Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20201221 - Planning Board - Meeting MinutesHopkinton Planning Board Monday, December 21, 2020 7:00 P.M. REMOTE MEETING Minutes Members Present:​ ​Gary Trendel (Chair), Robert Benson (Vice chair), David Paul, Jane Moran, Deborah Fein-Brug, Mary Larson-Marlowe, Sundar ​Sivaraman​, Fran DeYoung Members Absent:​ Muriel Kramer 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. Mr. Sivaraman moved to open the public hearing, Mr. Benson seconded and the Board voted unanimously in favor through roll call vote 8-0-0. 1. Administrative Items a. Wilson Street Solar Decommissioning Bond Estimate Ahmed Hafez, Grasshopper Energy, went through the estimates by line items. It was estimated that the effective life of this project is 20-25 years. The decommissioning includes the removal of the solar modules/panels, racking, foundations, equipment, 1 structures, and other associated items; the disposal of all solid and/or hazardous materials; and the restoration of the site to its natural conditions. The Applicant has estimated this cost to be $79,000. With a 2% inflation rate for 20 years, the total estimated bond amount is $147,480. Mr. Gelcich noted this is the revised version in regards to salvation and prevailing wages. Phil Paradis, BETA Group noted that all bonds before the town have to be suitable for public bid. He would like to determine a date when these would start at minimum at the current prevailing wage. Mr. Hafez estimated using current wage as they are skilled labor and asked if they can provide forms with proof of prevailing wage. Mr. Paradis noted the current wage is about $95/ per hour for operators and that there is no way to ascertain the salvage value for 20 years from now. Mr. Hafez asked if it could close the gap between prevailing wages. Mr. Paradis noted salvage value may help the cost of engineering and bid documents. He noted there are other costs as well for a public bid. Mr. Trendel noted as recommended by the Town Consultant to update the prevailing wages. Mr. Gelcich believed prevailing wages were covered as the applicant proposed approximately $200 per day. Mr. Trendel asked if this can be conditioned or a way to make sure it’s aligned with the applicant and BETA. Ms. Moran noted the totals don’t match and also not sure this is what the Board had discussed as far as landscaping, may have to go back to the conditions. Mr. Hafez noted intent to the landscaping bond and restoring grasses and lost vegetation and to modify restoration landscape so that it shall be consistent with the special permit approval. Mr. Benson moved to accept the decommissioning bond estimate conditional upon BETA’s approval, Mr. Sivaraman seconded and the Board voted unanimously in favor through roll call vote 8-0-0. b. Hopkinton Highlands III Bond Release Mr. Gelcich noted he had not heard back from the applicant and they were not present at the meeting. c. Minutes of November 30, 2020 The majority of the Board were unable to review the minutes. 2. Continued Public Hearing - Deer Ridge Estates / Lincoln St. & Cedar St. Ext. - OSLPD Concept Plan/Special Permit - Courtney Derderian, CS2K Mr. Benson chaired this public hearing. Shane Perrault, business partner, gave updates to the project. He noted it had been approximately five months, but they are confident with the new plan. He noted it was not feasible to have one 2 large open space. He also noted the goal is for no abutter to see the new homes and adamant to involve HALT and provide a usable area for the community. He noted that they shrunk lot sizes and increased buffers to minimize areas with less than 100 ft. setbacks. Ms. Moran asked where discussions with Pappas have been in regards to the area of the 10 ft. buffer. Mr. Perrault noted there were discussions with them and they are aware of the setback and that they are happy with it. The Pappas’s did note concern for their well, landscaping and screening, to which Ms. Derderian noted the 10 ft. area would not be a trailhead or public access. Ms. Moran asked how they plan to block it, it was noted they plan to fill with trees and plantings. Ms. Moran asked if additional discussions had taken place since the last meeting as there seemed to be unresolved issues. Ms. Derderian noted that their line of communication is open and believed that their concerns have been met. Mr. DeYoung noted appreciation of increasing the buffer width. Mr. Benson asked if the applicant had spoken to the Pappas’ and if they’re aware of the two options. Ms. Derderian stated she was uncomfortable answering for them, but tried their best to educate everyone. Mr. Perrault noted they’ve shown both plans to abutters and feedback included them being against a through road. Ms. Moran asked if the design of the fire line connecting the road/trail can be moved in this design as it was previously discussed as obtrusive to open space. Mr. Trendel stated that HALT had some preference to not have a 16 ft. path through open space as it negatively impacts it. He also noted appreciation to applicant’s. It was noted in regards to the pathway through the open space that it could give someone with limited mobility access. Mr. Trendel noted that in regards to the 10 ft. strip with additional screening, if would still meet open space requirement, then he would be comfortable with the waiver. Morrie Gasser, 28 S. Mill St. speaking for HALT, asked what the fire lane would look like and what kind of surface it would be. Mr. Perrault noted it will be discussed in the definitive subdivision plan and typically would use standard gravel. Mr. Paul noted he believed it needed to be discussed with the Fire Department as well. Ida Pappas, 58 Cedar St. Ext., when discussing the 10ft buffer they did not realize there was a buffer zone. It was asked if there was a way to have more buffer against their property than against the road. Mr. Perrault noted when going through design calculations it would take away open space and try to find an equal balance. Ms. Moran noted there has to be a way to make this work understanding that is not able to make everyone happy. Mr. Benson noted if the OSLPD doesn’t get approved, there is a possibility of another concept plan where there are no buffer requirements. Mr. Perrault noted they are trying to make the best plan they can. Mr. Trendel noted the goal of Open Space is for larger tracts of land, the 10 ft. buffer is not in the goal of open space. Ms. Moran noted concerns with adequate buffers and keeping with OSLPD. She asked if an adjustment of access from Cedar St. to adjust the location of houses without losing house lots and allowing additional buffers were possible. Mr. Perrault noted they are not against the and trying to get to the next step, a revised plan to show that it would make a 3 difference in waiver requests or show in the definitive plan. Mr. Gelcich noted it’s up to the Board if they want to grant the waiver. Mr. Benson asked if the Board would grant the waiver with agreement and compromise on the north and south side through a strawpoll vote. The Board was in favor 7-1-0 (Mr. DeYoung was opposed). Ms. Moran noted adding a condition that approval be based on the plan as shown except location of the cul de sac off Cedar St. with open space being equitable between the north and south sides. Mr. Trendel noted this is a different plan as buffer zones have been increased in multiple locations along with total open space. He also noted reasonable changes had been made and if the applicant was open to shifting the road it can be done for the definitive plan. Mr. Gelcich noted that changing in the subdivision phase would have to include a site plan change. Mr. Perrault noted they have no issue with adding conditions in the definitive plan to shifting the road. It was noted they were hoping to vote with a contingency to move to the definitive phase. Ms. Moran moved to grant waiver with a condition to adjust the location of the road so that there is equitable green space for abutters, Mr. Paul seconded. Mr. DeYoung looked for clarification. Mr. Perrault noted they understand the concern and are still below the buffer mark on the shown plans and at the point where they are doing everything they can to educate everyone. Ms. Moran asked for the Board to be clear and to specify what they’re approving based so as not to be surprised when it comes to the definitive plan. Mr. Benson made a friendly amendment to the motion to have equal open space from the north to south side between the Pappa’s and the Hubley’s. Mr. Trendel prefers to vote on waiver as drawn or have them redraw and come back. Ms. Fein-Brug feels the southside is getting a nice distance, but concerned where the line on the road is going to settle. She would prefer to see it before voting on it, but does want to see this move forward. It was also asked, even if preliminary, how the trails are going to be accessed. Mr. Perrault noted they are still working with trail configurations. Ms. Moran moved to waive the 100 ft. buffer requirement with access from Cedar St. to be adjusted in location as close to 50/50 as possible between open space and the buffer on the northern and southern Side, Mr. Paul seconded that the applicant shall provide revised plan addressing open space on either side being 50/50 to the extent practicable. Mr. Benson moved to grant the waiver to the 100 ft. buffer, Mr. Sivaraman seconded. Mr. Benson then withdrew the motion. Mr. DeYoung asked if this is shown to be approvable as conventional. Mr. Gelcich noted it is up to the Board. Mr. Paradis confirmed that the conventional plan between Cedar St. and Lincoln St. could be built. Sriprya Srinivas, 34 Lincoln St., noted she still has concerns as it’s all wooded now and if approved will have traffic and clearing which is the opposite to what she currently has. She also noted that she has requested the road be straightened slightly as she believed the lights will shine into the home as cars are rounding the corner. Mr. Perrault noted that a detailed analysis has been 4 done. Ms. Srinivas noted she was unable to picture that the lights would not come into her home as the cars approached and proposed removing the angle. Mr. Paul noted it would be difficult to relocate the road and to ask the applicant what is planned in regards to fall screening. Mr. DeYoung noted he doesn’t believe the abutter has had resolution. Mr. Perrault noted with the design it would actually eliminate lights coming in the home and that it’s been made clear on the plans. Mr. DeYoung noted this is something between the applicant and the abutter. Ida Pappas, 58 Cedar St. Ext., noted they did not realize until the last meeting that the trails would require the 100 ft. buffer. She had assumed the property line was property line, but hearing others had additional buffers added she wondered why not theirs. The Board discussed the requested waiver:the Applicant shall submit a revised conceptual plan showing the open space to the north and south of the roadway as equally divided,to the extent practicable. Mr. Sivaraman moved to grant the requested waiver, Ms. Moran seconded. Mr. DeYoung stated that without a definitive plan he didn’t feel it satisfied him being able to approve. On the motion to grant the waiver the Board voted in favor 6-2-0 (Ms. Fein-Brug and Mr. DeYoung were opposed). Mr. Paul moved that the Board finds that the proposed Open Space and Landscape Preservation Development conforms to the provisions of Article XVII with the exception of buffer waiver 210-113.C.(1) and the applicant shall submit a revised conceptual plan showing the open space to the north and south of the roadway as equally divided, to the extent practicable; 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), in addition the Applicant has made clear to willingly divide open space equally between the north and south as mentioned in conditions, Ms. Moran seconded and the Board voted unanimously in favor through roll call vote 8-0-0. Mr. Trendel moved that the Board grant a Special Permit under Article XVII of the Zoning Bylaws, granting the waivers as discussed and agreed upon by the Board and Applicant, and subject to the conditions that were previously read aloud by Mr. Trendel, Mr. Paul seconded and the Board voted unanimously in favor through roll call vote 8-0-0. Mr. Trendel moved to close the public hearing, Mr. Paul seconded and the Board voted unanimously in favor through roll call vote 8-0-0. Mr. Trendel returned to Chair the meeting 3. Continued Public Hearing - Major Site Plan Review - 0 South St. - REC Hopkinton LLC 5 John Kucich, Bohler Engineering, noted they have submitted their responses to the BETA review and believed to have been addressed adequately. Phil Paradis, BETA, noted the Board may want to discuss and condition some concerns. Applicants are required to document additional runoff, and the additional volume increase per this project. It was noted it largely drains to an adjacent wetland area which is also adjacent to neighbors, and want to make sure it won’t negatively affect the neighbor. Mr. Kucich noted drainage to a large wetland then collected and into a culvert. The stormwater system mimics the current drainage system at peak. It should handle any increase in volume as typical, regulations require holding water back and releasing slowly. The system will adhere to local and state criteria. Mr. DeYoung asked if BETA was comfortable with the proposed plan for the runoff. Mr. Paradis did not walk the property and observe the culvert and overflow is not likely unless there is a significant event, but he cannot say definitively, but does understand the drainage pattern as discussed. Mr. Paradis asked what would happen with the increased volume. Mr. Kucich noted it is a 36” culvert on the southerly line as shown per the proposed plan and ultimately the discharge is through the intersection of property lines in the 36” culvert which should be able to absorb the increase in volume. Mr. Paradis noted from calculations provided there’s more than 50% increase in volume and looking at the long term impact. Mr. Kuchich noted the need to hold back the peak flows, the detention basins to construct will hold back the water and release slowly to not over-burden the system per state and local regulations. Ms. Moran asked Mr. Paradis would the two retention ponds introduced be sufficient in extreme events. Mr. Paradis noted the watershed could already be compromised and needs to take a second look at the watershed and storage. Mr. Paradis would like confirmation from the design engineer. Mr. Kuchich noted based on what is seen on site the design is to state standards to reduce rates not volume. Mr. Kuchich noted he would reach out to Mr. Paradis to see what would satisfy his concerns. Ms. Larson-Marlowe noted there is a small area of wetland that will be covered by the parking lot and noted the applicant stated they were going to build a small wetland to replace it. Mr. Kuchich noted they are currently in review with the Conservation Commission, filling sections and mitigation areas chosen abutting the wetlands. Mr. Kuchich also noted if anything it would create additional storage. The Board discussed the conformance with Site Plan Standards. Mr. Paradis noted the applicant has addressed a majority of BETA’s concerns. It was noted that many questions pertain to what the final tenant might be, but doesn’t believe there would be a substantial difference between what is shown and what may be proposed. It was noted the lighting plan has not been completed as they are unsure what the tenant will need. Mr. Gelcich noted in terms of site plan, the only issue is parking, he noted it requires 96 spaces, but they are proposing 106. It would be helpful to know the intended use, but doesn’t believe it would have a large impact. Mr. Trendel asked the applicant in regards to snow storage and removal what the plan would be, Mr. Kuchich noted 6 there's enough area as there are additional parking spaces than required and could be utilized. Mr. DeYoung noted looking for alignment between BETA and Applicant in regards to stormwater management. Mr. Trendel recommended the applicant work with BETA to close out remaining issues and to get a letter from Chief Slaman with his approval on public safety access. Mr. Sivaraman moved to continue the public hearing to January 4, 2021, Mr. Benson seconded and the Board voted unanimously in favor through roll call vote 8-0-0. 4. New Public Hearing - Minor Site Plan Review - 146 East Main St. (Plankton Energy) - Solar Project Accessory solar use to be located on the rear parking lot of the First Congregational Church Sheryl Guglielmo, project manager, introduced the proposal for the installation of an accessory solar array to be located on the rear parking lot of the existing First Congregational Church of Hopkinton. The proposed six solar canopies will continue to allow parking for cars beneath the array. No change to parking or parking count. The canopies are 13 ½ ft from ground and opposite is 18 ½ ft and the highest point is about 22 ft. The only real disturbance is the proposed columns. The location will require the removal of two existing light poles. Proposed LED lighting to mount below the canopies and landscaping proposed will include drought tolerant grass or crushed stone. The utilities will not change, no stormwater change, rain will pass through the canopy and continue to pavement as it would today. It is within the wetland buffer, the Applicant has submitted to the Conservation Commission, and scheduled for 12/22/20. Dan Giufridda, Plankton Energy, working with the church in regards to lease payments and selling energy to low-income households in Hopkinton and the greater Boston area. He is estimating commencement of the project in late March and completion late June/early July. They are finalizing approvals with Eversource in the few weeks. Mr. Gelcich noted this is a little different in scope, not a lot of impact. It is a minor site plan, while altering a parking area, but not reducing parking spaces. The Fire Department has asked to review the turning radius, but believed it will not hinder the trucks from making the turns. Mr. Trendel asked if a site walk is needed. No site walk needed per the Board as they are familiar with it. Mr. Trendel went through the Site plan standards as per the outline: ●In regards to vegetation, Mr. Trendel asked if it is cosmetic. Ms. Guglielmo noted from what they can tell its aesthetic and shade. ●In regards to screening, Ms. Moran noted she’s familiar with canopy types, she asked if they will be visible from abutters. Ms. Guglielmo showed the street views and noted from 7 the back toward the abutters, even with leaves falling it is still relatively screened. Ms. Moran just wanted to confirm the sight lines. ●Ms. Guglielmo noted all utilities are proposed to be underground. ●Ms. Guglielmo noted there is proposed screening for the transformers. ●Mr. Giufridda noted there will be no audible noise from the canopies or transformer. ●In regards to replacing the two light poles with downward facing LEDs. Ms. Moran asked that the applicant follow the same rules as the church currently follows. Mr. Giufridda noted the Church will be able to set the timers. ●Mr. Paul asked about the overall size of the project. Mr. Giufridda noted a total of 696 kw of direct current, each module is 400w; with a total of 1,740 solar panels. Mr. Trendel read through the proposed conditions. The Board discussed striking the performance guarantee as this is an accessory use. It was noted the responsibility would be on the Church as opposed to the Town. Mr. Gelcich also noted that in regards to decommissioning it would be on the Church as well, the Board agreed to strike this condition. Mr. Benson moved that the Board finds that the proposed development conforms to the Site Plan Standards and provisions of Article XX; and that all applicable criteria and standards set forth in the Zoning Bylaws (Chapter 210) have been satisfied, Mr. Sivaraman seconded and the Board voted unanimously in favor through roll call vote 8-0-0. Mr. Paul moved that the Board grant approval of the Site Plan under Article XX of the Zoning Bylaws and subject to the conditions that were previously read aloud by the Chair, Mr. Sivaraman seconded and the Board voted unanimously in favor through roll call vote 8-0-0. Mr. Benson moved to close public hearing, Mr. Sivaraman seconded and the Board voted unanimously in favor through roll call vote 8-0-0. Mr. Benson moved to adjourn, Mr. Sivaraman seconded and the Board voted unanimously in favor through roll call vote 8-0-0. Adjourned: 10:52 PM Submitted by: Stephanie Pemberton Approved: ​February 8, 2021 Documents used at the meeting: ●Agenda and Meeting Materials for Planning Board meeting, December 21, 2020 ●Application and Plans for Minor Site Plan Review - 146 East Main St, 11/16/20 ●146 East Main St, Emergency Vehicle Access Plan, dated 11/16/20 ●146 East Main St, Site Plans, dated 11/16/20 ●146 East Main St, Email from Chief Bennett, Police Department, dated 11/23/20 ●146 East Main St, Email from J. Westerling, DPW Director, dated 11/23/20 8 ●146 East Main St, Structural Plans, dated 12/02/20 ●146 East Main St, Memorandum from B. Besso, Board of Health, dated 12/07/20 ●146 East Main St, Email from D. MacAdam, Conservation Administrator, dated 12/14/20 ●0 South St, Site Plan, dated 09/09/20 ●0 South St, Construction Management Plan, dated 11/05/20 ●0 South St, BETA Review Letter, dated 11/24/20 ●17 Wilson St, Decommissioning Estimate, 12/10/20 ●17 Wilson St, Decommissioning Estimate - Revised, 12/21/20 ●Deer Ridge Estates, Revised Concept Plan, 12/16/20 ●Deer Ridge Estates, Revised Conventional Plan, 12/16/20 The files may be found online in the public shared folder on Google Drive 9