwater Review 11-14-2018.docx
MEMORANDUM Tighe&Bond
1
LNG Liquefaction Replacement Project, Stormwater Management Permit and Earth
Removal Permit, Response to Comments from Peer Review Update
TO: Georgia Wilson and Don MacAdam, Town of Hopkinton
FROM: Tracy J. Adamski, AICP and Jean Christy, P.E.
COPY: Denise Bartone and Jim Blackburn, Eversource; Jillian Bokoff and Philip
Paradis, Jr., P.E., BETA Group, Inc.
DATE: October 15, 2018
The following section provides a response to comments received on the LNG Liquefaction
Replacement project from BETA Group, Inc. on October 12, 2018. Below are the comments,
accompanied by a response to each.
Earth Removal
BETA E1/BETA2: Numbers indicate that the project will require a minimum of approximately
10,000 cubic yards of fill. This will require 500 to 1,000 truckloads on local roads. Provide
information on proposed truck routes. The Board and DPW may want to include a condition
requiring monitoring (photographic survey) prior to and upon completion earthwork
operations and repair road if damage is observed.
Response: Traffic impacts were assessed as part of the Department of Public Utility
proceedings. Field observations and conversations with Eversource indicate that Legacy
Farms Road North is generally considered as the primary access to the Site, especially for
heavy vehicles, as Wilson Street is winding and narrow in cross-section. Regional access is
provided via interchange 21 on Interstate 495 (I-495), located approximately 3.3 miles
southwest of the Site.
There are no posted truck restrictions on Wilson Street or Legacy Farms Road North. However,
given the roadway configuration and adjacent land uses, it is expected that Eversource would
continue to use Legacy Farms Road North for construction truck access.
Based on preliminary review, the potential truck routes available for the Site are shown in
Figure 1. The route to/from I-495 (Exit 21) on West Main Street is the shortest (3.3 miles
long) and is not affected by any apparent weight or vertical clearance restrictions, but requires
turning movements at the Route 135/Route 85 signalized intersection. A bridge weight limit
restriction exists to the south in Milford at the location of a crossing over the Charles River. If
delivery trucks do not exceed the specified bridge weight limit, they could use Exit 20 on I-
495 to avoid turning at the Route 135/Route 85 intersection. This route requires an
approximately 6.2-mile travel on local roads. A low bridge clearance (11 feet maximum)
restriction at a railroad bridge crossing over Route 85 in Southborough precludes truck access
to/from the north on Route 85.
This work will be spread over a minimum 4 week duration; therefore, the number of round
trips anticipated for this effort are around 40 trucks per day. This is not expected to be a
significant impact as the average daily traffic (ADT) counted on the roadways is as follows.
a. East Main Street (Route 135) near Wilson Street: 13,830 vehicles per day
b. Cedar Street (Route 85) near Legacy Farms Road North: 7,780 vehicles per day
c. Legacy Farms Road North near Route 85: 1,050 vehicles per day
Attachment A – Figure 1: Potential Trailer Truck Routes To/From the Site
J:\E\E0755 - Eversource L&P\E0755-025 Hopkinton LNG\Permitting\Town SWM Permit\BETA Peer Review\Draft response to BETA review comments2.docx
January 30, 2018Low Bridge Clearance on River Street in SouthboroughBridge Weight Restriction on Cedar Street in Milford3.3 Miles to I‐495 (No Apparent Weight Restriction)FIGURE 1: Potential Trailer Truck Routes To/From the SiteExit 20Exit 21Exit 226.2 Miles to I‐495 (Subject to Weight Restriction)
For 11/19/18 meeting
Stormwater Management Permit
Draft Conditions
52 & 55 Wilson Street - LNG Replacement Project
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.
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 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.
7. The disturbed area shall be temporarily stabilized by hydroseeding if construction of the
replacement LNG facility is not commenced within 30 days of lot clearing.
8. Excavation of the sites stormwater infiltration basin must be observed by the Board’s engineer
prior to laying loam and seed.
9. Initial excavation of the proposed infiltration basin to be used as a temporary sediment basin
during construction shall be limited to 6 to 12 inches above finish grade and once the site is
stabilized, the remaining soil and accumulated sediment shall be excavated prior to laying loam
and seed. A note specifying this condition shall be provided on the final plans.
14
Earth Removal Bylaw excerpt
§ 96-3. General requirements.
The following requirements shall apply to all earth removal activities, whether or not a permit is required.
The Board shall have the authority to waive any of the requirements listed below, on a case-by-case basis:
A. Grades at the conclusion of the earth removal operation shall not be in excess of one foot in vertical
rise for every three feet of horizontal distance (3:1). Grades in excess of 3:1 may be allowed only with
a waiver from the Board. When reviewing waiver requests, the Board will consider the final
appearance of the lot and surrounding areas with the intent that a natural appearance, natural drainage
patterns and sufficient erosion control will be maintained or established.
B. Proper and reasonable surface drainage of the land affected by earth removal operations shall be
assured during and after the removal operations. The applicant shall provide assurance that earth is
kept out of streams and drainage-ways and that accumulated earth shall be removed at periodic
intervals during and upon the conclusion of the earth removal operation. If the erosion control system
includes any structural devices, these structural devices shall be in place and stabilized before
excavation can begin in the affected area. All structures shall be inspected and maintained by the
owner in accordance with the approved plan and the capacity of the structural device.
C. At the conclusion of the earth removal operation, or of such portion thereof as the Board deems
appropriate, the whole area where removal has taken place shall be covered with not less than eight
inches of loam and seeded with a suitable cover crop, except where ledge rock is exposed, and all
large stones and boulders which protrude above the finished grade shall be removed or buried.
Alternatives to this method of restoration shall be subject to the prior approval of the Board.
D. In no event shall any loam be stripped and/or removed from any land in an amount which exceeds the
eight inches of loam required by Subsection C of this section.
E. The depth of excavation for any earth removal operation shall not be closer than seven feet above the
spring high-water table, as determined by observation of soil profiles or test wells.
F. All earth that is stripped and piled, and that which will be left exposed for a period of greater than 60
days, within 200 feet of a wetland, stream, river or other body of water, shall be stabilized. Such
stabilization may consist of temporary seeding, anchored mulch or other method approved by the
Board or its Agent.
G. Provisions for dust control shall be provided for any earth removal operation.
H. A buffer strip of undisturbed land not less than 100 feet wide shall be maintained at all boundaries of
the lot, including at all street lines, on which an earth removal operation occurs. In the event that an
earth removal permit is issued for adjoining lots under the same ownership, the Board may waive the
buffer strip requirement in such locations as it deems appropriate.
I. No earth removal permit shall be issued for a period in excess of 24 months. The duration of the
permit, including dates of commencement and termination, shall be set forth on the permit.
For 11/19/18 meeting
Earth Removal Permit
Draft Conditions
52 & 55 Wilson Street – LNG Replacement Project
1. The duration of the permit shall be for 24 months, which shall start on the date that earth
removal activity commences. The Applicant shall notify the Planning Board and the
Earth Removal Agent in writing of the commencement date, at least 48 hours in advance.
2. Earth removal activity shall occur only between the house of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM
Monday through Friday, and 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM on Saturday.
3. The permit is not assignable.
4. The Applicant shall post a bond or make a deposit with the Town in the amount of $
to guarantee conformity with the provisions or conditions of the permit. The guarantee
shall be deposited with the Town prior to commencement of operations under this permit.
The Town may use the bond or deposit in the event that the Applicant does not comply
with all of the terms and conditions of the permit and complete all restoration in a manner
satisfactory to the Board and in accordance with the permit; significant public safety
hazards exist which will not be addressed by the Applicant; or material environmental
damage has resulted from the earth removal activity and remediation will not be
addressed by the Applicant in a manner satisfactory to the Board.
5. In the event that any of the permit conditions are not faithfully observed and performed,
the Board shall have the authority to revoke the permit at any time, in accordance with
the provisions of the Earth Removal Bylaw.
6. A photographic survey of the local roadways used to transport material to and from the
site shall be provided to the Board and the Department of Public Works prior to and
upon completion of earthwork operations.
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
Monday, October 15, 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: Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use & Town Operations, Cobi Wallace, Permitting
Assistant
Ms. Kramer opened the meeting.
1. Legacy Farms - East Main St. Sidewalk - Discussion
Roy MacDowell, Legacy Farms, LLC, manager, appeared before the Board. He noted he walked
the unfinished portion of the East Main St. sidewalk quite a while ago with John Westerling, DPW
Director, and it was determined they could run a berm outside the fog line for the majority of the
road up to the municipal athletic parcel pending construction of the bridge needed to access the
property. He noted he thought the Parks & Recreation Commission was working on an overall plan
for the athletic parcel, so he met with the Selectmen to discuss the game plan and talked to the Parks
& Recreation Commission but it appears to be a matter of funding. He noted he also met with the
Conservation Commission, but they sent him back to the Parks & Recreation Commission. Mr.
MacDowell noted the next step is up to the Town, and he wrote to Ms. Lazarus in March of this
year, asking for guidance. Ms. Lazarus noted Mr. MacDowell’s description of the current status is
pretty comprehensive. The exact location of the area in question was pointed out on the map, and
Mr. MacDowell explained the work to be done including the relocation of a guardrail which will
require Conservation Commission approval.
Mr. D’Urso arrived at this time.
Ms. Kramer stated it appears the guardrail has to be moved regardless. She asked whether the
Conservation Commission has approved the bridge, and Mr. MacDowell stated yes. Ms. Kramer
asked if Mr. MacDowell has access to the design, and the answer was yes. In response to a question
of Mr. Paul, Mr. MacDowell stated they can do it piecemeal but it is better to do it all at once and
not leave a gap which would force people to walk in the road. Mr. Trendel noted he has no idea
what the Town will do with the athletic parcel and it would be nice to connect the two sections of
sidewalk, but they could be duplicating or undoing work already done. Mr. MacDowell noted the
wetlands are almost up to the edge of the road and it would essentially be a floating bridge, but
otherwise they would have to disturb the wetlands. Ms. Larson-Marlowe noted the bridge may not
be built for years, and Mr. MacDowell stated he does not think the Conservation Commission
would approve a direct impact on the wetlands. Mr. MacDowell noted they would have to shift the
road, and he will check on this with his engineers or the Conservation Commission. Ms. Larson-
Marlowe noted they need to understand what they could do if the bridge never happens. Mr.
MacDowell suggested building a boardwalk, which is doable but the Conservation Commission has
some serious concerns. Mr. Paul asked about the guardrail, and Mr. MacDowell noted the guardrail
is feasible from a wetlands standpoint. Ms. Paul asked about the length of the missing piece, and
Mr. MacDowell noted it is approximately 100 ft. The Board paused the discussion to open and
continue a scheduled public hearing.
2. Public Hearing – 18 Cedar St. – Special Permit – Off-Street Parking – Janice Brown
It was noted the applicant initially requested a continuation to October 29, 2018 but has since
determined that more time is needed and therefore at this point would like the public hearing to be
continued to November 19. Mr. DeYoung moved to continue the public hearing to November 19,
2018, at 7:45 P.M., Mr. Trendel seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Ms. Ritterbusch noted she wants to make sure the abutters are aware of the continuation, and it was
noted the Planning Board office is making a best effort to keep them up to date.
3. Legacy Farms - East Main St. Sidewalk – Continued Discussion
Mr. MacDowell stated he will look into some creative ideas to solve the problem. Ms. Kramer
stated they will have to continue the discussion at a later date, and maybe ask the Parks &
Recreation Commission to join the conversation.
Tom Terry, 17 Maple St., noted there is an agreement with Legacy Farms, LLC dating back to 2010
which requires them to install a sidewalk along East Main St., and it includes the area under
discussion with all its challenges, and he just happens to know that the Parks & Recreation
Commission is not the entity to talk to because the Board of Selectmen took it out of their hands.
Mr. Terry stated the sidewalk will need guardrails on both sides, and will require the removal of a
couple of dead pine trees. He noted it sounds as if Mr. Westerling approved this approach, and
perhaps the Board can ask him to come in to confirm, and Ms. Kramer stated the Board will invite
feedback from everyone involved. Mr. Terry noted as far as further input from the applicant’s
engineers is concerned, it was known from the beginning that a bridge would be needed requiring
funding. Mr. Paul noted it would be better to have the pedestrians on the other side of the guardrail
but it is also done the other way. Mr. Terry stated there is quite a drop-off. Ms. Fein-Brug stated
there have been a number of accidents in this area, and double guardrails would be appropriate. Mr.
MacDowell stated the agreement with the Town talks about the sidewalk but does not offer
specifics, and items such as land takings and moving utility poles are the responsibility of the Town.
He noted he and Mr. Westerling came to a verbal agreement after they walked the road, in principle
only and nothing in writing. He noted he will find out the status of the design and funding, and Ms.
Kramer stated it would also be helpful to find out if there may be a temporary solution. The Board
continued the discussion to November 19, 2018 at 8:45 P.M., and it was noted it would be helpful to
have the DPW Director or Town Engineer in attendance or at least get their comments in writing. It
was noted the sidewalk is required as part of the Master Plan Special Permit and the Planning Board
has extended the deadline for completion several times. Ms. Fein-Brug asked if there is a design for
the remainder of the project, and Mr. MacDowell stated it is 50% complete, enough to go to the
Commission, and after that work can be done quickly, potentially before the Marathon.
4. Legacy Farms North/Wilson St. – Detention Pond
Mr. MacDowell noted they will start work on the improvements to the detention pond within the
next 2 weeks.
5. Approval-Not-Required Plan – 7 and 9 Montana Rd. – EKC Construction Management,
Inc./Edward Kelly
Joe Marquedant, J.D. Marquedant & Assoc., Inc., surveyor, appeared before the Board. Mr.
Marquedant noted the plan proposes to reconfigure 2 existing lots into 4. He stated the existing
structures fall within 2 of the lots and they will stay. He noted the plan shows 3 small lots and one
large 5-acre parcel which has the potential of being further subdivided. He noted the plan shows
recorded as well as registered land. In response to a question of Ms. Kramer, Mr. Marquedant
stated it was determined that Montana Rd. is a private way existing all the way to the Center Trail
and was recently upgraded in compliance with the Fire Dept. requirements with respect to access
for emergency vehicles. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked for clarification of the plan. Mr. Marquedant
explained the plan as to boundary lines, survey lines and zoning blocks for this particular district,
and noted the plan had to be drawn this way in compliance with Land Court requirements. In
response to a question of Mr. Paul, Mr. Marquedant stated the driveway to Lot 3 will remain the
same, there will be a new driveway to Lot 4, and the driveway for #9 Montana Rd. will be
relocated. Ms. DeVeuve asked about the status of Montana Rd., and it was noted it is a private road
maintained by the Town. Stephen Slaman, Fire Chief, stated he reviewed the plan with Mr.
Marquedant and Mr. Kelly, and has determined that the proposed driveways are adequate from a
public safety aspect, but there would be some unknowns in that respect if the remaining 5-acre lot is
further subdivided. In response to a question of Mr. Trendel, Ms. Lazarus noted issues related to
access for any additional lots will be reviewed at the time of a building permit application. Ms.
DeVeuve moved to endorse the plan as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law,
Mr. Ritterbusch seconded the motion, and the Board voted 8 in favor with 1 abstention (Paul).
6. Continued Public Hearings – 52 and 55 Wilson St. – LNG Liquefaction Replacement
Project – Stormwater Management Permit & Earth Removal Permit Applications -
Eversource Energy
Mr. DeYoung moved to open the public hearing, Mr. Trendel seconded the motion, and the Board
voted unanimously in favor. Denise Bartone, Eversource Energy, applicant, Tracy Adamski,
project manager, and Jean Christy, engineer, Tighe & Bond, appeared before the Board. Ms.
Adamski noted BETA Group, Inc., the Board’s consultant, responded to their initial submittal
asking for more details regarding stormwater management and infiltration, and Tighe & Bond
followed up with a response and plan revisions. She noted based on BETA’s most recent review,
there will be additional plan modifications with respect to overall design and stormwater
management components.
Ms. Adamski distributed copies of a response memorandum prepared just today, and it was noted it
addresses open issues related to the Earth Removal application, traffic impacts in particular. She
stated an earth removal application was submitted to address any materials that are not needed on
site, and traffic impact was part of the Dept. of Public Utilities (DPU) review process for zoning
exemptions. She noted trucks would come from Rt. 495 (Exit 21) and use West Main St., Rt. 85, to
Legacy Farms North. She noted they looked at other options, however there is a low bridge
clearance on Route 85 in Southborough, and a weight limit restriction on Rt. 85 in Milford at a
crossing over the Charles River. Ms. Fein-Brug asked about the possibility of time restrictions, and
Ms. Kramer stated Harvey trucks, for instance, are not supposed to be on Elm St. during school
hours and she assumes the trucking company rather not have their drivers sitting in traffic. Ms.
Lazarus stated the project will be affected by the Town’s bylaw regarding use of construction
equipment, and the Board could establish specific hours in its decision. Ms. Adamski stated it is
estimated to involve 40 round trips a day lasting about 4 weeks. She stated she believes Eversource
would like to start construction as early as possible, probably at the beginning of the year. Mr.
Trendel stated he thinks it should not be too bad with the trips spread out over the day, and Ms.
Fein-Brug suggested coming up with a schedule so as to minimize the impact on local residents.
Ms. Adamski stated they would prefer to avoid the peak rush hours.
Mr. D’Urso stated the replacement liquefaction equipment will be located in the area south of the
tanks, and asked if there will be any issues with contaminated soil being removed as part of the
project. Ms. Adamski noted the materials removed to install the tanks ended up in this area, and
that is what will be removed now.
Jillian Bokoff and Phil Paradis, BETA Group, Inc., joined the discussion. Mr. Paradis stated
BETA’s concerns with respect to the liquefaction replacement project were mainly related to
erosion control during and after construction. He noted as far as the earth removal operation is
concerned, BETA had questions about the proposed truck routes and potential damage to local
roads, and they will take a look at the applicant’s response received just today. In response to a
question of Ms. Kramer, Ms. Bokoff stated the applicant is addressing their comments with respect
to the liquefaction replacement/stormwater management permit application but BETA has not yet
submitted their final comments. Ms. Bokoff stated there was a question about a small sliver of
adjacent land not labeled properly, and it was confirmed to be Eversource property. Mr. Paul noted
it appears the applicant has done due diligence. Mr. Trendel stated he is concerned about the truck
traffic impact on local roads, some more than others. Mr. Paradis stated, based on the recent
discussions about drainage problems, Wilson St. is already somewhat rutted so this could make it
worse. He stated BETA feels there is a need for a visual survey of the roads in question in
conjunction with the DPW to establish current conditions. Mr. Trendel asked about the impact on
Wilson St. as a result of the liquefier replacement project, and Mr. Paradis noted the plan indicates
that portion of the work will be on that side of the property, but if the application for the secondary
access road is approved, he does not know why they could not come in from Legacy Farms North.
Mr. Paul asked if the Board can specify access from Legacy Farms North, or at least indicate it is
preferred, and Ms. Adamski stated if the secondary road is approved and constructed, they can use it
for the liquefier replacement project. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked for clarification, and Ms.
Adamski noted the work on Wilson St. would take place right in front of the existing facility. It was
noted the visual survey of local roads would involve before/after photos to determine wear and tear,
and Ms. Bartone noted it would make sense as traffic was assessed as part of the DPU process.
Kathleen Towner, 9 Kruger Rd., commented on the application. Ms. Towner stated she saw the
LNG facility’s response to her question regarding the foamy discharge into the Hopkinton Reservoir
via the stream and the wetlands. She noted the facility acknowledges the practice and indicates it
has been discontinued, but she is interested why it was done in the first place. Ms. Bartone stated
that would be a question for Jim Blackburn, LNG project manager, who cannot be here tonight.
Ms. Towner referred to a previous discussion of the on-site LNG containment area. She stated it
appears this area is regularly pumped out with stormwater being discharged without pre-treatment
into the Reservoir via the stream and the wetlands, and she is concerned about contaminants. She
noted the stormwater report acknowledges stormwater being discharged into the Hopkinton
Reservoir, an impaired Category 5 body of water, but asserts it does not matter without explaining
why. She stated this is a huge project with many unknowns and a potential for contaminants due to
the nature of the facility, and she would like the applicant to consider installing some type of pre-
treatment device. Mr. D’Urso stated he shares Ms. Towner’s concerns, and suggested the applicant
work with the Town on these issues as part of the bigger picture. Ms. DeVeuve asked for
clarification and stated the discussion tonight started with the earth removal aspect but she expected
a stormwater presentation and BETA comments. She noted she too shares Ms. Towner’s concerns,
and Ms. Towner stated it would be nice to know what type of chemicals were used in the
firefighting foam. Ms. Bartone stated the containment area is especially for handling leaks or
overflow of the LNG tanks and is not part of the stormwater design for this project. She stated she
does not know the technical details but essentially the staff does a visual check and manually pumps
out the liquid to the containment area if necessary. She stated this essentially concerns a man-made
wetland created over the years by this activity, and it was noted that is not how it works. Ms.
DeVeuve stated she is concerned about this aspect of the facility. Ms. Fein-Brug asked what
happens if staff detects an oily sheen, and Ms. Bartone noted in that case there will be no pumping
until it has been determined what it is and where it came from. Ms. Fein-Brug noted the
liquefaction replacement results in further encroachment on areas not used before, and she
suggested looking into another method for dealing with gas overflow instead of an open
containment area. Mr. DeYoung asked Mr. Paradis for input on this issue. Mr. Paradis stated this
concerns 2 different discussion areas, and BETA only reviewed the stormwater design as it relates
to the new improvements. He noted, as discussed, the design for the liquefaction replacement
project meets the standards, and he is not privy to the operation of the tanks but from what he
understands LNG is not a soluble, transferrable pollutant and there are no trucks operating in that
area. He noted any kind of petroleum product causes a sheen, and the amount of pollution collected
from the fill is from the fill itself which is not clean but if discharged into the wetlands will be
treated naturally.
Ms. Kramer asked when the project will be further discussed by the Conservation Commission and
it was noted the next meeting is scheduled for tomorrow. Ms. DeVeuve stated she would like the
stormwater design to take the pans under the LNG tanks into consideration and make sure the
calculations are up to standard. Mr. Paradis stated the project in front of the Board does not apply
to this area, but BETA can look into it. Ms. Kramer stated this is part of the overall existing
conditions and contributes to what is routinely pumped out to the containment area, and Ms.
DeVeuve agreed. Ms. Fein-Brug asked for clarification regarding the Illicit Discharge Statement to
be submitted by the applicant. Mr. Paradis stated the EPA requires that the property owner even for
a project that meets the stormwater standards has to submit an Illicit Discharge Compliance
Statement, certifying that he is not aware of any existing illicit discharges in the stormwater on the
site and will abandon/remove them if found in the future. The Board suspended the discussion to
open and continue the public hearing for 55 Wilson St. (LNG Secondary Access Road/Stormwater
Management Permit application).
7. Continued Public Hearing - 55 Wilson St. – Stormwater Management Permit Application -
LNG Facility Secondary Access Road – Eversource Energy
Mr. DeYoung moved to open the public hearing for 55 Wilson St. and continue it until after the
discussion of the 52-55 Wilson St. applications, Mr. Trendel seconded the motion, and the Board
voted unanimously in favor.
8. Continued Public Hearings – 52 and 55 Wilson St. – LNG Liquefaction Replacement
Project – Stormwater Management Permit & Earth Removal Permit Applications -
Eversource Energy
Ms. Fein-Brug stated a site walk may be beneficial as part of the Board’s review of these
applications. She noted she is basically in favor of the project, but would like to address concerns
such as the composition of fire protection foam and how to deal with potential illicit discharge. Ms.
Bartone referred to Mr. Blackburn for answers to those questions. Mr. Paul stated the Board should
only address the stormwater management changes, and Ms. Fein-Brug stated she feels the whole
site operates as one unit. Mr. Paul stated he understands but the Board needs to be careful and focus
on the project before the Board. He stated the Board is concerned as well and he would like
BETA’s opinion whether discharge from the LNG site can be diverted to its own basin to make sure
it does not impact the Hopkinton Reservoir.
Ms. Bokoff stated BETA reviewed the stormwater design and has determined the runoff volume
will not increase. She noted runoff will actually decrease and go into the new infiltration basins
with emergency overflow into the swale to be connected into the secondary road project. She noted
BETA is comfortable with the design as submitted and modified.
9. Continued Public Hearing - 55 Wilson St. – Stormwater Management Permit Application -
LNG Facility Secondary Access Road – Eversource Energy
The Board opened the public hearing, and Ms. Bartone, Ms. Adamski and Ms. Christy returned.
Ms. Kramer asked Ms. Bokoff for an update regarding the secondary access road project. Ms.
Bokoff stated BETA is generally in agreement with the initial design, but had recommendation
regarding the swale and the stream crossing at Legacy Farms North, formerly Rafferty Road. She
stated they received additional comments from Tighe & Bond late this afternoon. The applicants
distributed copies of the memorandum to the Board.
Ms. Christy stated the plans were modified in response to comments received from the DPW and
the Army Corps. She noted they pulled the Legacy Farms North stream crossing culvert away from
the public way and increased the size of the pipe to 18 in. to meet the standards, and changed the
profile of the swale. Ms. Kramer asked for clarification with respect to unlabeled abutting property,
and Ms. Christy noted the parcel in question is also owned by Eversource and the plan will be
corrected accordingly. Ms. Fein-Brug asked for clarification regarding the plans for the secondary
access road and liquefaction replacement projects, and Ms. Christy provided additional details. Ms.
Fein-Brug stated it appears firefighting foam was found in discharge going to the wetlands, and she
asked if addressing LNG leaks would result in introducing something harmful to the environment.
Ms. Bartone stated Mr. Blackburn would be better equipped to answer questions about the protocol
in case of a leak. Chief Slaman stated they would have to check the MSDS’s for the foam used at
the time, and what was considered safe at the time is not necessarily safe now, but either way it is
better than not taking any action at all. He stated they could ask the LNG facility for additional
information. Mr. DeYoung asked when this foam has been used last, and Ms. Bartone stated she
does not know. Chief Slaman stated he has probably seen it used here a couple of times as part of
an annual test, and what was seen by Ms. Towner was probably the residue making its way to the
stream and wetlands after it was pumped out into the containment area. Ms. Kramer stated the
secondary road access road is recommended for emergency access, but there may be come concerns
regarding its proximity to the containment area. Chief Slaman stated there are a bunch of issues and
realistically not everything is perfect but it solves a problem and is better than not having a 2nd
access at all.
Ms. Towner referred to a statement made earlier that the liquid pumped into the containment area
could not possibly contain oil spills from trucks. She noted she feels there is a potential for
stormwater bringing various residues including oil in that direction based on the location and
topography of the area used for fueling the LNG tanker trucks. She referred to an incident at an
LNG facility in Lynn where people broke in and cut wires, and stated she wants to make sure
security is not compromised as a result of clearing away existing vegetation for the secondary
access road, especially since the guard shack is around the corner on Wilson St. Mr. Trendel asked
for clarification regarding the fueling operation. Ms. Towner noted this concerns large trucks that
come in on a daily basis. Ms. Christy stated fueling takes place in an area next to Wilson St., and
runoff is collected through catch basins, recently improved by the introduction of deep sumps, and
discharges into the impoundment area. Ms. Towner asked what would happens during an
accidental LNG spill, and Ms. Christy stated it is outside her purview but LNG by nature would
dissipate.
The Board discussed possible dates/times for continued public hearings on both LNG projects. It
was initially suggested to continue both meetings concurrently, but upon the request of the applicant
and after further discussion it was agreed to expedite the process for the secondary access road as it
would be beneficial to have it in place as soon as possible from a traffic impact standpoint. Ms.
Fein-Brug stated finishing the secondary access road first seems reasonable, although she would
prefer doing it all together. She stated the earth removal permit in this case is almost a misnomer
and she has a lot of questions about the material that is coming in.
Mr. Paul moved to continue the public hearing for 55 Wilson St. to October 29, 2018 at 8:50 P.M.
and extend the decision deadline to November 14, 2018, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Mr. DeYoung moved to continue the public hearings for 52 and 55 Wilson St. to November 19,
2018 at 9:15 P.M., and extend the decision deadlines for both to December 3, 2018 by mutual
agreement, Mr. Trendel seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
The Board discussed the possibility of a site walk. Ms. Bartone stated she has no objection to a site
walk and they had members of the Conservation Commission out there before. After further
discussion the Board scheduled a site walk for Saturday, October 27, 2018, at 8:00 A.M., starting at
the LNG trailer on Wilson St. It was determined that the site walk will not be open to the public,
but Ms. Bartone agreed to check with the facility whether it would be possible upon special request.
Ms. Bartone stated she will have to be informed in advance who will be there, and people have to
dress appropriately. Chief Slaman noted he does not think the LNG facility will be open to allow
members of the public. Ms. Kramer stated she is concerned about transparency, and Ms. Lazarus
stated it is private property and the owners have the right to deny access. It was decided that a
group of up to 4 Board members would walk the site.
10. Administrative Business
The Board reviewed the Minutes of September 17, 2018. Ms. Larson-Marlowe noted she informed
Ms. Wallace of a few minor corrections to be made. Ms. Ritterbusch moved to approve the Minutes
of September 17, 2018, as amended, Ms. Fein-Brug seconded the motion, and the Board voted
unanimously in favor.
11. Other Business
Reference was made to a handout prepared by Ms. Ritterbusch with comments/recommendations
regarding the Planning Board page of the Town’s website. Ms. Ritterbusch elaborated on her
comments and proposed fixes. Ms. Towner stated she has problems with broken links and access to
certain documents. She noted it was easier before the website was changed and she has contacted
the Town’s IT Department regarding her concerns. Ms. Ritterbusch stated it appears Planning
Board decisions have not been posted for a while, and Ms. Lazarus noted they can start working on
the backlog. Ms. Ritterbusch would like to see consensus on the Board with respect to her
recommendations and the Board was basically in agreement but Mr. Paul requested a little more
time.
Mr. Trendel moved to adjourn, Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion, and the Board voted
unanimously in favor.
Adjourned: 10:00 P.M.
Submitted by: Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
Approved: ___________________
Documents used at the Meeting:
Agenda for the October 15, 2018 Planning Board meeting
Memo from Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner, to Planning Board, dated October 11, 2018, re: Items on October
15, 2018 Planning Board Agenda
Draft Planning Board Minutes – September 19, 2018
Missed Meeting Certificate – Frank D’Urso (October 1, 2018 re: 55 Wilson St. Stormwater Management Permit
Application; Whisper Way Definitive Subdivision Application)
Plans entitled “LNG Secondary Access Road Project Hopkinton, Massachusetts – Permit Drawings Revised
October 2018”, dated 8/14/2018 rev. 10/9/2018, prepared by Tighe & Bond; letter to Department of Land Use,
Planning and Permitting, Attn: Ms. Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner, and Mr. Don MacAdam, M.S.,
Conservation Administrator, from Jillian Bokoff, Staff Engineer, and Philip F. Paradis, Jr., PE, Associate, BETA
Group Inc., dated October 12, 2018, re: LNG Liquefaction Project, Stormwater Management Permit (Secondary
Access Road Project) Peer Review Update; memorandum to Georgia Wilson and Don MacAdam, Town of
Hopkinton, from Tracy J. Adamski, AICP, Jean Christy, P.E., dated October 15, 2018, re: Hopkinton LNG Facility
Secondary Access Road Project, Stormwater Management Permit, Response to Comments – Peer Review Update
Plans entitled “LNG Liquefaction Replacement Project Hopkinton, Massachusetts – Permit Drawings Revised
October 2018, dated 7/6/2018 rev. 10/9/2018, prepared by Tighe & Bond; letter to Department of Land Use,
Planning and Permitting, Attn: Ms. Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner, and Mr. Don MacAdam, M.S.,
Conservation Administrator, from Jillian Bokoff, Staff Engineer, and Philip F. Paradis, Jr., PE, Associate, BETA
Group, Inc., dated October 12, 2018, re: LNG Liquefaction Project, Stormwater Management Permit and Earth
Removal Permit Peer Review Update; memorandum to Georgia Wilson and Don MacAdam, Town of Hopkinton,
from Tracy J. Adamski, AICP and Jean Christy, P.E., dated October 15, 2018, re: LNG Liquefaction Replacement
Project, Stormwater Management Permit and Earth Removal Permit, Response to Comments from Peer Review
Update
Planning Board Website Notes for 10-15-18 Meeting, from Amy Ritterbusch