HomeMy Public PortalAbout20141117 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes
1
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
Monday, November 17, 2014 7:30 P.M.
Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton, MA
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ken Weismantel, Chairman, John Ferrari, Vice Chairman, Deb
Thomas, Claire Wright, Frank D’Urso, Brian Karp, Francis DeYoung, Matt Wade
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
Present: Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting; Cobi Wallace, Permitting
Assistant
Mr. Weismantel convened the meeting and thanked HCAM for recording. He noted there is
currently a vacancy on the Board, and he encouraged anyone who is interested to apply.
1. MassDOT – Research and Materials Central Laboratory – Wood St.
Stephanie LeBlanc, MassDOT, Office of Government Affairs, Donald Dailey, MassDOT, Barry
Lorion, MassDOT District 3, and Glenn Allen, Alkus Manfredi Architects, appeared before the
Board. Ms. LeBlanc stated the lab facility is currently located in South Boston and handles the
State’s highway materials and the various things they need to test for. She stated they need to
find a new location because the property owner, Boston Convention & Expo Center is planning a
big expansion. She noted MassDOT is moving and consolidating some of their facilities to
support all districts and they are planning to relocate to Hopkinton at the Westborough town line
at the Mass Pike rest area, which has access off Rt. 135 (Wood St.).
Mr. Allen noted the building will be 1 to 1 ½ stories high and will have 49,000 gross sq. ft. of
office and laboratory space. He noted the building will have a mechanical equipment penthouse
with separate air handling units for the office and laboratory space. He stated it will house 6
vehicles including a couple of trailers as well as road scanning equipment. He noted there will
be several other pieces of testing equipment, and the research and testing in the lab is related to
products to be evaluated and ok’d for use on the roads. He stated they also test core samples in
accordance with contract documents. Mr. Allen noted there will be a total of 90 full-time
employees in the lab and office, and the facility will accommodate conferences and training
sessions, with room for events held once a week at first but probably more often once it is
established. He stated the parking area will consist of two sections, the smaller one of which will
be used for occasional use during events. Mr. Allen noted the project is being condensed into a
tight footprint to avoid having to deal with ledge and wetlands issues. He noted utilities will
come up from the access road, with water and sewer to be provided by the Town of
Westborough.
Mr. Weismantel asked whether there will be access from the Mass Pike, and Mr. Lorion stated
people will be able to enter the facility going westbound via the existing off ramp to the service
plaza, but there will be no access eastbound. Mr. Weismantel asked if one can then get back
onto the Mass Pike through the gate, and Mr. Lorion noted only in case of an emergency and all
2
other access would be off Rt. 135. Mr. Weismantel referred to the E.L. Harvey & Sons recycling
facility across Wood Street and noted they have always wanted their trucks to be able to access
the Mass Pike in this location. He stated it appears water and sewer utilities will come from
Westborough, but the applicant might need permission from the Hopkinton Board of Selectmen
for that. Mr. Weismantel asked whether there will be any outside testing and Mr. Lorion stated
no. Mr. Weismantel noted the service road itself seems solid enough to handle additional traffic,
however he does not think the proposed lot configuration will be ok from a frontage standpoint,
and the State may have to combine the 2 lots they own to get legal frontage. He stated he
understands this is a hybrid zoning process where the State is mostly exempt from zoning. He
noted from this perspective they can probably easily deal with the fact that the property is in an
Agricultural zoning district and the use isn’t allowed, but he believes the project is still subject to
site plan review and wetlands regulations although these processes are typically friendly. He
stated the facility would be pretty much isolated in this location, and it won’t be any noisier than
the highway.
Mr. D’Urso asked whether there is a way for visitors arriving via the highway to continue on
after their visit, and Ms. LeBlanc noted if people go back on the highway without going through
a toll booth they will be charged tolls for the entire length. She noted the official access to and
from the facility is off Wood St., and clarified that it is unlikely that anyone would be able to
access the facility via the Mass Turnpike, due to federal highway regulations. Mr. D’Urso asked
if there is anything they can do to get permission for Harvey trucks to use the access road which
would be a solution to get them off Rt. 135. Mr. Lorion noted that request was taken into
consideration and vetted seriously, however it was denied because it would be a private company
using access to the Mass Pike from a non-regulated area. He noted lawyers on the state and
federal level were involved and determined it is not allowed and would set a precedent.
Ms. Thomas noted the presentation mentions 90 workers and she asked whether these are
employees being relocated or additional people. Ms. LeBlanc stated she believes they will also
make some room for people to fill vacant positions in the research field of the lab. Mr. DeYoung
asked whether these will be 9 A.M. to 5 P.M. positions, and it was stated it will probably be
more like 8 A.M. to 6 P.M. Ms. LeBlanc noted there will also be some construction hours with
trucks that do pavement work, and Mr. Allen noted there may be some testing done at night. Ms.
Wright asked about the type of trucks involved, and Mr. Allen noted they will be pickup trucks
and vans. Ms. Wright stated this is a residential road which has been bombarded lately with
additional development/traffic, particularly trucks, and she is concerned about the amount of
extra traffic on an already overburdened road, even though the facility won’t be visible and will
have no impact in that regard. She stated as a host community she would like to know if there is
anything to give back to the Town, maybe a car pass or transponder to allow people to use the
Mass Pike to lessen the impact. She noted 90 employees and 100+ people for periodic events
will result in a lot of additional traffic. Mr. Ferrari stated he believes there is some precedent in
allowing access off an interstate highway for Liberty Mutual in Weston, and somehow there was
the ability to overcome the objections in that particular case.
John Coutinho, 1 David Joseph Rd., stated it appears the proposed facility will have a significant
traffic impact on local roads, and he asked where the pushback against access to the Mass Pike in
this location comes from, especially since technology has made it easier to collect tolls, and
3
perhaps the use of a special pass or transponder to allow people to use the Mass Pike for access
would be an option. Mr. Weismantel noted Ms. Lazarus is the point person and the proponents
are encouraged to have their engineers work with the Town’s on issues such as stormwater and
other details. He noted he is looking forward to seeing MassDOT move to Hopkinton.
Document: Handout, Legislative Briefing – New Construction of the Hopkinton, MA Research & Materials
Central Laboratory, MassDOT, Draft – January 31, 2014
2. NSTAR – South Street Substation Expansion
Joanne O’Leary, Northeast Utilities, John Zicko, NSTAR, Frank Snyder, Senior Engineer,
System Planning, and Duane Boyce, Project Manager, appeared before the Board. Mr. Zicko
stated they propose to increase the capability of the substation at 226 South St. He noted the
existing facility was built and put in service in the mid 1990’s, with 2 transformers, switch gear
and a building, and in 2012 the original transformers were replaced with 2 larger ones. He noted
the station was initially built to serve the industrial park and shorten up the distribution circuits in
Hopkinton in general. He noted since then the load has gone up considerably and is getting more
and more difficult to handle. Mr. Zicko noted they have to add a 3rd transformer, install new
switch gear, a large box with breakers and a fence, and the square footage will increase from
20,000 sq. ft. to 34,000 sq. ft. He noted the expansion would also involve the installation of an
additional distribution line going north up on South St. Mr. Weismantel asked whether the lines
will be underground, and Mr. Zicko noted everything will leave the site underground but
eventually comes up above ground. He noted the work will last about 24 months, and some
work would be done during off peak times. He noted they plan to start at the beginning of 2016.
He stated he has discussed the project with the Building Inspector and Assistant Building
Inspector to see what is involved from their perspective. He noted the original facility needed
relief from zoning and they will have to seek additional exemptions from the Department of
Public Utilities (DPU) for the proposed expansion.
Mr. Weismantel stated he understands going through the DPU is probably the best way to
proceed, however the Planning Board would be concerned about adequate screening. Mr. Zicko
stated they have worked with a landscape architect on the project design. Ms. Wright asked
about residential abutters, and it was stated the closest are farther down the street in Milford. Mr.
DeYoung asked if the facility will be noisier as a result of expansion and Mr. Zicko stated yes in
theory, but the existing equipment with sound attenuation is barely audible over the background
noise at the property line, and he is not sure if the installation of a 3rd transformer will make a
difference. Ms. Wright noted conditions at night are the main concern. Mr. Zicko stated this is
one of the areas the DPU checks into very carefully. Mr. D’Urso asked why they are not starting
sooner than 2016, and Mr. Zicko stated they have to go through the DPU process first. Mr.
Weismantel noted it may be quicker to go through the local permitting process than going
through the DPU. He stated it takes Verizon a very long time to just move a couple of poles
which has been an ongoing problem with one of the developments in Town, and recently a
MassWorks grant was awarded for major roadwork which will be hampered by an existing pole
that’s sitting in the middle of the project. Ms. O’Leary stated she will look into this issue.
Mr. Weismantel asked about landscaping. Mr. Zicko described the various aspects of the
proposal and explained how they plan to shield the facility from abutting property by means of
low growing plantings and a tight mesh fence. Mr. Zicko stated screening is considered very
4
important, and it would be as good as it is now if not better. Mr. D’Urso asked about the impact
of planned outages on EMC, Mr. Zicko noted the units will not be switched out all at once and
outages will be planned during low usage times with enough remaining service equipment to
handle the necessary load. Mr. Weismantel asked the proponents to keep the Board informed of
the DPU process, and Mr. Zicko agreed to do that.
Documents: Plans entitled Northeast Utilities/NSTAR Proposed Station 126 Expansion Hopkinton, MA,
dated 9/12/2014, prepared by Beals + Thomas
3. Continued Public Hearing – Lumber St./West Main St. – Neighborhood Mixed Use
District Master Plan Special Permit Application – REC Hopkinton, LLC/Paul
Mastroianni
Paul Mastroianni, applicant, Kathy Sherri, On Line Communications, Luis Lobao, Applied Form
& Space, Mark Allen, Allen Engineering LLC, and Scott Goddard, Goddard Consulting LLC,
appeared before the Board. Philip Paradis and Tyler De Ruiter, BETA Group Inc., the Board’s
consulting engineer, were also in attendance. Mr. Weismantel asked what has changed since the
last meeting. Ms. Sherri noted they are primarily focusing now on the traffic study, following up
on comments from the Board and BETA Group. She noted MDM has responded to the BETA
comments and she believes most comments are now deemed to be addressed or have been
deferred to the site plan phase. Mr. Weismantel stated another change is the increase in the
number of units at the Hopkinton Mews residential component of the project, which is the
subject of an application for a comprehensive permit before the Board of Appeals. Mr. Allen
stated the revised plans before the Board tonight reflect the change. He noted Parcel #3 now has
been changed from 250 to 280 apartment units, and he incorporated other comments from the
Board, showing square footages of the individual parcels, frontages and environmental impacts
per parcel. Mr. Weismantel noted the next Board of Appeals meeting on the Hopkinton Mews
application is December 3.
He stated at the previous meeting they left off in the middle of the traffic impact discussion. He
noted since the last meeting on this proposal the Board met with the applicant for the
redevelopment of 85 West Main St. and seems to have settled on a right turn lane on West Main
St. onto Lumber St. He stated he believes there is a consensus that this should be pursued if they
make the land available. He noted the Board was concerned that without the exclusive turn lane
they would have cars backed up on West Main St. beyond Cumberland Farms, putting them back
into the Rt. 495 interchange, and making it impossible for anyone to take a left out of either of
the two gas stations. Mr. Weismantel stated they also now received the long awaited VHB
corridor study. He noted Legacy Farms had to study this section of the road as part of the project
and it now appears that there are up to 5 traffic engineers working on various developments and
talking about the same thing with a certain degree of agreement between them. He noted the
VHB study indicates that there are some short term things to be done by the Town to improve the
intersection layout and sight distance, do basic maintenance such as signal improvements, and
explore opportunities to enhance/upgrade the intersection capacity. Mr. Weismantel noted there
is basically consensus on the right turn lane on West Main St. eastbound onto Lumber St.
He referred to a proposed eastbound left turn lane extension in West Main St. west of the
intersection, and the possibility of a divided roadway in that area. He believes that the Board
concluded, during the discussion of the proposed 85 West Main St. proposal that it would not be
5
a good idea to have a divided roadway because people still need to get into the gas stations. He
noted the VHB corridor study, however, has identified this as the area with the highest number of
accidents in Town and one of their recommendations is to initiate a state road safety audit. Ms.
Thomas asked what the traffic engineers would recommend, because if it were purely a safety
issue then that aspect is paramount. She asked Mr. De Ruiter for his opinion, and he noted for
safety they should have a divided road and prohibit left turns. Mr. Lobao noted that at the public
hearing for 85 West Main St. it was noted that dividing the road would cause problems for
delivery trucks and safety vehicles trying to navigate in and out of the gas stations. Ms. Thomas
stated she personally feels it is worth doing an audit, because safety is the most important issue.
Mr. Weismantel stated he thinks that instead of making a determination about dividing the
roadway as part of this hearing, initiating a safety audit with the State would be a separate item.
Mr. De Ruiter noted the State may automatically require an audit if the Town tries to make
changes to this section of the roadway. Mr. Weismantel asked if Mr. De Ruiter has looked at the
VHB report, and the answer was no. Mr. Ferrari noted one of the major causes of accidents
appears to be people crossing from one gas station to the other across the street, and he sees this
numerous times a week with many near misses. Mr. Weismantel noted the VHB report also
refers to poor sight distance at the Cumberland Farms driveways as an issue, with all kinds of
things in the way including signage. Mr. Weismantel stated it appears the Board is in favor of
the eastbound left turn extension as proposed by the developer. Ms. Thomas asked about the
timing for making a decision, because it is possible that once they finally decide there is a safety
issue here that needs to be addressed by widening and/or dividing the roadway, everything will
be done and it may be too late to make the changes. She asked if the Town has any control over
this situation. Mr. Weismantel noted this will have to be explored and they may have to add a
couple of feet to accommodate a raised median, and maybe they have to acquire some right of
way from Cumberland Farms as discussed during the 85 West Main St. hearing.
Mr. Allen explained how the existing sidewalk will be extended further south on Lumber St.
beyond #77 West Main St., in front of the new commercial development and all the way through
Hopkinton Mews which will have its own internal sidewalks. He noted in order to incorporate
the 4,000 sq. building further down Lumber St., Mr. Mastroianni has agreed to extend the
sidewalk up to Parcel #4 but won’t continue on toward Parcel #7. Mr. Allen stated this will
allow access to the existing trails so that the connection will be kept fully in place. Mr.
Weismantel stated the construction of the sidewalks along the commercial building frontage
and/or the residential use should probably be required as a condition of approval. Ms. Thomas
stated it appears the applicant will not proceed yet with a sidewalk connection to the fitness
center area. Ms. Lazarus noted a sidewalk along the site will be required at the site plan review
phase because it is one of the site plan standards in the bylaw, but it can also meander. Mr. Allen
noted this means construction of 1,000 ft. of sidewalk through a wetlands area, which would not
get a lot of use. Ms. Lazarus noted the exact use of the parcel has not been determined. Ms.
Thomas noted the Town has placed big emphasis on expansion of its sidewalk network over the
last couple of years. Ms. Lazarus noted people walk along Lumber St. now, and it is not very
safe. Mr. Mastroianni stated he agrees with having a sidewalk in front of the commercial
buildings, but he is not sure it’s necessary along the open space. Mr. Paradis noted the standards
for that area might be different. Mr. Weismantel noted sidewalks are being installed through
wetter areas than this and the condition should probably be related to the timing of each
consecutive commercial development, so that it is clear it is not expected to be done on Day One.
6
Ms. Wright asked for additional clarification regarding the roadway mitigation measures and
referred to the MDM letter dated October 20, 2014 with respect to the residential component and
proposed traffic improvements. She noted she also has a copy of the HCA which on page 3
refers to project mitigation asking for two electric car charging stations and a bike rack. She
referred to the letter dated November 13, 2014 from Town Counsel. She noted she understands
the Board cannot ask for mitigation on the Chapter 40B residential project and any possible
mitigation has to be linked to the commercial portion, but she questions the value of a couple of
electric car plugs and a bike rack as codified mitigation for 280 additional housing units. Mr.
Mastroianni noted he cannot talk for the Mews, but as part of the mitigation they are offering
remedial traffic measures and they will be also making a $1,000,000 payment to the Town to do
with what it wants and they will pay more than $1,000,000 in water connection fees. Ms. Wright
stated she understands the proposed traffic mitigation and payments to be made but if for some
reason the commercial development does not happen, there won’t be the ability to codify the
roadway improvements they have agreed on. Mr. Weismantel stated they will codify the
improvements in the NMU decision. Mr. Mastroianni noted the improvements will be done no
matter what and Hopkinton Mews is doing the mitigation. Ms. Wright asked if some of this will
be addressed through the Board of Appeals decision, and it was noted that this why Town
Counsel recommends that the decision for the Mews should be issued first. Mr. Lobao explained
the applicant’s plan for the sidewalk extension on West Main St. Mr. Weismantel noted it is a
commercial segment and the sidewalks will be part of the project at the site plan review phase
anyway. Mr. Weismantel asked if the sidewalk goes around the corner now, and the answer was
yes. Mr. Lobao noted it will be standard operating procedure and they will work on this during
site plan review.
Mr. Weismantel referred to the draft Design Guidelines. Ms. Wright noted the Design Review
Board (DRB) has not had a chance to meet with the Hopkinton Mews development team, and
Ms. Lazarus noted they are scheduled to attend tomorrow’s meeting. Mr. Weismantel noted the
Board will get the DRB comments to incorporate them into their review. Ms. Lazarus reviewed
the draft provided by the applicant and stated she proposes to make several changes to the
document. All sections of the draft Design Guidelines were reviewed.
Ms. Lazarus stated the Board should review the signage section closely. She noted she is
recommending a prohibition on sail or flag signs, and the Board will determine the maximum
size and number of signs. Mr. Weismantel asked if they should just reference the Sign Bylaw
and Ms. Lazarus stated that the Board could do that. She noted she recommends thinking about
a regulation prohibiting signage above the first floor of a 2-story commercial building. Mr.
Mastroianni stated he would be opposed to this. Ms. Lazarus stated the signs for second floor
businesses don’t have to be up high to be useful. Ms. Thomas stated other buildings have signs
on the second floor, for instance on South St. Mr. Mastroianni noted he expects his tenants to
want signage if they lease 5-8,000 sq. ft. of space from him. Mr. Weismantel suggested this
issue as an action item for the next meeting, and to look at the signage currently used at the
Hopkinton Square development. Ms. Wright explained this type of signage is not necessarily
prohibited and Ms. Lazarus is just saying she would like it to be lower on the building. Ms.
Lazarus there would be one standing sign per lot, and asked if this sounds reasonable. Mr.
Weismantel noted he is not sure if one per lot is the right thing. Mr. Lobao stated there will be 3
7
locations with standing signs, one on West Main St., one on Lumber St., and one for tenants in
the rest of the area. Ms. Lazarus noted if the building ends up being on a corner lot, there can be
one sign on each street. Mr. Lobao stated some lots will have to be combined. Mr. Allen noted
for instance the property line between the former Terry land and #77 West Main St., now both
owned by Mr. Mastroianni, legally does not exist. Ms. Lazarus noted separate parcel lines may
be important here with respect to the Board’s reference to them in the decision. Mr. Lobao
stated they can have “demarcation” lines instead.
Mr. Mastroianni noted there would be no more than 3 pylon signs on the first commercial lot on
Lumber St., and Mr. Allen pointed out the proposed locations. Mr. Lobao noted it appears the
issue of the standing pylon and directional signs need to be addressed. Ms. Lazarus referred to
the section on temporary project signage and noted this is a development sign and not the
standard real estate “for lease” signs, and retaining them for up to 90 days after the project is
complete would be excessive. She stated 14 days would be more appropriate. Mr. Mastroianni
asked how long they can have the leasing signs up, and Ms. Lazarus stated there is no limit. Mr.
Mastroianni stated he wants more than 14 days. After discussion, it was decided that 30 days
would be appropriate.
Ms. Lazarus referred to the section on site lighting. Mr. Lobao noted they want higher levels for
the retail components than 0.1 foot-candles at the perimeter of the site. It was suggested that the
Board would review lighting under the normal site plan review standards, and Mr. Mastroianni
noted he does not want it to be any more restrictive. Ms. Lazarus the site plan review bylaw
refers to the IESNA standards. Mr. Weismantel noted it has to be 0 at the property line unless
there is waiver from another commercial abutter. Ms. Wright referred to the use of a “lighting
budget”, with an overall goal, basically focusing the light where it is most important. Mr.
Weismantel noted the beauty of this site is that there are no abutters, but they want to make sure
not to light up the townhouses at the Mews. Mr. Lobao noted the maximum proposed of 0.1
foot-candles for the perimeter of the retail sections seems very dim. In response to a comment
by Mr. D’Urso, Mr. Mastroianni stated it is important to illuminate the whole parking lot for
safety reasons and they cannot just concentrate on one particular outlet. Ms. Wright suggested
reducing light levels in certain areas. Mr. Lobao stated perhaps they can tie it to the specific
operation of the building, and they don’t want spillover into the Mews townhouses, right next to
the road. Mr. Allen stated the Mews will have street lights along the center median strip of the
road. Ms. Wright noted it is important to keep light levels down with a bunch of new
developments in the pipeline for this area. Mr. Weismantel noted there also will be 280
additional housing units and some people may not agree with Ms. Wright’s approach to lighting
levels. Mr. D’Urso agreed with Ms. Wright, noting that he can see the glow from the Mass Pike
from his house on Saddle Hill Rd. and they should be very careful with the lighting. Mr.
Weismantel stated he is ok with the current site plan review standards for the commercial
component.
The Board discussed parking lot access and design standards. Mr. Weismantel stated he does not
know why they should use a different standard here than with other commercial uses.
Ms. Lazarus stated she will prepare the Design Guidelines for review by the Board at the next
meeting. Mr. Weismantel noted he would like to get the input from the DRB also.
8
Mr. Lobao referred to the sidewalk extension to Parcel #1 along West Main St. Mr. Allen stated
the sidewalk goes by the dry cleaner already and Mr. Mastroianni does not object to extending it
for another 75 ft.
Mr. Weismantel referred to the item regarding utilities and stated he site will be on Town water
and there will be on-site sewage treatment for the residential component. Mr. Mastroianni noted
they have decided to have their own septic systems on the commercial parcels, and Mr.
Weismantel suggested the proponent talk to the Board of Health. Mr. Weismantel asked about
the availability of natural gas, and Mr. Allen stated the gas line is in the street.
Ms. Wright referred to the Host Community Agreement (HCA) language regarding extension of
Town water service and the limits in place. She asked if there is plenty of water or whether other
users will be short changed as a result of this agreement. Mr. Weismantel stated it concerns the
issuance of a water management act permit from the State. Mr. Weismantel stated the needs
would be addressed by temporarily borrowing from someone else’s buildout, but providing the
full amount via an increase in the water management act permit.
Mr. Weismantel referred to the public hearing outline item regarding the adjacent active gun club
on Lumber St. Mr. D’Urso stated this affects the residential side of the project most, and
whether future residents will know there is a gun club. Ms. Thomas stated it is a matter of
“buyer beware”. Mr. D’Urso referred to Town Counsel’s letter. Mr. Mastroianni stated the
Mews residents won’t be any different than other neighbors. Ms. Thomas asked what Mr.
D’Urso wants the Board to do about this as it is a preexisting condition. Mr. Weismantel stated
the gun club has set hours of operation. Mr. D’Urso stated they should let the tenants know there
is a gun club to avoid any complaints later on. Ms. Lazarus suggested a letter to the Board of
Appeals asking it to address this issue in that decision, or perhaps the Board can include a clause
in the design guidelines about steps to encourage mitigation of the noise impact. Mr. Lobao
stated that will be difficult as gun club noise travels for miles and it is one of the reasons for
siting the fitness facility on that side of the property. Ms. Wright noted that perhaps Mews
management can put some signs in the lobby alerting residents there is a gun club next door. Mr.
Weismantel noted perhaps they can require some additional signage along the property line of
the open space, but he imagines the gun club has their own postings.
Mr. Weismantel noted the wetlands and stormwater management aspects of the Mews proposal
are going through the Conservation Commission review. Mr. Paradis noted there are a few
crossings with wetlands impact, including one for the Hopkinton Mews, and there may be
additional wetlands impacts because of the sidewalks. Mr. Allen stated they have provided a
table showing the impact on the wetlands on a parcel by parcel basis. Mr. Goddard noted the
biggest impact is related to the Mews development, and the Conservation Commission is close to
issuing an Order of Conditions. Mr. Mastroianni asked about the commercial portion of the
development, and Mr. Goddard stated this will be discussed with the Conservation Commission.
Mr. Goddard noted there are 2 pinch points, and Mr. Weismantel noted they are getting close to
the 5,000 sq. ft. limit which will be an issue in view of the required sidewalks. Mr. Allen noted
that if they are working within the Lumber St. right of way it will be on Town owned land and
would be considered a separate project. Mr. Weismantel stated that is how the Town got in
9
trouble with certain aspects of the Legacy Farms development. Mr. Goddard stated there are
exceptions, and he is not sure that 5,000 sq. ft. is a hard rule, but he and Mr. Allen will look at
the sidewalk issue.
Mr. D’Urso moved to continue the public hearing to December 15, 2014 at7:50 PM. Mr. Ferrari
seconded the motion.
Mr. Weismantel asked Ms. Lazarus to start looking at conditions for the next meeting. He noted
there do not appear to be a lot of public comments and it appears the Board is moving toward a
decision. He noted Town Counsel recommends that the Town make a decision on the Mews
first, followed by the NMU master plan special permit.
The Board voted unanimously to continue the public hearing to December 15, 2014 at 7:50 P.M.
Documents: Plans entitled Master Plan for REC Hopkinton, LLC on Lumber Street & West Main Street in
Hopkinton, Massachusetts, dated August 20, 2014 revised November 17, 2014, prepared by Allen
Engineering, LLC; Public Hearing Outline, Neighborhood Mixed Use Master Plan Special Permit
Application; Letter to Town of Hopkinton Planning Board from BETA Group, Inc. dated November 17,
2014, re: Application for Neighborhood Mixed Use District Master Plan Special Permit Peer Review;
Memorandum to Town of Hopkinton Planning Board, from MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc., dated
October 20, 2014 re: Sensitivity Analysis – Eastbound Right Turn Lane Evaluation West Main Street at
Lumber Street – Hopkinton, MA; Memorandum to Town of Hopkinton Planning Board, from MDM
Transportation Consultants, Inc. dated November 14, 2014, re: Lumber Street Master Plan Update –
Current Build-out Hopkinton, Massachusetts; Copy of Host Community Agreement between REC
Hopkinton, LLC, Hopkinton Mews, LLC and Town of Hopkinton Board of Selectmen; Draft Design
Guidelines Neighborhood Mixed Use District (NMUD) Master Plan Special Permit, August 25, 2014;
Environmental Impact Table, prepared by Goddard Consulting, LLC; Letter from Miyares and Harrington
LLP to Hopkinton Planning Board, dated November 13, 2014, re: Hopkinton Mews, Master Plan Special
Permit Application Review
4. Highland Park IV Subdivision
David Marquedant, J.D. Marquedant & Assoc., Inc., appeared before the Board. It was noted
this is a continuation of a discussion at a previous meeting. Board members asked if the design
of the retaining wall has been changed so that it will look like the other walls in the Highland
Park development. Mr. Marquedant stated it will have the same look. Mr. D’Urso stated he
spoke to the direct neighbor who is very happy with the response from the developer. Ms.
Lazarus noted the Board already approved the change from grading to the retaining wall, and the
only clarification is the design of the face of the wall. Mr. D’Urso moved to approve the change
to the plan, Mr. Karp seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
5. Administrative Business - Minutes
The Board reviewed the draft minutes of the meeting on October 6, 2014. Ms. Thomas moved to
approve the Minutes as written. Mr. Ferrari seconded the motion and the Board voted
unanimously in favor.
6. Approval Not Required Plan – 37 & 39 Winter St. – Kevin Simard
Ms. Lazarus described the ANR plan, noting that the proposed reconfiguration of the two lots
complies with the minimum frontage and area requirements. Ms. Thomas moved to endorse the
10
plan as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law. Mr. Ferrari seconded the
motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Document: Plan entitled “Compiled Plan of Land prepared for Kevin Simard et. Ux.”, dated Oct. 30, 2014,
prepared by J.D. Marquedant & Assoc., Inc.
7. Approval Not Required Plan – 215 Hayden Rowe St. – William Perkins
Joe Marquedant, J.D. Marquedant & Assoc., Inc., appeared before the Board. He stated the
existing driveway was going to be re-vegetated, graveled out and redone when the Hayden
Woods project is built, but there is an issue with the abutter who feels they have some rights. He
noted they therefore are planning to convey some land to the owner of 213 Hayden Rowe, but
there will be no impact on the Hayden Woods development. Ms. Lazarus noted the plan meets
the requirements for endorsement. Ms. Thomas moved to endorse the plan as not requiring
approval under the Subdivision Control Law. Ms. Wright seconded the motion and the Board
voted unanimously in favor.
Document: Plan entitled “Hayden Woods” 201-215 Hayden Rowe Street, prepared for William Perkins,
dated Nov. 11, 2014, prepared by J.D. Marquedant & Assoc., Inc.
8. Legacy Farms Updates
East Main St. Road Work – Mr. Weismantel stated the ledge has now been removed, and the
sub base is in place. He noted the work will continue but weather will now be a factor. He
noted he is somewhat disappointed with the performance of the contractor, Greener Group.
East Main St. Sidewalk – Mr. Weismantel stated he discussed the project with Mr.
MacDowell. He stated the Board still has not yet received the plans for the Wilson St. rip rap
crossing, but they may start on the sidewalk when they cannot work on the East Main St.
roadway modifications. Ms. Thomas asked if they can still do it before April, and Mr.
Weismantel stated he believes so, but being ready enough to accommodate the Marathon is a
concern.
West Main St. Corridor Study – It was noted that the Board finally received the West Main
St. corridor study and Mr. Weismantel stated he thinks it should be formally sent to the
Board of Selectmen so that the recommended actions can be looked into and planned. The
Board agreed to forward the report to the Board of Selectmen.
Other Documents Used at the Meeting: Agenda for November 17, 2014 Hopkinton Planning Board meeting,
Memorandum to Planning Board from Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting, dated
November 13, 2014, Re: Items of Planning Board Agenda November 17, 2014; Missed Meeting Certification –
Francis DeYoung, for 10/6/2014 meeting re: Lumber St./W. Main St.; Draft Minutes – October 6, 2014
Adjourned: 10:00 P.M.
Submitted by: Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant, Dept. of Land Use, Planning & Permitting
Approved: January 12, 2015