HomeMy Public PortalAbout20150915 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes
1
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
Tuesday, September 15, 2015 7:30 P.M.
Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton, MA
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kenneth Weismantel, Chairman, Brian Karp, Vice Chairman, Fran
DeYoung, John Ferrari, Claire Wright, Matthew Wade, Frank D'Urso
MEMBERS ABSENT: Patrick Mahon, Frank Sivo
Present: Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting; Cobi Wallace, Permitting
Assistant
Mr. Weismantel opened the meeting and summarized the agenda. He noted that recent 300th
Anniversary events were outstanding, and thanked the 300th Anniversary Celebration Committee
on behalf of the Planning Board.
1. Hunters Ridge Subdivision
Chris Nation, developer, appeared before the Board. The Board reviewed the request for the
release of 8 lots from the Conditional Approval Agreement. Mr. Weismantel stated the Board’s
inspecting engineer recommends increasing the performance guarantee amount by $51,899.00 to
cover the remaining section of roadway, and Mr. Nation agreed with the estimate. Mr.
Weismantel noted the subdivision is coming along very nicely. Mr. Karp moved to establish the
performance guarantee amount the portion of the road serving the 8 lots at $51,899.00, for a total
of $159,562.00 for the subdivision. Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion and the Board voted
unanimously in favor. Mr. D’Urso moved to release lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 from the
Conditional Approval Agreement upon receipt of the additional funds. Mr. Ferrari seconded the
motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Ms. Wright left the Board at this time.
2. Public Hearing – 34-40 Hayden Rowe – Site Plan Review –RPI Hopkinton LLC
Jerry Effren, attorney, Ed Bell, property owner, Joe Marquedant, surveyor, and Ron Müller, traffic
engineer, appeared before the Board. Mr. Weismantel stated the Board will follow the public
hearing outline prepared for this application, and welcomed input from Board members and the
public at any time during the hearing.
Mr. Effren stated his client proposes to convert a portion of the building at 34-40 Hayden Rowe
from warehouse/commercial/office space to 17 two-bedroom condominium units. He noted the
proposed change required a special permit from the Board of Appeals for the change of use,
because its uses are nonconforming. He stated the Board of Appeals voted to grant the special
permit on 8/26/15, but the decision has not been filed yet. He stated the plan includes
modifications to the parking lot, paving a currently unpaved area, installation of subsurface
drainage components, changes to the exterior of the building, reconfiguration of access doors, and
additional landscaping. He noted the matter is also subject to Design Review Board review, and
other members of his team are meeting with them tonight. Mr. Effren stated they are proposing
2
more than 10 dwelling units, which means they are required to provide one affordable unit and the
developer is very close to a determination on how to address it so that he can submit the special
permit application to the Board. He stated they just received a copy of the peer review letter from
BETA Group, and it appears they can address the outstanding issues with appropriate changes and
additional documentation but will need some extra time.
Mr. Marquedant stated the site is located between Hayden Rowe and Church St. and the building
currently houses a Kidsborough daycare facility and has professional office/warehouse/light
manufacturing tenants with various access points. He stated there is an existing parking lot
permitted under a previous Board of Appeals ruling. He stated years ago as agreed with the Board
of Appeals they closed off several curb cuts on the Church St. side which now has mature
landscape screening. Mr. Marquedant stated they propose using the existing curb cut on Hayden
Rowe but reducing the width from 48 ft. to 24 ft. and creating an internal traffic flow similar to
what is there now, formalizing what has been an informal setting with asphalt, berm and
stormwater control, one way traffic in certain locations, two way elsewhere to accommodate
daycare clients, and adding some queuing space. He stated Kidsborough offers a split program
with younger children and teens and has a second means of egress/access, and children and parents
will be able to access the facility as they can now. He noted the site has been permitted and
designed for 105 parking spaces under a previous Board of Appeals decision, and they would only
need 96 spaces with the change in use. He described the design of the parking lot. He stated the
developer plans to add an open covered parking area (carport) with designated parking spaces for
each residential condominium owner. He noted other spaces associated with the residential use
will be spread out over the remaining parking area. He pointed out the location of the existing
entrance/exit doors associated with current uses, and explained the proposed changes to the layout.
Mr. Marquedant stated they propose to pave the entire parking lot and introduce additional
landscaping for screening and to break up the look. He noted they will berm the edges of the
parking lot and install a closed drainage system which will infiltrate the water via an underground
facility through stones and pipes into two rain gardens to handle the overflow. He noted the
Kidsborough playground will stay in its current location. He noted they will lose some trees on
the north side, some of which are dead. He noted the residential use has more intensive needs in
terms of water and sewer than the existing uses, and the applicant received approval from the
DPW for the increased demand.
Mr. Müller stated he was asked to identify projected changes in traffic generation, and referred to
the report submitted with the application. He noted they counted 159 AM and 140 PM total peak
hour trips respectively, and determined the anticipated amount of traffic with the building fully
occupied (15,000 sq. ft.) with the current allowed uses and Kidsborough enrollment at full
approved capacity. He stated with the change of use, there would be fewer trips, 29 in the AM and
15 in the PM, although this would be a slight increase over what is happening there today because
some of the space is vacant. Mr. Müller noted he also looked at the proposed entrance
reconfiguration at Hayden Rowe, and believes this will be much better and less confusing. He
noted sight line distance is not addressed in his report, but it is more than adequate in both
directions.
3
Mr. Müller stated he does not agree with the statement in BETA Group’s letter that the numbers in
the table do not reflect the worksheet data. Mr. Müller noted the numbers do match and the
confusion stems from the office use trip rates, and he will respond to the letter officially. Mr.
Weismantel noted from a traffic standpoint they are still looking for additional information. Ms.
Lazarus asked about updated traffic counts that were to be done when school is in session. Mr.
Müller noted counts were taken at the appropriate time, and the real comparison is between what
traffic could be generated based on the by-right uses and the proposed changes. Mr. D'Urso noted
when school is in session, the daily daycare traffic will be different, and he believes the abutters
want to see the numbers.
Phil Paradis, BETA Group, the Board's engineering consultant, stated he thought his traffic
engineer had checked the dates when the count was taken. Mr. Müller stated traffic counts were
done on 4/16/15, not during school vacation, and presently there are more kids at Kidsborough.
Mr. Paradis stated he understands the residents want to know about the anticipated change in
traffic.
Reference was made to the pending Board of Appeals special permit decision, and Ms. Lazarus
noted Town Counsel is writing the decision which should be filed shortly. Ms. Lazarus stated the
Design Review Board is meeting with the applicant tonight. She stated one of the site plan
standards is a requirement for sidewalks along the frontage of the subject property on all abutting
streets, and there is one on Church St. but on the opposite side of the street. She stated the Board
has the ability to give special consideration for unique circumstances, and the Board will need to
determine whether it will require a sidewalk on this side of Church St. She stated that it would be
beneficial to have a pedestrian connection that is convenient to downtown, which means to Church
St. She noted that without a path of some kind, people would be required to walk through the
existing bushes or take the long way by walking down Hayden Rowe. She noted there is an area
on the northwestern corner of the site that could be appropriate. She noted the Town is looking for
pedestrian connectivity, especially downtown.
Mr. Paradis referred to the report, but noted BETA had concerns regarding pedestrian access,
emergency access around the parking lot, and they want the applicant to consider other options for
the drain outlet. Mr. Weismantel stated he encourages the applicant's engineers to work with the
Board's consultant between meetings to resolve outstanding engineering issues.
Mr. Weismantel stated he would like to add the following items to the public hearing outline for
more detailed discussion at the next meeting: a) Church St. sidewalk, b) pedestrian connection to
Church St., c) Design Review Board recommendations and d) Bd. of Appeals decision.
Mr. Karp moved to continue the public hearing to October 5, 2015 at 7:30 PM. Mr. Wade
seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Ms. Wright returned to the Board at this time.
3. Continued Public Hearings - East Main St. – Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Special
Permit Application and Stormwater Management Permit Application - Marathon Solar,
LLC
4
Rich Kleiman, applicant, and Stacy Minihane, engineer, appeared before the Board. Mr.
Weismantel asked if there were any changes to the plan since the last hearing. Mr. Kleiman noted
they have had good discussions with the 26.2 Foundation and the Parks & Recreation
Commission. He noted at its meeting last night, the Commission voted unanimously to support
the proposed impact mitigation, part of which is reflected in the draft set of conditions dated
today. Mr. Kleiman presented the revised site plan and explained the changes. He noted
Marathon Solar commits to moving the hedgerow back and around the east side of the pond to
preserve the scenic view from a future Parks and Recreation facility and/or Marathon Museum.
He noted they also offered to increase the evergreen buffer zone to 50 ft., and as a precaution, will
plant evergreens along the south side to be maintained for the lifetime of the project even though
there already is a significant vegetative buffer zone between the road and the project. He noted
that the Conservation Commission has approved the project. Mr. Kleiman stated they are grateful
for everyone’s cooperation.
Mr. DeYoung asked for clarification on the changes agreed to from the Parks and Recreation
Commission's perspective. Mr. Kleiman referred to several proposed conditions, including the
requirement to provide $80,000 to be used for future screening. He stated draft condition #21
gives the Commission the opportunity to check at a later date if screening is adequate or needs to
be updated. Eric Sonnett, Parks and Recreation Commission, stated since the last meeting the
Commission asked Scott Richardson to work with the applicant to come up with a topographic
view of the site and determine what would be necessary in terms of screening. He noted Mr.
Richardson made several recommendations and Marathon Solar agreed to every suggestion made.
He noted the $15,000 initially proposed for screening has now grown to $80,000, which should be
adequate, but the Commission also wanted to walk the site 6 months after project completion (or
in the following spring) to evaluate conditions. He noted the Commission is very pleased with the
cooperation from Marathon Solar, and voted unanimously in favor of the proposal, assuming the
Board will incorporate the 5 or 6 related conditions of approval. Mr. DeYoung thanked Mr.
Sonnett and the Parks and Recreation Commission for working with the applicant, and asked if
there was any response from the Board of Selectmen to the Planning Board's letter regarding this
matter. Mr. Weismantel stated there has been no reply, but he believes if Parks and Recreation is
satisfied, the Board of Selectmen will be happy too.
Jane Moran, 70 East Main St., stated she lives across the street and as a member of the Hopkinton
Trails Committee would like to know about trails on the site. Mr. Weismantel noted there is a
consideration for trails on the future town land adjacent to this, but the solar facility is on Roger
Mezitt's private property. Mr. Sonnett noted trails have already been engineered going north into
the Legacy Farms development, and Mr. Weismantel stated Mr. MacDowell will work with Mr.
Mezitt on the extension of the East Main St. sidewalk. Ms. Moran asked about the location of the
fence, and Mr. Kleiman showed its location. Mr. Kleiman noted there are some paths on the site
and feels there is ample space to get around. Ms. Moran noted Mr. Mezitt has always been very
nice and accommodating, and she feels the overall project is really wonderful.
Mr. DeYoung moved to find that the criteria for approval in the Commercial Solar Photovoltaic
Installation bylaw have been met. Mr. Ferrari seconded the motion and the Board voted
unanimously in favor. Mr. Weismantel asked if Mr. Kleiman has objections to any of the
proposed conditions as drafted, and Mr. Kleiman stated he did not. Mr. Karp moved to grant the
5
special permit with the following conditions: Mr. Ferrari seconded the motion and the Board
voted unanimously to approve the application with the following conditions:
1. The vegetative planting shown on the plan shall be completed concurrently with the installation of the
solar facility, with the exception that if the facility is constructed in the winter months, planting may be
deferred to the next growing season.
2. The solar facility shall be constructed substantially in conformance with the approved plan, the
Stormwater Management Permit and the Order of Conditions issued by the Conservation Commission.
3. The Director of Municipal Inspections will inspect the solar facility’s construction for compliance with
the Special Permit. If the Director of Municipal Inspections determines at any time before or during
construction that a registered professional engineer or other such outside professional is required to
assist with the inspections, the applicant shall be responsible for the cost of those inspections.
4. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the Board prior to the
commencement of construction.
5. If a building is constructed on the adjacent Legacy Farms recreational parcel to the west of the solar
facility site during the lifetime of the solar facility, and it is determined by the Town that additional
screening for a building is necessary, the applicant shall provide funds to the Town to purchase and
install plantings to accomplish the necessary screening.
If a marathon center/museum building is constructed on property which is now 43 East Main St., and it
is determined by the owner of the marathon center/museum that additional screening for the building is
necessary and that such screening would be most effective on the recreational parcel, the Applicant
shall provide funds to the Town to purchase and install plantings to accomplish the necessary screening
on the Legacy Farms recreational parcel, provided, however, that the installation of such plantings is
approved by the entity having jurisdiction of the Legacy Farms recreational parcel. The total amount
of funds to be provided under this Condition shall not exceed $80,000.
The term “installation” shall include the location, quantity, type and maintenance of the plantings. The
term “screening” shall refer to the requirements of Zoning Bylaw § 210-202.E, which requires that the
visual impact of the solar installation be mitigated, and whenever reasonable, structures shall be
shielded from view by the use of landscaping, natural features and fencing.
6. The utility connection from the existing utility poles on East Main St. onto the site shall be
underground. Within the site, which includes the access easement, the utility connection shall be as
depicted on the approved plan. If, after review of the plan with Eversource Energy a different
connection configuration is necessary, the applicant may request an amendment to the plan.
7. The owner of the property and the owner/operator of the solar facility shall have a decommissioning
agreement in place for as long as the solar facility is located on the property.
8. In accordance with the provisions of § 210-203.E, the applicant shall post a performance bond with the
Town, in an amount equal to the estimated cost to remove all components of the solar facility from the
property. A letter of credit or other surety instrument in an amount equal to the estimated cost to
remove all components of the solar installation from the property issued by a bank doing business in
the Commonwealth pursuant to proper licensure from the Massachusetts Division of Banks shall be one
acceptable form of the performance bond, subject to a confirmatory review by Town Counsel. The
Town shall be a dual obligee with the applicant/owner under the decommissioning performance bond
to ensure that the Town may avail itself of the bond in the event that the applicant/owner or Marathon
Solar LLC fails to decommission the installation. No construction or preparation for construction shall
commence on-site until the applicant has posted a performance bond with the Town, in a form
acceptable to Town Counsel, pursuant to this Condition.
9. The Agreement between Marathon Solar LLC and Legacy Farms LLC dated May 27, 2015 shall be
implemented.
10. There shall be no reduction in the size of the lease area (consisting of approximately 20 acres of the 57
acres on the subject parcel) on which the solar facility is located for any reason.
11. All signage at the solar facility site must comply with Article XXVII of the Zoning Bylaw and the grant
of this Special Permit is not an approval or authorization of any such on-site signage.
6
12. The operator of the solar facility shall conduct vegetation control on-site. No pesticides, herbicides or
other chemical products shall be used. Vegetation control by mechanical means may occur only
between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM.
13. The solar facility shall be subject to all setback, yard, buffer and screening requirements applicable in
the RB District pursuant to § 210-202.B of the Zoning Bylaws.
14. All security fences surrounding the installation shall be set back from the property line at a distance
equal to the setback requirement applicable to buildings within the RB District pursuant to § 210-202.C
of the Zoning Bylaws.
15. No lighting shall be permitted at the solar facility site except as required by the Massachusetts State
Building Code. All lighting must be directed downward, and full cutoff fixtures shall be used pursuant
to § 210-202.F of the Zoning Bylaws.
16. As required by § 210-202.I of the Zoning Bylaws, the owner or operator of the solar facility shall
maintain the facility in good condition. Maintenance is to include painting, structural repairs,
continued compliance with the landscaping and screening requirements, and the integrity of the on-site
security measures. The owner or operator shall also be responsible for maintaining any access roads
serving the installation site.
17. If the Director of Municipal Inspections determines, pursuant to § 210-204 of the Zoning Bylaws, that
the commercial solar photovoltaic installation has been discontinued, the owner shall remove the
installation, including all structures, equipment, security barriers and transmission lines, and stabilize or
re-vegetate the site as necessary to minimize erosion and sedimentation, at the owner’s sole expense
within three (3) months of receipt of the Notice of Discontinuance pursuant to that section.
18. The solar panel array shall not be higher than 7.5 feet above final design grade at any given installation
location on the site.
19. The proposed hedge along the western property line shall be extended around the eastern edge of the
pond, and not on the western side of the pond, so that the pond is visible from the Legacy Farms
recreational parcel (i.e., the Town’s future Park and Recreation parcel adjacent to the solar site to the
west of the solar site). The hedge shall consist of a variety of evergreen plants to provide dense and
variegated screening and shall be sited and maintained so that it does not shade the solar panels.
20. An evergreen buffer of a minimum width of 50 feet shall be maintained between East Main St. and the
solar array in the “Solar Access Easement Area B” shown on the lease area plan for the project. The
evergreen buffer shall be properly maintained during the lifetime of the solar facility with plants in
good condition and may include existing trees and shrubs. Trees shall be replaced if more than 40% of
the tree is dead or substantially damaged. The evergreen buffer shall be sited and maintained so that it
does not shade the solar panels.
21. The applicant shall grant access to the solar site for the Hopkinton Parks and Recreation Commission 6
months after completion of the solar facility or the spring following completion of the solar facility to
review viewshed screening and to determine if further landscaping is needed in the hedgerow and
evergreen buffer areas shown on the approved plan in compliance with § 210-202.E of the Zoning
Bylaw.
Mr. Ferrari seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Mr. Weismantel stated that BETA has determined that the project complies with the DEP
Stormwater Management Standards as required by the Stormwater Management Bylaw. Mr. Karp
moved to find that the plan meets all ten standards in Section 7.0 of the Hopkinton Stormwater
Management and Erosion Control Bylaw and to approve the plan with the following conditions:
1. All erosion and sediment controls shall comply with the following performance criteria:
a. Minimize total area of disturbance and protect natural features and soil.
b. Sequence activities to minimize simultaneous areas of disturbance. Mass clearings and grading of
the entire site shall be avoided.
7
c. Minimize peak rate of runoff in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards.
d. Minimize soil erosion and control sedimentation during construction, provided that prevention of
erosion is preferred over sedimentation control.
e. Divert uncontaminated water around disturbed areas.
f. Maximize groundwater recharge.
g. Install and maintain all Erosion and Sediment Control measures in accordance with the
manufacturer’s specifications and good engineering practices.
h. Prevent off-site transport of sediment.
i. Protect and manage on and off-site material storage areas (overburden and stockpiles of dirt,
borrow areas, or other areas used solely by the permitted project are considered a part of the
project).
j. Comply with applicable Federal, State and local laws and regulations including waste disposal,
sanitary sewer or septic system regulations, and air quality requirements, including dust control.
k. Prevent significant alteration of habitats mapped by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage &
Endangered Species Program as Endangered, Threatened or Of Special Concern, Estimated
Habitats of Rare Wildlife and Certified Vernal Pools, and Priority Habitats of Rare Species from
the proposed activities.
l. Institute interim and permanent stabilization measures, which shall be instituted on a disturbed area
as soon as practicable but no more than 14 days after construction activity has temporarily or
permanently ceased on that portion of the site.
m. Properly manage on-site construction and waste materials.
n. Prevent off-site vehicle tracking of sediments.
o. Dust shall be controlled at the site.
p. Divert offsite runoff from highly erodible soils and steep slopes to stable areas.
2. The project shall comply with the following Erosion and Sediment Control requirements:
a. Prior to any land disturbance activities commencing on the site, the developer shall physically mark
limits of no land disturbance on the site with tape, signs, or orange construction fence, so that
workers can see the areas to be protected. The physical markers shall remain in place until a
Certificate of Completion has been issued.
b. Appropriate erosion and sediment control measures shall be installed prior to soil disturbance.
Measures shall be taken to control erosion within the project area. Sediment in runoff water shall
be trapped and retained within the project area. Wetland areas and surface waters shall be protected
from sediment.
c. Sediment shall be removed once the volume reaches ¼ to ½ the height of a hay bale. Sediment
shall be removed from silt fence prior to reaching the load-bearing capacity of the silt fence which
may be lower than ¼ to ½ the height.
d. Sediment from sediment traps or sedimentation ponds shall be removed when design capacity has
been reduced by 50 percent.
e. Soil stockpiles must be stabilized or covered at the end of each workday. Stockpile side slopes
shall not be greater than 2:1. All stockpiles shall be surrounded by sediment controls.
f. Disturbed areas remaining idle for more than 14 days shall be stabilized with seeding, wood chips,
bark mulch, tarpaulins, or any other approved methods.
g. For active construction areas such as borrow or stockpile areas, roadway improvements and areas
within 50 feet of a building under construction, a perimeter sediment control system shall be
installed and maintained to contain soil.
h. A tracking pad or other approved stabilization method shall be constructed at all entrance/exit
points of the site to reduce the amount of soil carried onto roadways and off the site.
i. Permanent seeding shall be undertaken in the spring from March through May, and in late summer
and early fall from August to October 15. During the peak summer months and in the fall after
October 15, when seeding is found to be impractical, appropriate temporary stabilization shall be
8
applied. Permanent seeding may be undertaken during the summer if plans provide for adequate
mulching and watering.
j. All slopes steeper than 3:1 (h:v, 33.3%), as well as perimeter dikes, sediment basins or traps, and
embankments must, upon completion, be immediately stabilized with sod, seed and anchored straw
mulch, or other approved stabilization measures. Areas outside of the perimeter sediment control
system must not be disturbed.
k. Temporary sediment trapping devices must not be removed until permanent stabilization is
established in all contributory drainage areas.
l. All temporary erosion and sediment control measures shall be removed after final site stabilization.
Disturbed soil areas resulting from the removal of temporary measures shall be permanently
stabilized within 30 days of removal.
3. A minimum of seven days prior to the start of construction, a detailed construction sequence shall be
submitted to the Director of Land Use, Planning and Permitting by the site contractor for review and
approval. The approved construction sequence shall be followed throughout the course of the
construction and shall be altered only with prior review by and written approval from the Director of
Land Use, Planning and Permitting.
4. All required SWPPP Stormwater Construction Site Inspection Reports shall be submitted to the
Director of Land Use, Planning and Permitting within 14 days of each inspection.
5. An adequate stockpile of erosion control materials shall be on site at all times for emergency or routine
replacement and shall include materials to repair or replace silt fences, hay bales, stone filters, berms or
any other devices planned for use during construction.
6. The disturbed area shall be temporarily stabilized by hydroseeding if construction of the approved
commercial solar facility is not commenced within 30 days of lot clearing.
7. East Main St. in the vicinity of the project shall be swept as needed throughout the construction
process.
8. The SWPPP shall be provided to the Board prior to the commencement of construction.
Mr. Wade seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Ferrari moved to
close the public hearings. Mr. Wade seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in
favor. Mr. Kleiman thanked the Board for working with them on this application.
4. 203 Pond St. Subdivision
Dmitry Deych, developer, appeared before the Board. He noted he is a general contractor and one
year ago acquired this 12-lot subdivision. He noted he started construction in late May, and
experienced some delays because of DPW's objection to installing the water main on Fox Hollow
Rd. below the culvert as shown on the approved plan. He noted they revised the design, and the
road has now been cleared and cuts and fills are more or less complete. He noted most of the
drainage components are installed although they still have to do some blasting. Mr. Deych stated
it looks like they will be able to lay down the binder course of pavement by the end of October,
but would like permission to start construction of one model home and two foundations before
winter.
Mr. Weismantel asked Ms. Lazarus for a recommendation. Ms. Lazarus stated it is preferred that
the binder course be in place before a building permit is issued for safety and access reasons. She
stated lots could be released by the Board for building/sale without pavement, but the performance
guarantee amount that would be required would be quite high, because it must reflect the Town’s
cost to complete all remaining work. She noted in this case it would also have to include removal
of the existing home because it is in the future roadway. She noted the statute is clear that the
Board cannot release lots without a monetary performance guarantee, but perhaps the developer
9
could phase the work and lot releases, starting with the lots closest to Pond St. Mr. Weismantel
stated he does not feel comfortable with granting the developer's request, as there is still a lot of
work to be done before the road is really passable, and the developer has permits for and is
working on the Pond St. frontage lots. Ms. Wright noted she has not heard of this type of request
before, and is worried about setting a precedent. She noted she does not want the Town to get
stuck if the worst case happens and the road does not get built, although she is willing to consider
some type of compromise.
Mr. Weismantel stated it is his understanding from the purchase and sales agreement that Mr.
Coolidge still owns a number of lots. He asked if Mr. Coolidge is still living there and Mr. Deych
replied yes. Mr. Deych noted they have a created an "island" around the existing home and are
working around it the best they can, but are unable to complete the road. He asked if the Board
would be ok with only foundation permits, and Ms. Lazarus stated a foundation permit is a
building permit and subject to the Subdivision Control Law requirements as outlined. Ms. Wright
stated she understands the developer’s need, but the Town has to be protected. Mr. Weismantel
stated it appears it is the consensus of the Board that building permits should not be issued until
the road is finished to binder.
5. Approval Not Required Plan - 3 and 5 Bridle Path – Crama LLC & Malladi
Robert Guigli, developer, described the plan to reconfigure the lot lines for 3 and 5 Bridle Path,
and swap 140 sq. ft. parcels of land to achieve easier driveway access to 5 Bridle Path. Mr. Karp
moved to endorse the plan as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law. Mr.
Ferrari seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
6. Continued Public Hearings – Public Library Renovation/Expansion Project - 13 Main St.
& 9 Church St. - Site Plan Review and Special Permit for Shared/Off-Site Parking -
Town of Hopkinton
Dan McIntyre, Chairman, Permanent Building Committee, Jim DeVellis, engineer, Philip O'Brien,
Jr., architect, and Ron Müller, traffic engineer, appeared before the Board. Mr. DeVellis stated
there is a new revised plan which responded to BETA’s comments which is ready for discussion.
Mr. Weismantel asked if the Board received a formal copy of the revised plans, and Ms. Lazarus
stated she just received it electronically today. Mr. Weismantel stated that is a problem as the
Board needs material to be submitted in a timely manner. Mr. DeVellis explained the changes,
including a proposal to replace the entire sidewalk instead of just pieces of it. He noted changes
include a reconfiguration of the handicapped access to the Main St. entrance. Mr. Weismantel
asked if the Historic District Commission is happy with the revised design. Ms. Wright asked if it
is what was approved in the Certificate of Appropriateness, and Mr. O'Brien stated it is similar.
Ms. Wright noted it sounds like the proposed design does not have Historic District Commission
approval and cannot be built without it. Mr. O'Brien noted it is not a substantial change, and Ms.
Wright stated it still needs to be reviewed and approved. Mr. Weismantel asked if in Ms. Wright's
opinion this change will trigger another Design Review Board (DRB) review, and Ms. Wright
stated the DRB pretty much left this up to the Historic District Commission.
Mr. DeVellis noted the revised plan makes provisions for the bike rack, and parking stays the
same. He pointed out a tree that is worth saving according to the Tree Warden, and referred to
changes in landscaping with respect to type and durability, with the number of trees unchanged.
10
He noted they added silt sacks in the catch basins per BETA's request. He stated the test pits at 9
Church St. showed good perk test results, but as stated by BETA, the soils are poor so the system
has to be increased to accommodate actual soil conditions. He noted they re-ran the numbers
using the Cornell rainfall data, and those details will be accommodated going forward with
additional piping but no extra structures. He noted BETA indicated everything has been
addressed. He noted the existing sign can remain in its present location, but if the Town wants to
move it they will have to come back before the Board. Mr. DeVellis noted they plan to eliminate
the lot line separating 13 Main St. and 9 Church St. and combine the two parcels into one. Mr.
DeVellis referred to the application for shared/off-site parking and noted this still has to be
discussed. He referred to erosion control requirements, and stated there will be notes added to the
plan regarding public safety measures during construction. He noted BETA has been very
responsive and they are good to work with. He noted they can safely say they will able to address
outstanding issues without any problems, and Mr. Weismantel stated the most recent BETA letter
indicates that most issues have been resolved.
Ms. Wright asked for clarification regarding the proposed changes to the corner of Main St. and
Church St. near the old granite wall. Mr. DeVellis clarified it refers to handicapped access at the
sidewalk on the corner, and nothing to do with the wall. Mr. McIntyre noted this really should be
a DPW issue, but they felt they had to address BETA's comments. Mr. Weismantel noted the
proponents don't necessarily have to fix the Main St. sidewalk, unless it’s really unsafe, because
the downtown corridor plan proposes changes there. Mr. McIntyre noted construction will
probably destroy the Church St. sidewalk so they have to reconstruct it, but rebuilding the Main
St. sidewalk to ADA standards should be a Town-wide expense especially since the Library has a
limited budget. Mr. Weismantel noted the proponents may want to do the corner, considering the
application talks about off-site parking across the street. Mr. McIntyre noted that is a good point.
Mr. D'Urso asked about handicapped accessibility, and Mr. DeVellis clarified that all doors need
to have handicapped access. Mr. D'Urso asked for clarification, referring to the handicapped
access for Town Hall (one door only) compared to what appears to be needed for the Library. Mr.
O'Brien stated the codes for existing buildings differ from those for new buildings. He noted they
are over the limit on the Library building and have to make sure all doors are handicapped
accessible. He noted the Church St. entrance serves the neighborhood and is closest to the parking
lot, and Main St. will provide access for evening events when the rest of the facility is closed.
Mr. Weismantel asked if there any comments on pedestrian traffic flow, as that is where the
discussion left off last time. There were no comments. Mr. Weismantel asked about the
possibility of a sidewalk/curbside book return. Mr. O'Brien stated the book return is on the
outside of the building, next to the door at the Church St. entrance. Mr. Weismantel stated he
would not mind giving up a few of parking spaces in return for curbside convenience. Ms. Wright
asked about the possibility of having a drop off location in the back of the building up against the
new parking lot. Alternatives were discussed.
Reference was made to the need for offsite parking. Mr. Weismantel asked about the status of the
negotiations with St. John's Church, and Mr. McIntyre stated the issue is at the Town Manager
level and he is not sure if anything has happened since the last meeting. Mr. Weismantel noted
trying to work something out with the Church would be easier to deal with than having to answer
11
questions regarding the use of the Town Hall parking lot. Dave Daltorio, Town Engineer, noted
the Library application is not asking for parking spaces other than those under Town jurisdiction,
and there are plenty of on-street spaces between Hayden Rowe and Walcott St. Mr. Weismantel
stated the Library cannot apply all those to their parking requirement. Mr. Daltorio stated that as
noted in the narrative, the request was to determine the parking requirements based on zoning and
take credit for on street parking spaces in the area. Mr. Weismantel stated under the bylaw the
Library can only apply the on-street parking spaces directly adjacent to the building, and it is
unrealistic to count on the Town-owned parking spaces behind Town Hall. He noted he does not
want to end the discussion on this note but the Town has to do something to create more spaces,
and the Church parking lot would be a viable option. He stated he is not terribly worried about
parking for the Library operation itself, but it will be another matter for the auditorium events. It
was noted that the function space will have 107 seats. Ms. Wright asked if they are counting the
spaces around the Town Common, and Mr. McIntyre stated no. Ms. Wright noted the Common is
relatively close, and if Marathon Way is changed to one way they could get quite a few more
spaces if laid out diagonally. Mr. McIntyre noted he feels parking is not a big issue, considering
the creation of the new parking lot with 24 spaces, and people will find a spot somewhere. Mr.
Weismantel stated they should consider the needs of other businesses in the area and the lack of
parking may be an intractable problem, causing him to think about rules and restrictions with
respect to the use of the auditorium. Mr. McIntyre noted there are daytime events at the Library
now, and people manage just fine. Mr. Weismantel stated there will be a 100+ seat auditorium
and it is clear to him that more shared parking is needed because “if you build it they will come”.
He noted people may decide to park at the Church but without an agreement they too could decide
to put up signs like Hopkinton Drug has. Mr. DeYoung agreed that having the large room changes
the dynamics. Ms. Wright noted it will take time for the Library to get built, and perhaps by then
the Center School will be decommissioned, opening up spaces there. Mr. Weismantel stated he
does not think timing will work out in that respect and he is sure people won't park behind Center
School to go to the Library, and St. John's is much closer. Ms. Wright stated perhaps in the long
run all of this will work itself out, and Mr. McIntyre agreed. Mr. D'Urso expressed concerns about
a "perfect storm" with meetings or events happening all at once. Mr. Weismantel strongly
suggested pursuing a deal with the Church or other nearby locations.
Mr. DeYoung asked about off-site parking at 61 Main St. Scott Richardson stated he feels there is
ample parking within a reasonable distance even in a case of a major event, with or without an
agreement with St. John's, but that aside they are actually talking to Crosspoint Associates
regarding the possibility of using their parking lot. Mr. Weismantel stated they can always point
out the available parking options when advertising for an event, but people just prefer to drive and
park as close as possible, and the immediate Library neighborhood should not be imposed upon if
it can be avoided. Ms. Wright stated she feels the Center School is still an option once its use as a
school is discontinued and the playground is gone. Mr. Ferrari suggested the possibility of
limiting the number of people in the function room until a long term solution to the parking
problem has been found. Mr. McIntyre stated he would prefer a restriction based on meeting
times, not on the number of seats in the auditorium. Mr. McIntyre noted they will take this as an
action item.
Mr. Weismantel asked for input or possible solutions from the public. There were no comments.
The Board discussed site lighting. Mr. McIntyre noted there will be 2 stand-alone light fixtures in
12
the back as well as well as 2 building-mounted lights. Mr. Weismantel asked if Ms. Wright has
looked at light levels and Ms. Wright stated she thought it looked ok. Mr. McIntyre noted either
the Design Review Board or the Historic District Commission commented on flagpole lighting,
and Ms. Wright noted the flag should be lit and uplighting in this case is specifically allowed in
the bylaw. Mr. Karp asked about the walkway lighting, and Mr. DeVellis noted they are
proposing small bollards as shown in the photometric plan. It was noted these will be set in the
planting bed next to the sidewalk and they will work even when there is snow. Mr. Weismantel
asked about light spillage off site, and Mr. McIntyre noted there is no spill. In response to a
question, Mr. O'Brien noted there is one 5.6 foot-candle hot spot next to a door, but light levels are
generally kept as low as possible and the only other alternative would be using more fixtures or go
up in height.
Michael Roughan, 6 Hayden Rowe, asked about the height of the light sources in the parking lot,
and it was noted they will be about 10 ft. high. Jim Walker, 8 Hayden Rowe, asked about the
lighting schedule. Mr. Weismantel noted the Board typically requires lights to be turned off 30
minutes to 1 hr. after close of business. It was noted the Library is open till 8:00 PM three nights
per week. Mr. Weismantel asked about accommodations for special events at night in the
auditorium, and Mr. McIntyre noted the schedule would have to be changed on a case by case
basis. Mr. Weismantel suggested requiring lights to be off no later than 11:00 PM, and Mr.
McIntyre stated they will go along with whatever the Board feels is reasonable. Mr. McIntyre
asked if the Board would restrict meeting times for using the auditorium as a condition of
approval, and Mr. Weismantel stated it would not be typical for the Board to do so. Mr.
Weismantel suggested lights to be turned off no later than 9:00 PM when the Library is open till
8:00 PM, and for meeting nights requiring lights to be off at 11:00 PM or 1 hr after closing,
leaving some lights on for security purposes only. Mr. DeYoung stated he is concerned about the
impact on abutters, and he would like to know who would be in charge and if there is an option for
manual intervention for the lights. Mr. McIntyre stated he suggests leaving this as an action item.
Additional discussion followed and reference was made to the procedures followed at the Senior
Center.
Mr. Weismantel asked about building design, and Ms. Wright stated the Historic District
Commission has approved the building design, and the DRB had no further comments.
Mr. Roughan stated the site currently consists of two lots and he asked about the interpretation
with respect to setback requirements, although he does not know whether it is relevant to the
building design. Mr. Weismantel noted the lots will be combined. Ms. Wright asked about
additional signage on Church St., it being the main entrance side, perhaps installing something on
the wall and not necessarily a standing sign. Mr. McIntyre stated they are not proposing a sign
there, as they don’t think it is necessary. Ms. Wright suggested adding a plaque on the wall
showing the date of the building addition.
Mr. DeVellis described the proposed landscape plan. Sue Hadley, 4 Hayden Rowe, noted at the
last meeting there was a discussion about adding screening along their property fence and she
asked if any progress was made on this issue. She noted they have an existing 6 ft. fence, and are
losing all trees and vegetation from their viewpoint. Mr. O'Brien noted arborvitae typically max
out at about 6 ft., and he is not sure if continuing these along the property line is beneficial while
13
anything larger may drop leaves or branches on the skylights. Ms. Hadley stated the goal was to
achieve screening through greenery, and they would be looking at a 6 ft. wooden fence and a
building. She noted taller arborvitae above the height of the fence would have plenty of light in
order to grow without causing trouble, and she requests more substantial bushes to soften the
impact. Mr. McIntyre noted that would be ok, but they will have to be column type shrubs
because space is limited. Ms. Wright stated there are some arborvitae varieties that grow much
taller than 6 ft. She noted she understands the applicants worked hard on this and one can only do
so much, but screening for light and sound is very important. Mr. McIntyre noted he will look
into additional screening along that property line. Mr. Weismantel stated this will be an action
item. Mr. Weismantel suggested that the applicant's consultants work with the abutters on this.
Mr. D'Urso moved to continue the public hearing to September 28, 2015 at 8:15 PM. Mr. Karp
seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
7. Zoning Advisory Committee
Mr. Weismantel noted Bryan Brown has applied to join the Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC) as
an at-large member. Mr. Karp moved to appoint Mr. Brown to the ZAC to a term expiring on
8/31/15. Mr. Wade seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Karp
moved to accept Anne Beauchamp's resignation from the ZAC due to time commitments. Mr.
D'Urso seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
8. Minutes
The Board reviewed the draft minutes of August 10, 2015. Mr. Wade moved to approve the
minutes as written. Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in
favor. The Board reviewed the draft minutes of August 24, 2015. Mr. DeYoung moved to
approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded and the Board voted unanimously in
favor.
9. Master Plan Update
Mr. Weismantel noted the Board has scheduled discussion of goals and recommendations for the
next meeting. He asked Board members to work on the goals for the areas they were assigned.
Ms. Wright asked if they should be doing the actual wordsmithing as opposed to just putting
together comments, proposed changes and additions. Mr. Weismantel noted a rough draft is fine.
Ms. Lazarus noted the goals are the most important items for Board members to look at now, and
they will be reviewed multiple times over the next few months.
10. Liaisons and Board Member Comments
Mr. Weismantel stated the Community Preservation Committee is accepting proposals for
FY2017, due by 10/13/15. Ms. Wright asked if they can ask the Committee about possible
amendments to projects already funded, and Mr. Weismantel suggested taking this up with the
Chairman. Mr. Ferrari noted that the Open Space Preservation Commission had a meeting
scheduled recently, but did not have any agenda items and there was no need to meet. Mr.
Weismantel stated the first ZAC meeting scheduled for this Tuesday will be used to reorganize,
while a second meeting will have the annual public forum.
Mr. DeYoung referred to the press release regarding a summer project done by Matthew Paolucci,
Hopkinton High School student, as a candidate for Eagle Scout on the Susan deGozzaldi
14
Memorial Trail. Mr. Weismantel noted this concerns the Brook Hollow OSLPD subdivision
approved by the Board on Cross St., and Mr. Paolucci has reconditioned the trail.
Adjourned: 9:55 P.M.
Submitted by Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
Approved: October 5, 2015
Documents used at the Meeting:
Agenda for September 15, 2015 Planning Board meeting
Memorandum to Planning Board from Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Us, Planning & Permitting, dated
9/11/15, re: Items on 9/15/15 Planning Board Agenda
Missed Meeting Certificate - Frank D'Urso – Marathon Solar (7/27/15 meeting)
Hunters Ridge performance guarantee estimate prepared by Bayassociates, Inc., dated 09/01/15
Hunters Ridge Form K
Draft Planning Board Minutes of 8/10/15 and 8/24/15
Plan of Land in Hopkinton, MA for Bridle Path, dated 8/20/15, prepared by Precision Land Surveying
Plans entitled Marathon Solar in Hopkinton Massachusetts, dated 4/21/15 revised through 9/10/15, prepared by
Beals and Thomas, Inc.
Draft Special Permit Conditions – Marathon Solar – Revised 9/15/15
Public Hearing Outline, Site Plan Review – 34-40 Hayden Rowe 9/15/15
Letter from BETA Group, Inc. to Planning Board, dated 9/14/15, re: 34 Hayden Rowe Street Site Plan Review
(Major Project) Peer Review
Plans entitled Hayden Rowe Lofts Hayden Rowe Street, Hopkinton, MA dated 6/1/15 prepared by J.D.
Marquedant & Assoc., Inc.
Public Hearing Outline, Site Plan Review and Special Permit for Shared/Off-Site Parking – 13 Main St. & 9
Church St. – Public Library, 8/24/15, 9/15/15
Letter from BETA Group, Inc. to Planning Board, dated 9/15/15 re: Special Permit and Site Plan Peer Review
(Hopkinton Public Library Addition/Renovation Project)
Plans entitled Submission for Site Plan Approval and Special Permit: Hopkinton Public Library Hopkinton, MA,
dated 7/30/15 revised 9/9/15, prepared by DeVellis Zrein, Inc. and others
Press Release dated 9/2/15 – Matthew Paolucci – Life Scout, Troop 1 Hopkinton re: Brook Hollow Susan
deGozzaldi Memorial Trail