Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20110314 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes 1 HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD Monday, March 14, 2011 7:30 P.M. Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton, MA MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Markey, Chairman, John Coolidge, Carol DeVeuve, John Coutinho, Deb Thomas, Ken Weismantel MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Abate, Vice Chairman, Claire Wright, Dick MacDonald …. Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting …. Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant 1. Approval-Not-Required Plan – 15 Parker Point Road – Dennis Ford David Marquedant, J.D. Marquedant & Assoc., Inc., surveyor, appeared before the Board. He stated he is here on behalf of Dennis Ford, property owner, who would like to combine 2 lots into one. He noted the new lot will still have 55 ft. of frontage and about 7,800 sq. ft. of area in the Residence A zoning district based on a plan from 1919 and will not meet current frontage and area requirements. Mr. Weismantel moved to endorse the plan as not requiring approval under the subdivision control law, Mr. Coolidge seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Documents: Form A and Approval-Not-Required Plan entitled Complied Plan of Land in Hopkinton, MA, prepared by J.D. Marquedant & Associates, dated Feb. 15, 2011. 2. Public Hearing – Proposed Zoning Bylaw and Zoning Map Amendments Mr. Markey stated this is a public hearing on proposed zoning bylaw and map amendments brought to the Planning Board and recommended for submittal into the warrant by the Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC). He noted right now all these are on the warrant, but the Board can still change the wording and/or decide to withdraw an article before the Annual Town Meeting. It was noted changes can also be made on Town Meeting floor. Jack Speranza, 82 Main St., stated it was good to see that summaries of the proposed changes are available, but, as in the past, the proposing entity infrequently provides a comparison outline of existing and proposed new language and it is very difficult for the general public to understand at Town Meeting. Ms. Thomas asked is there ability for the public to obtain this information, and Ms. Lazarus stated the draft articles have been on the Town website for a while, but only the actual changes, not an explanation of them. Mr. Speranza recommended including the existing language for comparison. a) Hayward Street Zoning Change – Mr. Weismantel stated this concerns a citizen’s petition which was submitted to change the zoning of land on Hayward Street from Residence Lake Front to Rural Business. He noted the ZAC voted not to endorse the change and the petitioner has indicated his desire to withdraw the article. He moved that the Planning Board vote to recommend that town meeting take no action on this article, without prejudice. In 2 response to a question of Mary Pratt, 102 Fruit St., Ms. Lazarus stated the article will stay on the warrant despite the petitioner’s decision not to go forward. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. b) Non-Conforming Uses – Mr. Weismantel described the proposed article, noting that the proposed change is intended to ease the burden on property owners. Mr. Weismantel stated the Board of Appeals recommended that the prohibition on expansions of more than 25% in volume or area be deleted from the bylaw. He noted that ZAC discussed other changes, including a change in the name of the bylaw and changes to allow property owners to do some alterations by right if the alteration conforms to current setback and height requirements. He stated the changes would eliminate the special permit requirement for that work. Ms. Pratt asked if abutters will be notified of that work, and Mr. Weismantel stated abutter notification will not be required if the alteration is allowed by right. Mr. Weismantel stated the proposed change will mainly affect properties around Lake Maspenock, where there is a high proportion of preexisting nonconforming lots. There were no other public comments. Mr. Weismantel moved to recommend the changes to the non-conforming uses and structures section of the zoning bylaw, and Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. Ms. Lazarus stated Town Counsel has recommended minor changes to the article language as indicated in his letter dated March 9, 2011. Mr. Weismantel moved to incorporate Town Counsel’s recommended changes, Ms. Thomas seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Weismantel moved to recommend the article to Town Meeting with the changes recommended by Town Counsel. Ms. DeVeuve seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. c) Historic Structures. Mr. Weismantel described the article. It was noted the proposed change is designed to make it easier for an applicant to preserve a historic structure that is located on land which contains a historic structure. Mr. Weismantel stated the idea for the proposed change came from the Historical Commission. He noted Town Counsel has recommended minor changes to the proposed language. He stated Town Meeting last year adopted a bylaw change relaxing setback and frontage requirements to preserve historic structures, and although the Historical Commission was happy with the change, they would like to go further and allow the creation of a separate lot by special permit from the Planning Board that does not conform to the dimensional requirements if the structure will be preserved and located on the lot. He noted the definition of a historic structure is already established in the bylaw. He noted the proposed change would allow historic structures to be saved from the bulldozer and the Historical Commission supports the language. In response to a question of Jim Walker, 8 Hayden Rowe St, Mr. Weismantel stated the article relates to lots approved by plans for residential development. Ms. DeVeuve stated it will allow a lot containing a historic structure to be cut out from the larger parcel so that the historic structure does not have to be destroyed in order for the development to be built. Mr. Walker asked if a homeowner will be allowed to add on to the structure without having to go through an additional permitting process. Ms. Lazarus stated yes, if it complies with setback requirements. Mr. Weismantel moved to incorporate Town Counsel’s comments into the draft language, Ms. DeVeuve seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Weismantel moved to recommend the article to Town Meeting, Ms. Thomas seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 3 d) Commercial Photovoltaic Solar Installation. Mr. Markey stated the idea is to provide a mechanism for businesses interested in creating solar power “farms” for commercial purposes. Mr. Weismantel noted the article has the support of the Sustainable Green Committee and would allow solar photovoltaic installations that are not part of a residential or business use. He noted they are looking for vacant parcels that would have rows of solar panels. He stated the research indicated that this type of installation needs a fence for security and the ZAC felt that the installation, including a fence, should not be right at the street line but adhere to the same setback required for a structure on the lot. He noted there would be a minimum lot size of 3 acres. Mr. Weismantel stated the installation would be allowed everywhere in Town because the ZAC felt that if the use was limited to the Industrial districts it would take away from high value industrial land. He noted that if the use is allowed everywhere it should be regulated through a special permit with setback and screening regulations. Henry Kunicki, 47 Teresa Rd., asked if there are any such installations in Massachusetts, and Mr. Weismantel stated yes, that he knows of some in Westborough, Brockton and Pittsfield. He noted he thinks tax laws are set up so that if the Town treats this as a tax exempt use it would make economic sense for the business, however if the Town assesses it for some kind of value then in today’s economic climate the installation will probably not be built. Mr. Markey asked if there has been any interest from such businesses, and Ms. Lazarus stated yes, but not in any particular location. Eric Sonnett, 60 Teresa Rd., stated he does not think the use will be tax exempt, and Mr. Weismantel noted this would have to be determined by the Board of Assessors. Mr. Markey stated the use is allowed by right if the energy is generated for one’s own use. Ms. DeVeuve referred to Town Counsel’s concern regarding the special permit component and that the Town is very limited with respect to a denial which will have to be based on public safety and welfare concerns. Mr. Coutinho stated with setback and buffer requirements the installation would be hidden from view. Ms. Lazarus stated Town Counsel has recommended some additional language changes. Ms. Pratt asked whether there is any information about impacts on public health and safety and whether any studies have been done. Mr. Markey stated he is not aware of any, and Ms. Lazarus noted she did not find any when researching the use. Mr. Weismantel moved to incorporate Town Counsel’s changes into the draft language, Mr. Coutinho seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Weismantel moved to recommend the change to Town Meeting, Mr. Coutinho seconded the motion, and the Board voted 5 in favor, 1 opposed (DeVeuve). e) Water Resources Protection Overlay District (WRPOD). Mr. Weismantel noted the proposed changes involve the following: (1) inclusion of zones I, II and III around the new Alprilla Farm wells, construction of which will start fairly soon, and (2) delineation of Zone A of the surface water supply at Echo Lake as a separate sub-district. He noted that during the water permitting process with DEP, Milford Water Co. was required to make make its best efforts to affect changes to Zones A, B, C around Echo Lake that are consistent with the DEP requirements, including any necessary changes to the map. He noted the draft map shows changes are made because DEP requirements for public surface water and 4 groundwater supplies are slightly different, and this will bring the Town’s bylaw more in line with DEP’s recommendations. Mr. Markey asked for comments. Ms. DeVeuve stated the map is fine. She referred to the language changes relative to the removal of item 6 in the bylaw, which would remove motor vehicle sales, lease, repair, filling stations etc. from the list of prohibited uses. She noted she does not think there is any point in eliminating item 6 from the list of prohibited uses. She stated the idea was to update the district by including the zones for the new Alprilla Farm wells and address the differences between DEP and the Town’s regulations with respect to water supply categories, but there is an additional, unnecessary change which does not serve the purpose of what the ZAC was trying to accomplish. She recommended not making the change regarding item 6 but adopt the rest of the changes as drafted. Mr. Markey stated the gas stations in the downtown area are preexisting situations and asked how this change would impact the introduction of a new one. Ms. Thomas asked why the change is proposed. Mr. Weismantel noted that the use in the underlying district currently is allowed by special permit, and an applicant has to show how it can be done safely. He stated case law shows this will make that section of the bylaw very expensive for the Town if someone wants to litigate. Ms. DeVeuve noted the current bylaw was approved by the Attorney General. She noted to eliminate this section of the bylaw would be counterproductive and difficult to explain at town meeting. Michael Shepard, 11 Hill St., stated he assumes Weston Nurseries is within the overlay district. He noted he suspects Weston Nurseries won’t be able to continue their operations if they move to a new location and suggested the Board exempt agricultural uses to avoid the possibility that the Court will make the decision for them. Vascen Bogigian, 204 Winter St., asked how many prohibited uses are proposed to be added and which ones are allowed by right in the underlying district. Ms. Lazarus stated there will be some additional prohibited uses in the Zone A north of Echo Lake. Mr. Weismantel stated when they took an inventory of what is there, it appears the cemetery off Granite St. would now be prohibited but he does not think people are being buried there anymore and the cemetery cannot be expanded. Ms. DeVeuve stated the ZAC went through the prohibited items in Zone A, and the only thing they found was the cemetery. Ms. DeVeuve moved to recommend adoption of the WRPOD map as drawn, Ms. Thomas seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Weismantel moved to recommend the proposed bylaw language changes to Town Meeting as drafted, and Mr. Coutinho seconded the motion. Ms. DeVeuve moved to amend the motion to adopt the language as drafted but leave item 6 in, Mr. Coutinho seconded the motion, and the Board voted 4 in favor (Thomas, Coolidge, DeVeuve, Markey) and 2 opposed (Weismantel, Coutinho). Mr. Speranza asked about Mr. Shepard’s suggestion regarding agricultural exemptions. Mr. Markey read an existing provision in the bylaw relative to agricultural uses, and stated it is already covered in the bylaw. Mr. Weismantel moved to recommend that town meeting adopt the bylaw changes with the language as amended, Ms. DeVeuve seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. f) Rural Business District (BR). Mr. Markey stated this article is designed to make it easier for developers to develop the small lots in the BR district. Mr. Weismantel noted Ms. Lazarus submitted this proposed change to the ZAC. He noted the minimum side yard setback to non-residential abutters would be reduced from 25 to 10 ft., and the requirement for 5 landscaping along the street frontage would have to be only 12 ft. in depth. Mr. Speranza asked where the BR district is located in Town, and the locations were described. Mr. Weismantel stated Town Counsel was happy with the proposed language. He moved that the Board recommend the article to Town Meeting, Mr. Coutinho seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. g) Open Space Mixed Use Development (OSMUD) Overlay District. Mr. Markey stated the article proposes to add terms and definitions relative to the types of housing allowed in the OSMUD. Mr. Weismantel stated the proposed changes were brought to the ZAC by the Legacy Farms developer. He noted Legacy Farms has an overlay district, and the Host Community Agreement (HCA) with the Town has restrictions on the number of bedrooms allowed and regulations affecting other aspects of residential development. He noted the number of single family homes is limited to 50 and there is a cap on the total number of bedrooms. He stated one of the proposed changes would add a definition of a “simplex” dwelling unit which looks like a single family home but is separated from another dwelling by not more than 25 ft. and is located on land in common ownership. He stated recent changes to the HCA were reviewed by Judi Barrett, Community Opportunities Group, and the expectation is that the sales prices for simplex units will be higher than for duplex or garden apartment units, which in turn will result in more net revenue to the Town. It was noted that the projected number of children in each type of unit had been calculated, and net revenue numbers provided by Ms. Barrett. Mr. Weismantel stated there is a provision in the HCA already that caps the number of school children and requires a payment if the number is exceeded. Roy MacDowell, Legacy Farms LLC, stated that the definition of a simplex unit is only one of the definition changes proposed. He noted it was felt that the bylaw with the changes would tie in more closely with the HCA, but would not change the number of units and bedrooms. He stated the bottom line is that allowing this type of simplex unit would bring in more revenue to the Town. Mr. Weismantel stated Town Counsel had a number of comments, and Ms. Lazarus referred to Town Counsel’s letter dated March 9, 2011. Mr. Weismantel moved to incorporate Town Counsel’s changes to the draft language, Ms. Thomas seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Ms. Pratt asked for clarification, and Mr. Weismantel stated the changes only relate to the OSMUD district. Mr. Weismantel moved to recommend the article to Town Meeting, Ms. DeVeuve seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. h) Site Plan Review. Mr. Markey thanked everyone for attending the public hearing to help improve the site plan review process that the Town’s business applicants have to go through. He noted he is glad to see the Chamber of Commerce members in attendance. He stated from his experience with the site plan review process after 5 years on the Board, and from ZAC discussions, it appears there is room for improvement and the proposed draft article attempts to begin addressing process issues in terms of fairness and understanding. Mr. Weismantel stated the ZAC talked about making changes to different parts of the bylaw but ended up just recommending this particular change at this point. He noted the ZAC vote was not unanimous, not everyone attended all discussions on the subject and there might have 6 been a change of mind among ZAC members since then. He stated it appears the site plan review bylaw is not working as well as it should and may need more work in general. Mr. Markey noted he has stated the Board’s objective in the hope that it will resonate as they are looking for constructive input on how to improve things. Mr. Speranza stated as a former member of the Conservation Commission he worked on adopting and making changes to the local wetlands bylaw and at the time contemplated a local review appeal process but opted against it for various reasons. He noted Boards change, philosophies change and local checks and balances across the boards is a good process. He stated a second review at the local level is preferred to an appeal to the Court, and the Town in its Master Plan talks about the importance of creating a business friendly environment. He noted it appears this proposal is the result of disappointment over the outcome of a recent site plan decision, and perhaps this article should not be taken to Town Meeting. Mr. Markey thanked Mr. Speranza for his comments. Mr. Shepard stated serving on Boards can be a thankless job and he expressed his appreciation to the Board and staff members for their work. He stated he especially wants to thank Mr. Coolidge who has indicated he will not seek reelection after serving many years. He stated the Planning Board either approves or denies a site plan review application, and the applicant can appeal the decision to Court but has to prove that the Board acted in an arbitrary manner which is very hard to do. He stated the Court likes it this way, but for the homeowner or business owner this would be an unfair burden. He noted for a special permit the appeal process is different, with an appeal to the Court which does the case all over to hopefully come up with something that is fair to everyone. Mr. Shepard stated if the applicant comes first before the Board of Appeals and then the Planning Board, there might be disagreement between the two entities, or he supposed they could wait for the Building Inspector to ultimately deny the application. He noted in Brookline a site plan application is a special permit process through the Board of Appeals after review by the Planning Board for recommendations, and this may be something the Board could consider. He stated to Mr. Speranza’s point, the proposed change looks like a kneejerk reaction. He noted he feels that in the recent appeal case as well as in two previous ones, the process worked although it might have to be tweaked. He stated most importantly this appears to be taking rights away from business owners, and the Town is trying to attract business. He noted this proposal is not ready for prime time and might not be well received at Town Meeting. Thomas Garabedian, 5 David Joseph Rd., Board of Appeals member, referred to the recent Golden Pond case and stated it did not feel difficult for the Board of Appeals to review the decision of another Board. He echoed Mr. Shepard’s comments that the way to improve the process and to create a more business friendly climate is to change the bylaw so that there is a concurrent review process. Bob McGuire, 4 Huckleberry Rd., President of the Hopkinton Chamber of Commerce, member of the ZAC, thanked Mr. Coolidge and Mr. Markey for their service on the Board as he understands both will not be returning for another term. He stated as the Board knows, the Chamber of Commerce voted unanimously in opposition to this article and would like to see it withdrawn as it would be costly to the Town. He stated he is embarrassed to say that as a member of the ZAC he originally voted in favor of the change. 7 Joe Strazzulla, Hopkinton commercial property owner, stated he would like the Board to withdraw the article. He noted it would take local review and place it in a court far away. He stated the way he conducts business and when serving on Town boards he feels the focus should be on neighbors working with neighbors, which can be more productive and avoid lengthy delays. Ms. Pratt stated she feels a site plan application should come before the Planning Board first to address issues like EPA stormwater guidelines as the Board of Appeals does not necessarily look at things like that. Mr. Markey asked Ms. Pratt if this means she is in favor of a concurrent review process, and Ms. Pratt stated yes. He asked if the members of the Chamber of Commerce had any discussions or ideas regarding improvements of the process other than a unanimous vote in opposition to the article at last week’s meeting. Mr. McGuire stated the Chamber thought the process needs more work and would like to get involved. Mr. Markey stated the Golden Pond applicant came to the Planning Board for informal input before filing its application, and the Planning Board felt uncomfortable about that. He stated he is wondering whether Mr. Garabedian has any idea how concurrent review could work without burdening the applicant. Mr. Garabedian stated he thinks the Board of Appeals could accommodate this to some extent and it could work. Mr. Shepard stated in Brookline the applicant first goes to the Planning Board to ask for recommendations as part of the Board of Appeals special permit process. He stated the Planning Board looks at the site aspects, and the applicant either agrees or disagrees but submits the application to the Board of Appeals for a decision. He noted in most cases the Board of Appeals rubberstamps the Planning Board recommendation. In response to a question, Mr. Shepard stated in that process decisions are appealed to the Court. Mr. Strazzulla stated most applicants go to the Board with the assumption they are proposing something by right. Ron Thalheimer, ZAC and Chamber of Commerce member, stated the ZAC was trying to prevent people from being bounced from Board to Board, and he too originally voted in favor, and it seems the Committee intended to do one thing but came out with something else. Mr. Weismantel stated in defense of the ZAC the proposed article language is in the Attorney General’s model bylaw, the majority of towns are doing it this way, and a change is also recommended by Town Counsel. Mr. Weismantel stated going forward it may be better to present a new bylaw to address the other problem with the approval criterion definitions. He noted the criteria could be sharpened up, which might also mean more work for applicants but certainty of approval might be better guaranteed and this would be important to business. Mr. Kunicki stated when he was on the Board of Appeals he was always struck by the fact that when asked whether the proposal had been discussed with other Boards, the applicants responded that they did not know where they were supposed to go. Mr. Markey stated he is not in favor of unnecessary back and forth between Boards, and it appears people agree there is room for improvement and have no objections against working together to streamline the process. He noted the proposed change only addresses the appeals entity, not the site plan approval criteria. He stated the Planning Board when reviewing a site plan has to consider the approval criteria in the bylaw but there is a lot of discretion which makes it difficult to tell the applicant what is required. He states he sees the approval criteria as one level and the standard of how an appeal is handled by the Board of Appeals and the lack of 8 guidelines for this process as another level. Ms. Thomas stated the message is clear that a combined effort is needed in this case, involving the boards, the ZAC and the Chamber of Commerce. She stated she wants to make it right and be business friendly, but her biggest fear is that everyone will leave the meeting tonight and nothing will happen. Mr. McGuire stated the Chamber of Commerce will participate and give feedback on how to change the process. Mr. Weismantel moved that the Planning Board request that the Board of Selectmen to remove the article from the warrant. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Markey stated he would like to see a collaborative discussion and take out the emotional aspect because everyone is in this together. Mr. Weismantel moved to close the public hearing, the motion was seconded, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Documents: • Draft Zoning Amendments - 3/9/2011 • Letter - Ray Miyares, Miyares and Harrington LLP to Hopkinton Planning Board, March 9, 2011 re: Proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendments; 2011 Annual Town Meeting 3. Payment of Invoices The Board voted unanimously to authorize payment of an outstanding bill. Documents: Invoice and payment authorization form. 4. Other Business Ms. Lazarus stated the Planning Board and Conservation Commission both have received applications for the Southwest Village apartment complex at Legacy Farms. She suggested having a joint public hearing on the matter. The Board stated that would be good idea. Mr. Weismantel stated it appears there are two public hearings scheduled to begin on April 4, 2011, and there is not a lot of time before Town Elections and inevitable changes to board membership. Ms. Lazarus noted the applicants know they are taking a risk, and these hearing processes can be completed if the requirements have been met and the consultants expedite their work. Other Documents used at the Meeting: • Planning Board Agenda for Monday, March 14, 2011 • Memorandum dated March 9, 2011 from Elaine Lazarus to Planning Board Adjourned: 9:10 P.M. Submitted by: Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant APPROVED: April 11, 2011