Loading...
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