HomeMy Public PortalAbout20140707 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes
1
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
Monday, July 7, 2014 7:30 P.M.
Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton, MA
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ken Weismantel, Chairman, John Ferrari, Vice Chairman, Francis
DeYoung, Deb Thomas, Matthew Wade, Brian Karp, Claire Wright
MEMBERS ABSENT: Todd Holbrook
Present: Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting; Cobi Wallace, Permitting
Assistant
Mr. Weismantel opened the meeting, thanked HCAM for taping the meeting, and summarized
the agenda. He noted the applicant for the Reservoir View OSLPD Special Permit application
has requested a continuance of the public hearing.
1. Connelly Hill Estates – Request for Lot Releases and Performance Guarantee Amount
It was noted the Board’s inspecting engineer has reviewed the performance guarantee estimate
submitted by the applicant for the portion of Connelly Hill Road serving lots 50, 51 and 52. It
was stated that the engineer recommends increasing the total amount held by the Town by
$41,143.00, which equals the Town’s cost to complete the remaining work for this section.
Noting that this is higher than the developer’s estimate, Ms. Thomas asked if the applicant has
commented on the revised amount. Ms. Lazarus stated they have not. Mr. Karp moved to
increase the performance guarantee required for Connelly Hill Estates by $41,143.00 to reflect
the cost to complete this section of road. Mr. Wade seconded the motion and the Board voted
unanimously in favor. Ms. Thomas moved to release Lots 50, 51 and 52 from the conditional
approval agreement for Connelly Hill Estates upon receipt of the performance guarantee amount.
Mr. Karp seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
2. Parkwood Drive Subdivision - Request for Lot Releases
Mr. Weismantel noted this concerns lots in an industrial park off of Elm St. that was built a long
time ago. He stated the Board approved the Parkwood Drive subdivision plan in 2012, which
delineated the industrial park driveway as a street and created five lots. It was noted that the law
required the imposition of a covenant at the time of recording, even though the road is already
built. Therefore, the applicant requests that the lots now be released from the covenant. After a
review of items contained in the Board’s approval, Ms. Thomas moved to release Lots 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5 from the conditional approval agreement for the Parkwood Drive subdivision. Mr. Ferrari
seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
3. Public Hearing - Laurel Avenue Extension – Thomas Perna
Thomas Perna, applicant, Patrick Burke, HS&T Engineering, engineer, and Doug Resnick,
attorney, appeared before the Board. Phil Paradis, BETA Group, the Board’s consultant
engineer, was also in attendance. Mr. Weismantel stated the applicant would like to construct an
2
additional 165 ft. of roadway to create frontage for a building lot on Laurel Ave., a paper street
shown on an approved subdivision from 1933.
Mr. Resnick noted he represents Mr. Perna, the applicant, and the Dardinski’s, who own the
property. He noted Town Counsel has determined this is a lot on a paper street with approved
subdivision lot status, and the applicant was directed to go to the Board of Appeals to prove that
the lot is grandfathered. He noted Mr. Perna received relief from various minimum setback
requirements, but still has to get a determination from the Planning Board as to how to build the
road to serviceable conditions as close to subdivision standards as possible.
Mr. Resnick noted the road has been improved from the Hillcrest Rd. side to facilitate the use of
another lot next to 4 Laurel Ave. Al Rogers, 4 Laurel Ave., stated he also owns a lot across the
street. Mr. Burke explained the site location, and noted the plan proposes to pave 165 to 170 ft.
from Hillcrest Rd. to Mr. Perna’s lot. He noted they intend to maintain the existing 18% grade,
staying within the 25 ft. road right of way as much as they can. He noted they will address
drainage with a catch basin diverting the water into a subsurface Cultec drainage system. He
stated the house will have Town water and sewer, and connect to local telecommunications,
phone and cable utilities. He noted he received a copy of BETA’s letter and offered to go
through each item. Mr. Rogers asked why the applicant proposes to connect to the Town water
line in Hillcrest Rd. which is 400 ft. away, rather than connecting to the one in Downey St.
which is much closer. Mr. Burke stated he will check into it. Mr. Resnick noted his client has
chosen access from Hillcrest Rd. instead of Downey St. because the owner on the corner of
Downey St. and Laurel Ave. has built a parking area and retaining wall across Laurel Ave.
essentially blocking the road. He noted anyone with frontage on a paper street has the legal right
to use it in its entirety but here one neighbor has chosen by his own action to violate the rights of
others.
Mr. Parcher, 49 Downey St., stated he received approval from the Town to put his driveway
there to avoid another curb cut at the corner on Downey St. Mr. Perna stated the Town did not
approve that. He noted right now he cannot even drive his excavator in there, and presented a
copy of the plot plan for 49 Downey St. to make his point. Mr. Weismantel noted the Board
understands the rights of property owners on a paper street and Mr. Parcher’s rock wall could be
moved if necessary.
Ms. Wright asked if the applicant intends to pave the rest of Laurel Ave., and Mr. Burke stated
no. She noted she understands there is no homeowners association and she assumes that the
stormwater system maintenance costs will fall solely on this particular property owner, and Mr.
Resnick stated that is correct.
Rachel Parcher, 49 Downey St., submitted photos of the area into the record. Mr. Rogers
showed additional pictures of his section of Laurel Ave. Mr. Rogers noted the road will have to
be patched at some point, and Mr. Weismantel noted the Town put some asphalt on the upper
portion when the sewer line was installed several years ago. Walter Garland, 3 Whitman Ln.,
asked if the Town maintains the road, and Mr. Weismantel stated no. Ms. Wright asked who
will pay to replace the asphalt, and Mr. Resnick noted under common law property owners who
3
have made improvements also share the maintenance costs, but he will talk to Mr. Rogers and
come to some type of understanding.
Tom Towle, 55 Downey St., stated his major concern is water runoff and he asked about the
saturation point of the detention area near the retaining wall, and Mr. Weismantel stated that will
be one of the points of discussion. Mr. Perna showed pictures taken within the last week which
show the rip rap at the top of Laurel Ave. covered by dirt. He referred to the demolition of the
house at 50 Downey St., and asked about the pile of trees stacked up by the contractor. He noted
he would prefer coming up from Downey St. Mr. Weismantel asked who is dumping dirt there,
and Mr. Rogers noted he just blew some leaves over and he uses the area for snow storage. Mr.
Rogers suggested coming in from Downey St. would be a better solution, and Mr. Weismantel
stated the Board would consider alternative plans. Ms. Wright asked if they would still need a
detention area next to the Parcher property even if coming in from Downey St., and Mr. Perna
noted yes but it is basically like having a septic system in the front yard.
Mr. Paradis stated he visited the site as part of his review. He noted the Town provided him with
a copy of the original subdivision plan from 1933 which has a unique layout with very small lots
and 25 ft. rights of way, very challenging and not engineered at all. He noted he agrees with
others that the road is extremely steep and at 18% the grade looks more like a ski slope and
typically dead end streets have a turnaround at the end. He noted the fact that this exists now
does not mean it is right to continue with something less than standard, especially from a safety
and emergency access standpoint. He noted the maximum grade under the Subdivision Rules
and Regulations is 9% and even a shared driveway has a maximum of 15%. He stated he feels it
would be best if Laurel Ave. was a through street. He noted another issue is the narrow width
(12 ft.) of the roadway with no room to pass without some sort of negotiation. He noted the
applicant’s stormwater system only addresses his section of the street while it appears that there
is a broader watershed that produces stormwater which goes through the site, and adding
pavement will cause the water to go too fast for the catch basin to handle. Mr. Paradis stated he
is also concerned about the long term maintenance of the system, and it will be difficult to get in
and out if the road deteriorates. He referred to the retaining wall which is close to the westerly
property line and the proposed stormwater chamber adjacent to it, which as designed may cause
water to migrate down and out to the building at 49 Downey St. He suggested that the roof
runoff be channeled to a different underground chamber in the back to spread the water out and
even out the flow.
Mr. Weismantel stated it appears the hearing will be continued and asked the applicant to come
back with a plan showing 47 and 49 Downey St., as the drainage recharge system immediately
upstream of two houses is a concern. Mr. Burke noted he can make some changes. Mr. Resnick
referred to a letter from the owner at 47 Downey St. who feels the proposal will improve
conditions. The Board discussed possible alternate solutions. Mr. Weismantel asked about
paving the entire road and making it one way downhill, and Mr. Burke noted they may be able to
make it work but costs have to be considered. Mr. Garland noted Mr. Paradis accurately
described the hill and he is concerned that people will end up on his property across the street at
50 Downey St. where he is building a new house.
4
Linda Henderson, 4 Laurel Ave., stated road conditions already are very scary, especially with
respect to the narrow width and drop off on the sides. Ms. Parcher stated there is a blind corner
and she has been hit twice coming out of her driveway. She noted she is concerned about safety
during winter conditions and more salting/sanding operations will cause sediment to go into the
Lake. Mr. Burke stated they will be able to mitigate by collecting the water in the road and
installing stop signs, but they will have to take a closer look at the intersection. Ms. Thomas
stated there is concern about the pitch of the road and asked about a one way street going up the
hill. Mr. Perna noted steep hills are very common in the lake area, and people seem to be able to
deal with them ok.
Mr. Weismantel referred to possible action items, looking at alternative solutions such as one
way from Downey St. or a through road. Ms. Wright noted there is possibility of more
development of land further up on Laurel Ave., and Mr. Rogers noted there is a small lot with a
house that will be demolished and a new one built. Mr. Resnick stated there is no room to create
additional lots. Ms. Wright noted this area is being developed piecemeal and she would like to
see the road treated as a whole stormwater issue. Mr. Weismantel agreed and stated the BETA
report indicates there is a large watershed upstream requiring a more comprehensive stormwater
drainage design. Mr. Burke agreed that the proposed system will have to be reconsidered. In
response to a question, Mr. Parcher noted he was trying to redirect water away from his property
and built a swale about 10 years ago for that purpose, and the current retaining wall is new but
there was another one there before. Mr. Garland noted the house just demolished at 50 Downey
St. did get water in the basement. Ms. Wright asked about groundwater levels, and Mr. Perna
stated they tested in several spots without finding evidence of high groundwater and the tests
were witnessed by the Board of Health. Ms. Wright noted she is concerned the proposal could
put people down gradient with naturally high groundwater at risk for flooding because the soil
will have a harder time to infiltrate. Mr. Towle noted they dug a well in 1970 and did not
encounter groundwater at 10 to 12 ft. but that done was in the winter and people in the area have
problems with water in their basements. In response to a question of Mr. Burke, Mr. Weismantel
stated the Board expects him to meet standards but without causing problems for people
downstream. Mr. Weismantel noted the bottom line is that this project presents a tough
engineering problem and there is a good reason why the Town does not allow 18% roadway
slopes, but they are trying to focus on a potential solution. Mr. Burke noted they will have to
look at the whole watershed. Mr. DeYoung noted he feels coming down from the top of the road
will create more problems than it solves.
Mr. Resnick stated the proponents at this point have agreed to absorb the comments from the
Board and BETA Group and come up with a meaningful alternative. Mr. Weismantel asked Ms.
Lazarus to consult Town Counsel. He referred to the letter to the Board of Appeals from
Miyares and Harrington LLP dated February 8, 2012, which indicated that the plan should apply
the subdivision rules and regulations with respect to road construction standards to the extent that
compliance is reasonable. He noted the question is what happens if that is not possible and an
engineering solution cannot be found, does the Board have grounds for denial. Mr. Resnick
noted that would be a slippery slope from a legal standpoint as it would prevent a property
owner’s use of his property without proper compensation, and Mr. Weismantel noted there are
plenty of parcels in Town that are difficult to or cannot be developed. Ms. Wright asked about
input from the Police and Fire Departments, and Ms. Lazarus noted copies of the application
5
were distributed to them and she will follow up. Mr. Weismantel referred to a determination
made by the Board of Selectmen in opposition to the proposal, and Mr. Resnick stated there is no
role for the Selectmen in this matter. Ms. Wright noted another main concern alluded to in this
case is the lack of a homeowners association which leaves one owner responsible for the
maintenance of the drainage system for the good of the broader area. She asked what if
something goes wrong and it is not found out right away. She noted it sounds like the Sword of
Damocles hanging over an entire neighborhood. Mr. Resnick noted one cannot force other
homeowners to participate but a deed restriction can be very effective, and that is their plan.
Karen Dardinski, property owner, asked if there is any chance the paper road will be accepted by
the Town, and the response was definitely no. Ms. Dardinksi noted a through street would make
a lot more sense. Diane Dardinski, executrix, noted her grandmother and her sister purchased the
lot as an investment in 1932 in good faith, and with all the taxes paid over the years hopes the
Town agrees to see her grandmother’s dream come true. Ms. Thomas moved to continue the
public hearing to August 25, 2014 at 7:35 P.M. Mr. Ferrari seconded the motion and the Board
voted unanimously in favor.
Documents: Plan entitled Definitive Site Plan, Laurel Avenue, Hopkinton, MA, dated 5/9/2012 revised
9/10/2012, prepared by HS&T Group, Inc.; Letter to Town of Hopkinton Planning Board from Philip F.
Paradis, Jr., BETA Group, Inc., re: Petition to Approve Road Construction for a Portion of Laurel Avenue
Hopkinton, MA Peer Review; Photos of Laurel Avenue, shown by Al Rogers on iPad; Copy of Plan
Showing Proposed Addition in Hopkinton, MA, for 49 Downey Street, prepared by Dennis O’Brien, dated
October 5, 2010; Photos of 49 Downey St. and Laurel Avenue, submitted by Tom Perna; Photos of Laurel
Avenue taken by Phil Paradis, BETA Group; Letter entitled “Abutters Douglas and Rachel Parcher’s
Argument Against the Approval of Variances for 0 Laurel Ave.”, received July 7, 2014
4. Continued Public Hearing - Reservoir View OSLPD (Spring St.) – OSLPD Special
Permit Application – Christopher Olson
Ms. Thomas moved to continue the public hearing to August 11, 2014 at 8:30 P.M. at the
applicant’s request. The motion was seconded and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
5. Design Review Board Appointments
It was noted all current Design Review Board members are willing to be reappointed. Mr.
Weismantel stated they are doing a good job and it is good to hear they are willing to continue.
He asked if Ms. Wright is willing to be the Planning Board’s representative again, and Ms.
Wright stated yes. Ms. Thomas moved to reappoint Claire Wright, Sue Ellen Stoddard, Jeffrey
Doherty, Jeanette Thomson, Gail Fallon, Ria McNamara (alternate member), and Shawn
McGuinness (alternate member) for a term to expire July 31, 2015. Mr. Karp seconded the
motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
6. Planning Board Goals FY2015
Mr. Weismantel stated progress on current goals is mixed, noting the Master Plan Update still
has a lot of work left while the downtown project is perking along. He noted the Board should
review the existing goals at the next meeting before determining new goals.
7. Other Business
a) 42 Main Street Project - Mr. Weismantel provided an update on the 42 Main Street Project,
noting the owners are in the process of purchasing the Nealon property on Main St. and
perhaps the approved plans will be revised to make conditions better.
6
b) Visioning Project – Ms. Thomas, member of the Visioning Steering Group, noted attendance
at the first visioning session was not great, and it was felt it would be better to postpone the
second session to September. She noted the group is planning to conduct a community
survey. Mr. Weismantel stated the Board will start up the Master Plan Update again once
they are through the visioning project.
c) Weston Nurseries – Mr. Weismantel noted he and Ms. Lazarus met with Peter Mezitt of
Weston Nurseries regarding an upcoming site plan application for a new maintenance and
commercial sales building.
d) 203 Pond St. Definitive Subdivision Plan – Mr. Weismantel noted the definitive plan has
been submitted and has been scheduled for public hearing on August 11.
e) Lumber St. Development (Mastroianni) – Mr. Weismantel stated Mr. Mastroianni wants to
get going on the commercial aspect of the development. He reminded the Board of the
Board of Appeals continued public hearing for “Hopkinton Mews” on Wednesday, June 18,
2014, at 7:15 P.M.
f) Joint Meeting with Board of Selectmen, July 15, 2014 – Ms. Lazarus noted there are four
applicants for the open Planning Board position. She noted the matter is tentatively
scheduled for 7:15 P.M. Mr. Weismantel noted the joint meeting has been posted as a
Planning Board meeting starting at 6:30 P.M.
g) Minutes – The Board reviewed the draft Minutes of the meeting on May 12, 2014. Mr.
Ferrari moved to approve the Minutes of May 12, 2014 as written. Mr. Wade seconded the
motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor. The Board reviewed the draft Minutes of
the meeting on May 27, 2014 and made corrections. Ms. Thomas moved to approve the
Minutes of May 27, 2014 as amended. Mr. Ferrari seconded the motion and the vote was
unanimous in favor.
h) Telecommunication Towers – Ms. Wright referred to the letter distributed to the Board from
the Massachusetts Municipal Association (MMA) dated June 17, 2014 to Senator Karen
Spilka voicing its opposition to proposals to remove local authority in wireless
telecommunications siting decisions. She noted she feels it would be a good idea for the
Planning Board to join the MMA regarding this issue and send a letter to state lawmakers to
raise concerns about the proposal. She noted they should copy other communities as well.
Ms. Wright moved to send a letter to Senator Spilka and Representative Dykema, with copies
to the Board of Selectmen of Hopkinton and other neighboring communities. Mr. DeYoung
seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Documents: Draft Minutes of May 12, 2014 and May 27, 2014; Letter from Massachusetts Municipal
Association, dated June 17, 2014, to The Honorable Karen E. Spilka – Oppose Telecom Industry Proposals
to Remove Local Authority in Siting of Wireless Antennas and Equipment; Agenda for July 7, 2014
Planning Board meeting; Memorandum to Planning Board from Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use,
Planning & Permitting, dated July 3, 2014, re: Items on Planning Board Agenda July 7, 2014; Form K
Usual Form of Release – Connelly Hill Estates – Lots 50, 51, 52; Form K Usual Form of Release –
Parkwood Drive – Lots 1 through 5
Adjourned: 9:20 P.M.
Submitted by Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
Approved: August 11, 2014