HomeMy Public PortalAbout20151207 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes
1
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
Monday, December 7, 2015 7:30 P.M.
Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton, MA
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kenneth Weismantel, Chairman, John Ferrari, Claire Wright, Frank
D’Urso, Frank Sivo, Fran DeYoung
MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Karp, Matthew Wade, 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. Public Hearing – Subdivision off Leonard St. – Rick Barbieri
Rick Barbieri, applicant, Doug Resnick, attorney, and David Marquedant, surveyor, appeared
before the Board. Andrew Ogilvie, BETA Group, Inc., the Board’s consultant engineer, was also
in attendance. Mr. Weismantel noted this concerns a street that was laid out a long time ago so it
is not a matter of approving a plan, but making sure the road is constructed in compliance with
current construction standards. He explained the public hearing process and noted there will be
opportunity to add discussion items to the public hearing outline prepared for tonight, and the
public is encouraged to participate. Mr. Resnick referred to case law and stated Mr. Barbieri is
required to build to the subdivision standards, but only to the extent practical.
Mr. Barbieri stated he has been before the Board previously with several possible layouts for the
site and is now proposing a road providing frontage for 3 lots. He stated one of the neighbors is
willing to work with him, but not everyone is in support of the proposal. He noted this is part of a
bigger site and Mr. Weismantel asked for a description of the layout and potential location of
homes. Mr. Marquedant described the plan, noting they would construct an existing paper street
which would be lined with stone walls. He stated the property is in two zoning districts, and Lot 1
will be in Residence A, while Lots 2 and 3 will be in both the Residence A and Residence B
districts. He noted that all proposed building lots have the required frontage and area. He stated
Lot 4 has no frontage and is to be retained by the applicant, and parcels A, B and C are to be
conveyed to abutters. He noted site topography is gentle but wooded and pitches from south to
north, and they propose a roadway design maintaining existing grade. He noted the road will have
20 ft. of pavement with a little bit of berm and the development will have Town water and sewer.
He described the proposed drainage design, noting that access to the detention basin would be via
an existing cart path. He noted the Fire Chief has indicated that a hammerhead turnaround at the
end of the road is adequate with respect to the SU30 truck turning radius. Mr. Barbieri stated he
plans to rebuild the stone wall along the road and plant new trees to replace the ones along the
wall that will not survive construction.
Ms. Wright asked whether access to the detention basin will be across someone’s property, and
Mr. Marquedant stated there will be an easement on the lot. Ms. Lazarus noted she distributed
copies of 4 emails received from residents after the meeting packets were sent out. She clarified
2
that the requirement in the Subdivision Rules for the Board to find “exceptional circumstances” to
allow a dead end street does not apply here, because the paper street already exists. She stated the
plan does not show the required screening adjacent to a detention basin, and an important question
is whether the road is intended to remain private or become a public way. She noted the
public/private issue will determine how they will deal with the hammerhead at the end, because it
would be an easement on private property and not within the road layout. She suggested
following up with the DPW as to their opinion of what needs to be in the easement. She asked if
the Board should walk the site, and Mr. Barbieri stated that would be a good idea. After
discussion, the site walk was scheduled for December 12, 2015 at 11:00 A.M.
Mr. Ogilvie referred to comments submitted by BETA in the peer review report. He stated BETA
is asking for clarification of plan details regarding the intersection with Leonard St. and the
possible need for permanent easements there. He noted the Board will have to decide on several
requests for waivers of the Subdivision Regulation requirements, such as granite curbing, cape cod
berm and guttermouths. He noted the applicant is not proposing a sidewalk, which seems to be a
reasonable request as there is nothing on Leonard St. to connect to. Mr. Ogilvie stated BETA has
identified an issue with the small basin on the site. He noted it appears the grading and the inlet
are below the water table, and he is not sure how they can deal with that. Mr. Marquedant referred
to the comments regarding recharge to groundwater, and Mr. Ogilvie noted this is good
engineering practice, but the issue is going to be groundwater breakout in the spring. Mr.
Marquedant stated they could relocate the basin a little bit up the road but it won’t be a total
solution.
Mr. Weismantel referred to the public hearing outline. He noted he would like to add a discussion
of the utilities, especially water and sewer, review of the proposed turnaround and access to the
open space parcel. He noted they will talk more about the legal status of an approved subdivision
road with respect to additional conditions, trees, stone walls, easements for the intersection at
Leonard St. and the hammerhead dead end, detention pond screening as well as the items listed in
the BETA letter.
Ms. Wright asked about access to the adjacent school property as discussed at previous meetings.
She stated adding to an existing dead end street is allowed in this case, but it does not take away
the safety concerns. She asked whether there has been any discussion about a gravel path for
emergency access only, and Mr. Barbieri stated he is willing to do it but the School Committee is
not interested. Mr. Barbieri stated the town is losing money every year by parking the buses in
Ashland, and he is willing to give them the land to address that issue. Mr. Weismantel stated part
of the problem was the neighbors’ opposition to the project as well as budgeting issues, Town vs.
School. Mr. Weismantel stated another plan involved swapping land with the school, using one of
the fields for parking and Mr. Barbieri’s land for playing fields. He offered to talk to the School
Committee once more. Ms. Wright stated the new plan is scaled back considerably compared to
what was presented before, and they would be asking for emergency access for the protection of
the neighborhood which will now consist of 8 to 10 homes on a dead end street network. Mr.
Resnick stated an additional attempt to talk to the School Committee will be appreciated. Mr.
Weismantel stated he will take this as an action item for himself.
3
Thomas Terry, 17 Maple St., stated he understands there will be no street lights as part of the plan,
and asked if Mr. Barbieri would be willing to install a light fixture on a pole along the road for
safety reasons because he is sure kids are going to use the road as a short cut to the schools. Mr.
Barbieri stated he has no objection, and Mr. Weismantel noted the issue will be added to the
public hearing outline.
Nanda Barker-Hook, 75 Grove St., referred to Town Counsel’s email on the paper road issue, and
asked for clarification regarding the legal status of the paper road. She noted it appears in general
a road has grandfathered status as long as it is shown on a plan, but this road predates the
Subdivision Control Law and technically is not shown on a recorded plan.
Mr. D’Urso arrived at this time.
Ms. Lazarus stated she cannot speak for Town Counsel, but this roadway was created before the
Subdivision Control Law was adopted. Mr. Weismantel stated the applicant was able to provide
enough documentation to demonstrate that the road exists from a legal standpoint, entitling him to
subdivide as long as there is enough frontage and area. Ms. Barker-Hook noted the road is just a
cart path on an old map, and Mr. Resnick disagreed. He stated they found the road in its current
layout identified by stone walls on several plans recorded in the Registry of Deeds. Ms. Barker-
Hook stated the Board’s consultant has identified a number of issues, and she asked if given the
legal history the regulations regarding dead end streets are going out the window. Mr. Weismantel
stated it will be discussed by the Board and they will go through these comments. Ms. Barker-
Hook referred to the interaction with the School Committee with respect to this development, and
stated some of the neighbors knew this was a complex situation and wrote a letter signed by 42
residents in opposition to the plan.
Mr. Resnick stated the applicant submitted an approval-not-required (ANR) plan informally for
future endorsement to certify that he is asking for 3 building lots in compliance with zoning
requirements. Mr. Weismantel explained the ANR application process. Mr. Weismantel asked
why they decided on a hammerhead as opposed to a circular (cul-de-sac) configuration, and Mr.
Resnick stated it is basically to achieve the old style look and it was acceptable to the Fire Chief.
Mr. D’Urso asked if the Fire Chief feels a hammerhead is safer, and Ms. Lazarus stated he is fine
with the layout as long as it meets the SU30 truck turning radius. Mr. Ogilvie noted he believes a
cul-de-sac uses more pavement but would have to draw it out first. Mr. Weismantel noted a
circular design is clearly part of the road and he wondered if people would be more tempted to use
a hammerhead for parking. Ms. Lazarus stated there could be an island in the cul-de-sac, and Mr.
Barbieri stated he would prefer not to. Mr. Marquedant suggested a cross between a hammerhead
and full cul-de-sac, and Mr. Weismantel stated it may be acceptable as long as it meets the turning
radius and there is enough frontage. Ms. Wright stated people would use the area for parking
either way, and it will not be all the time. Mr. D’Urso stated he thinks they will probably be better
off with a cul-de-sac in terms of safety, but perhaps it should be discussed with the Fire Chief.
Mr. Resnick suggested using deed restrictions for the 2 homes at the end of the road to prohibit
people from blocking the hammerhead. Mr. Barbieri stated hammerheads are easier to plow. Mr.
Marquedant asked if it would be ok if he asked the Fire Chief about this, and Mr. Weismantel
suggested showing him a sketch of alternatives. He noted he would also be interested to see the
difference in pavement one way or the other.
4
Mr. DeYoung asked how the new homes are shielded from the school service road, and Mr.
Marquedant noted the topography should take care of that. Responding to a question of Mr.
D’Urso, Mr. Weismantel related the previous discussion regarding school property access. Ms.
Barker-Hook stated 42 neighborhood residents wrote in opposition to the possibility of a school
bus parking lot and the use of the service road for access because of traffic congestion and safety
concerns. Mr. D’Urso stated he is a frequent visitor to the schools and he would rather not give up
the potential of being able to use the service road in the future and perhaps they could include a
condition in the decision allowing it in the future. Mr. Resnick noted emergency access is not a
requirement. Mr. Weismantel noted it could allow Mr. Barbieri to build a couple more lots
although he would have to go through a subdivision process. Mr. Barbieri stated he is still open to
working with the School Committee, even without additional lots. Mr. Weismantel referred to
easement requirements for the Leonard St. intersection and hammerhead turnaround. Mr. Barbieri
noted he has been trying to get in touch with the abutters, and Mr. Weismantel noted the developer
will be conveying parcels to them and perhaps in return they can give an easement. Mr. Barbieri
stated he understands Ms. Lazarus was contacted by someone regarding installing trails in the
back of the property, and Ms. Lazarus stated she received an inquiry regarding a cross country
course, and what happens next will depend on whether this project goes forward.
Mr. D’Urso moved to continue the public hearing to January 11, 2015 at 7:30 P.M. Mr. Ferrari
seconded the motion. Ted Barker-Hook, 75 Grove St., asked if Saturday’s site visit is open to the
public, and Ms. Lazarus stated yes, but it is not a posted Planning Board meeting and it is only for
observation and not discussion or deliberation. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the
motion.
2. Continued Scenic Road Public Hearing - Eversource Energy – Various Streets
Chris Gonzales, Eversource Energy, applicant, appeared before the Board. Mr. Weismantel noted
since the last meeting Board members participated in 2 site walks with Mr. Gonzales, one on Ash
St. and the other on Front St. He noted the Board is scheduled to walk Wilson St. on Dec. 12, and
the Board set the time for 1:00 PM. Mr. Gonzales stated he has modified the lists for Ash St. and
Front St. based on observations made during the site walks, and he presented copies of the updated
lists. Ms. Lazarus stated that Paul Gleason, Tree Warden, is unable to attend tonight’s meeting
due to illness.
The Board discussed the proposed trimming of major branches around the electric wires on several
scenic roads. Mr. Weismantel asked Mr. Sivo to elaborate on comments emailed to him
previously regarding this issue, specifically with respect to the “box” dimensions proposed by
Eversource. Mr. Sivo stated he is trying to figure out the minimum “box” size without
compromising safety, and asked what the normal procedure is and how it is done in other towns.
Mr. Gonzales noted Eversource feels the 10 ft. x 10 ft. x 10 ft. x 15 ft. box is appropriate for safety
reasons and to prevent outages. Mr. Sivo stated that’s a risk issue and they don’t want to cut
everything up to the sky. Mr. Weismantel noted as they were walking he noticed wires touching
and conductors rubbing against some of the trees, which must have happened when they raised the
wires a number of years ago and clearances were obviously ok at the time. Mr. Gonzales noted
they need the clearances in order to manipulate the bucket between the wires, and today the
workers are required to go up and over to get to the opposite side. He stated the company is
5
required by law to have a periodic vegetation management program. Mr. D’Urso stated the
original request was for a 10 x 10 x 10 x 15 (10-15) box, and Mr. Gonzales stated the lowest they
will go is 8 x 8 x 8 x 12 (8-12). Ms. Wright asked if the box will be applied on a tree by tree basis
or whether it will go through an entire row of trees, and Mr. Gonzales noted it will essentially be a
box all the way along the wires. Mr. DeYoung stated it appears the options would be between a
10-15 or 8-12 box, and Ms. Wright noted the smaller the box the quicker they will be back to do it
all over again. Mr. Weismantel proposed adding a condition requiring Eversource to come back to
the Board for a tree removal hearing if pruning to specifications would destroy the tree. Mr.
Gonzales stated they cannot cut any branches over 5 in. in diameter without approval, but
unfortunately these trees have not been pruned for a very long time. Mr. Sivo stated since the last
hearing he has been paying attention to what is being done in terms of trimming in other towns,
and there seem to be options. The Board discussed several options with respect to the size of the
box. It was determined that the original request for 10-15 has no support among Board members
and 6 x 6 x 6 x 10 would not be meaningful with a 4 year maintenance cycle. Ms. Wright noted
an 8 x 8 x 8 x 12 cut would be acceptable, and Mr. Sivo stated he thinks it can be smaller. Mr.
DeYoung noted 8-12 seems to be a prudent approach because deeper cuts could pose a risk and
they have to consider the homeowner “weekend warrior” who will go out and try to cut down the
trees.
Mr. Weismantel stated this part of the Eversource application concerns specifications to be applied
in a general sense for a number of scenic roads, and it is ok for all members to vote even if they
happen to live on one of the streets in question. Mr. DeYoung moved to approve the pruning of
major branches which are located 8 feet below, 8 feet to the side and 12 feet above the conductors,
and Mr. Ferrari seconded the motion. The Board discussed conditions of approval, and decided to
include the following condition: that if the cutting/pruning of a particular branch will severely
impact the aesthetics and/or the long term health and viability of a particular tree, the applicant
shall return to the Board for additional review of the particular circumstance. The Board voted 4
in favor with 2 opposed (Sivo, D’Urso) on the motion.
The Board discussed the impact of the trimming activities in general, noting concerns regarding
North Mill St. which has not been pruned in several years and never switched to Hendricks wires,
as well as South Mill St. which will be considerably impacted from an aesthetical standpoint. Mr.
Sivo referred to tree removal recently approved by the Board in connection with new sidewalks on
Ash St. He noted the trimming, in combination with the pruning and tree removal proposed by
Eversource, will have a very dramatic impact on the scenic road in a short period of time, and
perhaps it would be better locating sidewalks on the same side of the street as the utility poles.
Mr. Weismantel stated they will then have to deal with relocation of utility poles, and poles go
from one side of the street to the other.
The Board discussed the request to remove trees on Ash Street. Mr. Weismantel stated the Board
will review the revised list of trees to be removed grouped by street address, species and size. He
noted Ms. Holman, 27 Ash St., had initially expressed concerns regarding the proposed removal of
a 36 in. oak in front of her house, but has written a letter to Eversource indicating she no longer
has an objection now that it has been determined the tree has a lot of decay. Mr. Weismantel and
Mr. Gonzales reviewed the list with the Board, indicating the disposition of each individual tree
and making changes/additions as needed. It was determined that some of the trees on the list were
6
not yet reviewed in the field. Mr. DeYoung moved to approve removal of the trees as discussed
tonight, Mr. Ferrari seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
The Board discussed the request to remove trees on Front Street. The Board reviewed the revised
list of trees to be removed, grouped by utility pole location and/or street address, species and size,
making changes where necessary. Mr. DeYoung moved to approve the proposed tree removal on
Front St. as discussed tonight, Ms. Wright seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously
in favor.
Mr. Weismantel stated the public hearing will have to be continued to review the disposition of a
number of trees on Ash St. not yet reviewed, as well as the trees on Wilson St. based on the results
of the site walk. Mr. Gonzales noted Eversource will start pruning activities on all roads except
Ash St., Front St. and Wilson St. shortly.
Mr. Ferrari moved to continue the public hearing to December 21, 2015 at 9:15 P.M., Mr. D’Urso
seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
3. Legacy Farms – Agricultural Restricted Land Covenant
Erick Swenson, Legacy Farms, LLC, appeared before the Board. Mr. Weismantel stated this item
was added to the agenda after Ms. Lazarus finished writing her memorandum to the Board for this
meeting. Ms. Lazarus introduced a copy of the original Legacy Farms Master Plan showing the
planned Agricultural Restricted Land, overlaid with the Weston Nurseries site plan approved by
the Board in 2014, and the currently proposed Agricultural Restricted Land Covenant. Mr.
Swenson noted Weston Nurseries requests that 7 acres of the 77 acres originally planned for
agricultural use under the Master Plan Special Permit be located in this area. Mr. Swenson stated
Weston Nurseries thought they would need 77 acres for growing, but it seems as though they have
revised this estimate. Ms. Lazarus noted the Master Plan Special Permit (MPSP) calls for 77 acres
of agricultural restricted land. She noted that at the present time, there is still about 177 acres of
restricted land to be provided in Legacy Farms before the 500 acre minimum is reached. Mr.
Weismantel stated that Weston Nurseries is in the process of financing the buildings recently
approved under site plan review and they need Legacy Farms to release their rights with respect to
the area highlighted on the plan. He noted Weston Nurseries does not own the land and they are
not building the Village Center, but if things change and they want to do something else, they
want to make sure they have enough buildable land. Mr. Swenson stated Weston Nurseries picked
this location because their commercial business has always been there.
Ms. Lazarus noted in the planning for this area, the Weston Nurseries garden center was always
supposed to be in the back of the property, toward Frankland Rd. Mr. D'Urso asked about the
definition of Agricultural Restricted Land, and Ms. Lazarus referred him to the wording of the
covenant which was approved by Town Counsel and attached to the MPSP. Mr. D'Urso asked
whether this is previously cleared land, and Mr. Weismantel stated yes. Ms. Wright stated right
now this property can be something more and it is a shame to make the change. Mr. Weismantel
noted it can be changed back as long as they end up with 500 acres of restricted land overall. Mr.
Swenson noted the Mezitt's now have a clearer view of what they want to do than they did several
years ago.
7
Ms. Wright moved to authorize the Chairman to sign the Restricted Land Covenant, and Mr.
Ferrari seconded the motion. Mr. DeYoung asked what would trigger a request to switch back to
the original classification, and it was noted it would be a developer with a specific proposal. Ms.
Wright noted it is not like a Conservation Restriction which can’t be moved. The Board voted
unanimously in favor of the motion.
4. Connelly Hill Estates – Request for Lot Releases
The Board discussed the developer’s request for the release of lots 18 and 19 in the Connelly Hill
Estates subdivision. Mr. D’Urso moved to release lots 18 and 19 from the Conditional Approval
Agreement. Mr. Ferrari seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
5. Christian Estates – Request for Release of Performance Guarantee
The Board discussed the developer’s request for the release of the performance guarantee held for
Christian Estates. Mr. Weismantel referred to the engineer’s report and stated it appears the road
is all set, although a little lower in one location than proposed. Ms. Lazarus stated the road is
lower but no problems were identified. She noted the developer has not provided a legal
description of the easements, and it was determined this item would be $1,000 plus $200
contingency. Mr. Ferrari moved to reduce the performance guarantee to $1,200.00 and authorize
the return of the excess amount to the developer. Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion and the
Board voted unanimously in favor.
6. 85 West Main St.
It was noted the developer has proposed to add a window in the front of the building and relocate a
tree. Mr. Weismantel asked if the Design Review Board has reviewed the proposed change. Ms.
Lazarus stated no, that the item was scheduled on an agenda and the applicant did not attend. It
was noted that the applicant is not present this evening. Mr. Weismantel noted he feels that the
Board should take no action because the applicant is not present.
7. Maspenock Woods – Signage
Ms. Lazarus noted the proponent is unable to attend tonight due to illness. The Board reviewed
the developer’s request for a temporary marketing sign. Mr. D’Urso moved to approve the
installation of a 6 ft. tall sign, 36” x 60”, located near the entrance of the development, with the
conditions that the sign shall not be lit, it shall be removed when all units have been sold, and it
shall not block sight distance at the intersection. Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion and the
Board voted unanimously in favor.
8. Performance Guarantee Reduction – 68 Elm St./5 Parkwood Dr., 42 South St., 80 South
St.
Ms. Lazarus stated she recently reviewed the list of performance guarantees held by the Town,
noting there is no reason to continue holding the funds for these three projects. She noted they
have been completed, and two of them were approved by the Board in the late 1990’s. Ms. Wright
moved to release the performance guarantees held by the Town for 68 Elm St./5 Parkwood Dr., 42
South St. and 80 South St. Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously
in favor.
9. West Main St./Lumber St. – Right Turn Lane
8
Mr. Weismantel stated they need to establish a scope of work, the cost of which will be covered by
some of the money budgeted this year by the Planning Board. He noted if more money is needed
they will use some of Mr. Mastroianni’s mitigation funds. He noted the scope would include
getting an easement from Cumberland Farms for the small triangle of land that’s needed to extend
the right turn lane, and the preparation of drawings and plans.
10. Zoning Advisory Committee Update
Ms. Lazarus updated the Board on the items that the Zoning Advisory Committee has voted to
recommend to the Planning Board to date. Mr. Weismantel asked about progress on possible
changes to the Garden Apartment zoning bylaw, and Ms. Lazarus noted it is on the Committee’s
list of work items.
11. Administrative Business
The Board reviewed the draft Minutes of November 2, 2015. Mr. D'Urso moved to approve the
Minutes of November 2, 2015 as amended, Ms. Wright seconded the motion, and the Board voted
unanimously in favor.
Mr. Weismantel noted the contract has been signed for a safety study for Legacy Farms North
with respect to the LNG facility, and it will take a month to complete. He noted the clearing of
Rafferty Road in preparation of sidewalk construction and changes to the road layout has begun.
He noted it has been a good construction season because of the weather, with asphalt plants still
open but not a lot of progress has been made with the Eversource Energy pole moving. He noted
that Eversource received a zoning exemption from the Department of Public Utilities for
expansion of the substation at 226 South St.
Adjourned: 10:05 P.M.
Submitted by: Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant, Dept. of Land Use, Planning & Permitting
Approved: December 21, 2015
Documents Used at the Meeting:
Agenda for December 7, 2015 Planning Board meeting
Memorandum to Planning Board from Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting, dated
December 3, 2015, re: Items on December 7, 2015 Planning Board Agenda
Public Hearing Outline – Leonard Street Subdivision – 12/7/15
Letter from Philip F. Paradis/Andrew W. Ogilvie, BETA Group, Inc. to Town of Hopkinton Planning Board,
dated November 24, 2015, re: Leonard Street Subdivision Plan Review
Plan of Land for Leonard Street, prepared for Rick Barbieri, dated Jan. 14, 2015, prepared by J.D. Marquedant &
Associates, Inc.
Public Hearing Outline – Scenic Road Public Hearing – Eversource – 11/215/ 12/7/15
Eversource Tree Removal Control Forms – Ash St. and Front St. – 05/15/15, revised through 12/7/15
Restricted Land Covenant (Agricultural)
Legacy Farms Master Plan, overlaid with the Weston Nurseries site plan approved by the Board in 2014
Form K Usual Form of Release of Conditions of Planning Board Approval, Hopkinton Planning Board – Lots 18
and 19 - Connelly Hill Estates
Draft Planning Board Minutes for November 2, 2015