HomeMy Public PortalAbout20201207 - Planning Board - Meeting MinutesHopkinton Planning Board
Monday, December 7, 2020 7:00 P.M.
REMOTE MEETING
Minutes
Members Present: Gary Trendel (Chair), Robert Benson (Vice chair), David Paul, Deborah
Fein-Brug, Mary Larson-Marlowe, Sundar Sivaraman, Muriel Kramer, Jane Moran, Fran
DeYoung
Members Absent:
Present: John Gelcich, Principal Planner; Stephanie Pemberton, administrative assistant; Phil
Paradis, BETA Group
_____________________________________________________________________
Mr. Trendel called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM
Mr. Trendel called the name of each Planning Board member, and each member that was present
responded affirmatively that they were present and could hear him. Mr. Trendel then called the
names of staff members, Mr. Gelcich and Ms. Pemberton, who responded affirmatively that they
were present and could hear.
Mr. Trendel stated that the meeting is being conducted remotely consistent with Governor
Baker’s Executive Order of March 12, 2020, due to the current State of Emergency in the
Commonwealth due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 virus. He noted that in order to mitigate
the transmission of the virus, the Board is complying with the Executive Order that suspends the
requirement of the Open Meeting Law to have all meetings in a publicly accessible physical
location. He stated that the Executive Order allows public bodies to meet entirely remotely as
long as the public body makes provisions through adequate, alternative means to ensure that
interested members of the public are provided reasonable access to the deliberations of the
meeting. He noted that for this meeting the Board is convening by video conference via Zoom
App as posted on the Town’s web meeting calendar and the Board’s agenda identifying how the
public may join. He stated that the meeting may also be broadcast by HCAM. He noted that the
meeting is being recorded and attendees are participating by video conference. Mr. Trendel
stated that all supporting materials that have been provided to the Board are available on the
Town website via the web meeting calendar, unless otherwise noted.
1. Administrative Items
a. Future Meeting Dates for 2021
Mr. Gelcich went over the proposed Planning Board meeting dates for 2021 and asked
the Board to advise if there were any holiday or religious conflicts.
b. Minutes of November 16, 2020
1
Ms. Kramer moved to approve the draft minutes of November 16, 2020 with corrections
by Ms. Kramer and Ms. Larson-Marlowe, Ms. Fein-Brug seconded and the Board voted
unanimously in favor through roll call vote 9-0-0.
Mr. Sivaraman moved to open the public hearings, Ms. Kramer seconded and the Board voted
unanimously in favor through roll call vote 9-0-0.
2. Continued Public Hearing - Deer Ridge Estates / Lincoln St. & Cedar St. Ext. - OSLPD
Concept Plan/Special Permit - Courtney Derderian, CS2K
Ms. Kramer recused herself from the Board at this time and Mr. Benson chaired the hearing.
The Board went over and discussed the detailed decision criteria. In regards to vehicular and
pedestrian traffic flow it was asked by Mr. Benson what type of gate access would be utilized.
Joe Marquedant noted it had not been discussed and planned to have a joint meeting with the
Hopkinton Police Department and the Hopkinton Fire Department. Ms. Moran asked if there
could be an access remote for public safety as opposed to a key. Mr. Trendel asked Mr. Gelcich
if this level of detail is needed currently or if it can be discussed at the definitive subdivision
hearing. Mr. Gelcich noted it is not necessarily needed, just note that there will be a secure gate
with a plan at this point. Mr. Trendel asked for a condition that the gate will be installed with
access for public safety. It was noted by the applicant that a secure gate will be added between
access points as well as access roads to be agreed up by public safety departments. In regards to
snow storage and removal there were no comments. Mr. Benson asked how the Open Space will
be allocated. Ms. Dederian noted they’ve been working with HALT, but no firm decision had
been made. Mr. Benson noted there were no historic features identified during the site walk. It
was noted that there were no concerns in regards to Stormwater Management at that time.
The Board and applicant discussed the buffer zone areas. Mr. Benson noted the current concept
plan shows areas that have less than 100 ft. buffer zones. Mr. Marquedant noted the preference
for large contiguous areas where possible. It was noted the overall goal is to protect the areas.
Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked for statistics where the buffer is less than 100 ft. and by how much.
Mr. Marquedant noted on the plan the areas of concern. It was asked by Ms. Larson-Marlowe if
the applicant has spoken to the abutters about what may be done to mitigate obstruction with
them. Ms. Dederian noted they have been in communication with the abutters. Mr. Marquedant
stated they also plan to add trees, shrubs, and fencing. Mr. Trendel asked about the size of the
Open Space areas. Mr. Marquedant stated that they were ±3 acres and ±5.9 acres with the total
open space being approximately 9.2 acres. It was asked during the peer review if the storm water
basins will be located in those areas, Mr. Marquedant noted they plan to keep them in the area of
the proposed house lots.
2
Eric Byers, 58 Cedar Street Ext., asked for explanation regarding buffer zone regulations. Mr.
Benson noted that Open Space Subdivisions have different regulations, which require a buffer
zone, unlike a conventional subdivision. Mr. Gelcich stated the bylaws regarding buffer zones.
Mr. Trendel asked Mr. Marquedant if they were to comply with the buffer zone requirements and
how many lots would they be looking at. He noted he would have to defer to allow him to review
it further.
Ms. Fein-Brug asked the applicant where the trail heads and parking were proposed as there were
none noted on the plan. Mr. Marquedant noted there is an extensive trail system and anticipated
reviewing at the next step should they get there. Ms. Fein-Brug noted it would be good
information as to where the trails and parking are proposed in regards to possibly infringing on
the buffer zones. It was noted for access to open space and the river residents, the buffer zone is
turned into a trail which could turn into loss of privacy for the abutters, as a concern was raised
by an abutter and the Board.
Morrie Gasser, 28 South Mill St., HALT President, stated it has been discussed and noted that
the area of the 10 ft buffer zone would not be practical trail access. The concern with the buffer
is the access road detracts from the value of the Open Space and noted it wouldn’t be considered
a trail. He noted they would rather see a large contiguous space. It was also noted it would be
nice to have a connection between the north and south portion.
Mr. DeYoung asked about screening in areas where the 100 ft. buffer zone isn’t met. Mr.
Marquedant noted they have proposed to add additional screening with a variety of shrubs and
fencing.
Sripriya Srinivas, 34 Lincoln St., noted concern regarding the proposed road bend in front of her
home. She asked where her request to straighten the road stands. She noted that shrubs and trees
are not permanent. The Board noted it is not in their purview but urged the applicant to work
with them. Ms. Dederian noted they’ve looked into it. In review it appears with the curve the
lights would stay out of the home, if the road straightened they would go in. Mr. Gelcich noted
this will also be reviewed in the subdivision hearing.
Mr. DeYoung noted the concerns from the Hopkinton BOH, that no information had been
provided to them. It was noted by Mr. Marquedant replied that this is the next step in the process,
should they move forward, and to work out details of soil suitability and how to incorporate
storm water management. The applicant is proposing private water and private septic.
The applicant has requested a waiver for §210-223.C.(1) (Zoning Bylaws): To provide a buffer
width of less than 100 feet. Mr. DeYoung noted concern with the buffer zones. He asked if there
was a way to make lots smaller in order to adhere to the buffer bylaw. Mr. Marquedant noted
3
there is some excess in certain areas and could slightly increase the width in some places. He
noted it would impact aesthetics of the lots with regards to grading they would need to mitigate.
He noted he would have to take a deeper look into it to re-design and wouldn’t be able to answer
at this time. Mr. Benson asked Mr. Gelcich how this affects the special permit in the future. Mr.
Gelcich noted if the Board granted the waiver they would be able to move forward with the
subdivision; if denied they would have to re-work the concept plan. Mr. Trendel noted concern
with the buffers as some are quite narrow and don't see the ability to grant the waiver.
Eric Byers and Ida Pappas, 58 Cedar St. Ext., asked why they chose a wider buffer on one side
than the other. They also asked the setback of the property closest to them and asked if some
buffer could be pushed. They also stated concern with the additional draw on the water table. Mr.
Marquedant noted the first dwelling center would be 320 ft from Cedar St. Extension.
Mr. Trendel moved to grant the waiver request, Mr. Paul seconded and the motion failed through
roll call vote 4-4-0 (Mr. Trendel, Ms. Fein-Brug, Ms. Larson-Marlowe, and Mr. DeYoung were
opposed).
It was asked what the next step would be. Mr. Gelcich noted the applicant would need to
re-design as such the waiver would not be needed or in a fashion that the Board would find
acceptable to approve the waiver. Ms. Fein-Brug noted to take the advice of HALT and to add
connection between the two Open Space sections. Ms. Larson-Marlowe noted concern with the
buffer toward the Cedar Street abutters and suggested it be revisited. Mr. Trendel noted he
generally liked the concept and asked to reduce the number of locations where the buffer is less
than 100 ft. as much as possible. It was also suggested to design a plan that allows the public to
access the large parcels of Open Space.
The applicant requested a continuation to December 21, 2020.
Ms. Fein-Brug moved to continue the public hearing to December 21, 2020, Mr. Sivaraman
seconded and the Board voted unanimously in favor through roll call vote 8-0-0.
3. Continued Public Hearing - OSLPD Special Permit - 0 Hayden Rowe - Ravenwood LLC
Ms. Larson-Marlowe recused herself from the Board at this time and Mr. DeYoung chaired the
hearing.
The Board discussed the decision criteria along with comments by Mr. Gelcich, Principal
Planner.
Ms. Kramer noted the need for a conventional plan with proposed lots and noted there is not
enough data suggesting the property will support the septics and water proposed. Joe
4
Marquedant, J.D. Marquedant & Associates, Inc., noted the conventional plan is relying on
MassDEP and local conservation bylaws. He also noted that given the configuration of the parcel
and how the wetlands are laid out they have decided a limited project is viable to get the roadway
in and doesn’t limit to only one wetland crossing with the total disturbance decreased. The Board
noted they would like to get input from the Conservation Commission to clarify the viability
between the concept and conventional plan. It was noted that the Board needs to establish that
the conventional plan is approvable to then take the lot count and transfer it to the OSLPD plan.
Mr. Gelcich noted that he could reach out to the Conservation Agent, Don MacAdam.
Larry Green, landscape architect, discussed the updates made to the plan. Phil Paradis, BETA
Group, spoke to his concerns regarding his comments from December 4, 2020. He stated he
would like to revisit the wetland crossing and also noted that the plan should show a wetland
replication plan to be reviewed during the subdivision review. It was noted that the direct impact
is fairly significant with at least one of the wetlands. Mr. Trendel noted concern with possible
implications with the catch basins and noted there could be other locations where there would be
less impact. Ms. Fein-Brug noted concern with one of the basins in the access. She noted concern
with the lack of definition of shaping and sizing and destruction of forest in an area that is
supposed to be considered open space. She suggested a more definitive plan with detail to size,
shape, and sensitivity of development. Mr. Marquedant noted they have proposed grass bottom
filtration basins where available. He also believed the view shed should be similar to what is
seen now.
The Board and applicant discussed of requested waivers
●Section 210-223.C.(1): Buffer Width
Mr. Paul asked for the location of the buffer regarding the waiver request. Best spot to do the
least amount of damage, minimize impact of wetlands by reducing the buffer. Larry Green noted
supplemental buffer plantings with two-tiered screening.
Mr. Trendel moved to continue the public hearing to December 16, 2020, Ms. Kramer seconded
and the Board voted unanimously in favor through roll call vote 8-0-0.
Mr. Trendel returned to chair the meeting and Ms. Larson-Marlowe returned to the Board.
4. New Public Hearing - Earth Removal Permit - 253, 0 Lumber St. - NESI Realty LLC
Paul Alphen, NESI Realty LLC, gave a brief overview of the application to continue the granite
quarry operation. He noted they reviewed the letter received from BETA and scheduled a walk
through. Mr. Gelcich noted a new permit is required every two years and aside from one
condition the conditions are the same as previously conditioned. Phil Paradis, BETA Group,
5
noted they took this time to ask the applicant to update the plans as an in-depth analysis hasn’t
been performed.
Joe Marquedant, 240 Lumber St., asked who is requesting the permit. Paul Alphen noted it is the
same owners who have owned it for many years.
Mr. Trendel read through the decision criteria and noted if any Board member wanted to discuss
a criteria to let him know. Chief Stephen Slaman, Hopkinton Fire Dept., asked for a site tour for
situational awareness. Mr. Alphen noted he would be able to set that up if someone could
forward him Chief Slaman’s email address.
The Board and applicant reviewed and discussed the following requested waivers:
●Section 96-3.A.: Grades at the conclusion of the earth removal operation shall not be in
excess of one foot in vertical rise for every three feet of horizontal distance (3:1). Grades
in excess of 3:1 may be allowed only with a waiver from the Board. When reviewing
waiver requests, the Board will consider the final appearance of the lot and surrounding
areas with the intent that a natural appearance, natural drainage patterns and sufficient
erosion control will be maintained or established.
Mr. Benson moved to grant the requested waiver, Mr. DeYoung seconded and the Board voted
unanimously in favor through roll call vote 9-0-0.
●Earth Removal Permit Application: No Environmental Impact Assessment is required to
be submitted.
Mr. Alphen noted that operation has been there in excess of thirty years, he believed it’s been
established with no impact. Mr. DeYoung asked if there has been an assessment done in order to
see if there are any long term impacts. Mr. Paradis did note there was quite a bit of stone stored
on site, but doesn’t believe it's of any concern. Mr. Trendel noted that there is none required as
it’s been in operation over 30 years.
Mr. Sivaraman moved to grant the waiver, Ms. Fein-Brug seconded and the Board voted
unanimously in favor through roll call vote 9-0-0.
Mr. Benson moved to approve the conditions as previously approved along with the addition of
the condition that the applicant shall update the Existing Conditions Plan to address the
deficiencies as detailed in the BETA peer review letter dated December 1, 2020 prior to the date
that this permit becomes effective, Mr. Sivaraman seconded and the Board voted unanimously in
favor through roll call vote 9-0-0.
6
Mr. Sivaraman moved that the Board finds that the proposed earth removal activities conform to
the provisions of Chapter 96 of the General Bylaws of Hopkinton; that all applicable criteria and
standards set forth in the Earth Removal Chapter (Chapter 96), specifically Section 96-6, Criteria
for issuance of permits have been satisfied, Mr. Benson Seconded and the Board voted
unanimously in favor through roll call vote 9-0-0.
Ms. Kramer moved that the Board grant an Earth Removal Permit under Chapter 96 of the
General Bylaws, granting the waivers discussed, and subject to the following conditions that
were previously read aloud by the Chair, Mr. DeYoung seconded and the Board voted
unanimously in favor through roll call vote 9-0-0.
Ms. Kramer moved to close the public hearing, Mr. Sivaraman seconded and the Board voted
unanimously in favor through roll call vote 9-0-0.
5. New Public Hearings - Amendment to Chamberlain Whalen Subdivision and FCD
Special Permit - REC Hopkinton
Mr. Trendel recused himself from the Board at this time and Ms. Kramer chaired this hearing.
John Kucich, Bohler Engineering, gave an update to the project and noted a reduction of lots to a
total of 29 lots and a small change to Whalen Rd. per the plan presented. It was noted that the
plan presented was approved by the Conservation Commission. He also stated they met with
DPW and plan to connect to the town sewer system.
Mr. DeYoung moved that the Board finds that the proposed amendments to the definitive
subdivision plan conform to the Subdivision regulations, with the exception of the previously
granted waivers., Mr. Benson seconded and the Board voted unanimously in favor through roll
call vote 8-0-0.
Ms. Moran moved that the Board finds that the proposed Flexible Community Development
application conforms to the provisions of Article XI; that the Applicant/Developer will provide
two dwelling units of affordable housing or the equivalent in fees as set forth in Section 210-62
of the Zoning Bylaws; that all applicable criteria and standards set forth in the Zoning Bylaws
(Chapter 210) have been satisfied, and the granting of the Special Permit will be in harmony with
the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Bylaws (Chapter 210), Mr. DeYoung seconded. Mr.
Benson discussed that typically the Board prefers actual housing units. Paul Mastrioanni,
applicant, noted he did ask the Board if payment in lieu was an option. Mr. Benson noted that
payment is not the same as creating actual affordable housing. Mr. DeYoung noted the bylaw
does leave the option open. Mr. Benson asked if there are any bylaw rights to deny. Mr.
DeYoung believed this should be addressed and suggested that the ZAC look into it. Ms. Kramer
7
noted for the record that Mr. Mastroianni had made a good faith effort to create additional
affordable housing units in town and had found it very difficult to do. The requested change in
the number of units to be developed reduced the number of affordable units, or equivalent in lieu
payments, from three to two for the development. Ms. Kramer suggested that Mr. Mastrioanni
meet with the ZAC and then the Planning Board with his findings. On the motion to find that the
proposed Flexible Community Development application conforms to the provisions of Article
XI, the Board voted unanimously in favor through roll call vote 8-0-0.
Mr. DeYoung moved that the Board grant an amendment to the Flexible Community
Development Special Permit under Article XI of the Zoning Bylaws, as requested. Ms. Moran
seconded and the Board voted unanimously in favor through roll call vote 8-0-0.
Mr. Sivaraman moved that the Board approve the amendments to the definitive subdivision
approval, with the previously granted waivers remaining in place, and subject to the conditions
contained in the prior approval with addition of a condition that captures new plan with detail
requested by BETA and Sewer accepted by DPW, Mr. DeYoung seconded and the Board voted
unanimously in favor through roll call vote 8-0-0.
Ms. Moran moved to close the public hearing, Ms. Fein-Brug seconded and the Board voted
unanimously in favor through roll call vote 8-0-0.
Mr. Trendel Returned to the Board at this time and chaired the remainder of the meeting.
6. New Public Hearing - Major Site Plan Review - 0 South St. - REC Hopkinton LLC
John Kucich, Bohler Engineering, presented the proposed rendering. The applicant is proposing
a commercial building along with 106 parking stalls. They are envisioning professional office,
landscaper, and distribution.
Mr. Gelcich went over his comments to the applicant and noted the waivers requested cannot be
waived by the Planning Board. Phil Paradis, BETA Group, also went through BETA’s comments
to the applicant. He noted a request that an easement be provided for parking and possibly the
detention basin. Suggested adding landscaping from the entrance to the road, detention basin
detail, public safety concerns, building mounted lights, utilities, landscaping. He did note there
were no significant issues seen. Mr. Kucich noted the applicant plans to provide easements to the
town and necessary abutters.
The Board planned a site walk along with the applicant on Saturday December 19, 2020 at 9:30
AM.
8
Ms. Kramer moved to continue the public hearing to December 21, 2020, Mr. Sivaraman
seconded and the Board voted unanimously in favor through roll call vote 9-0-0.
Ms. Kramer moved to adjourn the meeting, Mr. Sivaraman seconded and the Board voted
unanimously in favor through roll call vote 9-0-0.
Adjourned: 10:45 PM
Submitted by: Stephanie Pemberton
Approved: January 25, 2021
Documents used at the meeting:
●Agenda and Meeting Materials for Planning Board meeting, December 7, 2020
●Chamberlain St. Whalen Rd., Amended Definitive Subdivision Application and Plans, 11/02/20
●Chamberlain St. Whalen Rd., Overall Site Plan Overlay - Red Exhibit, dated 11/03/20
●Chamberlain St. Whalen Rd., BETA Peer Review (Revised), dated 11/25/20
●Draft minutes of November 16, 2020
●0 Hayden Rowe, BETA OSLPD Review, 12/04/20
●0 Hayden Rowe, Colored Plan - Rendering, 11/23/20
●0 Hayden Rowe, Revised Open Space Concept Plan, dated 11/24/20
●0 Hayden Rowe, Truck Turning Plan, dated 11/23/20
●253, 0 Lumber St., Application and Plans for Earth Removal Permit, 11/03/20
●253 Lumber St., BETA Site Review Report, 12/01/20
●253 Lumber St., Memo from D. MacAdam, Earth Removal Agena and Conservation Agent, dated 11/05/20
●253, 0 Lumber St., Updated Conditions Plan, dated 09/30/20
●0 South St., Application and Plans for Major Site Plan Review, 11/02/20
●0 South St., Construction Management Plan, dated 11/05/20
●0 South St., BETA Review Letter, dated 11/24/20
The files may be found online in the public shared folder on Google Drive
9