Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20110411 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes 1 HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD Monday, April 11, 2011 7:30 P.M. Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton, MA MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Markey, Chairman, Mark Abate, Vice Chairman, John Coolidge, Carol DeVeuve, John Coutinho, Deb Thomas, Ken Weismantel, Claire Wright MEMBERS ABSENT: Dick MacDonald …. Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting …. Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant 1. 149 Hayden Rowe Street – Capital Group Properties It was noted the discussion regarding a potential Chapter 40B development at 149 Hayden Rowe St. has been rescheduled for May 23, 2011 at the request of Capital Group Properties. Mr. Coutinho arrived at this time. 2. Public Hearing - 172 Hayden Rowe Street – Site Plan Review - Redle Realty Trust/Paul Elder It was noted that the site plan review application indicated that it was a minor site plan, but upon review it has been changed to the major project category and is now scheduled for a public hearing on April 25, 2011. 3. Administrative Business • Invoices – The Board voted unanimously to authorize payment of outstanding invoices. Document: Invoice and Payment Authorization Sheet • Minutes – The Board voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of March 14, 2011 as amended. Document: Draft Minutes of March 14, 2011. • MetroWest Economic Research Center (MERC) Planning Meeting, May 6, 2011. Ms. DeVeuve stated she is unable to go but would like to look at the publication. Mr. Weismantel and Mr. Coutinho indicated they may be able to attend. Document: MERC flyer regarding 19th Annual Conference 5/6/2011 4. Sidewalk Planning. Mr. Markey stated the last time the Board talked about sidewalks, it was at the policy level. Ms. Lazarus referred to her memorandum to the Board dated 4/7/2011 for a list of possible sidewalk priorities. Ms. Thomas asked who submitted the priority information for consideration, and Ms. Lazarus stated it is from the DPW, Land Use, Fire, Police and Engineering departments. Ms. DeVeuve stated the Town should provide sidewalks for kids to walk to school in consideration of the 2 mile radius/no school bus policy and liability issues. Mr. Weismantel stated the network around schools should be first priority. Mr. Markey referred to other items of 2 the list, including the Hopkinton State Park area, Main St., and Elm St. from the Indian Brook Condominiums to Elmwood Park. Mary Pratt, 102 Fruit St., asked about the status of the bridge on Rt. 85 to Southborough, and Ms. Lazarus stated the bridge is scheduled to be replaced and will include a sidewalk. Ms. Thomas and Mr. Abate questioned why the area is on the list, and Ms. Lazarus stated it dates back to the 1980’s when the commuter rail stations on the Framingham-Worcester line were being planned. She stated that the Town at that time requested a sidewalk connection from the Southborough station to Hopkinton State Park, and it was included as mitigation during the MEPA process. It was noted that the sidewalk to be installed with the bridge will extend from the station part way to the State Park, but not all the way. Mr. Weismantel stated parking at the train station is limited and maybe there could be additional parking at the State Park. Mr. Abate asked if there is any record of this discussion. Ms. Lazarus stated there was a public process at the time. Mr. Weismantel stated there was an old asphalt sidewalk off the road across the old stone bridge, and the State replaced it without a permit from the Conservation Commission who then forced them to remove it. Mr. Markey stated at this point the Board is just identifying priority areas, and Ms. Lazarus stated the plan can be expanded to include what the Board wants it to be. Mr. Weismantel asked about the Elm St. area, and Ms. Lazarus stated this item was suggested by the Fire Chief. Mr. Abate asked if the School Committee has further discussed the 2 mile radius rule, and it was noted there has been no change to the policy. Mr. Weismantel stated that counting a 2 mile radius around each school would equate to a huge portion of Town, and he does not want to say that sidewalks have to be provided everywhere as it would defeat the purpose of setting priorities. Referring to the fact that the downtown is on the list, Ms. DeVeuve stated this area already has sidewalks. Mr. Markey stated Ms. Lazarus and he talked to the new DPW Director, who promised to get them a copy of the sidewalk study prepared in West Boylston. He noted the DPW Director also stated that a sidewalk study group could be formed to conduct an inventory, and there would be a brief training session before it began. He stated this would be a neat approach. Mr. Weismantel referred to the possibility of charging residents for sidewalks by the linear foot, like a sewer betterment, if the Town voted to install sidewalks. Mr. Markey asked if the Board wants to make any other changes to the priority list. Ms. Thomas asked about the West Main St./Elm St. area, and Ms. Wright stated Elm St. only has a partial sidewalk and it would be important to expand the sidewalks near the school. Mr. Markey stated the Board will make the suggested edits to the priority list and review the West Boylston plan. Ms. Wright stated Elm St. should be a priority because of school-related parking problems and the amount of truck traffic, etc., and the lack of sidewalks creates a very dangerous situation. Mr. Weismantel recommended moving this item up on the list, above sidewalks within the 2 mile school radius. Ms. Thomas stated she would like to see a sidewalk along Rt. 85 to get pedestrians or bikes safely from Hopkinton to the newly installed Milford bike path. 5. Maillet Woods (Trevor Lane) John Anderson, 19 Trevor Ln., appeared before the Board. He stated he is following up on a letter dated 3/8/2011 to the Board, which included a list (Appendix A) of outstanding issues in the development. Mr. Anderson stated the Maillet Woods Condominium Trust recently met with 3 the Mass. Dept. of Environmental Protection (DEP) and they require installation of a new well. He noted this was brought to the attention of the Planning Board. He stated the developer has not followed through and there have been outstanding issues for quite a while, but in spite of this the developer continued to get occupancy permits. He noted in the meantime they need tanker trucks to bring in drinking water which is not an acceptable situation. He noted they are requesting access to the performance guarantee funds to install the second well to meet the water supply needs. Mr. Abate asked if they have contacted the Building Inspector, and Ms. Lazarus noted that the Board of Health is also involved with this issue. Mr. Anderson stated they don’t have an adequate water supply, and although the homeowners have taken over for the developer, they don’t have the money to install the new well. Mr. Markey asked whether the other items on the list have been completed, and Mr. Anderson stated no. Ms. Lazarus stated she spoke to Marcel Maillet, developer, who has indicated he intends to comply with DEP’s requirements. She stated Mr. Maillet agrees with the DEP with respect to the fact that the current water supply is not adequate, but he first wants to try dropping the pump lower in the existing well before drilling a new well. She referred to Mr. Maillet’s email dated 3/8/2011, which indicates he will have his engineer contact DEP. Mr. Anderson stated Mr. Maillet is no longer in charge and he cannot do anything without the Trust’s approval and they are asking the Planning Board for help. Mr. Markey stated the Town holds money for the well and other things. Ms. DeVeuve asked who is paying for the water. Mr. Anderson stated the Trust is. David Noon, 10 Trevor Ln., referred to an email sent with a request for clarification of performance guarantee issues. Mr. Markey stated the Planning Board sets conditions of approval and if the developer does not fulfill them or abandons the project, the Town may use the funds to complete aspects of the project. In response to a question of Mr. Noon, Ms. Lazarus stated the developer has an approved plan and a completion date, and the Board is the entity that decides whether to release the performance guarantee or not. Mr. Markey stated he understands this situation is frustrating for the residents, but the performance guarantee is not the Trust’s money and the developer has not abandoned the project. Mr. Coolidge stated the best thing for everyone is to get the developer to fix the problems. Ms. Lazarus stated according to a former Town Counsel in a previous subdivision case, the Town may not turn money over to a third party and in addition, a condominium project is different than a subdivision where the roads will become public ways when the project is done. Ms. Lazarus stated the Board should consult with Town Counsel to find out whether the Trust can access the funds. Mr. Coutinho asked about the completion date, and Ms. Lazarus stated it was initially 12/31/2010, but the State legislatively extended every permit for 2 years. Mr. Weismantel stated the Board should talk to Town Counsel to see what the Board’s position is in this case, so that it will be better informed when trying to convince the developer to do the right thing. Mr. Abate stated the purpose of the Trust’s request is to get the public drinking water supply problem resolved. Ms. Lazarus stated that would be a question for Town Counsel, and even though the supply is considered a “public” supply regulatorily, it is not really public and was not guaranteed by the original bond. Ms. Wright stated the developer thinks he can solve the problem by lowering the pump, and asked if Mr. Anderson feels they should try that first. Mr. Anderson stated the pump engineer agreed that a second well is necessary, but Mr. Maillet has now reversed his view because it will cost more money. Ms. Wright asked if DEP was aware of this, 4 and Mr. Anderson stated yes. Mr. Markey suggested sending a letter to the developer, and Mr. Coolidge stated Ms. Lazarus has already written a couple of letters. In response to a question of Mr. Noon, Ms. Lazarus stated she does not know how long the process will take, and DEP is the permitting entity, not the Town. Mr. Weismantel suggested contacting DEP since they are issuing the order for a second well, and Mr. Anderson stated he is not willing to sign off on something without the necessary funding in place. Steven Zieff, Legacy Farms LLC, stated as someone with experience in the condominium development field, he would suggest that the Maillet Woods residents provide the Board with proof that the association has taken over and referred to Ch. 183A and the “percentage” rule. Mr. Anderson stated they will send documentation to the Board in the morning. Mr. Coolidge stated it is a good thing there is a surety bond. Documents: • Letter from David Oka, Maillet Woods Condo Trust to Planning Board, 3/8/2011, Re: Maillet Woods Condo Trust, including Appendix A – Open Items to be Completed by Developer • Letter from Elaine Lazarus to Marcel Maillet, 3/22/2011 • Letter from Elaine Lazarus to Marcel Maillet, 4/5/2011 • Letter from DEP to Maillet Woods Condominium Trust, 1/25/2011 – Re: Sanitary Survey Report & Summary of Findings • Email from Ed Wirtanen, Board of Health, to Elaine Lazarus, 1/21/2011 – Forwarded email from Marielle Stone, MassDEP dated 1/21/2011, Re: Maillet Woods Board of Health Update • Email from Ed Wirtanen, Board of Health, to Chuck Kadlik, Building Inspector/Elaine Lazarus/Bryan Besso, Board of Health, 12/23/2011, included forwarded message dated 12/16/2011 from Marielle Stone, Re: Maillet Woods • Email exchange between Pamela Campagna, Maillet Woods resident, and Elaine Lazarus, 12/8/2010 • Letter from Bryan Besso to Elaine Lazarus and Chuck Kadlik, 12/7/2010, re: Maillet Woods, Trevor Lane • Email Margaret Webber (DEP) to Ed Wirtanen, 12/6/2010, with information received from Eric Smith, Small Waters Systems Services 12/6/2010 • Email from Don Provencher to Bryan Besso, 12/6/2010, re: Maillet Woods • Email from Marcel Maillet to Elaine Lazarus, 4/8/2011, re: Planning Board 4-11-11 6. Continued Public Hearing – Southwest Village at Legacy Farms – Site Plan Review – WP East Acquisitions, LLC and Legacy Farms, LLC Steven Zieff, Legacy Farms LLC, and Adelaide Grady and Rick Dickason, Wood Partners (WP) (applicants), Steve Derdarian, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB) (engineer), Brian O’Connor, Cube 3 Studio (architect), Paul Abdella, OmniLite, lighting expert, Dan Copeland, Regional Manager, Riverstone Residential, and James Ward of Nutter, McLennan & Fish, attorney, appeared before the Board. Mr. Markey stated at the last hearing Wood Partners and their consultant team made the initial presentation for this development, and now the public will have the opportunity to ask questions. He noted this is the first of a number of individual site plan proposals which will make up the Legacy Farms development. He noted the apartment complex will have an affordable housing component to address the need for housing to serve diverse incoming levels. 5 Chris Barry, 17 Clinton St., asked for further information regarding the floor plans. Ms. Grady stated a 1 bedroom unit will have 780 sq. ft., a 1 bedroom with a den will have 920 sq. ft., and a 2 bedroom unit will have 1,150 sq. ft. In response to a question, she provided additional details regarding the layout of the individual units. Mavis O’Leary, 11 Curtis Rd., referred to the presentation made by the applicant on April 4. She asked for clarification on the view from Curtis Road in the current design layout compared to what was shown during the Master Plan Special Permit (MPSP) discussions. Ms. Grady referred to a drawing of the view in question. She stated since the concept phase, they have compacted the apartment pod a little bit to save trees and there will be selective clearing. She noted they are adding some trees along Legacy Farms Road South. Mr. Zieff stated Legacy Farms Road South is along the edge of the treed area but these new trees will not be mature for some time, and the drawing reflects that. He noted during the MEPA analysis someone claimed that there was old growth on the site, but this was determined not to be the case and it was previously a field. Ms. O’Leary stated she thought the buffer was going to be deeper. She also expressed concerns about the different height levels of the buildings and how it is going to look. Mr. Zieff stated it is a buffer issue, and the reality is that Curtis Rd. abutters now have a view of an open area. Mr. O’Connor stated they propose additional plantings along the road between the existing neighbors and Southwest Village and there will be a variety including pine trees as well as ornamental trees. Mr. Weismantel stated he thinks this is a good picture of what one would see there today. He noted the MPSP showed new structures along the east side of Legacy Farms Road South, and noted that residents of Curtis Rd. will see the backs of the new structures in the future instead of grass. He noted in developments with tall buildings it is a good idea to place some regular houses in between to obscure the view. Mr. Markey stated there is no guarantee what exactly will happen on the east side of Curtis Rd., and therefore Ms. O’Leary’s concern is legitimate. Ms. Pratt stated they should not plant deciduous trees which will not offer screening in winter and instead add arborvitae and pine trees for year round screening. Mr. Zieff asked if the intent is to completely “obliterate” the presence of the buildings, and noted this is a typical size building for this type of development. Mr. Barry referred to the area between the apartment project and the rest of Legacy Farms and noted the apartment developers don’t control the development across the street, and maybe there should be some more intense screening. Mr. Zieff stated he agrees, but feels Wood Partners is very sensitive to this issue. Mr. Coolidge stated they are not trying to completely hide the buildings, just trying to break up the landscape. Ms. O’Leary asked if the site is going to be level, and Mr. Zieff stated across the site there is a difference of about 10 ft. in elevation. Ms. Grady stated the difference between the road and the plateau is about 4 ft. Ms. O’Leary stated the buildings look very tall and this is not in keeping with the existing neighborhood. John Knowles, 23 Curtis Rd., referred to the area between Curtis Rd. and the new buildings and asked if it can be mowed, and Mr. Zieff stated once construction is done they should look at some level of stewardship. Mr. Knowles stated that would be great. Ms. Wright stated the developers have been through the Design Review Board (DRB), which expressed concerns about the perceived height of buildings. She asked if the gable roof line can 6 be redesigned, using shed dormers instead. She noted the current style has an elongated high look and there are visual ways to trick the eye. Mr. O’Connor stated he understands what Ms. Wright is saying but it is not necessarily as simple as that. Ms. Wright stated the clubhouse has a shed dormer and this element could be repeated more on the other buildings. Mr. Abate suggested using natural colors for the exterior. Mr. Markey asked if the DRB commented on gable height, and Mr. O’Connor stated no, but they talked about colors and building height. He noted gable height can be managed but bringing down building height is almost impossible. Mr. Coutinho stated he likes the original design. Ms. Wright stated she has seen better designs than the one shown here and is concerned that the abutters will have high buildings looming over their neighborhood. Mr. Weismantel stated he feels if he has to see something at all, he would prefer looking at something attractive. Mr. Coolidge asked if the trees in the picture are shown to scale or more like shrubs in reality, and Ms. Grady stated the picture shows the vegetation at 5 year’s growth. Ms. O’Leary stated she is concerned about noise coming from people using the swimming pool. She noted during the summer with the windows open they can hear Rt. 495 from Curtis Rd. and asked why the pool is in the front on the development instead of the back, which would be less intrusive. Mr. Copeland stated typically this type of facility is near the clubhouse. Mr. Copeland stated the pool will close between 8 - 9 P.M., will only be open from Memorial Day to Labor Day and typically will not be used regularly until mid-summer and then usually only by a small number of people. He stated the pool will have security with a locking gate, and inspection will be part of the nightly rounds. He noted usually they will get complaints, if any, from the apartment residents first. Ms. Thomas stated it was her impression that the pool was meant for the whole Legacy Farms community, and Ms. Grady stated it is only for the apartment complex. Mr. Knowles asked about the location of the traffic circle in relation to the pond. Mr. Barry asked about the caliper and size of trees at the time of planting and what the neighborhood can be expected to look at next year. It was noted it will be a variety of sizes and heights, as shown on the plan. Mr. Markey stated the goal is not to cover the buildings entirely, but rather to try to get a balance between screening for abutters and the ability of the developer to show off the buildings. Russell Ellsworth, 6 Curtis Rd., asked about access to the site during construction and requirements in terms of pavement finish. Ms. Grady stated access will be off East Main St. along the new Legacy Farms Road South, and there will be at least a base coat on the road when the construction vehicles are driving over it. Mr. Zieff stated they intend to advance Legacy Farms Road South all in one shot to create a connection from East Main St. to Clinton St. He noted some contractors may come in from Clinton St., but the majority will come from East Main St., and he is hoping to install some boulders to block the end of Curtis Rd. Mr. Copeland addressed trash disposal. He stated one compactor on site is preferred because multiple dumpsters will result in multiple problems. He noted the compactor will be small, there will be signage, and the complex will be patrolled for trash regularly. He noted if the compactor is too far away people will take the trash over in the trunk of a car. Mr. Markey stated he likes the location and agrees there should be as few of these as possible. Mr. Weismantel asked if a recycling facility is included, and Ms. Grady replied yes. 7 Mr. Knowles asked if there has been any more discussion about trails since the previous meeting. Ms. Grady stated right now the trail follows the existing cart path but the plan is to leave it up to the users, because if it is put on the plan now it might end up in the wrong spot. Mr. Knowles stated he just does not want it to be forgotten. Mr. Zieff stated there is a lot going on at the site with restricted lands and such, but Legacy Farms continues to be committed to bringing the trails on line. Mr. Weismantel referred to Conservation Commission member Frank D’Urso’s suggestion at the previous meeting to “shrink” the development in order to keep all buildings out of the 100 ft. buffer zone. He noted the suggestion did not seem to get much traction with the Commission, and asked if the Board is comfortable with the siting of the buildings. He stated he is satisfied if the worst case scenario shows just one corner of a building located 70 ft. from the buffer zone line. Ms. Grady stated they will be following up with the Commission, and Mr. Markey stated their opinion was not clear and they did not vote on it. Mr. Weismantel stated it seems the majority of the Planning Board is ok with the layout. Mr. Abdella explained the mechanical attributes of the proposed light fixtures with light panels that direct the light directly to the asphalt. He noted LED provides energy savings and works very efficiently with a uniform pattern eliminating hot spots. He noted the luminous center is at 16 ft., on a 14 ft. tall pole. Ms. Wright stated the drawings show the center at 18 ft., and Mr. Derdarian stated they will be correcting that. Mr. Abdella stated the gas lamp feature in the center of the fixture is strictly ornamental and will not give off any light. The reasons for selecting LED lights were explained, listing distribution efficiency and a 15 year life span. Mr. Abdella also pointed out the difference in wattage, 65W for LED as opposed to 190W for traditional lighting for the same illumination. Ms. Wright stated she understands the advantages of technology and energy efficiency from the lighting expert’s standpoint, but she is still concerned about the piercing color quality associated with LED, and Legacy Farms, for the sake of consistency, will want to do the same thing throughout the development. She noted this particular light source is 16 ft. in the air and she is worried that people will be able to look up and see the light source. Mr. Abdella stated nothing will ever be completely shielded. Ms. Wright stated it would be good if the Board can see the actual fixtures in operation, and this has been done in the past. Mr. Abdella stated LED technology has improved a lot. Ms. Wright referred to the lighting plans and stated the numbers are hard to read but appear to show 1.4 fc levels. She noted in non-residential/commercial settings a 0.5 fc level can achieve adequate lighting and with 54 poles proposed in a residential setting she is very concerned about the impact on the apartment residents as well as the adjacent neighborhood because with 16-18 ft. light poles it will be very bright. Mr. Weismantel asked Mr. Abdella about the standards applicable to this type of development. Mr. Abdella stated the lighting plans have been designed based on the recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES), and there is a lot of documentation on required fc levels in a variety of applications. Mr. Markey stated lighting levels should be as low as needed for security and safety, and to him the plan meets the requirements. Ms. Wright referred to the Design Guidelines regarding glare and the Town’s experience with the lights on the Common where even after knocking down the levels residents can still see the light coming out of the side of the glass. She noted there are other fixtures which provide softer lighting, without glass sides. 8 Ms. O’Leary asked when the lights will be on. Mr. Abdella stated the lights can be programmed by a timer or a photo cell, and there is also ability to program the lights to dim at a certain time, but typically lights will be on from 5:00 A.M. to 12:00 midnight at most during the winter. Mr. Weismantel asked what Mr. Copeland’s policy is, and Mr. Copeland stated they usually use a photo cell or timer. Mr. Copeland noted it is a liability issue and it is very comforting to be IES compliant. Mr. Weismantel how much light one will see on Curtis Rd., 500 ft. away, using 60W LED fixtures, and Mr. Abdella stated depending on elevation, it would be less than with traditional lights. Mr. Markey asked if the Board wants to see a demonstration, and Mr. Weismantel noted he is comfortable with the design which is in compliance with IES standards. Ms. DeVeuve stated she is curious and would like to see the actual lights. Mr. Coutinho stated he does not want to hold the applicant up. Mr. Abdella noted he does not mind, but the fixtures are built to order so there is an issue of timing. Mr. Derdarian stated as discussed at the last meeting, a pedestrian connection from Building 3 to the clubhouse is feasible although a little steep. He stated they can provide a couple of bike racks near individual buildings and one at the clubhouse, situated on a 6 ft. x 6 ft. crushed stone pad underneath. Ms. DeVeuve asked how many bikes can be stored in the garage bays, and Ms. Grady replied 10 to 12. In response to a question of Mr. Weismantel, Mr. Copeland stated there won’t be too many bicycles in the complex and 2 spaces in each garage building will have hanging racks. Ms. Grady stated they will reduce the number of hanging racks if there are outside racks. Mr. Markey stated the bike rack proposal sounds good and might create a mood. Mr. Weismantel stated if it turns out there is a need, then more can be added. Ms. Wright referred to her previously expressed concerns about lack of storage space for personal items so it is important to have space for storing bikes. Mr. Copeland stated that when downsizing, most people don’t bring more than what they can fit in their apartment and storage facilities for 40 bikes should be enough. Mr. Weismantel stated he does not see information in the plan about improvement, mitigation, restoration and stewardship with respect to the Restricted Land. Ms. Grady stated they submitted an exhibit plan as an attachment to a letter dated 3/18/11 to the Board showing projected Restricted Land location and type. Mr. Weismantel stated he is looking for a document, probably in the form of a plan, to be attached to the Decision, so that at the end of the process an engineer inspecting the development will be able to determine whether it was done the right way. Mr. Zieff stated the MPSP references a couple of plans for restoration of Restricted Land, but it appears Mr. Weismantel is looking for more detail. Ms. Grady stated they can make it more specific. Mr. Weismantel stated part of the answer could be to leave the land as it is. Mr. Coolidge stated stewardship also comes along with this, and Mr. Zieff agreed. Ms. Pratt stated a Conservation Restriction is needed here, and Mr. Coolidge noted there will be a CR ultimately, once the land is turned over to the Open Space Preservation Commission. Mr. Weismantel asked which categories of the 5 Restricted Land types apply here, and Mr. Coolidge stated it should be restored and natural lands. Ms. Lazarus asked about including charging stations for electric vehicles using one of the parking spaces. She noted the stations are mentioned in the Design Guidelines with respect to office buildings, and it would be beneficial to include them here as well. Ms. Grady stated they will look into it. 9 Mr. Zieff stated that Fay, Spofford & Thorndike (FST) required more information regarding traffic and a memo is being prepared. He noted there were traffic counters out over the last week and it turns out the level of background traffic growth is falling short of what was assumed when Legacy Farms was first proposed in 2007. Mr. Weismantel stated that is because not everybody is working, and Ms. DeVeuve stated there is also less development in Ashland than anticipated. Mr. Markey stated the hearing will have to be continued to April 25 so that the consultants can continue with their work. Mr. Zieff stated pretty much everything on the site plan has been addressed other than a few technical issues. Ms. Grady stated they addressed elevations, added more trees and will look at the use of color to minimize the gable roof line. Mr. Zieff asked Ms. Grady to talk about the affordable housing component, and Ms. Grady referred to Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward stated he talked to Town Counsel who has reviewed the Local Action Unit (LAU) documents, but has not submitted comments yet. Mr. Ward referred to Mr. Weismantel’s previous comments on the benefits of phasing the development with respect to the subsidized housing inventory, and stated that it is probably not appropriate to address this is in the documents, but maybe something can be worked out. Ms. Pratt asked if there can be a local preference for the units, and Ms. Grady stated the Town has to prove to the State that there is a need and they would just design the lottery around that. Mr. Weismantel moved to continue the public hearing to April 25, 2011 at 9:00 PM. Mr. Knowles asked if there are updated plans, and Mr. Markey stated the applicant is going to make additional changes. The motion was seconded, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Documents: • Site Plans – Southwest Village at Legacy Farms • Wood Partners/Cube 3 Studio – PowerPoint Presentation – Southwest Village at Legacy Farms Other Documents Used at the Meeting: • Planning Board Agenda • Memorandum from Elaine Lazarus to Planning Board, 4/7/2011 Adjourned: 9:00 PM Submitted by: Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant Approved: June 6, 2011