HomeMy Public PortalAbout20151102 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes1
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
Monday, November 2, 2015 7:00 P.M.
Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton, MA
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kenneth Weismantel, Chairman, Brian Karp, Vice Chairman, Matthew
Wade, Fran DeYoung, Claire Wright, Frank Sivo, Frank D’Urso
MEMBERS ABSENT: John Ferrari, Patrick Mahon
Present: Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting; Cobi Wallace, Permitting
Assistant
Mr. Weismantel opened the meeting and summarized the agenda.
1. Rafferty Road and Rafferty Road/Cedar St. Intersection Modifications
Roy MacDowell, Legacy Farms, LLC, Wayne Amico and Ross Morrow, Vanasse Hangen
Brustlin (VHB), appeared before the Board. Andrew Ogilvie, BETA Group, Inc., the Board's
consultant, joined the Board at this time. Mr. Weismantel noted it appears there are a couple of
outstanding items, one of which is a decision on the appropriate road width for Rafferty Rd., 22 ft.
or 24 ft. as noted in condition #62 of the Master Plan Special Permit (MPSP). Mr. MacDowell
stated he measured the current width every 100 ft. along the entire length of the road and it varies
between 21 and 21 ½ and VHB decided on 22 ft. He noted AASHTO regulations allow a smooth
or gravel edge. He stated a total of 117 trees, mostly 3 to 4 inch caliper and some quite large, have
to be removed to accommodate the new sidewalk, but the tree removal is spread out over a half
mile so it’s not as bad as it sounds. He referred to an aerial photo for illustration purposes. He
noted 22 ft. with a gravel shoulder and a painted center line will enable them to minimize the
required amount of tree removal, wetlands disturbance and keep the work off Eversource property.
Mr. Amico stated widening to 24 ft. will make things worse, and the design is in accordance with
standard engineering practices. He stated 11 ft. lanes for a residential road is very generous and
he is not going to dispute BETA’s recommendations and AASHTO regulations, however 12 ft. is
more appropriate for a highway situation. Mr. Ogilvie stated 11 ft. with a gravel shoulder is
reasonable, but this road will likely see more traffic than a regular residential road, and BETA
prefers 24 ft. Ms. Wright stated past experience shows that the wider and smoother the road, the
faster the cars will go. She asked for clarification regarding the wording of MPSP condition #62,
and it was noted the road needs to be widened to 24 ft. unless the Board decides otherwise after
review. Ms. Wright stated some residents are quite concerned about the impact of the proposal on
the look and character of the road, and she would like some consideration given to traffic calming
measures. Mr. Weismantel stated he recently had an opportunity to see what it’s like driving on
Rafferty Rd. and a center line is necessary to make it safer. Mr. MacDowell agreed.
Chris Small, 5 Reservoir Rd., stated he reviewed the plans. He stated the road is designed for 35
mph but he does not see anything in the design to keep drivers at that limit, such as speed limit
signs or a speed bump. Mr. Weismantel noted speed limit signs would be good, and Mr.
MacDowell agreed. Mr. Weismantel stated the road was envisioned as a cut through with a
2
minimum number of curb cuts, and a lot of streets in Hopkinton, such as sections of Hayden Rowe
and East Main St., have a 40 mph limit. Ms. Wright asked about side line striping, and Mr. Amico
noted fog lines are sometimes added depending on the character of the road. Ms. Wright stated
they would visually narrow the road and cause people to slow down. Mr. Weismantel asked
members if a 22 ft. width would be acceptable, and the consensus was that it would be as long as
there is a center line. Mr. Sivo asked at what traffic volume 24 ft. would be better, and Mr.
Ogilvie stated the threshold would be an anticipated volume of 2,000+ vehicles per day.
Mr. D'Urso arrived at this time.
Ms. Wright noted she is concerned that the presence of a gravel shoulder will encourage people
visiting the Baypath animal shelter to park on the edge of the road. Mr. MacDowell stated he
thinks once this project is completed, the Town should enforce the prohibition on parking there.
He stated the parked cars present a hazard, and he actually offered to build a small on-site parking
lot for them to make it safer for dog walkers and visitors. He noted Baypath was intrigued about
the idea, but he does not want to pursue it until the project is finished. Mr. Karp asked about the
initial reasoning for a 24 ft. width in the MPSP, and Ms. Lazarus noted it matches the Legacy
Farms Road North layout, of which Rafferty Rd. becomes an extension. Fog lines were
discussed. Mr. Amico stated he does not have an issue with the lines, although it will basically
narrow the road by 6 inches, and Mr. Ogilvie noted it would be worth it in terms of safety
considering the existing parking issues and the amount of pedestrian traffic. Mr. Weismantel
noted it appears the Board has a consensus regarding street width and pavement markings.
Mr. Weismantel asked why the turning lane on Cedar St. onto Rafferty Rd. was shortened
compared to what was originally discussed. Mr. MacDowell stated the original layout was
designed 7 years ago, and it is felt that the current design is more appropriate based on the
anticipated traffic volume of the project with 180 age-restricted units under consideration instead
of 250,000 sq. ft. of commercial uses. Mr. Weismantel asked about the queuing model on Cedar
St. going left on Rafferty Rd., and it was noted it is designed for 60 ft. or 3 cars. Mr. Amico stated
the original queuing capacity assumed a project with a commercial component and was calculated
at 150 ft. maximum. Mr. Weismantel stated he is considering approval of the design as proposed,
with the queuing numbers to be re-evaluated if the Village Center is built because commercial
development down the street will draw more people. In response to a question of Mr. Small, it
was noted that widening on Cedar St. will only be done on the east side.
The Board discussed the proposed sidewalk on Rafferty Rd. Mr. Ogilvie noted stormwater
management is the only outstanding issue. Mr. Weismantel noted it appears the Town will take
care of cleaning out one of the culverts, while the applicant will make sure the other culvert will
be made functional. Mr. Amico stated they discussed the issue with BETA and the DPW, and
they will install a 400± ft. stone lined swale on the south side with the approval of the
Conservation Commission. He noted they are essentially doing the same thing on the north side to
slow down velocity. Mr. Amico noted the revised stormwater calculations should be provided
shortly. Mr. Weismantel referred to the BETA report and asked if the Board should worry about
EPA compliance. Mr. Amico stated the work is going to be split into 2 projects, starting with
Rafferty Rd. to be followed by the work at Cedar St. He noted both projects technically involve
less than 1 acre, and therefore a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) won't be needed
3
but they will work with the Conservation Commission if necessary. In response to a question of
Ms. Wright about the need for realignment of one of the culverts, Mr. Amico noted there are no
plans to lower it, and the idea of a berm is basically the same thing as a series of check dams. Mr.
D'Urso stated he only received the updated BETA report today, and does not feel comfortable
making a decision without additional input from the Conservation Commission. It was stated that
the Conservation Commission approved the project about a month ago. Mr. MacDowell stated
according to Don MacAdam the Commission was informed of and had no problem with the
revised design. Mr. Small stated the Commission only looks at the wetlands impact, and it would
be important to get their input in writing. Ms. Lazarus noted the Commission deferred the
stormwater management/compliance with DEP Stormwater Management Standards to the
Planning Board. Mr. Ogilvie noted the issue is whether the DPW will be able to maintain the
system, and Mr. Amico noted they are OK with the placement of stone swales.
Mr. Small referred to ongoing problems of surface water eroding the area over the past 10 years,
and this concerns a neighborhood of 21 homes down gradient of Rafferty Rd. that is already
dealing with flooded basements. He noted according to BETA there will be a 35% increase in
impervious material and the plan does not show any attempts to address this problem. Mr. Amico
summarized the proposed stormwater management system and noted that post-construction
conditions will be much improved compared to today. Mr. Weismantel asked for clarification,
and Mr. Small noted it especially concerns the first 3 homes on Reservoir Rd. coming from
Wilson St. to Kruger Rd. Mr. Weismantel stated he looked at the area topography and the water is
coming from Wilson St. and not from Rafferty Rd.
Mr. Weismantel referred to proposed tree removal associated with the proposal. He noted the
Town is going to build a much needed sidewalk and unfortunately will lose a number of trees in
the process. He noted in addition the Upper Charles Trails Committee is looking at this in the
context of a connection to the trail network along Rt. 85 from the Center Trail to Legacy Farms
Road North. He noted without a sidewalk there are going to be major problems, and all this was
considered during the initial MPSP process. In response to a question of Matt Zettek, 16 Wilson
St., it was noted it will be a 5 ft. wide asphalt walkway. Ms. Wright noted it appears they will
have to remove some good size trees in the right of way, and it may be good to have some
meandering further away from the street to avoid unnecessary tree cutting, especially since for
now it appears the sidewalk is primarily for the benefit of the Baypath shelter and the dog walkers.
Mr. MacDowell stated they looked at alternatives, and he too wants to avoid cutting any more
trees than absolutely necessary, also for financial reasons. He stated Eversource did not want the
sidewalk on their land, but will allow some transitional grading. He noted going further away
from the road would result in more tree cutting to say nothing about drainage and the impact on
wetlands. Mr. Small stated they will lose the entire unique feel of the road, lose the canopy, and it
seems to him and also according to BETA that this design will take heavy equipment and cut
through a wide swath for expediency. Mr. MacDowell disagreed and it's either building a
meandering path 30 to 50 ft. in on someone else's property or no sidewalk at all. Ms. Wright
asked if it would be easier to put the sidewalk on the other side of the road, and Mr. MacDowell
stated they looked at this 7 years ago, but determined it would be problematic because of drainage
and it would require people to cross the street. Mr. Small asked about the possibility of following
the natural grade, and Mr. MacDowell noted they would not be able to make it ADA compliant.
4
Mavis O'Leary, 11 Curtis Rd., asked if the path has to be 5 ft. wide, and Mr. Weismantel referred
to ADA requirements. Mr. Small stated he believes they could go down to 3 ft. if there is an
obstruction, and Mr. Amico stated that is correct but only in isolated situations. Ms. O'Leary
asked the developer to avoid making this look like the East Main St./Legacy Farms Rd.
intersection area which was butchered and will take years to recover with replacement plantings.
She noted she speaks for the people who have been in Hopkinton for a long time and appreciate
the beauty of trees as part of rural character. Mr. MacDowell stated he agrees the East Main
St./Legacy Farms Rd. intersection right now looks absolutely horrible, but promised it will look a
lot better once the road is finished, landscaping is done and the stone wall rejuvenated.
Mr. Weismantel referred to Ms. Lazarus' memo with draft conditions of approval. He suggested
modifications, including adding a condition requiring center and side stripes on the pavement, as
well as a condition with respect to reevaluation of the queuing model at Cedar St. if the Village
Center commercial development is built. Mr. Karp moved to approve the proposed changes to
Rafferty Rd. and the Rafferty Rd./Cedar St. intersection with the following conditions:
The applicant shall be responsible for completing all work shown on the approved plans before
Legacy Farms Road North is open for public travel.
The applicant shall provide an as-built plan to the Planning Board upon completion of the
work shown on the plans.
The applicant shall make every effort to retain existing trees where possible, even if the
approved plan shows that a tree will be removed. The Planning Board or Tree Warden may
approve field modifications in order to retain trees during construction.
Construction work shall be performed under the supervision of the Hopkinton Department of
Public Works. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of construction inspections and
monitoring by the Town, which may be performed by a third party hired by the Town.
A line shall be painted along the centerline of Rafferty Road, and fog lines painted at the edges
6 inches in from the edge of pavement.
If the Legacy Farms Village Center is built, the design of the Cedar Street/Rafferty Road
intersection shall be evaluated to determine whether modifications are necessary to
accommodate additional traffic volume.
Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
2. Public Hearing - Proposed Amendment to Legacy Farms Master Plan Special Permit -
Legacy Farms, LLC
Mr. Weismantel opened the public hearing regarding the proposed amendment to the Master Plan
Special Permit associated with an increase in the maximum number of units from 940 to 1,120 by
adding 180 age-restricted units, as voted at the 2015 Annual Town Meeting. He noted the
application seems very confusing, and stated the developer should decide to either add the 180
residential units or stick with the 250,000 sq. ft. of commercial uses as originally approved. Mr.
MacDowell stated he prefers to keep his options open until the Planning Board actually approves a
site plan, but he will be happy to offer some clarification. Mr. Weismantel suggested the applicant
work with Ms. Lazarus to come up with clearer language for the revisions to the MPSP. Mr. Karp
moved to continue the public hearing to December 21, 2015 at 7:30 P.M. Mr. Wade seconded the
motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
5
3. Bridle Path - Request for Performance Guarantee Release
The Board discussed the request of the developer for the release of the remaining performance
guarantee for the Bridle Path subdivision. It was noted the development is complete and the Town
has accepted the road as a public way. Mr. Karp moved to authorize the release of the
performance guarantee, which is $42,180 plus interest. Ms. Wright seconded the motion and the
Board voted unanimously in favor.
4. Connelly Hill Estates - Request for Performance Guarantee Reduction
The Board discussed the request for a reduction of the performance guarantee amount held by the
Town for the Connelly Hill Estates subdivision. It was noted that outstanding issues with respect
to the cape cod berm have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Mr.
Karp moved to reduce the performance guarantee for Connelly Hill Estates to $50,834. Mr. Wade
seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
5. Minutes
The Board reviewed the draft Minutes of September 28, 2015. Mr. Wade moved to approve the
Minutes of September 28, 2105 as written, Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion, and the Board
voted unanimously in favor. The Board reviewed the draft Minutes of October 5, 2015. Mr.
Wade moved to approve the Minutes of October 5, 2015 as written, Mr. D'Urso seconded the
motion, and the Board voted 6 in favor with Mr. D’Urso abstaining.
6. Master Plan Update
Mr. Weismantel stated the Board won't have time to dedicate any time to the Master Plan Update
tonight, but asked Board members to keep working on the sections assigned to them.
7. Christian Estates - Request to Reissue Form K for Release of Lots 2C and 3C
Ms. Lazarus noted she received a request to sign a new Form K releasing Lots 2C and 3C from the
Conditional Approval Agreement for Christian Estates. She noted the Board previously signed
separate forms for the lots but it was discovered the plan reference was incorrect. Mr. DeYoung
moved to sign a new Form K releasing Lots 2C and 3C from the Conditional Approval
Agreement, Mr. Wade seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
8. Continued Public Hearing - 34-40 Hayden Rowe - Site Plan Review - RPI Hopkinton
LLC
Ms. Lazarus stated the developer has requested a continuance of the public hearing. Mr. DeYoung
moved to continue the public hearing to November 16, 2015 at 8:00 P.M. Mr. Wade seconded
the motion and the Board voted 6 in favor with Mr. Wright abstaining.
9. Electric Service - 1 Lumber St.
Ms. Lazarus relayed information as to the status of underground electric service under Lumber St.
to 1 Lumber Street. She stated that Eversource is working to complete the grant of location and
rights. She noted once that has been prepared they will ask for Board of Selectmen approval to go
under Lumber Street. Paul Mastroianni and Kathy Sherri, REC Hopkinton, LLC, noted the rights
have been granted as of today and the project seems to be moving well again. Ms. Lazarus stated
the DPW has issued a road opening permit.
6
10. Public Hearing - 0 Lumber St. - Site Plan Review - Hopkinton Tennis Club - Crandall-
Hicks Co., Inc.
Donald Satterfield, applicant, Mark Donahue, attorney, Jesse Johnson and John Kusich, Bohler
Engineering, engineers, appeared before the Board. Mr. Donahue stated this is an application for
site plan review for a Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU) development project to be located on Lot
7 pursuant to the MPSP issued by the Planning Board. Mr. Johnson described the proposal. He
noted Lot 7 is the area furthest south on Lumber St. in the NMU district, and the proposal is for a
tennis and fitness facility with 10 tennis courts, 4 year around and 6 seasonally covered, and a
seasonally covered swimming pool area, with egress/access on Lumber St. and adequate parking.
He noted it is a 39,000 sq. ft. 2-story facility designed to accommodate the site constraints. He
noted it is surrounded by wetlands on 3 sides, and trying to meet all the requirements for
stormwater management is a challenge. He stated they have addressed a lot of issues and feel it is
a good plan. He stated they will have on-site stormwater management, a septic system in the front
of the property under the parking lot, municipal water, and gas/electric utility extensions. He
noted the septic plans will be submitted to the Board of Health soon, and he feels confident it will
be fine. He noted the proposed landscaping pays careful attention to screening and interior layout,
and the facility has the benefit of a wooded buffer on 3 sides. He described the surrounding areas,
including an open space parcel, a gun club next door, and commercial property across the street.
He referred to the lighting plan which has 22 ft. poles and is not in compliance with the bylaw so it
requires a waiver, and the applicant also would like relief from the requirement of a sidewalk
along the entire frontage of the site. He stated the application complies with the MPSP and NMU
design guidelines.
Ms. Lazarus noted revised plans were received after the meeting packets were distributed to the
Board. She stated the revised plans have been reviewed by BETA Group, and most of the
modifications are related to stormwater management. She noted verification that the parking
requirements are met can’t occur until the building plans are received and reviewed. She noted the
Design Review Board will review the building design on November 17. Mr. Ogilvie noted that
BETA has reviewed the revised plan, and the majority of issues have been addressed with the
exception of the sidewalk requirement, questions regarding vehicle trips and additional square
footage compared to what is listed in the MPSP, assumptions with respect to stormwater
infiltration, and site lighting. Ms. Lazarus noted the applicant had another meeting with the
Conservation Commission tonight, and Mr. Johnson reported that the Commission closed the
hearing and approved the application.
Mr. Weismantel referred to the public hearing outline prepared for this application, and suggested
adding traffic and square footage to the list of items for detailed discussion. Mr. DeYoung noted
he would like to see vendor vehicle traffic/truck traffic added as well. Bob Draper, President,
Framingham Sportsman Club, submitted a copy of the State regulations on shooting ranges and
asked the Board to be aware of the presence of an active gun range adjacent to the site. Mr.
Draper stated there will be a letter from their attorney on this issue. John Knowles, 23 Curtis Rd.,
asked if there are plans to upgrade Lumber St. which is very narrow in this location, and Mr.
Weismantel stated the Board will add that question to the hearing outline. Mr. Karp asked to add
snow removal/storage to the outline for further review.
7
Mr. Weismantel suggested starting with lighting, referring to the lighting plan and the applicant's
request for a waiver. Mr. Johnson explained the proposed layout with 22 ft. poles vs. the 15 ft.
design required under the bylaw. He noted using 15 ft. poles will push the number of fixtures to
27 in order to comply with the required light level standards. He noted they have to deal with the
utilities and limitations regarding the location of the septic system under the parking lot, which has
to be very large because of soil/groundwater conditions. Ms. Wright noted the Town's lighting
standards were only adopted a year ago and she is hesitant to start granting waivers already. She
noted the plan with 22 ft. poles shows lighting levels she has not seen anywhere else in Town, and
the standards were set in an effort to bring light levels down particularly in view of the frequent
use of very intense LED fixtures. She noted the plan shows high levels where not needed, for
instance in the driving isle that will be lit by car headlights anyway. Ms. Wright noted the Town
has been struggling with this for years and finally settled on IESNA standards as part of the site
plan review approval criteria. She stated this is the first application under the new regulations, and
it appears they are not working and perhaps they should waive IESNA rather than respond to
waiver requests. Mr. D'Urso stated he would like the applicant to look at other options with
respect to lighting levels and pole height. Mr. Johnson noted they have done numerous layouts in
house and don't really like the septic system under the parking lot but have no choice. He noted
the plan will not result in any spill onto neighboring properties and there will be plenty of
landscaping. The Board further discussed the lighting plan and aspects of the Town's lighting
standards. Ms. Lazarus pointed out that the relief requested by the applicant could not be
accomplished by a waiver from the Board, but that it requires the grant of a Special Permit as
stated in the bylaw.
Ms. Wright referred to the "dark sky" concept, and while light may not be spilling onto
neighboring properties, its intensity and cumulative effect creates a glow and the danger that a
whole section of Town won't be able to see the stars. She noted she would be interested in looking
back at recent permits, for instance Price Chopper, Hopkinton Mews, and Dunkin' Donuts. Mr.
Weismantel asked about the possibility of a hybrid design with taller poles in the septic area and
lower ones elsewhere. Mr. Johnson stated it is worth noting that there will be some relief because
of the grade, 2 to 3 ft. average down from the street. Ms. Lazarus asked if exterior mounted
building lights are included in the photometric plan, and Mr. Johnson replied yes.
The Board discussed the proposed request to waive the sidewalk requirement. Mr. Weismantel
asked how other Board members and the public feel about sidewalk to the north only. Ms. Wright
noted this site is part of a larger planned area, and the objective is to get connectivity. She noted
there is a high likelihood that the people at Hopkinton Mews will want to use the facility. She
noted she does not see any logic for a sidewalk towards the gun club to the south, although there is
a case to be made, but the site should definitely be connected to the rest of the NMU district, and it
should not be the Town's responsibility because without the new development and amenities there
is no real reason to walk there. Mr. Weismantel stated he agrees a little bit and they need the
connection to the Mews and across Parcels 5 and 4. Mr. Johnson stated they looked at the Master
Plan and from a cursory review it appears a meandering path may give them some latitude, but
otherwise they would have to file with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Weismantel noted he
would be OK without a sidewalk right in front of the facility and not much further south, but
would like to see something to the north. Mr. D'Urso stated he would like to see a sidewalk all the
way from West Main St. to the edge of this project. He stated he walks there during the Green Up
8
cleaning project, and it would make it easier and safer for people to get to this area, which is
becoming more of a destination.
Mr. Karp moved to continue the public hearing to November 16, 2015 at 8:30 P.M. Mr. Wade
seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
11. Scenic Road Public Hearing – Tree removal on Wilson St., Ash St. & Front St., and town
wide pruning on several scenic roads - Eversource
Chris Gonzales, Eversource Energy, and Paul Gleason, Tree Warden, appeared before the Board.
Mr. Weismantel noted that Eversource is looking to remove trees on Ash St., Front St. and Wilson
St., and prune major branches on several other scenic roads. He referred to the public hearing
outline. He noted he lives on Ash St. and Mr. D'Urso is a Saddle Hill Rd. resident and this will
need to be considered in terms of voting eligibility when it’s time to make decisions on each
street.
Mr. Gonzales stated he is an arborist for Eversource Energy working on the vegetation
management program in 45 Greater Boston cities and towns, including Hopkinton. He stated he
has been on the job for 7 months and hopes it will go well. He noted the vegetation management
specifications ask for clearing around primary wires using a box, 10 ft. on each side, 10 ft. below
and 15 ft. above, with a smaller box to be applied for secondary wires. He noted a lot of the scenic
roads have not been pruned in more than 10 years, and are very overgrown with some trees
actually burning on the wires. He noted Eversource is concerned about the possibility of outages,
liability issues, and safety in general. In response to a question of Mr. D'Urso, Mr. Gonzales noted
Saddle Hill Rd. was the last scenic road they were able to prune on.
Morrie Gasser, 28 South Mill St., stated he is interested in the degree of pruning and asked
whether it is cost related. Mary Arnaut , 51 Teresa Rd., stated she is very concerned about the
number of trees to be demolished on scenic roads. Mavis O'Leary, 11 Curtis Rd., agreed. John
Knowles, 23 Curtis Rd., stated he is concerned about the proposal, and Anne Zettek, 39 East Main
St., stated for years the utility company has been able to manage by trimming branches on Wilson
St. and she sees no reason to cut down any trees. Matt Zettek stated he has similar concerns.
Estelle Espy, 123 Ash St., stated she contacted Mr. Gonzales after getting the public hearing
notice and asked him to tag the 24 in. and 36 in. caliper trees on the list. She stated they met on
site and together looked at each tree. She noted Mr. Gonzales indicated they would simply prune
the trees but she is very concerned, particularly about the next generation of trees. She noted they
are also planning to remove or prune smaller trees, and this is very worrisome considering the
amount of recent development, especially at Legacy Farms, and the associated loss of vegetation.
Paul Pilotte, 67 Front St, stated he is quite concerned about the size of the box to be cut. He noted
they received a notice from NSTAR last year and they did some pruning on Front St. already.
Julia Holmes, 68 Front St., stated she agrees with everyone's concern about the impact on small
trees and overall impact on scenic roads.
Mr. Weismantel referred to the public hearing outline for this application, and it was determined
that no more detailed discussion items are proposed to be added. Mr. Weismantel referred to the
request for pruning major branches. He stated he hopes they can come to a decision so that
Eversource can start the work this fall and complete the project. He noted he believes a 10-10-10-
9
15 box will cut an enormous area through the center of a tree making it unacceptable. Mr.
Gonzales stated he believes under the scenic road bylaw no branches over 5" diameter can be
trimmed without permission, making it impossible to achieve the 10-10-10-15 box so it won't be
quite that bad. Ms. Wright stated the smaller branches together create the canopy and the
proposed method will still result in gigantic holes which will look terrible. Mr. Weismantel asked
about the possibility of using a 5-5-5-5 specification for hardwood, perhaps allowing a little more
above the wires for the pines. Mr. Sivo asked about the reason for the 10-10-10-15 box and the
growth rate it is trying to accommodate. Mr. Gonzales stated it is related to OSHA regulations for
working near high voltage wires and to accommodate the sway window for wires and trees. He
noted Eversource maintenance is based on a 4-year cycle taking into consideration the growth rate
of a typical tree in this area. Mr. Gleason noted Eversource is currently pruning around Lake
Maspenock (Yale Rd., Lake Shore Dr. and Amherst Rd.) following the 10-10-10-15 specification,
and the result is not as bad as it sounds. Ms. Arnaut asked where Eversource got permission to do
that, and Mr. Gonzales explained the process for pruning and/or removal of trees on non-scenic
roads starting with a request to the Tree Warden. Mr. Gleason stated he approved the application
and noted that the DPU requires the utility company to maintain the electric system. Mr. Gonzales
noted they use similar specifications in other towns, but the effect will be greater in this case
because it has been so long and most likely a lot of the smaller trees will be significantly impacted.
Mr. Small asked why Eversource waited 10 years when it is supposed to do this type of
maintenance every 4 years. Mr. Gonzales stated his predecessor was supposed to be working on
it, but was not able to work it out with the Town. Mr. Zettek asked about the impact of waiting
this long in terms of number of outages, as for instance they did not lose power during last year's
severe winter weather. Mr. Gonzales stated it depends on the type of precipitation, and for
instance wet snow or ice causes the most severe damage. Mr. Gleason noted there also was some
pruning on Clinton St. between Front St. and the Ashland town line following the 10-10-10-15
specifications, and he suggested that people take a look at it. Mr. Gasser asked whether scenic
roads would quality for certain extenuating circumstances allowing a smaller box, such as 8-8-8-
12, referenced in the NSTAR vegetation management handbook. Mr. Gonzales stated it should be
possible to come to some type of an agreement and the 8-8-8-12 box could be adequate. Mr.
Small asked about the minimum specifications while still adhering to safety requirements for the
workers, and Mr. Gonzales noted 2 ½ ft. is the OSHA minimum required distance from high
voltage, but that is not good enough for the workers considering regrowth. Mr. Zettek asked about
the methods used in other towns, and Mr. Gonzales noted Newton with an 8-8-8-12 box has the
tightest specifications.
Mr. Weismantel stated from a practical standpoint he feels a bigger space is needed around the
pole as opposed to when the line is in the middle. Mr. Gonzales stated he does not know about
that, especially since workers may have to go out during a storm in the middle of the night. Ms.
Wright stated hopefully the required pruning will be done on a 4-year cycle in a responsible
manner to avoid the drastic pruning that is required now, and they have to be careful to trim
enough in order to allow for growth. In response to a question of Mr. D'Urso with respect to
process, Mr. Weismantel noted the Board can entertain a motion on whatever size it decides on.
Mr. Weismantel noted the decision tonight only covers branches 5 in. and over. Mr. D'Urso stated
it appears Eversource is open to tighter specifications and members of the public in attendance are
very interested in a more conservative approach. He moved to propose that Eversource consider
10
reducing the clearance box to 8-8-8-12. A resident in attendance asked whether all trees on the list
are equally risky, or whether there was some prioritization. Mr. Gonzales stated some of the
bigger trees were considered more dangerous even when healthy, but it is possible to do more
analysis. Ms. Espy stated she feels that all trees on the list should be tagged and reevaluated. She
noted the program potentially will affect a total of 425 trees, not including trees to be hacked or
pruned and it will have a major impact. She noted during the walk Mr. Gonzales even questioned
why some trees were on the list. Mr. Gonzales noted he is willing to take another look.
Mr. Weismantel stated he was not able to identify many of the trees on the list because they were
not adequately marked. He noted the trees subject of this application should have had notices, and
if that had been done, tonight's turnout could have been larger. He noted the trees need to be
clearly identified and he would like to make arrangements for a series of site walks. Ms. Wright
stated she had trouble locating a number of big trees slated for removal on Front St., although she
is more concerned about the smaller ones. Mr. Gonzales noted all trees were flagged in April but
the ribbons are biodegradable and tend to disappear. Mr. Weismantel stated ribbons are OK but
suggested attaching a notice to identify clusters of smaller trees and use individual notices for the
bigger ones. He asked that any comments and concerns regarding this application be sent to Ms.
Lazarus via email, including specifics and addresses. It was noted that the public is invited to
come on the site walks. He noted in the past the Board has typically gone along with tree removal
as long as it does not completely gut the scenic view. Mr. D'Urso asked if a lower pruning
specification will affect the scope of proposed tree removal, and also if there was any overlap with
the trees removed as part of the most recent application for sidewalk construction on Ash St. Mr.
Small asked what typically happens to the value of a tree in the right of way and whether the
Town gets reimbursed. Mr. Gonzales stated Eversource does not assess the value.
A resident in attendance stated that pruning might be excessive, and Mr. Gonzales noted
Eversource uses professionals and the results are very good, but there will undoubtedly be an
impact. Mr. D'Urso stated he would like to retract his motion, and it was noted that it had not been
seconded. Mr. D'Urso noted it sounds like there might be a better way, and moved to allow
Eversource to start with pruning at 8-8-8-12, followed by an evaluation as to removal. Mr.
Weismantel stated he would like to see what Clinton St. looks like as suggested by the Tree
Warden. Mr. Weismantel suggested arranging a site walk, and asked Mr. Gonzales about
Eversource's priorities. Mr. Gonzales stated they would like to start with Ash St. Mr. Weismantel
asked Mr. Gleason for a health report on the bigger trees on the list, and Mr. Gleason stated he
will submit his recommendations. Mr. Weismantel asked Ms. Lazarus to set up and post the site
walks, starting with Ash St. Mr. Zettek referred to an apparent tree removal violation on Wilson
St. earlier this year, and it was noted the Board is aware of it and assessed a fine to Eversource, but
it was either Verizon or Eversource and neither admits to it. Mr. Zettek stated he assumes there is
no Town staff to monitor these situations and there should be fines. Mr. Weismantel stated the
Board keeps an eye on scenic road violations and has issued several fines over the years. It was
noted the scenic roads now have special signage to help identify them and Ms. Lazarus stated she
tracks home sales sends a letter to everyone who purchases property on a scenic road. Ms. Espy
asked that all trees, not just the big ones, are identified, and Mr. Gonzales stated he will try to be
as specific as possible. Ms. Lazarus issued a reminder that trees less than 3 in. in caliper do not
need permission to remove them under the scenic road bylaw, and the list submitted appears to
11
include some in this category. Mr. Karp moved to continue the public hearing to December 7,
2015 at 8:30 P.M. Mr. Wade seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Mr. Weismantel stated the Board of Selectmen has scheduled a hearing on November 3, 2015 at
7:30 P.M. regarding the trees proposed for removal on Rafferty Rd. based on the objections of 2
residents submitted to the Tree Warden at his October 19, 2015 hearing. He suggested the Board
draft a letter to the Board of Selectmen for the meeting. He noted the letter will reflect the
consensus of the Board on this matter as discussed tonight, and Ms. Lazarus will draft it for his
signature.
Adjourned: 10:30 P.M.
Submitted by: Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant, Dept. of Land Use, Planning & Permitting
Approved: December 7, 2015
Documents Used at the Meeting:
Agenda for November 2, 2015 Planning Board meeting
Memorandum to Planning Board from Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting, dated
10/29/15, re: Items on November 2, 2015 Planning Board Agenda
Plans entitled “Cedar Street at Rafferty Road” and “Hopkinton Rafferty Road” both dated September 2015
revised through 10/28/15, prepared by VHB
Letter to Town of Hopkinton, attn: Ms. Elaine Lazarus, from BETA Group, Inc., dated 10/23/15 received 11/2/15
updated – re: Rafferty Road and Cedar Street Road and Sidewalk Improvements
Aerial Photo – Google Earth – Cedar St./Rafferty Rd./Wilson St. area
Legacy Farms Master Plan Special Permit Decision dated 5/13/10 as amended with the Applicant’s Proposed
Amendments for review by Planning Board on 11/2/15
Public Hearing Outline – 0 Lumber St. – Hopkinton Tennis Club – 11/2/15
Plan entitled “Site Development Plan for Crandall-Hicks Company, Inc., Proposed: Hopkinton Tennis Club,
dated 9/17/15, prepared by Bohler Engineering
Letter to Town of Hopkinton, attn: Ms. Elaine Lazarus, from BETA Group, Inc., dated 11/2/15, re: Hopkinton
Tennis Club, Lumber Street Site Plan Review (Major Project) Peer Review Update
Copy of MGL Ch.214 sec. 7B – Noise pollution; shooting ranges, exemption from liability; hours of operation
Public Hearing Outline – Scenic Road Public Hearing – Eversource – 11/2/15
Scenic Road Application – Eversource Energy - dated 10/6/15 – including control forms
Form K – Usual Form of Release of Conditions of Planning Board Approval – Christian Estates Lots 2C and 3C
Draft Planning Board Minutes of meetings on 9/28/15 and 10/5/15