Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20140825 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes1 HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD Monday, August 25, 2014 7:30 P.M. Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton, MA MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Ken Weismantel, Chairman, John Ferrari, Vice Chairman, Deb Thomas, Matthew Wade, Claire Wright, Todd Holbrook MEMBERS ABSENT: Francis DeYoung, Brian Karp, Frank D’Urso Present: Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant Mr. Weismantel opened the meeting, thanked HCAM for taping, and summarized the agenda. He noted the applicants for the Laurel Ave. Extension and Reservoir View OSLPD hearings scheduled for tonight have requested continuances. He noted the Board will discuss Legacy Farms but Mr. MacDowell is not able to attend. 1. Continued Public Hearing - Laurel Ave. Extension – Thomas Perna Ms. Thomas moved to continue the public hearing to September 22, 2014 at 8:15 P.M. and to extend the time for the Board to file a decision with the Town Clerk to October 13, 2014. Mr. Holbrook seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 2. Continued Public Hearing – Reservoir View – Special Permit/Concept Plan Application – Christopher Olson Ms. Thomas moved to continue the public hearing to September 8, 2014 at 7:35 P.M. Mr. Holbrook seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 3. Visioning Steering Group (VSG) Update Tim Kilduff, Chairman, VSG, appeared before the Board. He noted Ms. Thomas is a member of the VSG, and he introduced others members in attendance. He noted the group has done a lot of work since it was first formed, and the first public session was productive even though the number of attendees was small. He stated they talked with the Board of Selectmen to get a sense of the timing going forward, and their response was that they should do it right even if it takes more time and effort while being sensitive to the group’s objectives. He noted they are talking about a 30,000 mile view of the community 10 years from now, and they intend the vision for the Town to be broad based, not project specific. He noted the visioning project is hard work, but he is proud of the process and they are ready to launch a survey, noting it is a bit of a challenge with respect to the right time and how to get the maximum possible number of responses. He noted they plan to reach out to various groups in the community to get a broad based response. He noted they are also interested in getting responses from the younger people in Town, and they therefore approached the Superintendent of Schools, who is willing to help and perhaps the survey could be part of the government studies class. He noted they are also planning more public forums, starting with a session at the end of October. Ms. Thomas noted some of VSG members took the sample survey to see how long it takes because they were a little concerned it may be too long, but it seemed to be fine. She noted the survey tries to get into details in order to 2 get meaningful answers about the type of desired retail business, for example. Ms. Wright asked if the various demographics would be covered, as young people will have a different view as opposed to older, taxpaying residents. Mr. Kilduff noted they received a lot of support in setting up the survey from Chris McClure, IT Director. Mr. Weismantel noted the Planning Board is in the middle of updating the 2007 Master Plan and the visioning process is tied into that. The Board discussed ways in which the survey could be publicized. He stated he would like to take this opportunity to thank the Board for all the work it is doing, and Mr. Weismantel noted the Board will do its best to promote the survey. The Board thanked Mr. Kilduff for attending. Ms. O’Leary, VSG member, stated the next visioning forum is scheduled for October 28, 2014. 4. Legacy Farms – Update Mr. Weismantel noted that Mr. MacDowell was unable to attend the meeting but sent an email with updates on the East Main St. sidewalk and East Main St. road improvements. • Pedestrian Connection (Sidewalk) • – Mr. Weismantel stated it sounds like Legacy Farms will start clearing trees after Labor Day, but their deadline to get the work done was September 15 and he is not sure they will be able to comply. Ms. Thomas asked what will happen if Mr. MacDowell does not complete the job in a timely manner, and Mr. Weismantel noted he would be in non-compliance which may result in the suspension of issuance of building permits. Mr. Weismantel noted the required corridor study has not been provided either. East Main St. Road Shimming Project - Mr. Weismantel noted Mr. MacDowell’s email provides an update on the work in East Main St. and it appears Legacy Farms is going to set up the bond and the work will happen this fall. Mavis O’Leary, 11 Curtis Rd., asked about the deadline for completion of the work, and Mr. Weismantel stated the original condition required the work to be done in conjunction with Legacy Farms Road South construction. Mr. Weismantel noted this did not happen, and at the last meeting the Board insisted on a performance guarantee to cover this work. He noted it appears the project is now back on track but the developer still does not have a work order from Verizon. He added it mainly concerns the pole in the middle of Peach Street. Document : Email from Roy MacDowell, Legacy Farms LLC, to Elaine Lazarus, dated Aug 25, 2014 5. Mr. Weismantel referred to Ms. Lazarus’ memo to the Board which has information on the “Maspenock Woods” development currently under construction off West Elm St. He stated this condominium project was approved a number of years ago and no one currently on the Board, except for Ms. Wright, was involved in the approval process. He referred to approval condition #3, and suggested inviting the developer to discuss the timing of the required items. Ms. Thomas asked if progress has been made, and Mr. Weismantel stated he does not know. Mr. Weismantel noted there may be deadlines for some of the items, but probably not with respect to the road widening or engineering design. Ms. Wright referred to the requirement to do signal timing adjustments and noted there may be no point in doing that until people are moving in, but the whole point is about the anticipation that the development will add traffic to the intersection. Mr. Holbrook referred to Condition #3, item e., and stated perhaps the engineered roadway design plan should be done sooner, and perhaps there can be some negotiation with the developer Maspenock Woods (West Elm St.) 3 regarding the requirement under item b. Mr. Weismantel noted in order to do a full design, they would need to take some land and the Planning Board did not want that. Ms. Wright noted the Town should not spend money on this and the developer should fix the roadway as they are creating this situation, but it sounds as if they will not be required to do so if they cannot get an easement or run into ledge. Mr. Weismantel agreed. It was noted the Board would invite the developer to discuss the status of the development. 6. Mr. Weismantel referred to the goals set for FY2014. He noted downtown revitalization is an ongoing project, and he suggested continuing this goal into FY2015 as written, with updates as to the names of the committees involved. The Board agreed. Mr. Weismantel stated the sidewalk connectivity/bike lanes goal has made a lot of progress, with annual town meeting approving an article for $1,500,000, working on areas viewed as priority. Ms. Thomas recommended keeping this goal on the list but refining it, continuing the goal and working with the DPW to implement the project that was put forth and approved at town meeting. Mr. Weismantel referred to the 2007 Master Plan update work. He noted it is an ongoing effort, but they could devote a lot of extra time, perhaps reserving ½ hour every meeting to focus on finalizing the update as soon as the VSG completes their work. He noted there were delays with Ms. Lazarus being out for a while earlier this year, and the Board got tied up with regulatory work taking time away from the actual planning work. He suggested making this the Board’s #1 goal for FY2015. FY2015 Planning Board Goals Mr. Weismantel noted he would like to suggest one additional goal, related to the private/public road issue. He noted the bylaws that have to do with public and private roads are very confusing and need to be updated. He noted there also is a public policy debate about private vs. public roads and the Planning Board is part of the problem, because it creates private roads, such as Christian Way, with a covenant in place and waiving some of the standards with the assumption that it won’t be the Town responsibility. He noted that later after a series of homeowner and homeowner association turnovers, residents ask for the road to be accepted. He referred to the “family subdivision” concept which is sort of a gray area and not addressed in the regulations. He noted in the past the land would be divided as a “family subdivision” for family members but eventually the property is sold to non-family members. He noted this sets up long term problems because there is a public way that was never accepted by the Town. He noted the Valleywood roads, for example, were never accepted because it was felt that leaving them unaccepted would prevent the Town from incurring costs, but the subdivision residents are paying taxes and there is no homeowner association there to deal with maintenance and repair. He stated in another example, Penny Meadow Lane, Ron Nation, a local developer, is going to submit a plan for a subdivision which will solve the issue there, and the list goes on. Ms. Wright noted the future is hard to predict, and if the unaccepted roads are allowed to deteriorate, the performance guarantee at some point is no longer adequate to finish the remaining work, and maybe from now on bond amounts should be sufficient to cover that type of situation with a more appropriate deadline. She stated perhaps subdivision plans in general should assume that every road eventually will be accepted. Mr. Weismantel noted maybe the issue can be addressed in the bylaw to give the Town more leverage, but a better policy is needed. 7. Upcoming Applications & Future Agenda Items 4 Mr. Weismantel stated the Planning Board has received an application for a Master Plan Special Permit (MPSP) for the Lumber St./West Main St. property (Paul Mastroianni) under the recently adopted Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU) District zoning bylaw, but the chapter 40B application process for “Hopkinton Mews” is still going on at the same time. It was noted a public hearing will be scheduled shortly. Mr. Weismantel stated the Board will receive a site plan application for Weston Nurseries for a new commercial building on the land north of the garden center and a new maintenance facility behind the old toll house. Mr. Weismantel stated there may be a change to the Highland Park IV subdivision and adjacent land, perhaps a garden apartment proposal. Ms. Wright asked about the possibility of a fall town meeting with respect to another attempt for a change to Legacy Farms allowing additional housing as indicated in the fifth amendment of the Host Community Agreement (HCA). Mr. Weismantel noted the latest amendment was negotiated without input from the Planning Board, and he would like to schedule this issue for the next meeting as an action item. He noted the change is related to the application for the MassWorks grant discussed at the last meeting, and Ms. Wright noted the change appears to be contingent on a town meeting vote. Mr. Weismantel stated he has some reservations about the proposal as to its legality. Ms. Wright stated the copy of the amended HCA distributed to the Board was not yet signed by Town Counsel, and Mr. Weismantel noted he assumes it was reviewed. He noted the Board discussed the MassWorks grant application at the last meeting and it was split on the issue. Ms. Wright noted if she was the granting entity she would not be happy to see the purpose redefined after the money was given out, but she still feels it would be good to get some money for the Town but it has to be directly related to the project and she is not clear it would pass the mitigation test. Mr. Weismantel suggested the Board keep this under advisement, and stated the Planning Board is also the enforcer of the HCA and does not have to accept the amendment. Ms. Thomas stated it appears copies of the document were distributed to the Board as a courtesy after it was signed. Mr. Weismantel noted he would like this issue to be an action item for discussion, perhaps invite someone from the Board of Selectmen, or Town Counsel to talk about it. Adjourned: 8:15 P.M. Submitted by Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant Approved: September 22, 2014 Documents Used at the Meeting : Agenda for August 25, 2014 Planning Board meeting; Memorandum from Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting, and Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant, dated August 21, 2014 re: Items on Planning Board Agenda August 25, 2014; Fifth Amendment to Host Community Agreement, executed August 18, 2014