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