HomeMy Public PortalAbout20151221 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes
1
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
Monday, December 21, 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, Brian Karp, Matthew Wade
MEMBERS ABSENT: Patrick Mahon
Present: Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting; Cobi Wallace, Permitting
Assistant
Mr. Weismantel opened the meeting, thanked HCAM for recording, and summarized the Agenda.
He thanked Ms. Lazarus and Ms. Wallace for their hard work during the past year.
1. East Main St. Road Work – Legacy Farms - Request for Release of Performance
Guarantee
Roy MacDowell, Legacy Farms LLC, appeared before the Board. Mr. Weismantel stated it
appears as if the road work on East Main St. is nearly complete, and asked about the status of
seeding. Mr. MacDowell stated it will be done in the spring. Mr. Weismantel noted the Town is
holding a performance guarantee in the amount of $500,000 and the work is done in the opinion of
Weston & Sampson, the Town’s consultant engineer. Mr. DeYoung moved to authorize the
release of the performance guarantee held by the Town to guarantee this work. Mr. D’Urso
seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Mr. Weismantel asked about the status of the road work in Legacy Farms South. Mr. MacDowell
noted they have to make some repairs and would like to finish up in the spring so that they can be
ready for street acceptance either in the fall of 2016 or spring of 2017. Mr. MacDowell noted they
want to transfer the municipal (athletic) parcel to the Town as soon as they can. Mr. DeYoung
asked if the land will be conveyed to the Parks & Recreation Commission, and Mr. MacDowell
noted that will be up to the Town. Mr. MacDowell noted that town meeting has voted to accept
the gift of land.
2. Continued Public Hearing – Amendment to Legacy Farms Master Plan Special Permit
(MPSP) –Wilson St./Legacy Farms North - Legacy Farms LLC
Mr. Weismantel noted this is a proposal to amend the Legacy Farms Master Plan Special Permit to
allow an additional 180 age-restricted dwelling units. He noted at the previous hearing it was
pointed out that there was some confusion about the language changes and hopefully it is better
now. Mr. MacDowell noted he worked with Ms. Lazarus on this and believes the language is
much clearer now. Mr. Weismantel asked Ms. Lazarus to comment on the proposed changes. Ms.
Lazarus stated it is a matter of changing the numbers in the special permit to reflect what town
meeting voted in May, resulting in the addition of 180 age-restricted units and the elimination of
the single family homes originally planned for the north side. She stated originally the “Legacy
Park” area off Wilson St. was strictly for commercial use, and now the developer has a choice of
residential or commercial but will not have to make a decision until the property is going to be
2
developed. She stated Condition #4 of the special permit refers to the mixed use component of the
project, and if the 180 units are built, it will change from 250,000 sq. ft. of commercial uses. She
noted instead of referring specifically to office use and retail on the south side of Legacy Farms it
will refer just to commercial uses and specify minimum square footage, because the retirement
home approved is neither office nor retail.
Ms. Wright stated she is confused about the language in Condition #4 referring to “not fewer than
15” because she thought the number of single family homes is going to be capped at 15. She
stated this makes it sound as if the target is 15 or more, and asked if this would leave the door
open for more. Mr. MacDowell noted the language indicates they cannot build more than 15
single family homes. Mr. D’Urso stated he too feels the language is not clear, and perhaps it can
just specify 15. Ms. Wright stated the applicant wants to leave the door open for more commercial
development, and Mr. Weismantel stated the retirement apartments are considered a commercial
use. Mr. D’Urso stated he would like to make a motion to change the wording.
Mr. Weismantel referred to Condition #2, which specifies the new total of 1,120 units but then in
Condition #3 there still is an option. Ms. Lazarus stated it is a maximum number to be
constructed, and elsewhere it says that the developer could decide to build less. Mr. MacDowell
stated the threshold has been set at the 941st building permit and if that is issued then the 250,000
sq. ft. of commercial uses goes away, and by the same token, if he gets a building permit for the
commercial use, then the option for 180 units goes away. Mr. Weismantel stated that if Mr.
MacDowell ends up building Legacy Park as initially intended, he should be able to build the 35
single family homes. Ms. Lazarus noted that is not the way Mr. MacDowell presented his
proposal to town meeting, which was based on revenue considerations. Mr. Weismantel stated he
would like the developer to make up his mind now, and he does not like the “either/or” language.
Mr. MacDowell stated he wants to be able to fall back on commercial development in case the
Board does not approve the residential site plan. Mr. Weismantel asked how the 180 units will fit
in the Legacy Park area, and it was noted there was a conceptual plan shown at town meeting.
Mr. Weismantel noted the Board does not have to approve the change to the MPSP, and he would
like to have a better idea of what they will be getting. Mr. D’Urso stated the proposed amendment
would align the MPSP with the change approved at town meeting, but for the Planning Board it
just is not that simple, and they need more details. He noted the change allows 180 age-restricted
units instead of commercial development, but in reality they may only be able to get 160 units.
Ms. Wright noted the town meeting vote provided an “either/or” option and the proposed change
to the MPSP is a housekeeping issue. She noted in the entire Legacy Farms process it was always
clearly understood that development will go on for years, and it was assumed that both the
proponent and the Board would have room to make modifications. She stated she feels the Board
should give Mr. MacDowell the ability to assess the market in his and the Town’s best interest and
it appears that once he goes over the 940-unit threshold he has made the decision. Mr.
Weismantel stated it appears they won’t be ready to vote on this tonight. He noted he does not see
any mention of senior housing in the MPSP. Ms. Lazarus noted it is specified in the zoning
bylaw. Mr. MacDowell noted he has no objection to a reference to senior housing in the
document. Mr. Karp moved to continue the public hearing to February 8, 2016 at 7:30 P.M. Mr.
Ferrari seconded the motion and the Board voted in 7 in favor with 1 opposed (Wright).
3
3. Penny Meadow Lane – Establish Performance Guarantee Amount – Release Lots
Chris Nation, developer, appeared before the Board. Mr. Weismantel stated Fay, Spofford &
Thorndike (FST), the Board’s engineering consultant, reviewed the proposed performance
guarantee amount, and is proposing a higher number. Mr. Nation stated it has been documented
that the road has the binder course of pavement, the swale is almost done, seeding has been done
although nothing has germinated, and the remaining work relates to the construction of the 4
house lots. He noted FST’s estimate includes drainage work, and he does not agree with that. Mr.
Nation stated FST included $950 for flared ends but he is doing all HDPE piping and there are no
headwalls there. He questioned $4,000 for leaching pits for roof drains, but they are strictly part
of the Order of Conditions for the homes. Mr. Weismantel stated he can see Mr. Nation’s point on
the leaching pits, but he is not sure about the headwalls. Ms. Lazarus noted the FST report came
in very late today and there has not been an opportunity to discuss it with Mr. Glenn. Mr.
Weismantel noted typically the Board relies on its consultant, but he is willing not to include the
funds for the leaching pits, and suggested that the matter be further discussed with FST. Mr.
DeYoung moved to set the performance guarantee amount at $66,862, and Mr. Wade seconded the
motion. Ms. Wright stated she feels the engineers should get together and discuss the issue. Mr.
Karp agreed. Mr. Nation stated he is ok with this approach. The Board voted unanimously in
favor of the motion. Mr. D’Urso moved to release lots 1, 2 and 3 from the Conditional Approval
Agreement upon receipt of the required performance guarantee. Mr. Ferrari seconded the motion
and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
4. Connelly Hill Estates – Performance Guarantee Release
The Board reviewed the developer’s request for a reduction in the performance guarantee held for
Connelly Hill Estates. It was noted the Board’s consultant recommends reducing the amount to
$12,000. Mr. Karp moved to set the performance guarantee at $12,000. Mr. Ferrari seconded the
motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
5. Continued Public Hearing – Site Plan Review Application; Public Hearing – Special
Permit Application – 0 Lumber St. – Crandall Hicks Company Inc. – Hopkinton Tennis
Club
Mr. Weismantel stated the Board received a letter from the attorney for the Framingham
Sportsman Club, to be inserted into the record. Don Satterfield, Crandall-Hicks Company Inc.,
applicant, John Kusich, Bohler Engineering, engineer, and Mark Donahue, Fletcher Tilton PC,
attorney, appeared before the Board. Mr. Kusich noted that since the last meeting they met with
the Design Review Board (DRB) to discuss lighting and signage. He noted the DRB approved the
revised lighting plan which shows 18 ft. poles and lowers the light levels by using LED fixtures,
accomplishing consistent light levels. He noted the DRB was less concerned about pole height as
long as light levels are as low as possible. He described the lighting plan. Mr. Kusich noted the
lighting levels they are establishing for this facility are much lower compared to the other Lumber
St. projects approved by the Board, and below what was asked of them. He noted they are asking
for 18 ft. as opposed to 15 ft. poles because of limitations due to the size and location of the septic
system under the parking lot. Mr. Kusich noted the light levels drop down to 0 at the property
lines.
Sol Oven, 20 Lumber St., stated that when Lumber St. Auto was built at 26 Lumber St., he was
assured that he would not be impacted by site lighting, but the reality was different and the only
4
reason he cannot see the lights now is because McIntyre constructed a building in between. Mr.
Weismantel noted that the Board has already discussed a requirement that lights be turned off
within one hour after the business is closed, and that could answer Mr. Oven’s question. He asked
about the Tennis Club business hours, and Mr. Satterfield stated if it is open at 11:00 P.M. that
would be late. Mr. Oven expressed concern about late hours. Mr. Weismantel stated the Board is
sensitive to these impacts, and although there may be a glow, Mr. Oven should not have problems
with lights shining into his windows. Ms. Wright asked if the facility will be regularly open until
11:00 P.M., and Mr. Satterfield stated it would be unusual. Ms. Wright asked if it would be
possible to require the applicant to drop light levels on a portion of the parking lot after a certain
hour, similar to what is being done at Price Chopper. Mr. Kusich stated he does not think it could
work here due to the shape and size of the lot and the nature of the business. Ms. Wright stated
there won’t be a lot of people regularly at that time in the evening, and perhaps they can at least
turn off the lights closer to the road. Mr. Karp stated he does not see building-mounted lights on
the plan, and Mr. Kusich stated there will be emergency lights over the doors, and they are not
using building lights to illuminate the parking lot. Mr. Weismantel asked if the lights in the air
supported structures will be off when they are not in use, and the answer was yes. Mr.
Weismantel stated the DRB wrote a letter in agreement with the design. Mr. D’Urso stated he
feels the DRB’s letter is well written and he wished they had something like that from the
Conservation Commission with respect to the development.
Shaun Smith, 4 Downey Place, stated he is more concerned about the noise generated by the gun
club next door to the facility. Mr. Weismantel referred to the letter received from the attorney for
the gun club, and the decision will include acknowledgement of the fact that the club is there to
stay. Mr. Smith expressed concerns about getting complaints because he is sure the future users of
the Tennis Club won’t be happy to hear the noise from the gun club. He suggested that members
visit the area to hear what it is like.
The Board discussed the sidewalk plan reviewed at the last meeting. Mr. Kusich noted there are
no changes in the proposal. Mr. Kusich stated they are providing a sidewalk from the Tennis Club
to the north to have connectivity to Hopkinton Mews.
The Board reviewed the voting procedures with respect to the lighting special permit and site plan
review applications. Ms. Wright asked if there will be a statement in the site plan decision with
respect to the facility’s location next to a gun club, and Mr. Weismantel stated yes. Mr. Wade
moved to find that the application for lighting meets the approval criteria contained in the zoning
bylaw and to grant the special permit. Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion and the Board voted
unanimously in favor.
Ms. Wright moved to find that the site plan application conforms to the Site Plan Standards and
the provisions of the Master Plan Special Permit (MPSP) and to permit the location of the
stormwater management system within the building setback areas. Mr. Ferrari seconded the
motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Ferrari moved to approve the site plan for
the Hopkinton Tennis Club with the following conditions:
5
1. MPSP Condition #24 requires that all additional utility and telecommunications lines
providing service to the site shall be installed underground. All utility service shall be
underground.
2. The applicant has requested a waiver of MPSP Condition #30 and Design Guidelines Section
G with respect to the construction of a sidewalk along Lumber Street. The Board grants the
requested waiver so that the applicant is not required to construct a sidewalk along Lumber St.
from the site driveway to the south. However, in lieu of constructing the sidewalk to the
south, the applicant shall construct a sidewalk along Lumber St. to the north, connecting to a
planned sidewalk network. Specific conditions related to this requirement are outlined in
Condition #4.
3. Site Plan Standard I requires that the Site Plan maximize the convenience and safety of
vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and to and from adjacent public ways.
Lumber St. was recently resurfaced by the Town, and utility extensions will require
disturbance to the roadway. Therefore, the applicant shall comply with the following
conditions to maintain the standards and quality of the roadway and ensure convenience and
safety:
(a) The applicant shall file an application for a road opening permit with the Hopkinton
DPW.
(b) The applicant shall provide a temporary trench patch of a thickness equal to that of the
existing pavement, or 3.5” thick, whichever is greater. That patch shall be in place for
one winter season.
(c) After one winter season, the temporary patch shall be removed and replaced with
permanent trench patch of a thickness equal to that of the existing pavement, or 3.5”
thick, whichever is greater.
(d) Once the permanent patch is constructed, the applicant shall construct a full-width
(curb to curb) overlay of “rubber chip seal” that same construction season. The
construction of the “rubber chip seal” shall be constructed in accordance with DPW
standards for the entire length of roadway disturbed by any utility installations.
4. The applicant shall construct a sidewalk along Lumber St. as shown on the Site Plan, from the
site driveway to the driveway to the Hopkinton Mews project on Lot 3. The sidewalk shall be
constructed in the location shown on a plan entitled “Master Plan Overall Development Plan”
dated August 20, 2014, prepared by Allen Engineering Inc., which has been altered to show
the location of a sidewalk on Lumber Street between Lot 7 and Lot 3. Sidewalk construction
standards shall be consistent with those depicted on a plan entitled “Contract No. 2: Ash,
Wood, and West Main Street Sidewalk Improvement Project in the Town of Hopkinton”,
dated March 2015, prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. Prior to the commencement of
construction, a detailed plan depicting the location and construction details shall be submitted
to the Hopkinton DPW for approval. All sidewalk work shall be completed under the
supervision of the DPW, and the applicant shall be responsible for the cost of any third party
inspections required by the DPW. Sidewalk construction shall be completed prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the building.
5. In the event that the amount of snow on the site exceeds the amount that can be accommodated
safely in the snow storage areas indicated on the site plan, the excess snow shall be removed
from the site.
6. All pole-mounted lights shall be turned off within 60 minutes after the business is closed.
When the business is closed to the public, the level of exterior lighting on the site shall be
6
reduced to what is required only for safety and security as recommended in the appropriate
IESNA guideline.
7. Illumination of all standing/pylon signs shall be turned off when the business is closed to the
public.
8. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, grounds or buildings shall be
screened from view from the ground.
9. Dumpsters on the property shall not be emptied before 8:00 AM or after 5:00 PM.
10. The Director of Municipal Inspections inspects Site Plans under construction for compliance
with the approved Decision of Site Plan Review. If the Director of Municipal Inspections
determines at any time before or during construction that a registered professional engineer or
other such outside professional is required to assist with the inspections of the stormwater
management system or any other component of the Site Plan, the applicant shall be responsible
for the cost of those inspections.
11. The applicant shall be responsible for mitigating all construction related impacts, including
erosion, siltation and dust control in a timely manner.
12. The applicant shall regularly remove construction trash and debris from the site in accordance
with good construction practice. No tree stumps, demolition material, trash or debris shall be
burned or buried on the site.
13. The applicant shall provide a performance guarantee in the amount of $5,000 to the Town
prior to the commencement of construction. The guarantee shall consist of a deposit of money
or negotiable securities in a form selected by the Planning Board to guarantee that any
unforeseen problems which arise, such as erosion and sedimentation and the correction of site
lighting problems, are addressed. The funds will be held by the Town and returned to the
applicant upon completion of the project.
Mr. Sivo seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Karp moved to
close the public hearings. Mr. Wade seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in
favor.
6. Master Plan Update
Mr. Weismantel noted some of the members still need to work on their assigned sections and
offered assistance if needed. Ms. Lazarus noted she is putting the sections into a final draft
document.
9. Zoning Advisory Committee Resignation
It was noted that Sarah Minsk-Eduardo submitted her resignation from the Zoning Advisory
Committee. Mr. Wade moved to accept the resignation. Mr. D’Urso seconded the motion and the
Board voted unanimously in favor.
10. Special Permit Voting & Motion Guide
Ms. Lazarus stated she prepared a Special Permit voting guide for use by the members and others
as a handy tool to have available. She noted it lists the particular voting criteria for each special
permit application. Mr. Weismantel suggested posting it on the Town’s website for reference, and
Ms. Lazarus stated she will.
11. Administrative Business
7
The Board reviewed the draft minutes of the November 16, 2015 meeting. Mr. Ferrari moved to
approve the minutes of November 16, 2015 as amended, Ms. Wright seconded the motion, and the
Board voted unanimously in favor.
The Board reviewed the draft minutes of the December 7, 2015 meeting. Mr. D’Urso moved to
approve the minutes of December 7, 2015 as written. Mr. Ferrari seconded the motion and the
Board voted 7 in favor with one abstention (Wade).
Mr. Weismantel stated he would like the members to look at the draft public hearing outline
distributed tonight with respect to the upcoming public hearing on the site plan application for the
Legacy Farms North villages. He noted this is just a general discussion outline and they are not
going to talk about it tonight. He noted he is asking members to go to the Legacy Farms South
development to determine what they like or don’t like about it, and suggested taking a ride on
Legacy Farms North which is paved almost to the bridge. He noted he would also like to schedule
a site walk in January and get ready to discuss findings and be prepared to add to the outline. Mr.
Weismantel asked if there are any Board liaison reports, and there were none.
Ms. Wright stepped off the Board at this time.
12. Continued Public Hearing – Site Plan Review Application – 34-40 Hayden Rowe – RPI
Hopkinton LLC
Brett Levy, RPI Hopkinton LLC, applicant, Andrea McCarthy, attorney, Joe Marquedant, J.D.
Marquedant & Assoc., Inc., surveyor, and Michael Radner, landscape architect, appeared before
the Board. Mr. Weismantel noted the Board received an email from Mary Lisnow, owner of 33
Church St., indicating she is ok with the proposed screening. He noted since the Board last
discussed the proposal the site plan was revised with respect to a parking lot access aisle making it
necessary to relocate a couple of parking spaces. He noted landscaping still needs to be discussed
but they already received a clean report from BETA Group. Ms. McCarthy noted the plan
complies with the standards except for the sidewalk requirements for Church St., as previously
discussed.
Mr. Marquedant explained the changes to the site layout. He noted the Fire Chief wanted to make
sure that emergency vehicles are able to navigate completely around the parking lot. He stated
they opened up the throat of the last turn from 16 to 25 ft. and relocated the parking spaces from
that area to the northern side of the parking lot. Mr. D’Urso asked if it is absolutely necessary to
relocate the spaces, and Mr. Marquedant stated they only have 96 spaces and need all of them.
Mr. Weismantel asked if members are satisfied with the plan, and Mr. D’Urso stated he is not,
because this is a last minute change adding more spaces to the front of the building. He stated he
understands the change is because of safety concerns but asked whether there are any alternatives.
Mr. Marquedant noted the previous property owner closed up the Church St. side of the parking
lot out of respect for the residents, and the question now is how to find a balance with today’s
plan. Mr. Marquedant stated the Church St. residents have expressed concerns regarding any
changes and do not want gaps in the existing screening. Mr. D’Urso stated perhaps this means
that density should be reduced requiring fewer parking spaces. Mr. Marquedant noted that the
width of the driveway opening on Hayden Rowe will be cut in half, there will be less pavement,
more screening and landscaping adding something tangible to the design of the project, and a
8
reduction from 105 to 96 parking spaces. Mr. Radner noted changes to the parking lot
landscaping were prompted by the location of stormwater treatment features, and described
existing screening. He noted there will be additional plantings, including a line of arborvitae so
that headlights won’t shine off site. He noted the neighbor on the northwest corner will have
additional mixed shrubs, mostly evergreen with a split rail fence to discourage people from cutting
through. Mr. Weismantel asked about the height of the arborvitae at the time of planting, and Mr.
Radner noted they are proposing “Green Giants”, 4 to 5 ft. high when first planted, growing 8 to
12 in. per year, 20 ft. when mature. Mr. Karp stated 4 ft. is low and won’t provide a lot of
screening for quite a while. Mr. Radner noted smaller plantings will have a better chance of
survival and 4 to 5 ft. is about the right starting height.
Claire Wright, 28 Hayden Rowe, stated currently there are no parking spaces along the northern
property line, and the proposal introduces up to 21 spaces in that location. She noted right now as
abutters they are looking at a driveway and the upper parking lot in the distance. She showed
pictures of existing conditions and noted they now have to look forward to 21 cars parked right off
their property. She noted under previous ownership, Mr. Callery on Maple St. was given a solid
block of arborvitae plantings and a fence for privacy and she would like something similar on her
side of the property. She noted the proposed plan constitutes a drastic change in conditions which
will also affect the value of her property. Mr. Levy noted the topography pitches down in this area
and he does not think a fence will be beneficial. Mr. Karp noted the topography appears to drop
off 4 ft. so planting 4 ft. arborvitae won’t do anything to alleviate the impact. Mr. Levy asked
about the length of the fence Ms. Wright has in mind, and Ms. Wright noted she wants her view of
the parking lot completely blocked. Mr. D’Urso noted this concerns a historic home and rural
industrial homes on Hayden Rowe built at a time when trees and space were valued and he wants
to see this look preserved as much as possible. He noted the other side has arborvitae and a 6 ft.
fence, and it would make sense to do the same thing on this side. Mr. Levy stated they are ok with
it if it makes the abutters happy. Ms. Wright noted the fence needs to be on the applicant’s side
and the greenery on her property. Mr. Levy stated this may require some of Ms. Wright’s garden
to be removed and the fence would have to be on the property line, because he does not intend to
give her additional land. The issues were discussed. Mr. D’Urso stated he is concerned about
screening on Hayden Rowe and asked what it will look like because although the driveway will be
narrower they are adding 4 to 5 parking spaces in that area.
Mr. Weismantel stated it appears the Hayden Rowe issue is pretty much taken care of, and the
only thing left to sort out is screening along the northern boundary line. Mr. D’Urso asked if there
will be a fence along Hayden Rowe, and Mr. Radner stated no. Screening from Hayden Rowe was
discussed. Mr. Weismantel noted with respect to the approval process and procedures and from an
appeals perspective the decision has to have a reference to the final plan, but there is still an
unresolved screening issue between the applicant and the neighbor to the north. Mr. Weismantel
noted he likes the fence idea, stockade or something like white vinyl, perhaps with trees on both
sides to make it look better, and suggested the parties come up with a solution. Mr. Ferrari stated
perhaps they can play with the change in elevations and use a dense hedge at the edge of the
parking lot instead of a fence. He noted this may be a better solution because evidently neither
party wants to look at a fence, and if the hedge is close to the edge of the parking lot it does not
have to be too high to block headlights. Ms. Wright stated that could be an option, and Mr. Levy
noted it is a good idea.
9
Jim Callery, 4 Maple St., asked how long the provisions of site plan approval remain in place, and
whether he as the landowner would be responsible for fixing his fence if or when it falls down.
Ms. Lazarus stated the applicant has to maintain the site plan components. Mr. Levy stated he is
not sure that is the case. Mr. Karp moved to continue the public hearing to January 11, 2016 at
9:15 P.M. Mr. D’Urso seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Ms. Wright returned to the Board.
13. Continued Scenic Road Public Hearing – Eversource Energy
Chris Gonzales, Eversource Energy, appeared before the Board. Mr. Weismantel noted the Board
still needs to review the proposed tree removal on Wilson St. as well as the disposition of a few
more trees on Ash St. left out at the previous discussion.
Mr. Weismantel referred to the Eversource Tree Removal Control Form for Wilson St. It was
noted a site walk was held and Mr. Weismantel stated they used the same criteria as for the other
streets. He stated in general Wilson St. had smaller trees and few big pines, but no massive big
oaks such as on Ash St. that they voted to save. Mr. Weismantel noted they made some changes
and he asked whether the Board would like to go over every tree individually or come to an
agreement on the list as a whole. Ms. Lazarus asked if any trees on the list are to be saved, and
Mr. Weismantel stated yes, but they are on private property. He noted Wilson St. has forested
conditions adjacent to the right of way, and he is not so sure that people will miss the trees
proposed for removal.
Mr. DeYoung moved to approve tree cutting on Wilson St. as indicated on the tree removal
control form reviewed by the Board. Mr. Karp seconded the motion, and the Board voted
unanimously in favor.
Mr. Weismantel stated there are also more trees on Ash St. to be discussed. He noted Mr.
Gonzales and he looked at them, and it was noted it concerns a couple of birches that are growing
right up to the wires. Ms. Wright moved to approve the removal of the additional trees on Ash St.
Mr. Wade seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Mr. Gonzales stated he has a question regarding tree removal near Cobblers Way. He noted
Eversource has identified a few trees that create a hazard but after speaking to the owner it appears
they are on private property under a restriction. Ms. Lazarus stated it probably concerns open
space that has not been conveyed yet and is still owned by the developer. Mr. Weismantel noted it
appears the Town has no jurisdiction here, and it will have to be sorted out with the developer.
Ms. Lazarus noted the Hopkinton Area Land Trust, which will own the open space, should also be
involved in the discussion.
Mr. Gonzales referred to pruning planned for Wilson St. from Rafferty Rd. to the Ashland line,
and noted he assumes this will require Eversource to go through the same process. The Board
replied yes. Mr. DeYoung moved to close the public hearing, Mr. D’Urso seconded the motion,
and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
10
14. Administrative Business
Ms. Wright stated she has an additional comment for the Board with respect to the lighting plan
for the Hopkinton Tennis Club. She noted the bylaw was written to comply with the IESNA
lighting handbook (Illuminating Engineering Society of North America). She noted the Board
looked at multiple sets of plans, but it appears compliance depends on which set of IESNA
standards is being used, for instance a shopping center vs. a parking lot, with a minimum lighting
level of 0.9 vs. 0.2. She noted she would like to make sure the standards are applied appropriately.
Ms. Lazarus noted BETA Group, the Board’s consultant, reviews the plans for consistency with
the standards. Mr. Weismantel noted uniformity is an important issue.
Adjourned: 10:00 P.M.
Submitted by: Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant, Dept. of Land Use, Planning & Permitting
Approved: January 11, 2016
Documents Used at the Meeting:
Agenda for December 21, 2015 Planning Board meeting
Memorandum to Planning Board from Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting, dated
December 17, 2015, re: Items on December 21, 2015 Planning Board Agenda
Form K – Usual form of Release of Conditions of Planning Board Approval – Connelly Hill Estates, Lots 18 and
19
Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost, Prepared for the Town of Hopkinton, Penny Meadow Lane
Subdivision, December 21, 2015
Legacy Farms Master Plan Special Permit Decision -As amended with the proposed amendments for review by
Planning Board on 12/21/15
Public Hearing Outline – Site Plan Review Application – 0 Lumber St. – Hopkinton Tennis Club 11/2/15,
11/16/15, 12/21/15
Site Development Plans for Crandall-Hicks Company, Inc., Proposed Hopkinton Tennis Club, dated October 29,
2015 revised through December 15, 2015, prepared by Bohler Engineering, LLC
Public Hearing Outline – Site Plan Application – 34-40 Hayden Rowe, Hayden Rowe Lofts, 9/15/15, 10/5/15,
10/19/15, 11/16/15, 12/21/15
Plans for Hayden Rowe Lofts, dated June 1, 2015 revised through October 19, 2015, prepared by J.D.
Marquedant & Assoc., Inc.
Photographs of 34-40 Hayden Rowe property and surroundings, submitted by Claire Wright, 28 Hayden Rowe
Public Hearing Outline – Scenic Road Public Hearing – Eversource, 11/2/15, 12/7/15, 12/21/15
Eversource Tree Removal Control Form – Wilson St. – dated 10/05/15 revised through 12/21/15
Missed Meeting Certificates: 1) Matthew P. Wade, December 7, 2015 re: Subdivision off Leonard Street –
Barbieri; Proposed Tree Removal - Scenic Roads – Eversource Energy; 2) Francis DeYoung, Nov. 16, 2015 re: 0
Lumber Street – Hopkinton Tennis Club – Site Plan Review
Special Permits – Voting and Motion Guide (Planning Board) – Draft 12-14-15
Draft Planning Board Minutes for November 16, 2015
Draft Planning Board Minutes for December 7, 2015