HomeMy Public PortalAbout20121210 - Zoning Advisory Committee - Meeting Minutes
1
ZONING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Monday, December 10, 2012 7:00 PM
Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton MA
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: John Coutinho, Chairman, Carol DeVeuve, Vice Chairman, Sandy
Altamura, Fran DeYoung, David Hamacher, Brian Karp, John Marculitis, Craig Nation, Mavis
O’Leary, Michael Peirce, Matthew Wade
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert McGuire, Scott Richardson, Ron Thalheimer, Mario Würzl
Present: Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting
1. Zoning Change – Lumber St./West Main St.
Doug Resnick, attorney, Robb Hewitt, Mill Creek Residential, Paul and Noreen Mastroianni,
property owners, Mark Allen, engineer, Marilyn Sticklor, attorney, and Brian O’Connor,
architect, appeared before the Committee. Mr. Hewitt stated he is an apartment developer who
develops in attractive communities. He stated he has just finished a project in Concord and is
working on one in Milton at this time. The development team described the 95 acre site, noting
that additional commercial uses adjacent to 77 West Main St. is proposed, as well as a
tennis/swim facility further down Lumber St. It was also stated that townhouse and multi-story
apartment buildings are proposed, with the townhouses visible from Lumber St. and the multi-
story apartment buildings in the rear and not visible. It was noted that some land on West Main
St. is proposed for commercial development in the future, but there is no access to it from West
Main St. at the present time due to wetlands. It was stated that there are 3 parcels owned by Mr.
Mastroianni and two of them are proposed for a zoning overlay district with an additional 100
acres behind the Hayden Rowe St. schools and Chamberlain St. not included. It was stated that
320 rental units are proposed.
Ms. Altamura stated she is not in favor of 320 rental units. Mr. Resnick stated that the current
zoning allows up to 300 assisted living beds/units by right. Ms. Altamura asked if some of the
units would be affordable. Ms. Sticklor stated that 10% of the total is proposed to be affordable,
all to be provided in one component of the project and the rest would be market rate. She stated
that one component of the residential development would be 25% affordable, allowing all of
those units to count on the subsidized housing inventory, and this number would be 10% of all
the residential units on the site.
Mr. Karp arrived at this time.
Copies of a Neighborhood Mixed Use Overlay District bylaw were distributed to the Committee
by the proponents. Ms. Sticklor stated that the proposed overlay is based on the Office Park and
Agricultural districts, the underlying zoning. She stated that in the overlay, multifamily housing
would be a permitted use, and 40% of the site would be open space. She stated they propose a
2
two step process for approval, beginning with a special permit approving a concept plan,
followed by site plan approval.
Mr. Coutinho asked about the other 100 acres owned by the proponent that is not included in the
proposal. He stated that this question might come up at town meeting. Mr. Resnick stated that
Mr. Mastroianni doesn’t know what he wants to do with it. Mr. Coutinho stated there needs to
be a roadmap for all of it, not just half. He stated that people could speculate that there will be
more development of the rest and this could affect how they feel about the overlay. Mr. Peirce
asked if the 40% open space shown on the conceptual layout is unbuildable. Ms. Sticklor replied
yes, and there would be trails there. Mr. Peirce stated that this creates significant density in the
upland areas. He asked if the back parcel has access to a public way. Mr. Allen stated there is
access to Chamberlain St. Mr. Peirce stated that people will wonder about the rest of the land.
He asked if the proposed zoning is adopted, will the development process be like subdivision
approval/site plan approval. Mr. Sticklor stated no, a special permit will be required. Mr. Peirce
stated requiring a special permit is a good thing in order to analyze whether the development will
work.
Ms. DeVeuve asked about the number of bedrooms proposed. Mr. Hewitt stated there would be
500 to 550, depending on the unit mix. Mr. DeYoung asked what the proposed number of units
is based on. Mr. Hewitt stated it is a result of looking at the site. Ms. Altamura asked how many
buildings there would be, and Mr. Hewitt stated there would be 8 apartment buildings in the back
and 6 or 7 in the front. Ms. Altamura asked about the number of stories, and Mr. Hewitt stated
there would be a two story feel in the front and 3 and 4 stories in the back. Ms. Altamura stated
she is opposed to 4 stories and the project is far too dense. Mr. Resnick noted that the
apartments in the back will be in the middle of the woods and not visible, like Legacy Farms.
Ms. Altamura asked why the existing zoning doesn’t work for them. Ms. Sticklor stated that
multifamily housing is not allowed in the Office Park district, recreation isn’t allowed either, and
retail stores are limited to 2,000 sq. ft.
Ms. Altamura referred to the amount of traffic that would be generated, and stated she would
hate to see the street widened. She stated that a fitness center could fit within the area. David
Hamacher referred to the one access road serving all the residential units, and it was noted that it
would be 850 feet long, with boulevard portions having two 14 ft. wide lanes and the rest 24 feet
wide.
Tom Terry, 17 Maple St., asked if a traffic study had been done, and noted that the lack of a plan
for the back 100 acres is troubling. He stated development of that land will kill the whole area.
He stated that the end of Chamberlain St. can’t really be used, and the same is true for the end of
Whalen Rd.
Ken Weismantel, 145 Ash St., asked if a fiscal analysis of the project had been done. Ms.
Altamura asked if there will be a host community agreement. Ms. Sticklor stated the proponent
will need municipal water and sewer, and they anticipate having a host community agreement.
Mr. Hewitt stated that John Connery is preparing a fiscal analysis.
3
The Committee stated it would read the draft bylaw provided and begin discussing it at its next
meeting.
2. Preexisting Nonconforming Structures
Reference was made to the request to change the bylaw to allow alterations to nonconforming
structures by right where the setback will not conform to the current setback requirement but is
no closer than the existing distance. Mr. Peirce stated there is a lot of merit to the proposed
change. He noted that the bylaw now puts people through a Board of Appeals process that
almost always results in approval. He referred to an ordinance in Newton that allows such de
minimus changes by right, with specific limits included. He stated the concept makes a lot of
sense, and perhaps some percentage might need a Section 6 finding if appropriate.
Mr. Resnick stated that by right construction of such additions was the way it used to be done,
but it has changed over time. He referred to a recent application on Hayward St. where someone
just wanted to square off the front of the house and it was an expensive and time consuming
process, and because approval is discretionary, it causes anxiety for the applicant. Mr. Coutinho
agreed, noting that a family member had the same problem when enclosing a portion of a deck.
Ms. Altamura stated a special permit shouldn’t be required for a simple change, but there are
circumstances where a proposed change could be contentious.
3. Drive-Up Windows
The Committee discussed the proposal to change the special permit granting authority for drive-
up windows from the Board of Appeals (BOA) to the Planning Board (PB). Ms. DeVeuve stated
the change makes sense because applicants have to go to the BOA for the special permit and the
PB for site plan review, and both are reviewing the same thing. She stated that if one board
approves something different than the other, the applicant gets bounced back and forth. Mr.
Peirce stated he would like to ask the BOA’s opinion on the matter, and will do so at the next
meeting.
Mr. Hamacher asked why the Town doesn’t allow drive-up windows for food. Ms. Altamura
stated that the Town does not want fast food establishments, and not allowing drive-through’s
makes them less likely. Mr. Hamacher stated that safety at the Mobil station on West Main St.
would be improved if the Dunkin Donuts had a drive up window. The issue was discussed.
Referring to the original proposal, Mr. Weismantel stated that the question seems to be whether
the PB has the expertise to review the design of drive-up windows, and he doesn’t think it needs
to be a two-step process.
Mr. Peirce left the meeting at this time.
4. School Bus Parking Areas
Mr. Weismantel stated that the Town pays about $160,000 to park school buses in Ashland, and
it gets the excise taxes also. He stated if Hopkinton can find a good spot for it, then it should be
allowed somewhere and it could save money. Mr. Coutinho will talk to the School Dept. about
their needs and the finances prior to further discussion.
4
5. Commercial Solar Facilities
The draft modifications to the bylaw proposed in 2011 were briefly discussed, as was
information on bylaws used in other communities.
6. Minutes
It was moved and seconded to approve the minutes of the November 19, 2012 meeting. The vote
of the Committee was 9 in favor with one abstention (Karp).
Adjourned: 8:35 PM
Approved: January 7, 2013
Elaine C. Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting
Documents used at the meeting:
Meeting agenda
Memo dated Dec. 6, 2012 from Elaine Lazarus to Zoning Advisory Committee, Re: Dec. 10, 2012
ZAC Meeting
“Neighborhood Mixed Use Overlay District”, undated, received 12/10/12
“The Acres Mixed Use Development”, Mill Creek Residential Trust LLC, powerpoint presentation
“Bylaws Regulating Electric Generation by Solar PV Facilities – Other Towns”, prepared by Elaine
Lazarus, undated.
Article XXXI - Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Installations”, Draft 12/6/12