Loading...
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