HomeMy Public PortalAbout20100208 - Planning Board - Meeting MinutesHOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
Monday, February 8, 2010 7:00 P.M.
Hopkinton Town Hall
MINUTES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Abate, Chairman, John Coolidge, Vice-Chairman, Sandy K.
Altamura, David Auslander, Ken Weismantel, Joe Markey, Claire Wright
........Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting
.......Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
1. Scenic Road Public Hearing - 67 Front St. - Andkra, LLC/Curatola
Michael Curatola, applicant, appeared before the Board. He noted he is building new homes at #67
and #69 Front St., but only needs scenic road approval for #67. He showed photos of existing
conditions and stated the stone wall is non-descriptive but 14 ft. needs to be removed to
accommodate the driveway. He stated he met with Paul Gleason, Tree Warden, on site and there are
no trees to be taken down on Town property. Ms. Altamura asked about rebuilding the wall, and Mr.
Curatola stated completely restoring the wall would be a lot of work but the plan is to reuse the
stones being removed. Mr. Markey stated the stone wall is sparse but should nonetheless be
preserved. Mr. Weismantel encouraged the applicant to find other loose rocks in the area to build up
the existing wall. He asked about sight distance for the driveway, and Mr. Curatola stated it meets
the standards according to his engineer and the DPW.
Kate Gasser, 28 South Mill St., asked to see the photographs of the area. Mr. Curatola explained the
changes he is proposing do not involve the removal of trees in the Town's right of way. Ms. Gasser
asked about the adjacent lot, and Mr. Curatola stated Ms. Lazarus and Mr. Gleason determined there
are no scenic road approvals needed.
Mr. Weismantel moved that the Planning Board close the public hearing. Ms. Altamura
seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Mr. Weismantel moved that the Board approve the scenic road application for 67 Front St. with the
following condition:
• The stones removed for the driveway shall be reused to build up sections of the
remaining wall, and the applicant may improve the stone wall along Front St., as long as it
remains a loose fieldstone wall.
Mr. Coolidge seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Mr. Auslander arrived at this time.
2. Approval Not Required Plan -114 Lumber St. - Patti/Hopkinton Sportsman Assn.,
Inc.
Joe Marquedant, Jr., J.D. Marquedant & Associates, Inc., surveyor, and John Colella, builder,
appeared before the Board. Mr. Marquedant stated the property has a home and outbuildings and it is
proposed to subdivide it into 3 building lots. He noted they have an agreement with the Hopkinton
Sportsman Assn. to acquire 278 sq.ft. of land in order to meet the frontage requirement for lot 3. Ms.
Wright asked about the age of the existing dwelling, and Mr. Marquedant stated the house was built in the
1950's. Mr. Weismantel moved to endorse the plan as not requiring approval under the Subdivision
Control Law, Ms. Altamura seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
3. Street Acceptance - Annual Town Meeting Article
The Board discussed a list of subdivision streets for possible acceptance as public ways at Annual Town
Meeting. Ms. Lazarus stated the list includes Breakneck Hill Rd. and the remainder of Glen Rd. in the
Wildwood Glen subdivision, which appears to be essentially complete, as well as the streets in the White
Oak Estates subdivision. Ms. Lazarus stated there is an outstanding work item related to White Oak
Estates, but there was a disagreement between the State and the Town as to the conditions under which
the work would be done, as it was on State property. She noted the developer is no longer involved. Mr.
Coolidge stated the developer completed a portion of the work and was willing to do the remaining work,
but the State did not agree with the method. Ms. Altamura stated if the Town is maintaining the roads,
they should be accepted. In response to a question, Ms. Lazarus stated the Town can take the remaining
performance guarantee money for road repairs or cleaning out catch basins if needed.
Mr. Weismantel moved that the Board vote to recommend that the Board of Selectmen sponsor an article
to accept Glen Rd. (portion), Breakneck Hill Rd., Meadowland Dr., Ralph Rd., Longwood Dr. and Emma
Dr. as public ways. In response to a question of Mary Pratt, 102 Fruit St., it was stated that the developer
is entitled to any unused performance guarantee funds. Mr. Weismantel stated he assumes by now the
stormwater has taken its course, and Mr. Coolidge stated the condition in the unfinished section has
worsened. Mr. Markey suggested writing to the appropriate State agency and inform them that the Town
will proceed with subdivision street acceptance if there is no reply by a certain time. Mr. Markey
seconded the motion. Ms. Wright asked about the Wildwood Glen streets, and Ms. Lazarus stated the
DPW will look at them in the spring. Mr. Coolidge stated the Board should inform the Public Works
Director that it is making this recommendation. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion.
4. Discussion - Permanent Building Committee
Mr. Weismantel noted the Town recently has been successful in getting good people on temporary
building committees for school and other municipal building projects. He stated he has concerns
regarding the proposed change for a permanent building committee and if he were a member of the School
Committee or the Parks and Recreation Commission, he would not be happy with the new arrangement as
this will take the involvement away from the groups that are making the projects happen. He stated the
Town Manager or Board of Selectmen would appoint the temporary members, and the individual boards
and commissions should be represented on the building committee for their specific projects. He stated
he feels that a committee consisting of six members won't work well in case of a tie vote. He stated he
feels that although the involvement of architects and engineers is appropriate, this does not necessarily
mean the group will include people with a vested interest in the project. He stated designing a DPW
sewer treatment plant "efficiency building" with just plumbing and pipes is a lot different than building a
school, police station, etc.
5. Other Business
• Bills - The Board voted unanimously to authorize payment of outstanding bills.
• Minutes - The Board voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of January 11, 2010 as
amended. The Board voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of January 25, 2010 as
submitted.
6. Continued Public Hearing - 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, applicants, and Robert Nagi (Vanasse
Hangen Brustlin (VHB)) and Fred Moseley (Fay, Spofford & Thorndike (FST)), consultants,
appeared before the Board. It was noted Planning Board member Carol DeVeuve is unable to attend
tonight but will keep her voting eligibility by watching a DVD of the meeting. Mr. Zieff stated the
Master Plan Special Permit application topics scheduled for tonight include transportation and the
ENF for the Alprilla Farm Well filed in December 2009. He stated the DEIR has now been filed and
multiple copies have been delivered to Town Hall. Mr. Zieff stated there have been a number of
discussions on transportation since the initial Master Plan Special Permit (MPSP) application
submittal. He noted the applicant and consultants in a memorandum dated January 4, 2010
consolidated the information gathered so far to make it more understandable. Mr. Moseley stated he
reviewed the January 4 memo to make sure it includes everything they agreed on thus far and it will
give the Board a chance to see the status of the project in terms of mitigation both for Legacy Farms
Rd. North and South and the individual site plans.
Ms. Wright stated she would like to reiterate her concern voiced at a previous meeting that the main
focus appears to be on east-west traffic and how to keep it moving. She stated the anticipated traffic
increase on Rt. 135 will make it almost impossible for people living on the south side of Town to join
the traffic flow at the Hayden Rowe St., Rt. 85 and Pleasant St. intersections to go west to Upton, Rt.
495/MassPike, and Westborough. She stated it is already difficult now, and any significant increase
in traffic volume will leave that part of Town basically trapped. She referred to proposed pavement
markings for a left turn lane at Hayden Rowe St. on Main St. traveling west, and suggested additional
striping on the other side to create a merging lane. She stated this is the way people currently pull
out to "elbow" their way in, and extending the second striped lane by a couple of feet will establish
this traffic pattern on the ground. She stated it is important to have a functioning intersection in this
location so that drivers don't feel forced to go to the already problematic Rt. 85/Rt. 135 intersection.
Mr. Nagi stated he feels this can be easily done. Mr. Auslander stated it appears people seem to be
dealing with this intersection now on their own and additional striping might not significantly
improve conditions, and Mr. Nagi stated it will provide a smoother, easier operation especially for
people who are not familiar with the area.
Mr. Abate referred to Mr. Moseley's comments with respect to the proposed roadway changes at the
intersection of East Main St. and Legacy Farms Rd. Mr. Nagi stated they discussed the issue with the
Board and FST, as well as with Police and Fire officials to determine if it would be better to create 4
lanes on East Main St. from the very beginning of the project or start with 3 lanes and expand when
increased traffic volume warrants additional widening. He noted they
have concluded it would be beneficial from a character and operational standpoint not to have all 4 lanes
when the project first opens, but do all necessary underground work first to prep the area for construction
later. He noted they will go through a similar procedure with respect to the traffic signal so that it will be
a relatively simple effort to actually install the light in the right place at the appropriate time. It was
noted the Police Chief felt installing the light pole itself before it is needed would be confusing and is not
typical in this type of situation.
Mr. Abate stated it is important that the traffic flow on Rt. 135 is not disrupted more than once. Mr.
Auslander asked why it is better to do the work in stages, and Mr. MacDowell stated that prematurely
widening the road would create too much pavement, which would be confusing to drivers and look bad.
Mr. Zieff stated that the Design Guidelines ask for limiting the amount of pavement, and wider roads
cause people to travel faster. Mr. Weismantel stated having 3 lanes with a gravel shoulder will not look
good either, and a grass strip would have to be dug up again. He noted he prefers putting up with an extra
lane for a couple of years in favor of having to work on the site when there are already 200-300 new
occupied units and a brand new commercial shopping area in place. Ms. Wright stated she disagrees and
is concerned the roadway will be irreversibly over-engineered due to unknown factors such as the rate of
growth and increase in traffic volume. Mr. MacDowell stated they will go along with whatever the Board
prefers, but full widening will probably not be needed for 5 years after construction starts. Ms. Altamura
stated she agrees with the developer's approach to do the work in stages based on actual needs.
Chris Barry, 17 Clinton St., stated the original VHB study stated it was not possible to comply with the
required safe sight line distance at the East Main St./Peach St. intersection with the new road under
existing conditions. Mr. Nagi agreed that the original study questioned the ability to meet the standards,
but he is now confident it can be done. Mr. Nagi stated flattening out the topography of the road and
cleaning up the vegetation will solve the problem. He stated they will fall back on the individual site
plans for further details.
Mr. Abate stated he prefers the road widening work be done all at once but senses not all Board members
feel that way. Mr. Coolidge stated he is ok with Legacy's phased approach as long as the underground
infrastructure is in place, and Ms. Wright stated the Board treats parking lots in a similar manner allowing
the applicants to put parking spaces in reserve until actually needed. Mr. Weismantel stated working on
the shoulder to further widen the road in the future will result in traffic disruption due to the need for
barrels and such, and road construction in front of a newly opened shopping center would not be advisable
from the applicant's perspective. Mr. Nagi suggested creating a traffic management area to accommodate
road construction outside the traveled way, and Mr. Abate stated that would be a good compromise.
The Board discussed the timing of construction of Legacy Farms Road North. Mr. Nagi stated that FST
recommends that the timing of Legacy Farms Road North and Rafferty Road improvements should be
related to the traffic volume growth rather than tied to construction of a particular development project.
He stated the original suggestion was that the road had to be substantially completed prior to the issuance
of occupancy permits for any project with frontage along the road. Ms. Altamura stated she is concerned
that construction traffic will worsen traffic conditions in the center of town right away. She noted she
feels the Legacy Farms Road North should be built first, simply to accommodate construction equipment.
Mr. Weismantel stated the
low clearance height of the Rt. 85 bridge in Southborough would preclude that as a viable option. Mr.
MacDowell stated most heavy site work and cut and fill operations will be contained on site, but there
will be related construction traffic such as lumber trucks and concrete mixers.
Mr. Weismantel stated he feels it would make sense to realign the Frankland Rd./Peach St. section as part
of the Village Center development. Mr. Zieff stated the plan for the area behind the Village Center would
require changing the location of a section of both Frankland Rd. and lower Peach St. and he is therefore
not adverse to Mr. Weismantel's idea. Ms. Altamura stated this particular area of Town has some
character and she would like to see a plan of the proposal first. Mr. MacDowell stated the plans are still in
the preliminary stage, and Mr. Nagi referred to a Figure in the MPSP application for a conceptual idea of
what the applicant intends to do. Mr. Zieff stated the preliminary subdivision plan for the roadways will
provide additional details. He added there will be two separate plans for the north and south sections, to be
submitted simultaneously by the end of February. Mr. MacDowell stated they plan to reconfigure the
Frankland Rd./Peach St./East Main St. area prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the
Village Center commercial development, which could be sooner or later.
Ms. Lazarus asked what the Board thinks about the timing of Legacy Farms Road North, and referred to
Mr. Moseley's recommendation. Mr. Auslander stated the north road was thought to be a means to
alleviate traffic on Rt. 135 and asked if they would move the timing up if traffic gets bad during
construction. Mr. Nagi stated Mr. Moseley is using a 30% increase in downtown traffic to trigger
construction of the north road, and Mr. MacDowell stated he has no objection as long as long as it can be
demonstrated the 30% increase is the result of the Legacy Farms development. Mr. Barry asked how a
30% increase translates into a number of vehicles and stated he is concerned drivers at that point will seek
alternate roads, just shifting the problem away from the center of Town. Mr. Coolidge stated a 30%
increase in traffic will create gridlock. Mr. Weismantel stated it will be impossible to find an adequate
solution unless they address the Grove St./Cedar St. intersection offset and even with new signals and
additional striping it will still be a dangerous place because of the traffic volume alone. He stated this
should be addressed a lot more quickly, and Mr. Auslander stated it is outside the scope of the Legacy
Farms application.
Mr. Weismantel stated Mr. Moseley's recommendation is fine with him. Mr. Zieff stated Mr. Moseley
described an either/or situation, the rate of occupancy along the north road or a 30% increase in downtown
traffic attributable to the Legacy Farms development. He stated they are agreeable to that condition
although they feel the anticipated traffic increase is exaggerated and their experience is that the actual
numbers usually are far less than the handbook shows them to be. Mr. Abate stated he understands the
debate about textbook actual numbers, but Hopkinton residents know that during peak hour traffic now it
is already backed up all the way to Weston Nurseries and there have to be infrastructure improvements to
accommodate Legacy Farms traffic so that the situation won't get worse. Mr. Zieff stated finding an
appropriate solution is in the mutual interest of the Town and the developer. Mr. Auslander asked how
long it would take to get the north road ready once the construction is triggered, and Mr. MacDowell
stated they will continue the permitting process in the meantime and it should only take about 6-9 months
to make the road passable. Mr. Nagi stated the north road will not generate traffic up to that point, and
Mr. MacDowell stated traffic volume will be monitored. He stated the Town of Ashland's
initial future development predictions have been downgraded. Mr. Weismantel stated assuming rosy
conditions in Hopkinton vs. a bad outlook for Ashland does not make sense. He stated the developer has
also made improvement commitments to Southborough, and he recommended the Board invite
representatives from those towns to talk about regional issues with respect to Legacy Farms. Mr. Zieff
stated the Board can talk to other towns on its own, but he does not want Legacy Farms to be a part of
this discussion. Mr. MacDowell stated it is good policy for a developer to treat a proposal from a
regional perspective and Legacy Farms has committed to small improvements, such as work on Rt. 85 in
Southborough and a small monetary contribution toward an additional traffic light on Rt. 135 in Ashland.
Mr. Markey stated regional thinking is a good thing and should be a matter of policy. Ms. Wright stated
this could open the Board's eyes, seeing that other towns are asking Legacy Farms for help and the Board
should be proactive. The Board listed other off-site signalized and unsignalized intersections at Hayden
Rowe St./Grove St., Ash St./Front St. and Clinton St./Front St. as well as the corner of Clinton St. and
East Main St. Mr. Abate stated it looks like the plan is in good shape, and Mr. Nagi stated additional
details will be presented as part of the individual site plan applications. Mr. Weismantel stated a study of
the intersections, especially the off-site ones, needs to be in the final permit as an outline of the Town's
expectations vs. the developer's commitment. He stated this will make sure the Town is covered if the
worst case/most intense development scenario happens, with an active commercial Village Center, 3
restaurants and 940 additional housing units in place. Mr. Zieff stated Legacy Farms is prepared to
address its obligations to manage everyone's expectations.
Mr. Markey asked for additional information regarding sidewalks and walking trails. Mr. Zieff stated
Legacy Farms is obligated under the Host Community Agreement (HCA) to build a trail from the Village
Center to Ray St. and will supplement the information submitted in October 2008 when it is time for the
Board to make the decision.
Ms. Wright referred to previous discussions of the Rt. 135/Rt. 85 intersection. She stated she would like
additional information about the final proposal regarding signalization upgrades. Mr. Zieff stated Legacy
Farms will comply with any requests for signalization improvement, but anything beyond that is up to the
Town. Mr. Nagi stated they will install all new equipment, the Town has decided on ornamental poles
which are on order, and the contract has been signed. Mr. Nagi presented full-scale presentation boards to
clarify the proposed improvements. He noted the pavement will remain as is and sidewalk upgrades will
only take place in construction areas. He noted there will be a new traffic control box using video
detection for more flexibility. He noted the system will have delayed signals with protective green turning
arrows and countdown pedestrian lights, keeping the crossings as they are now. Mr. Weismantel stated
this will make it safer but add another signal cycle, and without an extra lane on Grove St. it will not work
properly. Mr. Zieff stated there will be a 2-week testing period after installation and adjustments can be
made if needed. Mr. Nagi referred to additional mitigation during Phase 3 of the development at the Rt.
85/Rt. 135 intersection, but stated there could be interim steps along the way if necessary. Mr. Markey
referred to the Wood St./Main St./West Main St. intersection, and Mr. Nagi stated improvements will be
addressed as required in the HCA.
Ms. Pratt asked about the intersection of Legacy Farms Road with Rt. 85 at Rafferty Rd. She stated she
feels that a light is needed there, and Mr. Nagi stated the road is wide enough to add a turning lane and
that will be sufficient.
Mr. Markey asked if there are any plans for fixing the Pleasant St./Main St. intersection since they talked
about it last year, and Mr. Zieff stated their January 4 memo includes a graphic of that area. He noted
they are willing to review the entire road corridor and identify which issues are addressable without
changing the character of the Town. Mr. Weismantel stated the Town already knows there is a problem
at the Pleasant St. intersection, and Legacy Farms is willing to monitor conditions. Mr. Moseley stated
work at Pleasant St. does not relate to mitigation for Legacy Farms, and Mr. Markey asked what can be
done about it if the situation worsens because of Legacy Farms. He referred to Ms. Wright's comment
that other towns aren't shy about pointing out potential problems and asking for cooperation. Mr. Zieff
stated that Legacy Farms will be proportionally accountable if there is a measurable impact clearly due to
this development. Ms. Wright stated Legacy Farms is not responsible for every single traffic problem in
Town and sometimes backups are mainly a result of traffic volume as opposed to a flawed roadway
design. Mr. Markey asked if a signal at Pleasant St. would ease the burden on the Main St. intersection,
and Mr. Moseley stated a tradeoff would be needed to coordinate traffic lights. Mr. Markey stated he is
bothered by the fact that some things are in writing and others are not.
Mr. Zieff stated the DEIR for Legacy Farms was filed with the State on February 10. He noted multiple
copies have been delivered to the Town Hall and distributed copies of the Table of Contents and
Summary to the Board. He stated the filing will be in the Environmental Monitor shortly and the
comment period will run through March 12. He noted the document is also available electronically. He
stated this is part of the MJEPA process which includes the ENF for the Alprilla Farm Well on town
property filed on 12/7/09 and the DEIR submittal, to be followed by a FEIR depending on the outcome of
the MEPA analysis. He stated the summary meeting regarding the Alprilla Farm Well ENF will happen
later this week at the Town Hall. He noted the ENF will have a separate MEPA number because the wells
are on Town property but the same State analyst will review both filings. Mr. Weismantel asked for an
explanation of the ENF paragraph about the Town's withdrawal permit. Mr. Zieff stated the application
for an amendment to the withdrawal permit is a separate subject and will be reviewed by DCR/DEP
integrating the prior (nursery) use of the site and the proposed water treatment plant. Mr. Weismantel
referred to a recent court case against DEP relative to conditions placed on withdrawal permits.
The Board reviewed the upcoming public hearing/topic schedule for the MPSP application. Mr.
Weismantel moved to continue the public hearing to February 22, 2010 at 9:00 P.M., Mr. Auslander
seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
7. Continued Discussion - Permanent Building Committee
Ms. Wright stated she has problems with the tone of the proposal which looks good on paper but seems
flawed from an operational standpoint. She noted serving on a volunteer board is a lot of work and
involves sacrifices on a personal level. She stated she has served on several boards and committees for a
long time and never felt that they purposely delay progress. She noted a lot of
times delays are caused by the lack of response from the applicant or consultants to address problems
or comply with requests for information. She asked where the requirement for the time limitation is
coming from and stated she feels this is not necessary. She noted including time limits seems to
imply that boards are dragging out applications on purpose. She stated the boards should be
allowed to take the time needed to make the right decisions. She stated she has a concern about the
requirement that permanent building committee members cannot serve on other boards. She noted
that people on committees typically only leave the group when they move out of Town or because of
other special circumstances. She noted volunteer boards and committees usually are groups of
dedicated people and there are not that many of those in the Town. She stated it is important that the
committees have people with experience. She stated she found the job description in the draft
proposal off-putting and it would discourage her from applying if she were to consider serving as a
new person. She stated she feels volunteer town boards have done a good job representing building
projects in the past and she does not like the assembly line approach. Mr. Abate asked who would
make the appointments, and it appears the system would concentrate too much influence on one
person and/or the Board of Selectmen. Ms. Wright stated the proposal seems to cover everything and
is very broad.
Mr. Markey stated the Town is cutting people now, and the Facilities Director just resigned. Mr.
Weismantel stated the process for hiring a Town Engineer is underway even though the Board did
not totally support the idea. Mr. Markey stated there is something to say for temporary committees
and he would rather not see the same people in charge of designing wastewater treatment plants and
schools. Mr. Weismantel stated that one single committee might not have enough time to deal with
multiple projects simultaneously. Ms. Altamura asked what the School Committee thinks of this
idea, and it was noted their opinion is unknown.
Adjourned: 9:35 P.M.
Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
APPROVED: February 22, 2010