Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20160523 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes 1 HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD Monday, May 23, 2016 7:30 P.M. Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton, MA MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Kenneth Weismantel, Chairman, Brian Karp, Frank D’Urso, Matthew Wade, Cliff Kistner, David Paul, Vincent Cerulle Members Absent: Fran DeYoung, John Ferrari Present: Jennifer Burke, Principal Planner; Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant Mr. Weismantel opened the meeting, thanked HCAM for recording the meeting, and summarized the agenda. He welcomed Mr. Kistner, Mr. Paul and Mr. Cerulle as new members to the Board, and welcomed back Mr. Karp who was appointed to return for a year. Mr. Weismantel stated the Board drafted a letter to Claire Wright thanking her for her many years of service and hard work on the Planning Board as well as the Design Review Board, and congratulating her on her election to the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Kistner moved to send the letter as written, Mr. Paul seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 1. Reorganization Mr. Weismantel suggested postponing the reorganization of the Board to the next meeting when all members are present to participate. Mr. D'Urso stated he feels the Board should do this tonight as scheduled on the agenda. Mr. Wade moved to postpone the reorganization to June 13, 2016, Mr. Kistner seconded the motion, and the Board voted 6 in favor, 1 opposed (D'Urso). 2. Continued Public Hearings - 201 Hayden Rowe – Stormwater Management Permit and Special Permit for Commercial Solar Facility – Solect Energy Development Miguel Linera, Solect Energy Development, senior project engineer, and Joe Marquedant, J.D. Marquedant & Associates, surveyor, appeared before the Board. Andrew Ogilvie, BETA Group, Inc., the Board's consultant engineer, was also in attendance. Mr. Weismantel referred to the public hearing outline prepared for this application. Mr. Marquedant stated Solect Energy Development would like the Board to consider a 311 kW solar electricity generating facility at 201 Hayden Rowe. He described the site's location and existing conditions and noted some of the members may remember this property as previously part of a larger parcel now developed as Hayden Woods/Davenport Village. He noted the property contains a house currently under construction and had some mixed uses in the past including a local landscaping business. He noted the facility will basically be in the center of the property and work will match up with existing grades so that pre- and post-construction flow will be the same. He noted vegetation to the north and east will be retained but there are several trees on the other sides that will have to be removed to accommodate the solar arrays and their operation but they will try to mitigate the impact on abutting property by planting a line of evergreens in several locations. Mr. Marquedant noted they propose to use the existing curb cut to fit with the design of the home under construction and provide access to the facility by a driveway generally 20 ft. wide with a turnaround for safety reasons. He noted the 1.3 acre project will be enclosed with a gated 6 ft. 2 high black-clad vinyl chain-link security fence, complying with the required minimum setback from the boundary line except for a short distance - which is the subject of the only waiver requested. He noted they feel a solar facility is a good use for this property with minimum impact on the abutters. He stated there will be no facilities other than those associated with the arrays, no site lighting, minimal signage on the fencing only, and clearing along the south and west boundaries limited to what is absolutely needed. He noted there will be inspections of stormwater elements during construction as well as a long term operation plan to assure the viability of the facility including a set schedule for maintaining stormwater features in and around the panels to keep the grass low and make sure trees stay healthy for providing the necessary screening. Mr. Weismantel referred to the public hearing outline. Ms. Burke noted the Conservation Commission Administrator informed her today that an application for a Determination of Applicability was submitted late last week, but that additional information is needed with respect to the 75 ft. limit of structure setback. Mr. Marquedant stated the public hearing is tentatively scheduled for June 6. In response to a question of Mr. Weismantel, it was noted that the structures are outside the 50 ft. buffer zone but just inside the 75 ft. limit as required under the local bylaw. Mr. D'Urso asked about the possibility of relocating the interior parking/driveway construction area and moving everything else away from the wetlands, and Mr. Weismantel stated it is a good question and they will talk about it when they get to the details. Mr. Ogilvie summarized BETA's comments on the proposal. He noted the property is residentially zoned but it may be a good idea to consider the additional buffer typically required to screen commercial uses from abutting residentially property although it is not clear whether the bylaw would allow for that. He stated, as mentioned by the applicant, a portion of the fence is within the setback, but perhaps they can angle the driveway to make it better although it won't be possible to completely solve the problem and may impact the abutter’s backyard. Mr. Ogilvie stated the applicant proposes screening to the majority of the neighbors, but clearing up to the southerly property line may mean visual hardship for the abutter in that location. He noted the requirement for underground utilities appears to be met except for the transformer pads, which may be addressed with more vegetative screening especially with respect to the pad located near the street. He stated staggering the proposed line of evergreens may be more effective with essentially the same number of plantings. Mr. Ogilvie stated according to the applicant's stormwater calculations the solar panels will be installed in an area currently considered a meadow, however, he questioned the ability of grass to flourish in the shade under the arrays and asked whether a different type of groundcover is appropriate. He stated the current driveway is proposed as the main access with the construction entrance right up to the property line, and he asked about the need for some type of easement or an agreement with the abutter to make sure that portion of the site is restored afterwards. Mr. Ogilvie stated there is a 6 in. gap in the security fence and asked about the reason why. He noted with respect to the stormwater management design BETA agrees that the array placement area in the back of the property is not to be considered a parking lot, but on the other hand it should not be modeled as a natural meadow either, so hopefully they can come to a consensus on that. He referred to BETA's comment regarding TSS removal credit for the grass swales, and noted that after talking to the applicant's engineer this will not be an issue and can be left up to the Conservation Commission if necessary. Mr. Weismantel referred to the public hearing outline and asked for suggestions regarding additional discussion items. It was noted the Board will discuss the driveway layout as suggested 3 by Mr. D'Urso, array placement relative to the upland area, applicant's waiver request, driveway width, meter pad location, lighting and screening. In response to a question of Mr. Kistner, Mr. Marquedant noted that a number of trees need to be removed to increase the western exposure from the sun, and it will involve an area up to the stone wall which will remain and serve as a visual demarcation line for the benefit of the contractors. Mr. Cerulle stated the maximum lot coverage in the Residence B district is 25%, and it appears this is 33% or something like that. It was explained that lot coverage here, including the house, is 14%, basically because of the space between the arrays. Mr. Cerulle asked about the maintenance schedule and the types of vehicles involved. Mr. Marquedant noted it will be 3 or 4 of times a year at a minimum, and it concerns periodic weedwacking using pickup trucks to get in there while larger trucks will only be used during construction. Mr. Paul stated he would like to add array size, effect on the adjacent condominium development, possibly underground utilities, and sidewalks. David Carrier, 199 Hayden Rowe, stated he is here to talk about screening, but at this point would like to express safety concerns with respect to the meter pad to be located near the street on the side of the lot. Jane Moran, 70 East Main St., stated she is here on behalf of the Upper Charles Trails Committee. She noted the Committee a few years ago was charged by the Board of Selectmen to find a way to connect the bike trail from the Milford town line to Ashland. She noted they have been working toward that goal, and one idea is to try and approach community members, and developers as they come in, to see if they are willing to grant the Town an easement in the 50 ft. buffer zone. Mr. Paul asked for an overview, and asked where the trail would cross over to the other side of Rt. 85. Ms. Moran stated that has not been determined, and at this point the main challenge is the ability to use the various sections of railroad bed sold off to private entities over the last 80 or 90 years. Mr. Weismantel noted the issue will be added to the public hearing outline for discussion. Mr. Weismantel referred to the possibility of an alternative site layout to move the facility out of the wetlands buffer zone. He stated he feels the Conservation Commission may force the issue anyway and he does not think the Planning Board wants to redesign the plan. He stated he would however like to address the access way, which he feels is too wide considering the amount of anticipated traffic. Mr. Marquedant noted there is a disconnect between the applicant's effort to minimize the amount of clearing and the Fire Dept.'s requirement for a 20 ft. driveway for safety reasons. Mr. Weismantel stated he feels 10 to 12 ft. should be sufficient, and Ms. Burke noted she has not heard from the Fire Dept. and will check with them on this issue. Mr. Ogilvie noted a narrower drive may be ok and a fire truck would be able to turn around on the grass. Mr. Linera stated he would be agreeable to a narrower width but the Fire Chief has the ultimate say. Mr. Weismantel stated he believes the access road to the recently approved Marathon solar facility off East Main St. was less than 20 ft. wide, and Mr. Marquedant noted they have a new Chief now. Mr. Weismantel stated this will be an action item for the next meeting, and asked Ms. Burke to contact the Fire Chief for clarification and do research on a comparison with the Marathon solar proposal. Margie Wiggins, 5 Cross St., suggested an alternative design wide enough for one car width at the street widening out further in, and Mr. Weismantel stated it is a possibility but the Board is not trying to redesign this tonight. Mr. Weismantel stated this issue is somewhat related to the portion of the security fence within the setback and perhaps they can change the driveway layout and provide an area outside the fence for a turnaround. He stated this is only the Board's second solar application, one of the least obnoxious land uses other than leaving site in natural state, and he would like to avoid starting to grant waivers already. Mr. Kistner asked if there are other reasons for 20 ft. wide access roads, and Mr. Weismantel noted it is about sprinkler 4 requirements for residential development but those criteria do not appear to apply here at all. Mr. Kistner asked whether there are additional development plans for the property once the solar panels have been installed, and Mr. Marquedant stated no. Mr. Weismantel asked why the meter pad is located at the front of the home instead of next to the transformer in the back. Mr. Linera stated typically the utility company installs 3 poles along the line coming from the closest point, which would look quite cluttered, and he presented a picture of another solar site as an example of what it would look like. Mr. Weismantel stated the Board had this discussion with the other solar farm applicant and is not willing to approve something with additional poles. Mr. Linera noted a concrete meter pad is the alternative and after meeting with the utility company it was decided to put it in this location, and Mr. Weismantel stated it does not even meet setback. Mr. Linera stated he did not know it has to meet setbacks, and he feels their hands are tied. He noted he will go back to the utility company but has no issue with BETA's recommendation for additional plantings for screening purposes, and Mr. Karp stated that will make conditions worse for the neighbor from a viewpoint perspective. It was noted the Board would like a justification from Eversource, in writing or by a representative at the next meeting, why the pad cannot be in the back next to the transformer, as a matter of principle. Mr. Ogilvie stated he believes it is for convenience and there is no practical reason why the pad could not be further back. The Board discussed screening, and Mr. Weismantel stated BETA's recommendation to stagger trees would be an improvement. Mr. Marquedant submitted pictures of another Solect solar farm site and noted they propose planting 7 ft. tall trees 8 ft. on center to start off with and as they mature the gap will go away. Mr. Kistner stated he would have preferred black lattice chain-link fencing, and Mr. Weismantel stated it is generally felt that black-clad vinyl as proposed by the applicant is a better approach. Mr. Kistner noted staggering the trees is a good idea, but he would like the applicant to stay away from arborvitae which don't take for a long time at first and are prone to be chewed by deer in the winter. Mr. Linera stated the Planning Board in Holliston requested a particular species of arborvitae to be used in a Solect project there, and it has proven to be successful so far. Mr. Weismantel stated he feels they have identified the items that can be resolved by plan changes, and advised the applicant to discuss screening with the abutter. Ms. Burke stated array size was one of the discussion items added to the outline, and she asked if plan changes would have an impact. Mr. Carrier stated the plan calls for a tree to be removed at the corner of his property, and asked that the applicant hold off until final changes have been made to the plan. In response to a question of Mr. D'Urso on this issue, Mr. Perkins noted he would rather look for an alternative. Mr. Weismantel stated he would not be surprised if there are further changes as a result of the discussion with the Conservation Commission, similar to what happened with Marathon Solar. Mr. D'Urso stated it appears BETA is not comfortable with callin g the area in question a meadow in the context of stormwater calculations, however it seems like a meadow to him, historically speaking. Mr. Ogilvie stated it is a point of discussion, and Mr. Perkins stated the site was under cultivation for more than 100 years. Mr. Weismantel referred to the Solect solar farm in Southborough, and stated he was surprised how much is growing underneath. Mr. D'Urso moved to continue the public hearings to June 27, 2016 at 7:30 P.M., Mr. Kistner seconded the motion, 5 and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Ms. Burke stated she needs a request to extend the time for filing the Stormwater Management Permit decision with the Town Clerk, and Mr. Marquedant indicated he will have it at the next meeting. 3. Public Hearings – Northeast, Northwest and North Club Villages at Legacy Farms – OSMUD Site Plan Review and Master Plan Special Permit Amendment Applications – Pulte Homes of New England, LLC, and Legacy Farms, LLC Mark Mastroianni and Reid Blute, Pulte Homes of New England, and Roy MacDowell, Legacy Farms, LLC, applicants, and Matthew Mrva and John Kusich, Bohler Engineering, landscape architect and engineer, appeared before the Board. Mr. Wade moved to continue the public hearing on the Master Plan Special Permit Amendment portion of the proceedings, Mr. D'Urso seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Weismantel opened the public hearing for the site plan application, and referred to the public hearing outline prepared and further revised for this proposal. He noted the Board has three members who are new to the project and they basically will dictate the pace with the help of the more seasoned members. He noted with respect to Legacy Farms, LLC's application to amend the Master Plan Special Permit to allow 180 additional age restricted units, they are working on the LNG safety report which will have to be peer reviewed so that everyone is more comfortabl e with that issue. Mr. MacDowell stated he will get this information to the Board shortly, and then they will need a couple of more weeks for review. Mr. Mastroianni noted Mr. Mrva has prepared a thorough presentation to bring the members up to speed, and stated he feels the last six months working with the Planning Board, Design Review Board and BETA have not been wasted, actually resulting in an overall improved plan. Mr. Mrva noted the Conservation Commission since the beginning has been positive in its response, although the applicant will have to go back after Planning Board approval. He noted the revised plan currently before the Board brings the development further away from resource areas and buffer zones, and they satisfied the Fire Chief's concerns regarding road width and turning radii. He noted they have worked with the Water and Sewer Department, and met again with the Design Review Board which has now signed off on the proposal. He noted they are going back and forth with BETA Group and already incorporated a lot of their ideas. He stated the project as currently proposed is essentially the same with a total of 425 units (201 simplex and 224 attached multifamily), consistent with the layout in the Master Plan Special Permit. He noted the buildable area is now condensed to 74.5 acres compared to 89.1 acres in the original Master Plan Special Permit, reducing the footprint and providing more open space along Legacy Farms North. He noted the plan includes sidewalks on one side throughout the development and offers contiguous access to the open space. He pointed out in terms of grading the north project is a lot different from the south side already permitted and under construction, which they feel is beneficial to the plan. He stated the topography offers a lot of relief, and explained how one will really never have a full view of the development traveling through the site. He stated with respect to utilities and on-site drainage, the stormwater design is in compliance with all state and local agreements. He noted the site features a series of bioretention and infiltration basins which are designed to drain fully within 72 hours. He noted the development will have municipal water and will be served by 6 the private wastewater plant built as part of Legacy Farms South. He noted gas and electricity, etc. will extend into the villages from the main road, trash pickup will be private and snow removal will be handled in similar way. Mr. Mrva stated in terms of landscaping and buffering to adjacent properties, they began the process by walking the site with Pulte Homes to understand existing conditions and topographic characteristics of the land. He noted there are some mature stands of trees however the majority of the site was in agricultural use over the years with mostly old fields. He stated they made sure they captured and maintained significant vegetation at the beginning of Legacy Farms North and Frankland Rd., along with healthy vegetation near the Mezitt property to be enhanced with additional plantings. He noted they are looking at a total of 1,600 additional planting including 600 evergreens, in addition to the street trees to be planted by the master developer. He noted there will be trees at the individual units and extra landscaping enhancements with on-site lighting for wayfinding purposes only and 15 ft. poles at intersections and other key locations. He noted suggestions made by BETA include road realignment with fewer straight-aways and they also looked at staggering the homes in and out from the main roadway. He noted the revised plans provide pocket parks now in all neighborhoods offering a nice place for people to gather. He noted none of the units will face onto "T" intersections so that people won't have car headlights shining into their windows. He noted as a results of comments received they have created cul-de-sacs at the end of all roadways which will look better although the Fire Dept. was fine with the hammerhead designs shown previously on the plan. Mr. Mrva stated landscaping has been improved around some of the bioretention areas as discussed with BETA, and at all entrances from Legacy Farms North into the neighborhoods they have provided enhanced landscaping features, fencing, decorative lights and ornamental trees. He noted there will be additional plantings between the duplex units and the driveways to articulate division and help soften the look. He noted he will discuss the trail network in more detail later, but at the Phipps St. connection there will be additional screening and sections of split rail fence to guide people to stay out of the private backyards of those homes. Mr. Mrva stated as part of the Design Review Board process they are trying to provide distinct neighborhood identities within the overall project, incorporating certain themes and colors of flowering trees, furnishings, lighting, fencing into each of the neighborhoods to be picked up at the individual entrances and pocket parks. He described the themes and colors to be used in the various neighborhoods and noted they used varieties of plantings originally introduced by the Mezitt family to carry on that legacy over the years. Mr. Mrva stated in addition they also discussed installing landscape berms along Legacy Farms North, and presented 3D model views for illustration purposes. Mr. Kistner referred to the breakdown with respect to evergreens and deciduous trees and noted he would rather see more leafy trees for better screening. Mr. Mrva noted they are using evergreens between the units to provide better year-round screening, while deciduous trees are more appropriate for use along streets and roadway edges. Mr. Kistner asked if the applicant is aware of his concern about deer with respect to the use of evergreens, and Mr. Mrva stated that is always somewhat of an issue. Mr. MacDowell noted the species selected here include Norway pine and white spruce which are far less susceptible. Mr. Paul referred to the slide showing the landscape berm along the road, and stated he is disappointed with the curb appeal. He noted it appears, unlike at Legacy Farms South, there are only a couple of feet between the curb and the sidewalk which will make it difficult to keep debris and other materials off the green areas. Mr. MacDowell stated the work is not finished yet and it looks narrower than it actually is although it varies quite a bit. He noted the sidewalks will have permeable pavement and the grass edges will be very susceptible until the finished surface is installed. He noted from their experience on the south side they want to make sure this is done as soon as possible, and in addition the construction 7 management plan will make sure that Pulte won't use Legacy Farms North for construction vehicles more than absolutely needed. Mr. Paul stated he is not confident they will be able to keep salt and sand off the sidewalks, and it appears the low impact approach will make things worse. He noted perhaps he could explain his concerns to Mr. MacDowell on site, and Mr. MacDowell noted he is willing to give anybody a tour of the road. Mr. Paul stated he is basically more concerned about road safety and looks, and Mr. Kistner noted those are also his major issues. Mr. Mrva presented the architectural designs and product types to be used in the development. He noted Pulte offers several types of homes to be selected and customized at the request of the buyers in any number of ways. He noted there are 7 types of simplexes as well as simple attached duplex units, resulting in sub-neighborhoods with either all simplexes or duplexes, grouped together but not mixed up, trying to create streets unique in themselves but also consistent as to product type. Mr. Kistner referred to the handout, and asked how Pulte intends to make sure they don't end up with two lookalike units side by side or across from each other, and Mr. Mrva stated that will happen through the sales process. Mr. Mrva noted the trail exhibit has been brought up to date and the plan is consistent with the Master Plan Special Permit. He stated the revised plan shows the various connection points, and as a result of previous discussions with the Board there are now 3 simple gravel lots with a total of 20 spaces for public access to multiple acres of trails, 6 spaces each in two locations on Legacy Farms North, and another 8 spaces that can be accessed off Wilson St. Mr. Weismantel asked Mr. MacDowell about integrating this with the planned installation of gas lights in connection with the LNG facility, and Mr. MacDowell stated he thinks it will be a pathway of lights coming off of Wilson St. Mr. Mrva referred to the roadway network which provides 6 individual entries off Legacy Farms North, in accordance with the Master Plan Special Permit. He noted they now have cul-de-sacs at the ends of all streets, decided to tie in one of the dead-end streets to the future 180 age-restricted development, and provided a hammerhead layout with grass pavers to allow for a turnaround at the end of Phipps St. Mr. Karp referred to a concern brought up at the previous hearing regarding the ability of some of the intersections to handle the amount of traffic coming from the neighborhoods at normal peak hours, especially in case of some type of blockage. Mr. Mrva stated this comment was recognized before, and they asked the traffic engineer who worked on the original Master Plan Special Permit to weigh in on the matter and he believes the re-submittal includes a memo. Mr. Karp stated he has seen the memo but has additional questions, and Mr. Weismantel noted it will be an action item for the next meeting. Mr. D'Urso moved to continue the hearing to June 13, 2016 at 8:00 P.M., Mr. Wade seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. The Board scheduled a site visit of Legacy Farms North on June 4, 2016, meeting at the corner of Frankland Rd. and Legacy Farms North at 9:00 A.M. 4. Legacy Farms Amended Master Plan Special Permit Application - Legacy Farms, LLC – Request for Withdrawal without Prejudice Mr. Weismantel stated Mr. MacDowell has decided to withdraw the application without prejudice and is requesting a waiver of the administrative filing fees. Mr. Karp moved to allow the applicant 8 to withdraw the application with prejudice and waive the administrative fees upon re-submittal. Mr. Wade seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 4. Davenport/Hayden Woods (Hayden Rowe) Victor Galvani, Parsons Commercial Group/Boston, representing Crosswinds Hopkinton, LLC, developer, and Steve Coswell, landscape architect, appeared before the Board. Mr. Weismantel stated the applicant would like to make changes to the landscape plans, and it was noted the Design Review Board reviewed the modifications and is in agreement. Mr. Weismantel noted the proponents presented the proposed changes informally before going to the Design Review Board, and it was felt this could be handled as an administrative change. Mr. Coswell stated he was hired to take another look at the original landscape plan which ended up focusing on foundation plantings but being light on streetscape. He noted they decided to reduce plantings around the buildings which have limited front exposure, and install more plantings into the community in general. Mr. Coswell described the changes to the landscape plan and noted he modified a section of sidewalk by meandering it somewhat and introduced birches on the inside for a more pleasant appearance. He noted each dwelling unit gets a flowering tree adjacent to the porch and there will be more street trees then previously proposed. He noted he also reduced the number of evergreens around the detention basin, making sure the view from the ballfield is screened, and installed bushes so that the chain-link fence is not visible from the road. Mr. Kistner asked about the ratio of deciduous trees vs. evergreens and Mr. Coswell stated it is probably 2 to 1 or something like that but the entire site is fully enclosed by woods. Mr. Paul asked about the developer's plans to separate driveways and Mr. Coswell noted they talked about various options, including a lattice screen, fence panels attached to the building, upright grasses, and natural stone, but at this point they will probably just pave the area although they would prefer a little softer look. Mr. Karp moved to approve the proposed modifications to the landscape plan as an administrative change, Mr. D'Urso seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Weismantel stated he believes the developer is working on the entrance wall sign, and Mr. Galvani noted the changes will be made in June, although he is not sure how it will be done. 5. 42 Main St. – Proposed Modification to Approved Site Plan Ed Tarca, Tarca Construction, contractor, appeared before the Board. Mr. Tarca stated they decided to make changes because the current design would not be suitable for a terrace, and a few potential tenants talked about adding walls to make it more unique to a restaurant instead of keeping it all open. He detailed the proposed changes to the layout which had a greenery bed around the sign, a corner knee wall and a retaining wall on the west. He noted they now propose to extend the retaining wall out to the western property line, install the same signage on top, and have a 7 in. grade change with two steps from the front door to the street. He noted this will not be handicapped accessible, but the handicapped access on Walcott St. will remain unchanged. Mr. Weismantel noted this appears to be a relatively minor change, and Ms. Burke stated the Design Review Board preferred this layout. Mr. Karp moved to approve the change on an administrative basis as presented, Mr. Wade seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Tarca stated the changes will be made within a month. 6. Peer Review Proposals The Board discussed the status of the review of engineering consultant bids received. It was noted that Mr. Weismantel, Mr. Ferrari, as well as Mr. Burke and Ms. Lazarus are supposed to be going through the materials. Mr. Weismantel noted there are 10 proposals, including one received from 9 BETA, the Board's current consultant, and Stantec (formerly known as FST, the previous consultant), and they will try to narrow it down to 2 or 3 for further interview. 6. Other Business  Liaisons Reports and Board Member Comments - Mr. Weismantel encouraged members to submit any ideas for agenda items, such future planning issues.  Design Review Board Vacancy - Mr. Weismantel noted they need to post the vacancy on the Design Review Board due to Ms. Wright's departure from the Board and election to the Board of Selectmen. He asked if anyone on the Board is interested in serving, and described the purpose of the group which looks at design elements a lot harder, makes recommendations and has the ability to encourage applicants to make changes. It was noted the Design Review Board meets every 3rd Tuesday of the month.  Master Plan Update - It was noted the Economic Development section assigned to Mr. DeYoung and Mr. D'Urso is still outstanding, and Mr. DeYoung is absent tonight. Mr. Weismantel noted once that section is completed, the Board will still have to go through everything and make sure each of the sections is consistent with the others, after which Ms. Burke and Ms. Lazarus will put all comments together and send the document to other boards/committees for review, and eventually hopefully by early fall there will be a public forum. Mr. Kistner asked if new members can provide input at this point, and Ms. Burke asked him to send her his comments.  Mr. Weismantel stated it is also time again for the Board to set its yearly goals. The Board discusses the level of activity and the possibility of having to schedule special meetings to finish the Pulte applications, but it was noted that it should be done carefull y to avoid problems encountered on the south side. Mr. Paul asked whose suggestion it was to focus on low impact development, and Mr. Weismantel stated he too has some concerns and it took him a while to get comfortable with the idea. Ms. Burke noted this is now a nationwide approach to development. Adjourned: 10:00 PM Submitted by: Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant Approved: July 25, 2016 Documents used at the Meeting:  Agenda for May 23, 2016 Planning Board meeting  Memorandum to Planning Board from Jennifer Burke, Principal Planner, dated May 19, 2016, re: Items on May 23, 2016 Planning Board Agenda  Plans entitled “Hayden Rowe Solar Farm” 201 Hayden Rowe Street Hopkinton MA, dated Feb. 8, 2016, prepared by J.D. Marquedant & Associates Inc.  Letter to Town of Hopkinton Planning Board, Department of Land Use and Town Operations, from Andrew W. Ogilvie, BETA Group Inc., dated May 17, 2016, re Application for a Special Permit for Hayden Rowe Solect Energy in Hopkinton, MA  Photos of Solect Energy Solar Farm Facility – Holliston, MA  Email to Jennifer Burke from David Carrier, dated May 18, 2016, re: Solar Facility 201 Hayden Rowe St  Public Hearing Outline – Northeast, Northwest & North Club Villages, Legacy Farms (Pulte Homes of New England & Legacy Farms, LLC) – Site Plan Review & Amendment to MPSP Buildable Area, 5/23/16  Application for Legacy Farms Northeast, Northwest & North Club Villages dated April 29, 2016 with supporting documentation revised through May 19, 2016 10  Letter to Ken Weismantel, Chairman, Planning Board, from Jeffery Doherty, dated May 19, 2016, re: Site Plan Review – Legacy Farms North Villages  (Draft) Letter to Ms. Elaine Lazarus, Director of land Use and Town Operations, from Andrew W. Ogilvie and Scott T. Ridder, BETA Group Inc., dated May 10, 2016, re: Legacy Farms North Peer Review  Plan (Section) for 42 Main St./Central Place, prepared by J.D. Marquedant & Associates, marked up for proposed modifications to front entry  Email to Jennifer Burke from Todd MacDowell, dated May 12, 2016 – re: MPSP Age Restricted – Request for Withdrawal of Legacy Farms’ Master Plan Special Permit Amendment without Prejudice  Planting Plan for Davenport Village, dated May 2016, prepared by Steven G. Cosmos, Registered Landscape Architect  Draft Letter from Ken Weismantel to Claire Wright, dated May 23, 2016