Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20210809 - Planning Board - Meeting MinutesHopkinton Planning Board Monday, August 09, 2021 7:00 P.M. REMOTE MEETING Minutes Members Present:Mary Larson-Marlowe (Vice chair),Robert Benson, Fran DeYoung, Deborah Fein-Brug, Jane Moran, David Paul, Shahidul Mannan, Sundar Sivaraman Members Absent:Gary Trendel (Chair) Present:John Gelcich, Principal Planner; Stephanie Pemberton, administrative assistant; Phil Paradis, BETA Group _____________________________________________________________________ Ms. Larson-Marlowe called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM Ms. Larson-Marlowe called the name of each Planning Board member, and each member that was present responded affirmatively that they were present and could hear her. Ms. Larson-Marlowe then called the names of staff members; Mr. Gelcich, Ms. Pemberton, and Mr. Paradis who responded affirmatively that they were present and could hear. Ms. Larson-Marlowe stated that the meeting is being conducted remotely consistent with the legislature approved June 16, 2021 allowing the continuation of the Executive Order that allows public bodies to meet entirely remotely as long as the public body makes provisions through adequate, alternative means to ensure that interested members of the public are provided reasonable access to the deliberations of the meeting. She noted that for this meeting the Board is convening by video conference via Zoom App as posted on the Town’s web meeting calendar and the Board’s agenda identifying how the public may join. She stated that the meeting may also be broadcast by HCAM. She noted that the meeting is being recorded and attendees are participating by video conference. Ms. Larson-Marlowe stated that all supporting materials that have been provided to the Board are available on the Town website via the web meeting calendar, unless otherwise noted. 1. Administrative Items a. Approval Not Required Plan - 164 Fruit Street - Wagner Braga ℅ Benjamin Construction Group Inc. Joe Marquedant was present on behalf of the Applicant. Mr. Gelcich noted that the applicant is looking to subdivide the existing lot into two lots, one maintaining the existing single-family residence and the other as a new lot. The proposed lots meet the zoning requirements of 200 feet of frontage and minimum lot size for the Agriculture district. He noted the ANR appears to warrant endorsement. Mr. Gelcich also noted that while not related to the endorsement of the ANR, it should be noted that any proposed work that would alter or remove the stone wall as shown on the plan for either lot will 1 require a Scenic Road Permit from the Planning Board, as it appears the stone wall is partially within the right-of-way. Mr. DeYoung moved to endorse the ANR for 164 Fruit Street, Ms. Moran seconded and the Board voted unanimously in favor through roll call vote 8-0-0. b. Vote to Formally Waive Fee for Leonard Street ANR When Mr. Petrozzi withdrew his recent ANR submission on July 12th, the Planning Board agreed to waive the fee for his submission for the July 26th meeting. The agenda item is to take a vote to formally waive the fee, which should have been done at the July 26th meeting. Mr. Sivaraman moved to formally waive the administrative fee for Leonard Street ANR from July 26, 2021, Mr. Paul seconded and the Board voted in favor through roll call vote 7-1-0 (Mr. Benson was opposed). Ms. Larson-Marlowe recused herself from the Board at this time. 2. Continued Public Hearing - Definitive OSLPD Subdivision - Connelly Farm - Ravenwood LLC It was noted that Mr. Mannan is not eligible to vote for this public hearing. Mr. Deyoung chaired this hearing. He asked the applicant if they had reached out to Fire Chief Slaman regarding his comments. Mr. Ron Nation wasn’t present at the time, however Chief Slaman was present and informed the Board that he has not heard from Mr. Nation. Mr. DeYoung asked the Chief regarding his concerns. Chief urged no waiver to the frontage as it would create longer driveways and homes closer together. Joe Marquedant noted they worked the boundary lines in order to remove the request for that waiver. BETA Comments General ● G1. Update plans to differentiate property lines from other lines (i.e. line type and boldness). BETA is unable to see this change, sheet 12 is very difficult to read – contours, edge of pavements, utility and property lines are all similar. BETA deferred to the Planning Board. Mr. Marquedant noted he believed they had made great progress with the most frequent set of plans in order to clean it up. Mr. Paradis asked if they use AutoCad to which Mr. Marquedant noted they do. Mr. Sivaraman asked if this could be taken off line between BETA and Mr. Marquedant rather than during the hearing. Mr. DeYoung noted not opposed to that, but believed it had been discussed. Ms. Fein-Brug noted a lack of connection between the back 2 property line with side property lines. Mr. Paradis noted that usually it’s typically a different type of line, especially with a subdivision. Noted it’s not wrong, but not as clear as it could be. Easier for someone to see it makes it come alive. Mr. Paul noted going forward that Mr. Marquedant and his group follow the standards. Mr. Sivaraman noted they've worked together before and asked if this is new. Mr. Paradis noted he’s made the comment on previous applications as well. ● G6. Consider revising proposed grading to save groupings of existing trees where possible on or between the lots. Mr. Marquedant noted they made effective changes of limit of work (LOW) where possible. Mr. Paradis noted that taking the plan and handing it to the contractor doesn’t describe leaving trees, and wasn't obvious to him. He noted it’s important to identify exactly where to keep trees/limit work, etc. Mr. DeYoung noted the more specificity the better. Mr. Marquedant noted Mr. Nation will be doing the work so he is familiar with the project and the concerns of the Board and BETA. Mr. Gelcich noted could condition that the LOW could be flagged prior to and during work and no work to be done in those areas. Mr. Gelcich noted he wrote a condition stating: limit of work is to be flagged and is to remain untouched during the project. ● G8. Consider adding wood rail fencing and shrubs along with the proposed trees at the top of drainage basins where they abut the main driveway or backyards of proposed homes. Mr. Paradis noted he believed they’re okay with this. Contents (§5.4) ● C1. Provide name, address, stamp and signature of Professional Land Surveyor §5.4.1.B. For a complete submission and proof that a registered engineer is overseeing this design stamps and signatures are required – not just for the final plans – BETA defers to the Planning Board. Mr. Paradis noted this is standard to have it, never waited until the end of a project to get the engineer stamp. Stormwater ● SW3. Provide a detailed cross section through each stormwater basin, include details of any invert construction at both the inlet and discharge. Add elevations. Mr. Marquedant noted they can add the elevations. ● SW10. Recommend the applicant considering using country drainage, sheet flow off road to vegetated swales, where possible to reduce the need for drainage infrastructure and large basins. BETA defers to Applicant and Town. Recommend requiring a homeowner ’s association to be created to maintain stormwater management and trail systems. Mr. DeYoung asked Mr. Ron Nation if he had any thoughts on this. Mr. Nation noted he sent it to Mr. Marquedant this morning and believed it to read the same as for Hunters Ridge noting that the homeowners would be required to maintain. He noted the trail system may be maintained by the Town, unless trails 3 in addition to the trail that runs through the property. Upper Charles Trail should be maintained by the Town, any other trails would be maintained by the homeowners. Ms. Moran noted homeowner maintained trails could be limited to the public. Mr. Mannan asked for clarification and suggestions. Ms. Moran noted other areas have been asked to maintain them in order to maintain. Mr. Gelcich read proposed condition 2 which he believed would address the concern, noting it would not pertain to the trail. ● SW20. Extend interim contour to showing a minimum of 1 foot of freeboard for 100-year storm event for the infiltration basin adjacent to any swale conveying water to the basin. See SW19. (Principal Planner note: SW19 was marked as resolved, but SW20 was not updated.). Mr. Paradis noted that SW19 and SW20 were addressed when they addressed SW19 and are marked as resolved. ● SW22. Sediment forebays only need to hold a volume of 0.1 inch of runoff per acre of impervious (V2, Ch2, p15). The volume of the infiltration basin can be used to calculate water quality volume. Recommend decreasing the size of the sediment forebays to facilitate maintenance. BETA defers to Applicant. Mr. Paradis noted they are larger than they need to be, and won't negatively affect the project. Mr. Gelcich noted it would probably be a good idea to keep the larger sediment forebays. ● SW24. Provide a draft SWPPP for review. BETA recommends including a condition requiring a copy of NOI (EPA) and signed SWPPP be provided to the Planning Board and Conservation Commission prior to construction. (Principal Planner note: this condition is included in the draft conditions below.) Mr. Paradis noted to defer to SWPPP manager. ● SW25. Extend erosion control barrier around downstream limits of work not just within the buffer zone. Proposed trail outside 100-foot buffer zone – BETA defers to SWPPP manager for specific site conditions/issues. Mr. Paradis noted the importance of provisions for adequate basins. Noted standard practice, but added for confidence. ● SW26. Provide provision to protect infiltration basins during constriction from sedimentation. Provisions provided – provide temporary sediment basins to be included in SWPPP. ● SW27. Due to the variable nature of the soils and proximity to wetland resources, BETA recommends minimizing clearing to the extent practicable and avoiding clear cutting. Provide construction phase plan and schedule. Grading changes and limits of clearing indicated are not obvious. BETA does not recommend clear cutting the entire project area at the beginning of the construction and leaving it unestablished over winters/springs due to poor soils – only what can be stabilized that construction season. 4 Mr. Paradis clarified with condition for condition related to G6. Clear cut only what needed per season to minimize excessive open land with poor soils. Mr. DeYoung noted the recommendation in writing. Mr. Paradis noted clearing, but not grubbing the entire area. The owner can provide a schedule of a framework going forward. Doesn’t like the idea of clear cutting the entire project. Mr. Mannan asked about any recommendations to minimize. Mr. Paradis noted it’s not the clear cutting, but the grubbing that is what is needed to help mitigate. Mr. DeYoung asked if this would be suitable for a condition. Clearing on the site estimated lots during the projected season. Mr. Paradis not opposed to the cutting, but not recommending grubbing and stockpiling loam for the entire project. Mr. Gelcich noted changing cutting to grubbing. Mr. Paul instead of grubbing on the site, make it grubbing on the building lots. Mr. Marquedant noted no issues with the general spirit of it, as they don’t want to get out of control. Concern is a fairly large land site, a small portion of the site will be involved in active construction. Chris Nation, Mr. Marquedant described it well, no steep slopes helps to prevent erosion, don’t want to be bound by something confusing and will also have an order of conditions that binds them in with erosion control inspection, no problems foreseen. After cutting in, the road will need some lots to move dirt around. Hate to see a condition where constrained. Craig Nation noted a few lots for storage of materials, staying in limits of where they have worked. Haven’t had a winter that stopped work in a few years. Doesn’t recognize a no work season. Needing a lot for each working lot in order for materials. Ron Nation noted clear cutting term being used like Legacy, they’re trying to save as many trees as they can. Ms. Moran asked if the Planning Board has ever initiated an action like this before, and limited looking at this site. 9 houses in a small amount of time. Onerous for the developer to take on. Mr. Paul hoped that what is defined here can be taken on by ZAC. Instead of grubbing a building lot and say grubbing for excavation of foundation, would ease concerns, don’t clear foundation lot if don’t foresee building on that lot for a year. Mr. DeYoung noted to defer this to Mr. Gelcich and Mr. Paradis. Mr. Paradis noted emphasis and that owner and applicant are cognisant that the soils do create potential issues and that basins need to be protected. Noted Mr. Nation is capable of that per other projects BETA has overseen. Coming up with a plan and bringing to the Planning Board, this may be a moot point. Mr. Gelcich noted Ms. Moran’s original thought that phasing plans will be submitted. If the applicant is confident they can achieve them, note it in the plan. Doesn’t believe it is onerous, but may be best to have it in writing to make the Planning Board and Town feel more confident. Could stated that land that has been grubbed and not foundation built in say thirty days will be stabilized. Phasing plan submitted prior to construction is suggested. Ms. Moran asked that during the last meeting they were going to submit phased plans. Chris Nation noted his thought would be during pre-construction notice the phasing explanation document would come into play versus now. Submit phasing plan prior to site clearing. Mr. Gelcich read the condition as previously written. 5 ● SW30. Include a signature line for all responsible parties of the Operations and Maintenance Plan. BETA recommends a condition that a signed copy of the O&M Plan be submitted to the Planning Board prior to construction. (Principal Planner note: this condition is included in the draft conditions below.) Mr. Paradis noted it is a standard condition as there have been many changes. He also noted the same for SW32 ● SW32. Provide signed copy of Illicit Discharge Statement. Recommend including a condition requiring a signed illicit discharge statement be provided prior to construction. (Principal Planner note: this condition is included in the draft conditions below.) Mr. Paradis noted it is a standard condition as there have been many changes. Mr. Gelcich noted G1, C1 and SW 3 would be taken care of on the final plan. 5.4.1.N: Cross-sections of each street at 50-foot intervals - none submitted Mr. Marquedant noted an archaic practice, software programs can more effectively do this and feel it is not necessary. Mr. Paradis noted standard practice to develop, however grading is provided and not necessarily needed on this site. Mr. Paul would vote to deny waiver until ZAC updates the verbiage. Mr. Gelcich noted process point, generally ZAC wouldn’t remove, but he would be able to review and update. Ms. Moran moved to grant the waiver, Mr. Sivaraman seconded and the Board voted in favor through roll call vote 5-1-0 (Mr. Paul was opposed). 5.4.1.Y: Street Lights - none proposed Mr. Paul noted this is only to show proposed street lights if proposed, however they are not proposing street lights and therefore won’t need a waiver. 5.4.1.BB: Deep hole and percolation test locations and results at individual house lots - none performed, proposed connection to municipal sewer system. Mr. Nation asked the Board to withdraw this waiver request. 8.2.2.A: Granite curb along pavement edges with radii less than 100’ - modified Cape Cod proposed. Joe Marquedant noted easier to repair should there be a need and no difference in erosion control. Mr. Benson moved to grant the waiver request, Ms. Fein-Brug seconded and the Board voted in favor through roll call vote 5-1-0 (Mr. Paul was opposed). Mr. Paul commented that Mr. Gelcich should review this and if not required should be removed from the regulations. 8.7.2: Installation of street lights: none proposed Mr. Paul noted this is only to show proposed street lights if proposed, however they are not proposing street lights and therefore won’t need a waiver. 6 Mr. DeYoung reviewed the decision criteria and discussed the proposed findings. Ms. Fein-Brug moved that the Board finds that the proposed definitive subdivision plan conforms to the Subdivision Regulations, with the exception of the following waivers which are hereby granted as the granting of these waivers is in the public interest and will not be inconsistent with the intent of the Subdivision Control Law. Mr. Paul seconded and the Board voted unanimously in favor through roll call vote 6-0-0. Mr. Paul moved that the Board approve the definitive subdivision plan with the conditions as they were read aloud by Mr. Gelcich, Ms. Fein-Brug seconded and the Board voted unanimously in favor through roll call vote 6-0-0. Mr. Paul moved to close the public hearing, Ms. Fein-Brug seconded and the Board voted unanimously in favor through roll call vote 6-0-0. Ms. Larson-Marlowe rejoined the Board at this time and chaired the remainder of the meeting. Ms. Moran moved to open the public hearings, Ms. Fein-Brug seconded and the Board voted unanimously in favor through roll call vote 8-0-0. 3. New Public Hearing - Turkey Ridge Estates (formerly known as Deer Ridge Estates) - Definitive OSLPD Subdivision - Courtney Derderian/CS2K Hopkinton LLC Shane Perrault, co-owner, along with Courtney Derderian, co-owner, were present. Mr. Perrault gave a brief overview of the proposed project. Lots 1 and 2 were shifted south from the Pappas property. Joe Marquedant, J.D. Marquedant & Associates, Inc., is the engineer and gave an update to the Board regarding proposed changes since the OSLPD special permit was approved. Soil testing is proposed to be concluded this week and to submit to the Board of Health to review. Mr. Gelcich reviewed and noted that BETA had not been able to review in time for the meeting, he also noted his comments regarding the project. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked if it makes sense to have them in the common area, Mr. Gelcich noted there's a limit to the amount the basin is allowed to be in the Open Space. Mr. Paul asked about a common driveway. Mr. Marquedant noted to reduce tree clearing and site disturbance. Mr. Paul asked about the legalities of this. Mr. Marquedant noted he believed it would have to be an agreement within the right of way and keeping it clear for emergency crews. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked in regards to the driveway for lot four being closer to lot three. Joe Marquedant noted the proposed septic. Mr. Paul asked about the surface difference between the driveway and the connector road and proposed gravel for the 7 connector road and the driveway to be asphalt. Mr. Perrault noted proposed ballards or crash gates and access for emergency personnel between driveway and connector road. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked In terms of access to open space from Lincoln street what is the proposed access to trails. Mr. Perrault noted the south side hasn't gotten too deep with trail heads and openings. Consideration of who may control the Open Space. Ms. Derderian noted she has been in conversation with Mr. Morrie Gasser of HALT. Mr. Marquedant noted they are intending to file with the Conservation Commission. Ms. Larson-Marlowe noted the requested waivers: ● 5.4.1.N: Cross-sections of each street at 50-foot intervals - none submitted ● 8.2.2.A: Granite curb along pavement edges with radii less than 100’ - modified Cape Cod (bituminous concrete) proposed Mr. Paul asked if any of the proposed driveways will ascend as opposed to descend. Mr. Marquedant noted about half descend and half are above or even with road grade. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked if at the end of lot 8 the existing trail would not go through private property. Mr. Perrault noted he believed they should be able to move it. Ms. Moran noted HALT was mentioned and preliminary trails envisioned. She asked if there were talks of who would construct the trails. Mr. Perrault noted they haven’t designed trails and trail heads yet, but have had open communication with them. Mr. Paul asked if there were existing trails on the property. Charles Dauchy, 25 Sanctuary Lane and HALT Board of Directors, noted nothing has been decided as far as trails in that open space. He noted Mr. Gasser asked in regards to Lot 7, reduction to 40,000 would leave the existing trail in question in the open space and will review the site and see what makes sense. Mr. Gasser also has concern if Conservation Restriction, the official state restriction, is cumbersome and to ask the Board to consider not going through state procedure, if owned by a conservation organization and not needing state sanctioned Conservation Restriction. Ms. Moran noted it could be handed over to the Town who could also hand it over to HALT and wouldn’t need it to go through the state. Mr. Benson asked about a triangle between lot 7 and 8, which causes undesirable lot lines when not required. Might not be worth sacrificing a small triangle of space for regulation. Joe Marquedant noted he believed it was an error of shading, and is part of lot 8. Mr. Benson noted maintaining the balance of best homes and lots to be done in accordance with rules and bylaws. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked if possible to straighten some lines in the back of some lots. Mr. Mannan noted concern with the broken lines with the trails and how to make them more consistent. Mr. Dauchy noted it was not critical to particular alignments, for lot 8. If the south end could be moved northerly would increase open space and leave existing rough roads available. On subdivision plans it appears 8 that lot 7 is concerning. Ms. Larson-Marlowe noted they hope to have that corrected by the next meeting. Ms. Moran moved to continue the public hearing to August 23, 2021, Ms. Fein-Brug seconded and the Board voted unanimously in favor through roll call vote 8-0-0. 4. Administrative items, continued c. Zoning Advisory Appointments i. Planning Board Representative and Two At-Large Seats Ms. Moran moved to appoint Ms. Larson-Marlowe as Planning Board representative to ZAC for the next year and to appoint Elyse Barret Mihajloski and Sundar Sivaraman to the at-large seats for two years to ZAC, Mr. Mannan seconded and the Board voted unanimously in favor through roll call vote 8-0-0. d. Design Review Board Appointments i. All Seats Need to be Filled Tiana Mui, was present and noted she has lived in Hopkinton for six years and has a background in art and design. She noted she has 20 years in design in visual and social design and marketing. Chairman of the Planning Board or his/her designee - Jeanette Thomson One person qualified by training and experience in the fine arts or landscape design - Sue Ellen Stoddard One person doing business in the Town or a citizen at large - Ria McNamara One person qualified by training and experience in the art or design professions - Tiana Mui One member of the Historic District Commission or a designee of the Planning Board - Greg Maze e. Minutes of June 21, 2021 Ms. Moran moved to approve the minutes of June 21, 2021 with corrections by Ms. Fein-Brug, Ms. Fein-Brug seconded and the Board voted in favor through roll call vote 7-1-0 (Mr. Mannan abstained). 9 Ms. Moran moved to adjourn, Mr. Sivaraman seconded and the Board voted unanimously in favor through roll call vote 8-0-0. Adjourned: 10:01 PM Submitted by: Stephanie Pemberton Approved: October 4, 2021 Documents used at the meeting: ●Agenda and Meeting Materials for Planning Board meeting, August 09, 2021 ●Connelly Farm - Revised Landscape/Planting Plan, dated 07/06/21 ●Connelly Farm - Revised Plans, dated 07/26/21 ●Connelly Farm - HydroCAD Report - Swales - 100 Year Storm, dated 07/26/21 ●Connelly Farm - Post Development Subcatchment Map, dated 07/26/21 ●Connelly Farm - Response Letter, dated 07/26/21 ●Connelly Farm - Treatment Train to Basin 18, dated 07/26/21 ●Connelly Farm - Treatment Train to Basin 23, dated 07/26/21 ●Connelly Farm - BETA Review Letter Revised, dated 07/30/21 ●Planning Board Draft Minutes 6/21/2021 ●Turkey Ridge - Definitive Plan, dated 07/07/21 ●Turkey Ridge - Drainage Report (in 2 parts), dated 07/07/21 ●Turkey Ridge - Forms C+D (and Cover Letter), dated 07/07/21 ●Turkey Ridge - Soil Test Results, dated 07/07/21 ●Turkey Ridge - Board of Health Comments, dated 07/27/21 ●Turkey Ridge - Email from I. Pappas re Proposed Agreement with Developer, dated 01/14/21 10