HomeMy Public PortalAbout20111017 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes1
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
Monday, October 17, 2011 7:30 P.M.
Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton, MA
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ken Weismantel, Chairman, John Coutinho, Vice Chairman, Brian
Karp, Christian Ollenborger, Carol DeVeuve, Deb Thomas, Dick MacDonald, Mark Abate,
Claire Wright
Present: Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting
Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
Mark Cabral, Student Intern
1. Bridle Path Subdivision – Performance Guarantee & Request for Lot Releases
Michael Casasanta, developer, appeared before the Board. Mr. Weismantel stated the Board
received recommendations from Fay, Spofford & Thorndike (FST), its engineering consultant,
regarding the performance guarantee amount proposed by the developer. It was noted FST’s unit
prices are different from those listed by the developer and they also include a few additional
items, so the total is higher. Ms. Thomas questioned the significant difference between the two
estimates. Ms. Lazarus stated the Town has to pay the prevailing wage and the developer does
not. Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Casasanta was surprised by the increase, and Mr. Casasanta stated
he can do the work for a lot less because they are doing the work themselves, but understands the
reason behind the Town’s estimate.
Mr. Abate moved to set the performance guarantee amount at $113,358.00, Ms. Thomas
seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Abate moved to release
lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 from the Conditional Approval Agreement upon receipt of the
performance bond, Ms. Thomas seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
It was noted that building permits can be obtained by the developer after the release form is
recorded in the Registry of Deeds. Mr. Casasanta indicated he will have the bond ready for
submittal in a couple of days.
Document:
• Form K for Lots 1 through 6
2. Approval-Not-Required Plan – 37 Fruit St. – Hopkins
The applicant did not attend the meeting. The Board reviewed the application. Ms. Lazarus
noted that the owner is combining two lots into one. Mr. Abate moved to endorse the plan as not
requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, Ms. DeVeuve seconded the motion, and
the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Documents:
• Form A application form
2
• Plan entitled “Plan of Land in Hopkinton, MA, Owner James A. and Krispen L. Hopkins, Prepared
for: Chris Hopkins Twin Pines Landscaping, dated October 4, 2011 prepared by Guerard Survey Co.
& Assoc. Inc.
3. Other Business
a. Minutes: The Board reviewed the draft Minutes of September 26, 2011. Ms. DeVeuve
moved to approve the Minutes as written, Ms. Thomas seconded the motion, and the Board
voted unanimously in favor of the motion.
Document:
• Draft Minutes of September 26, 2011
b. Liaison Reports:
• Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC) - Mr. Coutinho stated there is a ZAC meeting on
October 18, 2011. Mr. Weismantel encouraged anyone who is interested to attend as it is the
first meeting of the group to establish a work program for this year’s session. He noted the
meeting will be held in Room 211 at Town Hall starting at 7:00 P.M.
• Community Preservation Committee (CPC) – Mr. Weismantel stated he attended the CPC
meeting on October 13, 2011, which included the first public hearing regarding CPC
spending proposals for the next Annual Town Meeting. He noted no formal requests have
been submitted yet, but the following potential proposals were discussed by the Committee:
1) Center School window replacement, 2) purchase of land on Hayden Rowe St. (Open Space
Preservation Commission), 3) funds for Town Hall masonry repair, 4) new bath house at
Sandy Beach (Parks & Recreation Commission), and 5) requests for money from the Town
Clerk and Assessor’s Office for historic records preservation.
• Downtown Initiative Steering Committee (DISC) – Mr. Weismantel noted the DISC met a
couple of weeks ago and approved a proposed downtown design plan. He noted they are
looking for the Bd. of Selectmen to start negotiations with the owner at the corner of Wood
St. and West Main St. to possibly sell that property to the Town in connection with proposed
improvements to that intersection. He stated there was a lot of discussion at the end of the
meeting as to whether or not to straighten out the Cedar St./Main St./Grove St. intersection,
and the Committee voted against it at this point, but they may revisit this in the future. He
noted the Committee will have 2 public meetings in November to get input from residents.
He suggested Planning Board members attend the meetings.
• Ms. Wright referred to the CPC liaison report. She stated the Center School is in the Historic
District and the proponents need to bring some evidence that their proposal was discussed
with the Historic District Commission. Mr. Weismantel stated the proponents are aware of
this, and they should also talk to the Historical Commission. He noted this will be a project
in the $850,000 order of magnitude and the CPC does not have that kind of money in the
historic “bucket” so they also have to go to the Town for funding. He noted this amount
includes all windows and the Historical Commission would probably be more interested in
preservation of the 1920’s section of the building. Ms. Wright stated she just does not want
to put the cart before the horse and the proponents should discuss the proposal with the entity
that has oversight on that type of things.
4. Continued Public Hearing – Reservoir View – Open Space and Landscape Preservation
Development Concept Plan/Special Permit Application – Christopher P. Olson
3
Mr. Weismantel stated the Board has received a request from the applicant for continuation of
the public hearing. Mr. Karp moved to continue the public hearing to November 7, 2011 at 7:45
P.M. at the request of the applicant, Mr. Ollenborger seconded the motion, and the Board voted
unanimously in favor. The applicant did not attend the meeting.
Document:
• Request for continuance - letter from Daniel J. Vieira, Vieira & DiGianfilippo Ltd., to Ken
Weismantel, Chairman, Hopkinton Planning Board, received 10/17/2011 Re: Reservoir View – Open
Space Plan.
5. Hayden Place – Comprehensive Permit Application (Rick Barbieri)
Rick Barbieri, proponent, Edith Netter, attorney, and Joseph Marquedant, J.D. Marquedant &
Assoc., Inc., surveyor, appeared before the Board.
Mr. Weismantel stated the Hayden Place Comprehensive Permit application is scheduled for a
public hearing before the Bd. of Appeals on October 26, 2011, and the Bd. of Appeals is asking
for comments from other boards and departments, including the Planning Board.
Ms. Netter stated she is a land use attorney, works for communities and developers as well as a
mediator to resolve problems, and co-authored the new 2008 Ch. 40B guidelines. She stated the
team approach is to work cooperatively with communities on this type of application to the
extent they can, but the project has to be marketable and bankable. She stated they will work
with communities as much as possible and appreciate the comments submitted to MassHousing
on the Hayden Place project listing both positive points and things the Town did not like, so it
appears the Board understands how Ch. 40B works.
Ms. Netter provided a brief explanation of Ch. 40B. She stated Ch. 40B is basically one-stop
shopping for developers and the Bd. of Appeals is the szar/szarina of the process in that they are
the entity issuing or denying the Comprehensive Permit. She noted other Boards are not
excluded from the process, and the Bd. of Appeals will take their comments into consideration.
She stated the larger framework for the process is regulated under state law. She stated the
developer is aware of local bylaws and will try to comply as much as possible, but to make the
project work it is sometimes necessary to receive waivers. She noted a denial is hard to appeal
and if it concerns critical local regulations the Town has to explain to the developer and the
Court that these are more important than the creation of affordable housing. She stated the
Board has to look at the plan and see if it can live with it, but it is a negotiation process so the
comments should be properly articulated for the developer to be able to respond.
Ms. Netter stated the Hayden Place project will be located at 112 Hayden Rowe St. across from
EMC Park. She stated the parcel is about 6 acres in area and 15 homes are proposed, 4 of which
will be affordable to households with moderate income earning less than 80% of the median area
income, such as teachers, nurses, etc. She noted that the program is not designed for the very
poor. She stated there is an existing home dating back to 1863 and Mr. Barbieri is rehabbing it
but the barn will be demolished. She noted the homes are meant to be small colonial style starter
homes, averaging 1,686 sq. ft. in size on approximately 6,600 sq. ft. lots with 3 bedrooms and 2
parking spaces (1 in the garage, 1 in the driveway). She noted the project is clustered to preserve
a parcel for open space because the Town wants to connect to a trail in the back and there are
wetlands in the rear as well.
4
Mr. Marquedant stated the proposed road right of way is 570 ft. long with a turnaround at the end
on very gently sloping ground, with lots at least 6,607 sq. ft. in size. He stated they are planning
on municipal water and sewer, and have designed a traditional drainage system with catch basins
and manholes, flowing into a detention area that would drain to the wetlands in the rear.
Mr. Weismantel referred to municipal water and sewer connections, and asked if they are
running the sewer line in the center of the road, and Mr. Marquedant stated yes. Mr. Weismantel
asked about the location of a hydrant, and Mr. Marquedant stated it will be in the cul-de-sac area.
In response to a question of Mr. Weismantel, Mr. Marquedant stated there will be a single lift
station.
Mr. Abate stated although he applauds the proposed style of the homes, he feels 15 homes on
less than 6 acres is extremely dense and not consistent with the existing neighborhood. He stated
he has a question for Ms. Lazarus regarding the discussion about “local needs”. He stated it
seems to be an ambiguous term and asked if the Town is the judge or whether it is legislated.
Ms. Lazarus stated the term is defined in the regulations to mean that if the Town has less than
10% affordable housing, it is assumed there is a “local need”. Ms. Thomas stated the Town has
less than 10%. Ms. Wright stated she has heard that the Town has difficulty finding eligible
local residents for the existing units. She noted she understands the law and the 10%
requirement that hangs over the Town’s head, but apparently there are some communities that
don’t have the demand for affordable housing even though they officially don’t meet the
threshold. Ms. Lazarus stated that the demand for existing units seems to depend on the type of
units and some sell, some don’t.
Ms. Netter stated she does not know the specific situation in Hopkinton, but there are a couple of
issues, and age restricted units are the main problem. Ms. Wright referred to the MassHousing
letter dated September 6, page 3, item 4, and Ms. Lazarus stated the Town has lost some
affordable units over time because buyers could not be found. Mr. Barbieri stated his proposal is
for stand-alone units, and Ms. Wright stated she has been saying all along that people want small
single family homes but she questions the numbers. Ms. DeVeuve stated the Board looked at
and commented on this proposal a couple of months ago, and the layout has not changed. Ms.
Wright asked about the distance between homes, and it was noted the average distance would be
about 20 ft. She asked about the setback from the sidewalk and it was determined it is 20 ft. Ms.
Wright stated she is concerned about the density which is much higher compared to the rest of
the neighborhood, and she is particularly concerned about the unit closest to Hayden Rowe St.
She noted Hayden Rowe St. is a very busy street and this unit is almost on the street. Mr.
Barbieri stated it is further back than the original home.
Mr. Abate stated he has always struggled with the Ch. 40B law and its impact on local aid if not
followed, but he does not feel compelled to recommend waiving local requirements in this case
as it is not in the Town’s interest. Mr. Coutinho stated under existing zoning they would be able
to fit 4 conventional lots, perhaps 6, but to make it financially viable the proponents have to
increase the density. He noted 4 homes out of the 15 will end up being affordable and as stated
by Ms. Wright, they really squeezed in the house at the end. Mr. Weismantel stated he agrees,
and the density is way too high. He noted as a Planning Board they would only approve a lower
5
number of units, but even for a Ch. 40B it is extremely dense and the house on the north side of
the cul-de-sac is literally on the neighbor’s stone wall. Mr. Coutinho stated he is also concerned
about house #14 which is only 5 ft. away from the wall. Mr. Weismantel suggested they could
reduce the number of curb cuts and the impact on the streetscape by moving the house to face
Hayden Rowe St. with its driveway off Hayden Place.
Ms. Netter stated they are going before the Bd. of Appeals and after that they will have to go
back to the State for final approval, assuming the Board grants the comprehensive permit. In
response to a question of Mr. Ollenborger, Ms. Netter stated the process is not as fast and simple
as it used to be when the law was originally established in 1969, and they still have to comply
with State requirements like the Wetlands Protection Act. She stated the government is out of
the housing market except for the very low income brackets, and the system works by cross
subsidies between market rate and affordable units which requires higher density developments.
Ms. DeVeuve asked about the estimated price for the market rate homes. Mr. Barbieri stated
they would be priced at $430,000-$460,000, and Mr. Karp questioned the estimate given the size
and type of home as compared to other homes for sale in Hopkinton. Mr. Weismantel asked
about the possibility of changing some from 3-bedroom to 2-bedroom units to reduce the impact
on the Town’s school system. He asked about privilege and connection fees for water and sewer
hookup, and Ms. Netter stated they have not discussed this yet. Mr. Weismantel noted as a
paying Hopkinton water and sewer user he expects the new users to pay like everyone else.
Paul DiBona, 110 Hayden Rowe St., stated he lives next door to the proposed development and
the new homes will be only a few feet away from his stone wall. He noted he is concerned about
the density, traffic, and impact on the existing neighborhood and the Hopkinton school system.
He noted they have terrible water pressure and he is concerned about traffic safety because of the
proposed location directly across EMC Park. He noted it is already hard to get out of the
driveway at peak traffic hours and he is concerned Hayden Rowe St. will be the next West Main
St. He questioned the stated price of market rate units. He stated he is concerned about the
closeness of the individual homes to each other and it appears the distances are less than
indicated in the application paperwork. He noted he feels the developer should pay for
connection fees for water and sewer. He noted he is concerned about the proposed development
with respect to safety and emergency vehicle access and the Fire Chief brought up concerns
about the turning radius. He referred to the developer’s offer to give some of the backland to the
Town for recreation purposes and noted this land is very wet. He noted this area of Town in
general is very wet, and before sewer was installed in the late 1980’s and before he owned the lot
next door he had to spend a lot of money to put in a new septic system due to the soil conditions.
He stated he is not sure if the realtor’s selling price estimate is realistic. He noted the lots are
extremely small and asked what will happen if someone wants to put in a shed or a swingset. He
asked what would happen if someone received approval from the Town to have a landscaping
business and ends up having to store the equipment outside degrading the appearance of the
neighborhood. He stated he feels a development like Hayden Place does not belong on Hayden
Rowe St. based on the proposed density but understands they are up against Ch. 40B. He noted
there are still affordable units available in Stagecoach Heights, Sanctuary Lane, and there will be
more in the recently approved Legacy Farms apartment development. He stated he would like to
see more information on the effect on the school system because 2 or 3 bedroom homes will
bring in families with children posing a burden on the already taxed school system.
6
Jeff Doherty, 3 Angel’s Way, stated he lives in a neighborhood with two Ch. 40B developments.
He noted the first development was in 1987, the next one came on line in 2004 and he thought
both of these were dense but they are nothing compared to what is proposed here. He noted as a
nursery business owner he feels that it would be difficult to make deliveries or provide services
in a development like this with only 14 ft. of clearance on either side of the homes, assuming no
landscaping. In response to a question, Ms. Lazarus stated a 40 ft. wide right of way is not
unusual.
Mr. Abate stated he agrees with the comments made, but the Board should just recommend that
the Bd. of Appeals not grant the requested waivers for this particular plan. He noted they are
doing too much fine tuning here and he does not hear anybody in favor of the project, Planning
Board members or abutters. Ms. Lazarus stated with a comprehensive permit application saying
“no” is not an option like with some other proposals. She noted she is wondering what the Board
would like to see changed in case the project stays at the proposed density, and asked if the
Board has some suggestions for improvement, such as screening or landscaping elements to
offset the impact. Ms. Wright stated the road layout is very boring and unimaginative, but she
realizes that otherwise there would not be enough room to work with. Ms. Thomas as if they
need 15 homes to make it financially feasible, and Mr. Barbieri stated this is the number he is
looking for.
Ms. Netter stated it depends on how the process works in general, but it might be better if there is
a cooperative process because time is money in this market. She noted Ms. Lazarus is absolutely
correct in saying that no one will listen if the Town just says the project is too dense, and now is
the time to express concerns and make suggestions. Ms. DeVeuve stated as noted by Ms.
Lazarus, the project needs adequate screening from abutting properties and the Board asks that of
everybody. Mr. Coutinho stated the only way to achieve a better project would be to reduce
density. He noted the tight layout might make it difficult for people to back out of the driveway,
especially with a trailer. He noted the main entrance is at the same offset as the one they are
trying to correct at the Main St./Grove St. intersection, and with EMC Park it would create a
dangerous situation at best. Mr. Marquedant stated the 9 ft. property lot line setback mentioned
earlier is the worst case and Mr. Doherty should be able to make deliveries and service calls
without problems.
Mr. DiBona referred to the Town’s Master Plan and the need for sidewalks and asked how this
project relates to the green energy provision. He asked how the back area of the site can be
conductive to connecting the bike path and noted that with Legacy Farms for instance they found
it very hard to get a connection to the train station. He asked about mail delivery and stated
Hayden Rowe St. residents regularly lose their mailboxes to the plows. He asked about
municipal trash pickup and referred to the Sanctuary Lane residents who do not have municipal
trash/recycling pickup and have to travel all the way to the Hopkinton recycling center to
recycle. Mr. Weismantel stated Sanctuary Lane does not have municipal trash pickup because it
is a condominium project, but he assumes the new Hayden Place street will be eventually
accepted as a public way by the Town and will receive services. He asked about sidewalks, and
Mr. Marquedant stated there will be a sidewalk on the south side. Mr. Weismantel stated the
bike path does not come out on Hayden Rowe St., but there is a desire from the Town’s
7
standpoint to get it all the way down to Milford. Ms. Wright asked about landscaping and tree
plantings, and Mr. Barbieri stated the plan shows a buffer from abutting properties, although
there is some existing vegetation there. Mr. Marquedant noted they anticipate augmenting the
existing vegetation on both sides of the tree line for a little distance in, but beyond that it is much
trickier. The Board discussed the landscaping issue in more detail. Ms. Wright asked about
street trees, and Mr. Barbieri stated there will be none. Mr. Coutinho stated the Board told a
developer a little while ago to reduce the number of lots on a 35-acre parcel from 3 to 2, and it is
amazing to then get a proposal for 15 lots on such a small parcel. Mr. Karp suggested moving
the location of the road to line up with the EMC Park entrance and installing a light at the
intersection to improve safety, and Mr. Weismantel stated improving the alignment would make
it a lot better.
Mr. DiBona stated Hayden Rowe St. has changed a lot since he moved there in 1978, and will
become even busier because of the Water Fresh Farm stand which is currently under
construction, and additional activities planned by the Cultural Arts Alliance. He noted this will
add to the school traffic with associated parking problems and damage to sidewalks.
The Board discussed the content of a motion with respect to recommendations to be submitted to
the Bd. of Appeals. Ms. Lazarus stated the regulatory environment makes it difficult to say no
and sometimes it is better to say yes with appropriate conditions. Mr. Coutinho asked if this
situation is similar to the power plant proposal in Bellingham, and it is not. Ms. Netter stated she
is just explaining the legal framework and pointed out that in case of denial the burden of
justification is on the Town, and the Town is better off indicating what it would like to see by
issuing an approval with conditions.
Mr. Doherty asked if Hopkinton ever challenged a Ch. 40B comprehensive permit application,
and Ms. Lazarus stated yes, at least twice unsuccessfully and both projects currently exist.
Mr. Abate stated he suggests limiting the project to 4 house lots as opposed to 15. Ms. Lazarus
stated Hopkinton has sections with equally high density housing, such as around Lake
Maspenock, and people live there happily and it is just a different neighborhood setting. Ms.
DeVeuve stated those areas are more reasonably priced. Ms. Lazarus stated the price of the
market rate homes is driven by the market, and Ms. DeVeuve stated if the Town allows the
development it should be something that is maintainable and marketable. Mr. Abate stated the
Lake lots were established before zoning was adopted.
The Board discussed possible recommendations to achieve a better project. Mr. Coutinho stated
he would like to see density reduced and the road lined up with the EMC Park entrance, and Mr.
Abate suggested curving the road to give it some character. Mr. Barbieri stated moving the road
would have implications and make other abutters unhappy. Mr. Weismantel summarized a
possible motion, indicating that the Board feels density is inappropriate and extremely high
compared to the rest of the neighborhood, that a reduction to 8 lots would be better, that any
house on Hayden Rowe St. should be oriented in that direction, the applicant should consider
including 2 bedroom units in the mix, install adequate screening, and possibly align the new
roadway with the entrance to EMC Park. Ms. DeVeuve suggested requiring street plantings, and
Mr. Weismantel agreed these should be included. Mr. Ollenborger moved to submit the
8
Planning Board comments on Hayden Place to the Bd. of Appeals as discussed by the Board, Mr.
Coutinho seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
The applicant and his representatives thanked the Board for its time.
Document:
• “Hayden Place” Comprehensive Permit application submitted by Edith M. Netter & Associates o/b/o
Richard Barbieri, dated 9/26/11
6. Master Plan Update
The Board reviewed the proposed changes to the Land Use section of the 2007 Master Plan. Mr.
Weismantel suggested reviewing the wording page by page. Mr. Weismantel asked about the
change in the amount of Ch. 61 land, and Ms. Lazarus noted it is the result of the removal of
most of Weston Nurseries from the Ch. 61A program since 2007. Mr. Weismantel asked about
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts land area change, and Ms. Lazarus stated the difference is
due to how water bodies were counted (or not) before.
In response to a question of Ms. DeVeuve, Ms. Lazarus stated referencing zones 1, 2, 3 would be
more accurate in the Zoning section on page 7. Reference was made to the population buildout
number, and Ms. Lazarus noted the study and the projection date back to 2000 but it could still
be the number the Town will end up with. Ms. DeVeuve stated there was not a lot of population
growth in the last 10 years. Mr. Weismantel referred to the Issues and Opportunities section on
page 11, and Ms. DeVeuve proposed using a reference to Legacy Farms/Weston Nurseries.
Ms. Thomas asked about the 240 affordable apartment units at Legacy Farms and asked if Mr.
Barbieri would be before the Board if those units were included in the inventory, and Mr.
Weismantel stated it would have had an impact as it shows the Town is making progress on this
issue. Mr. Weismantel referred to the Goals section and noted they should make sure they are all
in agreement. The Board reviewed the Goals. Ms. Wright referred to Goal #1, and stated every
time they get a proposal for development, the Town cannot really say no. She stated it looks
pretty good on paper, but this goal is not realistic. Mr. Weismantel stated the Town still has the
Subdivision Phasing bylaw which limits the amount of building permits per year per subdivision.
Ms. Lazarus stated the use of host community agreements is also an option to manage the rate
and impacts of growth. Reference was made to Goal #2 - Critical Resources, and the Board felt
it sounds good. Mr. Abate moved to accept the changes as amended, the motion was seconded,
and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Weismantel asked about the color map included
in the documentation, and Ms. Lazarus stated it is a Mass GIS data map prepared by Mark
Cabral, the Board’s student intern. It was noted the natural resources section would be up for
review next, possibly at the next meeting.
Documents:
• Land Use Section of 2007 Master Plan with proposed changes & separate sheet to provide info left
blank in Planning Board memorandum.
• Overview Map of Hopkinton
9
Other Documents used at the Meeting:
• Agenda for October 17, 2011 dated 10/12/2011 revised through 10/13/2011
• Memorandum to Planning Board from Elaine Lazarus, dated 10/13/2011
Adjourned: 9:10 P.M.
Submitted by Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
APPROVED: November 7, 2011