HomeMy Public PortalAbout20100329 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes1
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
Monday, March 29, 2010 7:30 PM
Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton, MA
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Abate, Chairman, John Coolidge, Vice Chairman, Sandy K.
Altamura, David Auslander, Carol DeVeuve, John Mosher, Ken Weismantel, Claire Wright
.....Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting
1. Administrative Business
The Board voted unanimously to pay outstanding bills. The Board voted unanimously to
approve the Minutes of the meeting on March 8, 2010 as amended.
Mr. Weismantel stated that the Permanent Building Committee proposed by the Town Manager
is a bad idea as drafted, and the Planning Board should recommend to the Selectmen that the
committee should not be established. He stated that representatives of Boards that propose
projects will not be members of the Committee, and that is a bad idea. He stated that the School
Committee members he has talked to do not like the proposal. Ms. Wright stated that the Board
had made recommendations before, and no changes were made to accommodate them. Ms.
Altamura stated she is concerned because it looks like boilerplate language and Hopkinton is not
a boilerplate town. She stated there have been very good building committees for specific
projects in the past, with dedicated people. Mr. Coolidge stated he was on the High School
Building Committee and there were members who were very interested in the school project,
which made a difference. He stated that project specific committees will attract people who are
dedicated and interested in that particular building program. The Board voted unanimously to
send a letter to the Board of Selectmen recommending that it not establish a Permanent Building
Committee.
Mr. Coolidge stated the Board should take a moment to remember Fred White, who passed away
recently. Board members noted that Fred served the Town on the Conservation Commission and
in other capacities, was a dedicated volunteer, and will be missed.
Mr. Mosher and Mr. Auslander arrived at this time.
2. Continued Public Hearing – Legacy Farms – Master Plan Special Permit Application –
East Main St., Clinton St., Frankland Rd., Wilson St. - Legacy Farms, LLC
Ray Miyares and Brian Falk, Miyares and Harrington, Town Counsel, joined the Board. The
Board reviewed a list of written answers to questions asked at the last public hearing, dated
March 25, 2010, submitted by Steven Zieff, Legacy Farms LLC. Questions of clarification were
asked by those in attendance.
2
Chris Barry, 17 Clinton St. asked about the required sight distance on East Main St. in the
vicinity of the Legacy Farms Road/East Main St. intersection, noting it is still unclear. Robert
Nagi, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, (VHB), stated that the sight distance is a function of the speeds
that vehicles are traveling. He stated that on East Main St. the average speed is about 46 mph,
and the site distance calculates to 330 ft. He stated they would need to do sight line clearing and
shave the hill to the west of the intersection. Mr. Barry noted that the materials submitted with
the DEIR indicates that the sight distance is required to be 390 feet. After review by Mr. Nagi
and Fred Moseley, Fay, Spofford & Thorndike, LLC (FST), it was determined that the required
sight distance on East Main St. is 395 feet.
Ms. DeVeuve asked about the traffic monitoring proposed if the development goes forward, and
how the applicant foresees this happening. Mr. Nagi stated it involves taking snapshots over
time during development and projecting the impacts of future development. He stated they will
evaluate all driveway intersections with public streets. He stated that from a design
perspective/assumption, they will assume that all traffic going west on Rt. 135/East Main St. will
go to the Rt. 85/135 intersection.
Mr. Barry referred to Mr. Zieff’s response to a question about the sidewalk along East Main St.,
noting that the suggested timing (completion prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for
50% of the Village Center Subdistrict and 50% of units south of E. Main St.) is too late in the
process. Mr. Abate stated he likes using a certificate of occupancy as measurement, as it is
objective. Mr. Barry proposed completion of the sidewalk prior to issuance of 10% of the
certificates of occupancy of either the Village Center or the south side. Mr. Miyares noted that
the 240 rental units on the south side will come rather late in the process because they are
revenue negative, and he is not sure that 50% of units on the south side can be achieved without
it. Roy MacDowell, Legacy Farms, LLC, suggested that the sidewalk be built 3 years from the
date of the first occupancy permit. Mr. Weismantel noted that the sidewalk could run from Ray
St. to Legacy Farms Rd., with the remainder finished along with the Village Center.
After discussion, the Board stated that the timing of the sidewalk on East Main St. from Ray St.
to Legacy Farms Road should be such that it is completed 3 years from the filing of the Notice,
or issuance of 50% of the certificates of occupancy for the Village Center or the south side of
East Main St., whichever comes first. It was noted that the sidewalk along East Main St. in the
Village Center would be constructed along with that Development Project.
Mavis O’Leary, 11 Curtis Rd., stated she has concerns about pedestrian safety and asked how
people from the Curtis Rd./Linden St. area would cross the street to the Village Center safely.
She recommended consideration be given to adding a crosswalk at Curtis Rd.
Mr. Weismantel asked for clarification of the answer given by Mr. Zieff to a question he had
asked relative to setting aside additional areas for wastewater discharge in the future if needed.
He asked if there are any areas that were tested and are considered marginal, but might be ok to
use in future years. He stated he wants to make sure that roads and structures aren’t built on land
that might be desirable for this purpose in later years. Ms. DeVeuve stated she understands why
the information and planning might be important, but it is private land and isn’t sure the Planning
Board has the right to make the applicant set aside land for future municipal wastewater disposal,
3
if that is the goal. Mr. Weismantel stated it might be needed someday for the development and
they should hold it in reserve. He stated the Town has made mistakes in the past by letting well
sites be developed, and stated that they could leave such areas as a meadow for awhile, for
example.
Mr. MacDowell stated they have done a lot of testing and identified all disposal and expansion
areas. He stated there is a small area on the west side of Clinton St. that will not be developed.
Ms. DeVeuve noted that this is a private enterprise, and not a Town development or Town
property. Ms. Wright stated that these sites should have been discussed before. Mr. Weismantel
stated he wants to see the areas shown on a map. He stated that wastewater disposal is limiting
the ultimate growth of the Town and people need to plan ahead.
Marilyn Sticklor, Goulston & Storrs, applicant’s attorney, stated that this will be a private
wastewater treatment facility. She added that if this changes then the whole format changes.
She stated this could be a continuing dialogue with the Town.
Mr. Weismantel stated he wants to see the Alprilla Farm well zone 2 shown on the Master Plan,
to see its relationship to the proposed development and to the wastewater treatment facility.
Mr. Weismantel stated the proposal submitted for the East Main St. sidewalk does not clarify
how they will deal with the problem areas along the route. Mr. MacDowell stated that the stone
wall in front of 43 East Main St. can be moved or the sidewalk can go over it. He stated there
are alternatives for dealing with the steep drop-off near Wilson St., and the rest is not a problem.
Ms. Wright noted that the DPW Director had suggested another way of dealing with the problem
areas, by shifting the road over within the right of way to make room for the sidewalk. Mr.
MacDowell suggested that they submit a plan for the sidewalk 6 months before they are going to
build it. It was the consensus that there should be more time allowed for review and permitting
than 6 months.
The Board reviewed the draft decision provided by Town Counsel. The Board recommended the
requested waiver from the maximum 8 ft. cuts and fills would be evaluated with the Site Plan
submissions, and the language should be modified to indicate that. The Board recommended that
in the Findings of Fact, it should indicate that additional areas of the site will be added to the
Water Resources Protection Overlay District relative to the new Alprilla Farm wells.
Mr. Weismantel asked for clarification of the provision stating that the applicant shall make no
significant change in the conceptual Development Projects depicted on the Master Plan, and
what it means. Mr. Miyares stated that the bylaw addresses this, and that if there is going to be a
significant change, then it would be either minor or major (in the opinion of the Board). He
stated if it is major, then a hearing would be scheduled to approve the change. If it is minor, then
the Board can vote to make the change by majority vote at a posted meeting. In response to a
question, Mr. Miyares stated that the Board and the Zoning Enforcement Officer determine
whether a change is significant. Ms. Sticklor stated that the MPSP will approve buildable areas
at a conceptual level, and the language in the condition repeats language in the bylaw.
4
Mr. Weismantel stated he is concerned with how good the conceptual plan is, with the recent
issue raised relative to the maximum number of single family homes. Mr. Miyares stated that he
and Ms. Lazarus have requested revisions to the plan, as they would rather not see things that
cause problems later. He stated if the building areas have a range of units possible but the plan
shows something else then the intended meaning is lost. He stated they have recommended
notations which indicate that the structures/development layout shown on the plan is for
illustrative purposes only, and this would clarify what is approved. Ms. Sticklor stated they are
fine with the recommended changes and will submit modifications. Mr. Weismantel noted that
without the actual proposed development shown, and 107 single family homes shown when only
50 are possible, the Board hasn’t looked to see if the placement of the units/homes makes sense
in those locations. Mr. MacDowell stated it will be addressed during site plan review. Mr.
Miyares stated that the MPSP can make suggestions to guide the applicant, indicating the
Board’s preferences.
The consensus of the Board was that the single family homes should be scattered and not all
located on one side of Rt. 135, that driveways on Legacy Farms Road should be minimized, and
there should be a balance between the number of units on the north and south sides.
Concerns were expressed as to responsibility of future developers, who will acquire/develop
each Development Project, to comply with the MPSP. Mr. Miyares noted that Legacy Farms has
the right to sell off development parcels, new owners will need to comply, and the language of
the decision will address this.
Ms. Wright expressed concern that the Town does not have the ability to take legal action if there
is a violation (proposed condition #14), and it was noted that the language will be changed to
address this.
Mr. Weismantel asked about the first sentence of #15, which notes that any future approvals
issued by town entities are considered a condition of the MPSP. He noted that he thought that
separate approvals remain separate. Mr. Miyares stated it is common to require that an applicant
must be in compliance with all approvals. Mr. Weismantel suggested rewording it as it appears
to regulate things after the fact. Mr. Abate stated it is prudent to include the proposed language,
and Ms. Wright agreed. Ms. Sticklor stated she agrees with the concept.
Mr. Barry asked about condition #18 relative to the waiver of setbacks in the Village Center
subdistrict, and it was noted that it repeats language in the OSMUD bylaw.
The issue of taking land for infrastructure purposes was discussed, and Mr. Weismantel stated
the Town would have to do that via town meeting action. Ms. Sticklor stated if work was to be
done on land they did not own, then it would be the Town’s responsibility to take the land. It
was noted that if the land was taken for the developer’s project, then the developer would pay all
associated costs.
It was noted that the decision would need to note that the relocated portions of Frankland Rd. and
Peach St. may need to become public ways, because of the road configuration proposed. Mr.
Weismantel asked why the Town would not collect trash from the development and would treat
5
these residents differently than others. Ms. Altamura noted that people are buying into an
association/development that will take care of this for them.
Ms. DeVeuve noted that condition #29 may conflict with one or more of the Restricted Land
Covenants with respect to disposal of stumps, and Mr. Miyares stated they will make them
consistent.
The Board discussed the issue of overhead utility wires. Mr. Weismantel stated that the Board
should protect the scenic roads, which have become overburdened and visually impacted by the
number of overhead wires and other equipment on utility poles. Mr. MacDowell stated he ok
with the suggestion that they bury any new lines within ½ mile of the Legacy Farms Rd./East
Main St. intersection, but he has concerns. He stated there could be new technology available,
for example, where the lines are thinner and replace older lines, and these could continue to be
overhead.
Mr. Barry stated that the lines on Clinton St. should be buried too, using the Legacy Farms
Rd./Clinton St. intersection as another node from which to measure a half mile.
Mr. Miyares stated the draft decision recommends that all new lines go underground, not just
“additional” lines. He asked for guidance in this matter from the Board. Mr. Abate stated the
viewshed should at least stay the same and not get worse. Mr. MacDowell stated they have
pursued this issue with the utility companies and they will tell them what to do. He stated it will
be a problem if the Board won’t let them put additional lines overhead. Ms. Wright stated that
the Town wants to bury lines in the downtown, at least, and there is a process to go through that
takes time. She stated that Legacy Farms should do their part too. Ms. DeVeuve asked that if
one line is put underground will the utility ask that they all go underground. Ms. Sticklor stated
they have concerns about being able to secure financing if this is a requirement. The consensus
of the Board was that with respect to overhead wires, as bad as it is, is as bad as it gets, and it
should not look worse after development.
Conditions of approval relating to traffic were discussed. Mr. Weismantel stated he is not clear
on the triggers for certain mitigation and monitoring. Ms. Sticklor stated they want to further
quantify these as well. It was noted that the traffic consultants could meet and develop this
further. Mr. Miyares stated the overall goal is to maintain the character of the Town and not let
traffic take over. It was noted that the opinion of the DPW is also important. It was noted that
dollar amounts need to be filled in for conditions #38 and 39, and that information from other
towns may be useful.
Dale Danahy, Colella’s Supermarket, asked about takings required for changes at the Rt. 85/Rt.
135 intersection. Mr. Miyares stated that the Town wanted to avoid that, noting that if it was
needed, the Town would take the land and the developer would pay all associated costs. Ms.
DeVeuve stated it is important for Legacy Farms Rd. north to be a useful cut-through to avoid
takings and widening at the downtown intersection. Mr. Nagi stated that the possible areas for
taking have been laid out and can be achieved. He stated that whether the intersection would be
widened or not depends on the monitoring results. Mr. Abate asked if it is possible to determine
6
the maximum capacity of the intersection, and Mr. Nagi stated it is and they have done the
analysis.
Mr. Weismantel listed other items that should be addressed:
1. The timing of the Phipps St./Frankland Rd. realignment.
2. A study of the possible integration of the private wastewater treatment facility with the
Town’s system.
3. The need for additional athletic fields, based on the anticipated number of children in the
development. The new municipal field should be designed and other improvements
made to the area, at least.
Mr. Mosher suggested that the applicant explore the use of on-site renewable energy to minimize
the power requirements and alleviate the need for new overhead wires.
The timing of construction of Legacy Farms Rd. north was discussed, and it was the consensus
that it should be tied to something that can be counted, such as time or a number of units.
Board members reviewed schedules, and it was decided that the meeting on April 5 would be
cancelled. The Board voted 7 in favor, with Mr. Mosher abstaining, to continue the public
hearing to April 12, 2010 at 8:00 PM.
Adjourned: 10:10 PM
Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting
Approved: April 12, 2010