HomeMy Public PortalAbout20151214 - Zoning Advisory Committee - Meeting Minutes
1
ZONING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Monday, December 14, 2015 7:00 PM
Town Hall, 18 Main Street, Hopkinton MA
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: John Coutinho, Chair, Brian Karp, Vice Chair, Sandy Altamura, Ted
Barker-Hook, Jim Ciriello (8:30 pm), David Hamacher, Sarah Minsk-Eduardo, Mavis
O’Leary, Paul Pilotte, John Savignano, Matthew Wade
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bryan Brown, Mike King, Michael Peirce, Scott Richardson
1. Rt. 495/Elmwood Park Area – Proposed Zoning Changes
It was noted that the proponent, Ria McNamara, could not attend the meeting due to illness. The
Committee discussed whether the “health club” use in the draft bylaw could be updated to
“fitness center” as in the Hotel Overlay District proposal, but it was decided to table discussion
as “health club” is a defined use in the bylaw at this time. Mr. Pilotte asked about the difference
between the Industrial A (IA) and Industrial B (IB) Districts, and they were reviewed. Mr.
Pilotte asked what the key things are that people want to change in the Elmwood Park area. Ms.
Altamura referred to comments Ms. Lazarus made at the last meeting that planning and zoning
are not the same thing, and the Committee’s vision should guide the zoning. Ms. Altamura
stated that making the changes as drafted will come back to harm the Town in the future because
there is no vision for this area. She noted that the land owners aren’t part of the discussion and it
will be a big mistake. Mr. Barker-Hook stated he has serious concerns relative to traffic, and
there seems to be plenty of commercial space on South Street that is available at this time. He
noted there seem to be plenty of vacancies, and observed that there isn’t much of a difference
between the IA and IB districts on paper. The issues were discussed. Mr. Coutinho stated that
the Chamber of Commerce has suggested that this area be revitalized/redeveloped because it is a
major part of the Town’s economy. With respect to traffic, he stated that no one can stop people
from driving through the town. Ms. Minsk-Eduardo stated her initial reaction to this proposal
was to oppose it, but her big fear is that the town is reactive rather than proactive and planning
ahead. She stated the Town should plan, develop a vision for the area and then implement it.
She stated the Town is at a crossroads were it needs to plan and have a vision. She stated there is
no urgency to this proposal. Mr. Hamacher stated that this committee is not charged with being
the master developer of Hopkinton, it is here to consider input from the public and work on
zoning frameworks. He stated that a framework/vision for this area was given to the committee
a few years ago, and discussion on it has continued ever since. Mr. Coutinho noted that the
Town vision developed earlier this year provides the framework that people are looking for.
Mr. Hamacher stated the Committee has spent 3 years discussing the proposed changes. Ms.
Minsk-Eduardo stated she is new to the process and wants to see how things play out before
going forward. She stated that traffic flow and other impacts can be looked at during this time.
She stated that there are too many children at Legacy Farms, and it is this kind of thing that
should be avoided. Mr. Coutinho noted that the proposed zoning for Elmwood Park doesn’t
have to include residential uses. Ms. Altamura referred to information on zoning for aesthetics
that she has reviewed. She stated in the past the Town was very careful with respect to
2
landscaping, setbacks, screening, etc., but in the last 5 or 6 years this has all gone out the window
and people are not being careful. She stated that developer’s feet are not being held to the fire.
She stated that issues like how something fits in, is it appropriate, what are the environmental
concerns, tree protection, etc. should be looked at. The Committee discussed
pervious/impervious space and an open space requirement for the area. Mr. Coutinho stated that
a large vacant building is bad for the Town and it needs to be redeveloped. He stated that taller
buildings allow for more green space around them. Ms. Minsk-Eduardo referred to Article 22 of
the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance, which addresses sustainable design. She suggested that
similar provisions could be adopted in Hopkinton. She stated that zoning expresses the town’s
value system. Mr. Coutinho stated that 35 Parkwood Drive is blighted, and he doesn’t want this
to represent Hopkinton – it could be much nicer.
Mr. Hamacher referred to efforts by the Chamber of Commerce to improve the commercial
areas, such as the greenway project at the Rt. 495 interchange. He stated that the blighted area
around 35 Parkwood Drive is an important area to revitalize. He noted that the proponents
advocating this zoning change have talked about sustainable development and LEED certified
buildings. Mr. Coutinho stated he wants a town that has gathering places, places to eat, etc., and
these are lacking right now. Ms. Atlamura stated that changes like this spreads growth and its
undesirable uses and impacts. Mr. Pilotte noted the Committee should identify and focus on a
set of things that should be addressed. He noted that building height, the access road and
sustainability have been mentioned, for example. He asked what the items are that need to be
addressed in order to take action on this.
The Committee reviewed the draft bylaw section on allowed uses, and it was the consensus to
make the following changes to the table of uses for land subject to a master plan special permit:
1) delete multifamily dwellings, and 2) change the “hotels and inns” provision to match the
changes already recommended in the HOD district.
The Committee began a discussion of retail uses, and decided to discuss it more at the next
meeting. In response to a question, Mr. Barker-Hook noted that records show that the building at
35 Parkwood Dr. has 55,000 sq. ft. of floor area. The Committee discussed other potential
changes related to sustainability and LEED certification. The Committee decided to discuss the
issues in greater detail, and possibly make modifications to the pervious surface area definition
or elsewhere in the bylaw to require green grass.
2. Sign Bylaw
The Committee reviewed draft modifications to Sections 210-176 through 210-179 of the Sign
bylaw distributed prior to the last meeting. It was suggested to add a definition of “banner”, and
it was decided to ask the Design Review Board to clarify the meaning/intent of 210-178.H
regarding sign lighting. Ms. Minsk-Eduardo read from Weston’s bylaw, and it was noted that
some of the ideas would be useful, but the bylaw has not been modified to remove content
references. It was the consensus that temporary signs should be limited to 8 sq. ft. and should be
limited to 30 days. The temporary sign section should be revised to make this change.
Mr. Ciriello arrived at this time.
3
Mr. Hamacher stated that the Committee needs to look at the impact of the changes on existing
businesses and signs. Grandfathering was discussed, and Ms. Lazarus noted that the current
bylaw provides for grandfathered protection, but the Committee could review it.
3. Administrative Business
The Committee reviewed the draft Minutes of the November 30, 2015 meeting. Ms. Altamura
moved to approve the Minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Mr. Savignano and the
vote was unanimous in favor with Mr. Hamacher and Mr. Ciriello abstaining.
The Committee decided to tentatively schedule a meeting on January 20, 2016 unless the Board
of Appeals has a meeting scheduled that evening.
Adjourned: 9:00 PM
Approved: January 6, 2016
Documents used at the meeting:
Memo dated Dec. 10, 2015 to Zoning Advisory Committee from Elaine Lazarus re: Dec. 14, 2015 Zoning
Advisory Committee meeting
Document entitled “495/Parkwood Area Overlay District Draft Rev. 3 – 10/27/15
Document entitled “Article XXVII Signs” with proposed edits
Draft Minutes of the 11/30/15 Zoning Advisory Committee