HomeMy Public PortalAbout20181129 - Planning Board - Agenda
TOWN OF HOPKINTON
PLANNING BOARD
Monday, December 3, 2018 7:30 P.M.
Hopkinton Town Hall, 18 Main Street, Hopkinton, MA
______________________________________________________________________________
AGENDA
7:30 Misc. Administrative Business
• Approval Not Required Plan – 7 Box Mill Road – Richard Barbieri
7:45 1) Continued Public Hearing – Bucklin St. & Leonard St. – Stormwater
Management Permit – Request to withdraw application without prejudice – Wall
Street Development Corp.
2) Public Hearing – Bucklin St. & Leonard St. – Stormwater Management Permit –
Wall Street Development Corp.
3) Continued Public Hearing – Bucklin St. & Leonard St. – Petition to construct a
paper street – Wall Street Development Corp.
Proposed construction of a paper street entitled “Bucklin Street”; design and
construction standards. Proposal to construct four single family homes with associated
driveways, utilities, and related grading.
8:30 4) Public Hearing – Maspenock Woods – West Elm Street – Garden Apartment Site
Plan Amendment – Maspenock Woods Realty Trust
Proposed changes to building layout and design for an existing house located at 5 West
Elm Street within the Maspenock Woods development. Request for continuance of the
public hearing to January 14, 2019.
8:30 5) Continued Public Hearing – 18 Cedar Street – Off-street Parking Special Permit
Application – Janice Brown
Special Permit Application pursuant to Section 210-20.4, Off-street Parking, for off-
street parking between a building and a street other than Main Street in connection with
the proposed construction of an 8 unit multi-family residential structure.
9:00 6) 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.
Business to be considered by the Board at any time during the meeting:
• The Trails at Legacy Farms – Stormwater Management discussion – BETA Group, Inc.
• Approve minutes of 10/29/18
• Planning Board member reports and future agenda items
• Correspondence
1
Town of Hopkinton
Planning Board
18 Main Street, Hopkinton MA 01748
508-497-9745
DATE: November 29, 2018
TO: Planning Board
FROM: Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner
RE: Items on December 3, 2018 Planning Board Agenda
Miscellaneous Administrative Business:
Approval Not Required Plan – 7 Box Mill Road – Richard Barbieri
An ANR plan has been submitted to the Board and a decision is due no later than 12/16. The
plan shows the creation of 5 various lots off Box Mill Rd. through the readjustment of lot lines
and conveyance of parcels. All new proposed lots are labeled as non-buildable as required, as
they lots do not have the required frontage or area for the applicable zoning districts. The plan
also shows the creation of a grading, maintenance, and access easement off of Box Mill Road. It
appears this plan may be step one of a process to create additional building lots in the future.
The Plan appears entitled to endorsement, which means that approval under the subdivision
control law is not required.
1) Continued Public Hearing – Bucklin St. & Leonard St. – Stormwater
Management Permit – Request to withdraw application without prejudice – Wall
Street Development Corp.
The Applicant has requested to withdraw its stormwater management permit (SWMP)
application due to new members having joined after the hearing opened and being ineligible to
vote on the application. Please see request to withdraw letter dated 11/1. The Applicant
submitted a new SWMP on 11/1. The new SWMP includes plans and materials identical to those
submitted under the original SWMP. After the Board has addressed the withdraw request, it can
open the public hearing for the new SWMP and the continued public hearing for the roadway
petition (both hearings will be held concurrently).
2
2) Public Hearing – Bucklin St. & Leonard St. – Stormwater Management Permit – Wall
Street Development Corp.
An application for a stormwater management permit (SWMP) was submitted to the
Board on 11/1/18. A decision is due by 1/19/18 and a majority vote is required for
approval. All members are eligible to vote.
3) Continued Public Hearing – Bucklin St. & Leonard St. – Petition to construct a paper
street – Wall Street Development Corp.
A petition to construct a paper street was submitted to the Board on 7/25/18. A decision
is due by 12/7/2018 (135 days from petition submission). A majority vote is required for
approval and all members are eligible to vote. If the Board continues the hearing to a
future meeting, the decision deadline will need to be extended as well.
Project: Proposal to construct a paper street entitled “Bucklin Street”; Proposal to construct 4
single family homes with driveways, utilities and associated grading. A SWM permit is required
because the project will result in a land disturbance of one acre or more. A petition to construct
Bucklin Street is required to be submitted in order for the Board to apply the Subdivision
Regulations to the greatest extent reasonably possible.
Conservation Commission: The site contains isolated wetlands and the Applicant has filed a
Notice of Intent under the Bylaw. The Commission has had one hearing on the project and the
next meeting is scheduled for 12/4.
Board of Health: Shaun McAuliffe, BOH Director, provided the following written comment on
11/26 on the resubmitted SWMP: “I have reviewed the application and based on the review of
the plans presented, the four (4) proposed lots will be serviced with municipal water and sewer.
The soils at the site are very limited and may represent a design challenge for stormwater
management. Conservation will oversee the wetland issues that exist at the site”
BETA: Please see peer review comments from BETA dated 10/24. The Applicant was provided
a copy on 10/24 and response to comments/revised plans are pending. BETA, the Applicant, and
Staff met on 11/20 to discuss BETA’s comments in depth. The Applicant is currently revising
the plans to reflect BETA’s recommendations.
Town Counsel Correspondence:
Abutter Objection: An objection letter from Peter Barbieri, legal representatives for the residents
at 60 & 62 Pleasant Street, was submitted to the Board on 10/29 and a copy can be accessed via
the link below. The letter was forwarded to Town Counsel for their review, and a written
response is pending at the time of this memo. Link to objection letter 10/29
Petition Process: The Applicant’s representative and Town Counsel have been in discussion
about the status of Bucklin Street, whether the proposed subdivision will qualify for “Approval
Not Required” endorsement, and how to approach reviewing the work needed to build out
Bucklin Street and install utilities, as approval of roadway design is not part of the Stormwater
Management Permit application review. As a result of these discussions, the Applicant has
submitted a petition under the provision of M.G.L. c. 41, sec. 81FF for approval of the
3
construction of Bucklin Street. In summary, c. 41, §81FF serves to protect lots, shown on a
recorded plan, that were sold off and in existence prior to the Subdivision Control Law (1953)
from having to comply with subdivision regulations.
Town Counsel agrees that §81FF appears to apply to the subject parcel. However, there
are two important caveats: First, case law has clearly established that planning boards have the
authority to review and impose conditions on construction of roads and utilities associated with
lots protected by §81FF. In the past, the Hopkinton Planning Board has required applicants
claiming the §81FF exemption to petition for Planning Board approval of the roadway and
utilities associated with the grandfathered lot. (The Applicant has now done so, consistent with
the Planning Board’s past practice.) Second, the c. 41 §81FF exemption would be applicable to
only the existing lot on Bucklin Street. Subdivision of that lot is fully subject to the Subdivision
Control Law. If the applicant were to obtain approval of the roadway pursuant to c. 41 §81FF,
endorsement of an ANR plan by the Board (or approval of a definitive subdivision plan) would
still be required in order to divide the existing lot.
Way in Existence: The submitted plans show the proposed lots having the required
frontage on Bucklin Street and Leonard Street. However, because the proposed driveways for the
lots connect only to Bucklin Street, under the definition of “lot frontage” in the Hopkinton
Zoning Bylaws, the Applicant cannot rely on Leonard Street for the frontage and therefore must
demonstrate that Bucklin Street provides the required frontage. In order for the lots to be
approved under c. 41, §81P (ANR), the applicant would have to show that Bucklin Street is 1) a
public way, 2) a way shown on an approved subdivision plan, or 3) a way that was in existence
at the time that the Subdivision Control Law went into effect in Hopkinton (1953) and that, when
the ANR plan is submitted, has “sufficient width, suitable grades and adequate construction to
provide for vehicular traffic.” The applicant’s representative does not claim that Bucklin Street,
which is covered by vegetation, is currently a way in existence. However, he has provided
information to Counsel to support Bucklin St. as being a way in existence in 1953 (historic
aerials and documentation of utility poles) and Counsel believes the factual question regarding
the status of Bucklin Street in 1953 is a matter for determination by the Planning Board. The
Planning Board will have to make this determination if and when the applicant submits an ANR
plan for endorsement. Alternatively, Town Counsel has opined that the Planning Board may
choose to make the determination as part of the roadway petition proceeding, if requested by the
Applicant.
Applicant Ownership of Bucklin Street: The Applicant has submitted information to the
Planning Board regarding its ownership of Bucklin Street, and Town Counsel has reviewed this
information. The Applicant asserts that it owns the fee interest in half of the width of Bucklin
Street along the frontage of its property, pursuant to the derelict fee statute (G.L. c. 183, § 58)
and has submitted a 1998 memorandum and title abstract from Rackemann, Sawyer & Brewster
supporting this claim. Town Counsel agrees that the derelict fee statute appears to apply based on
this memorandum, with the caveat that Town Counsel has not independently verified the title
review. The Applicant also claims, again per the 1998 Rackemann memorandum, to hold an
implied easement allowing it to construct and improve access along the length of Bucklin Street
to its intersection with Pleasant Street. Town Counsel agrees that this is a plausible claim. Thus,
Town Counsel believes that the Applicant has made a sufficiently credible claim of ownership
rights in Bucklin Street for the purpose of the roadway petition. Town Counsel notes that an
approval by the Planning Board does not adjudicate property rights, and that the abutters may
4
choose to contest the Applicant’s rights. Any property rights dispute would be a private matter
between the parties, not involving the Town.
Submitted Materials: Site plans and permit applications are included in the meeting packet .The
following documents were too large to include in the packet but can be accessed via the links
below.
1) Rackermann Ownership 1998 Memo
2) Bucklin St. Historic Photos and Aerials
3) Declaration of Covenants 7-24-18
4) Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
5) Stormwater Management Report
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.
The project does not
provide new untreated
stormwater conveyances to
wetlands.
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.
Provided calculations
demonstrating that the
proposed development will
not increase peak discharge
rates.
1) Include upland areas that
contribute runoff to the project
parcel [….]
2) Analyze pre/post stormwater
runoff at three analysis points to
better determine impacts to abutters
3) Revise 100 year storm
calculations using 8.19 in.
4) Model infiltration basins with a
CN of 98.
#3 – Recharge to
groundwater – Loss of
annual recharge to
groundwater should be
minimized through the use
of infiltration measures to
the maximum extent
practicable.
Groundwater recharge
calculation were provided.
1) Include stamp and signature of
Engineer to certify SWMP is in
accordance with criteria
2) Provide addit. test pit in SW
corner of basin to confirm 2’ of
separation from bottom of basin to
groundwater elevation.
3)Provide the following:
5
Stormwater Standard Proposed BETA comment
- Cross section of proposed
drainage basin
- Detail of sediment forebay outlet
- Draw down device for basin maint
- Monitoring well in basin
4) Provide landscape plan per
Stormwater regs Appendix B, #20
#4 – 80% TSS removal –
For new development,
stormwater management
systems must be designed to
remove 80% of the annual
load of total suspended
solids.
Project includes a new
infiltration basin (with
sediment forebay) and
calculations to demonstrate
80% TSS removal.
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.
Not Applicable Not Applicable
#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.
Not Applicable Not Applicable
#8 – Construction Period
Erosion and Sediment
Controls – Erosion and
sediment controls must be
implemented to prevent
impacts during construction
of land disturbance
activities.
A Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
and an Erosion Control Plan
were submitted.
1) Provide the following:
- Estimates of total area expected to
be disturbed.
- Intended sequence and timing of
activities that will disturb soils and
when erosion controls will be added
- Provisions to protect infiltration
basin from sediment during
construction.
6
Stormwater Standard Proposed BETA comment
2) Recommend including the
following conditions:
- Town or agent observe excavation
of basin prior to loam and seed to
verify design assumptions.
- Applicant provide a final signed
SWPPP prior to construction.
#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.
1) Show location of vehicle access
to drainage basin and easement on
the plans.
2) Provide map showing location of
all stormwater systems and
facilities to be included in the O+M
3) Provide provisions for PB or its
designee to enter the property at
reasonable times to inspect the
O+M plan.
4) Provide signatures of owners on
the O+M
5) Provide estimated operations and
maintenance budget.
#10 – Illicit Discharges –
All illicit discharges to the
stormwater management
systems are prohibited.
A signed Illicit Discharge
Statement was not provided.
Provide a signed Illicit Discharge
Statement.
4) Public Hearing – Maspenock Woods – West Elm Street – Garden Apartment Site Plan
Amendment – Maspenock Woods Realty Trust
Request for continuance of the public hearing to January 14, 2019. The Applicant has indicated
that they would like to proceed with the Conservation Commission application process prior to
coming before the Planning Board.
5) Continued Public Hearing – 18 Cedar Street – Off-Street Parking Special Permit
Application – Janice Brown
An application for a Special Permit pursuant to Zoning Bylaw Section 210-20.4, Off-street
Parking, has been submitted to the Board. A 2/3 vote is required for approval and a decision is
due 90 days from the close of the public hearing. All members are eligible to vote.
Project: The Applicant proposes to construct an eight-unit multi-family residential structure with
9 parking spaces and 4 overflow parking spaces at 18 Cedar Street. An existing single-family
home and other various structures on site will be demolished to accommodate the new residential
structure. The new parking lot includes a new curb cut on A Street. The existing curb cut on
7
Cedar Street will be utilized. The 0.2 acre site is located in the Downtown Business (BD) and
WRPOD zoning districts. Pursuant to Zoning Bylaw Section 210.20.4, off-street parking may be
located between the principal building and other streets only upon the grant of a special permit
from the Planning Board. The property is a corner lot and has frontage on A Street and Cedar
Street. The front yard setback is 40 ft. and is applied to both street frontages. The application
states that the parking lot cannot be proposed within the side yard due to the confined buildable
area and front yard setbacks. The application shows the parking area situated between A Street,
Cedar Street, and the principal building.
Board of Appeals: Pursuant to Zoning Bylaw Section 210.20.3, single and multifamily
residences are allowed in the BD district only upon the grant of a Special Permit from the Board
of Appeals. Section 210.20.3 further requires that all residential uses comply with the Residence
A (RA) District dimensional requirements. The Applicant has applied for the necessary Special
Permit with the Board of Appeals (BOA) and the hearing was continued without discussion to
the BOA meeting on 12/12/18.
Materials Submitted: Please see Special Permit application dated 9/10/18. A revised site plan
was submitted on 11/27 and is included in the application packet. It appears the newest plan
shows more parking spaces than the plan was originally submitted. The Applicant is required to
submit a detailed landscape plan, which has not been received to date.
BETA: BETA’s scope for the project includes reviewing the project for conformance with
210.20.4 and 210.124, off-street parking. BETA will be reviewing the landscaping and screening
in depth. BETA review will begin once a full landscaping plan has been submitted by the
Applicant.
DPW: John Westerling, DPW Director, provided the following comment via email on 9/18/18
“My only comment is that stormwater runoff from the site cannot impact the public way”
Abutter Correspondence: Please see letter dated 10/3/18 from a neighbor group, and letter dated
10/15/18 from Ed and Sue Thompson.
Off-street Parking Regulations:
Section 210.124, Off-Street parking, states the following in regards to parking lot design:
A. Parking lots shall be designed and located to provide screening from abutting
properties, buildings and streets, visual relief and sun and wind interruption within the
parking area and to assure safe patterns of internal circulation. Landscaping requirements
shall, whenever possible, be met by the retention of existing plants and natural landforms.
Section 210.20.4, Off-street parking, states the following in regards to the Board’s action:
A. No off-street parking shall be located between the principal building and Main Street.
Off-street parking may be located between the principal building and other streets only
upon the grant of a special permit by the Planning Board. The Planning Board may grant
the special permit only if it finds that:
(1) The proposed parking will not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood, and
8
(2) The proposed location and design of the parking will enhance the downtown
streetscape.
The term “streetscape” shall refer to all elements that constitute the physical makeup of a
street, and that as a group, define its character, including building facades, frontage and
placement; the paved street; street furniture; landscaping, including trees and other
plantings; awnings; signs and lighting.
The proposed plan represents 1 space per bedroom which is required for the residential
component of mixed use buildings (5-3-2004 ATM, Article 29) 210-124B (closest comparable
use).
The adequacy of the number of parking spaces proposed is ultimately under the review of the
Board of Appeals. The Planning Board’s scope of review does not include review of the number
of parking spaces, but the design of the parking area.
6) 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 12/17/18. Frank D’Urso is not eligible to
vote.
Materials Received: Revised definitive plans 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:
Stormwater Report 11-2-18
BETA: Please see peer review letter dated 11/16. Response comments from the Applicant are
pending at the time of this memo. BETA, staff, and the Applicants engineer met on 11/20 to
review BETA’s comments in depth and to explore areas where the stormwater management
system could be revised to meet the required standards.
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
and the hearing was continued to 12/4.
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:
9
7.1 Waiver Compliance: In accordance with MGL Ch. 41 Sec. 81R, strict compliance
with these regulations may be waived when, in the judgement of the Board, such action is
in the public interest and not inconsistent with the intent of the subdivision control law or
these regulations. All waiver request must be in writing, identify the regulation being
considered, and be submitted to the Board at the time of plan submittal. Construction
waivers may be considered by the Board after the plan is approved.
The below waivers from the provisions of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations have been
requested:
§5.4.1 N Cross Sections: The Applicant seeks a waiver from providing cross
sections of each street at 50 foot intervals.
§5.4.1.R Trees: The Applicant seeks a waiver from providing location, variety, and
size of proposed street trees and trees to be retained within right-of-way. The
application states that no trees will be able to be retained within the right of way
due to its narrow width and the grading required to create the roadway.
§5.4.1 Y Street Lights: The Applicant seeks a waiver from showing location of
proposed street lights. The Applicant is requesting that street lights not be installed
within the subdivision.
§8.2.7 A Disturbance to Natural Topography: The Applicant seeks a waiver from
fill of an area in excess of 8 feet in depth. Depth of fill greater than 8 feet are
required for wetland crossing at station 1+50 and 30+00.
§ 8.2.7 B Disturbance to Natural Topography: The Applicant seeks a waiver
from the construction of roads, stormwater management systems, driveways,
pipes, or other infrastructure construction on land area where slopes are at a
grade of 25% or more.
§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.
10
December 17, 2018
7:45 Continued Public Hearings – 52&55 Wilson Street – SWMP and Earth Removal – LNG
Eversource
8:15 Bond Release Request – Davenport Village/Hayden Woods – Victor Galvani
PUBLIC HEARING OUTLINE
Bucklin St. Roadway Petition
10/29/18, 12/3/18
1. ✔ Project introduction and review – Applicant
2. ✔Principal Planner Comments
3. ✔ Consultant Review – BETA Group
4. Planning Board members and Public – Add to outline
5. Detail Discussion
(a) Road design
(b) Lot layout design
(c) Stormwater management
i. Impact on abutters on Pleasant St.
(d) Utilities; Municipal water & sewer
(e) Waiver requests
(f) Conservation Commission review/ wetland impacts
(g) Public safety
(h) Legal right to make improvements
6. Public comment/discuss standards and plan revisions to be made
7. Discuss conditions of approval with applicant
8. Public comment
9. Vote
10. Close public hearing
BETA GROUP, INC.
315 Norwood Park South, 2nd Floor, Norwood, MA 02062
P:781.255.1982 | F:781.255.1974 | W:www.BETA-Inc.com
October 24, 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: Bucklin Street Road Constriction, Stormwater Management Permit and Notice of Intent
Peer Review
Dear Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam:
BETA Group, Inc. reviewed the proposed Bucklin Street project off Leonard and Pleasant Streets for the
Petition to Approve Road Construction, Stormwater Management Permit and Notice of Intent in
Hopkinton, MA in accordance with BETA’s agreement with the Town dated August 31, 2016. This letter
is provided to outline BETA’s findings and recommendations of submitted documents.
BASIS OF REVIEW
BETA received the following items:
•Petition to Approve Road Construction Paper Street Entitled “Bucklin Street” in Hopkinton,
MA dated July 24, 2018 including:
o Cover letter from Wall Street Development Corp
o Declaration of Covenants, restrictions and easements
o Form D Designers Certificate (2)
•Plans entitled: Plan of Land “Parcel A – Bucklin and Leonard St.” Hopkinton Massachusetts
dated March 29, 2018 revised July 18, 2018 prepared by GLM Engineering Consultants, Inc.,
Holliston, MA
•Small Residential Lot Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) dated July 23, 2018
prepared by GLM Engineering Consultants, Inc.
•Stormwater Operation and Maintenance Plan Maintenance Agreement Bucklin Street
Hopkinton Massachusetts dated March 30, 2018 prepared by GLM Engineering Consultants,
Inc.
•Stormwater Management Permit Application
•WPA Form 3 – Notice of Intent Hopkinton Wetland Protection By-law, date stamped April
11, 2018 including
o USGS Map
o 2014 Orthohophotograph
o Hopkinton Bylaw Supplement to WPA Form 3 – Notice of Intent
o Order of Resource Area Delineation from Town of Hopkinton Conservation
Commission dated August 19, 2016
o WPA Form 2 – Determination of Applicability
Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam
October 24, 2018
Page 2 of 6
o Abutters information
•Stormwater Management Report Site Plan of Land “Bucklin Street” Hopkinton
Massachusetts, dated March 30, 2018 prepared by GLM Engineering Consultants, Inc.,
Holliston, MA including pre and post development watershed maps
•Plans (2) from Town of Hopkinton GIS
•Incomplete application letter to Wall Street Development Corp. dated April 13, 2018 from
Town of Hopkinton Conservation Commission
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The existing wooded 3.22± acre site is located on the north side of Leonard Street. The project site is
located in the Residential A zoning district and the Water Resources Protection Overlay District. The plan
depicts isolated wetlands on the southwest and southeast corners of the parcel. The site is not located
within a critical area (MassDEP Approved Zone II), NHESP mapped areas of estimated habitats of rare
wildlife or rare species or FEMA mapped 100 year flood zone. NRCS soils maps indicate the soils on site
include Rainbow silt loam with a hydrologic soil group (HSG) of C/D (very slow infiltration rate).
The project proposes to construct a 700± foot long, 20 foot wide road and subdivide the lot into 4 new
lots with public water, sewer services and stormwater management system. Proposed stormwater
management system includes the construction of road swales in series ultimately connecting to a new
drainage basin.
REQUESTED WAIVERS REVIEW
The Applicant has requested the following waivers from the Rules and Regulations Relating to the
Subdivision of Land:
W1.Accept no Environmental Analysis (§5.4)
W2.Accept no Traffic Impact Report (§5.4)
W3.Waiver from road location and alignment (all sub-sections) (§8.2.1)
W4.Waive curbing requirements (all sub-sections) (§8.2.2)
W5.Allow variable width right of way and 20' paved road width (§8.2.3)
W6.Allow no turnaround for dead end street (§8.2.5)
W7.Allow no sidewalks (§8.3)
W8.Waiver from stormwater management (§8.4)
W9.Allow above ground private utilities (§8.7.1)
W10.Accept no street lights (§8.7.2)
W11.Accept 4" x 4" x 3' concrete bounds (§9.11)
W12.Accept no street trees (§9.12)
BETA recommends the Applicant add the following waiver requests.
W13.Allow dead end streets to exceed 500 feet in length (§8.2.5.B).
W14.Allow side slope shall not exceed a ratio of three horizontal to one vertical (§8.2.6)
Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam
October 24, 2018
Page 3 of 6
ZONING/REGULATIONS REVIEW
Article II Residence A (RA) District
The proposed subdivision plan lots comply with area, lot coverage, frontage, and yard setbacks of the
Residential A District.
Article XII Water Resources Protection Overlay District
The project is located within the Water Resources Protection Overlay District and requires approval for
any use that renders impervious more than 15% or 2,500 square feet of any lot, whichever is greater.
Refer to Stormwater Management section for review of required infiltration practices.
ROAD CONSTRUCTION/SUBDIVISION REVIEW
The proposed project includes the extension of an existing driveway into a 20’ wide paved roadway. The
location of the roadway is between two existing residences (58 & 62 Pleasant Street). Based on the
proposed profile there will also be some regrading required between them. The new roadway will
eliminate the driveway for no. 58. No curbing is proposed and the road is not crowned but is designed to
slope to the south side for drainage purposes. Other than those items and those listed in the Requested
Waivers Review, the road meets the minimum design standards for a rural road.
GENERAL:
G1.Provide missing existing and proposed topography for the proposed road from Pleasant Street to
the project parcel.
G2.Provide driveway culvert crossing detail.
G3.Provide a driveway for the existing house at 58 Pleasant Street off new road.
G4.Provide location of proposed private utilities.
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REVIEW
A traffic impact analysis was not provided at this time for review.
T1.Show sight distances on the plans of at least 200 feet in accordance with §8.2.1.E.
T2.Provide truck turning plan to demonstrate that emergency vehicles have adequate space within
Bucklin Street to turn around. BETA recommends evaluating alternatives to relying on a private
driveway for the turn around.
T3.Show and label turning radii on the plans and demonstrate that adequate turning radii are
provided at the intersection of Bucklin Street and Pleasant Street.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT
The existing site is wooded and slopes from the eastern side downward to the western side of the site.
Stormwater currently flows overland to the northwest portion of the site. Although the site has some
slope (2.2%±), a significant portion of the site is flagged as isolated wetlands indicating the presence of
Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam
October 24, 2018
Page 4 of 6
high water table and or poor draining soils both or which require special attention when designing a
stormwater management system to mitigate the impacts of development.
The project proposes to extend an existing driveway into a new 20’ wide paved road, Bucklin Street.
Runoff from Bucklin Street will drain to a series of grass swales. Runoff from proposed houses will be
directed to subsurface infiltration chambers with overflows to the new grass swales. The proposed grass
swales are connected with 12” reinforced concrete pipe under the four new driveways, which drain to a
new basin on the western edge of the project site. The new basin consists of a sediment forebay and
headwall with an outlet to a level spreader draining to the west.
SW1.Provide calculations that indicate swales and driveway culverts can accommodate 25 year storm
event (§8.4.8).
SW2.Include stamp and signature of a Professional Engineer to certify that the Stormwater
Management Plan is in accordance with the criteria established in the Bylaw and the Regulations
(Appendix B, §21).
MASSACHUSETTS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STANDARDS:
The project is subject to the Stormwater Management Standards (Stormwater Regulations (SWR) 7.0).
The following are the 10 standards and relative compliance provided by the submitted documentation.
No untreated stormwater (Standard Number 1): No new stormwater conveyances (e.g., outfalls) may
discharge untreated stormwater directly to or cause erosion in wetlands or waters of the
Commonwealth.The project does not provide new untreated stormwater conveyances to wetlands –
complies with standard.
Post-development peak discharge rates (Standard Number 2): Stormwater management systems must
be designed so that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-development peak
discharge rates.Calculations demonstrate that the proposed development will not increase peak
discharge rates. This standard should be re-evaluated upon addressing all included comments.
SW3.To accommodate offsite stormwater runoff that flows onto and through the site, include the
upland areas that contribute runoff to the project parcel in both existing and proposed
watershed maps and calculations, up to and including runoff that crosses where new road will be
between the existing houses off Pleasant Street.
SW4.To better determine impacts to abutters analyze pre and post stormwater runoff at three
analysis points (one along north property line, second along the west property line and third to
Pleasant Street).
SW5.BETA calculates the 100 year storm at 7.25 in (from Atlas graph page 22) x 1.13 = 8.19 in. Revise
calculations using this rainfall amount.
SW6.To avoid double counting infiltration, model infiltration basin with a CN of 98 – water surface.
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.Groundwater
recharge calculations were provided –refer to comment SW2 above.
SW7.The south side of the infiltration basin is 30± from flagged vegetated wetlands which has a
surface elevation of 501.8±. Provide an additional test pit in the southwest corner of the basin to
confirm that there will be 2 feet of separation from the bottom of the basin to seasonal high
groundwater elevation.
Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam
October 24, 2018
Page 5 of 6
SW8.Provide a cross section for the proposed drainage basin. Include subgrade materials and depths
as well as slopes and stabilization methods.
SW9.Provide detail of sediment forebay outlet weir and stormwater basin emergency overflow.
SW10.Provide draw down device in stormwater basin for maintenance.
SW11.Provide monitoring well in stormwater basin.
SW12.Provide landscape plan describing the woody and herbaceous vegetative stabilization and
management techniques to be used within and adjacent to the stormwater practice (Appendix B,
§20).
SW13.In order to maintain level flow from level spreader, provide revise level spreader detail to include
a hard level surface (curb or equivalent) for the weir.
80% TSS Removal (Standard Number 4):For new development, stormwater management systems must
be designed to remove 80% of the annual load of Total Suspended Solids. The proposed project includes
a new infiltration basin (with sediment forebay) and calculations to demonstrate 80% TSS removal –
standard has been met.
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 is not a LUHPPL –standard does not apply.
Critical Areas (Standard Number 6): Stormwater discharges to critical areas must utilize certain
stormwater management BMPs approved for critical areas.The proposed project does not include
stormwater discharges to critical areas –standard does not apply.
Redevelopment (Standard Number 7): Redevelopment of previously developed sites must meet the
Stormwater Management Standards to the maximum extent practicable.The proposed project is not a
redevelopment of a previously developed site –standard does not apply.
Construction Period Erosion and Sediment Controls (Standard Number 8):Erosion and sediment
controls must be implemented to prevent impacts during construction or land disturbance activities.A
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) was provided as well as an erosion control plan.
SW14.Provide estimates of the total area expected to be disturbed by excavation, grading, or other
construction activities, including dedicated off-site borrow and fill areas (Appendix C, §3.a).
SW15.Provide the intended sequence and timing of activities that disturb soils at the site and the
general sequence during the construction process in which the erosion and sediment control
measures will be implemented.
SW16.Provide provisions to protect the infiltration basin from sedimentation during construction.
Provide note that basin is to be initially excavated 12 inches higher than finish grade. Once site is
stabilized basin can be excavated to finish grade.
SW17.Recommend including a condition that requires the Applicant provide a final signed SWPPP prior
to construction.
SW18.Recommend a condition that the Town or an agent for the Town observe the excavation of the
infiltration basin prior to loam and seed to verify design assumptions including groundwater
elevations and infiltration rate.
Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam
October 24, 2018
Page 6 of 6
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.
SW19.Show location of vehicle access to drainage basin and easement on the plans.
SW20.Provide a map showing the location of the systems and facilities including easements, catch
basins, manholes/access lids, main, and stormwater devices to be included with the Operation
and Maintenance Plan (Appendix D, §2).
SW21.Include 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 within the Operation and
Maintenance Plan (Appendix D, §3.e).
SW22.Provide signature(s) of the owner(s) on the Operation and Maintenance Plan (Appendix D, §3.f).
SW23.Provide an estimated operations and maintenance budget.
Illicit Discharges (Standard Number 10): All illicit discharges to the stormwater management systems
are prohibited.
SW24.Provide a signed Illicit Discharge Statement.
WETLANDS
The proposed project includes work within the 50’ and 100’ buffer zones of two isolated wetlands. The
design plans indicates that the development of lots will create a berm on the north, down gradient side
of the wetlands. Applicant has submitted a Notice of Intent for the proposed work within the
jurisdictional wetland resource areas.
W1.Applicant should provide information on the protection of home from potential flooding and/or
groundwater issues and that foundation drains and subdrains that could impact wetlands will
not be necessary.
Very truly yours,
BETA Group, Inc.
Jillian Bokoff Philip F Paradis, Jr., PE
Staff Engineer Associate
O:\6200s\6260 - Hopkinton - Bucklin Street\Engineering\Reports\Buckland St Peer Review 10-24-18.docx
PUBLIC HEARING OUTLINE
18 Cedar Street – Off-street Parking Special Permit
Meeting Dates: 12/3
1) Project introduction and review – Applicant
2) Principal Planner Comments
3) Consultant Review – BETA Group
4) Planning Board members and Public – Add to outline
5) Detailed Discussion
a) Site and parking lot layout design
b) Parking lot details
i) Safety of internal circulation
ii) Fire and public safety access
iii) Snow storage
iv) Landscaping/Screening/Buffering
6) Discuss status of other Board approvals (Board of Appeals)
7) Discuss Special Permit standards and plan revisions to be made
8) Discuss conditions of approval with applicant
9) Public Comment
10) Vote on Special Permit approval and conditions
11) Close Public Hearing
TOWN OF HOPKINTON
PLANNING BOARD
18 M,\IN STREEI'
HOPKINTON, MA (] I74I]
508,497-9755
505-497-9702 (fhx)
\Tr lrcp[nnoilx s.!
Application for Special Permit
Thc uhdcrsigned hercby applies io thc Town olHopkinton Planning Board to grant a Special
Permit for thc fcasons hefeinaftcr ssl 1'L'|1lr and in ar-cordance with the applioable prcvisions ofthe
Zoning Bylaw pcrtaining to the herein descfibed prcrniscs.
Dal"'| 9€rc. (o, 7-o 18
Applicant(s): SOrLtce 9. 91461,"1,tt
Signalufc(s)l
Mailing ALILlr e(s: lB llA-tu e
Dr1.1inrc Tclcphonc:
Signaturc(s):
M.riling \ddr(:s:(S A*z;c 5s1
Owne(s) of l{ccoIdl t €> L.C<.Ja"'t; <z 9 E n-,t
Lti s
6ta-53-qrlo Email: j
e frr^ g((
u3{
Narre of Design Pfofbssional. if any:
Mailing Address: 1666 /''''t, 0
Dayi.ne f eleph,'ne: f6lfli1 1!).f1 |.tntit:
,{ddress uf Snbjccl Proncrtic\: IB Ce oap 9-rpu-€r
Proicct Name. ifany:
la^n\s(:.ulsPlupcll)lD\Lrnb!f,{li\rdll\.4rp,Ulu(^altotn":.r Mhf: L)-tC0u<4-, Io+ Lor, 0
Is an amendmcnt to a prcvioUsly issucd Spccial Pcnrlit requestedl
It'\ e.. plcasc indita.c l1c dJtc.'r :\\urnc(:
List al1 zoning district(s) in which the properlies are located, including oveday districts:
bp
Are all real estatc taxes and other assessments to the 'l own current? X Yes No
lndicate below the Special Pemit(s) requested by this application:
I Off-street Parking Facility in a Business (B) District ($ 210-19c)
n Off-Sheet Parking Facjlity in a Downtown Business (BD) Distriot (i 210-20.3c)
tl Shared and Ofl'-Site Parking (g 210-124)
f Parking Space Reduction (g 210-124.D)
lJ Common Driveway ($ 210-120)
t HotelOverlay District Use (g 210-20.3G)
L Ofiice Park Distriot Use (g 210- 185)
li Open Space and Landscape PreseNation Development Concept Plan (Article XVlt)
t Campus Style Developmcnt (Adiclc XIV)
l.) Village Housing in Residential Districts (Article XTIIA)
D Garden Apartments in Residential Distriots (Article Xlll)
f,, llexible Community Development (Afticle Xl)
Ll Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Installations (Article XXXI)
f Drive-in, Drive-through or Drive-up Uses (g 210-19,D, g 210-20.3.D, $ 210-24.F)
lJ Registered Marijuana Dispensary (Article XXXIII)
V $het 1FP- 9fe66r Fh?-Ktrc, ( o.2).4 A)
Supplemental lnformation
Common Dfiveway Applications Only:
Will an Approval-Not-liequired (ANR) plan be submined to the Planning Board to qeat€
or modify the lots which will share the common driveway? ll Yes fl No
Will a definitive subdivision plan be submitted to the Planning Board to create or modify
the lots which will share the common driveway? f Yes 1l No
Hotel Ow ay District and Ofrce Pa& Dirtricr Applications Only:
List specific uses reclugstod:
Procedure
1. Special Permit applications must be fiied by the applicant with the Town Clerk.
11/16/2015
A public hearing will be scheduled by the Department ofl,and Use, Planning & perrnitting
(the " Depatment" ) and the hefling hdd within 65 days of recd pt of a mmplde
application.
The Department will publish a legal notice in the Metrowest Daily News, for which the
applicant will receive the bill directly from and payable to the newspaper. The Department
will notily obutters by first class mail ofthe publio hearing.
Either the applicant or a representative is expected to appear at the public hearing to
explain the request.
The Planning Board must filc a decision with the Town Cled,i witlin 90 days ofthe close
of the public hearins.
Submission Requiremcnts
Applicants must atlach and/or submit the following information with thc application fbrm. please
note that all matedals, including this application. rnust be submitted on paper ed eleotronioally.
For guidance 6 to the format of d ectroni c submissi ons, see the H atni ng B oard's adopt€d
Administrative Rules.
I Fees. in accordance with the Fee Sched! e
l- All required copies ofplans, materials and documentation, in accordance with the Submissiorl
Rcquirements specitlc 1() each Special Pcflnit reqlLesl. Applications will not be considercd
complete unlil alllhe roquircd rnaterials are suhmittcd.
i A desoription ofhow the speoial pefrnit, il'issued, will bc in harmony wi(h the general
pLlrpose and intent ofthe Zoning Bylaw, and how it will confbnn to any specific decision
cfilefia cootained in tbs Zoring Bylaw applicable Lo thc reques!.
f,, Certified list ofabutters wilhin 300 Jbct ol'thc propcrty, from the Board ol'Assessors office.
The list shall include abufters across any strcet and in adiaccnt comrnunilies, where
applicable. The Iist ofabuttcls shall have becn oeftificd $,ithin 90 days ofthe date of
submission,
L TVo envclopes lbr each abutter on the ceriified list ofahulters, slampe.l with posrage
sullio ient to sond first class mai I to cach, and I 2 enve lopes stampcd with first class postage
for the rcquired notification to abutting oommunitics.
An applicant may request, in writing, that the Planning Board waive specific submisston
requirements. The Board rnay waive the submission of specillc items if it detennines that the item
is not necessary or not applicablc 1o a specific project or application.
lfa Special Permit application is submittcd concunently with a Sitc Plan Review application, then
the materials required shall be cumulalive, with the exception ofthe nrrmber ofenvelopes and
postage for each abuttcr and the abutters list. All inlormation may be shown on one set ofplans.
tr'ee Schedule
If more than one Special Permit is requested by an application, the administrative fee shall be the
highest individual lee required regardless ofthe number of Special Permits requested. The
consultant review fee shall be the sum ofthe two highest required. lfthis applicarion is submitted
concurrently with an application for Site Plan Review, the administrative lee shall be the highest
2.
3.
4.
5.
11,162015
ofthe individual fees, and shall not be cunulativer. The consultant review fee shall be the sum of
the two hishest required.
Special Permit ADDlicalion Amendment
Special Permit Administrativc Consultant Rcvierv Administrative
Fee
Consultrnt
R€vi€w F€e
Off Street Parking
Facility
$r,200.00 $2,000.00 $s00.00 $1,000.00
Shared and Off Site
Pa&ins
$1.200.00 $2,000.00 $500.00 $1.000.00
Patkins SDace Reduction $100.00 None $300.00 None
Common Drivewats $500.00
$1,800.00
$1,s00.00 $200.00 $s00.00
Hotel and/or accessory
uses in the llotel Overlay
District
$2,000.00 $500.00 $1,000.00
Office Park District uses:
Residential dormitory
component ofa
oonf€rence centcr; Public
transDortalion facilities
$600.00 $2,000.00 $500.00 $1.000.00
Office Park District use:
Continuing carc
retirement community,
assisted living facility or
similar institution
$ r,800.00 $2,000.00 $500.00 $ 1,000.00
Campus Style
DeveloDment
$600,00 $r.000.00 Nune NOne
OSLPD Concept Plan $600.00 plus
$50.00 fbr every
lot above 5
I to 5 lots: $1,000.00
6 or nore lots:
$500.00 per lot
None None
Garden Apartments in
Residential Districts
$500.00 plus
$10.00 per
dwelling unit
$2,000.00 plus
$500.00 for every 5
acres over 30 acres
$400.00
Village Housing $150.00 plus
$3.00 pcr
dwellins unit
$2,000.00 plus $500
for cvcry 5 acres over
20 acres
$400.00
Flexible Comrnunity
Development
$1,000.00 $1,000.00 plus
$10 00 per dwelling
mi1
$50.00 if no
public hearing
requrred;
$100.00;f
public headng
requlred
$500.00
Flexible CommuDity
Development - Request
lbr Extension
$50.00 None NA NA
Commercial Solar
Photovoltaic Instal lation
$s00.00 $r,500.00 $100.00 Actual cost
Drivc-in, Ddve-through
or Drive-up Uses
$250.00'None $50.00
Rcsistered Mariiuana $600.00 $1.500.00 $100.00
11/t6nD15
Dispensary
All Orher Soecial Permits $100.00 $1.000.00 $300.00 Achral cost
I The administrative fee lequired with the Special Permit Application for drive-in, drive-tluough
or drive-up uses is $0 if submitted ooncurently with an application for Sito Plan Revrew.
't1/t6t20t5
Off-Street Parkine Facility. Shared and OIf-Site Parkins. parkine Space Reduction -Submission Requirements
l. Ten (10) paper copies ofthe following documents and information in narfativc folm. as
applicable to each specific Special Pcmit request. Include proposed mitigation.
(a) A statement describing why an application lbr a Special permit has been submitted,
i nd udi ng the epl icart' s obj ectives and why the Planni ng Board shoul d grant the requed.
(b) A list all other required permits and approvals lbr the project/facilily and the status ofcach.
(c) A descr;ption ofthe currcnt Lrsc ofthc pfoperty.
(d) ldentification ofthe entitics intended to own, operate and maintain the property and any
buildings and f:icilit;cs thereon.
(e) Proposed lbrms ofdeed restrictions and any othef existing or proposed agrccments
botween plopefty owners within and r:utsirlE ofthe propefly, ifany.
(f) An environmental analysis ofthe impact ofthe projcct/facility, including an evaluation of
prc-dcvclopmont oonditions and post-dev|3loporent uunditiuns on surl'aco and groundwater
quality, grolrndwaler recharge, wildlife habitat and corridors, wetlands and bodies ofwater,
including streams and rivers, and all doournentation and calculalions related thefeto.
(g) A traffic impaot and access study on tlre impact ofthe pro.jecr/facility on the operalion,
safety and overall convoniencc ol'the roadway system providing access to the
lhcility/proioci. Such study shall illuluclc the impacls on vehicular and pedesutan uavel on
such roadway systems, pedestrian conneotions. proposed vehicle mitigalion and trip
reduction techniques, and all documgntation and calculatiolts rclated thereto.
(h) Cumulative calculation ofparking spaces required for all existing and proposed uses ofthe
prope(y, based on the Off-Street Parking requirements in $ 210-124.
(i) A detailed list ofall uses proposed and/or approved which will be subject o[ a shared or
reduced parking special permit. lnclude specillo data frorn a rccognized professional
source indicating thc peak hours ofcach rlse and a table which shows the number of
parking spaces required fbr each use and the number rcquested for each use.
2. Ten ( 10) copi€s of a plar Sd at a scale of 1" =;10', on shed sizes 24" x 34" and one reduced
plan set on 11" x 17' peer, prepared by a registered professional engineer, registered architect
or registered landscane architect, unless indicaled othenvise by the Board, which shows the
inlbrmation below, at aminimum. Ifthe Special Permit applioation accompanies a Site plan
Review application. the plans required for each rnay be combined into one.
(a) Locus plan at a scale of 1" = 800 .
t1l16DAts
(b) Existing Conditions Plan which shows the entire property, zoning dist ct boundaxies,
. property boundaries and easements, struotues on adjacent properties within 50 ft. ofthe
pioperty line! topogaphy at 5 ft. contour intervals, vegetative oover, wetlands, wator
bodies, historic struotures, roads and ways, significant onvironmental features suoh as
ledge outcrops, soenic views and large trees, and the location, size and shape of struotures
and a notation as to whether thcy will be removed or rotaingd.
(c) Plans which show the proposed layout ofthe property including proposed struotues with
the setbacks ond oxtcrior dimensions.noted, the gonoral proposed looation, size and
intended uses ofany open space, pedestrian and bioycle trails, the location ofexisting and
proposed roads, driveways and utilities, and the layout ofpropo$ed parking spaoes on and
offthe propcrty whioh aro subjeot ofthe rcquest or modified by the Nquest.
(d) A plan showing thc proposed layoux ofall parking spaces which are cumulatively required
for eaoh usc on tho premises subjoot ofthis application and a notatio[ iidicatiflg whioh, il
any, arc proposed to be held in resgrve and constructed at a later date,
tt/1612015
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, 12/3
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, Septic, 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 requested waivers
9. Discuss standards and plan revisions to be made
10. Discuss conditions of approval with applicant
11. Public comment
12. Vote
13. Close public hearing
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 16, 2018
Department of Land Use, Planning, and Permitting
Town Hall
18 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Hopkinton, MA 01748
Attn: Ms. Georgia Wilson Mr. Don MacAdam, M.S.
Principal Planner Conservation Administrator
Re: Whisper Way Definitive Subdivision Peer Review
Dear Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam:
BETA Group, Inc. reviewed the supplemental/revised documents for the proposed Whisper Way
Definitive Residential Subdivision Plan. This letter is provided to update BETA’s findings and
recommendations of submitted documents.
BASIS OF REVIEW
BETA received the following supplemental/revised documents:
•Response to BETA’s Review Comments, dated November 2, 2018 prepared by Guerriere &
Halnon, Inc., Milford, MA
•Plans (24 sheets) entitled Whisper Way a Definitive Open Space Subdivision in Hopkinton
Massachusetts,dated May 24, 2018 and revised to November 2, 2018 prepared by Guerriere &
Halnon, Inc., Milford, MA
•Stormwater Report “Whisper Ridge Open Space Subdivision” Hopkinton, MA dated March 24,
2018 and revised to November 2, 2018 prepared by Guerriere & Halnon, Inc.
•Plans (2 sheets) entitled Pre- and Post-development Drainage Plans,dated May 24, 2018 and
revised to November 2, 2018 prepared by Guerriere & Halnon, Inc.
•Plan (1 sheet) entitled Soil Map Plan Whisper Way in Hopkinton, MA dated November 2, 2018
prepared by Guerriere & Halnon, Inc.
COMPILED REVIEW LETTER KEY
BETA reviewed this project previously and provided review comments in letters to the Board dated
August 8, 2018 and September 28, 2018 (original comments and responses in standard text). Guerriere
& Halnon, Inc. (GH) provided responses (responses in italics) and BETA provided comments on the status
of each (status in bold standard text).
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The 39.9± acre parcel includes three lots and is located on the south side of Wood Street and on the
west side of Route 495. The site is located within the Agricultural Zoning (A) District, Residence B (RB)
District and the Water Resources Protection Overlay District (WRPOD-1).
Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam
November 16, 2018
Page 2 of 12
The site is predominately wooded with mapped wetlands and exposed ledge/rock. Whisper Way is
currently a 12 to 14 foot wide stone dust access road 800 feet long providing access to three existing
residences and a parking area at the cul-de-sac for the open space to the north. A forth residence is
located on the northeast corner of the lot where Wood Street intersects with Route 495. There are no
FEMA mapped 100 year flood zones within the project limits. NRCS soils maps indicate a variety of soils
which may make it challenging to infiltrate stormwater on site. The plans indicate that there is public
water available in Wood Street but no public sewer therefore on-site sewer treatment will be necessary.
The proposed subdivision plan depicts the reconstruction and extension of Whisper Way a total of
3,515± feet of road to provide access to 22 new lots, 2 of the existing 4 homes on the site will remain
and the project will create of 26.2± acres of open space.
REQUESTED WAIVERS REVIEW
From Rules and Regulations Relating to the Subdivision of Land, Town of Hopkinton, December 15,
2014
W1.§5.4.1.N Definitive Plan Contents: The Applicant seeks a waiver from providing cross sections of
each street at 50 foot intervals (71 cross sections total).
W2.§5.4.1.R Definitive Plan Contents: The Applicant seeks a waiver from trees to be retained within
the right-of-way. Due to the narrow width of the right-of-way and proposed grading, trees are
not proposed to be retained within the right-of-way.
W3.§5.4.1.Y Definitive Plan Contents: The Applicant seeks a waiver from providing street lights
within the subdivision.
W4.§8.2.7.A Disturbance to Natural Topography: The Applicant seeks a waiver from fill of an area in
excess of 8 feet in depth. Depths of fill greater than 8 feet are required for wetland crossings at
stations 1+50 and 30+00.
W5.§8.2.7.B Disturbance to Natural Topography: The Applicant seeks a waiver from the construction
of roads, stormwater management systems, driveways, pipes or other infrastructure
construction on a land area which slopes at a grade of 25% or more.
From Zoning Bylaws: Chapter 210, Town of Hopkinton, September 2017
W6.§210-113.C.1 Buffer areas: The Applicant seeks a waiver from providing a 100 foot buffer at the
perimeter of the site to separate and/or screen the development from abutting properties. The
proposed subdivision includes a roadway within the 100 foot buffer of the project site on the
southeast corner in order to minimize impacts to slopes greater than 25% and to accommodate
Board of Health septic system regulations.
ZONING
ARTICLE III RESIDENCE B (RB)DISTRICT
The proposed subdivision complies with setback, yard requirements and lot coverage; however, it does
not comply with minimum lot area. The zoning requirements for Residence B are superseded by zoning
requirements for Open Space and Landscape Preservation Development.
Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam
November 16, 2018
Page 3 of 12
Z1.Clearly label proposed lot frontage for each lot on the plans.GH: The Registry Plans have been
revised to show all frontages.BETA2: Plans revised – issue resolved.
ARTICLE V AGRICULTURAL (A)DISTRICT
The proposed subdivision complies with setback, yard requirements and lot coverage; however, it does
not comply with minimum lot area. The zoning requirements for Agricultural are superseded by zoning
requirements for Open Space and Landscape Preservation Development.
ARTICLE XI FLEXIBLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BYLAW
Z2.Indicate the number of affordable units provided on the plans.GH: The applicant has indicated
that two of the units will be affordable.BETA2: BETA recommends a condition to provide
confirmation of the required affordable units on the final plans.
ARTICLE XII WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT
The project is located within the Water Resources Protection Overlay District and requires approval for
any use that renders impervious more than 15% or 2,500 square feet of any lot, whichever is greater.
Refer to Stormwater Management section for review of required infiltration practices.
The shared septic system will require approval by Hopkinton Board of Health and in accordance with
MassDEP Title 5.
ARTICLE XVII OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPE PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT
The proposed development meets the requirements of the Open Space and Landscape Preservation
Development with the exception of the 100 foot buffer requirement. The Applicant is seeking a waiver
for this requirement as described in comment W6 above. A Concept Plan was previously submitted for
the proposed subdivision on January 8, 2018.
Z3.Provide confirmation that structures used for residential purposes meet the height
requirements of §210-121.GH: The height of the buildings will be evaluated at the time of the
building permit issuance. All buildings will be meet the BETA2: BETA recommends a condition
to provide confirmation that the required building heights are met prior to construction.
ARTICLE XVIII SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS (AS APPLICABLE)
The proposed subdivision meets all supplementary regulations as applicable.
RULES AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND
CONTENTS (§5.4)
Individual lots will be serviced by Town water systems. The shared septic system providing sewer
services to new residences will require approval. No street lighting is proposed at this time.
C1.All lots shall be assigned street numbers in consultation with the Director of Municipal
Inspections (§5.4.E).GH: The Building Department will not issue house numbers until the
Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam
November 16, 2018
Page 4 of 12
subdivision is approved by the Planning Department. BETA2: Issue will be resolved upon
acceptance of the plans and issuance of house numbers by the Building Department.
C2.Show location of the subdivision in relation to the existing street system on the locus plan
(§5.4.1.F.).GH: The locus has been revised.BETA2: Locus map revised – issue resolved.
C3.Provide proof of secured easements outside the area where conditions exist requiring such
easements (§5.4.1.G.).GH: There are no easements required outside of the subdivision.BETA2:
Easements within the area are shown on the plans. Easements outside of the project site are
not proposed – issue resolved.
C4.Include a typical cross section for each street on the Profile Plan (§5.4.1.M.).GH: The street cross
sections have added to the profiles.BETA2: Typical sections provided – issue resolved.
C5.Show locations of percolation tests for proposed septic system on the plans. Indicate dates of all
soil tests on the plans (§5.4.1.BB.).GH: The percolation tests have been added to the septic
design sheet.BETA2: Soil test data locations shown – issue resolved.
DESIGN STANDARDS (§8)
Streets
The plans depict a 22 foot wide road with profile grades between 0.67% and 8.57%. The road consists of
modified Cape Cod berms and a 5 foot wide sidewalk on one side.
D1.Revise plan to provide a minimum required curve radii of 150 feet at STA 26+00± (§8.2.1.D).GH:
The plans have been revised.BETA2: Plans revised – issue resolved.
D2.Show dimensions for proposed sight distances on the plans in conformance with §8.2.1.D-E. GH:
A note was added to the plan stating at least 200-feet of sight distance shall be provided.BETA2:
Provide a sight-distance plan and confirm that no streets intersect any other street at less than
60 degrees (§8.2.1.F). BETA3: Plans revised – issue resolved.
D3.Show curb radii on the plans in conformance with §8.2.1.G. GH: Curb radii has been labeled as
20-feet.BETA2: Plans revised – issue resolved.
D4.Show and label proposed right-of-ways on the plans in conformance with §8.2.3.A. GH: Right of
way widths have been labeled.BETA2: Plans revised – issue resolved.
D5.Provide an explanation for a different typical section for road from STA 0+00 to 3+29. Grading
plan should match. Also consider impact on flow to catchbasins at STA 3+29.GH:The road cross
section shifts from a crown to superelvated to pitch the water to a water quality inlet and
discharge the treated water on site.BETA2: Grading plans still indicate a proposed crown on the
road. Provide additional proposed contour labels and/or spot elevations to demonstrate proper
drainage to catch basins and to the water quality inlet. BETA3: Consider removing the proposed
curb and adding an infiltration (country) swale along the eastern edge of the proposed road at
approximately STA 34+50 to allow a greater area for stormwater runoff treatment and
infiltration.
D6.Revise profile so new road meets the existing grade at Wood Street at STA 35+63. GH: The road
profile has been revised to intersect with the existing grade.BETA2: Profile revised – issue
resolved.
Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam
November 16, 2018
Page 5 of 12
CONSTRUCTIONSTANDARDS (§9)
The applicant seeks a waiver for street trees, fill in excess of 8 feet and construction on areas with slopes
greater than 25% as noted above in section, Requested Waivers Review.
CS1.Show proposed sidewalk material and subgrade details per §9.7.3., refer to comment D5 above.
GH: The detail has been revised to show asphalt depth and base material.BETA2: Detail revised
– issue resolved.
CS2.Provide a detail for proposed driveway aprons in conformance with §9.9. GH: A detail of the
driveway apron has been added to sheet.BETA2: Detail provided – issue resolved.BETA3: Detail
provided – issue resolved.
CS3.Provide stone or reinforced concrete bounds (not rebars) on both sides of street right-of-way at
all angle points and at beginning and end of all curves (§9.11.1). GH: A detail has been added to
the plans and a note where to install the bounds BETA2: Detail and note not found – issue
remains outstanding. BETA3: Detail provided. Bound symbols on plans do not match symbols
in legend, revise for consistency.
CS4.Provide a street tree planting plan with planting schedule in accordance with §9.12.GH: A note
is located on the detail of the street tree planting indicating the location and species of street
trees.BETA2:Plans revised – issue resolved.
ADDITIONAL PLAN COMMENTS
G1.Provide full-size original PDF’s (including watershed maps) of all plans (not scanned).Plans
provided – issue resolved.
G2.Turn off layout data on grading plans to make them more legible.GH:Plans have been revised
for clarity.BETA2: Revise to eliminate text conflicts on grading plans.
G3.Enlarge text/details for better clarity/visibility (minimum .10 inch text height).Plans revised
issue resolved.
G4.Provide north arrow on grading plans. GH:North arrows have been added. BETA2: Plans revised
– issue resolved.
G5.Provide all grid elevations on profiles. GH:Grid elevations have been added to the profile plans.
BETA2: Plans revised – issue resolved.
G6.Provide disposition of pipe crossing road at STA 5+65, this appears to feed wetland/vernal pool
on northwest side of road. If it is to remain, report on its condition. Correct the elevation on
profile. GH: The existing 8" PVC pipe will be removed and a precast drop inlet with a grate will be
added installed with a new 12" HDPE pipe. BETA3: Provide the following:
a.A culvert profile, to scale, from wetland to pipe outlet on the south side of the
proposed road.
b.Culvert calculations to show a 50 year capacity (§8.4.8).
G7.Show delineation of wetland on lots 23 & 24 more definitively on grading plan. GH: The wetland
has been shown clearer. BETA2: Plans revised – issue resolved.
Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam
November 16, 2018
Page 6 of 12
G8.Identify structure/detail for half circle at approximately STA. 5+50 to 70 right. GH: The existing
8" PVC pipe will be removed and a precast drop inlet with a grate will be added installed with
a new 12" HDPE pipe. BETA2: Revise/correct contours in this area. Refer to comment G6
above.
G9.Provide access to existing open space parking area at STA 7+20 right. GH:The curb is cape cod
and will be backed up with gravel. The parking area will have a fresh layer of gravel installed. By
maintaining the curb in this area it will direct the water to the catch basin and keep the water off
the gravel. BETA2: Provide sufficient grading for the parking area. Show the limits of grading
and gravel to be added on the plans.
G10.Show proposed driveway or any changes to the existing driveway for Lot 2. GH: The new
location of the driveway is shown. BETA2: Proposed driveway not shown – issue remains
outstanding. BETA3: Plans revised – issue resolved.
G11.Label, dimension, and detail all parking areas locations on the plans. Revise Lotting Plan to
match locations. Coordinate with current and potential path locations. GH: The lotting plan has
been revised.BETA2: Revise Lotting Plans to show trailer parking at approximately STA 31+00.
G12.Provide a label and detail for the sidewalk area proposed at approximately STA. 5+50. GH: The
sidewalk has been shown along the retaining wall.BETA2:Clarify plans by clearly delineating
limits of walls.
G13.Provide earth removal calculations. Include provisions for erosion control and dust control in
accordance with Town of Hopkinton General Bylaws §96-3 (September 2017).
G14.Provide a minimum of 15 feet wide vehicle access and maximum 5:1 slope for maintenance for
each stormwater basin.GH: Access driveways have been added. BETA2: Plans revised – issue
resolved.
G15.Revise plan to relocate sidewalk along Wood Street, it appears to be proposed in the existing
street. GH: The sidewalk is proposed between the guardrail and the solid white line. There is 7-
feet available to install a 5-foot wide sidewalk and a asphalt berm with an 8-inch reveal.BETA2:
Current set of plans shows no new sidewalk on Wood Street.
TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT
A traffic impact assessment was not provided for review at this time.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
The 39.9± acre parcel includes three lots and is located on the south side of Wood Street and on the
west side of Route 495. The site is predominately wooded with mapped wetlands and exposed
ledge/rock with a variety of soil types ranging from HSG A (high infiltration rates) to HSG D (poor
infiltration rates). Whisper Way is currently a 12 to 14 foot wide stone dust access road 800 feet long
providing access to three existing residences and a parking area at the cul-de-sac for the open space to
the north. Runoff from the site drains to existing wetlands at the northeast and southeast portions of
the site. The northeast wetland is connected to another wetland area on the east side of Route I-495 by
an existing culvert. The project proposes work within regulated wetland resource areas.
Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam
November 16, 2018
Page 7 of 12
The proposed stormwater management design includes capturing pavement runoff through deep sump
catch basins. The Stormwater Management Report includes geotechnical test pit data conducted at the
proposed locations of the infiltration basins.
Runoff is then directed to sediment forebays, and is then discharged to one of three infiltration basins.
There will be a net increase of impervious area at the site of approximately 186,600 square feet (4.3±
acres).
The site is not within the 100-Year FEMA Flood. The project will disturb greater than one acre of land
and is subject to the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standards, Chapter 172 Stormwater
Management and Erosion Control Bylaw of the Town of Hopkinton and Town of Hopkinton Stormwater
Regulations.
From Subdivision Regulations
SW1.Provide updated calculations utilizing the required rainfall data specified in §8.4.2. GH: The
rainfall has been adjusted to use the 100 year extreme precipitation.BETA2: Calculations revised
– issue resolved. BETA3: Revise calculations for the following:
a.Utilizing the same total drainage area for pre- and post-development
b.Limit sheet flow length to 50 feet (Appendix E.1.d.)
c.Use a minimum time of concentration of 6 minutes (0.1 hour)
d.Update report narrative and supporting calculations to reflect change from infiltration
basins to extended detention basins
e.Modify design to reduce peak flow to Town Forest for 2-year storm
SW2.Revise catch basin detail to include a 5 foot granite guttermouth per §8.4.5. GH: A granite gutter
mouth detail has been added. BETA2: Plan revised – issue resolved.
SW3.Provide catch basins at low point at STA. 1+00 and at Wood Street at STA 35+30± (§8.4.5.) . GH:
Due to the lack of drainage in Wood Street, 1,500 gallon water quality inlets with gutter
openings have been proposed.BETA2: See comment D5.
SW4.Provide a detail for drainage drop manhole per§8.4.6.GH: A detail has been added to the plans.
BETA2: A drop manhole detail has been added to the plans – issue resolved.
SW5.Indicate size and material of all proposed drainage pipes on the plans. The discharge end of all
pipes greater than 15 inches in diameter shall have a protective barrier (§8.4.8.). GH: All pipes
have been labeled and a note has been added to provide end protection on pipes greater than
15" diameter.BETA2: Add note for protective barrier(s).
SW6.Provide pipe sizing calculations including velocities for all proposed drainage pipes in accordance
with (§8.4.8.). GH: Pipe sizing calculations have been added to the drainage report.BETA2: Flow
exceeds 25 year storm capacity for some pipes, revise pipe sizes/design.
SW7.Show top of basin contour lines on the plans to confirm a 25 foot setback from house, roadway
or property lines (§8.4.6.). GH: A waiver will be requested from this due to the irregular layout of
Wood Street at Detention Basin "C.”BETA2: BETA recommends providing a 10’ wide berm
around Infiltration Basin C to prevent flooding o adjacent streets.
Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam
November 16, 2018
Page 8 of 12
SW8.Provide cross sections for proposed infiltration basin including method and materials of
constructing embankments (§8.4.6.). GH: See Earth Dike detail on detail sheet 1.BETA2: Detail
provided – issue resolved.
SW9.Provide adequate screening of proposed infiltration basins (§8.4.10.).
General
SW10.Label all drainage structures and infiltration basins on the plans. Include bottom, top and
contour elevations as well.GH: Plans have been revised. BETA2: Labels have been provided,
however some of the labels conflict with other notes. Structure labels do not have leaders.
BETA3:
a.Revise drain easement at STA 6+00 L to locate pipe and structures within easement
b.Eliminate reverse flow at DMH-3
c.Add contour labels on basins D and E
SW11.Provide a detail for catch basin hoods. GH: A detail has been added. BETA2: detail not provided –
issue remains outstanding. BETA3: Detail provided – issue resolved.
SW12.BETA recommends proposing a cross slope of 3% and installing double grates for all catch basins
for all roadway slopes greater than 5% to maximize capture of stormwater runoff. GH: The road
cross section has been revised to show 3% cross slope and double catch basins have been added
to the plans. BETA3: Plans revised – issue resolved.
SW13.Revise the proposed drainage pipe design at STA. 29+00± to avoid reverse flow. GH: The
manhole has been relocated to provide positive flow.BETA2: Correct reverse flow at DMH1,
DMH3, and DMH-20.
Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standards:
The project is subject to the Stormwater Management Standards (Stormwater Regulations (SWR) 7.0).
The following are the 10 standards and relative compliance provided by the submitted documentation.
No untreated stormwater (Standard Number 1): No new stormwater conveyances (e.g., outfalls) may
discharge untreated stormwater directly to or cause erosion in wetlands or waters of the
Commonwealth.The proposed project includes deep sump catch basins to collect stormwater runoff
and direct it to new three new sediment forebays and infiltration basins with overflow to existing
wetlands.
SW14.Clearly label basins, soil types and soil delineations on post-development watershed plans.
SW15.Provide rip rap sizing calculations to confirm scour mitigation.
Post-development peak discharge rates (Standard Number 2): Stormwater management systems must
be designed so that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-development peak
discharge rates.Calculations have been provided to confirm that post-development peak discharge
rates do not exceed pre-development rates – standard has been met.
Recharge to groundwater (Standard Number 3): Loss of annual recharge to groundwater should be
minimized through the use of infiltration measures to maximum extent practicable.
SW16.Soil test data provided is inconsistent, clarify the following:
Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam
November 16, 2018
Page 9 of 12
a.Forms for test holes B, C, D, & E, indicate standing water in holes observed at 36 inches
while estimated depth to high groundwater was much lower. GH: Forms have been
revised.BETA2: Soil tests indicate ledge within excavation limits of multiple proposed
infiltration basins. BETA recommends relocating proposed stormwater basins to avoid
the need for blasting.
b.Forms for test hole F & G show a checked the box for groundwater observed but no
elevation was given.GH: Forms have been revised.BETA2: Forms revised – issue
resolved.
c.Clarify dates of test pits D, E, F & G, logs indicate a date of 8/16/18/. GH: Forms have
been revised.BETA2: Forms revised – issue resolved.
d.Provide Frimpter analysis for tests completed in July and August to determine seasonal
high groundwater elevation (Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook (MSWH), Volume 2,
Chapter 2, page 90).GH:The MSWH states that to groundwater should be based on
soil mottles or through direct observation when borings are conducted in April or
May, when groundwater levels are likely to be highest. If it is difficult to determine a
seasonal high ground water depth from either test pits or soil borings, then the
Frimpter method should be used. Depp hole tests were performed and mottles were
observed, therefore the Frimpter method is not needed to determine ground water
elevations.BETA 2: Tests hole data forms do not indicate the presence of mottles and
test holes B-G were dug in July, provide Frimpter analysis to estimate seasonal high
groundwater elevations at all July test holes.
GH: Basins have been revised to act as extended detention basins rather than
infiltration basins due to the depth to ledge and groundwater. Basin "C" will remain
an infiltration basin. Each house will have 4 Cultec 330 recharger infiltration
chambers added for roof runoff infiltration. Soil tests shall be performed on each lot
and inspected to confirm depth to groundwater.BETA2: Provide anticipated locations
of infiltration chambers on the plans.
SW17.Revise infiltration basin grading and designs to maintain 2 feet of separation from seasonal high
groundwater elevation (SHGWE). “Greater separation is necessary for bedrock” (MSWH V2 Ch2
p 89).
a.Basin A – TP 13 indicates SHGWE at 394.5± while basin bottom is proposed at elevation
393.
b.Basin C – After completing Frimpter Analysis on assumed SWGWE, tests may not be
deep enough.
c.Basin D - TP B indicates refusal at 384.3± & TP C indicates refusal at 383.5± while basin
bottom is proposed at elevation 380.
d.Basin E – TB D indicates refusal at 357.5±, TB E indicates refusal at 356.5± while basin
bottom is proposed at elevation 358.
GH: Basins A, B, D and E have been changed to dry extended detention basins rather
than infiltration basins.BETA2: The Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook does not
recommend extended dry basins to be installed by themselves (Volume 2, Chapter
2, page 51). Consider wet basins or other BMPs that may remove soluble pollutants.
Consider additional shallow infiltration basins located within the “B” soils possibly
cascading in series to follow topography and avoid deep excavations.
Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam
November 16, 2018
Page 10 of 12
SW18.Revise the design of Basin E. The minimum acceptable infiltration rate is 0.17 inches per hour
(MSWH V 2, Ch2, p90). Label proposed contour elevations. BETA2: Design revised – issue
dismissed.
SW19.Provide locations, dimensions and elevations of emergency over flow for infiltration basins on
plans and extend over flows to bottom of exterior fill.GH: Riprap has been added. Basin details
have been added and specified in Earth Dike detail. BETA2: Provide spot elevations for
emergency spillways on the plans. Consider relocating the emergency spillways for Basins A and
B away further away from the locations of overflow to wetlands. Provide an emergency spillway
for Basin C. Extend emergency spillways to the back of slopes. BETA3: Recommend relocating
emergency overflow for Basin C to the east side of the basin to direct overflow to Route 495
swale and provide a typical detail for emergency overflow.
SW20.Provide a minimum of 1 foot of freeboard for 100 year storm event for all stormwater basins.
GH: Basins have been revised to provide one foot of free board. BETA2: Freeboard not
provided for Basins A or B – issue remains outstanding. BETA3: Freeboard not provided for
Basin B – issue remains outstanding.
SW21.Provide methods to prevent clogging of small orifices in outlet control devices for basins.GH:
Welded metal frames have been specified on the detail sheets.BETA2: Recommend providing
stone backfill around the 6” PVC outlet pipe connected to the outlet control structure.
SW22.BETA recommends providing roof runoff recharge system for each lot.GH:Each house will have
4 Cultec 330 recharger infiltration chambers added for roof runoff infiltration. Soil tests shall be
performed on each lot and inspected to confirm depth to groundwater. Locations have not been
shown on the plans vet since the actual location of the houses are not known and soil tests have
not been performed on the lots to find the most effective location for the chambers.BETA2:
BETA3: BETA recommends including a condition.
80% TSS Removal (Standard Number 4):For new development, stormwater management systems must
be designed to remove 80% of the annual load of Total Suspended Solids.The proposed project includes
stormwater collection and treatment via deep sump catch basins, sediment forebays and infiltration
basins. TSS removal calculations have been provided to indicate 89% total TSS removal.
SW23.Provide sediment forebay for Basin B. Revised plans indicate Basin B as a stilling basin while TSS
calculations include a sand filter for Basin B. Provide calculations for Basin B and revise for
consistency.GH: Basin B has a stormwater treatment unit for TSS removal.BETA3: Provide
sizing calculations and locations of all proposed VortSentry treatment units.
SW24.A sediment forebay is required to obtain 80% TSS removal credit. Do not list it separately for
credit, revise TSS removal worksheets. Provide a detail and calculations for the proposed water
quality swales indicated on the TSS calculation sheets.BETA2: Revise TSS calculations including:
a.Remove credit for sediment forebay in Basin A & C – these are included in the credit
for extended dry detention basin and infiltration basin
b.Provide location and detail of water quality swale or remove from TSS calculations
c.Provide sizing calculations and locations of all proposed Vortsentry units
Higher Potential Pollutant Loads (Standard Number 5): Stormwater discharges from Land Uses with
Higher Potential Pollutant Loads require the use of specific stormwater management BMPs.The
proposed project does not generate stormwater from LUHHPPL – standard does not apply.
Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam
November 16, 2018
Page 11 of 12
Critical Areas (Standard Number 6): Stormwater discharges to critical areas must utilize certain
stormwater management BMPs approved for critical areas.The proposed project does not discharge
stormwater to a critical area – standard does not apply.
Redevelopment (Standard Number 7): Redevelopment of previously developed sites must meet the
Stormwater Management Standards to the maximum extent practicable.The project does not meet the
definition of a redevelopment project – standard does not apply.
Construction Period Erosion and Sediment Controls (Standard Number 8):Erosion and sediment
controls must be implemented to prevent impacts during construction or land disturbance activities.A
draft SWPPP was submitted for review, which includes construction period pollution prevention
measures
SW25.Revise reference or provide a copy of the referenced “Bear Hill Village Erosion Control Plan of
Land” for review.BETA2: Reference revised – issue resolved.
SW26.Show locations of stabilized construction entrance/exit on the plans.GH: A detail has been
added and the entrances shown on the erosion control sheet.BETA2: Plans revised – issue
resolved.
SW27.Provide silt sacks for all catch basins within the project limits and directly downstream. Include a
silt sack detail on the Details sheet. GH: A silt sack detail has been added. There is no drainage in
Wood Street to install silt sacks into. BETA2: Plans revised – issue resolved.
Operations/maintenance plan (Standard Number 9): A long-Term Operation and Maintenance Plan
shall be developed and implemented to ensure that stormwater management systems function as
designed.An Operations and Maintenance Plan has been submitted for review.
SW28.Include all BMP operations and maintenance requirements set in Appendix A of the
Hopkinton Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Include manufacturer’s maintenance
requirements for VortSentry units.
SW29.Provide an estimated maintenance budget. GH: A maintenance budget will be provided. BETA2:
Provide budget.
SW30.Include a signature line for all responsible parties of the Operations and Maintenance Plan. GH:
A signature line has been added to the O&M plan.BETA2: BETA recommends a condition that a
copy of the signed final Operations and Maintenance Plan be submitted to the Town.
SW31.Provide a BMP map, drawn to scale, showing the location of all stormwater BMP’s in each
treatment train with the discharge point.
Illicit Discharges (Standard Number 10): All illicit discharges to the stormwater management systems
are prohibited.A signed Illicit Discharge statement has been provided – standard met.
Additional comments
SW32.For Standard 3, not all impervious surfaces are being directed to infiltration BMPs. Provide
adjustment calculation in accordance with Stormwater Handbook Vol. 3, Chapter 1 Pages 27-
28
Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam
November 16, 2018
Page 12 of 12
WETLANDS
The proposed site includes a wetland crossing at approximately sta. 30+00. The crossing is to be 36 feet
in length and 12 feet in width and is noted as designed by others.
W1.Provide clearer delineation of wetland on lots 24 and 25. GH: Wetlands have been clarified on
the plans.BETA2: Plans revised – issue resolved.
W2.Provide plans and details for wetland crossing, including any calculations for sizing the crossing
and area to be disturbed. GH: The wetland crossing areas have been enlarged. BETA2: Along
with G6, provide the following
a.Profiles for three 36” wildlife crossing culverts between station 1+00 and 2+00
b.Profile and section through crossing at station 29+85.
W3.Show limits of wetland disturbance on the plans.GH: Disturbed areas have been hatched.
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\6118 - Hopkinton - Wisper Way\Engineering\Reports\Whisper Way Subdivision Review 11-16-2018.docx
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
Monday, October 29, 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. Mr. D’Urso stepped off the Board at this time.
1. 78 West Main St./Dunkin’ Donuts - Performance Bond Release Request
Virginio Sardinha, S.F. Management, Dunkin’ Donuts franchise owner, and John Kucich, Bohler
Engineering, engineer, appeared before the Board. Mr. Kucich noted the work at 78 West Main St.
is completed, and the applicant is requesting the release of the performance guarantee held by the
Town. He noted the request included an as-built plan, and he referred to a letter from the Building
Inspector indicating the project was completed substantially in compliance with the approved plan.
Mr. Trendel stated the applicant has done a nice job, and residents have commented favorably on
the new development. Ms. Ritterbusch noted the building looks nice but she has heard about
problems with parking. It was noted this is the plan approved by the Board, and Mr. Kucich stated
the layout is dictated by site constraints. Ms. Fein-Brug asked if the proximity to the traffic light is
a problem, and Mr. Kucich noted he does not think so. Mr. DeYoung asked about the possibility of
exiting via Elm St., and Ms. Kucich stated it can be done but people may have to do a K turn. Mr.
Paul asked if there is an option for a full loop around the building, and Mr. Kucich stated there is
not enough room on the left because when High St. was discontinued, half of it went to the adjacent
property owner. Mr. Larson-Marlowe stated people are not supposed to take a left turn into the site
from West Main St. going east, but they are doing it any way. In response to a question from Ms.
Kramer, it was noted there is signage directing customers to enter via Elm St. After further
discussion, Mr. Trendel moved to release the performance bond to the applicant, Mr. DeYoung
seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Mr. D’Urso returned to the Board at this time.
2. Administrative Business
Minutes: The Board reviewed the draft minutes of October 1, 2018. Mr. D’Urso moved to approve
the minutes of October 1, 2018, as written, Mr. Trendel seconded the motion, and the Board voted
unanimously in favor.
3. Other Business
Chamberlain St./Whalen Rd. Subdivision. The Board discussed the process which is currently
ongoing to amend the Conservation Restriction (CR) held by the Hopkinton Area Land Trust
(HALT) for the area to be used to accommodate the roadway curve at the end of Chamberlain St.,
as discussed at a previous meeting. Ms. Kramer asked if the change will require a town meeting
vote and Ms. Lazarus noted they are still waiting to find out about that.
Planning Board Website. Ms. Ritterbusch referred to the Board’s previous discussion about
changes/corrections to the Planning Board page on the Town’s website as one of the goals under the
Master Plan Implementation Plan. She stated some of the listings of Planning Board subcommittees
and liaisons to other boards and committees on the Accela database are incorrect. It was determined
she will contact the person in charge to make the changes.
Center School Reuse Advisory Team. Mr. D’Urso noted the Team is scheduled to report to the
Board of Selectmen tomorrow night.
Future Planning Board Agenda Items. Ms. Kramer stated she would like to schedule a discussion of
the Master Plan Implementation Plan as soon as time allows. It was noted the Master Plan as a
whole is only updated every 10 years, but they need to look at the subzone categories. Mr. Trendel
suggested an update on the Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC) and Ms. Kramer agreed. Ms.
Kramer asked if anyone has any liaison reports, and Mr. DeYoung stated he will have an update on
the Open Space Preservation Commission (OSPC), but not tonight. Mr. Trendel noted the
Community Preservation Committee (CPC) had their first public hearing, and the majority of the
funding requests will need a follow-up discussion but nothing specifically related to the Planning
Board at this time. Ms. Fein-Brug referred to the most recent Design Review Board (DRB)
meeting. She noted the DRB reviewed proposed signage, and it appears they need to look at some
of the terminology to provide additional guidance. Ms. Ritterbusch asked for clarification, and Ms.
Fein-Brug noted it is related to various downtown signs vs. building codes, to ensure a safe
environment for everyone. Ms. Kramer stated perhaps this could be a potential ZAC item, and Ms.
Ritterbusch noted they should ask Jeff Doherty about it at the next DRB meeting.
4. Continued Public Hearings - Bucklin St./Leonard St. – 1) Stormwater Management
Permit Application & 2) Petition to Construct Bucklin St. – Wall Street Development
Corp.
Ms. Larson-Marlowe moved to open the public hearings, Mr. D’Urso seconded the motion, and the
Board voted unanimously in favor. Lou Petrozzi, Wall Street Development Corp., applicant, and
Robert Truax, GLM Engineering, engineer, appeared before the Board. Mr. Petrozzi noted there are
2 proposals before the Board, namely 1) Stormwater Management Permit application, and 2)
Petition to construct the road. He noted he received comments from BETA Group, the Board’s
consultant engineer, late on Thursday afternoon but has not been able to address the outstanding
issues or revise the plans. The Board continued the discussion until after the scheduled public
hearing on the Whisper Way subdivision.
5. Continued Public Hearing – Whisper Way (Wood St./Whisper Way) – Definitive OSLPD
Subdivision – 20th Century Homes
Mr. D’Urso moved to open the public hearing, Mr. Paul seconded the motion, and the Board voted
unanimously in favor. Ron Nation 20th Century Homes, applicant, Dan Hazen, Guerriere &
Halnon, engineer, and Mark Arnold, Goddard Consultants, wetlands engineer, appeared before the
Board. Mr. Nation distributed color-coded copies of Whisper Way plans for discussion purposes.
Mr. Hazen noted they are working with the Conservation Commission (ConCom) to minimize the
impact on the wetlands, possibly by shifting the road 5 ft. to the north within the right of way. He
noted it won’t be noticeable when driving, and will mimic the right of way of the rest of the
development. Reference was made to the plan distributed tonight to clarify the change. Mr. Hazen
stated they would like to get the blessing of the Planning Board on this particular aspect to avoid
further back and forth between the two boards. Ms. Kramer stated she understands, but would like
to point out that without feedback from BETA the Board is not in a position to approve the change
tonight. Mr. D’Urso stated they will also need feedback from the DPW, and Mr. Hazen noted he
does not think the DPW, or MassDOT, will have a problem with this plan. Mr. Arnold noted they
looked into as many alternatives as possible, but decided on this option and are looking for positive
feedback. Mr. DeYoung asked whether the other side will be impacted as a result of the change,
and Mr. Arnold stated no. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked for clarification, and, after further
discussion, Mr. Hazen noted they are requesting a setback waiver in the far back of the property
abutting the Town land. Ms. Fein-Brug asked what the ConCom is looking for, and Mr. Arnold
noted they asked them to maximize the use of previously disturbed areas. Ms. Kramer stated the
Board will not be able to address this tonight, but will consider the change if it makes better sense
for the project.
Reference was made to the sidewalk initially proposed along Wood St. as part of the development,
as discussed at the previous meeting. Mr. Arnold referred to the color-coded plan distributed to the
Board showing an alternative approach to achieve connectivity within the development by creating
a nature path through the woods and along the wetlands. He noted the area along Wood St. is too
tight and too close to the wetlands, and the ConCom really likes the alternative. Mr. D’Urso stated
he still would to like to get feedback from the ConCom and the DPW regarding the possibility of a
safe walkway along Wood St., but he might be open to a designated nature trail. In response to a
question of Mr. DeYoung, Mr. Arnold noted it will be an approximately 1,000 ft. long nature trail
and it will not be maintained during winter. Reference was made to the plan, and Mr. Arnold noted
the ConCom is not in favor of the sidewalk sections coming off of Wood St. although homeowners
would prefer walking there as opposed to along Wood St. Ms. Ritterbusch stated she hopes they
keep those portions even if there are no homes right there, and it would be better for the kids
waiting for the bus. Mr. Paul stated sidewalks along the new road are required. Ms. Larson-
Marlowe noted she likes the idea of the nature trail. Ms. Fein-Brug stated maybe they could use
pavement markings or bollards to create a safe walking area along Wood St. Mr. Paul stated he is
an advocate for sidewalks in general, and it is something they will need work on as a Town, but he
understands this section of Wood St. would be very challenging. Mr. Trendel stated the proposed
path would have a substantial impact on Lot 13, and he would like to see something a little more
maintainable and accessible than just a path through the woods although that may be difficult from
an ADA perspective. Mr. Arnold noted there is a vernal pool across Lots 13/14 and the trail is set
75 ft. into the woods. He noted as far as upgrades to the path are concerned, stone dust may be a
good solution but only for the flat areas, and from their perspective it would be better to have a
natural trail on grade which can be semi maintained. Mr. Trendel stated that type of trail would not
offer much in terms of year-round connectivity. Ms. DeVeuve agreed, and noted she personally
would appreciate the applicant taking a long hard look to make it work along Wood St. Ms.
Ritterbusch noted she would like any solution to include improvements to bicycle safety. Ms.
Kramer stated she would like the applicant to work towards a solution, and although she likes the
idea of the nature path she would hesitate using it for connectivity. Mr. Hazen asked about the
Town’s rules for sidewalk snow removal, and Ms. Kramer stated the Town only plows some
sidewalks but the DPW Director will be able to answer that question. Mr. Paul 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. The Board and the applicant mutually agreed to extend the
decision deadline to December 3, 2018.
6. Continued Public Hearings - Bucklin St./Leonard St. – 1) Stormwater Management
Permit Application & 2) Petition to Construct Bucklin St. – Wall Street Development
Corp.
Mr. Petrozzi and Mr. Truax returned to the Board. Mr. Petrozzi described the locus, noting Bucklin
St. intersects with Pleasant St. between house #’s 60 and 62. He noted the original submission was
for 5 lots, but based on soil conditions and stormwater calculations they had to eliminate the 5th lot
to accommodate a detention basin. Mr. Truax noted they propose to access the site from Pleasant
St. on an elevated road with a 20 ft. wide paved width, using country drainage with swales and a
grass strip to filter out sediments. He noted the homes will have Town water and sewer, and the
homes will have their own recharge system as well.
It was noted Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner, commented on this application in her memo to the
Board, and Ms. Lazarus stated she has nothing to add at this time. Ms. Kramer noted the 4 newest
Board members cannot vote on the stormwater management permit application. Mr. Petrozzi stated
it is the intent that the road remain private and the future homeowners will be responsible for
stormwater features. Ms. Kramer asked if the Town has a position on this issue, and Ms. Lazarus
stated no, but the Board has the ability to require the road to remain private. Ms. DeVeuve asked if
the Fire Dept. will be concerned about safety due to lack of maintenance, and Ms. Lazarus stated
yes, possibly.
Jillian Bokoff, BETA Group, noted BETA is looking for more information, for instance how the
road will fit and the potential need to expand the watershed. She stated BETA recommends a
meeting with the applicant’s engineer, and Mr. Petrozzi stated that would be fine. Ms. Larson-
Marlowe asked for clarification as to wetlands impact, and it was noted the ConCom will be
reviewing that aspect and the applicant is meeting with them tomorrow. Ms. Lazarus pointed out
there will be an approval-not-required (ANR) plan at the end of this process. Mr. Paul asked how
that will affect road/sidewalk design, and Ms. Lazarus noted the Board will be approving the road
design, and that could include sidewalks. Ms. Kramer stated this part is about the stormwater
management permit, and Ms. Lazarus stated they could break out the road design. Ms. DeVeuve
stated from a clarity standpoint, they should look at and vote on everything once, and Ms. Lazarus
stated there will be 2 separate votes. Ms. Kramer stated they will adjust the public hearing outline
based on the conversation tonight.
Peter Barbieri, Fletcher Tilton, attorney, appeared before the Board. Mr. Barbieri noted he
represents the 2 immediate abutters and would like to briefly summarize his comments submitted to
the Board with a copy provided to the applicant. Ms. Kramer stated the Board as this point is
establishing the public hearing outline on this application. Mr. Barbieri stated he has additional
information, and would like the Board to pass it on to Town Counsel. He noted the abutters have
concerns about the impact on their properties from a drainage perspective. Mr. D’Urso suggested
adding legal review to the outline.
Tom Terry, 17 Maple St., asked for clarification as to the votes to be potentially taken tonight. Ms.
Kramer noted they are just working on the outline with a more detailed discussion to follow, but
there will be 2 separate votes. Mr. Terry asked if the Board has enough information, for instance
from ConCom and BETA, and Ms. Kramer stated she does not think so. Mr. Petrozzi asked for
clarification regarding the members eligible to vote on this plan, and Ms. Kramer noted only 5
members can vote on the application and for approval all 5 will need to vote in favor. Ms. Lazarus
stated the applicant could withdraw and resubmit to have the benefit from a full board, and Mr.
Petrozzi stated he would consider doing that. Mr. Petrozzi stated he would like the Board to waive
the application fee in that case, and Ms. Kramer noted she is not prepared to answer that question
tonight. It was clarified that all members are eligible to vote on the Petition to construct the road.
Mr. Paul asked for clarification regarding the ANR aspect, and Ms. Lazarus stated the applicant first
needs approval of the Petition to create access. In response to a follow-up question by Mr. Paul,
Ms. Lazarus referred to Town Counsel correspondence for additional details. Mr. D’Urso noted
Bucklin St. as a paper road is clearly used for a driveway to the 2 homes on Pleasant St., but it is not
clear from the plan. He noted he hopes that any future development will include improvements for
the existing homes on Pleasant St. as well. Mr. Petrozzi stated the driveway is shown on the plan
between #60 and #62 Pleasant St. The Board discussed a date and time for a site walk, and it was
decided to schedule it on Saturday, November 10, 2018 at 8:00 A.M. Mr. Petrozzi asked if a
resubmittal of the stormwater management permit could use the same plans, and Ms. Kramer stated
they can certainly talk about that as long as they are identical. Mr. Petrozzi stated it appears the
Petition application is still on track, but he will withdraw the stormwater management permit
application. Mr. D’Urso moved to continue the public hearing to December 3, 2018, at 7:45 P.M.,
Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Ms. DeVeuve
asked about sending Mr. Barbieri’s comments to Town Counsel, and Ms. Kramer noted it is a little
early to do that, and they already continued the hearing.
7. Continued Public Hearing – 55 Wilson St. – LNG Facility Secondary Access Road -
Stormwater Management Permit Application – Denise Bartone, Eversource Energy
Mr. Paul moved to open the public hearing, Mr. Trendel seconded the motion, and the Board voted
unanimously in favor. Tracy Adamski and Jean Christy, Tighe & Bond, engineers, and James
Blackburn, LNG project manager, appeared before the Board. Ms. Adamski provided a quick recap
of the process so far. She noted the alternative access road is being proposed for emergency
vehicles, mostly at the request of the Fire Dept. She noted based on BETA’s comments they made
changes to the plan, provided additional details with respect to the proposed culvert crossing of the
intermittent stream at Legacy Farms North (formerly Rafferty Rd.), and increased the size of the
swale along the road. Ms. Kramer noted Board members walked the site in the pouring rain which
helped them to better understand the site but there are still open questions. She noted there are
some concerns about drainage features that are not included in the secondary access road
application, and asking for improvements here is the issue. Ms. Kramer noted there is a lot of
rubble and earth on the property to be crushed and used as fill, and she asked how much will be
brought in. Mr. Trendel noted it will be helpful to see the amount of required regrading and fill.
Ms. Kramer stated she did not mean to give the impression she is opposed to the project, and there
is an effort to work within a previously disturbed site. Ms. Adamski noted there was some
disturbance in connection with the existing access road, and the decision was made not to encroach
further.
Ms. Bokoff stated BETA suggested additional details and recommended 2 more conditions,
including standards for surface material and gravel fines. Ms. Kramer asked if these are included in
the draft conditions, and Ms. Lazarus stated yes. Ms. Ritterbusch asked for an update on the
composition of the firefighting foam used by the LNG facility in the past, and Ms. Kramer noted
she would also like to know more about current practices. Mr. Blackburn stated it is still used in
some instances, but since a couple of years no longer for testing purposes as previously described.
Mr. Blackburn stated they have a material data safety sheet (MSDS) but he is not sure how much
information it actually provides as it would not apply to the concentration reached at the outfall. He
noted it is used for testing to a small extent only in the area of the tanks so they are talking about a
very limited footprint. Mr. D’Urso asked if the material is toxic, and Mr. Blackburn stated he
believes it is not, at least not as applied, but as of 2 weeks ago they have not been able to get
feedback from the manufacturer. Mr. D’Urso asked for the Fire Chief’s input, and Stephen Slaman,
Fire Chief, noted he does not have any specific information.
Katie Towner, 9 Kruger Rd., stated it was her understanding that there would be someone here
tonight with knowledge of the chemical being used, but she is sure Hopkinton LNG personnel has
the additional details. She noted it also sounds as if the company is continuing its use so claiming
they don’t know its composition is very disingenuous, and the Board should not approve anything
until that question has been answered. Mr. DeYoung referred to photos recently submitted by Ms.
Towner, and asked when they were taken. Ms. Towner stated she feels the Board should ask the
LNG facility to provide the pertinent records and additional information as to their practices with
respect to the use of this chemical. Mr. D’Urso stated it would be helpful to understand the time
frame they are talking about as he assumes the records are probably on file with the state. Ms.
Towner stated she is willing to answer the question but would prefer that the LNG facility line up
the dates. In response to a question of Mr. Trendel, Mr. Blackburn stated, based on conversations
with the plant manager, the facility since 2014/2015 only uses the foam on a very limited basis. Mr.
Blackburn stated they use Ansul Jet-X foam, and based on the MSDS he believes it is not hazardous
as applied. Mr. Blackburn agreed to get more information and confirm when the process was
changed. Ms. Kramer stated in the interest of doing due diligence she would like to better
understand the process currently being followed by the facility, the potential impact of runoff
coming off the site into the stream and ultimately the Hopkinton Reservoir, and what kind of
environmental protection measures are in place. Mr. Paul stated he would like to see testing data
going back 5 years. Ms. Fein-Brug stated she understands Mr. Blackburn has been with the
company for 15 years or so, and Mr. Blackburn stated he is not sure he can go back that far.
Ms. Adamski asked if they could focus on the stormwater permit application for the secondary road
in order to be able to move forward. Ms. Kramer noted she is not questioning the processes used in
the existing facility, but she is interested in trying to capture the firefighting foam issue as part of
the conversation. Mr. D’Urso stated these are 2 projects proposed by the same company, and he has
no problem asking them these questions now. Ms. Kramer stated it is fair to say the Board expects
a little more detail tonight on the composition of the firefighting foam. Ms. Lazarus noted it is one
of 3 applications, and even if the Board finishes up with this application tonight there will be 2 more
opportunities to discuss this issue. She noted it is her understanding the testing is confined to the
impoundment area, and they now have a procedure to remove foam instead of releasing it into the
stream so unless something happens it does not go outside this area. Mr. Blackburn stated he would
agree with that assessment based on current practices and can certainly confirm the current
procedures but he hopes the Board recognizes there are 2 separate projects. Ms. DeVeuve stated the
Board can disapprove an application based on concerns about water resources protection, but she is
comfortable with proceeding with the access road project and discuss the other concerns later. Ms.
Fein-Brug stated she would like to know at what point renovations to the facility would trigger an
upgrade to the current stormwater infrastructure standards, because based on observations during
the site walk there is evidence of aging. Mr. Paul noted the applicant is willing to work with the
Board. Mr. DeYoung stated he agrees, and treating the access road as a separate project is ok. Ms.
Kramer stated she is comfortable with moving forward with the access road, but would feel better if
they have a collegial conversation. Mr. Blackburn agreed and noted they will be better prepared for
that conversation at the next meeting.
Ms. Towner stated her previous comments relate to the so-called dual use of a huge containment
basin. She noted it appears the LNG facility feels they can fill this area with chemicals and have
written procedures to clean it up so that all that’s left is stormwater, however it is not. She noted
Board members had a chance to see the area, and she feels the Board should issue a cease and desist
order and include a condition requiring the facility to find another way to handle this, perhaps by
adding a cleanup device. She noted the tests in question are state mandated, and she is certain there
are records and the Board should require the facility to produce them. Ms. Kramer thanked Ms.
Towner for her comments, and noted the Board agreed to discuss this issue in more detail. Mr.
D’Urso stated he needs more information and is not comfortable with voting on this application
tonight. Ms. DeVeuve stated the applicant has indicated he is willing to provide the information.
Ms. Ritterbusch asked if this can be handled with a condition of approval, adding language
prohibiting the discharge of contaminated stormwater. Ms. Kramer noted she is not sure about the
language to be used but it is a very good condition. Ms. DeVeuve asked it could be appropriate to
address the concern with a reference to the stormwater permit for the liquefaction replacement
project, and Ms. Lazarus stated yes. Ms. Kramer stated that is not something they typically do, and
she asked for clarification. Ms. DeVeuve noted she is referring to Ms. Ritterbusch’s suggestion and
she is comfortable addressing it in the next stormwater permit. In response to a followup comment
from Mr. DeYoung, Ms. Adamski and Mr. Blackburn used the plan to illustrate that in their opinion
it concerns 2 separate areas, actually separated by a berm, and noted they are willing to work with
the Board. Ms. Fein-Brug stated the areas are not really tied in to each other, and the road itself is
very well designed.
Ms. Kramer read the draft conditions for the 55 Wilson St. stormwater management permit. Ms.
Lazarus stated draft condition #9 can be taken out as according to Ms. Wilson the details are now on
the plan. Mr. D’Urso stated he feels it is appropriate to add a new condition stipulating that the
secondary road shall be used exclusively for emergency vehicles. Mr. Blackburn stated he would
not necessarily want to restrict the use 100% as they could for instance use the road for construction
traffic related to the liquefaction replacement which would minimize traffic impact on Wilson St.
He noted the facility won’t use the secondary road for LNG tanker trucks but there could be a time
they would want to use it for purposes other than an emergency. Mr. Trendel asked about Mr.
D’Urso’s concerns, and Mr. D’Urso stated he is concerned about security, and restricting it to
emergency vehicles only would also make him feel better about the stormwater management for
this specific project. Ms. Fein-Brug stated she has similar concerns about security, and Mr.
Blackburn noted it will be handled in the same way as the existing Wilson St. gate and vehicles are
always met by a guard. Ms. Kramer noted she initially felt the additional condition is not needed
but she has changed her mind, and perhaps the road initially can be used for liquefaction equipment
construction vehicles, but after that it should just be for emergency vehicles only. Ms. Blackburn
asked if there is a way to limit the use without 100% restricting it. Ms. Ritterbusch stated she does
not think they need to add the condition, as it would be better to have traffic away from Wilson St.
Ms. Kramer stated that is not what they are considering. Mr. Paul, Mr. Trendel, Ms. DeVeuve and
Ms. Larson-Marlowe stated they agree with Ms. Ritterbusch and an additional condition is not
needed. Ms. Towner stated she is concerned about security, not as far as Fire Dept. personnel and
LNG truck drivers are concerned, but there is no vetting of the drivers of the construction vehicles.
Ms. Kramer noted she does not disagree but the road was proposed as an emergency access. Chief
Slaman stated he is ok with access either way. Mr. D’Urso stated this same Board and the same
Fire Chief previously were against an open access emergency road, and in this case based on the use
of the site there is a lot more at risk. Mr. Paul stated in the example he believes Mr. D’Urso is
referring to, it was the current residents who did not want open access. Ms. Kramer stated this is a
safety issue. Mr. Blackburn stated the workers that enter the facility are screened for drugs and
have to pass background checks, and the contractors will have no access to the area with the tanks.
Ms. DeVeuve moved to add the extra condition restricting the use to emergency vehicles only, Mr.
D’Urso seconded motion, and the Board voted 7 in opposition and 2 in favor (Kramer, D’Urso).
Ms. DeVeuve moved to approve the stormwater management permit for the secondary access road
with the conditions as discussed tonight, Ms. Ritterbusch seconded the motion. Mr. DeYoung
asked what other vehicles would potentially be using the road other than emergency vehicles and
construction equipment in the beginning, and Mr. Blackburn stated he cannot think of anything off
hand, although it may be better to use the road for nitrogen delivery trucks under icy conditions.
The Board voted 8 in favor, one opposed (D’Urso). Mr. Paul moved to close the public hearing,
Ms. DeVeuve seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Mr. D’Urso left the meeting at this time.
8. Other Business
ZAC. It was noted there are still a number of vacancies. Mr. DeYoung stated John Coutinho has
applied for an open 1-year at-large position, and the Board of Appeals voted to appoint Margaret
Shaw as their representative. Ms. Larson-Marlowe noted the 5 associate positions are also still
vacant. Mr. Paul moved to appoint Mr. Coutinho to the ZAC as an at-large member for 1 year, and
Ms. Shaw as a representative of the Board of Appeals for 1 year. Mr. Trendel seconded the motion,
and the Board voted unanimously in favor. It was suggested to do some recruiting for filling the
other open positions, and Mr. DeYoung encouraged the Planning Board members to attend the first
meeting scheduled for November 5. Ms. Ritterbusch noted an associate member can join anytime
during the year. After further discussion Ms. DeVeuve stated she is willing to join as at an at-large
member for 2 years. Ms. Larson-Marlowe moved to appoint Ms. DeVeuve, Ms. Kramer seconded
the motion, and the Board voted 8 in favor, 1 abstention (DeVeuve). Ms. Kramer asked about
suggestions for work items. Ms. Kramer suggested sending them to the ZAC now, then explain
them at the November 5 meeting. Ms. Ritterbusch stated she wants to make sure input from the
meetings is made public, and it is the intent to have HCAM record the meetings.
Massachusetts Turnpike/Rt. 495 Interchange. Mr. Paul noted he has heard about the proposed
changes to the I-90/Rt. 495 interchange, and asked if the informational meetings are open to the
public. Ms. Lazarus noted it is a large expensive project, and there are now 3 alternatives to be
narrowed down to 1. She states she believes there is opportunity for the public to comment, and the
information is on the state website. Mr. Paul stated he found a YouTube clip, and he asked whether
a cloverleaf is considered. Ms. Lazarus stated there are a lot of wetlands and it is an ACEC so it
cannot ever be a cloverleaf but there are some other clever ideas. Ms. Fein-Brug asked Mr. Paul to
send the link to the YouTube video to the rest of the Board. Ms. Lazarus noted there is concern
about the impacts on the Fruit St./Roosevelt Ln. neighborhood. Ms. Kramer asked if the area is
close to the Town’s water supply, and Ms. Lazarus stated no.
Mr. Trendel moved to adjourn the meeting, Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion, and the Board
voted unanimously in favor.
Adjourned: 10:15 P.M.
Submitted by: Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
Approved: ___________________
Documents used at the Meeting:
Agenda for the October 29, 2018 Planning Board meeting
Memo from Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner, to Planning Board, dated October 25, 2018, re: Items on October
29, 2018 Planning Board Agenda
Draft Planning Board Minutes – October 1, 2018
Public Hearing Outline – Bucklin St. Roadway Petition; Plan entitled “Plan of Land “Parcel A – Bucklin &
Leonard St.” Hopkinton, Massachusetts, dated March 29, 2018, rev. through October 7, 2018
Plan entitled “Whisper Way”/Erosion Control Plan Whisper Way in Hopkinton, MA, dated 5/24/18 rev. through
10/15/18, color-coded to show proposed sidewalk/nature path layout, prepared by Guerriere & Halnon, Inc.; Plan
entitled “Whisper Way”/Roadway Sketch Plan, dated 10/25/18, prepared by Guerriere & Halnon, Inc.
Plan entitled “LNG Facility Secondary Access Road Project, Hopkinton, Massachusetts, Permit Drawings (55
Wilson St.), dated 8/14/2018 rev. through 10/25/2018prepared by Tighe & Bond; Email from Kathleen Towner to
Don MacAdam, Georgia Wilson, Elaine Lazarus, Oct. 30, 2108, re: Eversource Liquifier Replacement Project Dual
Use of Containment Basin; Stormwater Management Permit – Draft Conditions, 55 Wilson Street, Secondary
Access Road, for 10/29/18 meeting