HomeMy Public PortalAbout20161011 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes
1
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
Tuesday, October 11, 2016 7:30 P.M.
Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton, MA
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kenneth Weismantel, Chairman, David Paul, Vincent Cerulle, Frank
D’Urso, David Paul, John Ferrari, Fran DeYoung
MEMBERS ABSENT: Matthew Wade, Brian Karp
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 stated the Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC) has scheduled a
public forum on October 20, 2016 at 7:15 P.M. at Town Hall as an opportunity for citizens and
other boards/committees to propose zoning bylaw and/or map changes to be forwarded to the
Planning Board for consideration as potential articles for the next annual town meeting.
1. Master Plan Update
Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use and Town Operations, joined the meeting. Mr.
Weismantel noted the goal tonight is to vote to release the draft to other boards and committees
and set the public hearing for November 21.
Mr. Weismantel stated Ms. Lazarus modified the section on Water Quality, and he is ok with the
proposed rewording distributed to the Board tonight but suggested taking out a reference to
drinking water sources. Mr. Ferrari stated the Open Space Preservation Commission (OSPC)
looks at protection of water supplies as a major justification for land purchases, and he suggested
adding a sentence related to that in the open space section of the Master Plan. Mr. Paul
suggested adding pictures of municipal buildings and a few of the historic homes. Ms. Lazarus
asked Mr. Paul to let her know which specific buildings he has in mind. Mr. Kistner noted the
historic map on page 8 and the Special Places map on page 14 are very small and hard to read,
and Ms. Lazarus noted she has not done any maps yet but they usually go at the end of the
document. Mr. Paul noted he would also like see information on individual Town departments
in terms of budget and approximate number of employees which would show how the Town is
growing. Mr. Weismantel and Ms. Lazarus noted that is a good idea, and it was noted they can
use these numbers as a benchmark. Mr. Paul stated he would also like to include a section on
sidewalks, and Ms. Lazarus noted there is a one-page place holder for that towards the end of the
document. Mr. Kistner questioned the need for referencing the goal of keeping the affordable
housing percentage above 10% under Housing and Residential Development Goals twice, and
the Board decided to combine the two bullet items into one.
Mr. Kistner asked if anyone is familiar with the historic significance of Claflinville, and a few
members stated they are. He stated the woodsmen who cleared the land to build Hopkinton lived
in row houses on West Main St. in an area known as Claflinville, and this included several
generations of his own family. He noted his grandmother kept asking him about a granite stone
marker on their property dating back to the 1700’s, and he found the stone and offered it to the
2
Hopkinton Historical Society which has it on display on their property on Hayden Rowe. He
noted he would like the Town to recognize the historic significance of Claflinville perhaps by
way of erecting the stone in the West Main St./Rt. 495 area also known as the Four Corners and
still referred to as the gateway to Hopkinton. He read a draft paragraph in this respect to be
included in the Master Plan. In response to a question of Mr. Weismantel, Mr. Kistner stated the
stone was given to the Hopkinton Historical Society but they would love to give it back to be put
in an appropriate place. Mr. Cerulle asked if they should first talk to the Hopkinton Historical
Society to get clarification. Mr. Weismantel asked what would be an appropriate spot for
something like that in a master plan, and Ms. Lazarus noted the Master Plan talks a little about
the history of Hopkinton and perhaps they can add something about Claflinville and maybe other
now forgotten villages in that section. She noted she can talk to the Hopkinton Historical Society
and at least get a picture of the stone, and perhaps this can be tied into one of the action items.
Mr. Paul asked about listing separate left/right turn lanes as an approach to address the
operational capacity of the Hayden Rowe/Chestnut St. intersection, and Mr. Weismantel noted
there is no need for that type of detail in a master plan. Mr. Weismantel asked if the
transportation item regarding the Hayden Rowe corridor from Chestnut St. to Grove St. got lost
somewhere along the line, and it was suggested adding improvements in that respect as a
separate item. It was noted it is the area with all the schools and things will only get worse.
Mr. Kistner moved to release the draft of the Master Plan for other board/committee comment
and set the public hearing date for November 21, 2016, Mr. D’Urso seconded the motion, and the
Board voted unanimously in favor.
Ms. Burke asked if it would be a good idea to talk about Mr. Paul’s idea with respect to road
design standards while Ms. Lazarus is here, and Mr. Weismantel noted they can look at the
subdivision standards and maybe think about an addendum relative to reconstruction, but
obviously they will need the DPW Director’s input making this a bigger deal.
Ms. Lazarus left at this time.
2. Discussion - Sewer Connections – Clinton St./Legacy Farms Private Wastewater
Treatment Plan
Roy MacDowell, Legacy Farms LLC, joined the Board. Several Clinton St. residents were in
attendance, including Ann McCobb (#4), John Rydberg (#6), Clark Waterfall (#7), John Prue
(#10), and Chris Barry (#17). Mr. Weismantel stated it appears some of the Clinton St. residents
are interested in hooking up to the Legacy Farms private sewer system. He noted he promised to
have copies of the pertinent language in the Master Plan Special Permit (MPSP) and Host
Community Agreement (HCA) on hand, and asked Mr. MacDowell to explain the steps that
would have to be taken to make this happen.
Mr. MacDowell noted he has been in touch with Cathy Bartlett, 26 Clinton St., and her attorney,
and met today with Mr. Waterfall and the Rydbergs to discuss the situation as it pertains to
properties from 6 Clinton St. to the wastewater treatment plant. He noted he emailed
information about a typical sewer bill for the average 3-bedroom house to Mr. Waterfall today,
and spoke to DEP about the process. It was noted the Board has copies of the email. Mr.
3
MacDowell stated they need a certified engineering design from the sewer system to the
individual home and a septic system abandonment plan approved by the Board of Health to start
the process, and once DEP has approved the plans they can go ahead and proceed. Mr.
Weismantel noted this is similar to the process for Town sewer hookups, and the engineering
costs should not be too bad given the scope of the project. Mr. MacDowell stated in this case
they will need an easement from the existing manhole all the way to the point of entrance at the
foundation, to address future changes in home ownership and have access for
repairs/replacements if necessary. Mr. Kistner asked about the time frame, and Mr. MacDowell
stated the property owners will have 5 years to connect.
Mr. Kistner asked about road opening rules, and Mr. MacDowell stated there are DPW
regulations but the road is being ripped up for other reasons anyway. He noted Mr. Barry’s
property at #17 will only need a lateral connection, however hookups in the other direction will
require putting in a sewer line and some manholes. Mr. Kistner asked about the timing for
resurfacing the road, and Mr. Weismantel noted those details will be handled by the DPW.
Mr. MacDowell stated it will be up to the individual homeowner to connect or not. He noted it
will be expensive with sewer charges of $1,300/year based on the average use for a 3-bedroom
house, plus $686 to cover the homeowner’s share of the reserve/repair fund, however it may
make sense to tie in if one has a failing septic system which may cost up to $30-40,000 to
replace. Mr. Weismantel noted in this case some properties only need a lateral connection while
others require a new sewer line going by several properties and the neighbors should sort out
who will participate, how it is going to be connected, and who should be paying for it. He noted
he used to be on the Water & Sewer Commission, and as far as the Town was concerned
everybody along the line has to pay the betterment. He noted the Town has that type of authority
but this is a private transaction, and the Planning Board when they set up the Master Plan Special
Permit (MPSP) recognized a possible future need for sewer access for this area, and this will the
residents' best chance to get it. He noted there may be a way for people who don't want to be
part of this now, to only pay for their share of the line, get it out of the road and pay capital costs
up front, but he is not sure if that is an option.
Mr. D’Urso stated it is his understanding this is a mix of private and public enterprise, and those
homeowners that opt out should not have to pay anything now but retain the option to participate
in the future. Mr. Weismantel stated the issue is who should pay for the construction costs of an
improvement that is bettering the property now, and other people have paid more than their fair
share, and he feels it is now or never. Mr. MacDowell noted this will be discussed with the
owners of the 8 or 9 homes between the plant and East Main St., but the number of participants
will affect the length and size of the pipe and other construction details. Mr. Paul asked about
the options available to non-participants in case they change their mind in the future, and Mr.
Weismantel stated that would be up to the group who decides to connect now. Mr. Waterfall
asked for clarification as to who owns the extension piece, and Mr. MacDowell noted there are a
number of separate entities involved, namely, Legacy Farms, LLC, the Legacy Farms
Landowners Association, and the separate non-profit Legacy Farms Private Wastewater
Treatment Facility LLC. He noted Legacy Farms LLC had to put a lot of money in escrow to
build and maintain the plant as required by the DEP, and each participant pays $686 into the
fund. Mr. Kistner noted typically when the Town brings water to a property, it is only
4
responsible for the outside portion. Mr. Waterfall stated theoretically those who pay for the pipe
would own it, but in this case it does not seem logical. In response to a comment of Mr. Kistner,
Mr. Weismantel stated the issue is who maintains the components in the street and which one of
the LLC's would maintain the sections going down Legacy Farms South. Mr. MacDowell noted
that would be the treatment facility, and Mr. Weismantel noted in that case perhaps eventually
giving the pipe to them may be a solution. Mr. MacDowell noted from DEP's standpoint Legacy
Farms as an entity would own to the foundation, and all homeowners along the line whether they
connect or not are part of the entity. He noted he will talk to DEP, and the question is whether
the neighbors can have easement rights if they don’t own the pipe, which would preclude others
to tie in unless they pay the fee. He noted it probably can be worked out if that is the route to go.
In response a question of Mr. Paul, Mr. Weismantel noted the Planning Board was 90% sure that
existing abutters would be interested in hooking up, but Linden St. opted out early on, and they
now potentially have 29 people, on Clinton St. Mr. Paul asked if this is just for discussion
purposes, and Mr. Weismantel noted it is basically to bring people together and then they can
decide, but it appears the Planning Board had some foresight in this matter and never considered
to stand in the way.
Ms. McCobb stated there is nothing in writing and asked if zoning even allows the public
connecting to a private system. Mr. MacDowell noted this was approved by DEP. Ms. McCobb
asked if the Town will accept the system, and Mr. Weismantel stated there is a clause in the
agreement precluding this from happening, ever. Ms. Cobb asked about capacity, and Mr.
MacDowell stated the plant and leach fields are designed to allow for the additional hookups. It
was noted the extension would only be another 450 ft. of pipe, and somewhat comparable to the
Elm St. sewer work in terms of cost. Mr. Rydberg stated the treatment plan happens to be on
their street and he feels this would be the right thing to do. Mr. Barry stated some Clinton St.
property owners have failing septic systems, and it appears some properties on the even
numbered side of Clinton St. were affected by the development behind them. Mr. Paul asked
about the cost of abandonment of a septic system and Mr. Weismantel explained the process and
noted it should not be too much. Mr. D’Urso noted people on Town water have a say on rate
increases and capital projects through town meeting, and he asked how this would work in case
of a private facility. Mr. MacDowell noted all fees are purely based on costs, and there are
annual meetings with the homeowners associations of the individual neighborhoods, the Legacy
Farms landowners association, and representatives of the treatment facility, and people will get a
complete accounting. Mr. D’Urso asked if the Clinton St. homeowners will be members of the
association so they can attend these meetings, and Mr. MacDowell stated yes, absolutely.
Ms. McCobb stated that requiring an easement for this entity right up to her foundation is very
strange. Mr. MacDowell noted DEP, not Legacy Farms, wants an easement, and it is not so
much about the pipe but more about the waste going into the treatment facility. He noted if the
Clinton St. residents are not in favor of that approach, Legacy Farms would be also ok with
owning out to the street themselves, just to the manholes. Mr. Weismantel explained DEP's
reasons for wanting an easement, noting that with respect to water services, unlike Hopkinton, a
lot of other towns still have lead pipes and they cannot go on private property to remove those
sections, and it has been proven that doing only half of it is worse than doing nothing at all. He
stated with respect to sewer, the Town or a private facility wants to be able to fix things because
5
otherwise there may be problems with infiltration from groundwater into the sewer plant, which
raises the cost. Mr. MacDowell noted with the quality of pipe nowadays it is unlikely there will
be damage unless it gets physically damaged. He noted their sewer bills are based on the Town’s
water bills, and a separate meter is recommended for water used for irrigation. Mr. MacDowell
noted he will follow up with the Clinton St. residents.
3. Continued Public Hearing – Application to amend Legacy Farms Master Plan Special
Permit (MPSP) to increase the Number of Units by 180 age-restricted Units
Mr. Weismantel referred to the public hearing outline prepared for this hearing, and noted they
left off pending further definition of traffic concerns. He noted the question is whether age-
restricted development represents less traffic compared to a commercial use. Mr. Cerulle noted
his concern is that offices will bring people in to the Town, while the residential development
has people heading out in the morning. Mr. MacDowell referred to the comparison listed in the
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB) report and an age-restricted development has less traffic at the
typical peak hours. He noted according to Pulte Homes, Toll Brothers and other developers, the
average age of people moving in to this type of development is 62, and they typically will be
retiring over a 5 to 10 year cycle. He noted they will then start driving less and the numbers will
decrease, according to VHB based on the standard numbers in AASHTO tables. He noted
Legacy Farms is very comfortable with these numbers. Mr. Weismantel stated under this
scenario in about 5 years the Legacy Farms North (Pulte) villages will still be being built out,
and the traffic count will still be under the projection from 10 years ago. Mr. Cerulle noted he
feels a commercial use would have less impact, and Ms. Burke stated she disagrees from her
experience especially on West Main St. coming into Town. Mr. MacDowell stated from a
general perspective age-restricted units will result in significantly less traffic compared to any
commercial use. Mr. Cerulle stated he is one of the members who visited Holliston Woods, and
it appears a lot of people in the 55 to 60 age bracket still work full time. Mr. MacDowell noted
VHB took this into consideration. In response to a question, it was stated that there will be
typically 2 cars per household. Mr. D’Urso stated for this report the age-restricted numbers
make sense, although it seems they are picking/choosing the numbers they want to show, and it
appears the numbers for office commercial are almost exaggerated in comparison, but on the
positive side, there will be improved traffic management because of the introduction of the new
road. Mr. Weismantel noted Mr. D'Urso’s observation is correct, but the Planning Board at the
MPSP stage wanted to see the worst case scenario which would be a project including 200,000 sf
of commercial space with cubical after cubical after cubical. Mr. MacDowell referred to the
recent traffic study, which indicates traffic on East Main St., Hayden Rowe, and Grove St. is
either at or below prediction from 10 years ago, but he too cannot wait for the north road to come
on line. It was determined there is consensus regarding traffic.
Mr. Weismantel referred to the affordability aspect of the project, and noted the Board received a
lot of information on this issue at the last meeting. He noted it appears they are in much better
shape because of the deed riders now used by the state for this purpose.
Mr. D’Urso asked about the restriction on the number of bedrooms. He noted he visited the
Holliston Woods development today, and, although the units are very nice, they are also very
large inside and could easily be converted into 4 or 5 bedroom units. He noted the intent is to
have residents age 55 and over, but the deed rider for Holliston Woods allows residents under 18,
6
up to a 6 month period, so there is still a risk of impact on schools although limited. Mr.
MacDowell stated Hopkinton will have a similar clause but they cannot use the school system
and the homeowner would be fined $9,000 by the homeowners association in case of a violation.
Mr. MacDowell noted the additional space does not have the windows or a closet needed to be
called a bedroom, and additional bedrooms are not allowed under the bylaw. Mr. D’Urso
explained how the additional spaces in the unit he visited today could be easily converted into
additional bedrooms. David Paul asked if there are solutions for this problem or whether it
would just be a matter of how to deal with violations. Mr. MacDowell noted their customers
want additional adult type space after downsizing, but the units will only have two bedrooms,
and it will not be easy to get around it. Mr. Weismantel noted they had the same concern on the
south side but the Building Department has been able to turn down attempts for additional
bedrooms and the number of school children is below expectation. Mr. MacDowell noted that is
true, also based on the sewer bills which do not vary more than 4 to 5% per household. He noted
that is one of the checks and balances in place, and they have the right to investigate if something
does not seem right. Mr. D’Urso asked who would be in charge of that, and Mr. MacDowell
noted they could report something like to the Building Department. Mr. Cerulle asked about
college graduates under the age limit, and Mr. MacDowell noted they can only live there for up
to 6 months. Mr. D’Urso stated he would like to see a true 2- bedroom unit design. Mr.
MacDowell noted he does not want have a lack of creative storage space in these units from a
marketing perspective, and big companies like Pulte Homes will not want to take chances and
play games, and this setup is actually a lot more restrictive compared to other developments in
Town. Mr. Weismantel stated these units would be a good deal for someone who is over 55 and
qualifies for an affordable unit. Mr. D’Urso noted he enjoyed the Holliston Woods tour and was
happy to see there are solar panels. It was noted the affordability aspect can be closed out.
Community Impact and Mitigation
Mr. Weismantel noted for the most part this concerns the impact on emergency services, but the
mitigation anticipates a net $1,500,000 in revenue, the HCA requires 3 payments to address the
impact on public safety services as well as a large payment for downtown improvements and
trails, as negotiated by the Board of Selectmen. He noted appears the other benefit might be a
reduced traffic impact compared to a commercial use.
Julia Linnell, 5 Reservoir Rd., asked about traffic impact with respect to their neighborhood and
what could be done about it beyond just waiting to see what happens. Mr. Weismantel stated
they talked about putting the stop sign facing Wilson St. instead of Legacy Farms North, but with
Google Maps and other technology these days, people should have no problem finding their way.
He noted another suggestion was to install a “no right turn” sign so people will not be able to
turn onto Wilson St. coming from Legacy Farms North. Ms. Linnell noted she is already seeing
an increase in traffic because of people using Wilson St. as an alternative route. It was noted
there is more traffic in general anyway, but opening up Legacy Farms North will make a
difference. Mr. D’Urso suggested 4-way stop signs, and Ms. Burke noted this would be under
the Board of Selectmen’s jurisdiction. Mr. Weismantel suggested sending a letter to the Board
of Selectmen switching the stop sign from Legacy Farms North to Wilson St. when the new road
is officially open. Mr. Kistner asked about speed limit signs, and Ms. Burke noted the state has
control over that. Mr. Kistner moved to send a letter to the Board of Selectmen as discussed, and
Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion. Mr. D’Urso stated he feels a 4-way stop would be easier
7
and safer for everyone and offered that as an amendment to the motion. Mr. DeYoung noted he
does not see a downside to a 4-way stop, and also suggested installing a few more “no parking”
signs along Rafferty Rd. as well, in view of the presence of dog walkers. He seconded the
amended motion, and the Board voted unanimously to ask the Board of Selectmen to change the
stop signs at the Wilson St./Legacy Farms North intersection creating a 4-way stop situation, and
install a few more “no parking” signs along Rafferty Rd. It was noted the traffic item is now
considered closed out.
Mr. Weismantel stated, according to Ms. Lazarus, Legacy Farms is ok as far as the HCA is
concerned, subject to a couple of delays with respect to the status of the Legacy Farms Road
north construction. It was determined there were no other issues. There was no public comment.
Mr. Kistner noted he took a ride on Legacy Farms North during a recent downpour, and it
appears the drains must have been clogged because they were not working correctly even after
the rain subsided. Mr. MacDowell stated they are aware of the problem and will meet with the
contractor tomorrow. Mr. DeYoung asked whose responsibility this is, and it was noted Legacy
Farms will check the manholes once a year until the road is accepted by the Town.
Reference was made to the 6 approval criteria listed in Ms. Burke's memorandum to the Board.
Mr. D’Urso referred to Criterion #5 and stated he was asked to find out if the 180 additional
residential units can be handled by the private wastewater treatment plant, and Mr. Weismantel
noted 200,000 sf of commercial space would have a greater impact in terms of demand. Mr.
D'Urso stated in addition he was contacted by residents on Cedar St. and in the Kruger Rd.
neighborhood asking how they would be impacted if a gas cloud triggers the gas lantern firewall
to be ignited. He noted he talked to the former Fire Chief, and assumed the concerned neighbors
were going to be here tonight but apparently they are not. Mr. Weismantel noted Kruger Rd.
residents will be outside of the protected zone and a few of them are actually within the thermal
exclusion zone, however the Board of Selectmen recently voted to look into expanding the
number of gas lanterns and build a stone wall or some type of barrier along Wilson St. for
protection. Mr. D’Urso noted the people living on Rt. 85 closest to the tanks and the owner of
the saw mill on Wilson St. told him they have concerns. Mr. MacDowell noted things are better
with the firewall in place but there are some gaps. Mr. Weismantel noted it would be great if the
LNG facility would step in, but apparently they won't, but something like a cell phone,
somebody's vehicle, electricity in someone's home, could theoretically trigger an event, and it
will be better if it is triggered by igniting the gas lanterns. Mr. D’Urso stated this does not
answer the question whether the gas lanterns when triggered may make it worse for the other
neighborhoods. Ms. Burke noted the LNG safety report is public record, and it was noted that
according to the experts the gas lanterns will make the area safer. Mr. Weismantel noted anyone
with concerns should really talk to the Board of Selectmen, given their decision to look into
expanding the gas lantern system, but he would be happy to meet with the residents. He noted he
is not an expert but worked in the industry and should be able to answer some questions between
himself and the Fire Chief. Steve Slaman, Fire Chief, noted he is willing to work with Mr.
Weismantel.
Mr. Weismantel asked if there any questions regarding the 6 criteria of approval, and asked for
public comments. Chief Slaman stated he thinks it is covered but asked for clarification
8
regarding the flow of funding for additional safety personnel to make sure there are no gaps in
services, considering the fact that last year it took 9 months to finish the hiring process for 2
additional firefighters, and Mr. MacDowell noted he will meet with him to discuss. Mr.
Weismantel asked if everyone is ok with this. It was determined the Board is ok with the 6
approval criteria.
Ms. Linnell referred to her email dated October 11, 2016, regarding the use of fertilizers and
landscaping chemicals, stating she has written to the Board about this several times. Mr.
MacDowell noted there are restrictions imposed by the Planning Board and the Conservation
Commission relative to particular types of chemicals in view of the proximity to sensitive
watershed areas. Ms. Linnell stated she is really interested to know more about these, and Mr.
MacDowell stated he will get the information. Mr. Weismantel stated they will look at this more
at site plan review stage, but first the Planning Board has to approve the amendment. Mr.
Weismantel suggested discussing the conditions of approval for changes to the MPSP and
referred to the meeting handout. It was noted the current wording has been blessed by Town
Counsel after a small change. The Board discussed the conditions. It was noted there can be no
difference between market rate and affordable units with respect to the exterior finish, but the
Pulte Homes Holliston Woods tour showed there are differences with respect to interior features.
Mr. Weismantel noted the affordable units also will have lower taxes, and one cannot tell the
difference from the outside although the Planning Board will know.
The Board further discussed the proposed conditions, and it was noted this covers all the relevant
sections of the HCA. Mr. Weismantel asked if Board members are ready for a vote and if not
what would be in the way. Mr. D’Urso noted he would like to see a meeting between the
concerned residents, Mr. Weismantel and the Fire Chief first, and Mr. Weismantel stated he will
be happy to arrange such a meeting however he does not feel it applies to this application. Mr.
D’Urso noted this project should not make other abutters feel more at risk. Mr. Weismantel
noted the gas lights are going in soon, and that has already been decided. Mr. D’Urso stated he
would feel better and more educated if this was done, and it is the last piece of the puzzle. He
noted the Board postponed the hearing on this application until all members could be present,
and he is here tonight and would like his concerns to be considered first for the sake of
transparency, and he is not ready for a vote. Ms. Burke stated perhaps Mr. D’Urso’s concerns
are more suitable to be addressed during site plan review. Mr. Paul stated according to the
experts the 180 homes will be safe and outside the thermal exclusion zone. Chief Slaman stated
he feels this is a question for the experts and he does not have anything to add. Mr. Weismantel
noted when they voted to change the buildable area on the north side they looked at the criteria
and felt it would not create unsafe conditions. Mr. Ferrari noted the Planning Board made a
decision at a hearing to which the public was invited allowing them an opportunity to comment
and ask questions. He noted some residents for one reason or another did not attend and
therefore missed out on this opportunity, but now apparently have questions on an unrelated,
peripheral issue trying to stop or hold up the process. Mr. D’Urso noted not everyone
understands how Town boards work or are unable to attend meetings, and he promised these
residents he would bring this up at the meeting. He noted there may be a better way to protect
the future 180 new units without negatively affecting current residents. Mr. Weismantel noted
the amendment would allow 180 age-restricted unit in an area of buildable land outside the
radius where a gas accident could happen, none of these units would be located in the thermal
9
exclusion zone as modified by gas lanterns, and the gas will go elsewhere if not lit - similar to
where it would be going today so the current residents will not be better or worse off. Mr.
D’Urso asked if those gas lights will make it worse for current abutters, and Mr. Weismantel
noted that question was answered by the experts. Mr. Weismantel noted Mr. D’Urso as a Board
member should have brought this issue to his attention or that of the Principal Planner before so
that it could be resolved hopefully with the abutters in attendance. Mr. D’Urso stated he would
like to take the Chairman and Fire Chief up on their offer to discuss the issue with the concerned
residents.
Mr. D’Urso moved to find that the MPSP as amended will meet the criteria in Sec. D 1 through
76, and Mr. Ferrari seconded the motion. Mr. D’Urso noted the hearing was postponed the last
time because the Board was short a few members, but now it appears the Board is not willing to
hold off on a vote in view of an unanswered question by one of the members. Mr. Ferrari noted
the Board voted in July to deem the question regarding LNG facility safety resolved, and now 3
or 4 months later the Board is being asked to revisit the issue as part of an only peripherally
related question from abutters who missed the opportunity to ask questions before. He noted he
understands that the Chairman and the Fire Chief are willing to explain the plan it approved a
couple of month ago. Ms. Burke noted the Board at the time unanimously voted in favor to
amend the MPSP with respect to the buildable area. The Board voted in favor of the motion,
with 1 abstention (D’Urso). Mr. D’Urso moved to amend the MPSP replacing conditions 2, 3,
and 4, and add completely new conditions 13A and 74A, as follows:
2. All new dwelling units shall be located within Buildable Areas as depicted on the Master
Plan or as amended. The maximum number of new dwelling units to be constructed on
the Site shall be 1,120, which shall include no more than 15 single-family dwellings,
which shall be allocated among named Buildable Areas so as to conform to the ranges
shown on Drawings Number C-4N and C-4S of the Master Plan, as well as Condition 4
of this MPSP; provided, however, that 180 senior housing units may be located within
Buildable Areas as depicted on the Master Plan. No more than nine Certificates of
Occupancy may be issued for Market Rate senior housing units for each unit of
Affordable Housing on the Site, in excess of the number required by Section 210-
167.A, that is restricted for sale to an eligible purchase and eligible to be added to the
Town’s Subsidized Housing Inventory. The Applicant shall comply with Sections A (5),
A (6) and A (7) of the Host Community Agreement as most recently amended on August
18, 2014.
3. All new commercial and mixed-use buildings shall be located within Buildable Areas as
depicted on the Master Plan. Commercial uses on the Site shall not exceed 250,000
square feet of gross floor space in the aggregate, which shall be allocated among the
Subdistricts so as to conform to the ranges shown on sheets C-4N and C-4S of the Master
Plan, as well as Condition 4 of this MPSP; provided, however, that no commercial uses
shall be located in the area designated as “Legacy Park” in the Master Plan.
4. At full build-out, not fewer than 15 single-family dwellings and 380 multi-family
dwellings, and not less than 60,000 square feet of gross floor space devoted to office use
or other non-retail commercial uses and 35,000 square feet of gross floor space devoted
to retail use shall be located south of East Main Street (Route 135). At full build-out, not
fewer than 290 multi-family dwellings, and not less than 70,000 square feet of gross floor
10
space devoted to commercial or retail use shall be located north of East Main Street
(Route 135). For the purpose of this Condition, the term “full build-out” shall refer to the
issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for the full number of dwelling units specified in
Condition 2 and the full amount of gross floor space for commercial uses specified in
Condition 3,
and add the following new conditions:
13A. Affordable Housing Units shall be designated on the Site Plan throughout the Project and
will be constructed in accordance with the Site Plan Approval. Affordable Housing Units
shall be indistinguishable from Market Rate Units in the Project in terms of location,
construction and exterior finishes.
74A. The Applicant shall comply with Sections A (3), A (4), A (8) and A (9) of the Host
Community Agreement as most recently amended on August 18, 2014.
Mr. Kistner seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Kistner
moved to close the hearing, Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion. Mr. D’Urso suggested keeping
the hearing open pending additional information and an answer to the question of the potential of
putting the existing neighborhood at risk. Mr. Weismantel stated it would become a new agenda
item and the Selectmen are working on extending the gas lanterns and he is sure the Fire Chief
will be consulted. The Board voted unanimously in favor to close the public hearing.
4. Legacy Farms South Road – Request for Extension
Mr. Weismantel stated the subdivision approval has a 5-year limit with an option to extend, and
it appears the developer won’t meet the October 2016 deadline. Mr. MacDowell stated he feels
it would be best to ask for an extension to September 30 next year. Mr. Paul asked for an
explanation, and Mr. Weismantel explained the road acceptance process. Mr. Kistner moved to
allow an extension to September 30, 2017, Mr. D’Urso seconded the motion, and the Board
voted unanimously in favor. Mr. MacDowell indicated he would work on a ribbon cutting
sometime in October or November, and he will coordinate the event. Mr. Paul asked about the
schedule for tree planting, and Mr. MacDowell noted it will not be done until the spring. Mr.
D’Urso asked about the street names as discussed before, and Mr. Weismantel noted it is up to
the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Weismantel referred to the overall map of the north parcel
promised by Mr. MacDowell at a previous meeting, and Mr. MacDowell stated he will take care
of it after the leaves are gone. Mr. Weismantel stated the plan should show which areas will be
open meadows, which areas will stay as is and which areas will become trails, etc. Mr. Paul
asked if they know now who owns the land between Wilson St. and the future 180+
development, and Mr. MacDowell stated he will look at it tomorrow.
5. Zoning Advisory Committee
Mr. Weismantel stated the Board of Appeals appointed Mark Hyman as their representative on
the Committee. He noted John Coutinho was re-elected as ZAC Chairman. It was noted the
Board already covered Mr. Hyman’s appointment when voting on the ZAC appointments on
September 12, 2016, so the Board is just welcoming him to the Committee at this point. Mr.
Weismantel stated the ZAC has scheduled a public forum to be held on October 20 to gather
ideas for changes to the Zoning Bylaw/Map. He noted he himself had two suggestions: 1)
11
potentially reducing the front setback from 60 to 50 ft. in the Agricultural district in view of the
Fire Chief’s new driveway regulations. Chief Slaman noted they are in the process of re-
analyzing the rules pertaining to 1- and 2-family homes so there may be some relief, and the
Planning Board’s input will be considered. Mr. Weismantel noted that sounds good, but ZAC
should look into this matter. 2) ZAC should clarify the definition of a restaurant, and Ms. Burke
noted the item is already on the list. She noted ZAC already have 6 action items, and members
were encouraged to attend the forum.
6. Administrative Business – Minutes
The Board reviewed the draft minutes of August 15, 2016. Mr. Ferrari moved to approve the
minutes of August 15, 2016 as written, Mr. D’Urso seconded the motion, and the Board voted
unanimously in favor. The Board reviewed the draft minutes of August 22, 2016. Mr. DeYoung
moved to approve the minutes of August 22, 2016 as written, Mr. Kistner seconded the motion,
and the Board voted unanimously in favor. The Board reviewed the draft minutes of September
12, 2016 and made changes. Mr. D’Urso moved to approve the minutes of September 12, 2016
as amended, Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
7. Other Business
Sidewalks – Mr. Ferrari stated he looked at other towns to see the rules with respect to parking
on sidewalks. He noted there are bylaws dealing with simply parking on sidewalks, and there are
others in some towns related to sidewalks blocked by overgrown bushes, etc. He noted the
Board would have to decide how far they want to go on this. Mr. Weismantel thinks the Town
has the right to cut back private vegetation in the right of way, but it brings up a legal question.
Ms. Burke noted she believes homeowners are typically required to make sure the sidewalks are
not blocked. Mr. Kistner noted he probably should not be voting on this, as he has trouble
parking his own vehicle without blocking the sidewalk, but if it becomes a safety issue they
would have to do something about it. It was considered it is a town-wide question and Mr.
Kistner can vote on it, and if the vehicle is in someone’s driveway it is not considered blocking.
Ms. Burke noted Mr. Ferrari's concern is about overgrown bushes that could push people into the
road. Mr. Weismantel stated it may be better to require homeowners to corral their own bushes,
and he feels the Board agrees. Mr. Paul noted he is not sure he agrees with banning parking on
the sidewalks altogether, because for instance in his neighborhood even the high school kids
know enough to keep their cars off the road, and he does not want to start tagging them. Mr.
Ferrari asked about the flipside in dealing with the downtown area, because he is concerned
about mothers and children in strollers being forced into the street. Mr. Cerulle noted he feels
they should put together some type of comprehensive policy, encompassing all kinds of
obstruction also in view of liability and with the focus on expanding the sidewalk network. Mr.
Weismantel stated the Town is trying to be much more pedestrian friendly, and he has seen a
change in mindset over the last 10 years. Mr. Weismantel thanked Mr. Ferrari for taking this on.
8. Liaison Reports
Mr. D’Urso announced the fall cleanup event organized by the Sustainable Green Committee for
October 22, 2016. He noted Will Stearman is the organizer of “Make Hopkinton Beautiful
Again”, and they are asking for volunteers, to meet in the Hopkinton High School parking lot
between 8:30 and 9:30 A.M. He noted the Committee organizes this type of event a couple of
times a year.
12
Mr. Weismantel noted the Planning Board received the last Early Elementary School site plan
drawings later than promised and issued the site plan decision on October 3. He noted the Board
of Selectmen approved the proposed tree cutting at 15 North Mill St.
Adjourned: 10:10 P.M.
Submitted by: Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
Approved: __________________________
Documents used at the Meeting
Agenda for October 11, 2016 Planning Board meeting
Memorandum to Planning Board from Jennifer Burke, Principal Planner, dated October 5, 2016 re: Items on
October 11, 2016 Planning Board agenda
2016 Hopkinton Master Plan – Working Draft 9/15/16; proposed revised language re Water Quality, page 22;
proposed changes submitted by David Paul
Email, Roy MacDowell to Clark Waterfall, dated Oct 11, 2016 – Re: Legacy Farms Private Wastewater
Treatment Facility
Public Hearing Outline – Legacy Farms Master Plan Permit (Legacy Farms LLC) – Amendment to MPSP to
increase number of dwelling units by 180 age-restricted units and eliminate some commercial space
Forwarded Email, Julia Linnell to Jennifer Burke, Cobi Wallace, Ken Weismantel, dated Oct 11, 2016, re:
Public Hearings on Legacy north side developments -to the members of the planning board
Letter, VHB (Vanasse Hangen Brustlin) to Roy MacDowell, dated May 13, 2016, re: Legacy Farms LLC,
Review of Traffic Generation – Age Restricted Homes at Legacy Farms, Hopkinton, MA
Missed Meeting Certificate – John R. Ferrari, 9/12/16, re: Application to amend Legacy Farms Master Plan
Special Permit to increase Total Number of Dwelling Units by 180 Age-Restricted
Draft Planning Board Minutes of August 15, 2106, August 22, 2016 , and September12, 2016