Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20111205 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes 1 HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD Monday, December 5, 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, Dick MacDonald, Mark Abate, Deb Thomas, Claire Wright MEMBERS ABSENT: Carol DeVeuve Present: Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant Mr. Weismantel opened the meeting and summarized the agenda. 1. Drowne Family Subdivision – Request for Performance Guarantee Release Mr. Weismantel stated the Board reviewed the status of the Drowne Family Subdivision at the last meeting and at that time voted to reduce the performance guarantee amount to $1,500.00. He noted Ms. Lazarus has indicated that the last remaining item has now been completed and the project is done. Mr. Ollenborger moved to release the performance guarantee held by the Town for this subdivision, Mr. Coutinho seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 2. Approval-Not-Required Plan - 3 Commonwealth Ave. – McElhaney David Marquedant, J.D. Marquedant & Assoc., Inc., surveyor, appeared before the Board. Mr. Marquedant explained the plan which would create an additional building lot on Commonwealth Ave. He noted both lots have enough area and frontage and fit the required zoning block. Mr. Abate moved to endorse the plan as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, Mr. Coutinho seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Documents: • Application Form A & plan entitled Compiled Plan of Land in Hopkinton Massachusetts prepared for Terese Danahy McElhaney by J.D. Marquedant & Assoc., Inc., dated Nov. 14, 2011 3. Minutes The Board reviewed the draft minutes of November 21, 2011. Mr. Abate moved to approve the Minutes of November 21, 2011 as written, Mr. Ollenborger seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Document: Draft Minutes for November 21, 2011 4. 112 Hayden Rowe St. – Rick Barbieri Rick Barbieri, developer, Joe Marquedant, J.D. Marquedant & Assoc., Inc., surveyor, and Edith Netter, attorney, appeared before the Board. Mr. Weismantel stated this is an informal discussion of a conceptual subdivision plan for the property. He stated he recently attended a site walk in connection with the “Hayden Place” comprehensive permit application for this 2 property which is currently under review by the Board of Appeals (BOA), and was told by one of the neighbors that the developer might be interested in doing something else. Mr. Karp arrived at this time. Mr. Weismantel stated he then followed up by discussing the issue with Mr. Barbieri. Mr. Barbieri presented a conceptual subdivision plan for 112 Hayden Rowe St. and noted it is a revision of the plan delivered to the Board last week and included in the meeting packet. Mr. Marquedant described the layout which would create a paper street with two lots in compliance with frontage, area and zoning “box’ requirements for the district, while leaving the large parcel in the back undeveloped. Mr. Barbieri stated access to the back lot will be via a sliver of land from Hayden Rowe St. across from EMC Park. He stated the revised plan would be better for the Town. Ms. Wright asked whether this would provide access to the open space without going over someone’s property, and Mr. Barbieri stated yes. Ms. Netter stated the applicant is interested in changing direction with respect to development plans for the property, but he would like to see first what the Planning Board thinks about it. Mr. Weismantel asked if there will be enough space for septic systems if a sewer connection is not possible, and Mr. Marquedant stated yes. Ms. Wright stated the Board was uncomfortable with the proposed density of the Chapter 40B project, and this is much better. Ms. Thomas agreed. Mr. Abate stated he likes the plan although the main issue is a cul-de-sac in a conventional subdivision. Mr. Weismantel stated Mr. Barbieri will be asking for waivers and it will be a paper street or driveway and Hopkinton has plenty of those. Mr. Karp stated the plan looks great and he is very pleased to see it as an alternative to the comprehensive permit plan. Mr. Coutinho stated the shape of the lots is acceptable and he has seen worse. Mr. MacDonald stated he likes this alternative better. Mr. Ollenborger stated he appreciates the potential change of plans. Mr. Barbieri stated the lot with the existing historic house conforms to zoning requirements, but a better layout could be achieved if the lot could be smaller. Mr. Coutinho asked if Mr. Barbieri is referring to the new Lots with Historic Structures bylaw adopted earlier this year. Ms. Wright stated she thought this bylaw would only be applicable if the historic structure is in danger of destruction. Ms. Lazarus stated the bylaw does not contain that requirement. Ms. Wright asked if the decision is up to the Planning Board, and Ms. Lazarus stated yes, but the Historical Commission first has to determine that the house in question fits the definition of a Historic Structure. Ms. Wright stated it appears that the plan layout for this site would be more logical if the lot with the historic home would be allowed to be smaller. Ms. Lazarus stated the Board could hold hearings simultaneously on the subdivision and Historic Structure special permit applications. Paul DiBona, 108 Hayden Rowe St., stated he is a direct abutter and in favor of the new plan which looks like a win-win situation for everyone. Mr. Weismantel stated the plan will provide access to a trail and perhaps the schools in the back, the backbone of the Town’s major recreation facilities. In response to a question of Mr. Weismantel, Ms. Lazarus stated the plan if approved would create a subdivision road requiring waivers of the Subdivision Rules & Regulations and could remain private. Mr. Marquedant stated the applicant will provide the list of waiver requests. Ms. Lazarus stated even though the new road might look like a driveway, it 3 would probably need a name as there probably aren’t enough Hayden Rowe St. addresses available between the two abutters. Mr. Barbieri asked how he would go about getting street name approval, and Ms. Lazarus stated the Board of Selectmen approves street names and has a list of historical names to use if desired. Mr. Weismantel stated it is his understanding that if this goes forward the proponent plans to withdraw the Chapter 40B comprehensive permit application, and Ms. Netter stated Mr. Barbieri will do so if he gets all Planning Board approvals. Ms. Wright stated regardless of the legal status of the new private road, it should be clear to the public that the adjacent narrow strip of land is for public access to open space, perhaps by installation of a trail sign, so that people don’t feel as if they are trespassing on private property. Mr. Barbieri stated he is willing to install a sign. Mr. Weismantel stated realization of the trail is still a long way off because of land acquisition and wetlands issues. Mr. Barbieri submitted a copy of the revised plan for the record. Documents: • Plan entitled Concept Plan of Land Hopkinton Massachusetts, 112 Hayden Rowe Street, Hopkinton, MA prepared by J.D. Marquedant & Associates, Inc. dated Nov. 18, 2011, received Nov. 21, 2011 • Plan entitled Concept Plan of Land Hopkinton Massachusetts, 112 Hayden Rowe Street, Hopkinton, MA prepared by J.D. Marquedant & Associates, Inc. dated Nov. 18, 2011, received Dec. 5, 2011 (revised) 5. Continued Public Hearing – Reservoir View – Open Space and Landscape Preservation Development Special Permit – Christopher P. Olson Mr. Abate moved to continue the Reservoir View OSLPD concept plan special permit hearing until later in the evening upon conclusion of the Laurel Ave. agenda item, with the consent of the applicant. Mr. Karp seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 6. Laurel Avenue Tom Perna, builder, and Tony Haghanizadeh, engineer, appeared before the Board. Mr. Haghanizadeh stated tonight’s discussion concerns a grandfathered lot on a private way, but a special permit from the BOA is required to obtain a building permit for a new home. He noted the BOA at the public hearing advised the applicant to go to the Planning Board to discuss drainage issues. He stated the pavement will be extended for a short distance past the new house and the road will look like a driveway, and because Laurel Ave. does not have a formal drainage system, the applicant proposes to handle the water through a catch basin, a Cultec system and groundwater infiltration. He noted there will be no increase in runoff rate post development and the proposed system is used successfully everywhere. He referred to section 81G of the Subdivision Control Law with respect to opening ways to public use. He stated everyone has the right to improve a road as long as surfacing, grading and drainage are addressed, and he feels all three requirements have been satisfied in this case. He noted the Town Engineer has reviewed the information and feels it will work. He noted they did soil testing and found groundwater at 96 in., which is more than adequate. He stated the design basically works by holding back the flow and reducing runoff, and it will be an improvement. He noted most of the water will percolate into the ground, but there will be an emergency spill pipe in case the system gets plugged up or something like that. In response to a question of Mr. Abate, Mr. Haghanizadeh stated the water will end up being dispersed onto the street and under normal conditions there won’t be anything coming out of the 4 emergency spill pipe. Mr. Haghanizadeh stated the proposed system is efficient and installed underground out of sight. He noted they are trying to get away from detention ponds, which is in line with current Conservation Commission requirements and DEP stormwater policy. Mr. Abate stated the Board is trying to make sure the system is designed for a worst case scenario. Mr. Weismantel asked what area is covered by the calculations and to what extent the Hillcrest Dr. drainage is included. Mr. Haghanizadeh stated the calculations cover Mr. Perna’s lot and a section of Laurel Ave. Mr. Perna described how the water travels from Hillcrest Dr. to a vacant lot behind Laurel Ave. and stated that his plan takes into account all of the water flowing in this area. Mr. Weismantel stated he wants to make sure the catch basin can handle the flow, and Mr. Haghanizadeh stated the system is overdesigned and there should be no problems. Mr. Weismantel asked if the Cultec system will be on the lot itself, and Mr. Haghanizadeh stated yes. Mr. Weismantel stated he understands what the applicant is trying to do, but this is a very steep hill. He asked how they can find depth to groundwater under these conditions, and Mr. Haghanizadeh stated it is done by modeling and studying soil and root conditions. Ms. Wright stated according to the soil report submitted by the applicant a determination was made by looking at root material, and Mr. Haghanizadeh stated they wanted to be on the safe side. Mr. Weismantel stated the water currently goes down Laurel Ave. into the rip rap, disperses and sinks into the vegetation in front of the lot, but with the proposed changes he does not see how the water can be kept out of the neighbor’s yard. Ms. Wright stated the proposal does not conform to the Town’s zoning bylaws which limits access on common driveways to 2 lots. She noted for years this lot was considered unbuildable and nothing has changed to make it better. She stated the neighbor down the hill has expressed concerns, and the applicant told him he can sue him if the proposed solution does not work. She noted under the zoning bylaw the BOA has to find that the proposal will not be significantly detrimental to the neighborhood before a special permit can be granted, and she would like to see some more negotiations with the neighbors to convince them that their concerns are unfounded. Mr. Haghanizadeh stated they are basing their application on Sec. 18G of the Subdivision Control Law, not the common driveway provision of the zoning bylaw, and referred to case law. He noted he would have explained this at the previous meeting but was unable to attend. Mr. Weismantel asked about the ability for cars to turn around at the end of the road. Mr. Haghanizadeh stated right now it is difficult to turn around, but this plan will improve the situation. Ms. Wright asked who will maintain the drainage system, and Mr. Perna stated it will be the future homeowner’s responsibility. Mr. Haghanizadeh stated a Cultec system is similar to a septic design but more elaborate and efficient and will not require a lot of maintenance. Ms. Wright stated it is not the Town’s responsibility to maintain private ways, and if there are problems because the homeowner does not do what is expected from him, there might no other recourse except legal action which can be costly. Mr. Perna stated it is his understanding that the Town currently maintains Laurel Ave., but if needed he will hire someone to clean the catch basin for a minimum of 5 years and even put this in writing. Mr. Haghanizadeh stated perhaps the BOA can address this issue through a conditional approval. He noted condominium associations use that approach and it is enforceable through a cease and desist order. Mr. Weismantel noted if they were starting with a clean slate, the Planning Board would not allow such a steep dead-end street, and he is not convinced the proposed solution will make 5 things better. Mr. MacDonald stated he is not an expert, but it appears the proposed system will offer a possibility to improve the current situation for everyone involved including the people at the bottom of the hill. Mr. Weismantel stated it would be better if the system were to be located in the middle of the road as opposed to putting it in someone’s front yard. Mr. Coutinho stated right now there is no control at all and the applicant is offering an engineered solution. Mr. Abate stated if it fails, conditions will further deteriorate, and it is the Planning Board’s responsibility to plan for the worst case scenario. Mr. Coutinho stated he realizes failure cannot be completely ruled out, but both the applicant and the Town’s engineer feel it will work. Mr. Weismantel stated the possibility of things going wrong goes up significantly when dealing with a slope of more than 10%. Doug Parcher, 49 Downey St., stated the proposed system will be located only 4 ft. from his property line and 7 ft. from the base of his stone wall which could be damaged by hydraulic pressure. He stated he does not agree with Mr. Perna’s statement as to who maintains Laurel Ave., but the rip rap installed by the Town alleviated the problem and slowed the water down considerably but Mr. Perna’s proposal will make things worse. Mr. Perna disagreed and stated his $20,000 Cultec system is guaranteed to stop the flow. Mr. Parcher referred to Mr. Perna’s promise to make sure the system is maintained initially for 5 years and asked what recourse he would have when the system is no longer maintained and problems arise. Mr. Haghanizadeh suggested attaching a maintenance agreement to the deed. Judy Crehan, 47 Downey St., stated that is just a legal document and there is no guarantee it is followed by the homeowner. Mr. Abate stated this never was a buildable lot and the Board should refer the issue back to the BOA. He questioned why the Board is even having this discussion. Ms. Lazarus stated if the BOA grants the special permit, the applicant has to come back to the Planning Board for approval of the plan for improvement of the road, and the BOA is evaluating the impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Weismantel asked about the possibility of putting in a pipe all the way down to Downey St., and Mr. Haghanizadeh stated it is a matter of cost and the Town Engineer has indicated that the proposed solution will work. Ms. Crehan asked about aesthetics. She stated this particular section of her neighborhood is very dense and Mr. Perna’s proposal will wedge in a giant new house, and Mr. Weismantel stated the BOA will look at that aspect of the plan. Ms. Wright stated in general no one doubts the engineer’s expertise, but during the 10 years she has been on the Planning Board she cannot remember an engineer ever saying that his/her plan will not work. She noted hydrology is tricky, and most of the problems from development are caused by water, like in the Hearthstone and White Oak Estates subdivisions for example. She noted the Board has to look at the worst case scenario and in this case it involves an environmentally sensitive (Lake) area and the neighbors are already very concerned. Ms. Parcher stated the topography at 49 Downey St. cannot be compared to that of 91 Downey St., one of the proponent’s other building projects completed without problems according to him. Mr. Ollenborger stated this is a currently undeveloped lot and the applicant might be asking for too much. He noted he understands the property owner is paying taxes, but there is a lot of uncertainty with respect to the outcome and he cannot support the proposal. Ms. Thomas stated the Town Engineer agrees with the approach and feels it will not make conditions worse so she tends to agree with Mr. Coutinho and Mr. MacDonald, although there is no guarantee. Mr. Abate stated he agrees with the numbers and expert’s 6 credentials, but he has doubts and is also putting himself in the future homeowner’s shoes. He noted Mr. Perna did a nice job on the house on Winter St. but in this case site conditions might be too difficult to overcome. Mr. Haghanizadeh submitted a new copy of the watershed plan, to correct a typographic error. Mr. Karp stated this is a tough situation with a proposed solution which looks good on paper but without a solid contingency plan in case of failure. Ms. Wright stated she continues to have serious reservations regarding the proposal and its potential impact on the neighborhood. Ms. Lazarus stated this lot is deemed “unbuildable” because the road has not been built. Mr. Coutinho asked how this proposal compares to the plans for 112 Hayden Rowe St. discussed earlier in the evening, and Ms. Lazarus stated both involve paper streets, but the Hayden Rowe St. property is flat. Mr. Weismantel stated the Board will write a report to the BOA. Documents: • Plan entitled Variance Plan (submitted to the Planning Board) – Laurel Avenue Hopkinton MA prepared by hs&t group, revised 11/30/2011 • Laurel Ave. – Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal prepared by Shelley Hammond SE received 11/30/11 • Plan entitled Existing Watershed Laurel Ave., prepared by hs&t group, dated 12/1/2011 • Email from Dave Daltorio, Town Engineer, to Elaine Lazarus dated December 05, 2011 re: Laurel Ave. Mr. Abate left the meeting at this time. 7. Continued Public Hearing – Reservoir View – Open Space and Landscape Preservation Development Special Permit – Christopher P. Olson Christopher Olson, applicant, Ralph Maloon, RIM Engineering Co., Inc., engineer, and Dan Vieira, attorney, appeared before the Board. Mr. Weismantel stated at the previous hearing on this proposal, there was mention of a number of concerns, especially with respect to the wetlands. He stated he believes the applicant now has a different plan for the Board’s review. Mr. Vieira stated the Conservation Commission comments were not necessarily negative, but the applicant decided to see if there was a less intrusive way to develop the land and an OSLPD plan is not the only way to create open space. He noted the applicant is considering a 3-lot subdivision, consisting of one approval-not-required lot on Spring St. and two others in a conventional layout with a dead-end street requiring waivers from the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. He noted the proposed street would look more like a driveway. Mr. Maloon explained the proposed alternative layout, which would create a paper road connecting to the back land and existing trail. He noted the proposed alternative would provide the three lots the applicant is looking for and the Town would get access to the remaining land. Ms. Wright stated the previous plan had a lot of wetlands issues and she asked if this would eliminate the need for relocating the stream. Mr. Maloon stated he is considering crossing the stream with a bridge, because as mentioned by the neighbors at the previous meeting there is a lot of water at times and it would be a bad place for a culvert. He noted they still need to do soil testing, prepare drainage calculations and other items required for a definitive subdivision plan submittal. Ms. Wright asked if the applicant is still pursuing the OSLPD plan and whether the alternative plan is a new conventional subdivision “sketch”, and Mr. Maloon stated no. Mr. Weismantel stated one of his criteria for approval is creation of viable public right-of-way access to the back land, and Ms. Lazarus stated the only difference is that the road will look like a 7 driveway and exist on paper only. Ms. Lazarus stated the Board’s consideration of paper streets as a viable method of access as discussed several times this evening is a policy question, and such approvals as a matter of course would be a departure for the Board. She recommended that the Board discuss this policy issue at a future meeting. Mr. Weismantel asked if there will be 18 ft. of pavement, Mr. Maloon responded yes, and Mr. Weismantel stated in that case it is more than just a driveway in his opinion. Ms. Lazarus asked about the placement of the house on lot 1, and Mr. Maloon stated the alternative plan would leave more room for the house placing it further away from the wetlands. He compared the previous plan and new alternative side by side. Mr. Karp stated the new proposal looks better, and asked about the distance between the house on Lot 2 and the abutter’s property. Mr. Maloon stated it has to be at least 30 ft., and Mr. Weismantel stated it appears all lots meet the dimensional requirements for the zoning district. Mr. Weismantel stated he likes the new plan better than the other alternatives, especially considering the amount of very good quality open space to be deeded to the Town. Mr. Vieira stated the open space will be contiguous with other large parcels in the area. Mr. Vieira stated he would like to request a continuation of the public hearing for the open space proposal for 8 months or so and submit a new application under the Subdivision Control Law. Ms. Lazarus stated the applicant can only file a conventional plan if the current OSLPD submission is denied first. Mr. Weismantel asked if it would be considered a completely new filing in this case, and Ms. Lazarus stated yes. Mr. Vieira stated the conventional alternative plan needs waivers from the Subdivision Rules and Regulations so he would like an indication from the Board about the likelihood of approval before changing direction. Mr. Weismantel stated the new plan would offer a better layout from a future homeowner’s perspective. Ms. Wright stated this is a pretty area on a designated scenic road and the alternative proposal will have a lower impact. Ms. Lazarus stated there still will be clearing for the stormwater management and septic systems near the road and the changes will be visible from the street. Mr. Weismantel recommended the applicant talk to the Conservation Commission first as a next step. When polled, Board members in general were in favor of the alternative presented. Mr. Maloon referred to a discussion on a different subject earlier in the evening, and it was noted Hopkinton has a Town Engineer who reviews small items but does not necessarily review subdivision proposals. Mr. Olson asked about meeting schedules, and it was clarified that the Conservation Commission will talk to applicants informally. In response to a comment made, it was noted the type of soil testing referred to during the Laurel Ave. discussion does not require Bd. of Health witnessing. Mr. Weismantel stated the only waiver needed here is the one to allow a dead-end street. The Board discussed potential changes to the cul-de-sac bulb configuration to accommodate parking. Reference was made to the stream crossing. It was noted bridge construction is expensive, and Mr. Weismantel stated this will have to be worked out with the Conservation Commission but the Planning Board would prefer a culvert. Ms. Lazarus stated that sometimes there is no choice. A possible date for continuance was discussed. Mr. Vieira asked about the possibility of fee waivers and it was noted that the Board could discuss the issue. 8 Mr. Weismantel stated if the alternative plan is the applicant’s preferred approach, it might be time to start thinking about the disposition of the open space, and perhaps the land could go to the Town’s Conservation Commission or Open Space Preservation Commission. He noted if deeded to an organization like the Hopkinton Area Land Trust (HALT), another entity has to be found to manage a Conservation Restriction (CR), so from the applicant’s standpoint giving it to the Town would be the best option. Ms. Lazarus stated this would not be an OSLPD plan and a CR therefore would not be required. Mr. Olson asked if the right-of-way access to the open space can be for Town residents exclusively, and Mr. Weismantel stated he does not think the Board is in favor of that. Mr. Olson asked about trail parking. It was noted people could park at the end of the cul-de-sac although the road will be wide enough for on-street parking. Mr. Coutinho stated the residents might not like people parking in front of their home. Mr. Olson stated he feels visitors could also park on Spring St. in order to keep the cul-de-sac bulb clear, but it was stated there probably should be parking at the end of the road for visitors and also for safety officials in case of an emergency. Mr. Weismantel stated two spaces should be sufficient for trail parking. Ms. Lazarus suggested narrowing the road width to 16 ft. after the second house and creating a bump-out for parking. Mr. Weismantel stated this is a good idea, perhaps widening the road to 20 ft. in certain areas with signs for trail parking. Ms. Lazarus stated a road width of 16 ft. is probably sufficient on the section serving just one home. Mr. Weismantel stated the applicant’s new development alternative has some merit conceptually, and it appears the Board is generally in favor. Ms. Thomas moved to continue the hearing to January 9, 2012 at 7:45 P.M., Mr. Ollenborger seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Documents: • Plan entitled Reservoir View Open Space Plan and Land Preservation Plan, dated April 24, 2011 revised through October 14, 2011, prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc. • Plan entitled Reservoir View Alternate Conventional Layout, dated December 5, 2011, prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc. 8. Liaison Updates a) Downtown Revitalization Committee – Mr. MacDonald stated the next meeting is on December 6. b) Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC) – Mr. Coutinho stated the next meeting of the ZAC has been scheduled for December 12. He stated the Committee is making progress on review of the Site Plan Review bylaw. 9. Other Business a) New Elementary School Site Search - Mr. Weismantel referred to a discussion held by the School Committee on December 1, 2011 including a presentation made by Ms. Lazarus. Ms. Lazarus stated the School Committee had asked her to develop a list of properties that could be potential school sites, generally of at least 15 acres centrally located. She noted each site was discussed, including land adjacent to existing school facilities. Mr. Weismantel stated they should look at the property behind the Center School similar to what was considered at one point for the new Library. 9 b) DPW Facility Expansion – Mr. Weismantel asked Ms. Lazarus to talk to the Town Manager about purchasing the old Wood St. Garage land for expansion of the DPW. Other Documents Used at the Meeting: • Agenda for December 5, 2011 • Memorandum from Elaine Lazarus to Planning Board, December 1, 2011 Adjourned: 9:45 P.M. Submitted by Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant APPROVED: January 9, 2012