HomeMy Public PortalAbout20120206 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes
1
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
Monday, February 6, 2012 7:30 P.M.
Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton, MA
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ken Weismantel, Chairman, John Coutinho, Vice Chairman, Brian
Karp, Deb Thomas, Carol DeVeuve, Claire Wright, Christian Ollenborger, Dick MacDonald
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Abate
Present: Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting
Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
Mr. Weismantel opened the meeting and summarized the agenda.
1. Downtown Revitalization Project
Dave Daltorio, Town Engineer, appeared before the Board. Also in attendance were Jeanette
Thomson, Design Review Board and Historic District Commission; Beth Kelly, Historic District
Commission; Peter LaGoy, Downtown Revitalization Committee; and Ken Driscoll and Tom
Nealon, Downtown Initiative Steering Committee. Mr. Daltorio stated he is staff support for the
Downtown Initiative Steering Committee (DISC). He noted they are currently going through the
25% design completion stage for improvements to be submitted to the Mass. Dept. of
Transportation (DOT) for Main St., from Ash St. to the Main St./Wood St./West Main St.
intersection. He noted a conceptual plan was presented to the Board of Selectmen who asked for
more information and public input. He stated the Planning Board is a key part of this and was
especially involved with the work to be done by Legacy Farms that is also within the scope of this
Committee. He noted before the final design is submitted, they need input from citizens and
other Town boards and committees.
Ms. Thomas stated the DISC needs to collaborate with residents and businesses along this stretch
of road, and she asked how much discussion has taken place. Mr. Daltorio stated there was a
kick-off “Blue Sky” meeting with BETA Group, the Town’s consultant, in March 2011, followed
by two public forums in November with abutter notification based on Assessor’s information. He
noted the proposals were also discussed at Board of Selectmen meetings and, in addition, he
spoke to people individually. He noted they also recently issued a press release to get the word
out with respect to some upcoming informational forums and he is the contact for anyone who
wants to discuss the project. Ms. Thomas stated a lot of people have come forward with thoughts
and concerns. Mr. Daltorio stated the public forums were well attended by approximately 50
people, and members of the public occasionally attend the regular DISC meetings. Mr.
Weismantel stated he attended early DISC meetings which included discussions with property
owners and there should be more of that. He noted there were a lot of concerns and asked if there
is any official record of the meetings, and Mr. Daltorio stated he thinks the consultant took notes
2
at the November forums. He stated a lot of comments from different groups are focused in a few
areas, and he is trying to boil them down to one set of issues to be addressed.
Ms. DeVeuve asked for an explanation of the proposed improvements as she is not entirely clear
as to which plan is being submitted. Mr. Coutinho asked if there have been any changes since the
public forums, and Mr. Daltorio stated it is the same plan but there were some discussions
regarding the Wood St. intersection afterward. He noted the DISC presented a preferred
alternative to the original plans for the Grove St./Cedar St. intersection, but at the last Board of
Selectmen meeting it was determined this option would require land takings which probably
would not be supported by the Town as the property owners are not on board. In response to a
question of Ms. DeVeuve, Mr. Daltorio stated the project involves some widening at Cedar
St./Grove St., some narrowing of the Main St. corridor near Hayden Rowe St. and Ash St. as well
as striping and bump-outs near Church St., Town Hall and at Hayden Rowe St. for traffic calming
and improved pedestrian safety. He noted there won’t be too many changes between the Fire
Station and Wood St. aside from crosswalk locations and signage. He noted the approach to the
Wood St. intersection is one of the largest decisions still to be made.
Mr. Ollenborger referred to concerns expressed by Dale Danahy, owner of Colella’s Supermarket,
in email correspondence distributed to the Board tonight. He asked if they are still thinking about
eliminating the parking spaces on the Grove St. side of the supermarket. Mr. Daltorio stated
initially there was a lot of discussion about realigning the intersection which would have an
impact on private property owners, including Colella’s Supermarket, and they were unable to
come to a resolution. He stated now they are thinking more about the intermediate and full build-
out improvements required by the Legacy Farms Master Plan Special Permit, and the proposal
will be submitted showing the Grove St./Main St. intersection with the offset as is. Mr. Karp
asked how the intersection can be improved without land takings, and Mr. Daltorio stated they
will add turning lanes with some widening, but within the existing right of way. Ms. DeVeuve
asked if the sidewalk on the Colella’s Supermarket side will go away, and Mr. Daltorio stated yes.
Mr. Driscoll stated the plan now under consideration is what the Planning Board recommended
and approved through the Legacy Farms Master Plan Special Permit process. Mr. Weismantel
stated the Planning Board had to work within the same limitations and in the end the proposal did
not include any land takings. Ms. DeVeuve stated she thought there might be land takings but
only if the Legacy Farms project makes it necessary and the Planning Board had encouraged
discussions between Legacy Farms and Colella’s Supermarket. Mr. Weismantel referred to Ms.
Lazarus’ memorandum to the Board and noted they basically are proposing to add a dedicated left
hand turn from Grove St. onto Main St., and realignment of pavement on Main St. Ms. DeVeuve
asked whether this will be done by Legacy Farms as agreed or before that by the Town. Mr.
Weismantel stated if the work is done by the Town ahead of schedule, then Legacy Farms is
required to pay a certain amount of money. Ms. DeVeuve stated she does not remember that as a
fact, and Ms. Lazarus stated she will need to check. Mr. Weismantel noted a lot of the work is
expected to be paid for by the State. Mr. Daltorio noted the Town’s plans for the intersection are
not supposed to impact Legacy Farms’ obligations under the Host Community Agreement, but
the State is not on board for everything and further tests are necessary to determine the full scope
of the water main replacement which is a separate project.
3
Ms. Wright stated she does not really have any questions but attended some of the meetings and
voiced her opinion. She noted she has tremendous concerns about the project, especially with
respect to the way the public information and input process has been handled. She noted she
realizes a lot of comments have been the same, but that means there is a consensus and she has
not seen any changes to the proposal as a result. She noted some residents have been vocal but it
does not mean that the concerns are limited to any one individual or any one aspect of the
proposal. She noted downtown business people have serious concerns and feel the proposed
changes in an already bad economy will put them out of business. She noted there are concerns
in terms of historic preservation and the impact on neighborhoods. She stated there is little or no
input from the Legacy Farms people who have spent of lot of time and money on traffic studies
and will be obligated under the Host Community Agreement to make various roadway
improvements at certain trigger points. She stated there is poor communication across the board
and she is appalled by the lack of straightforward information. She noted the design shown to the
public is not the same as what was rolled out as the preferred design. She recommended the
Committee take a step back, listen to the residents and businesses that will be affected and come
up with a proposal in line with what people want.
Norman Khumalo, Town Manager, stated Ms. Wright’s comments are well taken, and that is the
approach being followed. He stated over the last month they have asked the Town Engineer and
Town staff to spend time and listen, gather input and identify concerns from everyone involved
and work with the consultants on a new plan, if necessary. Ms. DeVeuve asked why they are still
going ahead with the 25% design completion submission under these circumstances, and Mr.
Khumalo stated the design will not be submitted until after the final review has been done.
Mr. MacDonald stated he is also a member of the Downtown Revitalization Committee (DRC).
He noted he was there when town meeting voted to appropriate money to hire BETA Group to
work on a design. He stated he remembers the presentation and how someone behind him stated
that if town meeting did not vote for the funding he was moving out of Town. He referred to
comments made by Ms. Wright earlier tonight and stated the DISC members are volunteers who
spend a lot of time and effort on this project. He stated he found the consultants to be very
collaborative and the Town hired them for their expertise. He asked Mr. Daltorio whether he
feels if BETA Group has been responsive to feedback received, and Mr. Daltorio stated the
consultants are trying to gather additional information so that they can re-engage effectively. He
stated a major issue is the design exception report if the proposal does not meet DOT
specifications for roadway design. He noted in this case parking is more important to the Town
than it is for DOT, but proposed bike lanes will take up a few parking spaces and this might have
consequences.
Mr. MacDonald asked about the proposal to bury utility lines. Mr. Daltorio stated the Committee
made recommendations and would like to see that happen but it is very expensive and BETA
Group has been asked to provide information about similar projects in other communities. Ms.
Wright stated she was on the DRC when they first started talking to BETA Group about
downtown revitalization with better sidewalks and underground utilities and how to get in line for
State funding. She noted J.T. Gaucher, the DPW Director at the time, had recommended
combining these improvements with other highly needed infrastructure upgrades so that the road
did not have to be torn up twice. She noted they had to go to town meeting partly in order to
4
demonstrate that the taxpayers were willing to put up money if needed. She noted the project has
now morphed into something a lot bigger than initially envisioned by the DRC.
Ms. Thomson stated major concerns are parking and the impact on downtown businesses as well
as the level of detail with respect to sidewalks and curbing. Mr. Daltorio stated these details will
be part of the 25% design but they need to know first if the Town is going ahead with burying the
utility lines.
Ms. Kelly stated she is concerned about the impact on the area around the Town Common. She
stated she knows the Boston Athletic Association (BAA) has some concerns, and she is
concerned about how much additional road/directional signage will be needed, which could be
significant in number and size and not in keeping with the area. She noted that she is not sure
whether the State or the Town will have the final word regarding signage. She stated she also
questions how the area around the Doughboy can be plowed without knocking down the sign.
She stated there has never been an accident there, but the proposed changes will make it more
dangerous. She referred to the traffic/parking study from a year ago and a suggestion to combine
the triangle with the Town Common thereby eliminating Marathon Way. She stated the response
to the idea was positive, and the BAA also liked the idea. Mr. Daltorio stated this is a great
comment and he will pass it on to the consultants so that they can investigate the State regulations
on signage. He stated the DISC had several discussions with the Parks & Recreation Commission
regarding the Common, but there was no resolution of the parking issues. He stated they are
thinking about changing the Marathon Way traffic pattern and surface, but it would be intended
more for parking and not as a main road.
Mr. LaGoy stated the DRC was very happy when BETA Group was hired. He stated they are the
professionals but it is absolutely important to get input from the Town because otherwise the
proposal may fail. He noted they looked at the following major items: 1) streetscape; 2) safe
crosswalks, 3) traffic flow. He stated sometimes there are no problems traveling through Town
but at other times traffic is basically at a standstill. He stated traffic will increase considerably
because of Legacy Farms and other area development so something needs to be done to avoid
gridlock in the future. He noted the design should make it obvious to people they are traveling
through a downtown area with an opportunity for vehicles and pedestrians to interact safely.
Mr. Weismantel referred to the BETA Group presentation and stated his #1 concern is the
anticipated traffic increase due to Legacy Farms and other development. He stated BETA also
pointed out that this is a “generational” project with an opportunity to make several
improvements simultaneously while taking advantage of a one-time chance for a substantial
amount of State funding, and the time is now. He stated the Legacy Farms project is moving
ahead and groundbreaking for the first site development will happen soon. He noted the
Hopkinton Square commercial buildings are now under construction and there are plans for a new
bank at the corner of West Main St. and High St., all contributing to corridor traffic. He stated he
is not sure that the Town is ready for the next step regarding the downtown plan, but it can start
looking into alternative parking solutions now which would make people feel a lot better when
the Legacy Farms improvements come through. He noted they need appropriately sized parking
spots and create safe pedestrian crosswalks, and if this means losing 30 or so spaces the Town
needs to move ahead with plans for alternative parking areas. He noted if the historic house is
considered part of the fabric of the Town and ends up being part of the plan, it should be moved
5
somewhere else perhaps with the use of CPC money. He noted interaction with Legacy Farms
improvements may be postponed and he is sure the Planning Board is willing to work with the
Committee. He stated underground utilities and brickwork offer an incentive to get people and
committees involved, but the plan has to be acceptable to the Town as a whole. It was noted that
cost of burying utility lines would be bonded by the Town or passed on to electric customers
through a surcharge.
Jim Ciriello, 35 Wood St., referred to Mr. LaGoy’s comments, and stated people are not supposed
to speed through Town. He asked how proposed changes to Marathon Way would affect school
bus traffic. He stated he does not get the “Doughboy” issue and is confused about the interaction
between Legacy Farms and DRC action items. He asked how one would categorize people’s
sentiments with the plan, and Mr. Daltorio stated people have lots of concerns and questions
mostly related to the loss of parking spaces and crosswalk safety. In response to a question of
Mr. Ciriello, Mr. Weismantel stated the current parking situation is pretty good, but if the
economy picks up and there is more development or redevelopment it will become more difficult.
Mr. Coutinho noted the current spaces will have to be striped to State standards and that alone
will be an improvement. Mr. Ciriello stated he does not understand why the Town cannot budget
for and take care of immediate safety improvements, such as the crosswalks which are very hard
to see. Mr. Coutinho noted this is a one shot chance to prepare for the future, and the design
should be left up to the experts with input from the community. He added some people will be
negatively impacted, but it will be for the greater good. Mr. Ciriello asked if there is any talk of
future downtown development plans other than the proposed library expansion. Mr. Weismantel
referred to the vacant lot on Main St. next to Hopkinton Drug, and noted that parking and zoning
issues were the key reasons for the lot still being vacant. Mr. Ciriello stated in some other towns
this type of problem has been addressed through zoning, and Mr. Weismantel stated the Town has
modified its downtown zoning over the last few years and the next step would be some type of
municipal lot, perhaps an expansion of the lot behind Town Hall, or a small lot on the west side of
Cedar St.
Brian Brock, 19 Wood St., stated it is important to align the work on safety improvements and
other aspects of downtown revitalization with the water main replacement and underground
utilities because having to rip up the street more than once would be a nightmare. He
recommended preserving the bike lanes and sidewalks as part of the plan.
Rob Phipps, owner of the business at 80 Main St, stated he is glad he was able to be here tonight
to learn more about the proposal, and is encouraged that the plan is not yet set in stone. He
referred to Ms. Wright’s comments earlier in the meeting and stated he could not have said it
better. He stated as the plan stands now he will lose 5 parking spaces in front of his business
which has been in Town for 5 generations and he is very concerned about the parking needs for
his employees, customers and deliveries. He stated he is waiting for someone from the Town to
consult with him as was done in the case of Colella’s Supermarket. He referred to other towns,
such as Natick, where parking is considered a priority and local residents/businesses were
consulted first, and Ashland where they are working on the same thing although not quite as
organized. He noted his office is across from the Fire Station and he can see how difficult it is for
pedestrians to cross. He noted adding bike lanes would create a dangerous situation and he does
not see the attraction in a town like Hopkinton. He noted safety should definitely be improved,
but just making it pretty is another thing. He noted parking is extremely important, and he would
6
like more input sought from everyone impacted in the area. He stated the lack of communication
is unacceptable.
Maureen Bumiller, 16 Birchwood Ln., stated she is concerned about plans to eliminate parking on
Main St. in front of local businesses. She noted that if people cannot park in front, they will take
their business elsewhere.
Muriel Kramer, 39 North St., stated everyone appreciates the time and effort put into the project
by volunteers. She noted the design is nicely done, but that does not mean that it will be warmly
received and supported by town meeting. Ms. Kramer asked when the public will be able to see
the final plan and time line for the 25% design submittal. She stated burying power lines will be
very expensive and residents need to know about secondary and tertiary costs to businesses and
homeowners before town meeting. Mr. Weismantel stated there will be the new Legacy Farms
development on the east side of Town and Hopkinton Square on the west side, and the Town has
to take care of what is in between.
In response to a comment of Mr. Weismantel, Mr. Daltorio stated the DOT will pay for the
baseline road. Mr. Ciriello asked if the Town can vote on the underground utilities separately,
and Mr. Weismantel stated he believes that is the case. Mr. Ciriello stated there seems to be some
overlap between work to be done by the Town and the long term improvements by Legacy Farms
and asked how it will be integrated. Mr. Weismantel stated some things fall under the Legacy
Farms Master Plan Special Permit issued by the Planning Board to mitigate some of the traffic
impacts, including improvements to signalization at the Main St./Rt. 85 intersection as well as
other intermediate and long term changes in the area. He suggested contacting Ms. Lazarus for
additional details and referred to her memorandum to the Board for tonight’s meeting. In
response to a question of Mr. Ciriello, Mr. Weismantel noted that whether the work is done now
or later, Legacy Farms is not responsible for underground utilities or things like brick accents. He
stated Legacy Farms is also not responsible for the improvements to the Wood St. intersection.
Mr. Daltorio stated the two projects will be coordinated as closely as possible although moving
on different time lines.
Jackie Potenzone, 12 Wood St., stated she attended the public forums in November, 2011. She
noted she has a business at her Wood St. home, which is next to the Next Generation Children’s
Center. Ms. Potenzone stated she did not receive prior notification of the proposal to change the
Wood St./Main St./West Main St. intersection. She noted as a homeowner and business owner
she will be victimized if the conceptual design goes forward. She referred to the location of her
driveway which also serves the properties at 14 and 16 Wood St. in the back and submitted a
photograph. She noted the proposed reconfiguration of the intersection presents a danger to her
family, her business, and to the homes in the back. She stated she invited Town officials to her
house to observe current conditions, but no one has come yet and it has been 2 months. She noted
she brought her concerns to the DISC but was told she lives on a busy road and will just have to
live with it. She noted she is concerned about headlights shining into her windows. She stated
she hopes every member of the Planning Board will take the time to visit and stand on her front
porch to understand the impact of the proposal. She stated she understands it is a generational
change but questioned why the proposal is rushed through and stated all this has taken an
emotional toll on her. Mr. Weismantel stated the Planning Board has not taken a vote on the
7
proposal yet, but it is clear to him the plan from November needs a lot of work, needs to be
discussed further and is not ready for submittal.
Reference was made to an announcement issued by the DISC indicating additional informational
forums on February 9 and February 16 and February 21, 2012.
Documents:
Announcement, Town of Hopkinton Downtown Initiative Steering Committee (undated), listing future DISC
meeting dates
Plan, entitled Town of Hopkinton Downtown Revitalization Project – Beta Group (2011)
2. 2 High Street
David L’Ecuyer, President/CEO, Central One Federal Credit Union, proponent, John Kucich,
Bohler Engineering, engineer, Greg O’Connor, O’Connor Associates, Inc., architect, and Joe
Jenkins, attorney, appeared before the Board. Mr. Weismantel welcomed the proponents to
Hopkinton, and stated he hopes the site plan review process for construction of the proposed new
Central One Federal Credit Union branch will be smooth. He noted he is glad to see the
applicants are here on an informal basis which will be helpful later on.
Mr. L’Ecuyer stated the site in question is challenging from a layout perspective. He described
the business and noted they are very community oriented and try to be good corporate citizens.
He noted one of their newer branches in Shrewsbury is next to a residential area, but it has
worked out well. He noted Central One has been looking at the 2 High St. location for a long
time and finally decided to go ahead.
Mr. O’Connor showed photos of Central One branch buildings, and stated the design proposed
for Hopkinton will be a one-story building to fit in with the adjacent residential neighborhood.
He noted the company pays special attention to signage. Mr. Weismantel stated the Design
Review Board will look at the exterior design.
Mr. Kucich presented a proposed site layout, noting it is identical to the plan submitted to the
Board of Appeals with the application for a special permit and variances. He noted it is a difficult
site from a zoning standpoint with two front yards because it abuts two streets. He noted the
building will be located in the middle of the property, which is 33,000 sq. ft. in size and in the
Rural Business district with two access points along the front on West Main St., and full access to
Elm Street in the rear. He described the proposed traffic pattern and location of the drive-through
window with an ATM. He noted they are asking for zoning relief to allow a drive-through
window and from landscape buffer requirements on the front and the rear. Mr. Kucich stated he
discussed the plan with the Building Inspector and welcomes any recommendations or comments
from the Board.
Ms. Wright referred to the proposed on-site circular traffic flow with respect to the drive-through
window. She noted she is worried about cars coming out of the drive-through lane colliding with
people coming along the front of the building. She noted exiting onto West Main St. going west
is no problem but taking a left turn going east would be very tricky. She suggested flipping the
drive-through to the other side of the building so that people can continue out through the back
onto High St. to Elm St. and end up at the light on West Main St. to take a left or right turn. Ms.
Wright stated it appears the applicants are looking for various landscape buffer variances. She
8
noted they are abutting the veterinary clinic on the side but there is a house in the back and the
property abuts a residential neighborhood, so they need to limit light levels and provide sufficient
screening. Mr. Kucich noted they will have a comprehensive landscaping and lighting plan as
part of the site plan application.
Mr. L’Ecuyer noted they discussed different options for the drive-through window, but making a
change as suggested by Ms. Wright might cause them to encroach on the residential buffer. He
noted he understands the safety concerns but they have not had a problem with similar layouts in
other locations. Ms. Wright stated perhaps they could eliminate the double drive and move
everything over to gain some queuing room. Mr. Ollenborger asked about moving the drive-
through to the back of the building, and Mr. Kucich noted it would cause problems with the
residential setbacks. Mr. Weismantel noted this is one of the more difficult sites around, but the
Board is pleased to see the proposal to develop the lot. He stated the number of curb cuts is his
biggest concern and he would like to limit them to one set, because having more than one is
asking for trouble. He stated obviously they need to erect a fence but suggested talking to the
abutters because it will make everybody’s life easier if they are on board with the proposal. He
noted the applicants should also review the site topography and if he remembers correctly there is
a lot of dirt which means they have to look into building a retaining wall which might work to
their advantage in terms of the size of the fence and the lighting. Mr. Kucich noted they have not
yet started the 3D design for the site.
Mr. MacDonald welcomed the proponents to Hopkinton and stated he hopes the project will be
successful. He asked about the number of employees. Mr. L’Ecuyer stated there will be 5 to 6
employees here at first but some of their branches employ up to 15 people. Mr. MacDonald
stated he applauds the fact that the proponents are proactive with respect to the neighbors. Mr.
L’Ecuyer stated they still have to talk to one abutter, but have discussed the project with the
owner of the veterinarian clinic who has indicated she is pleased to see the proposed
development. He noted his experience with opening other branches in similar locations showed
that neighbors are initially nervous but soon realize it will be ok. Mr. MacDonald asked about the
curb cuts, and Mr. L’Ecuyer stated layout in this respect can make or break this type of business.
Ms. DeVeuve stated going east out of this site will be very difficult, and Ms. Wright stated they
should try to eliminate one of the curb cuts, preferably the one on the east side. She offered
suggestions for an alternate layout which would work better with the proposed drive-through
configuration and keep pedestrians safer. Mr. Weismantel stated the applicant can consider
traffic data previously generated for this area. Mr. Weismantel stated they will approach the site
plan review application as efficiently as possible, but the Board does not like starting a new
application right before elections because of potential membership changes.
Mr. Weismantel stated he hopes the Board of Appeals will issue a generic approval of the site
plan, and encouraged the applicant to look for that type of decision. Ms. DeVeuve suggested the
Board send a letter to the Board of Appeals to this effect, and Board members felt that would be a
reasonable idea.
Tom Nealon, 50 Front St., owner of adjacent property, stated he is glad he attended the
discussion. He noted zoning will be very interesting, having gone through a similar process for a
building he designed for the property next door. Mr. Weismantel noted setback regulations have
since been changed since so that should make it a little easier.
9
Documents:
Concept Plan for Proposed Bank for Central One Federal Credit Union, prepared by Bohler Engineering, dated
1/25/2012
3. Chapter 61 Notice – Terry Land
Mr. Weismantel stated the Board discussed the Terry land at the last meeting where it was agreed
that Mr. Abate would talk to Mr. Mastroianni, the buyer. Mr. Weismantel stated he heard from
Mr. Abate via email that Mr. Mastroianni is thinking about a residential development for the 15
acres at the Chamberlain St. side, the area the Board looked at as a potential site for a new
elementary school. Ms. Wright stated the Board thought the potential buyer was mainly
interested in commercial development, and Mr. Weismantel stated Mr. Mastroianni is considering
residential development as well, but might be open to other suggestions. He noted it appears
there is access from Whalen Rd. with only one wetland crossing from there to Chamberlain St.
Mr. Weismantel referred to the school discussion, and Ms. Lazarus stated the School Committee
has looked at this particular area and may follow up with the Conservation Commission to learn
more about the area and the possibilities. Ms. DeVeuve asked if there was access from the loop
road, and Ms. Lazarus stated no, because of the Conservation Restriction on the Town’s land but
even without it there are still the wetlands. Mr. Coutinho raised the possibility of using bridges.
Ms. DeVeuve stated the previous potential buyer prepared a wetlands plan, but it was never
formally presented to the Commission and the information was not verified.
Mr. Weismantel stated the Board has been asked for advice on whether the Town should buy the
land. He stated he feels if the School Dept. is interested in the land, they should be the entity
advocating for purchase. He noted the Planning Board can advise the School and the future
applicant that Chamberlain St. is already a long dead-end road and make it clear that 2 points of
access will be required for residential development. Mr. Weismantel noted in his opinion
Chamberlain St. does not offer adequate access for a school and if they decide in favor of
purchasing the land another means of access is needed. Ms. DeVeuve stated it would be
expensive, and Mr. Weismantel noted he would like to see the new school behind the existing
Center School, which will be expensive too. Ms. DeVeuve stated she would like the Town to be
able to look at the land again if the current purchase and sale agreement falls through. Mr.
Weismantel stated he personally feels that the portion of the land zoned Office Park is a good site
for commercial development as opposed to preserved open space. Mr. Coutinho stated if
purchased with CPA funds it does not necessarily have to be open space. He asked about a solar
farm, and Mr. Weismantel stated government should not be in that business. Mr. Weismantel
suggested a motion to write a letter to the Board of Selectmen stating that the Planning Board is
not making a recommendation other than keeping the Office Park portion as commercial
development, will be happy to work with any other Town entity interested in the land, but there
are site limitations such as a long dead-end road and limited access. Ms. DeVeuve made the
motion, Ms. Thomas seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Documents:
Aerial Photo – Terry Land
4. Open Meeting Law Remote Participation Policy
10
Mr. Weismantel referred to the draft Remote Participation Policy, Town of Hopkinton MA
circulated by the Board of Selectmen for comment. He noted the idea has merit, but the Planning
Board probably won’t use it, and in his opinion the policy went further than what is covered by
State law. Ms. Wright stated she did not like the idea when the Board discussed it a couple of
meetings ago, and has not changed her mind. Mr. Weismantel noted he agrees with Ms. Wright
in a way, and he does not want to “stage” meetings particularly in case of site or subdivision plan
review. The Board decided not to provide additional comments.
Document:
Draft Remote Participation Policy, Town of Hopkinton, MA (adopted by the Board of Selectmen, February XX,
2012) (undated)
5. Street Acceptance - Annual Town Meeting
The Board discussed Ms. Lazarus proposal to accept the streets in the White Oak Estates
subdivision as public ways. Ms. DeVeuve asked if there are any disadvantages under Ch. 90 if
the Town does not accept the streets and if there is any leverage to encourage the developer to
finish up. Ms. Lazarus stated it is not a good idea to accept the streets if the builders are still on
the hook for something, but in this case the developers are out of the picture and they did all the
work required by the Board as of a few years ago. Mr. Coutinho moved to submit an article into
the warrant to accept Ralph Road, Meadowland Drive, Emma Drive, and Longwood Drive as
public ways, Ms. Wright seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Mr. Weismantel stated improving street acceptance procedures and policies could be an action
item for the next ZAC session because they are outdated, especially with respect to private ways
and streets that have been in existence since before the Subdivision Control Law. The Board
discussed the status of Penny Meadow Lane, and Ms. Lazarus stated it was not laid out as a street
and is a common driveway. Ms. Lazarus referred to the Hearthstone subdivision and stated a
street acceptance plan needs to be prepared so that the roads can be accepted. She noted she has
requested funds in the FY2013 budget for this. She noted the Town has collected at least a
portion of the funds obtained from the developer through legal action.
6. Legacy Farms Wastewater Treatment Facility Site Plan – Discussion
Mr. Weismantel stated he and Ms. Lazarus met with the applicant and Fay, Spofford & Thorndike
recently. He noted he has put forth a list of action items and stated that he would like to see these
questions answered if he were an abutter. He noted he suspects the public hearing will be well
attended and suggested to meet that night in a bigger room to accommodate a larger number of
people. Mr. Weismantel asked about a site walk. Ms. Wright stated the proposal is just for a
driveway and a small building, and Ms. DeVeuve stated she is not sure a site walk would be
productive. Ms. Lazarus stated the Board could ask the applicant to stake out the building
location. Mr. Weismantel stated the area might potentially be used for agricultural activities also.
Document:
Chairman’s Thoughts on Scope of Site Review Preparation – Legacy Farms WWTF, January 31, 2012
7. Correspondence
Mr. Weismantel reminded Board members to RSVP before March 9 if they want to attend the
Student Government Breakfast on March 23, 2012.
Document:
11
Memo from Geri Holland, Operations Assistant, to All Department Heads and Board/Committee Chairpersons,
January 3, 2012 – Re Student Government Breakfast, Friday March 23, 2012
Other Documents Used at the Meeting:
Agenda for 2/6/12 Planning Board meeting
Memorandum from Elaine Lazarus to Planning Board, dated 2/2/12
Adjourned: 10:15 P.M.
Submitted by Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
APPROVED: March 12, 2012