HomeMy Public PortalAbout20160815 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes
1
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
Monday, August 15, 2016 7:00 P.M.
Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton, MA
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kenneth Weismantel, Chairman, Brian Karp, Vice Chairman, David
Paul, Vincent Cerulle, John Ferrari, Fran DeYoung, Matthew Wade, Cliff Kistner
MEMBERS ABSENT: Frank D’Urso
Present: Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use & Town Operations; Jennifer Burke, Principal
Planner; Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
Mr. Weismantel opened the meeting, thanked HCAM for recording, and summarized the
Agenda.
1. Peer Review Consultant Interviews
CDR Maguire (CDR) - Steven Landry, Principal in Charge, James Coogan, traffic engineer, and
Robert Sims, project manager, water resources, appeared before the Board. Mr. Landry handed
out additional information and stated CDR has local offices in Massachusetts and Rhode Island,
works mostly for municipalities, and conducts peer review services for several area towns.
Mr. Weismantel asked the applicant to describe a typical peer review process. Mr. Landry noted
every town has its own protocol, but typically CDR will receive the proposal, do a first pass,
prepare a fee estimate, draft/execute a contract, and start the review. Mr. Sims noted additional
disciplines may be assigned depending on the complexity of the project, and, upon completion of
the review, a report will be prepared in a format acceptable to the Board. Mr. Landry noted in
some cases it is a good idea to communicate with the applicant ahead of time, and Mr.
Weismantel stated the Board encourages that approach. Mr. Sims asked if CDR will be expected
to attend the meetings, and Mr. Weismantel stated yes, most of the time.
Mr. Wade arrived at this time.
Mr. Karp asked about turnaround time, and Mr. Sims noted it depends on the project but review
of an average subdivision application would normally take 2 to 3 weeks. Mr. Weismantel stated
that seems typical for the initial submission. He noted the Board's deadline for supplemental
documentation for follow-up meetings is on Tuesday prior to a Monday meeting, and Mr. Sims
noted that sounds reasonable. Mr. Weismantel asked which disciplines are done in house, and
Mr. Landry stated CDR has its own traffic expert, in-house landscape capability for small
projects, but lighting plan reviews have to be subcontracted. Mr. Weismantel asked about the
percentage of municipal vs. private clients, and Mr. Landry noted 95% is public and there is very
little chance of a conflict of interest, and it was noted that only a small percentage of the
workload involves peer review. Mr. Kistner asked if peer reviews could be given priority, and
Mr. Landry stated timing is critical but peer review is handled differently and CDR would have
no problem fitting it into their schedule. Mr. Kistner asked if a CDR presentation, on traffic for
instance, would be easy to understand for the general public, and Mr. Sims stated he has been
2
told he is good at explaining and keeping things simple. Ms. Lazarus asked if there have been
any changes in personnel since the bid was submitted and whether CDR typically provides an
initial cost estimate. Mr. Landry noted their fees are based on the type of personnel expected to
be involved in the review. Ms. Lazarus asked if input from different disciplines will be
synthesized, and Mr. Landry stated they typically divide the comments by subject and combine
them into one single report as shown in the sample provided with the bid proposal. In response
to a question of Mr. Cerulle, Mr. Sims noted he would attend the meetings and bring others as
needed. Mr. Weismantel asked if CDR had a chance to review the Town's bylaws and whether
they had any comments. Mr. Sims responded yes, and noted he was particularly surprised by the
Town's lighting bylaw because planning boards are not always concerned about that type of
thing. Mr. Landry commented on the Legacy Farms development, and Mr. Weismantel noted
the Town is on track to have a 28% increase in population over the last decade. Mr. Kistner
asked for clarification on hourly rates and CDR's budgeting process with respect to the overall
project. Mr. Coogan noted the process can be unpredictable, but they have done this often
enough to be able to estimate closely. Mr. Kistner asked how the candidates view Hopkinton
compared to the rest of their clients, and Mr. Sims stated CDR would very much like to have the
Town as a client.
BETA Group Inc. – Merrick Turner, Project Manager, Phil Paradis, Associate, and Scott
Ridder , Landscape Architect, appeared before the Board, and Mr. Turner distributed
additional information. Mr. Turner noted BETA has been the Town's consultant for the last
couple of years, and he has been the contact person taking over for Mr. Paradis when he left
the company. He explained Mr. Paradis recently decided to return to BETA which was
good timing because the current principal reviewer is moving out of state. Mr. Turner noted
BETA offers a variety of engineering , inspection, and consulting services and has done a lot
of peer review for town s and state agencies . He noted BETA’s primary disciplines are civil
engineering, landscape architecture, and roadway construction and they rarely have to go
out of the firm with the expertise right there. He noted he would cont inue being the project
manager, Mr. Paradis will play a major role on the civil engineering side , Scott Ridder will
be in charge of landscape architecture, Matt Crowley and Mike Wasi elewski will handle
stormwater and traffic review respectively. Mr. Turner stated BETA does not work with
developer s so there is no problem with potential conflicts of in terest. He noted so far they
have reviewed more than 30 projects for Hopkinton and as far as he knows there have been
no issues. He noted they try to identify key issues based on the Town’s regulations before
submitting an estimated fee and scope of work. Mr. Turner noted he feels they have b een
able to stay on schedule and budget for the most part, and have been forth coming with
justification when not.
Ms. Lazarus asked about turnaround time and timeliness of the report. Mr. Paradis noted he
believes they have a good framework with the ability to submit a proposed work plan and
cost estimate within 3 days , the first review within a couple of weeks unless it concerns a
very large project, and like to get back to the Board on subsequent resubmissions and
supplemental documentation within a week or so. Ms. Lazarus stated she believes l ighting
is subcontracted, and review of landscapi ng and traffic is done in house, and Mr. Paradis
states that is the case. S he asked if all BETA’s clients are in the public sector, and Mr.
Turner noted they don’t work with developers but do a little private work with universities.
3
Ms. Lazarus referred to the fee schedule in the bid proposal, and asked if Mr. Paradis ’
services will be charged at the same rate as Mr. Ogilvie, and Mr. Turner noted it will be in
the same category but he is sure this can be worked out . He noted he would be comfortable
with Mr. Paradis taking the lead with the application s and attend the meetings, and Mr.
Paradis noted he would coordinate with others to take advantage of in house expertise. Mr.
Turner noted rates translate into overall cost which is essentially related to the quality of the
application. In response to a question, it was noted BETA has local offices in Norwood as
well as Lincoln , R.I. In response to questions of the Board, Mr. Turner stated he currently
manages 1 or 2 primary projects at one time but that cou ld change to 3 to 4 at any time. Mr.
DeYoung asked how BETA would rate itself, and Mr. Turner noted he can only speak for
the last year or so, but feels they have done a good job on a variety of projects, big and
small, although no one is perfect.
BSC Group (BSC) – Dominic Rinaldi and Samuel Offei -Addo, senior project mana gers,
appeared before the Board, and submitted additional documentation to the Board. Mr.
Rinaldi noted he would be the day-to-day contact, and Mr. Offei -Addo is the traffic
transpor ation engineer. He noted they use a multi -discipline approach with in -house
expertise for planning, surveying, structural engineering, and environmental
(wetlands/ecological) aspects, and do some peer review on an ongoing basis for Foxborou gh
and Amesbury. He noted peer review is a collaborative effort, but ultimately the decisions
are up to the Board. He noted they have found that early interaction with an applicant and
the design team can be very effect ive, and their approach i s based on the applicant’s mind-
set and the complexity of the application . He noted BSC has worked on a variety of
projects from big resident ial to small commercial, and sometimes just stormwater review or
compliance with subdivision rules and regulations. Ms. Laz arus asked the candidate to
describe a typical peer review process. Mr. Rinaldi noted they would receive the proposal,
perhaps after having met with the applicant and Town staff beforehand to provide
opportunities to make changes before determining the sc ope of work. He stated regardless
he and Mr. Offei -Addo would perform a thorough review in terms of civil engineering and
traffic, and find appropriate people for other aspects as n eeded, and then prepare a report
initially touching on big ticket items. Mr. Rinaldi asked if he would be expected to attend
the meetings, and Mr. Weismantel stated generally yes. Mr. Offei-Addo stated their review
typically will start off with a site visit. Ms. Lazarus asked about reporting turnaround time,
and Mr. Weismantel offered some development examples to work with. Mr. Rinaldi noted a
10-lot subdivision on a dead -end street or a site plan for a small commercial building would
take about a week, but a significant proposal , such as a new school on 13 a cres with
wetlands issues would take a few weeks for initial review , and then they will have to wo rk
meeting attendance into everyone’s schedule. Ms. Lazarus noted the Board has submittal
deadlines , and Mr. Offei -Addo noted that may sometimes require assi gning additional
people to the project.
Ms. Lazarus asked if lighting is reviewed in house, and Mr. Rinaldi noted he is an
“armchair” lighting person, but they have landscape architects who can work on that asp ect.
Ms. Lazarus about the percenta ge of public vs. private sector clients, and Mr. Rinaldi noted
30% of their workload is public entities accounting for 50% of their revenue. Ms . Lazarus
asked if BSC has worked in Hopkinton before, and it was noted perhaps years ago for EMC
4
Corporation and prob ably some survey work. Ms. Lazarus asked if the fee schedule has
changed since the bid submittal, and Mr. Rinaldi stated no. Mr. Karp asked how much of
the work for the public sector is peer review , and Mr. Rinaldi stated it is about 50% but not
necessar ily that much in terms of revenue. The Board thanked the candidates for coming in.
Board Discussion
The Board discussed the qualifications of the 3 candidates and ranked them in order of
preference.
Mr. Cerulle noted an important question is whether the consultants consider themselves a
partner in the process, and he feels CDR would be the best in that respect. He noted he
realizes the Board would rather not change consultants and BETA will have a new person in
charge who has worked with the Board before , but neither company has in -house lighting
experts and he would prefer switching to CDR. He ranked the companies CDR #1, BETA
#2, and BSC #3.
Mr. Kistner noted BETA follows the project from beginning to end and encourages pre-
submittal meetings which saves a lot of time. He noted CDR will do a good j ob, but
questioned if they are committed to keeping the budget down . He ranked the candidates a s
BETA #1, CDR #2 and BSC #3.
Mr. DeYoung asked about references, and Ms. Lazarus stated she can make some calls but
typically it has limited va l ue. Mr. DeYoung ranked the candidates as CDR #1, BETA #2
and BCS #3.
Mr. Wade noted he was impressed with CDR, but there have been no issues with BETA and
he was pleased to see that Mr. Paradis has returned to the com pany. He noted his order of
preference is BETA #1, CDR #2 and B SC #3.
Mr. Ferrari stated BSC has a mix of private/public clients and although 50% of the public
workload is peer review it apparently is not a money maker for them and that worries him.
He noted there have been no issues with BETA, and he liked CDR’s project manager but
felt their presentation was not specifically prep ared for the Town of Hopkinton. He noted
he would rank BETA #1, CDR #2, and BSC #3.
Mr. Paul listed BETA #1, CDR #2 and BSC as #3.
Mr. Karp ranked the candidates as BETA #1, CDR #2 and BSC #3. He stated he was
impressed with CDR but was not sold on the small percentage of peer review as p art of their
overall workload, and he was pleased to see Mr. Paradis back at BETA. He stated BETA is
expensive, however as noted in their presentation, it will depend on the quality of the
application.
Ms. Burke noted she would rate BETA and CDR about the same, but sees no reason to
change, and was disappointed in BSC. Ms. Lazarus agreed and stated she likes BETA’s
pragmatic approach, although it appears CDR knows what they are doing. The Board asked
5
for Ms. Wal lace’s opinion, and Ms. Wallace noted she too would rank the applicants as
BETA first, followed by CDR and BSC.
Mr. Weismantel stated based on the interviews and comments of the Board he agrees it
would be better if they don’t have to change, although h e is not 100% sure about BETA’s
fee proposal. Ms. Burke noted it was part of the submittal and their rates have gone up but
not by a lot. Mr. Weismantel noted it appears BETA is the preferred choice of the majority
of the Board. Ms. Lazarus noted there is no reason to check references in this case, and she
will ask the Town Manager to sign the contract. Mr. Weismantel suggested first discussin g
the fee schedule with BETA to try and narrow the range. Mr. Paul moved to authorize Ms.
Lazarus to negotiate the terms of a new contract with BETA Group for 2 years with the
option to extend for another year, Mr. Karp seconded the motion, and the Board voted
unanimously in favor of the motion.
Ms. Lazarus left at this time.
2. Other Business
Parking on Sidewalks – Mr. Ferrari noted he was surprised to see a situation in his
neighborhood with a small truck parked blocking the sidewalk. He investigated the issue and
was told by the Police Department there is no prohibition on that in the Town of Hopkinton,
which seems to fly in the face of the initiative to extend the sidewalk network but allowing
people to be potentially forced to walk as much as 7 ft. into the street. He noted this would
not be something covered by the zoning bylaw, but perhaps a town bylaw can be initiated to
address this issue. Mr. Paul asked about the process, and it was noted this could be handled
as a town meeting article to be taken on as a board and by a petition signed by 10 citizens or
more. Mr. Weismantel stated they can look at bylaws in other towns, and Mr. Ferrari stated
he has no problem doing that. The Board discussed the process for parking violations in
Town, and Ms. Burke noted the Board of Selectmen are in charge but can give the job to
someone else. A discussion followed regarding crossing guards, and it was noted that they
can only direct traffic and not issue tickets. Mr. Paul suggested also looking into parking on
bike lanes, and Mr. Weismantel stated they can look into that as well. Mr. Ferrari noted he
will do further research and come back with something for review in a couple of meetings.
Draft Letter to Board of Selectmen re Wilson St. LNG Safety Issue - Mr. Weismantel
referred to the draft letter distributed to the Board in the meeting packet. He stated the
language is fine, but suggested referencing the LNG mitigation map. Mr. Karp stated he may
already have suggested this in an email and perhaps the Board is not in a position to make
this suggestion, but he thinks Roy MacDowell has found someone who will put up the gas
lights, and perhaps they can suggest to the Selectmen to not only consider extending this
mitigation to other parts of the Town but also get in touch with Mr. MacDowell to do this
sooner rather than later to save money. Mr. Weismantel noted they could add something like
that but it really depends on where the additional lights would be installed. Mr. MacDowell,
Legacy Farms, LLC, noted he would not mind working closely with the Town in this respect.
Further discussion followed, and the Board decided to limit the changes to the letter by
referencing the mitigation map. Mr. Karp moved to send the letter as modified tonight, Mr.
Kistner seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
6
Mr. Kistner, Mr. Ferrari and Mr. Cerulle left the room for a couple of minutes.
203 Pond St. Subdivision/Foxhollow Lane – Ms. Burke stated the Board on June 13, 2016,
voted to release the lots in the 203 Pond St. Subdivision pending receipt of the performance
guarantee and the Form K release form for signature by the Board. She noted the developer
submitted a performance guarantee in the form of a tripartite agreement, and the Form K is
ready for signature. Ms. Burke noted there is no need for an additional vote, and the Board
signed the documents.
3. Administrative Business /Minutes
The Board reviewed the draft Minutes of June 13, 2016. Mr. Wade moved to approve the
Minutes of June 13, 2016 as written, Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion, and the Board
voted unanimously in favor.
Mr. Kistner and Mr. Ferrari returned to the meeting at this time.
The Board reviewed the draft Minutes of June 27, 2016. Mr. Ferrari moved to approve the
Minutes of June 26, 2016 as written, Mr. Kistner seconded the motion, and the Board voted
unanimously in favor.
It was noted Mr. D’Urso at the last meeting indicated he was fine with both sets of minutes.
4. Other B usiness – LED Streets Conversion Plan
Mr. Weismantel noted the Board will get a request from Claire Wright, member, Board of Selectmen, to
take a look at and gather input regarding LED sample lights installed at a couple of locations, such as
Cedar St./Main St., Chamberlain St./Sanctuary Ln. and near the Center School. Ms. Burke noted this was
on her lists of things to do in preparation for a scheduled discussion with the Town Engineer and the
Sustainable Green Committee at the August 22, 2016 Planning Board meeting.
Mr. Cerulle returned to the meeting at this time.
The Board reviewed the schedule for the August 22, 2016 Planning Board meeting and
agreed it would be best to start at 7:00 P.M. It was noted the meeting will be at the Middle
School Library again.
5. Continued Public Hearing – Northeast, Northwest and North Club Villages at
Legacy Farms – Application for OSMUD Site Plan Review – Pulte Homes of New
England, LLC/Legacy Farms, LLC
Mark Mas troianni, Pulte Homes of New England, LLC, and Roy MacDowell, Legacy
Farms, LLC, applicants, and John Kusich and Matt Mrva, Bohler Engineering, engineer and
landscape architect, appeare d before the Board. Merrick Turner and Scott Ridder of BETA
Group were also in attendance. Mr. Weismantel opened the hearing and referred to the
public hearing outline prepared for this application. Mr. Mastroianni stated they have
submitted a new revised and updated Construction Management Plan (CMP ) incorporating
the changes made at the last meeting. Mr. Weismantel stated the amount of land allowed to
be disturb ed/open at any one time has now been changed from the mid 50’s to 42 although
he thought there would also be some language changes in that respect. It was determined
7
that 42 acres is acceptable to the members, and Mr. Weismantel noted he will consider this
item closed.
Mr. Weismantel asked if the Traffic Analysis and Future Studies item is ready to be checked
off, and Ms. Burke stated she was not sure if there was something else that needed to be
done. Mr. Weismantel noted he believes they basically fo und the traffic study to be
consistent with the Master Plan Special Permi t (MPSP). Mr. Mastroianni stated he
remembers there were discussions regarding the adequacy of the intersection s of some of
the village driveways with Legacy Farms North. He noted they went back and tal ked to
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB), the engineers originally involved with the desig n of the
north road, and t hey wrote a memo to confirm ing that in their opinion these intersections are
adequate and appropriate. Mr. Weismantel stated also at issue was the idea of future
studies, because when the MPSP w as written, the Board envisioned having “another bit e of
the apple” with eac h additional site plan, but the current information does not seem to be out
of bounds. Mr. MacDowell noted V HB also studied the impact of the change from 200,000
sf of commercial space up in the north quadrant to180 residential age-restricted units and
determined that this will greatly reduce future traffic counts.
Mr. Weismantel noted the Board at one point talked about stop signs at the Legacy Farms
North/Wilson St. intersectio n. Mr. MacDowell stated they just started installing all new
street signs, stop signs, and pavement markings in that area, and that process should be
complete in a couple of days. Mr. Weismantel noted he believes there should be fog lines
on Rafferty Rd., and Mr. MacDowell stated he did not think the plan asked for that. The
Board discussed the issue, and some of the members remembered it was a condition of
approval. Mr. Weismantel asked Ms. Wallace to check the M inutes and verify what exactly
was decided in this respect. Mr. Karp asked for an update on the issue of stop signs at the
Legacy Farms North/Wilson St. intersection. Mr. MacDowell noted the neighbors in the
Kruger Rd. area were concerned about traffic taking a right onto Wilson St. into their
neighborhood, and the assessment of the Board, now quite a few years ago , was to have the
stop signs at the Legacy Farms North side with the possibility of switching to Wilson St.
because it was the intent to see Legacy Farms North as a main connector roa d from East
Main St. to Rt. 85. He noted this is still undetermined, and another issue was the possibility
to install a "no right turn " sign onto Wilson St. if it appears there is too much traffic going
in that direction . Mr. Weismantel noted he sees no reason for a "no right turn" sign in that
location, and people should have no trouble finding their way around with today's
technology. He stated it sounds as if Legacy Farms North is just about ready for a ribbon
cutting, and Mr. MacDowell stated not quite yet. Mr. Paul asked if t here is a scheduled
maintenance schedule for mowing the green strip, and Mr. MacDowell noted yes starting in
the fall . Mr. Karp asked about the timing of the name change from Rafferty Rd. to Lega cy
Farms North , and Mr. MacDowell noted as per the vote of the Selectmen it will be changed
when the road is open and they have the signs ready to go. Mr. Weismantel referred to
status of Community Impact and M itigation, and noted he believes Mr. MacDowel l is pretty
much up to speed as far as the MPSP and the Host Community Agreement are concerned
although he thinks Legacy Farms asked for an extension of a coupl e of payments based on
the road being ready a little later than expected. He noted it appears the other item is the
remaining section of sidewalk along East Main St. Mr. MacDowell stated he is ready to go
8
to the Conservation Commission (ConCom) after h e walk ed this stretch of road with John
Westerling, DPW Director , who feels t hey should put the sidewalk on the inside of the fog
line, install a berm , and construct the sidewalk between the berm and the guardrail. He
noted that will keep them off Mr. Roger Mezitt’s land and save hundreds & hundreds of
trees. He noted as part of the project they will have to move back about 100 ft. of guardrail
starting at the athletic fields parcel. Mr. Weismantel noted that sounds like a good solution.
He asked if the athletic parcel has been conveyed to the Town yet, and Mr. MacDowell
stated they will be able to take care of that shortly as soon as the deed is drafted, and this
applies to both municipal parcels.
Mr. Weismantel asked the applicant to go over the individual villages. Mr. Mrva stated
much of this has been covered already, perhaps not on a village per village basis but from an
overall cohesive land pl an perspective. Mr. Mastroianni noted Pulte reviewed the villages
one by one with the Design Review Board (DRB) over numerous meetings , and they
ultimately ended up getting a letter from them more or less signing off based on the latest
design. Mr. Weismantel asked if all issues have been addressed from BETA’s perspective,
and Mr. Turner noted they basically have to write a final letter closing out the project. Mr.
Mrva described the layout of the villages consisting of a total of 425 units spread out over 3
neighborhood s. He noted there will be 219 units in the Northeast village, 103 in the North
Club and 103 in the Northwest village. He noted there will be 201 simplex single family
detached units and 224 attached duplexes spr ead throughout each of the villages clustered in
groups of the same. He noted all villages are accessed by 2 to 4 entry roads off of Legacy
Farms North. Mr. Mrva noted they s pent time with DRB and the Planning Board to come
up with distinct neighborhood identities , which has no beari ng on road names or unit count
and just creates different enclaves with distin ct character through plant ings, lighting, and
fencing types. He noted there will be a variety of building designs and floor plans f or
people to pick from, and they have taken an aggressive approach to screen Legacy Farms
North to and from the homes along the roadways. He noted th ey pulled the develop ment
away compared to the initial MPSP, and will install berm s and significant vegetation to
augment street trees already proposed along the main road particularly near the entrance at
Frankland Rd. Mr. Mrva noted there will also be significant buffering and screening
between the rows of homes within the villages. He described the stormwater design within
the villages, and noted the ConCom has now fully signed off. The noted from an overall
road design standpoint, they talked about ha mmerheads vs. cul-de-sacs, and the plan now
strictly has cul -de-sacs , changing one of them to a through road, and at the suggestion of
BETA eliminated some straight sections of road. He noted as discussed previously the
lighting approach is distinct for each of the neighborhoods and is primarily provided at
intersections and pocket parks for way finding purposes. He noted the same approach was
taken with respect to signage. Mr. Mrva noted with respect to resident amenit ies obviously
one of the biggest o nes is the trail network associated with the open space within the North
villages and the overall Leg acy Farms open space, and he believes they have a consensus
that the network meets th e intent of the MPSP.
Mr. Weismantel asked about the number of sewe r pump stations and whether they will be
fenced, and it was determined there are 2, one in the Northeast village, the other in the
Northwest and they will be fenced and landscaped. Mr. Paul asked about street signs, and
9
Mr. Mrva noted they will make sure they meet standards. It was noted they will be
reflective and are typically located next to a street light. Mr. Weismantel asked if there is a
bedroom count summary, and Mr. Kusich noted this was included in the application
material. Mr. MacDowell noted the MPSP specifies 1,943 bedrooms and with this proposal
that's exactly where they are at. At the request of Mr. DeYoung, Mr. Mrva provided
additional information regarding the overall stormwater design.
Mr. Cerulle asked for additional details on the proposed street lighting plan, and Mr. Mrva
noted they will have pedestrian oriented lights on 12 ft. poles, not meant to light up the
entire roadway length, but just at intersections and at the end of the cul-de-sacs. In response
to a question of Mr. Kistner, Mr. Mrva noted there won't be a need for lights at the end of
the driveways, because homes are only 25 ft. away from the road , and the light over the
garage will be sufficient. Mr. Karp asked if lights will be LED, and Mr. Mrva noted they
talked about that with the DRB and decided on a warmer color LED fixture.
Mr. Kistner referred to last week's discussion regarding sidewalks, and Mr. Paul noted the
plan won't be changed to include curbing and he accepts the decision even though he does
not agree. Mr. Weismantel asked for public comments. Andy Lindeman, 21 Phipps St.,
noted they have come to an agreement with Pulte Homes, and appreciate their willingness to
work met with them regarding their concer ns. Mr. Weismantel noted the agreement will be
called out in the site plan decision. Ms. Burke suggested making sure BETA is all set, and
Mr. Turner stated they are . It was noted there will be no additional changes to the plan, and
Mr. Weismantel asked if there are any outstanding action items. Mr. Kistner referred to the
discussion from the elementary school hearing regarding maintenance and stormwater
calculation issues with respect to p orous sidewalks and it was noted the villages will have
normal pa vement. Mr. Weismantel noted there will be porous pavement on the Legacy
Farms North sidewalks, and it was determined that VHB took credit for that in their
calculations. He noted maintenance eventually will be the Town's responsibility, and Mr.
MacDowel l noted it would require annual vacuuming, usually in April or May. Mr. Kistner
noted it appears that eventually in spite of regular maintenance the porous surface will stop
working and will have to be replaced. Mr. Turner stated life expectancy is proba bly 10 to
20 years, but he believes there still is capacity for re -infiltration towards the end. Mr.
Weismantel referred to the draft decision with conditions of approval. He noted the draft is
a collaborated effort of several people with additional chan ges made since the last meeting,
and asked if members have an y comments or recommendations. In response to questions of
Board members, a few items were clarified, and it was noted the application is ready for a
vote. The Board discussed their commitm ent to hold off until Mr. D'Urso can be here to
participate, and it was noted it appeared Mr. D'Urso had no burning issues but wanted to be
part of the process. Mr. Ferrari moved to find that the plan meets the criteria under the
bylaw and to approve the appl ication with the conditions in the draft condition revised as of
tonight. Mr. Kistner seconded the motion. Mr. Karp stated he sees no reason to hold up the
process although he understands Mr. D'Urso wants to be part of the decision, and Mr.
Cerulle noted they basically told him they would and the applicants were aware of this. Mr.
Weismantel asked if anyone is going to vote no otherwise, and it was noted it would not
make a difference. The Board voted 7 in favor of the motion, with Mr. DeYoung
abstainin g, to approve the plan with the following conditions:
10
1. MPSP Condition #13 requires that each application for Site Plan Review for a Development
Project shall indicate whether or not the Development Project is to be located in a Village
that will be subject to a Village Landowners’ Association (VLA). This Development Project
will contain individual Villages and will be subject to VLA documents. The Applicant
requested to postpone the submission of the VLA documents. The Applicant shall submit the
draft VLA documents to the Town for review and approval by Town Counsel upon the
issuance of the first building permit for a residential dwelling.
2. The Restricted Land restoration and landscaping work shown on the Site Plan shall be
completed for each Village prior to the issuance of the last Certificate of Occupancy for that
specific Village.
3. The Restricted Land shown on the Site Plan shall be subject to one of the Restricted Land
Covenants contained in Appendix B of the MPSP prior to the filing of the completion
certificate for the Development Project. The plan of Restricted Land in the Site Plan set
depicts the areas and the appropriate Restricted Land type.
4. In accordance with the intent of the Design Guidelines, the Applicant shall utilize a range of
unit sizes, orientations and floor plan layouts to create a variety of scale and a reduction in
repetition of identical dwelling units within the Development Project. Additional variety on
the exterior of the units shall be achieved with variations in rooflines, siding choices, window
types and locations and details. Specifically, the Applicant shall comply with commitments
made in the April 18, 2016 Architectural letter to the Design Review Board attached to this
Decision as Appendix B and with the following:
a) The Applicant shall utilize the types of homes located substantially as conceptually
shown on the architectural plans submitted with the application and as updated as last
submitted to the Board on April 18, 2016 attached to this Decision as Appendix C;
b) The Applicant shall incorporate a variety of exterior architectural design elements to
achieve varied home exteriors as viewed from Legacy Farms North and the neighborhood
drives. Examples of the types of architectural design elements are: (1) covered front
entry porches; (2) roof gable peaks and dormers; (3) bay window projections with own
roof; (4) window shutters and trim head caps; (5) two different garage door styles painted
to match the home; (6) varied complementary exterior color packages; (7) varied exterior
siding material such as horizontal lap style, shakes style, stone accents; and (8) jogging of
attached units to break up the front façade;
c) Stone material accents shall be used on at least 20% of the homes front elevations;
Landscaped strips shall be planted between the multifamily attached unit’s garages, using
a variety of plant sizes and materials as shown on the landscape plans;
d) No two detached dwelling units adjacent to, or directly opposing each other, shall be the
same house color and the same house style with the same front elevation. Multifamily
attached units may be the same unit style and color but shall not have the same front
elevations. No two multifamily attached buildings adjacent to, or directly opposing each
other, shall be the same house color and the same house style with the same front
elevation. Attached homes shall use horizontal and/or vertical jogs/offsets (where the
grading allows) in order to create additional visual interest;
e) Garage doors with windows shall be used on at least 20% of the units;
f) At least three different colored roof shingles will be utilized; each of the three colors shall
be used on at least 15% of the units;
11
g) Each of the 48 different simplex front elevations and the 53 different attached duplex
elevations will be used at least once.
5. Legacy Farms Road North Is constructed to binder course. The remaining road work shall be
bonded prior to the issuance of the first building permit.
6. The Rafferty Road /Cedar Street intersection work shall be completed prior to the issuance of
the first building permit.
7. The Design Guidelines notes that the site design shall encourage and accommodate
pedestrian, bicycle and other non-motorized travel by providing connectivity among varying
uses and Restricted Land within the OSMUD District and to open space areas outside the
District. The Design Guidelines further states that a network of trails and sidewalks shall
provide access to various points of interest and for general travel within and connecting to
outside the OSMUD District, utilizing existing trail networks where possible and desirable.
The Applicants submitted a conceptual trail network for consideration, which reflects the
minimum trail network that shall be provided. The Board notes that in order for the
conceptual plan to become reality, further refinement is needed in the location, type and
treatment of trails as the project develops, and changes may need to be made to respond to
site grading, natural features and locations that the trails should avoid or access. The
Applicants shall work with the Town, the Legacy Farms Landowners Association and other
Legacy Farms residential and/or commercial associations, if any, to complete and implement
the Legacy Farms trail system. The Open Space Preservation Commission shall represent the
interests of the Town in this effort. In the event that the Open Space Preservation
Commission is not able to act in this regard it shall so inform the Board, which may then
make alternate arrangements. The term “trail” shall refer to a network that will include the
facilities and uses as defined in the Design Guidelines. Timing of the completion of a
Village’s trails shall be coincident with the completion of the particular Village. Trail
“completion” shall include establishment of trails through appropriate delineation and
installation of the appropriate surface, permanent monuments, and creation of trailhead
kiosks and/or mounted maps.
8. The Applicants offered to provide gravel parking areas for trail access off Legacy Farms
North, which are shown on a plan entitled “Overall Trail Context Plan”, sheet 67 of the plan
set. The parking areas shall be constructed generally as shown on the plan and maintained by
the Landowner’s Association.
9. No building permit shall be issued for residential dwelling units within the Development
Project until the private way providing access to the dwelling unit has been graded and
graveled and is sufficient for life safety equipment to access the site, in the opinion of the
Fire Chief. No Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued until the private way providing
access to the dwelling unit has been paved with the binder course of pavement, and such
pavement extends to Legacy Farms North.
10. All exterior lighting within the Development Project, whether shown on the approved Site
Plan or required by the Massachusetts State Building Code, shall be shielded, directed
downward and not upward or outward, and shall not spill onto adjacent property.
11. All simplex and multifamily attached/duplex dwelling units within the Development Project
shall contain automatic fire suppression systems.
12. All fixed mechanical equipment on the Site shall be screened from view from the ground.
13. In accordance with Section 210-138 of the Zoning Bylaw, the Applicant shall provide a
performance guarantee in the amount of $100,000to the Town prior to the commencement of
12
construction pursuant to this Decision. The guarantee shall consist of a deposit of money or
negotiable securities in a form selected by the Planning Board to guarantee that any
unforeseen problems which arise, such as erosion and sedimentation, the correction of site
lighting problems, damage to street trees, damage to pavement, and damage to signs, are
addressed. The funds will be held by the Town and returned to the Applicants upon
completion of the project.
14. If construction has not commenced within three (3) years of the date of filing of the Site Plan
decision with the Town Clerk, approval shall be automatically rescinded, unless such time is
extended by the Board. For the purposes of this condition, the term “commenced” shall
mean the commencement of site work.
15. Development Project construction shall be completed no later than ten (10) years following
the commencement of site work. The Applicant shall be entitled to an extension of time to
complete the Development Project upon demonstration of reasonable need to the Planning
Board.
16. Erosion and sedimentation control measures shall be implemented during the construction
period, in accordance with the approved Site Plan and the Construction Management Plan. If
they are found to be inadequate, the Applicants shall immediately correct any deficiencies.
17. The Director of Municipal Inspections inspects projects under construction for compliance
with the approved Decision of Site Plan Review. This includes the driveway/roadway and
infrastructure construction shown on the Plan. If the Director of Municipal Inspections
determines at any time before or during construction that a registered professional engineer
or other such outside professional is required to assist with the inspections of the storm water
management system or any other component of the Site Plan, the Applicants shall be
responsible for the cost of those inspections.
18. The Applicants shall mitigate all construction related impacts, including erosion, siltation and
dust control in accordance with the provisions of the MPSP and the Construction
Management Plan.
19. The Applicants shall regularly remove construction trash and debris from the site in
accordance with good construction practice and the Construction Management Plan. No tree
stumps, demolition material, trash or debris shall be burned or buried on the site.
20. The Pulte Homes/Mezitt Family Agreement dated May 4, 2016 as attached to this decision in
Appendix E shall be implemented.
21. The Construction Management Plan shall be signed and submitted to the Planning Board
prior to the commencement of any site work.
22. The Planning shall receive a sign off confirming that the site contractor and any major
subcontractors have received the Construction Management Plan prior to the commencement
of any site work.
23. Construction may occur only between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM Monday through
Friday and Saturdays between 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM pursuant to Chapter 141 Article 1 of
the Town of Hopkinton General Bylaws.
24. The Applicant has identified a haul road for construction vehicles. No heavy equipment
construction vehicles shall use Legacy Farms Road North as a means of egress from one
Village to another.
25. If a conflict arises between the Conservation Commission Order of Conditions and this
Decision, the stricter approval will prevail.
13
26. The LNG mitigation proposal for gas lamps as outlined in a letter by IoMosaic dated June 6,
2016 and shown on the mitigation plan dated July 25, 2016 as attached to this Decision in
Appendix F shall be installed and operational prior to the issuance of the first occupancy
permit in the Development Project.
27. There shall be no development of any kind within the exclusion areas on the Mitigation plan
dated July 25, 2016 as attached as attached to this Decision in Appendix F.
28. The Legacy Farms Landowner’s Association shall maintain and operate the gas lamps in
perpetuity.
Mr. Ferrari moved to close the public hearing, the motion was seconded, and the Board voted
unanimously in favor. Mr. Weismantel asked Mr. MacDowell to stay on for a couple of minutes
and address the Board of Health letter dated March 22, 2016 with attachments. Mr. MacDowell
stated he has given them the as-built plans for the south side and all the vents have been
installed.
Ms. Burke left the meeting for a couple of minutes.
Mr. MacDowell referred to the Board of Health letter, and explained that exte nsive testing
of the north side in 2006 and 2008 showed there were 2 spots with slightly elevated levels
of d i eldrin. He noted this chemical was widely used years ago and now banned, therefore
under Mass DEP guidelines its presence has to be reported even at trace amounts. He noted
the threshold is 50 ppb, and it is not uncommon to see reports of much more than that , but
the results in question came back at 185. He noted they either have to bury the soil 3 ft.
down or remove it, and they will test the ar ea one more time although he thinks by now it
will be below reportable levels. He pointed out the areas in question on the map, and stated
the report w as prepared by Haley & Aldrich who they feel that because the pesticide was
applied in a farming environment it will probably be irrelevant at this point.
Ms. Burke returned to the meeting at this time.
Mr. MacDowell asked Mr. Mastroianni to take a minute to update the Board on information
regarding the marketability of age -restricted affordable units. Mr. Mastroianni noted he
provided some information to the Board about a month ago, and stated they just opened the
Pulte Homes age-restricted development in Holliston for sale and completed their first
lottery. He noted there are 66 units including 10% affordable, and they received 7 or 8
seemingly qualified applicants for the 3 available homes. He noted this is very promising
and there seems to be a demand.
Adjourned: 10:1 0 P.M.
Submitted by: Cobi Wallace , Permitting Assistant
Approved : October 11, 2016
Documents used at the Meeting :
Agenda for August 15, 2016 Hopkinton Planning Board Meeting
14
Memorandum to Planning Board from Jennifer Burke, Principal Planner, dated August 10, 2016 re: Items
on August 15, 2016 Planning Board A genda
Peer Review Consultant Bid Packages; Additional Material Submitted by Candidates; List of Questions
to be asked of Peer Review Candidates, prepared by Elaine Lazarus; Summary Sprea dsheet - Peer Review
Candidates
Draft Minutes of Ju ne 13, 2016 and June 27, 2016
Performance Secured by Lenders’ Agreement for 203 Pond Street Subdivision; Form K/Usual Form of
Release of Conditions of Planning Board Approval for Lots 2 through 12, Foxhollow Lane
Draft Letter from Kenneth Weismantel, Chairman, Hopkinton Planning Board to Brian Herr, Chairman, Board
of Selectmen, Town of Hopkinton, dated August 8, 2106, re: Public Safety Concerns – LNG Facility (Wilson
Street)
Forwarded Email – Dave Daltorio to Jennifer Burke, dated Aug. 10, 2016, Subject: LED Streetlight Project –
DRB and PB Meetings
Public Hearing Outline – Site Plan Review – Legacy Farms North Villages - Pulte Homes & Legacy Farms
Letter from Edward F. Wirtanen, Board of Heal t h, to Roy MacDowell, Legacy Farms, LLC, dated March
22, 2016, re: Board of Health 3/14/16 meeting – Annual Update on Legacy Farms
Plans entitled Site Development Plans for Pulte Homes, Northeast, Northwest and North Club Villages at
Legacy Farms, prepared by Bohler Engineering, dated November 6, 2015 revised through August 2, 2016, and
supporting documentation
Draft Decision dated August 15, 2016 re: Application of Pulte Homes of New England and Legacy Farms, LLC
for Open Space Use Development Overlay District Site Plan Review – 0 Wilson Street and 30 Phipps Street