Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20150223 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes1 HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD Monday, February 23, 2015 7:30 P.M. Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton, MA MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Ken Weismantel, Chairman, John Ferrari, Vice Chairman, Frank D’Urso, Brian Karp, Frank Sivo, Claire Wright, Francis DeYoung, Matt Wade, Deb Thomas Present: Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting; Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant Mr. Weismantel opened the meeting, thanked HCAM for recording and summarized the agenda. Mr. DeYoung arrived at this time. 1. • Public Hearing – Proposed Amendments to Zoning Bylaw and Zoning Map Mr. Weismantel asked if any B St. residents attended the Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC) meetings on this matter. Ms. Lazarus stated all were invited to attend and/or comment, and one called and one emailed. She noted that based on their feedback and review of the map, the ZAC decided to recommend that the properties be located entirely within the Residence A District. Thomas Smith, 22 Walcott St., asked why 19 and 21 Walcott St. weren’t included, and it was noted the ZAC only looked at the properties that were split by the zone line and located in more than one district. Mr. Smith stated he thought this was taken care of last year, and Mr. Weismantel noted this process is a continuation of last year’s review. There were no other comments. Rezone Five (5) Residence A (RA)/Downtown Business (BD) Split Zone Parcels in the B St. Area • Mr. Weismantel noted currently off-street parking between a building and the street is not allowed in the BD district. He gave some examples of where it currently exists: parking lot in front of the police station, allowed by a variance, parking in front at the Swoon boutique at 5 Walcott St., allowed by a variance, and parking in front at Hillers’ Cleaner, 63 Main St., grandfathered as a preexisting nonconforming use. He noted Colella’s parking also is a nonconforming use based on this restriction. He stated that he asked the ZAC to investigate if a certain amount of flexibility would make sense in some cases, and it is proposed to allow such parking by special permit from the Planning Board. BD District - Off-Street Parking Between Principal Building and a Street Ms. Wright stated she is very concerned about this, noting that the prohibition has been in place for a long time and helps maintain the downtown historical streetscape, which is very small to begin with. She noted by making this an option the decision will be up to a particular group of Board members and it will open the floodgates. She noted she had an opportunity to tour the New Bedford historic district areas with the founder of WHALE (Waterfront Historic Area League) and it was stated that the biggest challenge in their efforts to restore the waterfront is the 2 existence of parking lots in front of businesses. She noted she is disturbed by and opposed to the change. Mr. DeYoung asked what is driving this change, and Mr. Weismantel noted there already is parking between the building and street in several locations and it was felt it might be interesting to offer some flexibility. John Coutinho, ZAC Chair, noted the situation at 5 Walcott St. is a perfect example of the need for a change. He noted when it was a residential garage parking in front was no issue but when it was changed into a business it was no longer allowed. He noted in the case of Hillers’ Cleaners this provision may have offered a smoother parking layout. Mr. Weismantel noted there are plans to expand the police station parking lot which may benefit from additional flexibility. Ms. Wright stated the language needs to be reworded to address preservation of historic character. Scott Richardson, ZAC member, stated the proposed language addresses the potential negative impacts but it will allow for a one-stop process. Ms. Wright noted the decision would depend on the opinion of whoever happens to be on the Planning Board, and it would put the character of the downtown at risk. Mr. D’Urso asked if the language can be modified to address the concerns. Mr. Coutinho noted changes can still be made and town meeting will make the ultimate decision. Ms. Thomas noted the applicants for 5 Walcott St. had to go to the Board of Appeals for relief, which costs money. She noted as far as the opinions of future Boards are concerned, there are 9 members and she expects there to be a balance. Mr. Coutinho stated cost is an issue and could discourage an applicant from applying or cause the project to fail, and Ms. Wright stated she feels there could be a cost to the Town in terms of character. Mr. D’Urso noted a two-step process allows for checks and balances. Mr. Ferrari noted one option is to differentiate between Main St. and side streets, handling Main St. applications through a variance application but change side streets to a special permit process. In response to a question as to whether referring to the historic district might be a solution, Ms. Wright noted the historic district is only on one side of Main Street. • Mr. Coutinho explained the proposal to define the use and allow it by special permit in the IB District. Cliff Kistner, 86 West Main St., stated the definition lists a number of activities, including bowling, but precludes pool tables and such. He asked for clarification how they will differentiate between what is appropriate and what is not. Mr. Weismantel noted the issue is whether the pool tables can be considered accessory to the primary use or not. Definition of Indoor Recreation; Indoor Recreation in Industrial (IB) District • Mr. Coutinho noted this proposal is intended to tighten up the regulations. He noted the existing language does not provide good direction for proponents to come up with a functional, well designed sign. He noted some ZAC members wanted to tighten the regulations while others preferred to loosen them up. Mr. Weismantel referred to Town Counsel’s comments and recommendations on this article. He referred to the change regarding the regulations for temporary signs for architects, builders, plumbers, electricians etc. working on a project, and it would allow them to be more than 5 sq. ft. in the commercial districts. Mr. Coutinho noted the change is proposed to have signs big enough to display the names of everyone involved with the project. Mr. Richardson noted there is no limitation on the number of such signs. Mr. Weismantel noted he can picture a fairly large sign for each entity, and asked what if everyone has their own sign. Signs – Lighting, Design and Placement on Buildings, Off-Premises Signs, Increase Maximum Size of Trades/Professional Signs 3 Ms. Thomas noted the design and placement issue came up recently with respect to signage above the first floor at the Price Chopper plaza. She asked if the change would have any impact on that. Mr. Kistner stated the Price Chopper plaza only has one sign up high, but if he had a business on the second floor he would want his signage to be visible. Ms. Wright asked if it makes sense that the applicant for 42 Main St. needed a variance for a real estate sign over 6 sq. ft., while the proposed change would allow a roofer to put up a 32 sq. ft. sign by right while he is doing the job. The Board decided to review draft language changes at the next meeting to address this issue. • Site Plan Review - Lighting Regulations Mr. Coutinho noted work on this item was continued from last year. He noted this time the ZAC decided not to handle this through a separate lighting bylaw, but instead tweak the Site Plan Review bylaw to tighten up some subjective lighting areas and give the Planning Board some better numbers to work with. Mr. Weismantel referred to the language referencing the minimum requirement in the IESNA book, which provides a range. He stated it ought to be worded to direct people to aim for the middle or average, as opposed to the darkest end of the range. He referred to the provision regarding the requirements for parking lot lighting in general. He noted this would be difficult to enforce, and suggested they look at the wording again. He noted the item which provides limitations on the height of pole mounted lights seems to eliminate the need for that item. Ms. Thomas agreed. Mr. Weismantel noted he feels a developer who would use 20 ft. high poles on a small lot would not do himself a favor, considering the equipment and the cost to replace bulbs alone, which requires special effort. Mr. D’Urso stated as an engineer he would like to speak in defense of those items, and although he knows the language has been written, edited and reviewed from a legal perspective, and offers the minimum and maximum levels they are looking for, but maybe the wording can be further clarified. Ms. Wright noted she was not on the ZAC but part of the reason for this discussion is the feeling that lighting levels are going up and the cumulative effect is total glow. She noted an applicant when offered a range always picks the middle or upper part of the range with safety reasons as justification. She noted offering a range with an acceptable minimum will send a message that the Town is serious about wanting to bring light levels down. Mr. Ferrari noted lighting has to be consistent in order for it to achieve the minimum acceptable level. He noted it can be done, and used the Liberty Mutual building in Weston as an example. Mr. Coutinho noted security is achieved by eliminating dark spots to make sure people can see for safety reasons. Mr. Weismantel noted the proposed changes are an attempt to make sure that lighting issues don’t cause an application process to be dragged out. • Ms. Lazarus explained the article, noting that one of the proposed changes addresses the placement of trails in the 100 ft. perimeter buffer of an OSLPD subdivision, noting that the buffer is required and is part of the common open space open to the public. She noted this issue came up with a recent submission, where an abutter questioned whether trails were an allowed use. She noted this change clarifies what has always has been the interpretation of the bylaw and common practice. She noted the second change is housekeeping to address an inconsistency between two sections regarding minimum parcel size. Open Space Landscape Preservation Development (OSLPD) Bylaw 4 Mr. Sivo asked what constitutes a trail, and whether it is something formed over time or newly built, and it was noted that it could be either. Ms. Thomas asked whether the trail has to be there when the open space is approved, and Ms. Lazarus stated no. Ms. Lazarus noted the buffer is part of the open space and the entity that receives ownership of it typically puts in the trails, which are open to the public. • Ms. Lazarus noted this concerns the provision which addresses situations where one lot is in 2 or more residential districts, and it states that stricter regulation will apply. She noted the provision is in the Definitions section, but the term is not used in the bylaw anywhere. Therefore, it is a regulation and not a definition, so it should be moved to a section of general regulations. She noted Town Counsel suggests doing some additional wordsmithing if desired, regarding the way the provision is worded. Mr. Weismantel noted Town Counsel’s change concerns the difference between frontage and area which right now go together, and he suggests a reference to one or the other. The Board discussed the benefit of making the additional language changes. Mr. Weismantel stated they should just move the section without making additional changes to avoid too much time being spent on this article at town meeting, and members agreed. Move Zoning Bylaw Provision within the Bylaw – Lots in 2 or more Residence Districts • Ms. Lazarus noted that until the 1980’s, the Board of Appeals was the only special permit granting authority, but now they are also issued by the Planning Board. She noted that there is a bylaw section dealing with the Board of Appeals’ issuance of special permits, but not the Planning Board, which has resulted in a lot of repeated language throughout the bylaw. She noted this article consolidates the language in one location and makes it applicable to both Boards. She noted that both boards are bound by the same statutory standards. She added that the article is intended to be housekeeping in nature, with no changes to the intent of the provisions or application processes. There were no comments on this item. Special Permit Language – Consolidate and Reorganize • Mr. Coutinho noted Ms. Lazarus was instrumental in preparing the draft language in working with the ZAC. He noted there were concerns right from the beginning, with respect to the location, height, scope of project, but Ms. Lazarus did a fabulous job and was always ready to tweak the proposed changes. He noted the issues of floor area ratio and height can be confusing and the reference to 100 ft. buildings caused panic, granted there could be a section that high. Ms. Lazarus noted the proponents worked on a bylaw with the ZAC last year, but it was decided not bring it to the 2014 annual town meeting. She noted the discussions began again this fall, where the proponents continued the process with the ZAC. She noted the ZAC did not have the RKG Associates report when it completed its work and made its recommendation to the Planning Board, but they will stay involved and the current language is not set in stone. Mr. Coutinho noted normally with a zoning change, after adoption, developers hope they pick the right spot and business, but this is different. He noted the Town felt it made sense to zone this area industrial after Rt. 495 was built, but the existing complex is now underutilized. He noted there now is a developer who thinks he can do better for the Town if people just have faith in the process, although they will need to go through more review at different levels. Crossroads Redevelopment District 5 Mr. Kistner stated he has written a letter to the Board pertaining to this issue and he would like to read it into the record. He noted this is similar to what the Town went through with Legacy Farms and Hopkinton Mews. He asked how rezoning this area from IB to mixed use with a residential component would attract good business, and stated this would not solve a problem but create a problem with serious ramifications. He noted there are too many things going on, and his letter will explain it in detail. He noted the change needs to be validated and looked into on every level before it can be sent to town meeting, because the project scope is way too big considering the other development that is already set in motion. Steven Zieff, proponent, stated he appreciates Mr. Kistner’s comments and stated that their proposal is considered “form-based zoning”. He noted that he and Mr. Perry have no predisposition as to what should be on the site, and at this point they are just asking for a license to continue working with the Town. He noted they are looking for something that fits, is economically viable and allows them to redevelop an existing site. He stated there are outstanding issues with respect to water, wastewater and traffic, and they are mindful of everybody’s concerns. Jackie Potenzone, 12 Wood St., stated she is concerned about the proposed rezoning, especially in view of the residential component and traffic impact. She noted an additional 375 units will have a huge impact on the Town, especially on the School Dept. which is working to solve the Center School expansion. She noted the proposed alternative road is all well and good, but asked what would happen if the road cannot or will not be built. Mr. Weismantel noted the roadway is not part of the zoning proposal. Ms. Potenzone noted this is a conceptual idea which will change over time, and she is not in favor of bringing it to town meeting without infrastructure in place. She noted reference is made to multifamily dwellings, and asked the proponent to clarify what he has in mind. She asked if there is a Host Community Agreement (HCA), to address the impact on municipal services, such as fire and police. Mr. Weismantel stated there is no HCA. Mr. Zieff stated the #1 commitment is the roadway, because without correct infrastructure the project is not viable and would not get the necessary financing. He noted there are many other area towns that are willing to provide the infrastructure for this type of development and are open for business. He noted the multifamily aspect will attract luxury renters and this is part of the lifestyle Mr. Perry and he discussed. He stated the units would have hotel-type accommodations, and hotels are allowed already and they are just proposing something consistent with the vision of the town and region. Mr. Weismantel noted the Alta Legacy Farms apartment complex has 240 units, is nearly fully occupied and has 40 kids in the schools so far. Sandy Altamura, 33 Elm St., ZAC member, noted the connector road won’t eliminate all traffic issues, but the project will not be possible without it. She noted that in addition, sometimes the proponent obtains the necessary zoning and then sells the project, and the new owners can put in anything they want, which leaves this proposal pretty much wide open. She noted the transportation aspect has to become part of the proposal before town meeting. Joe Wojcik, 2 Tiffany Trail, stated it appears the proposed change allows construction of 100 ft. towers, and during his 17 years in Hopkinton, under the guidance of the leadership of this Board, Hopkinton has grown just fine, and the idea of 100 ft. towers anywhere here is alien to the character of the town. Tom Nealon, 50 Front St., noted his business is right in this area, and he would like the proponent to explain the benefit of the project and provide an evaluation of the 6 concentrated mixed uses with respect to traffic. Mr. Zieff stated they hope to include restaurants so that people can walk to lunch for example, and there will be also be retail component. He noted this concept has been successful in other places, and people would have no reason to drive which will mitigate traffic issues. He noted people living in these locations typically stay there and rarely get into their car. Mr. Zieff noted they are willing to covenant the issue of the road, which is a huge priority, and the same is true for the other infrastructure. Mr. Coutinho stated last year he went to a planning conference which included a discussion about mixed use development, and it was pointed out the State encourages live-work-play zoning, particularly from a traffic mitigation standpoint. He noted regular office park development does not work and would result in vacant space, and a combination including residential and retail components would be a better fit. Mr. Kistner stated he does not think there are any vacancies in the proposed zoning district except for the building at 35 Parkwood Dr., and the demand for office space is greater than what people are saying. He stated the project is targeted by one of 4 major land owners there, and it is important to find a balanced approach and the project has many unanswered questions. He noted the Town currently is in a residential development boom, and has not yet seen the full impact of the additional development already in the pipeline, especially Legacy Farms and Hopkinton Mews. He noted he feels people should be aware of the potential impacts, and current zoning in this location already allows multiple uses, including research centers, hotels, child care facilities, etc. He stated they should keep the current zoning, because adding 10-story buildings and 375 additional residential units is not a good idea and would have a lasting effect on the Town. Mr. Karp stated the land is now underutilized and a developer wants to make it better, bring in more tax revenue, and by working together the Town could get something that will work. Mr. Weismantel noted they don’t know what is going to happen there, and the Board certainly knows the current condition of the Lumber St./West Main St. intersection. Ms. Wright asked about the project’s net revenue, and Mr. Perry noted it would conservatively be $1.5M, taking school, fire department needs and traffic issues into account. Mr. D’Urso referred to the February 18 Planning Board discussion on this proposal, and noted the church near Town Hall perhaps is 75 ft. high but there are no other buildings in Town over 4 stories high. He noted from what he hears from residents, 100 ft./10 story buildings would be too tall. He noted redevelopment of the area sounds like an exciting idea but the road has to be part of the project, and based on current information and feedback received, he is not sure they are ready to move ahead with this proposal right now. Mr. DeYoung asked about the revenue breakdown, and Mr. Zieff noted the RKG Associates report did not to go into that type of detail, but based on discussions with the previous Assessor they feel that RKG’s conclusions were conservative and from their experience there are many opportunities that have typically outperformed those scenarios. Mr. Ferrari stated looking at the RKG report and Town Counsel’s comments it is a delicate balance involving a mix of several uses. He noted he is conceptually open to the idea, but feels they are not at the point where they have enough information to present the proposal to town meeting and expect it to pass. Ms. Wright asked whether they should consider the proposal to be regulated through a special permit or site plan review process. Ms. Lazarus noted if the Board decided to sponsor the article it can select either option. Ms. Thomas asked about the HCA opportunity, and Mr. Weismantel noted that would be up to the Board of Selectmen. Ms. Thomas noted if this goes to town meeting with a request for up to 375 units, the perception will be stress on the schools and town infrastructure and this will not fare well. 7 Mr. Weismantel noted the Board just sent a letter to the Board of Selectmen with a number of questions regarding this proposal. He noted because of the number of different property owners, he feels a Site Plan Review process without a master plan special permit does not really work. He noted, for example, that the Hopkinton Village Center project at Legacy Farms is under the control of Weston Nurseries and is currently on hold. He noted he would definitely prefer the special permit approach. Mr. Weismantel stated he has concerns about the floor area ratio language which he feels should be written differently in view of the amount of wetlands on one of the parcels and to accommodate the existing Perkin Elmer buildings. He noted with respect to the types of multifamily dwellings allowed, he could envision 375 Avalon-type units in that location which would be a very big concern to him. He noted the rezoning proposal would allow hotels by right, and he feels the language needs to be tweaked because hotels across the street in the Hotel Overlay District would still be by special permit and subject to language requiring a full service hotel, and he wants to make sure they don’t end up with a Motel 6 or something like that. Mr. Weismantel stated he is very much opposed to a theatre in this location from a traffic standpoint, as the intersection already will go to a level of service C as a result of Hopkinton Mews, and he is not sure people are looking for big box stores with some already in the area. He noted they should tighten up the signage language, especially if there is going to be a high rise building. • OSMUD – Allow 180 Additional Age-Restricted Housing Units on the north portion of Legacy Farms Roy MacDowell Jr., Legacy Farms, LLC, appeared before the Board. He noted they came before the Board last year and presented a similar article to town meeting, asking for 200 additional age-restricted units, but the timing was off and it didn’t pass. He noted he should have done a better job reaching out to the community and this time they did just that, talking to various groups. He noted the 5th Amendment to the HCA addresses what would happen if the Town votes to allow 180 more units, and it takes the single family homes planned for the north side out of the mix, which will reduce the number of school children. He noted they have agreed to make a payment to expand the trail system and pay funds toward the undergrounding of utilities and public safety improvements. He noted per Judi Barrett’s report last year, the project will result in $1.5M net revenue per year over a 10 year period. He noted studies show that the change will result in 45% less traffic compared to the original proposal that contains the Legacy Park commercial development. He noted under the HCA the additional 180 units cannot have children under the age of 18 which will be enforced through deed restrictions, condominium documents and monetary penalties for violations. Mr. Karp stated the proposal looks great but he also liked last year’s proposal and asked why the density was reduced. Mr. MacDowell noted the density was thought to be too high and 180 units would be in line with other parts of the development and the minimum that would be economically viable and offer the amenities to attract future buyers. He noted there appears to be less need for commercial uses now and the change will be good for the Town. Ms. Wright noted Ms. Barrett’s report is very compelling and the anticipated reduction in traffic according to the VHB report is beneficial. She noted the revenue from the project will help pay for EMS and Fire/Police services, and in addition there will be a $1.8M payment up front. She noted that compared to Crossroads the benefits here are stunning and it looks like a win-win situation. Mr. D’Urso noted he is opposed to any changes to the OSMUD District because it is different from what the residents voted for 7 years ago. He noted he does not see this change as positive with 8 180 more homes and additional costs to the Town. He noted the Town was promised commercial development as part of Legacy Farms. Ms. Thomas stated she agrees with Mr. Karp and Ms. Wright and thinks the proposal looks great. She noted things have changed since 7 years ago, which should not be a surprise. Mavis O’Leary, 11 Curtis Rd., asked about other senior housing in Town, and it was noted that there are two age restricted developments. She referred to Peppercorn Village on School St., and noted the age restriction was lifted in that case. Mr. DeYoung noted the premise for the change is the reduced demand for commercial development and he asked if there is any verification of that. Mr. Weismantel noted there have been no recent proposals for office buildings and there are vacancies up and down Rt. 495, but once the Town moves into a residential direction, it will be stuck with it. Mr. Richardson stated as a member of the Chamber of Commerce he is pro business and would like to see more commercial development, but the case here is compelling. He noted with respect to the Crossroads development he feels people are focusing too much on the residential component while the overall development is basically redeveloping an underutilized site. Mr. Coutinho noted the ZAC looked at the proposed OSMUD change and felt it would be a positive one. He noted 7 years ago they wanted 450,000 sq. ft. of commercial space to offset the residential component in order to achieve a revenue neutral project, but in retrospect the Legacy Park location on the north side was not a good idea. Mr. D’Urso noted a similar location on Frankland Rd. for Liberty Mutual works just fine. Mr. Weismantel noted he is still concerned about the increased density. The Board asked for additional public comments, and there were none. Mr. D’Urso moved to close the public hearing. Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Ms. Wright asked if this was the only public hearing on the zoning amendments. Mr. Weismantel stated yes, but there will be opportunity for more discussion on all items. He noted there will be public hearing on April 13 on two additional proposed amendments. Documents 2. : Document entitled “Proposed Zoning Bylaw and Zoning Map Amendments Recommended by the Zoning Advisory Committee to the Planning Board for 2015 Annual Town Meeting”; Handout entitled “Legacy Farms Hopkinton Massachusetts Proposed Change”; Fifth Amendment to Host Community Agreement, marked up Mr. MacDowell; Letters to Hopkinton Planning Board from Miyares and Harrington LLP dated February 18 and 19, 2015 – Comments on proposed zoning bylaw and zoning map amendments Ms. Thomas moved to continue the public hearing to March 9, 2015 at 7:30 P.M. Mr. D’Urso seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Continued Public Hearing – Lumber St./West Main St. – Neighborhood Mixed Use District Master Plan Special Permit Application – REC Hopkinton, LLC/Paul Mastroianni 3. Mr. Weismantel referred to the preliminary Fruit Street Subcommittee report and associated maps distributed to the Board. He noted the draft report will be presented to the Board of Selectmen tomorrow and he asked Board members to send questions/comments to him so he can pass them on to the Subcommittee. He noted they will also meet with the School Committee. He noted the modified Fruit St. plan keeps the fields, wastewater treatment plant, wells, and open Fruit Street Subcommittee 9 space, allocates additional area for Parks & Recreation use, and eliminates areas originally set aside for a school and a DPW facility. He noted the Committee is not in favor of the plan to sell off the 30 acres in original area 8 for market rate homes. She noted the report states the Subcommittee is “opposed to locating cemetery space upstream of the Town wells.” She noted this statement conveys misinformation and creates the idea that cemeteries are a public safety hazard. She noted she received correspondence from the DEP which was shared with the Subcommittee, indicating that cemeteries are not among the land uses restricted or prohibited in a zone 2. She noted the sentence should be taken out or otherwise she does not want her name on the report. Mr. D’Urso stated the Sustainable Green Committee is represented on the Subcommittee and talked about a solar farm on the property, however, there is no mention of their input on this report. Mr. Weismantel noted the Selectmen voted “no” to a solar farm on the Fruit St. property, and that is why it isn’t there. Documents : Report of the Fruit Street Subcommittee – Draft 2-18-15 4. The Board reviewed the list of possible articles for the 2015 annual town meeting. Ms. Thomas moved to submit the following articles into the warrant: Proposed Zoning Bylaw and Zoning Map Amendments and other Articles for Town Meeting a. RA/BD District Boundary Line – Rezone 5 Parcels as RA in the B St. Area b. Define Indoor Recreation and Permit Use in the IB District c. Signs – Lighting Regulations, Design/Placement on Buildings, Prohibit Off-premises Signs, Increase Maximum Size of Trades/Professional Signs d. Add Site Lighting Regulations in the Site Plan Review Bylaw e. OSLPD (Trails in Buffer, Parcel Size) f. Move Definition of Lots in Two or More Residence Districts g. Special Permit Language – Consolidate and Reorganize Mr. Ferrari seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Karp moved to submit the BD/Off-Street Parking article into the warrant, and Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. Ms. Wright stated perhaps they can make the change applicable to side streets only, but she would prefer taking the article off the list and looking at it next year. Mr. Karp stated they could make those language changes now. Mr. Weismantel noted the Colella’s Supermarket site will be redeveloped and the change could save the developer another step. Ms. Lazarus noted she can have revised language for the Board to review at the next meeting. The Board voted 6 in favor of the motion (Weismantel, Ferrari, Wade, Thomas, Sivo, Karp) with 3 opposed (Wright, DeYoung, D’Urso). The Board discussed the Crossroads Redevelopment District proposal, and some members indicated they were not comfortable with the language as drafted. It was noted the article can be changed and go forward, can be inserted and then pulled later, or it can stay on the warrant and the Board can take no action at town meeting. Ms. Thomas noted she is not comfortable with the language but is willing to give the proponents more time. Mr. Karp moved to submit the Special Permit version of the article into the warrant, and Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. The Board 10 voted 5 in favor (Thomas, Karp, Sivo, Wade, Ferrari) with 4 opposed (D’Urso, Weismantel, Wright, DeYoung). Ms. Thomas moved to put an article on the warrant to accept the following streets as public ways: Erika Drive, Lyn Path, Tiffany Trail, Circle Drive, Falcon Ridge Drive, Snowy Owl Road, and Bridle Path. Mr. Wade seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor. A proposed zoning article scheduled for public hearing on April 13 was reviewed, noting that the Hopkinton Historic District Commission and Design Review Board are proposing it. It was noted this concerns the required level of review of signs that need review and approval of the Historic District Commission. A motion was made to submit the article into the warrant. The motion was seconded and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Ms. Thomas moved to insert an article on the warrant to accept the gift of easement for highway purposes at 85 West Main Street. Mr. D’Urso seconded the motion and the Board voted 8 in favor with Mr. DeYoung opposed. The Board discussed an article to accept a gift of land at Legacy Farms. It was noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission has not determined what will be located on the athletic field parcel. Mr. D’Urso asked for clarification, and Ms. Thomas noted the conveyance of this parcel is covered by a condition of the Master Plan Special Permit. Mr. MacDowell asked if the Board is interested in adding the Wilson Street municipal parcel to the article, and Mr. Weismantel stated that would be a good idea. Ms. Thomas moved to put an article to accept the gift of land (athletic field parcel on East Main St. and municipal parcel on Wilson St.) on the warrant. Mr. Ferrari seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Weismantel referred to an article to approve the new Fruit Street master plan, noting that the article will be a placeholder for now and once they get the plan going, the Board will be able to make its recommendations. Mr. D’Urso noted he is against putting this on the warrant because they don’t have feedback from the Sustainable Green Committee. Mr. Ferrari moved to put the article on the warrant and Mr. Wade seconded the motion. Mr. Weismantel noted it will allow the Parks and Recreation Commission to go ahead with a couple of CPC funding articles as well. The Board voted 8 in favor with Mr. D’Urso opposed. Mr. Weismantel stated the Board should submit an article to obtain an easement to extend the exclusive right turn lane on West Main St. at 91 West Main Street. He noted he will discuss this in more detail with Ms. Lazarus and Mr. Khumalo, and it will be a placeholder for now. Ms. Thomas moved to place the article on the warrant. Mr. Ferrari seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor. The Board canceled a meeting scheduled for February 24, 2015. Other Documents used at the Meeting : Agenda for February 23, 2015 Planning Board meeting; Memo to Planning Board from Elaine Lazarus, dated February 19, 2015 re: Items on February 23, 2015 Planning Board Agenda Adjourned: 10:15 PM Submitted by Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant Approved: March 23, 2015