Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20141215 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes 1 HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD Monday, December 15, 2014 7:30 P.M. Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton, MA MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Ken Weismantel, Chairman, John Ferrari, Vice Chairman, Francis DeYoung, Frank D’Urso, Brian Karp, Frank Sivo, Deb Thomas, Matt Wade, Claire Wright MEMBERS ABSENT: None 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. Continued Public Hearing – 97 East Main St. – Site Plan Review – Weston Nurseries, Inc. Wayne Mezitt and Peter Mezitt, Weston Nurseries, Inc., applicant, and Bert Corey, Schofield Brothers Inc., engineer, appeared before the Board. Peter Mezitt noted there are some outstanding issues from the last meeting, such as the ability of the Legacy Farms Road/Frankland Road intersection to handle very large trucks. Mr. Wade arrived at this time. Mr. Corey referred to the most recent comments dated December 15, 2014 submitted by BETA Group, Inc., the Board’s consultant. He noted the plan has been revised and the major remaining issues have now been resolved. Mr. Corey noted BETA asked for additional screening near the employee parking area, and the plan submitted addresses this issue with additional details as to type and size of the plantings. Mr. Cory noted BETA also had concerns regarding the stormwater management plan which showed runoff being directed from the access road into the irrigation pond without the calculations necessary to demonstrate there will be no increase in peak flow. Mr. Corey noted they discussed the issue with BETA and changed the plan, adding a detention basin and directing the water into the wetlands mimicking existing conditions with no increase in peak flow. Mr. Corey stated BETA recommended using recycled asphalt instead of compacted gravel which is prone to erosion for some of the driveway. He stated the revised plan shows the sections of the access road which will utilize recycled asphalt per BETA’s recommendation. 2 Mr. Corey noted he believes the revised plan addresses BETA’s major concerns, with other items to be addressed via approval conditions. He referred to BETA’s comments related to Construction Period Erosion and Sediment Controls, including a concern regarding some of the controls installed in compliance with an Order of Conditions from 2010 and now in need of repair. Ms. Thomas asked if access to the Frankland Rd. building for very large trucks has been addressed, and Mr. Corey stated yes. Peter Mezitt noted as a result of the discussion at the last meeting, this entrance will not be used for the larger trucks and no further action will be necessary to address the issue. Ms. Wright noted she assumes the proposed access will adequately accommodate smaller trucks and vehicles, and Peter Mezitt noted they cannot tell their customers what to do but they can get the directions by “googling” the address. Ms. Thomas asked what will happen if the driver gets there and finds out he cannot make the turn. Peter Mezitt stated weight limit road signs might be a good idea because they get 47-50 ft. tractor trailers a couple of times a year. Mr. Weismantel noted several signs may be necessary to make sure these trucks don’t end up on Rt. 85 at the Southborough bridge. Ms. Wright stated she recalls a Fire Dept. discussion regarding concerns about emergency access during off hours, and it was noted a gate or chain will not stop the safety officials from entering the site. Mr. D’Urso stated he discussed stormwater runoff management issues with John Westerling, DPW Director, and Mr. MacDowell of Legacy Farms. He noted the Legacy Farms north side is wet and water runs down from Liberty Mutual onto Frankland Rd. as well. He noted there is a plan to correct potential water/icing conditions and Mr. Westerling would like to get it fixed before winter. Ms. Wright stated it appears the new maintenance building on East Main St. will be tucked down behind the “Toll House”. She asked if the new residents at the Hopkinton Retirement Residence across the street would be looking at a steel building and active dirt pile or whether everything will be adequately screened by topography. She noted screening is also important because East Main St. is one of the entrances into Hopkinton. Mr. Corey referred to the plan, and Mr. Weismantel noted it looks like the future apartment residents won’t be able to see the new building. Peter Mezitt noted there will be bulk material stored there, but it will look neat. Mr. Weismantel asked for additional questions or comments from Board members and the public. He asked if the applicant has looked at the draft approval conditions in Ms. Lazarus’ memorandum to the Board. Mr. Corey stated the Board still has to review the requests for waivers, and reference was made to BETA Group’s comments and recommendations. Reference was made to the request for a waiver from the requirement for underground utilities, and it was noted that BETA does not see an issue with granting the waiver. Jon Koeller, 72 Frankland Rd., asked for clarification regarding the requested waiver for parking lot lighting, and Ms. Lazarus stated the waiver, if granted, means there will not be lighting in the parking lot. Mr. Koeller stated he is concerned with the way the request is worded, based on past history with Liberty Mutual. 3 After discussion, it was determined that the application of the following site plan standards to the agricultural use would be unreasonable:  § 210-136.1.D  § 210-136.1.E  § 210-136.1.F  § 210-136.1.G  § 210-136.1.H  § 210-136.1.M  § 210-136.1.N Ms. Wright moved to find that the Site Plan conforms to the Site Plan Standards contained in § 210-136.1 of the Zoning Bylaw as applied to the agricultural use only to the extent reasonable, and to approve the application and the Site Plan with the following conditions: 1. 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. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for mitigating all construction related impacts, including erosion, siltation and dust control in a timely manner. 3. In accordance with § 210-138 of the Zoning Bylaw, the applicant shall provide a performance guarantee in the amount of $2,000 to the Town prior to the commencement of construction pursuant to this Decision. 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. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion, and the Board voted 8 in favor with 1 abstention (Sivo). Ms. Thomas moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Karp seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Documents: Plans entitled “Weston Nurseries, 97 East Main Street, Hopkinton, Massachusetts”, dated October 22, 2014 revised through December 15, 2014, prepared by Schofield Brothers of New England, Inc.; Public Hearing Outline, Site Plan Review – Weston Nurseries; Letter to Town of Hopkinton Planning Board from BETA Group, Inc., dated December 15, 2014 re: Weston Nurseries Site Plan Review (Major Project) Peer Review Update; Letter to Town of Hopkinton Planning Board from Schofield Brothers of New England, Inc., dated December 15, 2014 re: Weston Nurseries 2. Approval-Not-Required Plan - 123 East Main St. – Wayne and Elizabeth Mezitt Wayne Mezitt stated he would like to merge the lot at 123 East Main St. with the rest of the parcel. Mr. D’Urso stated the Historical Commission is working to preserve the historic “Toll House” on the property and asked if this plan if endorsed would affect the outcome. Ms. Wright stated they would have to carve out a separate lot for the Toll House if needed. Ms. Thomas 4 moved to endorse the plan as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law. Mr. Karp seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Document: Plan entitled “Plan of Land East Main Street Lot E-6-3 in Hopkinton, MA” dated December 10, 2014, prepared by Beals and Thomas, Inc. 3. Continued Public Hearing – Amendments to Subdivision Rules & Regulations Mr. Weismantel asked Ms. Lazarus to explain the changes to the draft Regulations since the last hearing. Ms. Lazarus stated one item to be further reviewed by the Board is a proposed requirement to provide documentation to the Board indicating where debris and other material has been disposed of, which was recommended by the DPW Director. The Board discussed what it would do with the information, and determined it was not in favor of the proposed change. Ms. Lazarus referred to a proposed change requiring the Planning Board’s inspecting engineer to also inspect municipal water and sewer installation. It was noted the DPW has done this in the past, but has limited time and manpower and prefers not to continue to provide this free service. Ms. Thomas asked how this is handled in other towns, and Phil Paradis, BETA Group, Inc., noted his firm performs the inspections for the Town of Franklin. Ms. Wright noted she feels the cost of the water and sewer installation inspection services is part of doing business and should be the applicant’s responsibility. The Board agreed to make the change. Ms. Lazarus stated she recently noticed an inconsistency in the Rules and Regulations with respect to the legal notification requirements for definitive subdivision applications and frontage waiver requests. She stated the Rules and Regulations specify Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested while first class mail is sufficient, and it is quite expensive to use that service. The Board agreed to change the requirement for legal notification to first class mail for both applications. Mr. DeYoung moved to approve the amendments to the Rules and Regulations Relating to the Subdivision of Land as discussed and agreed to. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion and the Board voted 8 in favor with 1 abstention (Sivo). Ms. Thomas moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Ferrari seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Document: Draft Amendments to the Rules and Regulations Relating to the Subdivision of Land Adopted May 8, 2000, amended through June 16, 2003 (dated 10/29/14 revised through 12/10/14) 4. Approval-not-Required Plan – 215 Hayden Rowe St. – William Perkins Neither the applicant nor a representative was present. Ms. Lazarus described the plan to create a small parcel and convey it to an abutter, with both parcels continuing to meet the frontage requirement. Ms. Thomas moved to endorse the 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 “Hayden Woods” 201-215 Hayden Rowe Street Hopkinton MA, dated Nov. 14, 2014, prepared by J.D. Marquedant & Associates, Inc. 5. Approval-not-Required Plan – 66 Pleasant St. & 2 Leonard St. – Curtis Best/Eileen McGann 5 Neither the applicant nor a representative was present. Ms. Lazarus described the plan to the Board, noting that both lots would continue to meet the frontage requirement. Ms. Thomas moved to endorse the plan as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law. Mr. Ferrari seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Document: Plan entitled “Plan of Land in Hopkinton Massachusetts” prepared for Curtis Best et. ux, dated Nov. 24, 2014, prepared by J.D. Marquedant & Associates, Inc. 6. Timber Glen Subdivision- Request for Performance Guarantee Release Ms. Lazarus noted the developer has worked with the DPW to upgrade Snowy Owl Road and Falcon Ridge Drive, so the Town will be able to continue plowing. She noted the intent is to accept the streets as public ways at the next annual town meeting, so the developer is requesting that the performance guarantee be released. Ms. Lazarus stated she informed the developer that it is customary for the Town to keep a small guarantee until the roads are accepted. She stated she asked the DPW Director for an opinion as to the amount, and it has been left up to the Board to determine the amount that can be legally kept. Mr. Weismantel stated these are 20-year old roads with some significant patches, but everything has now been crack sealed. He stated the developer had a stormy relationship with the Town over the years and nothing got done allowing the roads to deteriorate. He noted he would prefer to accept the streets with new pavement but that won’t happen and the residents want the Town to continue plowing. Ms. Wright noted it sounds as if the developer has done what the Board asked them to do. Mr. Weismantel noted there is some debris on the roads but reducing the performance guarantee to $5,000.00 should be adequate. Ms. Wright moved to reduce the performance guarantee held by the Town for the Timber Glen subdivision to $5,000.00 and to authorize the release of funds held in excess of this amount the developer. Mr. Ferrari seconded the motion. Mr. Sivo stated he has seen the current condition of the road, but noticed that there are still some potholes in the road near the entrance. The area was discussed. The Board moved unanimously in favor of the motion. 7. Continued Public Hearing – Lumber St./West Main St. – Neighborhood Mixed Use District MPSP Application – REC Hopkinton, LLC/Paul Mastroianni Paul Mastroianni, REC Hopkinton, LLC, applicant, Kathy Sherri, On Line Communications, manager, Luis Lobao, Applied Form & Space, architect, Mark Allen, Allen Engineering LLC, engineer, and Scott Goddard, Goddard Consulting LLC, wetlands scientist, appeared before the Board. Phil Paradis, BETA Group, Inc., the Board’s engineering consultant, was also in attendance. Mr. Weismantel referred to the public hearing outline and noted the focus tonight will be on the design guidelines. Ms. Lazarus reviewed the document which showed proposed revisions and comments provided by the applicant. Ms. Sherri referred to the applicant’s proposed changes to the section entitled Design Principles. Ms. Lazarus noted the text in the Guidelines has been copied verbatim from the NMU zoning bylaw and cannot be modified. Mr. Lobao noted with respect to the requirement to utilize energy efficient designs and low impact techniques there will be an effort to comply, and he asked for clarification of the term “feasible”. He noted it seems compliance is doable as long as they adhere to the bylaw, and if they do low impact stormwater management, they will make sure it fits in with the rest of the landscape. Mr. Lobao noted they feel that this type of low impact stormwater management should be allowed in the setback area. Ms. Lazarus referred to the bylaw which allows the Board to allow that during site plan review. 6 Ms. Thomas asked about the a proposed change submitted by the applicant regarding pedestrian access, and Mr. Lobao stated the applicant and the Board have a significant disagreement regarding the construction of a sidewalk along Lumber St. between parcels #4 and #7 where it crosses the open conserved land. He noted the applicant is concerned about going through that space, because of environmental/civil engineering obstacles as well as costs as this concerns open land, not a parcel to be developed. Mr. Allen stated they inspected the area and there are wetlands next to the pavement and also a significant drop off along a 200 ft. stretch, and they need a significant amount of fill to get it to be ADA compliant. Mr. Weismantel asked about the other side of the road, and Mr. Allen stated he thinks it is less wet. Ms. Lazarus noted the site plan review bylaw requires a sidewalk across the frontage of the entire parcel. Ms. Lazarus noted the Board has the ability to grant waivers from that during site plan review. Mr. D’Urso suggested requesting additional input from the Conservation Commission. Mr. Weismantel noted if the development has a tennis club in that location, the applicant may welcome pedestrian access instead of people driving to the facility from Hopkinton Mews. Mr. D’Urso asked if the Mews residents are expected to be the only users of the sidewalk, and Ms. Lazarus stated she sees people walking there now. Mr. Paradis noted when reviewing the plan he did not know the exact location of the right of way, but an inside walkway would encroach on the open space. Mr. Allen noted the right of way width varies. Mr. Paradis noted the Board could consider a sidewalk easement. Mr. Lobao stated Mr. Mastroianni would be ok with that. Mr. Allen noted there is a wetlands delineation on file for this area and explained that it is for the entire site, reviewed and confirmed by the Conservation Commission’s wetlands scientist. In response to a comment of Mr. D’Urso, Mr. Allen stated the applicant never represented a walkway or sidewalk all the way to the tennis club. Mr. D’Urso stated there have been different statements made by the applicant in front of different Boards, and the applicant also said at one point that the development would include an area for school bus parking. Mr. Allen stated those discussions took place during a different time frame and things have changed. Mr. D’Urso noted he remembers a discussion of a walkway during the Conservation Commission meeting, and thought it was specified to be along Lumber St. Mr. Weismantel noted they will not accept a decision to exclude the walkway in that location at this point, but will look at this during site plan review when they know more about the ultimate use of Parcel 7, and perhaps it cannot realistically be done but it is too early to tell. Ms. Lazarus noted the Design Guidelines provision is essentially a statement about expectations, and there is nothing wrong with expecting pedestrian connectivity. The Board discussed the Design Guidelines provisions relating to signage. Ms. Lazarus noted she included a signage comparison for the Board’s review, showing what is allowed in all of the commercial districts and what is proposed by the applicant. Ms. Thomas noted the applicant is asking for 40 s.f. standing signs, where the maximum is 32 s.f. elsewhere. Ms. Wright asked why, and Mr. Lobao noted the main reason for the relatively small increase is the development’s location relative to West Main St., and a higher number of expected tenants on Parcel #2 than typically seen. Mr. Lobao noted they felt it would be beneficial if signs were larger so that they can easily be seen from West Main St. He noted Parcel #2 will be combined with 77 West Main St. but they still want the current lot to have its own signage. Mr. Karp asked how this compares to the signs at the Hopkinton Square shopping plaza, and Ms. Lazarus noted they have to comply 7 with a 32 s.f. maximum. Mr. D’Urso asked where this sign would be located, and Mr. Allen pointed it out on the plans. Mr. Weismantel noted the 32 sq. ft. is the result of a compromise by the Zoning Advisory Committee when it drafted the Sign Bylaw. At the conclusion of the discussion, it was decided that the Design Guidelines would limit standing signs to 32 sq. ft. Mr. Weismantel asked about the provisions for temporary signs, and Mr. Lobao stated is ok with the guidelines as drafted. Mr. Weismantel asked if the Design Review Board has reviewed the Design Guidelines, and Ms. Lazarus noted the Board reviewed an earlier version. Mr. Weismantel referred to the status of the Hopkinton Mews Chapter 40B residential component, and referred to a letter from Town Counsel recommending that the Planning Board hold off on issuing a decision on the Master Plan Special Permit until after the Board of Appeals has made its decision. He noted he is not sure that he likes that recommendation. He noted the Board of Appeals is currently working on drafting conditions and their next meeting on this project is not until January 14, 2015. Ms. Lazarus stated the Board of Appeals has to file a decision by February 15, 2015. He noted the Catch 22 is that the Planning Board cannot write conditions based on the residential component. He noted Town Counsel has stated the Board can look at the project as a whole but has to be careful how it writes the conditions, but the overall approval of the Master Plan Special Permit will set aside a residential area for up to 280 units. He noted he does not have a problem with fitting these in the overall project but he is not sure what type of conditions the other Board will put together. He noted the Board could try to draft conditions which basically won’t talk about the Chapter 40B development other than it being part of the project, in keeping with what they expect from the Board of Appeals. He noted they could go ahead and draft the conditions, and open them up for further discussion later if Mr. Mastroianni has objections. He noted a lot of items are redundant but the Planning Board is charged with the review of the entire site, while the Board of Appeals just looks at a portion. Ms. Wright noted the key word is “draft”, and as suggested by Town Counsel they can wait to finalize until after the decision of the Board of Appeals has been made. The Board discussed the issues. Mr. Mastroianni referred to the decision to be made by the Board of Appeals and stated that if the Mews is not happy then the HCA will be off the table. Mr. Weismantel noted he proposes that the Planning Board continue to work on a draft decision, with assistance from Town Counsel, and perhaps he will feel more comfortable with the process. Mr. D’Urso asked for clarification on determinations made earlier tonight by the Board regarding certain aspects of the design guidelines. Mr. Weismantel noted they applied the standards here in a reasonable manner similar, to what was done at Legacy Farms. Mr. Weismantel stated he feels the Board should start putting together conditions. Ms. Lazarus stated the Board should first review the approval criteria, which will guide the Board in writing the conditions of approval. Ms. Lazarus noted the applicant submitted draft conditions, and the Board should review the minutes, peer review reports, and generally comb through whatever people have said during this process. Ms. Thomas asked how they would know what is acceptable in terms of traffic levels of service. Mr. Paradis noted the acceptability of levels of service relates to delays experienced by drivers and he explained how traffic engineers use a baseline, anticipated changes and proposed mitigation to determine the final conditions. He 8 noted an intersection going from a B to a D level of service, for instance, indicates there is an impact but won’t result in a lot of delay. Mr. Weismantel asked for public comments and there were none. Ms. Thomas moved to continue the public hearing to January 12, 2015 at 9:15 P.M. Mr. Karp seconded the motion. Ms. Wright stated she is concerned about the Framingham Sportsman Club next to the proposed Hopkinton Mews development and she wants to make sure their rights to operate are protected. Mr. Weismantel noted this right cannot be taken away, but the problem is that the Board cannot write conditions on the residential portion of the overall project. Mr. D’Urso noted he shares Ms. Wright’s concerns and also does not want to see the Police Dept. flooded with complaints. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Documents: Plan entitled “Master Plan for REC Hopkinton, LLC on Lumber Street and 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; Design Guidelines, Neighborhood Mixed Use District, Master Plan Special Permit Hopkinton Planning Board – Draft 12-9-14 with Applicant’s Suggested Changes Noted 8. Other Business It was noted that the job opening for the Principal Planner position has been posted. In response to a question, Ms. Lazarus clarified that the Board hires the Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting, but she will hire the Principal Planner. Mr. Weismantel suggested Board members volunteer to assist with the interviews, and Ms. Lazarus noted the Human Resources Dept. will screen the applicants and put together a team. 9. Scenic Road Hearing – 175 & 177 Spring St. – Joint Meeting with Tree Warden – Tortcon Builders, Inc. Ms. Lazarus noted the Tree Warden is unable to attend tonight. Mr. Weismantel opened the public hearing, and Christopher Torti, applicant, appeared before the Board. It was noted this is an after-the-fact hearing for removal of three trees in the Spring St. right of way without a permit. Ms. Lazarus noted Mr. Torti has paid all the fines levied as a result of the violation. Mr. Weismantel noted the usual questions and comments are somewhat moot in this case, and he asked Mr. Torti about his plans for restoration. Mr. Torti noted he is proposing low growing plantings and stone walls, and when it is all done it will be a big improvement. Mr. Weismantel asked about the type of wall under consideration, and Mr. Torti stated it will be a field stone wall in keeping with the character of the street. He noted he can prepare a plan to show the Board what he has in mind. Mr. Torti noted the trees were cut without a permit due to miscommunication with his contractor. Ms. Wright noted the scenic character is created by stone walls, trees and tree canopies which will come back somewhat over time, but the applicant should be asked to plant trees which will restore the look that was taken away. Mr. Torti noted he will add extensive plantings, and it will also be safe from a sight distance standpoint. Referring to the requirement in the Subdivision Regulations requiring trees to be planted at 40 ft. intervals, Ms. Wright noted that would not be appropriate for a scenic road, especially if they want to fill the gap and try to mimic the other sections of the road. Ms. Lazarus noted the Board can leave tree location up to the Tree Warden, with directions to achieve a natural scenic character. Mr. Weismantel asked if Mr. Torti knows 9 the location of the right of way, and Mr. Torti noted it is approximately 8 ft. off the edge of pavement. Ms. Wright noted she would not mind first seeing a landscaping plan to have a more educated look. Mr. D’Urso noted it appears all fines were paid, and asked if the value of the lumber was recovered. Mr. Torti noted the tree company took the wood and he paid $2,400.00 in fines. Ms. Thomas noted the developer cut down the trees and the wood was taken away, but he paid the fines and she is not sure that a landscaping plan is warranted. Ms. Wright noted this is a scenic road and Mr. Torti cut down 100-year old trees which cannot be easily replaced, and she feels the area should be restored as closely as possible. Mr. DeYoung moved to approve the application for the removal of 3 oak trees in the Spring St. right of way with the condition that replacement trees are to be planted 20 ft. apart under the direction of the Tree Warden as to exact location and specific (oak) species. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Ms. Thomas moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Karp seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Documents: Plans entitled “Plot Plan for Chris Torti, 175 Spring Street, Lot 1” and “Plot Plan for Chris Torti, 177 Spring Street, Lot 2”, dated August 8, 2014, prepared by Robert G. Murphy & Assoc., Inc. 10. Leonard St. – Subdivision Proposal – Informal Discussion Rick Barbieri, proponent, Dave Marquedant, surveyor, and Doug Resnick, attorney, appeared before the Board. Mr. Barbieri stated he is now looking at a 3-lot plan off Leonard St., and feels this is something the neighbors will support. He noted he is approaching this as a development on a paper road which is described in 2 old deeds, and intends to submit the development as an approval-not-required plan, but with a drainage system. Mr. Weismantel noted it first has to be legally determined that this is indeed a paper road that can be used for frontage. Mr. Resnick stated Mr. Barbieri’s road will be within the boundary of a paper street as shown on old Hopkinton atlases, and as the Planning Board knows anybody with frontage on a paper road has the right to improve it. Mr. Resnick noted Mr. Barbieri proposes to give Ms. Sambo, 3 Leonard St., some extra property in return for the piece with the old propane storage building, as part of this proposal. Mr. Weismantel stated the hurdle is to prove the paper road status. Ms. Lazarus noted the proponent should provide the necessary documentation for Town Counsel review. Mr. Weismantel noted he believes the School Committee is putting the previous proposal back on the agenda. Mr. Barbieri noted his new proposal will take away the neighbors’ concern over school traffic emptying out on this street. Mr. D’Urso asked what will happen with the rest of the land. Mr. Barbieri noted if it is not going to the Town it will be added to the other parcels. In response to a question of Mr. D’Urso, Mr. Weismantel noted the second means of access on a previous plan was going to be for emergency access only and was never intended as a way to get in and out of the school. Mr. D’Urso asked about bus parking. Past discussions were reviewed. Mr. Marquedant noted they propose a 20 ft. wide road, and Mr. Barbieri stated there are quite a few trees but he intends to rebuild the stone wall and plant new street trees. Mr. DeYoung noted there were neighborhood concerns on the previous proposals, and he asked whether reducing the density from 7 to 3 lots would address these. Mary Wyckoff, 1 Leonard St., noted this 10 development will be behind her and Mr. Barbieri offered her a 15 ft. strip of land behind her house. She asked how the transfer would be handled, and Mr. Barbieri noted the strip would be deeded to her. Ms. Wyckoff noted she always has water in her cellar, and Mr. Weismantel noted he remembers similar complaints from a resident in the area after sewer was installed. Ted Meyer, 6 Leonard St., asked who owns the right of way, and whether there has been a title examination. Mr. Resnick noted this is a paper road and owners on each side of the road own up to the middle. He stated similar issues had to be addressed in the application for Laurel Ave, and Mr. Weismantel stated it is a grey area. Mr. Meyer noted the developer is assuming a certain length and width, and Mr. Resnick noted it is defined by stone walls and they looked at old Town atlases. Nanda Barker-Hook, 75 Grove St, asked whether a second access is needed in the new proposal. Mr. Weismantel stated it would be unlikely. In response to a question of Ms. Barker-Hook, Mr. Weismantel noted the Planning Board’s jurisdiction on the construction of paper streets is to make sure the proposed improvements are as close to current standard as possible. Mr. Resnick noted the plan will accommodate a 20 ft. berm-to-berm road built within the limits of the existing paper street, and there can be no increase in peak runoff under post development conditions. Ms. Wyckoff noted there are some giant trees on the paper road, and she asked what will happen. Mr. Weismantel noted if the trees are in the right of way, there will have to be a public hearing before the Tree Warden, and if anyone objects to removal, the issue goes to the Board of Selectmen for public hearing. Mr. D’Urso asked about an option of another road to the east for access, and Mr. Barbieri noted there was no reply from the school and the neighbors are against it. Alex Papanicholas, 5 Leonard St., stated he does not want more than 3 homes. Ms. Thomas referred to a petition submitted by the neighborhood and the request by the applicant for help from the Board in his negotiations with the School Dept. She noted there have been several rounds of discussions with the School Dept. and she asked how many more times they should ask. Mr. D’Urso stated this is a new plan. He asked if the neighbors are ok with the new plan, and Mr. Weismantel stated it would be reviewed at a public hearing. Document: Plan entitled “Informal Discussion Sketch Plan of Land prepared for Rick Barbieri” dated May 9, 2013 revised through 11/11/14 11. Continued Public Hearing – Penny Meadow Lane – Definitive Subdivision Plan Application Ron Nation, applicant, and Peter Lavoie, Guerriere & Halnon, Inc., engineer, appeared before the Board. Mr. Weismantel asked about the changes made to the plan since the last hearing. Mr. Lavoie stated the 3 outstanding issues have now been resolved to BETA Group’s satisfaction, namely: 1) the relationship of the septic systems vs. the proposed stormwater swales, 2) remaining questions regarding stormwater management design, and 3) pipe cover details for driveway crossings. Reference was made to the letter from BETA Group to the Planning Board dated December 15, 2014. Ms. Wright referred to BETA Group’s previous comments dated 12/12/14 with respect to the requests for waivers. She noted one of them concerned fire prevention which was discussed at the last meeting and asked if any additional comments were received from the Fire Dept. on this issue. Ms. Lazarus stated it looks like Bloods Pond is within 2,000 ft. which is within the standards in the Subdivision Regulations. Ms. Wright noted a neighbor at the previous meeting noted the water level in Bloods Pond is quite low at times. 11 John McAuliffe, 8 Cider Mill Rd., noted there is a beaver dam problem which causes the water to go all the way back to where his property is. He noted when the dam gets taken away the water recedes, but this is a sensitive area, and the developer proposes to build homes at the edge of the 100 ft. buffer zone. Mr. Weismantel asked about the status of the Conservation Commission filing, and Mr. Nation stated he is ready to submit. Mr. DeYoung noted he wants to make sure erosion is addressed. Mr. McAuliffe noted there is a stream that goes through the property, and he is still concerned about fire protection. Ms. Lazarus noted the Fire Chief indicated that fire hoses are 1000 ft. long, and the Subdivision Regulations specify fire protection or prevention measures to be located within 2,000 ft. of the subdivision. Mr. McAuliffe asked if the road width will be brought up to standard. Mr. Weismantel stated yes, and in this case it concerns full depth reconstruction. The Board discussed the “exceptional circumstances” finding regarding a conventional plan dead end street. Mr. Weismantel noted this lot layout is a relic left over from old zoning bylaws, and there is a safety issue to be addressed. Mr. McAuliffe noted there is a current restrictive easement on the Ash St. lot recorded in the Registry of Deeds. Mr. Weismantel noted this was discussed previously, and Ms. Lazarus noted Penny Meadow Lane will become a road, making the restriction moot. Mr. D’Urso asked about the Conservation Commission and the Planning Board processes, and it was noted that the Board can make its decision now and if the Conservation Commission does not approve the application, the applicants will have to come back for an amendment. The Board reviewed the proposed waiver requests and conditions to be imposed. Mr. Weismantel asked the applicant for comments on the tentative conditions, and there were none. Mr. D’Urso moved to approve the definitive subdivision plan for Penny Meadow Lane with the following conditions: 1. After finding that it was in the public interest and not inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Subdivision Control Law, the Planning Board waives strict compliance with the following provisions of the Subdivision Regulations, in accordance with Section 81-R of the Subdivision Control Law and Section 7.1 of the Subdivision Regulations: a) Provisions of Sec. 5.4.1 (Definitive Plan Contents) which are not shown on the Subdivision Plan. b) In order to accomplish Low Impact Development objectives: 8.2.2.C (curbing); 8.2.3.A (width of street right of way); 8.2.3.C (width of traveled way); 8.3.1 (sidewalk). The implementation of Low Impact Development techniques is in the public interest, by reducing impervious surface, increasing groundwater recharge and improving water quality. c) Dead end street and length of a dead end street (8.2.5). The Board stated there are exceptional and unique circumstances related to the existence of Penny Meadow Lane as a common driveway with a defined right of way layout. The length of the new street is the same length as the existing common driveway. Due to its use by five existing homes for their sole access, its length cannot be reduced, and it cannot be eliminated. It is in the public interest, given its condition and status, to lay out the existing common driveway as a street so as to ensure adequate delivery of municipal services. Penny Meadow Lane, the common driveway, has a pre-existing 33 ft. wide right of way which is adequate for a public street layout serving 9 homes. 12 d) Curb line radius at the South Mill Street intersection, due to the fact that Penny Meadow Lane already exists (8.2.1.G). e) Fire prevention/protection measures (8.6). The Board found that the Blood’s Pond water supply is within 2,000 feet of the subdivision. f) Grades of turnarounds exceeding 5%, due to the fact that Penny Meadow Lane already exists (8.2.4). g) Catch basins installed every 250 feet (8.4.5). The Subdivision Plan will comply with the DEP Stormwater Management Standards. 2. Roadway and infrastructure construction shown on the plan shall be completed within two years from the start of construction or this approval shall be automatically rescinded unless such time is extended by the Board at the request of the applicant. If construction has not commenced within four years from the date of this approval, such approval shall be automatically rescinded. 3. Prior to the commencement of construction, proof of secured drainage easements on abutting lots shall be provided to the Board. 4. Prior to the Planning Board's endorsement of the plan, the applicant shall execute an Agreement with the Planning Board, that the four new lots depending on the roadway for their legal frontage shall not be sold, or buildings or structures erected or placed on, or building permits issued with respect to any such lot, until: a) The work on the ground necessary to adequately serve such lot has been completed in accordance with the contents of the Subdivision Plan and Profile and with the Subdivision Regulations and that all other requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been fully complied with; or b) The applicant has executed a contract with the Planning Board, accompanied by appropriate security to secure performance, to complete construction of the roadway in accordance with the Subdivision Rules and Regulations, on or before a date specified in the contract; c) The applicant has recorded in the Registry of Deeds (or Land Court) a certificate executed by the Planning Board that the above conditions with respect to any such lot have been completed or have been amended, modified, revoked, waived or released by the Planning Board. 5. Tree stumps and building scrap materials shall be removed and shall not be buried on the site. However, material intended for future use may be stockpiled on the site and maintained in a neat and workmanlike manner. 6. The applicant shall maintain all portions of Penny Meadow Lane used for construction access free of soil, mud or debris deposited due to use by construction vehicles associated with the subdivision, and shall regularly sweep such areas as necessary. 7. All potential safety hazards that may exist in the subdivision from time to time during the period of construction shall be adequately secured prior to the end of each work day. 8. No earth products shall be delivered to the site which are not for use on the property. No earth shall be stripped or excavated and removed from areas of the site unless for road, infrastructure, home or lawful accessory use construction. No earth processing operations shall occur on the site, unless earth products are to be combined and/or mixed for use on the property. All piles of stockpiled earth shall be stabilized with adequate dust and erosion controls. All piles of earth shall be removed from the subdivision upon completion of construction of the road and infrastructure. Any piles remaining after that time shall be 13 solely in conjunction with an active permit for construction of sewage disposal system, building or lawful accessory use. Any violation of this provision may result in a stop work order or plan rescission. 9. Erosion control measures to prevent siltation onto wetlands, neighboring properties and roads during construction shall be implemented. Erosion and sediment control provisions are shown on the Subdivision Plan. The erosion control documentation submitted shall be implemented and followed during construction. During construction, if these plans are found to be inadequate by the Planning Board, a new erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted to the Board for review and approval. In the event that erosion and sedimentation problems arise during construction, the Planning Board may require that all work cease until measures necessary to ensure prevention are implemented. 10. No building permits shall be issued or any construction in the subdivision allowed until approval for such work has been obtained from the Conservation Commission for areas affected by the Wetlands Protection Act and the Hopkinton Wetlands Protection Bylaw. 11. Drain easements shown on the Subdivision Plan shall be defined by metes and bounds, deeded to the Town, recorded at the Registry of Deeds (or Land Court) at the applicant's expense, and copies furnished to the Town Clerk, Department of Public Works and Planning Board. 12. Areas disturbed for roadway and infrastructure construction shall be loamed and seeded during construction as soon as possible. 13. During construction, streets shall be swept and catch basin sumps shall be cleaned regularly, at least twice a year. 14. Each lot shall be assigned a street number by the Director of Municipal Inspections, and such number shall be noted on the plan prior to endorsement. Ms. Wright seconded the motion, and the Board voted 8 in favor with 1 abstention (Sivo). Ms. Thomas moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Ferrari seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Nation thanked the Board, and noted he will get the binder down by summer and it will be a good road. Documents: Plan entitled “Penny Meadow Lane” dated October 16, revised December 15, 2014, prepared by Guerriere & Halnon, Inc.; Memorandum to Elaine Lazarus, Director, from BETA Group, Inc. dated December 15, 2014, Subject: Penny Meadow Lane Peer Review Summary 12. Other Business Mr. Weismantel congratulated Mr. Sivo on his recent appointment and welcomed him to the Board. Other Documents used at the Meeting:  Agenda for December 15, 2014 Planning Board meeting;  Memorandum to Planning Board from Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting, dated December 11, 2014 re: Items on Planning Board Agenda December 15, 2014 Adjourned: 9:55 P.M. Submitted by Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant, Dept. of Land Use, Planning & Permitting Approved: February 18, 2015 14