Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20151027 - Zoning Advisory Committee - Meeting Minutes 1 ZONING ADVISORY COMMITTEE Tuesday, October 27, 2015 7:00 PM Town Hall, 18 Main Street, Hopkinton MA MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: John Coutinho, Chair, Sandy Altamura, , David Hamacher, Mike King, Sarah Minsk-Eduardo, Michael Peirce, Paul Pilotte, Scott Richardson, John Savignano MEMBERS ABSENT: Ted Barker-Hook, Bryan Brown, Jim Ciriello, Brian Karp, Mavis O’Leary, Matthew Wade Others Present: Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning and Permitting; Ria McNamara, 39 Oakhurst Road; Gina DiCarlo, Wag’N Watch; Liz Jefferis, Baypath Humane Society 1. Hotel Overlay District Ms. McNamara stated that hotels not attracted to the Hotel Overlay District (HOD) because of the lack of amenities, such as other accessory uses and businesses that they typically look for. She noted that the HOD requires that a hotel have function space and a restaurant, which is limiting. She stated that the amenity-type uses missing in the HOD aren’t allowed in the underlying districts, Industrial A and Industrial B. She recommended that the HOD be modified so that hotels will locate there, and then look at the Elmwood Park area, which is where she would like one to be. She suggested removing the requirement for 8,000 sq. ft. of function space and the requirement to have a full service restaurant at the hotel. She stated that EMC Corporation is the largest user of hotel rooms in the State, their headquarters are in Hopkinton, and there are no hotels here. Ms. Altamura stated she remembers that those provisions were included to keep out establishments like a Motel 6. Ms. McNamara agreed that something like Motel 6 would not be desirable, but she thinks that the market will dictate a higher end brand. Ms. Altamura stated that nobody wanted Price Chopper as a supermarket in town, but it was the only one that was interested, and the Town can’t choose which particular business it wants. Ms. McNamara stated that hotels today aren’t built with 8,000 sq. ft. of function space. She stated that another barrier is the special permit requirement. Mr. Peirce asked if the pushback from potential hotels regarding function space is conceptual or if it is the size of the space, and Ms. McNamara stated it is both. Mr. Peirce stated his experience is that there is always a health club facility/workout room, not necessarily function halls, and a small restaurant/bar. He noted that the HOD describes hotels like a Sheraton, etc., and asked how many hotels in this area meet those requirements. It was noted that one hotel in Milford and another in Westboro, both built in the 1980’s, meet these requirements. Mr. Peirce suggested changing the bylaw so that what is required today is by right, and what is suggested is by special permit; for example the traditional “full service” hotel by right, and a hotel without function space or restaurant by special permit. Mr. Pilotte stated that the Courtyard Marriott in Milford has a health club/fitness area, pool and restaurant, but only has 2,500 sq. of function space. Ms. Minsk-Eduardo stated that the Doubletree in Westboro has 11,000 sq. ft. of meeting space. Ms. McNamara stated she has 2 spoken to Hyatt and they have indicated that they don’t need to have all the things that the Town requires. Mr. Pilotte asked if the Courtyard is representative of something that would be attractive in Hopkinton. Ms. McNamara noted it is older, and she is trying to deal with how the market is moving in the future. She stated there is a small profit margin for hotels, so operators have pared down what is provided on site. She stated the market in Hopkinton is for an upscale hotel. Ms. Altamura asked how the Town would keep the “downscale” hotels out. Ms. McNamara stated it would be through pricing. It was noted that the Town does not have control over the pricing. Ms. Minsk-Eduardo stated corporate clients are looking for attractive hotels with meeting space. Mr. Peirce stated there should be a requirement for some kind of gathering space at the hotel. Mr. Pilotte stated he would be in favor of going down to 2,500 sq. ft. of meeting space. He stated that the Courtyard attracts weddings and other occasions, so it makes sense to have something, and a restaurant could help too. Mr. Coutinho suggested 2,000 sq. ft. of restaurant and meeting space. Ms. Minsk-Eduardo referred to her research into this issue, and noted that the minimum for a 3-star hotel is a fitness center, restaurant and meeting/function space. Ms. McNamara stated that the hotels will determine whether there is a market for function space area. She stated that these facilities also need more parking, and she doesn’t know if the Town wants all of that. She stated she wants a hotel as an amenity to attract other businesses. Ms. Minsk- Eduardo stated that hotels that don’t have the three items currently required are the low end ones. Mr. Coutinho noted that new boutique hotels don’t have the extra facilities. Ms. Minsk-Eduardo stated there are a lot of hotels in the immediate area, and Ms. McNamara stated they are full. Ms. Altamura suggested taking out the 8,000 sf requirement, and just calling for a function/meeting room. The Committee discussed the number of hotels allowed in the HOD, which is one on each side of Rt. 495. Mr. Hamacher moved to delete “health club facilities” and replace it with “fitness center”, remove “full service” before “restaurant” and delete the requirement for 8,000 sq. ft. of function and/or meeting room space. The motion was seconded by Mr. Peirce. Mr. Peirce stated that there should be some required amount of function/meeting room space required so that hotels don’t game the system by labeling a very small area as function/meeting room space that really won’t work that way. The motion was amended to require 1,500 sq. ft. of function/meeting room space. The vote on the amended motion was unanimous. 2. 495/Parkwood Area Overlay District The Committee reviewed the draft 495/Parkwood Area Overlay District provided by Ms. McNamara. Ms. McNamara stated that the Rt. 495/Parkwood Drive/Elmwood Park area doesn’t have amenities to attract businesses or a hotel. She stated there are one story industrial buildings but she would like to attract multi-story commercial and residential uses, so the Industrial B (IB) District needs to be changed. In response to a question about building height, Ms. McNamara stated the draft limits the building height to 70 feet. Ms. Altamura asked how many stories 70 feet is, and Mr. Richardson stated it varies depending on the use. He stated that for a hotel, it is probably 7 stories. Ms. Altamura stated that when this was discussed last year and earlier this year, nobody wanted buildings this tall, and it isn’t why people moved to Hopkinton. Mr. Coutinho stated that the height needs to be put into the context of the topography, because some of the buildings would be at a lower grade than the surrounding area. Mr. Peirce stated he is 3 involved in a case in Newton where the bylaw specifies 3 stories or 44 feet, the city defines a story unit as 12 feet because that’s what houses are, but commercial is not that. He noted that biotechnology needs taller floors because of laboratory equipment etc., and the concept of a “story” is modifying so the bylaw should only talk about absolute height. It was suggested that some options are to specify one maximum height by right and another by special permit, or key maximum height to setback so the building can be taller if it is further back from the street. It was noted that if the building abuts a residential area a greater setback could be required as well. Height equivalent to 1 to 3 stories by right and 4 to 7 by special permit was discussed. Ms. Minsk-Eduardo stated that 3 stories by right and more by special permit makes sense, and the bigger buildings are the more parking is needed, etc. that should be considered. Ms. Lazarus noted that the current maximum height is 45 feet in the IB District and 60 feet in the IA District along Rt. 495. Mr. Peirce stated that the key is economics, and the Town can pass a bylaw that looks like it encourages something, but if it builds in disincentives so it can’t economically happen, the Town can take credit for looking ahead but doesn’t have to take the hit because nothing ever comes. He stated that the Town has to create a real incentive for something to happen. Mr. Richardson stated that residential uses last year were controversial for this area, and asked if it should be deleted from the draft or reduced in scope. The issue was discussed. Ms. McNamara stated she would like to have some residential uses allowed in order to attract other uses. Mr. Richardson stated that people are concerned right now with too much residential development, so residential uses could be taken out of the draft. Ms. Altamura stated that this will go down in flames at town meeting because people will object to more development. Ms. McNamara stated that developers can mitigate impacts if there is enough money involved. Ms. Altamura stated she thinks people will be uncomfortable with this at town meeting, and a 2/3 vote is hard to get. Mr. Hamacher stated that a new restaurant proposed on Lumber St. is attracted to the site because 280 residential units are under construction next door. He stated the amenities desired here need residents within walking distance. Ms. Minsk-Eduardo stated a similar concept failed in Westborough. Mr. Coutinho stated that project failed because it wasn’t near the highway. Ms. Minsk-Eduardo suggested that this proposal be tabled, noting there is already a lot of development going on. Mr. Peirce moved to modify the draft to change the building height limits to 70 feet in height zones A and C and 45 feet in height zone B. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hamacher. The vote on the motion was 5 in favor (Peirce, Hamacher, Coutinho, Richardson, Savignano) and 4 opposed (Minsk-Eduardo, Pilotte, King, Altamura). Ms. Minsk-Eduardo moved to table this proposal until another meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Altamura. Ms. Minsk- Eduardo stated she would like time to do more research. The vote on the motion was 7 in favor and one opposed (Richardson). 3. Dog Day Care Mr. Coutinho stated he has invited Gina DiCarlo, owner of Wag’N Watch in Upton to the meeting to provide information about dog day care. Ms. DiCarlo stated she has run a dog day care business in Upton for 8 ½ years, and she was the first in that town and it was hard getting approval. She stated the Town was most concerned about safety, odor, and noise. She stated 4 that the permit requires that the dog waste has to be “legally removed”, she puts it in the trash and a company removes it and there aren’t any problems. She stated that the town didn’t want it composted. She noted that some towns require the dogs to stay on the property and some allow them to be walked. She stated that Upton let her set the hours, and she is open from 7 am to 6 pm. She stated that she could have Saturday hours but she does not, and sleepovers are prohibited. She noted that people try to get around the Kennel requirements of Title 5. She noted that she wanted to have up to 40 dogs, but Upton limits her to 25 for no reason and she has a 35 acre property. She stated there are no required staff ratios or minimum lot size in Upton. Ms. DiCarlo was asked how much time the dogs spend outside. She stated the outside hours aren’t limited, and the day care is in an old dairy barn/garage area, so the dogs can go in and out all the time, which they do. She stated unless it is cold, the door is open all the time, and she has a big fenced in area. She was asked if supervision of the dogs is required, and she stated the Town doesn’t require it but there is full staff all day and they are not left alone. She stated that some dog day cares crate the dogs for 2 to 3 hours in morning and then again in the afternoon. Mr. Coutinho stated he uses Ms. DiCarlo’s business, and the dogs bark for 30 seconds when they first arrive, then they stop. Ms. DiCarlo stated she knows of one with a ¼ acre fenced in area with houses nearby, dogs are in and out of a basement room, and it is limited to 6 dogs. She stated the numbers aren’t really based on anything; this person has 3 dogs of their own so she is over the 6, which is ok per the Town. Ms. Minsk-Eduardo asked if the area is zoned agricultural, and Ms. DiCarlo replied yes, but it is really residential. Ms. DiCarlo stated the Town requires that vehicles be parked in the driveway and not on the street. She stated there was an issue as to who was to spot check for compliance – animal control officer, police, zoning enforcement – but no one wants to do it. Ms. DiCarlo stated that no grooming or training is allowed. She provided a copy of a case in Wellesley with conditions spelled out for a similar use, and noted that some dog day cares have pickup and delivery. Ms. Altamura asked how impacts can be mitigated. She noted that one could limit hours for drop off and pickup so there isn’t a constant flow of traffic, but if everyone comes at 8 am, then it could be pretty noise at that time. Ms. Altamura stated it shouldn’t be allowed in Hopkinton at all, but maybe it could be in industrial areas. She stated in most of Hopkinton there are small lots and a lot of people around. Ms. Minsk-Eduardo stated she thinks that a small number of dogs might be ok in residential areas. Mr. Coutinho stated that Mike Shepard recommended having a reasonable regulation. Mr. Peirce stated this is a situation where people might be able to press the home business angle right now, and to avoid the battle over that, it is probably a circumstance where the Town could allow it in such a manner that it is so heavily regulated that it discourages them. Ms. DiCarlo stated she recommends an expiration date on the permit. Mr. Peirce stated there should be a lookback date to see if there are problems or a periodic renewal required. Ms. DiCarlo stated the Town generally doesn’t have to worry about cleanliness and odor because no one would bring their dog to a place that is not clean and neat. She noted that there are health/medical rules regarding certain canine illnesses that operators have to be aware of. Ms. Minsk-Eduardo stated the bylaw could require a solid fence and a buffer with setbacks. Ms. DiCarlo noted that dog day cares can also purchase insurance. 5 4. Animal Shelters The Committee reviewed the revised definition provided by Ms. Lazarus. After discussion, it was the consensus that no additional changes are needed. The Committee discussed what to require of animal shelter facilities in a new bylaw. It was the consensus to include:  6 ft. tall solid fence  Waste containment and legal removal of waste  Odor control  Licensing as required  Safety measures  Accommodate all vehicles on the property; no on-street parking  Animals indoors at night  Minimum 2 acre lot  Adequate measures implemented to ensure that noise impacts to the surrounding neighborhood are mitigated. Mr. Hamacher suggested limiting the use to nonresidential districts. Ms. Lazarus suggested allowing it anywhere by special permit if the lot is at least 3 or 4 acres in size. The Committee decided to continue discussion at the next meeting. Adjourned: 9:00 PM Approved: November 30, 2015 Documents used at the meeting:  Memo dated 10/22/15 to Zoning Advisory Committee from E. Lazarus re: October 27, 2015 Zoning Advisory Committee Meeting  Document entitled “495/Parkwood Area Overlay District DRAFT Rev. 2 – 10/20/15”  Zoning Bylaw Article XXIX, Hotel Overlay District