HomeMy Public PortalAbout20100412 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes1
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
Monday, April 12, 2010 7:15 P.M.
Hopkinton Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton, MA
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Abate, Chairman, Ken Weismantel, Joe Markey, Carol
DeVeuve, David Auslander, Claire Wright, Sandy Altamura, John Mosher
….Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
1. Permanent Building Committee Discussion – Norman Khumalo, Town Manager
Mr. Abate stated a couple of months ago the Board discussed a draft proposal to establish a
Permanent Building Committee (PBC) and decided not to support the proposal, but at the request
of the Town Manager held off on sending an official response pending additional discussion.
Mr. Khumalo stated he would like to look for opportunities to incorporate the Board’s
suggestions and comments into a better proposal. He stated the initial PBC Administrative Order
applied to all Town capital projects, but after discussions with the School Committee, he is now
leaning toward maintaining the status quo with respect to school projects.
Mr. Khumalo addressed the Board’s concerns as follows:
The proposed committee will serve as a technical service board to any Town entity proposing
a project, but will not take over full responsibility.
The PBC will not result in a loss of “passion” for the project. Mr. Khumalo stated the goals
and objectives will be defined by the proponant, and the PBC will prepare bid packages,
review construction drawings and cost estimates, basically chaperoning the project through
the review process. He stated general maintenance and repair projects within the operational
budget will not be covered under the PBC, and most importantly the proponent can petition
the Committee to take over construction supervision.
Mr. Khumalo stated from a policy perspective the Town would be better served by having a
single PBC with technical support staff, considering the large number of upcoming Town
projects, such as the Senior Center parking lot, a feasibility study for a new DPW facility, the
Fruit Street force main project and wastewater treatment plant, Milford sewer
connection/pump station, a new Library, and Town Hall renovations with CPC funding if
approved by Town Meeting.
Mr. Khumalo stated his proposal does not criticize the work done by previous temporary
building committees in any way.
Mr. Khumalo stated the creation of a PBC along with the new Town Engineer position will
provide an opportunity for better record keeping in one place.
2
Mr. Khumalo stated the new committee will ensure a smooth transition from construction
phase to building occupancy and will develop institutional learning that can be transferred
from one project to another.
In response to a question by Ms. DeVeuve, Mr. Khumalo referred to the mechanisms available to
the proposing entity for requesting responsibility for construction documentation and
administration. Mr. Weismantel stated the revised draft has not addressed his previous
observations. He stated it will be difficult to find enough volunteers who are able to dedicate the
amount of time needed, and he anticipates potential disputes between a project proponent with a
vested interest and the PBC on what is important. He added that having support staff would be a
good idea to the extent needed and for record keeping.
Mr. Auslander stated the main advantages of establishing a PBC seem to be its ability to
chaperone the Town through a multitude of anticipated building projects and better record
keeping. He stated this level of oversight seems appropriate for building facilities, and asked if
the creation of a building committee, temporary or project-based, is relevant to such diverse
projects as the Senior Center parking lot, the wastewater treatment plant, Fruit St. force main and
the Milford sewer connection. Mr. Khumalo responded yes, because when making policy
decisions during construction he would rather be guided by Town residents. In response to a
question from Ms. Altamura, Mr. Khumalo stated Town entities have a specific charge and the
Parks & Recreation Commission’s main responsibility, for example, is to forecast and develop
programs and not to plan and design athletic fields. Mr. Weismantel stated Parks & Rec could
create a subcommittee to help them through the process and with respect to the Fruit St.
wastewater treatment plant and force main projects the Town has consultants, a DPW Director
with a professional engineering degree, and is hiring a Town Engineer. Mr. Khumalo stated it is
not the intent to overburden the volunteers and the PBC’s workload will strictly consist of policy
decisions. Ms. DeVeuve stated the provision for requesting the appointment to the PBC of one
proponent representative, mainly for construction documents, might not result in meaningful
involvement. Mr. Khumalo stated the Bd. of Selectmen may appoint a separate committee based
on the nature of the project and there will be continued exchange between the proponents and the
PBC.
Mr. Mosher stated he agrees with Mr. Khumalo’s approach to a PBC, but suggested easing the
criteria for permanent membership eligibility in order to benefit from valuable knowledge
offered by people that formerly served or currently serve on other committees. Mr. Khumalo
stated he can make that change.
Ms. Wright stated she is concerned about time constraints placed on volunteer boards and it will
be difficult to find enough volunteers.
The Board noted it is not ready to reverse its initial opinion of the proposal and asked whether
Mr. Khumalo would be willing to return to the Board for more discussion. Mr. Khumalo stated
he is willing to continue the discussion and noted the Board’s suggestions could be incorporated
in the Admnistrative Order.
2. Public Hearing – Proposed Amendments to the Zoning Bylaw/Zoning Map
Ms. Altamura stepped off the Board.
3
a) Citizen’s Petitions - Wayne Davies, attorney, appeared before the Board in connection with
three proposed articles amending the zoning bylaw and zoning map, submitted by citizen’s
petition. He stated the articles 1) allow and define the use of Continuing Care Retirement
Community Facility/Assisted Living Facility/Nursing Home Facility in the Rural Business
district; 2) amend the Off-Street Parking section of the bylaw by adding a parking
requirement for the use, and 3) change the zoning of 9 lots along West Main St. from
Residence B (RB) to Rural Business (BR). Mr. Davies stated he is here on behalf of the
Golden Pond Resident Care Corporation, owners of 50, 58 and 60 West Main St., but does
not represent the interest of the other lot owners.
Mr. Davies stated the existing Golden Pond facility located at 50 West Main St. is a
preexisting nonconforming business use which has been there since the late 1980’s/early
1990’s, and the Board of Appeals has issued special permits for 58 & 60 West Main St. for
the proposed expansion project. He stated the area proposed for rezoning consists of 3 lots
that already have or will contain a business use, 5 residential lots and a small Town-owned
lot near Ice House Pond. He noted he spoke to Brian Herr, Chairman of the Board of
Selectmen, who indicated he did not have a problem with including the Town-owned lot (0
West Main St.) but could not speak for the entire Board.
Mr. Davies summarized the events leading up to the proposed zoning change by citizen’s
petition. He noted several years ago the Planning Board sponsored a zoning change to BR
along West Main St. from #72 to Rt. 495 and more recently sponsored an article to change
the zoning of a portion of the Terry property to Office Park, effectively turning the group of 5
residential lots into an island surrounded by non-residential uses. Mr. Davies stated the
owners of 50, 58 and 60 West Main St. followed the procedure open to them and last year
filed the proposal with the Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC) who on December 9, 2009,
unanimously voted to recommend the article to the Planning Board, which in turn on January
26, 2010 discussed the recommendation but declined to sponsor the article. He stated the
Golden Pond owners and West Main St. abutters then filed a citizen’s petition which was
forwarded to the ZAC, Town Manager and the Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting
for review and recommendations. He noted the ZAC voted 7-1 to approve the recommended
rezoning language and unanimously voted to approve the proposed use/definition change and
parking requirement articles. Mr. Davies stated he is in receipt of the letter from Town
Counsel dated April 9, 2010, and contacted him to discuss his concerns and was informed
these are just technical recommendations. He noted Town Counsel indicated there would be
no problem going forward with the articles and the parking requirement issue could be
addressed by the ZAC during the next session. Mr. Davies referred to Town Counsel’s
concern regarding the proposed use definition vs. the one associated with the Legacy Farms
development. He stated Golden Pond has an existing facility and the proposed definition
comes right from the State and is more appropriate in this case.
Mark Rhodes, 64 West Main St., stated he and his wife are co-signers of the petition. He
stated as residential property owners they are currently surrounded by non-residential uses,
such as an animal hospital, a future dry cleaning business across the street, and the Golden
Pond facility with plans for a major expansion. He stated in this economic climate they are
looking for more options with respect to the future potential of their property values. He
noted they moved here 5 years ago and would like to be able to sell their property in order to
4
move to a nicer home in more of a residential setting, and he felt having these lots zoned
Rural Business will be beneficial.
Mary Barnes, Romney, NH, stated she used to live in Hopkinton and visits often to see her
family. She stated she does not know how the area will be able to handle the additional
traffic if the zoning is changed to allow more business.
Gretchen Gray, 35 West Main St., stated she grew up on Elm St. and has lived on West Main
St. for most of her life. She stated she loves the Town and would like to preserve its
character as much as possible. Ms. Gray stated she recalls the West Main St./Whalen
Rd./Elm St. residents were very much opposed to the Golden Pond facility when it was first
proposed years ago and resident Mary Harrington was instrumental in limiting the size of the
building to 2-1/2 stories because anything higher would have created the need for a new
ladder truck. She stated more recently it appeared Golden Pond had severe problems with
their septic system and the Town ended up having to accommodate the facility by allowing
them to tie in to the sewer system. She stated she is not against development, but the South
St. industrial zone is not yet fully developed and just last year a large parcel of land on West
Main St./Lumber St. was rezoned to Office Park. She stated traffic on West Main St. is
already gridlocked during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours and she does not want the Rt. 495
off-ramp area to resemble Milford, Bellingham or Franklin.
Jackie Fahey, 66 West Main St., stated the Town and the Planning Board already made
zoning decisions for this area resulting in several businesses that are here to stay. She stated
the additional business traffic generated by the proposed change will not make any
difference, with the new dry cleaner coming in at 71 West Main St. and future commercial
development of a portion of the Terry land. Mr. Abate stated zoning decisions are made by
Town Meeting, not the Planning Board, and the Board is only deciding whether it wants to
endorse the proposal and speak in favor of the article. Mr. Davies stated Ms. Fahey meant to
say that the Planning Board sponsored previous zoning amendments and therefore played a
role in the changes made to the area.
Ms. Gray stated under current zoning the individual residential property owners on West
Main St. can run a small business out of their home without the need for changing the
zoning. She stated the proposed change will have an impact beyond the 5 residential
properties in question, and Elm St. would become another West Main St. She stated she is
not in favor of accommodating the Golden Pond facility any further. She noted she works in
the medical field and cautioned that the use will keep spreading and turn into a medical
center, starting with independent living, followed by assisted living, hospice, etc.
Mr. Rhodes stated there is a 20 ft. buffer between his backyard and his neighbor on Elm St.
He stated he does not feel the adjacent property would be affected, considering that he has
never had any contact with his neighbor since he moved there 5 years ago.
Bob Winner, 56 Elm St., stated he does not directly abut the area under discussion but lives
next to the Elmwood Industrial Park. Mr. Winner stated he is exposed to noise from the
dumpster being emptied, lights, and he will be able to see the Golden Pond facility once they
remove vegetation to accommodate the proposed expansion. He noted Elm St. is an older
5
neighborhood and most of the residents do not have a lot of options to move away from the
new commercial use. He stated the increase in traffic will have a negative impact.
Mr. Davies stated the last two speakers in their comments have referred to Golden Pond, but
the facility is not the issue before the Board. He noted Golden Pond is a protected
preexisting business use, and the change if approved will put it in the BR district where it
belongs. He noted the current medical use was allowed under zoning in this district in the
late 1980’s, and the proposed zoning change will not affect the facility but will provide the 5
homeowners with additional options and the same opportunities as those given to the two lots
across the street. He stated he doubts the properties will be attractive to young families with
children, but would be a good location for a small business like an accountant or architect.
Mr. Markey stated he feels West Main St. is a good place for Rural Business but he does not
like adding the continued care component to the uses allowed in the district. Ms. Wright
stated the discussion could be continued, but she feels it is not in the Board’s interest to
overrule its previous vote. She referred to the Golden Pond parcels and Mr. Davies’
comments that details could be tweaked later by working with the ZAC, but noted Town
Counsel’s comments included a mention of the potential of a property owner taking certain
actions and claiming a zoning freeze.
The Board discussed the possibility of continuing the public hearing to April 26. Ms.
DeVeuve stated that nothing said here tonight has changed her opinion of the proposal. She
recommending a motion not to endorse the article at Town Meeting, but after discussion, the
sense of the Board was that more discussion is in order. Mr. Davies stated that through Ms.
Lazarus he has received the assurance of the Board’s best effort to complete the review
process with respect to the major & minor site plan applications for the Golden Pond
expansion project scheduled for a public hearing on April 26, 2010 and advised against
continuing the public hearing to that date.
The Board voted 6 in favor with 1 opposed (Weismantel) to continue the public hearing to
April 26, 2010 at 8:35 P.M., at the Hopkinton Fire Station, 73 Main St.
Ms. Altamura returned to the Board.
3. 61 Main St. – Colella’s Supermarket – Proposed Amendment to Approved Site Plan
Dale Danahy, Colella’s Supermarket, appeared before the Board, to discuss changes to the
approved site plan for 61 Main St. She stated she would like to be treated the same as the
owners of the office building at 77 Main St. with respect to rooftop equipment screening
requirements. She noted one can clearly see the roof equipment on top of the building at #77 and
asked why some property owners have to comply but others do not. The Board noted not all
members are familiar with the application for 77 Main St., but site plan applications are reviewed
on a case by case basis. Ms. Danahy stated the refrigeration equipment details were shown on
the approved site plan. It was pointed out that only a plan view of structural steel was submitted
and no elevation drawings showing equipment were submitted by the applicant.
Ms. Wright stated under site plan review, the requirement for rooftop equipment screening is a
standard approval condition and most applicants include screening methods with the application.
6
She stated she is sure Ms. Danahy, as a former member of the Downtown Revitalization
Committee, agrees that the approach to screening rooftop equipment affects the aesthetics of a
building. She referred to recent downtown commercial building projects such as Bill’s Pizza,
Middlesex Savings Bank and Hopkinton Drug which all addressed rooftop equipment by
appropriate screening.
Ms. Wright stated it appears the applicant and the Board during the site plan review process
focused on the supermarket entrance configurations and it is possible that other changes were
missed. She noted Ms. Danahy must realize that Colella’s is an anchor store for the downtown
area and the issue can be addressed simply. Ms. Danahy stated an 8 ft. fence would be the
easiest solution, but it would look ridiculous and she therefore proposes mitigation by giving it
the appearance of a second floor. Ms. Wright stated this could be an option, but suggested Ms.
Danahy take a look at the Liberty Mutual building on Frankland Rd., which is similar to
Colella’s, for an example of roof screening. She stated Liberty Mutual used a shield of sloped
metal panels in a matching color to make the roof “disappear”.
Ms. Altamura stated it is a shame Ms. Danahy has not been to the Design Review Board to
discuss the proposal. Ms. Danahy stated the Board of Selectmen had received complaints about
the roof structure and she was told to go to a Planning Board meeting as soon as possible to
address the issue. Mr. Markey stated he knows Colella’s Supermarket does a lot for the
community, but he is disappointed in the proposed solution to the problem. He stated he had
been surprised to see the roof equipment appear just a couple of days after the Planning Board
site plan review hearing where there had been no mention of this, and even a project much
smaller in scale like the dry cleaning business to be discussed tonight addresses building
elevations and screening issues. It was determined that the just the roof details were shown on
the plan but no elevation drawings were submitted. Mr. Mosher stated it is possible this was just
an oversight, but the current screening proposal appears inadequate and the applicant’s next
logical step would be a meeting with the Design Review Board.
Mr. Abate stated they could inform the Board of Selectmen that Ms. Danahy followed their
advice to meet with the Planning Board, including the Board’s suggestion to meet with the
Design Review Board. RJ Dourney, member, Board of Selectmen, speaking as an individual,
stated the Selectmen did not discuss the Colella’s Supermarket building as a Board and any
comments would have been made by the members speaking as private citizens. Mr. Abate
recommended that Ms. Danahy meet with the Design Review Board and return to the Planning
Board with additional information regarding rooftop screening as well as the proposed change to
the approved site plan with respect to closing off the old entrance door. It was noted that a DRB
meeting has been posted for April 27, 2010 at 7:30 P.M. Ms. Wallace stated Colella’s
Supermarket/61 Main St. has been tentatively placed on the agenda, and she will confirm the
date and time with Ms. Danahy.
4. Continued Public Hearing – Legacy Farms – Master Plan Special Permit Application –
East Main St., Clinton St., Frankland Rd., Wilson St. (Legacy Farms, LLC)
Ms. DeVeuve moved to continue the public hearing to 8:45 P.M., Ms. Altamura seconded the
motion, and the Board voted 7 in favor with 1 abstention (Mosher).
7
5. Public Hearing – Minor Project Site Plan Review – 71 West Main Street – Paul Lee
Construction
Paul Lee, Paul Lee Construction, applicant, and Rob Truax, GLM Engineering, engineer,
appeared before the Board. Mr. Truax described the existing conditions and proposed changes to
the property, an existing home located at 71 West Main St. to be used for a dry cleaning
business. He noted Mr. Lee is planning a 396 sq. ft. addition to the east side of the structure, a
new driveway with a one-way traffic pattern and 4 additional parking spaces for a total of 7
spaces. He stated there will be 4 parking spaces on the west side of the building - 2 intended for
the employees only including 1 in the garage, and 3 spaces on the east side for customers only
including one handicapped space. Mr. Truax stated there will be an 18 ft. wide driveway with a
raised concrete walkway along the front of the building, which will include handicap access.
Mr. Truax described the proposed stormwater drainage system and stated the calculations are
currently under review by the Conservation Commission. He stated the application includes a
lighting plan and showed literature on the proposed fixtures which will have shields to prevent
light from spilling off the property. In response to a question from Ms. Altamura, Mr. Truax
stated lighting levels will be reduced at night. Ms. Altamura stated it appears people will have to
walk across the parking lot without the benefit of a sidewalk and asked if people would be
confused about having to double park. Mr. Truax stated it is a dry cleaning business with quick
customer turnover. Mr. Auslander asked about septic issues, and Mr. Truax stated they are going
to tie into the sewer system. Mr. Abate asked about a preexisting shed, and Mr. Truax stated it
will remain. In response to a question about the final lighting design, Mr. Weismantel
recommended the applicant submit the plan to Ms. Lazarus to make sure it meets the standards.
Mr. Markey asked about the possibility of switching the location of the walkway. He noted he
would like to see the sidewalk immediately adjacent to the building, and maybe even wrap it
around to the sides so people can walk from the sidewalk right into the building. Mr. Truax
stated the current design appears adequate because generally people do not use walkways
anyway. Mr. Markey stated the reasons for his suggestion are: 1) to remove the sidewalk from
the parking area, and 2) separate the sidewalk and vehicle area by planters. Mr. Truax stated he
feels the current design is safe with the curb in place and considering the amount of activity. Mr.
Markey stated from his experience with downtown planning, separating the sidewalk from the
roadway will result in a more attractive design. Ms. Altamura stated from a safety perspective
planters will give a visual heads up, and if at all possible, the design should be flipped. Mr.
Truax stated he feels this can be achieved at least for a portion of the layout, and Mr. Markey
stated that would be satisfactory.
Mr. Abate asked about the stormwater calculations, and Mr. Truax stated he has not heard back
from the Conservation Commission. Ms. Wright stated she would like to discuss the
requirement prohibiting left turns out of the site. She stated she recognizes West Main St. is very
busy, but in reality people will ignore the sign. She noted one of the conditions that will make
the new business work is the opportunity to pick up customer traffic from the west side of Town,
and a lot of people who are going in that direction but who cannot take a left, will take a right out
of the parking lot and then turn around at Golden Pond. Mr. Truax stated he thinks this
requirement was part of the Board of Appeals decision, and Mr. Weismantel stated the Board of
Appeals granted a variance for expansion of the dwelling by more than 25%, but overstepped its
authority by imposting that condition.
8
It was noted that the Board’s decision regarding this application has to be filed by May 6, 2010.
The Board asked if the applicant would be willing to grant an extension of the time for the Board
to act, and the applicant agreed to grant an extension to May 30, 2010. It was noted the Board
would like to see more information regarding the outcome of the Conservation Commission’s
stormwater review, review a copy of the Board of Appeals decision dated January 7, 2010, and
receive input from the Police Department regarding the “no left turn” provision out of the
property.
Robert Falcione, reporter, stated it should be no problem allowing a left turn out of the site in
view of his observations of traffic conditions in that area. Mr. Weismantel recommended the
applicant talk to Ms. Lazarus about draft conditions prior to the continued public hearing.
Mr. Markey moved to accept the applicant’s agreement to extend the time for the Board to file its
decision to May 30, 2010, Mr. Auslander seconded the motion, and the Board voted
unanimously in favor of the motion. Mr. Auslander moved to continue the public hearing to
May 10, 2010 at 7:30 P.M., Ms. Altamura seconded the motion, and the Board voted
unanimously in favor of the motion.
6. 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, applicants, Marilyn Sticklor,
Goulston & Storrs, applicant’s attorney, Rob Nagi, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB), applicant’s
engineer, Ray Miyares and Brian Falk (Miyares & Harrington), Town Counsel, and Fred
Moseley, Fay, Spofford & Thorndike (FST), traffic engineer, appeared before the Board.
Mr. Abate stated Mr. Markey will not be available for the April 26, 2010, Planning Board
meeting, which means that if the hearing is continued to that date, he will be unable to vote on
the application. The Board discussed the implications of losing a voting member and other
membership changes as a result of the upcoming Town election.
Ms. Pratt stated there still is no Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the project and
there are a lot of unresolved questions, including a number of issues raised by Mr. Weismantel at
previous meetings. She stated outstanding issues with respect to identification of open land as
well as FEIR’s for the wastewater treatment plant and the Alprilla Farm well should be resolved
before the Board votes on the Master Plan Special Permit application. Mr. MacDowell stated
Ms. Pratt has repeatedly brought up the submittal of the FEIR, but Legacy Farms has submitted
the DEIR, as promised, and the MEPA process is on schedule. He noted he does not see how the
FEIR is relevant at this point and it will be submitted prior to any Site Plan Review application.
Ms. Sticklor stated that MEPA issues will have been addressed by then.
Draft MPSP Decision – Ms. Sticklor stated it appears some main issues appear in more than
one condition and recommended discussing them on a topic-by-topic basis. The Board
decided to go through the draft decision to generate discussion.
Page 1, item 1. Mr. Miyares stated the sentence has to be changed by replacing the word
“owners” by “applicant”.
Ms. Wright asked for clarification regarding a list of waiver requests. Mr. Zieff stated
there was an initial set of drawings in October 2008, but this item was pushed off to the
9
site plan review phase. It was noted that elevation drawings will be submitted if the
Board grants the waiver request.
Page 7, condition #4. Mr. Miyares stated this condition addresses concerns raised
previously that development be distributed across the entire project and not be
concentrated on either the north or south side with minimum numbers assigned for single
family, multi-family, and office use floor space based on 75% of the numbers assumed in
the traffic study. He noted this includes a provision that if the actual numbers deviate
more than 25% from the traffic study assumptions, the applicants have to come back for
an amendment to the MPSP and submit a new traffic study if requested. Mr. Miyares
stated he has separated the office and retail/commercial land use categories into 60,000
and 35,000 sq. ft. respectively for this condition and the applicant has suggested that the
numbers for office space and retail commercial uses be combined as a total of 95,000 sq.
ft. He stated the condition has been worded this way at the recommendation of FST
because of the difference in traffic generation between office, retail and commercial
development uses.
Mr. Auslander asked whether the goal here is to address traffic issues or development
distribution or clustering. Mr. Miyares stated combining the square footages would allow
development to cluster one way or the other and deviations from initial traffic study
assumptions could have a significant impact. Ms. Sticklor stated she understands the
need to prevent lopsided clustering, but the Open Space Mixed Use Development
(OSMUD) Overlay District bylaw refers to residential units and commercial square
footage viewed as one single category. She stated she is concerned that the language
proposed by Town Counsel might impose minimums on sub uses not imposed otherwise
by the OSMUD. Ms. Sticklor stated the developer is going to present traffic studies with
each individual site plan, which will give the Board the opportunity to test the
assumptions made in the very beginning and adjust requirements for traffic mitigation if
needed.
Mr. Weismantel suggested a compromise using a combined figure with a traffic
paragraph later in the document that clearly codifies the basic traffic study assumptions
listed by (north/south) area and use. Mr. Miyares stated the decision has to be clear as to
what will happen if the actual traffic study numbers deviate significantly from initial
estimates. He noted the current language requires the applicant to come back to the
Planning Board for a minor or major amendment to the MPSP which will require a 2/3
vote for approval, while if addressed during site plan review can be approved by a simple
majority vote in the context of a single development instead of the entire project.
Mr. Markey asked about the requirement for a revised traffic study, and Mr. Miyares
stated that the Planning Board can ask for a new traffic study in connection with the
special permit amendment.
Mr. Abate asked whether Condition #4 should be left as is, and Mr. Miyares responded
that would be his recommendation.
Mr. MacDowell stated that under the language recommended by Town Counsel, Legacy
Farms has to dedicate 65,000 sq. ft. to office use, and he is concerned they will never get
10
to use the full amount considering the office market today and in the near future. He
stated as a developer he should be allowed flexibility as long as the traffic goals can be
met or exceeded. Mr. Moseley stated an office use will have a greater traffic impact on
the center of Town. Mr. Miyares stated the traffic studies submitted in connection with
the Legacy Farms project are the most important piece of information the Board has at its
disposal, and significant deviations from the initial assumptions would be a fundamental
change to what is being approved. Mr. Abate stated traffic studies are basically
assumptions and he would rather base the need for changes on non-traffic related issues
giving people the opportunity to debate reality down the road. Ms. DeVeuve
recommended keeping the categories separate and asked if there are traffic standards
relating to office or other commercial uses that have less traffic impact. Mr. Moseley
stated the uses can be broken down by land use, or grouped by weekend vs. weekday
impact. Ms. Sticklor stated if the applicant during site plan review has the option to
substitute an office use with another commercial use or some type of combination of uses
which are less intense in terms of traffic impact, they would not have to get an
amendment to the MPSP.
Mr. Auslander stated the Board should decide whether it wants to deal with changes
during site plan review or through a MPSP amendment. Ms. DeVeuve stated she prefers
the MPSP amendment approach because she does not want to lose control and would like
to be able to address the change by looking at the project in its entirety. Mr. MacDowell
stated he is not opposed to a blanket statement requiring a certain amount of square
footage to be devoted to office use or other commercial uses as approved by the Planning
Board which would provide the needed flexibility. Mr. Auslander stated he is ok with the
proposed language. Mr. Miyares stated the traffic study is based on assumptions and in
case of significant deviations the Board will want to consider amending the special
permit, even if it means a reduction in traffic generated which in turn could potentially
postpone the need for mitigation. Mr. Abate asked whether the final language of this
condition can be worked out off-line, and Ms. Sticklor and Mr. Miyares agreed to work
together. Ms. Wright asked if changing the language to allow substitution of an office
use with a less traffic intense commercial use would be acceptable, and Mr. Miyares
responded yes. Ms. DeVeuve stated there is a risk that the less intense use might happen
at the wrong time or in the wrong direction. Mr. Miyares stated he will work with Mr.
Moseley to review the specific differences in use and whether they will fall readily into a
small number of categories. He asked if the Board would like to see the concern
addressed through a MPSP amendment, and the Board’s consensus was yes.
Draft condition #10, page 8 – Mr. Miyares stated he and Ms. Sticklor worked out a small
change to this condition. He noted the condition addresses the concern that something
that was initially approved might later turn out to be a violation. He noted he originally
added a provision to prohibit approval of anything that violates the OSMUD, but it was
agreed that a procedure will be established for correcting the problem.
Draft condition #15, page 10 – Mr. Miyares stated the applicant had suggested a change
to the language, but it is not really needed. Ms. Sticklor noted she is in agreement as long
as condition #1 is read globally.
Draft condition #18, page 10 – Mr. Miyares stated this condition concerns the issuance of
certificates of compliance and occupancy, and the applicant has suggested inserting the
word “substantially complete” in three places. He noted he discussed this with Ms.
11
Lazarus and she does not recommend this change. Ms. Sticklor stated a project could be
essentially complete except for landscaping in the absence of favorable weather
conditions, for example. Mr. Zieff stated that issuance of certificates for substantially
completed projects is typical in the construction industry. Ms. DeVeuve asked what
would be the applicant’s hardship in waiting, and Ms. Sticklor stated the certificate of
compliance/occupancy is an important benchmark for tenants, purchasers and especially
lenders. Ms. Wright stated she prefers that the Board has some leverage later on as
parcels will be sold to other developers who might not be as conscientious. The Board
stated it does not agree with the requested language change.
The Board discussed options for the public hearing and decision making process going forward,
and it was decided to continue the hearing to April 26, at 9:30 PM at the Hopkinton Fire Station
with additional hearings at the May 10, 2010 meeting and to schedule another Planning Board
meeting on Tuesday, May 11, 2010. Mr. Weismantel moved to continue the public hearing to
April 26, 2010 at 9:30 P.M., Ms. Altamura seconded the motion, and the Board voted 7 in favor,
with 1 abstention (Mosher).
7. Other Business
a) Minutes – Mr. Weismantel moved to approve the Minutes of March 22, 2010, Ms. Altamura
seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Mr. Weismantel
moved to approve the Minutes of March 29, 2010, Ms. Altamura seconded the motion, and the
Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion.
b) Bills – Mr. Weismantel moved to authorize payment of outstanding bills for Planning Board
expenses and engineering review fees to be paid from 53G and 53E-1/2 accounts, Ms. Altamura
seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. The Board decided to table
authorization of a Sasaki Associates invoice and associated approval of an amendment to the
initial contract pending further discussion. Mr. Weismantel stated he has questions regarding
Sasaki’s request to increase the contract amount, and Mr. Abate asked whether this would
require the consent of the applicant.
Adjourned: 10:00 P.M.
Cobi Wallace,
Permitting Assistant
APPROVED: May 10, 2010