Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20100111 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD Monday, January 11, 2010 7:00 P.M. Hopkinton Town Hall MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Abate, Chairman, John Coolidge, Vice-Chairman, Sandy K. Altamura, David Auslander, Carol DeVeuve, Joe Markey, John Mosher, Ken Weismantel, Claire Wright ……Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting ……Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant 1. Public Hearing – 91-95 West Main St. – Cumberland Farms – Site Plan Review Manny Paiva, Planning Department Manager, Cumberland Farms, applicant, appeared before the Board. He described the plan submitted with the application and provided some history regarding the site which was purchased by Cumberland Farms in 1986 when it was a regular service station. He noted major renovations took place in 2001 and recently a new storage shed was placed on the site. Mr. Paiva stated Cumberland Farms has decided to start selling diesel fuel and filed a Notice of Intent application with the Conservation Commission as required for installation of an underground tank, plus after-the-fact approval for construction of the shed. He noted the Conservation Commission approved the application on December 7, 2009. Ms. Altamura arrived at this time. Mr. Abate stated he is familiar with what Cumberland Farms is trying to do and referred to feedback received from Lt. Rick Flannery of the Police Dept. regarding the introduction of diesel fuel sale and the current site traffic pattern in general. Mr. Paiva stated Lt. Flannery’s comments were forwarded to Cumberland Farms and he met with him last week to address the concerns. Mr. Paiva submitted a sketch showing a temporary construction fence and pictures of proposed “do-not enter” and “no-left-turn” signs for on-site traffic circulation during the tank installation phase. Ms. Altamura stated she is very concerned about the impact on customers, especially those traveling west on West Main St., because no left turns into the site would be allowed. Mr. Abate stated adding diesel will attract additional customers and create an ongoing traffic problem. Mr. Paiva stated it will be “automobile” diesel which can also be used as fuel for trucks, but the pump is only designed for 20 to 30 gallon stops to discourage large tractor trailers from refueling there. He submitted a signage sketch showing the location of “no trucks” signs at both driveway openings and stated any advertising signs on Rt. 495 would indicate sales for “automobile” diesel only. Mr. Abate stated he understands Cumberland Farms’ market considerations but asked if they would consider selling diesel at the Gulf station at 60 Main St. instead. Mr. Paiva stated the station on West Main St. is company owned, and the other is not. Mr. Paiva stated he expects the tank installation process to last about 4 weeks. Lt. Flannery stated the Police Dept. will be able to live with Cumberland Farms’ proposal to add diesel fuel as long as sales to large tractor trailer trucks are discouraged because it would worsen an already very problematic traffic situation. Mr. Markey stated he is very concerned about the number of accidents in that area (97 incidents in 4 years) and asked what could be done about that. Mr. Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – January 11, 2010 2 Paiva stated there is a systematic issue with vehicles being able to turn into the gas station basically crossing 4 lanes of traffic, and it cannot be addressed as part of this application. Mr. Auslander asked about accident statistics for the Rt. 135/Rt. 85 intersection in comparison. Ms. Wright stated the existing entrance and exit signage is not clear enough. Mr. Paiva stated there will only be one diesel pump and they selected the aisle closest to the street for easy access and to accommodate vehicles towing a trailer or a skimobile. He stated the Building Inspector agreed with the proposed temporary fencing and traffic pattern during construction. Ms. Wright stated regular customers traveling west will have missed other opportunities for buying gasoline and convenience store items and might feel they have no choice but to ignore the signs and turn in anyway. Mr. Abate stated he is not in favor of this proposal and the application does not meet approval criterion #3 regarding convenience and safety of vehicular/pedestrian movement within and at the site. Mr. Weismantel stated the Board should continue the hearing and ask the applicant to provide additional information in case of an appeal, and Mr. Markey stated they haven’t discussed the possibility of approval with reasonable conditions. Ms. Altamura stated she would like to see a traffic study and a better traffic circulation pattern. Mr. Coolidge asked about having a police detail during construction, and Lt. Flannery stated it had been considered as one of the options. Ms. Lazarus stated the proposed use is allowed under the zoning bylaw and the problems the Board is concerned about would be temporary. She stated rejection of the application is not a good idea and recommended focusing on a permanent solution for the traffic pattern after the tank is installed and the pump is in place. She stated signage on the site could be improved and the applicant is willing to do that. Mr. Paiva stated he is not opposed to having a detail on site during construction. Mr. Weismantel asked about placing a temporary flashing sign to alert people, and Lt. Flannery stated the DPW would have to be consulted. Ms. Wright suggested a temporary barrier in the center of the road to avoid any confusion. The Board voted unanimously to continue the hearing to January 25, 2010 at 8:00 P.M. 2. Continued Public Hearing - Legacy Farms – Master Plan Special Permit Application – East Main St., Clinton St., Frankland Rd., Wilson St. – Legacy Farms, LLC Roy MacDowell, Jr. and Steven Zieff, Legacy Farms LLC, applicant, Marilyn Sticklor, Goulston & Storrs, applicant’s attorney, and Ray Miyares and Brian Falk, Miyares and Harrington LLP, Town Counsel, appeared before the Board. Mr. Abate stated that the topics scheduled for discussion at this meeting are Restricted Land including covenants and uses, and landowners’ association roles and responsibilities. a) Restrictive Covenants Ms. Sticklor stated the forms the Board received in the meeting package are the ones included with the original Master Plan Special Permit (MPSP) application and have now been revised as of 1/8/2010. She noted there are 6 separate documents, one for each type of Restricted Land - natural state, restored or landscaped, agricultural, active and passive recreation, municipal, and land consisting of no more than 30 acres within a specific OSMUD area. She stated the purpose of the restrictive covenant is to give Legacy Farms and the Town the ability to substitute Restricted Land during the buildout period, provide flexibility and avoid State dictates in terms of conservation or agricultural restrictions. Ms. Sticklor stated the covenants, by statute, will last in perpetuity because they are held by a governmental entity and considered a gift by the Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – January 11, 2010 3 Planning Board and the applicant. She noted she has negotiated the covenant language with Mr. Miyares and they now agree on the forms. Mr. Miyares stated the Restrictive Land covenants have to meet several criteria: (1) restriction has to be in perpetuity, 2) covenants have to be a gift, and 3) and it has to be for a public purpose. He stated he is satisfied with the form but wants the Planning Board to be satisfied as well. Mr. Miyares stated there was some concern with respect to allowing active recreation for the benefit of homeowners on a portion of the 30 acres without public access and it was agreed to take that part out. Ms. Sticklor stated it is a matter of only a couple of acres and the applicant is confident that they can make up the difference in order to reach the required 500 acres of open land. Ms. DeVeuve asked if no active recreation would be allowed on the restricted part of the 30 acres, and Ms. Sticklor responded yes. Mr. Coolidge stated the covenants should refer to a gift in the public interest, and he still feels that putting a Conservation Restriction (CR) on the land would be a better solution. He noted that the covenants will be signed off by the applicant and the Planning Board, but successors to each could decide to make changes in the future, and this would not be possible under a CR. Mr. Miyares stated he does not feel changes could be made in this manner, and Ms. Sticklor stated that type of Planning Board action would put the entire project in violation, even if the development is completed. Mr. Coolidge asked why in that case the applicant is opposed to a CR, and Ms. Sticklor stated the developer wants flexibility during and after the buildout period without the fear of losing control of the land to the State. Ms. DeVeuve stated she is under the impression that the 1 to 1.8 acre commitment required in the bylaw would cover any changes. Mr. Miyares stated this is a “pay as you go” system and making changes would be a problem under a CR because of the need for a town meeting vote and approval by the legislature. Mr. Coolidge stated he feels a CR is a viable option as long as the project provides 500 acres of open land at the end. Mr. MacDowell stated it appears everybody is basically on the same page, and Mr. Abate stated he would like Mr. Miyares and Ms. Sticklor to work off-line with Mr. Coolidge to craft a document that is agreeable to all. Ms. Wright stated she too is concerned about perpetuity but is more in favor of a home rule situation to avoid giving the State supervision. Mr. Coolidge stated supervision could also be assigned to an organization like the Hopkinton Area Land Trust (HALT) or Sudbury Valley Trustees. Mr. Markey asked for further clarification on the criteria and why the gift issue is not covered by the zoning bylaw as a condition of the special permit. Mr. Miyares stated there is no clear definition of a gift under the law, but (1) the covenants are a gift because the Town is not paying for the restrictions, and (2) there is a requirement under the zoning bylaw. He stated both sides have to agree the covenants are a gift, which is difficult to assert, so in addition both parties have to waive to assert it is anything else. Mr. Miyares stated that as long as no one challenges this finding it will become the law of this permit. He added the developer in this case always intended to provide a large amount of open land in connection with the project. Ms. Wright stated that actually even before the town meeting on the OSMUD article, other proposals such as the Boulder/Taurus plan included a large portion of open space. Mr. Weismantel asked about enforcement of homeowners association responsibilities after the master developer is gone. Ms. Sticklor stated it would be the Town’s responsibility, but the enforcement right can be assigned to another entity as long as it is a governmental body. Mr. Miyares stated maybe the Town’s Open Space Preservation Commission would be a good option but probably not until later when the project nears completion. Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – January 11, 2010 4 Ms. DeVeuve stated that, due to the flexibility available to the developer, the Town should not feel comfortable with the end result until the project is completely built out. Mr. Miyares stated the bylaw requires that any changes in the Restricted Land need approval of the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen and will therefore probably not happen very often. Ms. Altamura asked when the project will stop evolving, and Ms. Sticklor stated the documents provide that there can be no further substitutions after 15 years from the time the developer files the notice to exercise the OSMUD rights. Ms. Lazarus asked about the cost to the Town of land maintenance, stewardship and enforcement and how it will be paid for. Ms. Sticklor noted that the OSMUD bylaw requires each covenant to be assigned a responsible party, and the land will be maintained by Legacy Farms except for the municipal parcel. It was determined that the Town would be responsible for the actual monitoring of maintenance activities with any necessary enforcement actions to be paid from the Town’s legal budget and submitted to the association for reimbursement. Mr. Weismantel stated this might be a good setup for the Town from a financial perspective and he is not sure future Planning Boards can be trusted to do the right thing. Mr. Miyares stated the Planning Board can approve the form now but they won’t be able to list the responsible party until later. He added the Town should assess the entity they want to pick and possibly require an escrow fund to be set aside. b) Landowners Association Rules & Responsibilities It was noted an earlier version of the document was distributed to the Planning Board a while ago and the only difference is the reference to Restricted Land instead of open land. Ms. Altamura asked for clarification regarding the design review committee referred to in the document. She stated this sounds like a separate group and the Town already has an excellent Design Review Board. Ms. Sticklor noted it is a private group in charge of in-house review and will remain part of the landowners association as the development builds out and units are sold, similar to a condominium association. Ms. Sticklor stated the bylaw requires that Town Counsel and Planning Board approve the document before the first site plan is approved, so it is too premature to draft the entire document at this point. Ms. Wright asked how rental housing will be treated and whether renters will be responsible for some type of maintenance. Ms. Sticklor stated the owner of the property, as the landlord, will have the responsibility and the rights of the tenants will flow through the lease. Mr. Miyares stated the Planning Board, under the zoning bylaw, permits the responsible party on the covenant to make reasonable regulations regarding public access. He noted he suggests adding a condition to the decision that these reasonable rules and regulations be submitted to the Planning Board for approval, as otherwise it would be too open-ended. Chris Barry, 17 Clinton St., stated the public should have access to the documents reviewed tonight so it can participate and comment from an intelligent position. Mr. Abate stated there are extra copies available at this meeting here and they will post them on the website as well. Ms. Wright stated the information on Planning Board agenda items is also available at Town Hall prior to the meeting. Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – January 11, 2010 5 Ms. Pratt referred to the question regarding rental units. She stated she assumes Legacy Farms has to go through some type of management organization especially since water and sewer issues are involved and the development pods cannot be independent of each other. The Board set the following meeting dates: March 8, March 22, April 12 and April 26 and discussed the schedule for remaining Legacy Farms MPSP application topics. It was noted that transportation will be discussed on February 8 and Design Guidelines could be wrapped up on February 22. Ms. DeVeuve asked if Legacy Farms has scaled down the original transportation plan in order to avoid drastic changes, and Mr. Zieff stated they are not proposing to do more than what is absolutely necessary. The Board voted unanimously to continue the public hearing to February 8, 2010 at 7:30 P.M. 3. Continued Public Hearing – Site Plan Review – 66 Fruit St. – Athletic Fields, Parking Lot & Associated Site Work – Hopkinton Parks & Recreation Commission Ken Driscoll, Chairman, Hopkinton Parks & Recreation Commission, applicant, Kim Drake, Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM), engineer, appeared before the Board. Mr. Driscoll introduced Brendan Doyle, Vice Chairman, Pat Mahon, Bob Dobinski, Karl Morningstar, members of the Hopkinton Parks & Recreation Commission, Mike Preite and Joan Bannon, Recreation Director and Administrative Assistant, Hopkinton Parks & Recreation Department, and Al Rogers, former member, Hopkinton Parks & Recreation Commission, to the Board. Mr. Driscoll noted they just left a meeting with the Conservation Commission and although the Commission requested additional changes, it felt the application should be ready for approval at a continued public hearing on January 25. He stated remaining conservation issues include 100 year runoff, infiltration/detention pond, and the vernal pool buffer zone. Ms. Drake stated the Conservation Commission had hoped there would be no impact on the 125’ vernal pool buffer zone, but even with a smaller detention basin this cannot be totally avoided due to a small amount of required earthwork and the location of the outfall. Ms. Drake stated they scrambled to respond to FST’s most recent comments with a new package submitted today including revised plans. She stated revisions include a 12’ instead of 8’ walking path to accommodate emergency vehicles and a notation on the plan regarding future field lighting. It was noted that because of funding uncertainty there is no specific lighting plan as it might be obsolete by the time money is available. Mr. Driscoll referred to the previous Planning Board discussion regarding a requirement for a safety fence around the detention pond. He stated he believes that with an 8’ slope to a 2’ dry basin there is no need for a fence, but would recommend monitoring the basin for a one-year period and reconsider installation of a fence if necessary. Ms. Drake stated the initial drainage calculations were based on more difficult soil conditions and it turned out they were able to change to an infiltration design and reduce the size of the basin. Mr. Abate asked if it would be possible to install “keep out” signs and mention the basin in the Parks & Recreation brochure, and Mr. Driscoll stated they could describe the field as being “close to a natural habitat” area. Ms. Drake stated the basin is anticipated to be dry even if the parking area is paved in the future. Ms. DeVeuve asked about dumpster screening, and Ms. Drake stated they propose a natural wood fence. Ms. Drake referred to information received via email regarding shared access to the Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – January 11, 2010 6 wastewater treatment plant. She noted the issue was discussed with the DPW’s consultant and has been addressed satisfactorily. She added the parking lot will have directional “through traffic” signs. Mr. Weismantel asked that the dumpster screening detail be added to the plan for the next hearing. Ms. Wright asked about Lt. Flannery’s concerns regarding overflow parking along the access road and stated that with a 20 ft. roadway she does not expect problems even if people park on both sides, but suggested signage to prevent it from happening. She asked if there would be an area for overflow parking in the unused gravel area on the other side, and Mr. Driscoll stated they would have to discuss it with the DPW. Ms. DeVeuve asked if the current road finish is adequate for access, and it was stated it is. The Board discussed the process for future field lighting. Ms. Altamura asked whether the neighbors know these fields could have lights, and it was determined that the public hearing notice was worded adequately in this respect. Ms. Lazarus stated that lighting in itself does not require site plan review. Mr. Mosher asked whether there would be bike racks on the site, and it was noted this would be a good idea and possibly could be pursued through the State program if funding is still available. Mr. Weismantel stated he feels that even though the Board usually includes a condition for performance guarantee in its decision, it is not necessary in this case as it involves a Town project. Ms. Pratt expressed concerns about the potential impact of field lighting on the adjacent vernal pool. Mr. Mosher asked if the Conservation Commission is aware of this, and Mr. Driscoll stated the subject of lighting did not come up during the discussion. The Board discussed sanitary facilities, and Mr. Weismantel stated he would like the portable toilets as well as the dumpster placed on a concrete pad and shown on the plan. Mr. Mosher referred to the technical information regarding maintenance of natural and artificial turf fields and whether there will be a comparison document. Ms. Drake stated she does not think so, but artificial turf maintenance will involve litter cleanup and making sure the surface fibers are fluffed up sufficiently to prevent injuries. She stated there will be a separate maintenance plan for the natural turf dealing with fertilizers and pesticides, as required by the Conservation Commission. The Board voted unanimously to continue the public hearing to January 25 at 8:00 P.M. Ms. Lazarus stated that she will inform the applicant for 91-95 West Main St. that the continued public hearing is officially scheduled for 8:00 P.M. but will not start until 8:30 P.M. 4. Other Business Ms. Lazarus referred to a forum on land use issues with respect to casinos in the MetroWest area to be held at the Ashland Library on January 20, 2010, from 5:00 to 7:00 P.M. Adjourned: 9:35 P.M. Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant APPROVED: February 8, 2010