Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20181119 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD Monday, November 19, 2018 7:30 P.M. Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton, MA MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Fran DeYoung, Vice Chairman, David Paul, Deborah Fein-Brug, Mary Larson-Marlowe, Gary Trendel, Carol DeVeuve, Amy Ritterbusch MEMBERS ABSENT: Muriel Kramer, Frank D’Urso Present: Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use & Town Operations, Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant Mr. DeYoung opened the meeting. 1. The Trails at Legacy Farms – Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan Update Vin Gately, Heritage Properties, developer, and Peter Bemis, Engineering Design Consultants (EDC), engineer, appeared before the Board. Mr. DeYoung noted Mr. Bemis will speak to the erosion and sedimentation control issues as they relate to the breach that happened on November 1. Mr. Gately noted they met with the Conservation Commission (ConCom) and are here for the same update. Mr. Bemis stated he came up with a mitigation plan which is currently being implemented by the applicant. He noted they had a number of measures in place, however there were not enough erosion/sedimentation controls so in order to mitigate they now have primary, secondary and tertiary treatment plans. Mr. Bemis stated the breach happened after 4 in. of rainfall and he has been dealing with these types of issues on a number of sites in the area. He noted the ConCom is satisfied with the ongoing mitigation efforts, and at this point they want to move forward. Mr. Trendel noted from a design perspective this was not a 100-year storm, which makes him wonder about the design requirements. He noted he realizes the Board did not design the plan but he would like to understand the shortcomings. Mr. Bemis noted a drainpipe unfortunately directed untreated water to the wetlands during construction, and while the detention basin was constructed in July/August in accordance with the plan and functioning, it was not yet fully stabilized because of the lack of dry weather. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked if normally the basin would have been stabilized by now, and Mr. Bemis noted they started having regular rainfall events in August and especially during September. Ms. Larson-Marlowe referred to the EDC plan and asked if hydromulching at this time of the year will be effective. Mr. Bemis stated this will be an ongoing effort and they will go back as needed. Mr. Gately stated they were doing fine until about 2 weeks ago, and things would have been different if they had been able to get the binder down on a portion of the road. Mr. Paul stated he would like to get input from BETA, the Board’s consultant engineer, and Mr. DeYoung agreed. Mr. DeYoung asked if they will be able to pave this year, and Mr. Bemis stated depending on the weather the crew could be out there tomorrow. Mr. DeYoung asked if there are any other areas that would present a risk, and Mr. Bemis noted they are not planning to open up any new areas but will take a different approach going forward. Ms. Ritterbusch asked when they are going back to the ConCom, and it was noted it will be at the end of the month. She stated she understands the ConCom requested water quality testing for pesticides as suggested by the Board of Health, and Mr. Bemis noted that is correct. Ms. Fein-Brug asked about the possibility of doing this on a regular basis. Mr. Bemis noted they will do this to get a base line and hope they don’t have to do it again. Katie Towner, 9 Kruger Rd., noted this is now the new normal with water coming down the street every day, not only impacting the Trails at Legacy Farms site, but also Wilson St. at Kruger Rd. She noted this plan created a huge increase in impervious area, and the water seeps through the little remaining ground which does not drain as described. She stated the developer should go back and figure out what is causing this, because they did not do the proper testing and now have an even worse situation with water seeping off the site and causing hazardous (icing) conditions on Wilson St. and Kruger Rd. She noted the Town’s consultant should not just be looking at the other side of the project but at the entire site. Mr. DeYoung stated they will get BETA involved, and Mr. Trendel stated there are a number of stormwater issues which should all be re-assessed. Ms. Fein- Brug stated she would like to push for more testing at the end of the winter. 2. Public Hearing – 18 Cedar St. – Special Permit – Off-Street Parking – Janice Brown It was noted the applicant has requested a continuance of the public hearing. After discussion Ms. Larson-Marlowe moved to continue the hearing to December 3, 2018 at 8:30 P.M., Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 3. Continued Public Hearing – Whisper Way – Definitive Subdivision – 20th Century Homes Ron Nation, 20th Century Homes, applicant, and Dan Hazen, Guerriere & Halnon, Inc., engineer, appeared before the Board. Ms. Larson-Marlowe moved to open the public hearing, Mr. Trendel seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. DeYoung noted the Board has received additional materials but not quite in time to be reviewed for tonight’s meeting, however the applicant will be given an opportunity to make a presentation focusing on the changes to the plan. Mr. Nation stated they have been going back and forth between the Planning Board and the ConCom, but hopefully no additional plan changes will be needed. It was noted some changes were already brought to the Board’s attention, such as modifications to the road layout and critter crossings. Mr. Nation noted they are still having a hard time with the sidewalk along Wood St., but are willing to do whatever the Board wants and hopefully the DPW will like the design and there will be no issues as far as MassDOT is concerned. Ms. Lazarus asked why the applicant is concerned about MassDOT because Wood St. is a local road, not a state highway. Mr. Hazen stated they are meeting with BETA tomorrow, and then all that is left is what is on the outline. Ms. DeVeuve asked the applicant for an overview of the plan, including the locations of 25% slopes. Mr. Hazen stated he does not have that particular plan here, but there are some sharp drops. He noted there is 20 ft. drop in the back of the property, and Ms. DeVeuve stated she believes there is another steep slope on the Rt. 495 side. Mr. Hazen described the road layout, and noted the new development will have Town water while sewer will be collected through an Oakwood gravity system, designed by Clear Water Environmental, to be submitted to the Board of Health once they get through the Planning Board phase. He noted stormwater is collected via a catch basin/manhole system, 4 detention basins, and a small sediment basin, all designed to minimize the impact on the wetlands resources. Mr. DeYoung referred to road layout and lot design. Mr. Nation stated they originally tried a road design off of Whisper Way, looked into a double barrel entrance off of Wood St., but ended up with the current layout essentially using the driveway to #129 Wood St. which actually was Wood St. before Rt. 495 was built. He noted there are 4 existing homes, one of which (129 Wood St.) will definitely be demolished, and the other 3 may or may not come down. It was determined the development will create 22 new lots. Mr. Trendel asked for clarification on lot sizes, and it was noted that all lots comply with frontage/area requirements under the OSLPD bylaw, smaller than what’s required under a conventional layout. A discussion followed to confirm the total acreage and the amount of open space created under this proposal. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked about parking areas, and Mr. Nation stated there is trailhead parking at the end of the existing Whisper Way, but there is a conservation restriction on that property and the Hopkinton Area Land Trust (HALT) is happy with the way it is, but the development will include a parking area for 2 horse trailers. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked about the sign at the entrance of Whisper Way, and Mr. Nation noted it will stay but they may put it in a better spot. Mr. DeYoung referred to traffic and offsite improvements, impact on abutters as result of road widening, sidewalks, and pedestrian/bike safety. Mr. Hazen noted the Whisper Way access is now on HALT property, but the revised layout will bring it within the right of way, and the Town is the only abutter. Mr. DeYoung asked if the ConCom is ok with the road widening, and Mr. Hazen stated the 50 ft. already exists and they propose to shift the road to the northwest somewhat to minimize the impact. In response to a question of Ms. Ritterbusch, Mr. Nation noted the residential neighbors in this case are the people selling the land and will end up moving away. Mr. DeYoung asked for a brief recap regarding sidewalks. Mr. Nation noted there are sidewalks along the new road, and the plan initially showed a connection between the Wood St. entrances but it turned out there is not enough room for a 5 ft. sidewalk without moving the guardrail and a utility pole. He stated 4 ft. would just fit and they can do a berm. He noted they had actually suggested a nature trail instead to avoid the challenges with a Wood St. sidewalk connection. Mr. DeYoung asked if they would still keep the trail, and Mr. Nation noted they could and the ConCom really liked the idea. In response to a question of Mr. Paul, Mr. Nation stated it would just be a meandering trail, and to cross the wet spots they could use a boardwalk that basically just lays on the ground. Ms. Larson-Marlowe stated the trail’s limited accessibility would not be a concern as long as there is a sidewalk along Wood St. Mr. Paul asked if the interior sidewalks will have green strips in between, and Mr. Hazen stated yes although they already asked the Board to allow them to eliminate them at the wetlands crossings. Ms. Larson-Marlowe stated it appears they can do a 4 ft. sidewalk along Wood St. with a little berm and a guardrail in the back. Mr. Hazen stated they are considering a 7 in. berm, not cape cod but almost vertical to keep the cars off the sidewalk. Ms. Larson asked about space for bicycles, and it was noted some spots are tighter than others. Mr. Nation stated it is really tight for about 100 ft. from the existing Whisper Way but then it tapers out, and essentially it won’t be any different than a lot of other sidewalks in Town. Mr. DeYoung referred to utilities. Stephen Slaman, Fire Chief, noted there will be water for fire protection and the driveways will meet the requirements under his bylaw. Mr. Nation stated the Board of Health has agreed to allow them to utilize a common septic system although he has not entirely given up on Town sewer. He noted he believes there is natural gas in Wood St., but it is difficult to get answers from the gas company, and it may be propane at this stage. He noted there will be underground electricity and cable connections. Ms. DeVeuve asked who will be in charge of the maintenance of the septic system, and Mr. Nation stated it will be a homeowners association, similar to what is done in another developments and the Board of Health is ok with that arrangement. Mr. Nation stated it will be subcontracted, and in general this will be cheaper and environmentally better than individual systems. He stated there will be specific documentation regarding this aspect, and the Board will get copies. Ms. Ritterbusch asked for clarification and Mr. Nation stated the system is designed for under 10,000 gallons/day, because otherwise it will trigger substantially different requirements and as a result 2 of the homes will have conventional, individual septic systems. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked about the possibility of solar power. Mr. Nation stated the only place for a common setup would probably be on top of the leach field and he is not sure if that can be done, otherwise it could be rooftop panels and some small ground-mounted systems in people’s backyards. The Board considered a date and time for the continued public hearing, and discussed the status of the ConCom process. It was noted the ConCom has continued the hearing to November 27, and it is felt a lot of progress is being made and all necessary changes to the subdivision layout would be minor at this point. Mr. Trendel moved to continue the public hearing to December 3, 2018 at 9:00 P.M., Ms. DeVeuve seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. The applicant and the Board mutually agreed to extend the decision deadline to December 17, 2018. 4. Approval Not Required Plan – 0 Montana Rd. – Edward Kelly Joe Marquedant, J.D. Marquedant & Assoc., Inc., surveyor, appeared before the Board. Mr. Marquedant his company did not originally prepare the plan which was endorsed in 2011, however it was never recorded and is therefore being resubmitted for approval. He noted they updated the date of the plan, and once endorsed they will be able to record the plan along with the plan recently endorsed by the Board for several other lots on Montana Rd. Mr. Paul asked about the status of the road, and Mr. Marquedant noted Montana Rd. continues through this parcel which is not a building lot at this time and will have to come back to the Board for any further proposed development. Ms. DeVeuve moved to endorse the plan as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, Mr. Paul seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 5. Approval Not Required Plan – 275 Cordaville Rd. – Peter Carbone Mr. Marquedant explained the plan, noting the property owner wants to create a building lot fronting off Lincoln St., sell off the new lot and retain the rest. Board members asked for clarification regarding the property address. Mr. Marquedant stated the address is 275 Cordaville Rd., but the street address historically has been 275 Cedar St., and the property owner does not want to change it. Ms. Fein-Brug asked if it possible to have both addresses on the plan to avoid future confusion, and Ms. Lazarus noted the property is listed as 275 Cordaville Rd. in the Registry of Deeds and that is all that matters. Ms. Larson-Marlowe moved to endorse the plan as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, Mr. Trendel seconded the motion, and the Board voted 6 in favor and 1 abstaining (Fein-Brug). 6. Approval Not Required Plan – 18 and 20 Fruit St. – 20 Fruit St. LLC The Board reviewed the plan, which is essentially identical to the one signed by the Board in February 2018 but was never recorded. After further discussion and clarification as to locus, Mr. Paul moved to endorse the plan as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, Ms. Ritterbusch seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 7. Approval Not Required Plan – Legacy Farms North/Wilson St. – Legacy Farms LLC Roy MacDowell, Legacy Farms LLC, Manager, appeared before the Board and explained the plan which subdivides an existing parcel into 6 lots. It was noted there will be additional steps to adjust the restricted land. After further discussion, Ms. DeVeuve moved to endorse the plan as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, Ms. Larson-Marlowe seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 8. Approval Not Required Plan – Legacy Farms North/Frankland Rd. – Legacy Farms LLC Mr. MacDowell explained the plan which subdivides an existing parcel into 6 lots. Ms. Larson- Marlowe commented on the irregular shapes of the lots being created, and Mr. MacDowell explained the reason for the layout. After further discussion, Ms. DeVeuve moved to endorse the plan as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, Ms. Larson-Marlowe seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 9. East Main St. Sidewalk – Legacy Farms Mr. MacDowell addressed the Board. He noted the issue is how to finish the last section of the sidewalk because even though the bridge providing access to the municipal parcel has been approved by the ComCom, there is no money to build it. He noted he met with Don MacAdam, Conservation Administrator, and it was determined they can move the guardrail 3 ft. further from the street for about 200 ft. although it would require ConCom approval. He noted he also talked to John Westerling, DPW Director, who is ok with the proposal. Mr. Paul asked why in that case they could not build it closer to the street, and Mr. MacDowell stated the ConCom does not want them to do that. Mr. MacDowell noted they will move the guardrail 3 ft., still within the right of way with a raised berm within the fog line, and they are talking about mere inches. Ms. Fein-Brug stated this is an unsafe area and this solution will only make it a little better. Mr. MacDowell noted the guardrail is primarily in place to make sure cars don’t go into the ditch. Ms. Fein-Brug asked about fencing to protect pedestrians and cars, and suggested leaving the guardrail where it is. Mr. MacDowell noted there is no room and although the proposed layout is not perfect it is not unlike other sidewalks in Town. Ms. Fein-Brug asked if they can do something similar to what was done further down the road, and Mr. MacDowell noted it would not work from the ConCom’s perspective. Ms. Ritterbusch asked if an 8 in. berm would be possible, and Mr. MacDowell stated he has never seen that but maybe they can use yellow or white pavement markings. Mr. Trendel noted he feels it would be a good idea to reduce the walkway width to 4 ft. allowing extra space for bicycles, but it is not his call. Mr. DeYoung stated he likes the idea and asked whether it is something that can be pursued. It was noted this is a somewhat unique situation, and it may take some uncommon engineering to find a good solution for long term safety. Mr. DeYoung asked if Mr. MacDowell has enough feedback to move forward, and Mr. MacDowell stated he would like the Board to provide guidance with respect to the width of the sidewalk, 5 ft., or 4 ft. with a wider fog line area. Ms. Fein-Brug suggested shifting the guardrail to the other side, noting it would make it more difficult for bicycles. Mr. MacDowell noted it would create a problem for plowing. Mr. DeYoung asked how the Board feels about a 4 ft. width. Ms. Larson-Marlowe stated she prefers 4 ft. for the entire length, rather than just for this section, Mr. Paul noted he would be in favor of a vertical berm and a 4 ft. sidewalk, and Mr. Trendel stated 4 ft. would be ok with a condition with respect to the distance between the fog line. Mr. MacDowell noted he will file with the ConCom and once approved the project will be ready to go. The Board took a 5 minute break. 10. Administrative/Miscellaneous Business 1) Minutes – The Board reviewed the draft minutes of October 15, 2018. Mr. Trendel moved to approve the minutes as written, Ms. Larson Marlowe seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 2) Liaison Reports - Ms. Larson-Marlowe noted the ZAC had its first meeting on November 5. It was noted Ms. Larson-Marlowe is the Chair, and they are still looking for associate members. She noted a public forum has been scheduled for November 26, 2018 at 7:00 P.M. at the Town Hall. Ms. Larson-Marlowe noted they discussed some initial ideas but have not determined priorities, and it also depends on the outcome of the public forum. It was noted that applications for the associate positions can be submitted to Ms. Lazarus or Ms. Wilson and appointments will be made by the Planning Board. Mr. Trendel noted the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) public hearing has been continued to tomorrow at the Town Hall. 11. Continued Public Hearings – 52 and 55 Wilson St. – LNG Liquefaction Equipment Replacement Project: 1) Earth Removal Permit, 2) Stormwater Management Permit – Eversource Energy Ms. DeVeuve moved to open the public hearing, Ms. Larson-Marlowe seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Tracy Adamski and Jean Christy, Tighe & Bond, engineers, Jim Blackburn, LNG Hopkinton, Project Manager, and Renie Janigian, Hopkinton LNG Site Manager/Air Products and Chemical Inc., appeared before the Board. Mr. DeYoung stated this hearing is for the stormwater and earth removal applications, and he asked the applicant for an overview and project status update. Ms. Adamski stated they are here for the liquefaction equipment replacement proposed for the area to the south of the tank farm to replace aging equipment on the east side of Wilson St. Ms. Adamski noted BETA has reviewed the latest revisions, and is ok with them but had a couple of recommendations for additional conditions, namely limiting the amount of excavation during construction to maintain infiltration capacity, and also a final SWPPP. She noted they also have an earth removal permit application, noting they will have a net import of material but there is lot of rock in the proposed liquefaction area and they may have to remove some of it in the worst case scenario. She noted based on concerns raised at the previous hearings, they have brought Mr. Janigian, who will talk about past practices especially with respect to the use of firefighting foam. She stated Tighe & Bond in the meantime has submitted a memo to the Board which describes past and current practices and includes a materials safety data sheet for the chemical used. Mr. Janigian noted the foam is used in the area adjacent to tanks A and B with an external pump system. He noted they don’t use much foam but it is periodically tested to make sure it is ok for use, by mixing the concentrate with water. He stated the foam goes through valves, flows across, and is then mixed up by an agitator. He noted they follow this protocol because foam is very expensive. He noted they also periodically send the foam to the manufacturer for testing, and they are confident that everything is ok. Mr. Janigian listed a number of testing events over the years, nothing that 1) in 1990 they had a successful deployment of foam with some offsite impact; 2) in 2007 there was a demonstration for the Fire Dept. in the tank farm area, in which case the foam was deployed into the pumping area but stayed locally; and 3) in 2017 they conducted a high pressure test where the foam was collected into a truck and contained on site as per protocol. Mr. DeYoung stated it appears there is only a record of 3 events over the years, and Mr. Janigian stated he cannot confirm that, as he started in 2006 and this information is based on talking to other personnel. Ms. Larson-Marlowe noted according to the material safety data sheet the foam is toxic in concentrated form to people and aquatic life, and she asked about toxicity of the material in diluted form. Mr. Janigian noted he is not a chemist, but once the material is deployed it will most likely be there but they will add more water to calibrate the equipment as part of the testing protocol and in case of accidental deployment or mechanical malfunctions. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked what kind of environmental protection treatment occurs once the visible signs of the foam are gone or whether it is just allowed to flow into the catch basin and filter into the ground. Mr. Janigian stated he does not think there is a system in place, but, based on the 2007 event, it would only be present in case of an emergency. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked if in a true emergency there will be a lot of foam and whether Clean Harbors will be able to collect it. Mr. Janigian noted in an emergency scenario there is deployment of LNG, and at that point they will just look at that as part of the emergency response with the focus on life safety and equipment. Mr. DeYoung stated he is concerned untreated water will eventually end up in the Hopkinton Reservoir. Mr. Janigian noted the impoundment area has 2 associated pumps also intended to collect rainwater but prior to pumping the operator has to inspect the liquid to make sure it is free of oil, LNG etc. He noted they have visual inspections or cameras for monitoring, and pumping will happen once the liquid reaches a certain visual line. Mr. DeYoung asked about any testing of the water beyond visual observations, and he stated he is concerned about the impact on drinking water. Ms. Adamski asked what they would be testing for. She noted very little liquid ends up in the impoundment area, and the proposed site design will further reduce the amount of impervious area between the plant and the impoundment area. Mr. Blackburn noted he has had some conversations with the foam manufacturer, and he wants to stress the data are about the concentrated form vs. the deployed state, and the product is biodegradable, an environmentally good choice, the main components of which are used in common household products. Ms. Fein-Brug asked if there is a possibility for something more than just a visual test, because there may be an unknown due to constant erosion of the bottom of the basin. Mr. Paul suggested handing this over to the Board of Health. Mr. Trendel noted the Board is not the one to answer questions about foam, but it is the stormwater water aspect that matters, pumping it over the berm into the stream under today’s standards. Ms. Fein-Brug questioned where the Board should go with this, because according to the safety sheet the foam contains cancer causing substances and she feels it is a little benign to say they are dealing with a product that as applied is comparable to what is in household products. She asked whether the Board of Health should weigh in, and Ms. Lazarus stated perhaps both the Planning Board, from a stormwater perspective, and the Board of Health, from a health standpoint, could work on this. Ms. Lazarus stated this may be a holdover from the days when people did not care about these types of issues, and she thinks the engineers can design something to address the concerns. Ms. DeVeuve asked what happens when the operators observe signs of contaminants, and Mr. Janigian stated the process is then suspended and Clean Harbors is contacted. He noted typically there is very little at the LNG facility to be concerned about in terms of pollution based on the equipment used and processes followed and he feels the water being pumped out is essentially rainwater. Mr. Trendel noted that is exactly his point, and it is indeed an issue of stormwater which should be kept on site instead of pumping it offsite. Kathleen Towner, 9 Kruger Rd., stated visual inspection is not the way to determine the presence of chemicals. She noted the collected water needs to be tested, and she referred to the requirement that the Trails at Legacy Farms perform water quality tests for pesticides. She noted the LNG facility in this case has acknowledged there was a spill in the past, and they did not say they cleaned it up so there could be a residue, and they are not talking about just stormwater here. She noted it took some doing but the facility finally responded to the Board’s request for documentation, however this could be the tip of the iceberg and she feels the Board should be cautious. She noted the concept of valving the foam out of the system so they can test it with water is questionable. She noted this concerns process waste which should be captured and disposed of properly instead of pumping it out, ultimately into the Reservoir. She noted the Reservoir is about 4 miles away from the facility but the Kruger Rd. neighborhood is considerably closer. She noted the bottom line is that BETA’s study was done without the benefit of the new information, and she feels the project should be reevaluated, the Board of Health needs to get involved, and the Planning Board should mandate water quality testing. She noted the latest stormwater report includes “to be determined” everywhere, which is not acceptable, and she disagrees with the conclusion that the Hopkinton Reservoir is not a critical area. Ms. DeVeuve noted according to the applicant there have been no releases since 2007, and she asked if Ms. Towner’s pictures are older than that. Ms. Towner noted she has not made an effort to determine the date of her pictures, and a more pertinent question is whether the facility reported the spill and cleaned it up. Ms. DeVeuve thanked Ms. Towner for her comments. Ms. Adamski noted the site was designed in accordance with the stormwater management bylaw and EPA standards, and those are for the redevelopment portion of the project, and they feel they provided the pertinent data to BETA for review. Mr. DeYoung asked if the applicant has any thoughts about water quality testing. Ms. Adamski asked what they should be looking for, because there is a whole list of parameters, including surfactants, etc, and after further discussion it was noted that it could be something as simple as a fire test kit and perhaps they can ask the Board of Health about it. Mr. DeYoung noted, to Mr. Trendel’s comment, it appears the stormwater management is fairly comprehensive but they should be looking at stormwater in its totality, making sure that no untreated stormwater leaves the site going over the berm to the Kruger Rd. neighborhood. Ms. Adamski noted they usually don’t look at stormwater from a portion of the site they are not touching, but she feels things will be better as a result of this redevelopment and whatever is running off will be less than that from a typical roadway. Mr. Paul asked the applicant if the details of the water quality test will be passed on to the Board of Health, and whether this can be done on a regular basis. Mr. DeYoung stated this procedure may go a long way to address the concerns. Mr. Janigian stated they will discuss the logistics and frequency of the testing with the Board of Health but doing this on a regular basis may not be practical. Mr. Blackburn suggested further communication with the Board of Health and perhaps a Q & A session including other representatives of the Town as well. It was felt that is a very good idea. Reference was made to the public hearing outline. Mr. DeYoung asked about the hours of operation as discussed at the previous meeting. Mr. Blackburn stated the contractors will work within the existing Town bylaws, from Monday to Friday from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., Saturday from 8:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M., and not on Sundays or legal holidays. He noted the primary truck route would be from Rt. 495 to Rt. 85 to Legacy Farms North to Wilson St., with the option to use the new secondary access road if and when available for traffic. In response to a question of Mr. Paul, Mr. Blackburn noted it will be difficult to further commit to specific times, but their documents for the contractors specify no idling on the street or in local areas during the specified hours. Mr. DeYoung asked about the number of trucks, and Ms. Adamski noted it will depend on the amount of material on site and they are trying to mitigate that. Ms. Fein-Brug asked whether they can narrow down the hours, for instance between 10:00 A.M. and 2:00 P.M., and Mr. Blackburn stated they will do the best they can in terms of avoiding normal peak hours. Ms. Fein- Brug asked about a requirement for compensation for the use of the road. Ms. Lazarus noted the roads in question are all public ways but it is something the DPW could discuss with the applicant. Ms. Ritterbusch asked about a condition to survey the roads before and after the development activities, and Mr. Blackburn noted that was discussed and they would like to document that. He noted a lot of trucks go through the main intersection a day, and it will be difficult to determine the impact of their particular project, but they will look at the potential impact on the Legacy Farms North (Rafferty Rd.)/Wilson St. area. Mr. DeYoung asked about the impact on abutters, and Mr. Blackburn stated these issues are being addressed through the state process, but they will stick to the hours of operation, and the LNG facility has a community relations group to deal with neighbor complaints. Ms. Fein-Brug suggested giving the applicant some information about other ongoing projects to make sure there are no conflicts. Mr. Blackburn stated they have been in contact with the Fire Dept. and are aware of upcoming work on the water main replacement on Rt. 85, for instance, and there may be other developments in the pipeline. Ms. Lazarus suggested coordinating with the DPW. Chief Slaman noted that would make sense and they should perhaps also add the Police Dept. to the dialogue. In response to a question of Mr. DeYoung, Mr. Blackburn noted they will most likely not be able to start until the spring of 2019 considering the DPU process is still ongoing, but they would like to stretch out the construction to reduce impact. Mr. Blackburn noted they anticipate the project to last 16 months until October of 2020. Mr. DeYoung asked if it will be phased, and Mr. Blackburn noted construction will be on a rolling basis. Ms. Ritterbusch asked if there will be overlap with the downtown corridor project and Ms. Lazarus stated no. Mr. DeYoung asked for clarification on truck routes, and Mr. Blackburn noted Rt. 495/Rt. 85/Legacy Farms North will be the primary route, and there are other routes available but only for smaller vehicles due to local restrictions. Mr. DeYoung asked for clarification regarding waiver requests for the earth removal permit, and Ms. Adamski noted they are minimizing the impact as much as possible within the 100 ft. buffer, with some stormwater features on the west and east side working within previously disturbed areas. Ms. Adamski used the plan to clarify the design. Mr. Blackburn explained the proposed tree removal and stated they intend to reinstall a fair amount of vegetative screening on the east side. Mr. DeYoung asked about the abutters, and it was noted it is mainly state land. Ms. Fein-Brug asked how far away the impoundment area is from the existing older spillway, and Ms. Adamski noted it is on the other side of the site. Ms. Fein-Brug asked if they have discussed the project with DCR and whether there is wetlands impact, and Ms. Adamski noted there is no impact and they are only doing some grading there for infiltration. The applicant and the Board mutually agreed to extend the decision deadline to December 31, 2018. Mr. Paul moved to continue the public hearing to December 17, 2018 at 7:45 P.M., Ms. DeVeuve seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Ms. Ritterbusch moved to adjourn the meeting, Mr. Paul seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Adjourned: 10:25 P.M. Submitted by: Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant Approved: December 17, 2018 Documents used at the Meeting:  Agenda for the November 19, 2018 Planning Board meeting  Memo from Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner, to Planning Board, dated November 14, 2018, re: Items on November 19, 2018 Planning Board Agenda  Draft Planning Board Minutes – October 15, 2018  Memorandum to Georgia Wilson, Town of Hopkinton, from Tracy J. Adamski, AICP and Jean Christy, P.E., dated November 15, 2018, re: LNG Liquefaction Replacement Project, Stormwater Management Permit and Earth Removal Permit, Supplemental Information Regarding the Use of the Existing Impoundment  Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan – Temporary Siltation Basin 2 & Basin 1 Modification – The Trails – Hopkinton, MA, dated October 24, 2018 (update November 5, 2018) & Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan – As-Built Completed Tasks as of 11-9-2018 – The Trails – Hopkinton, MA, dated November 9, 2018, both prepared by Engineering Design Consultants, Inc.  Plans – LNG Liquefaction Replacement Project, Hopkinton, Massachusetts – Permit Drawings, revised November 2018, prepared by Tighe & Bond, Inc.  Plan entitled “Whisper Way – A Definitive Open Space Subdivision in Hopkinton, Massachusetts”, dated May 24, 2018 revised through November 2, 2018, prepared by Guerriere & Halnon, Inc.  Plan entitled “East Main Street Parks and Recreation Parcel”, dated 05/23/2017 revised through 08/23/2017, prepared by Beals + Thomas  Approval Not Required Plan for 0 Montana Rd. – Plan of Land prepared for Edward Kelly, dated October 29, 2018, prepared by Ducharme & Dillis Civil Design Group  Approval Not Required Plan for 275 Cordaville Road – Plan of Land prepared for Peter Carbone, dated Nov. 1, 2018, prepared by J.D. Marquedant & Assoc., Inc.  Approval Not Required Subdivision Plan of Land for 18 & 20 Fruit St., dated February 6, 2018 revised through November 14, 2018, prepared by Field Resources, Inc./Land Surveyors  Approval Not Required Plan for Legacy Farms North/Wilson St. Baystone Development, dated 10-3-18, prepared by Control Point Associates, Inc.  Approval Not Required Plan for Legacy Farms North/Frankland Rd. Baystone Development, dated 10-4-18, prepared by Control Point Associates, Inc.