HomeMy Public PortalAbout20100426 - Planning Board - Meeting MinutesHopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – April 26, 2010
1
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
Monday, April 26, 2010 7:30 P.M.
Hopkinton Fire Station, 73 Main St., Hopkinton, MA
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Abate, Chairman, John Coolidge, Vice Chairman, Ken
Weismantel, Carol DeVeuve, David Auslander, Claire Wright, Sandy Altamura, John Mosher
….Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting
….Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
Ms. Altamura stepped off the Board.
1. Public Hearing – Minor Site Plan Review Application – 50 West Main St. – Golden
Pond Resident Care Corporation
Kerry Kunst, applicant, Wayne Davies, attorney, and Joseph Marquedant, Jr., surveyor, appeared
before the Board. Mr. Davies stated he wants the Minutes to reflect that they have asked that
Ms. DeVeuve step off the Board. He stated he sees Ms. DeVeuve is participating in the hearing
anyway and asked why she has not complied with their request. Ms. DeVeuve stated she does
not wish to step off as there is no conflict of interest. Mr. Abate stated the Board is aware of the
applicant’s request and stands by Ms. DeVeuve’s decision.
Mr. Mosher arrived at this time.
Mr. Marquedant described the minor project site plan consisting of construction of a dining area
addition and a connecting bridge to the future Golden Pond facilities at 58-60 West Main St. Mr.
Marquedant presented architectural drawings prepared by Kevin Neprud & Assoc. for the
proposed dining room addition. Ms. Wright asked if this is an addition to the existing dining
area, and Mr. Marquedant responded yes. Mr. Auslander asked for clarification regarding the
square footage of the connecting bridge as stated in the application. Mr. Davies stated the square
footage is measured to the lot line and adding the 2 sections will provide the total area of the
connecting bridge. Ms. Wright asked why the minor plan includes the bridge and whether this
should be part of the major project site plan for the new building and approved first. Mr. Davies
stated he anticipates approval for both applications and the bridge is on both parcels. Mr.
Weismantel asked why the applicant has not combined the parcels and submitted a single
application. Mr. Davies stated the use of 50 West Main St. is protected and might be damaged
by combining the lots. He stated 50 West Main St. is a medical care facility, and the occupants
of the assistant living facility will use rehabilitation and acute care services in the other building,
so that is why they are installing the walkway. In response to a question by Mr. Coolidge, Mr.
Davies stated 50 West Main St. is owned by Golden Pond Resident Care Corporation, while 58
& 60 West Main St. are owned by 5860 Realty Trust. Mr. Coolidge stated this is a real estate
partnership jointly developing the buildings and asked what would happen if there is a parting of
Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – April 26, 2010
2
the ways. Mr. Davies stated that is a hypothetical question, and Mr. Coolidge stated he does not
accept the answer given to Mr. Weismantel.
Thomas Garabedian, Chairman, Board of Appeals, stated the Special Permit granted by the
Board of Appeals requires that there will be a permanent easement to ensure the right to pass and
re-pass.
Mr. Weismantel asked if additional exterior lights are proposed. Mr. Davies stated no lights
outside the connecting bridge and no changes to the existing lighting are being proposed. Mr.
Abate asked about the impact on parking requirements due to the proposed addition. Ms.
Lazarus stated she does not think additional spaces are required. Mr. Weismantel stated he feels
parking conditions have been addressed and when driving by the facility he always sees open
spots.
Sandy Altamura, 33 Elm St., member of the Planning Board speaking as an individual, asked
about the existing dumpster area, and Mr. Davies stated there will be no changes.
Mr. Weismantel moved to close the public hearing, Mr. Auslander seconded the motion, and the
Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Weismantel moved to find that the approval criteria for
site plan review are met, Mr. Auslander seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously
in favor. Mr. Weismantel moved to approve the minor site plan for 50 West Main St. with the
following condition:
All mechanical equipment necessitated by the two new additions shall be screened from
view from the ground.
Mr. Auslander seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
2. Public Hearing – Major Project Site Plan Review Application - 58 and 60 West Main St.
– 5860 Realty Trust
Mr. Weismantel moved to continue the public hearing to May 24, 2010, at 8:00 P.M., Mr.
Auslander seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Ms. Altamura returned to the Board.
3. Bills
The Board tabled authorization of an outstanding bill to be discussed at a future meeting.
4. Wildwood Glen
J.T. Gaucher, Public Works Director, stated he has been working with the contractor at the
Wildwood Glen subdivision to address remaining issues with respect to catch basins, curbing,
berms, sidewalks and detention areas, and the final paving/crack sealing work is scheduled to be
completed today. He noted he will perform a final inspection of the roads prior to Town
Meeting. Mr. Abate stated the developer has requested a reduction in the performance guarantee
amount, and Mr. Gaucher stated that if the remaining work is completed as planned, the only
remaining items will be the as-built plans and the detention pond.
Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – April 26, 2010
3
Mr. Coolidge moved to reduce the performance guarantee amount for Wildwood Glen to
$20,268.00 and to authorize release of the funds held in excess of this amount to the developer.
Mr. Mosher asked about a long term plan for catch basin maintenance. Mr. Gaucher stated
maintenance will be the Town’s responsibility upon road acceptance. Mr. Mosher asked if the
Wildwood Glen developer has proposed to establish a maintenance fund, and Mr. Gaucher stated
not in this case. Mr. Gaucher stated he assumes reference is made to a recent agreement with a
developer for maintenance of a stormwater unit which requires special equipment not available
to the Town. Mr. Auslander asked whether the Planning Board should build in financing to
cover long term maintenance as part of the subdivision approval process. Mr. Gaucher stated he
discussed this issue with the Board recently and an inventory of detention basins is needed
before they can start addressing the problem. He noted the DPW is working with consultants
and there are several possible approaches, including a stormwater utility tax on residential and
commercial properties. Mr. Weismantel stated real estate taxes should be used for that. Mr.
Gaucher stated that just recently they had to fix two culverts, and there needs to be a mechanism
to better fund this type of repairs. Ms. Lazarus stated the current Subdivision Rules &
Regulations allow the Town to hold money for 5 years from the date of roadway acceptance and
use it for maintenance. Mr. Auslander asked about a long term solution, and Ms. Lazarus stated
the Board should revisit the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Mr. Mosher stated it is also a
personnel issue, and Mr. Gaucher agreed, stating that catch basin cleaning is the first thing to be
stopped when they are short of people.
Ms. DeVeuve seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Mr. Weismantel referred to the Board of Selectmen’s decision not to sponsor a Town Meeting
article to accept the roads in the White Oak Estates subdivision after hearing from the DPW
Director. He stated it sounds good to require repairs before roadway acceptance, but sometimes
the Town might have to accept a bad situation. He stated the developer in this case has walked
away while the streets continue to deteriorate, and if nothing happens the Town inevitably has to
take control because people are living there. Mr. Weismantel stated the Planning Board could
make a case for acceptance at Town Meeting. Ms. Altamura stated she would rather first see if
the Board of Selectmen would reconsider its decision.
Mr. Abate recommended discussing this issue at a future meeting and perhaps obtaining input
from the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Coolidge stated the real issue is the DPW budget.
5. Bill’s Pizza
No one representing Bill’s Pizza was in attendance and it was decided to postpone the discussion
to a future meeting.
6. Downtown Plan
Ken Driscoll, Chairman of the Parks & Recreation Commission and a member of the Downtown
Revitalization Committee (DRC), Tom Nealon, DRC, Tony Lionetta, BETA Group, engineer,
and J.T. Gaucher, Public Works Director, appeared before the Board.
Mr. Driscoll stated the DRC has been working with the DPW to find funding sources for
downtown revitalization. He stated the Committee capitalized on the work done by the Conway
Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – April 26, 2010
4
School of Landscape Design and BETA Group as well as the State’s decision to move the project
up in the queue, and submitted a Town Meeting article for $400,000 to fund engineering design
and roadway improvements for the downtown area. He noted they would like to get the
Planning Board’s support at Town Meeting and formally integrate the work they have been
doing with Legacy Farms on roadway improvements from Ash St. to Wood St.
Mr. Nealon stated the project will be designed by the Town and constructed by MassHighway.
He stated the design will address comprehensive roadway improvements, traffic issues,
streetscape, pedestrian flow, including a lot of measures to improve the downtown, between
Wood St. and Ash St., addressing visual and traffic safety concerns regarding crosswalk location
and width. He noted it is the Town’s obligation to pay for the design.
Mr. Driscoll stated the town meeting article will also include funding to study the burying of
overhead utility wires. Mr. Weismantel referred to the town meeting article for water main
replacement in the same area. Mr. Gaucher stated the DPW is looking at water main
replacement from Pleasant St. to Hayden Rowe St., noting that the water main dates to 1888 and
could fail, making it necessary to replace now before the roadwork is done, as part of the water
management plan for downtown. He noted Grove St. and other local streets are included as well
but the first component of the project will involve Main St. Mr. Abate asked about the cost of
the downtown improvements, and Mr. Driscoll stated it would be $3,500,000 dollars.
Mr. Driscoll stated once the design phase reaches 50% completion, the State will take the project
and move it up further in the queue. Ms. Altamura asked about other funding sources. Mr.
Driscoll stated Community Preservation funds could be obtained for historical lights. Mr.
Nealon stated burying utility wires could or could not be included, but other Towns have
received up to 40% reimbursement for historic lighting, underground utility boxes, if the Town
can make the case. Ms. DeVeuve asked about the cost for water main replacement, and Mr.
Gaucher stated design and construction will be $700,000, which will come from the water
enterprise fund. In response to a question, Mr. Driscoll stated NSTAR estimates the cost of
burying wires at $2,500,000 per mile.
Ms. DeVeuve asked if $400,000 will buy the Town a plan it will be able to afford. Mr. Nealon
stated there will be $3,500,000 to $4,000,000 in State funds for construction. Mr. Weismantel
referred to stormwater management for the downtown area and stated trying to find groundwater
discharge beds makes additional development almost impossible. He asked if the plan will look
for a solution. He stated big city downtown areas do not have detention ponds and are not
discharging water under parking lots.
Mr. Abate stated he is concerned about the design costs. He suggested a middle ground where
the Planning Board endorses the design concept but Town Meeting decides on the amount. Mr.
Driscoll stated the original amount was $350,000 but the article is written to give more leeway.
Mr. Lionetta stated they looked at the proposal in perspective, considering the incremental
amounts spent on annual replacement and repairs over the years. Mr. Abate stated the Board
should consider a broader perspective and the Town’s needs for other debt exclusions. Mr.
Driscoll referred to the term “shovel ready”, and stated the project is getting to the point where
the State will give the go ahead if money is available. He noted the Town has been accepted into
the program and now it has to make a commitment. Mr. Auslander asked if the $3,500,000 -
Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – April 26, 2010
5
$4,000,000 is for the entire program or just for the Town of Hopkinton, and Mr. Nealon stated it
is the amount set aside for the Town. Mr. Mosher asked if there is a way that the overall design
can be broken down in more manageable pieces. Mr. Driscoll stated he is not sure about phasing
but there are separate elements of the design phase, such as the study of burying utility wires,
traffic and stormwater management. Mr. Weismantel stated it appears the Town is in a unique
spot and should act “while the iron is hot”. Ms. DeVeuve referred to the Town of Holliston’s use
of State funding for their downtown design plan and asked if this could be an option. Mr.
Driscoll stated it initially was part of the general plan but dropped when they found out that the
State had accepted Hopkinton into the program. Mr. Auslander stated during his 5-year
involvement with the Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC) and Planning Board it has been clear
that downtown issues always come down to money but this investment could pay off in the long
run. Mr. Gaucher stated they have spent $200,000 in downtown improvements over the last 5
years and have very little to show for it.
Mr. Weismantel moved to support the DRC/DPW town meeting article for the downtown project
design, and Ms. DeVeuve seconded the motion. Mr. Mosher stated he would like to see more
numbers to compare the new vs. a repair scenario. The Board voted 7 in favor of the motion
with 1 opposed (Altamura).
7. Continued Public Hearing – Bridle Path – Open Space Landscape Preservation
Development (OSLPD) Concept Plan Special Permit Application – P M Realty
Ms. Lazarus stated she has received a request from the applicants’ attorney to withdraw the
application without prejudice. She stated the applicants plan to reapply and ask that the Board
grant a waiver of the administrative fee when they do. The Board voted unanimously to allow
the applicant to withdraw the application for approval of a concept plan special permit for Bridle
Path without prejudice. The Board noted it would consider a request to waive the administrative
fee when the plan is resubmitted.
Ms. Altamura stepped off the Board.
8. Continued Public Hearing – Proposed Amendments to the Zoning Bylaw and Zoning
Map
Wayne Davies and Kerry Kunst appeared before the Board. Mr. Davies stated he wants the
Minutes to reflect that he has asked that Ms. DeVeuve step off the Board. He stated he sees Ms.
DeVeuve is participating in the continued public hearing and asked why she has not complied
with his request. Ms. DeVeuve stated she does not wish to step down as there is no conflict of
interest.
a) Proposed Amendment to the Zoning Map - Rezoning of approximately 14 acres (9 lots) on
West Main St. from Residence B (RB) to Rural Business (BR)
Mr. Davies stated he would first like to discuss the Planning Board’s standards of review, and
Mr. Abate stated he recommends the petitioners do not attempt to tell the Board how to do its
job. Mr. Davies stated the Board should be following procedure and due process, rendering a
fair, honest and unbiased decision, and the Board members should be aware of this obligation.
He noted comments made at the initial public hearing regarding the rezoning proposal have
prompted him to make these observations. He stated two members suggested that the decision of
the Planning Board in January should not be reversed and that somehow the previous decision is
Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – April 26, 2010
6
relevant. Mr. Davies stated in January the Board did not advise the applicant of the scheduled
discussion, and more importantly rendered its decision without due process. Mr. Abate stated
January’s discussion was whether or not to insert the article into the warrant, not whether or not
to support the article. Mr. Davies stated it is not appropriate for the Board to base its opinion on
the January discussion as it did not have the opportunity for input and did not hear from the
owners of the 5 residential properties included in the rezoning proposal.
Mr. Davies stated he represents Golden Pond’s argument for rezoning. He stated Golden Pond
controls the use of 50, 58 and 60 West Main St. He noted 50 West Main St. has a protected pre-
existing medical care use, and 58 and 60 West Main St. are approved for medical, acute care and
rehabilitation. He stated the uses allowed in the Rural Business district are similar to the ones
that currently are and will be located in the future on these 3 lots. Mr. Davies stated Golden
Pond has a business that wants to move to a business district, providing the taxes, employment
and services asked for in the Master Plan, and asked for the Board’s support. Ms. DeVeuve
stated her reluctance is based on the creation of 5 small business lots with the potential of 5
additional curb cuts on this section of roadway, and has nothing to do with the existing and
future Golden Pond facilities. She stated she might feel differently if there was a plan to
consolidate the 5 lots. Mr. Davies stated this logic is inconsistent with previous
recommendations of the Board and actions taken at Town Meeting and curb cuts are a
permitting, not a zoning issue.
Jackie Fahey, 66 West Main St., stated this area on West Main St. is no longer conducive to
residential development, and the commercial/business aspect will continue to grow, directly
across the street as well as on the land recently rezoned to Office Park. She stated it will
continue to be very difficult to find a buyer for her home and everyone likes to leave something
to their kids.
Catherine Rhodes, 64West Main St., stated she would prefer to walk her daughter to the day care
center at Golden Pond but the sidewalk stops just beyond her home. She stated that maybe the
area would be treated with more respect if it was zoned for business. She stated no one will
maintain the area or clean up the roadside trash which sends a terrible message about acceptable
standards of living in an affordable neighborhood. She stated they have considered
improvements to the house to make it more livable but it probably would not be worth the
investment. Mr. Davies stated leaving these 5 parcels as a residentially zoned “island” would
deter property owners from making capital improvements and home values will mostly likely
decline as the surrounding areas continue to be developed for business purposes.
Florence Christianson, 62 West Main St., stated she could not sell her house. She stated she is
frequently awakened in the middle of the night by loud noises and beer cans thrown onto her
property.
Ms. Wright stated she has not seen for sale signs and asked if the owners have had their houses on the
market. Ms. Fahey stated she has tried to sell her house, but it took a whole year even to get
anybody interested. Ms. Rhodes stated she talked to a realtor and was told she could probably
list the house for what she bought it for, but it would be more valuable as a business. Ms. Fahey
stated she has been told the same thing. Mr. Mosher asked how long Ms. Fahey and Ms. Rhodes
have lived on West Main St., and Ms. Rhodes stated 6 years, Ms. Fahey 53 years. Mr. Mosher
Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – April 26, 2010
7
asked what caused them to make the decision now to pursue rezoning, and Ms. Christianson
stated living conditions started to change after Rt. 495 was built. Ms. Rhodes stated she and her
husband bought the home because they liked Hopkinton and it seemed to be a good place to start.
She noted the proposed Golden Pond expansion is also a consideration.
Mr. Weismantel stated the ZAC voted in favor of this proposal twice, once to present the article
to the Board and the second time based on the citizen’s petition. He noted Ice House Pond
seems to provide a natural buffer for those worried about zoning creep although he does not
know what will happen long term. He stated the Chamber of Commerce is supportive of the
proposal and he thinks it is the right thing to do especially in view of the proposed Golden Pond
expansion. Ms. Wright stated the proposal will rezone 5 to 9 properties but will impact an entire
neighborhood and the Board has to look at what the Town is left with. She stated there are 17
more properties on West Main St. that will be subject to more traffic, noise, trash, and difficulty
getting out of the driveway. She stated 10 Elm St. properties will abut right up to the same
business zone, 5 homes on the north side of Elm St. and 21 properties on Whalen Rd., and
therefore 53 properties in total will be affected by the more intense business use. She stated
under RB zoning there are a number of uses, such as professional home office and specialty
retail, that could be appropriate for low impact business without radically changing the
neighborhood, but which would not be allowed in BR. She stated this would even apply to the
old train depot which is currently being used for scouting activities and public charities and as a
museum. She stated BR would allow more intense restaurant and retail uses as well as filling
stations, live entertainment, and veterinary and medical centers.
Mr. Davies stated the Planning Board did not consider this type of concern when it endorsed
zoning changes in this area in the past. Ms. Wright stated that Office Park rezoning was applied
to a large piece of land which was not carved out of a residential area, and it made sense. She
noted the “Hopkinton Square” site is still undeveloped because there is no market, and the
Legacy Farms development will include commercial uses too. She referred to an office building
built a few years ago at Rt. 85 and Cordaville Rd. in Southborough which has never beeen
occupied, and the “build it and they will come” principle does not necessarily hold true. Ms.
Wright stated she is afraid the Town will end up with empty office and retail space.
Mr. Weismantel moved to support the citizen’s petition for the zoning change on West Main St.,
Mr. Auslander seconded the motion, and the Board voted 3 in favor (Weismantel, Auslander,
Mosher) and 4 opposed (DeVeuve, Wright, Abate, Coolidge).
b) Amend Rural Business District by Adding a New Use & Adopt a Definition of Continuing
Care Retirement Facilities/Assisted Living Facilities/Nursing Home Facilities
It was stated that the ZAC voted unanimously in favor of this article. Ms. Wright referred to
comments received from Town Counsel as to inconsistency of the definition language. Mr.
Weismantel stated the OSMUD (Open Space Mixed Use Development) is like an enclave in
Town and it was felt that the proposed definition was better for Golden Pond and therefore
recommended. Mr. Davies stated this article has two parts, including a proposed amendment to
the list of allowed uses in BR from “medical center” to “medical center and continuing care
retirement facility/assisted living facility/nursing home facilities”, which basically describes the
Golden Pond and is included as a special permit use in the BR district. He stated he talked to
Ms. Lazarus about the definition compared to the one used in the OSMUD so the use could be
Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – April 26, 2010
8
distinguished, and Town Counsel stated there should be only single definition but it was the
petitioners’ intent to describe the Golden Pond use in particular. Ms. Lazarus stated when this
was first proposed she thought there should be one definition but Mr. Davies has stated that the
uses at Golden Pond would not be covered by the existing definition. Mr. Davies stated aside
from the definition issue, this article includes a special permit provision and if the re-zoning
proposal passes, it is in the Town’s interest that this use is regulated as a special permit. Mr.
Weismantel moved to support the citizen’s petition as described, Mr. Auslander seconded the
motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
c) Amend the Off-Street Parking Bylaw
Mr. Davies stated that Ms. Lazarus had suggested including an article regarding parking
requirements, and they propose 1 space per every 3 beds and 1 for each employee on the largest
shift. He noted Mr. Miyares, Town Counsel, wrote that he did not like the language, but this is
the language in the zoning bylaw with just a change in numbers. Ms. Lazarus stated parking
requirements based on the number of employees are being eliminated over time, and Mr.
Weismantel stated this change is very consistent with the bulk of the parking bylaw. Mr.
Weismantel moved to support the citizen’s petition to amend the zoning bylaw as proposed. Ms.
DeVeuve seconded the motion. Ms. Wright stated the number of employees on the largest shift
might change. Mr. Davies stated it might be a valid issue and the proponents would have liked
to work with the Board if they had been given the opportunity. The Board voted unanimously in
favor of the motion.
Ms. Altamura returned to the Board.
d) Proposed Amendment to Site Plan Review Bylaw
It was noted the amendment is proposed as part of the Town’s effort to achieve designation as a
“Green Community”. Ms. Lazarus stated the article was proposed by the Board to comply with
the Green Community expedited permitting deadline requirements. She stated the Board decided
on a 6-month deadline which should be sufficient and the use is allowed by right. Ms. Wright
asked what would happen if the Board does not receive all the information it needs to make a
decision. Ms. Lazarus stated the 6-month period starts when the application is complete, the
provision only applies to renewable/alternative energy R&D and manufacturing uses, and the
Board would just have to make a decision based on the information it has.
Frank D’Urso, 173 Saddle Hill Road, stated the State is aiming to ensure that Towns are
progressing with alternative energy and compliance with the deadline is a way to speed things
up. Mr. Coolidge moved to recommend the proposed amendment to the zoning bylaw, Mr.
Auslander seconded the motion, and the Board voted 7 in favor and 1 opposed (Wright).
The Board voted unanimously to close the public hearing.
9. Continued Public Hearing – Legacy Farms – Master Plan Special Permit Application -
East Main St., Clinton St., Frankland Rd., Wilson St. - Legacy Farms LLC
Roy MacDowell and Steven Zieff, Legacy Farms LLC, applicants, Robert Nagi, engineer,
Marilyn Sticklor, Goulston & Storrs, applicant’s attorney, Ray Miyares and Brian Falk, Town
Counsel, and Fred Moseley, Fay, Spofford & Thorndike (FST), appeared before the Board.
Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – April 26, 2010
9
Mr. Abate stated the Board is trying to work very hard to move the public hearing process along,
however the members received additional edits to the draft decision just today at 2:33 P.M. Mr.
Coolidge suggested scheduling a continuation on May 10, 2010 instead of trying to finish it up
tonight and moved to stop the public hearing no later than 10:45 P.M. Mr. Weismantel seconded
the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. It was noted that Mr. Markey is no
longer eligible to vote by being absent tonight.
Mr. Miyares stated some of the Board’s discontent regarding last minute changes to the draft
decision should be directed at him and apologized for not honoring the Thursday noon deadline.
Mr. Miyares stated the first significant change to the draft decision concerns condition #20,
regarding transfer to landowner associations. He stated Ms. Sticklor indicated that transportation
management is not really an issue and therefore the condition had to be rewritten.
Mr. Weismantel referred to page 6, finding #12, and stated he still has not received an answer to
the question about the Zone 2 location for the Alprilla Farm well and is not ready to make this
finding at this point.
Mr. Miyares referred to condition #20 listing key obligation assignments in sections a – f. He
noted the previous version suggested these obligations can be assigned to someone like a master
developer, where the Planning Board could require a performance guarantee as a condition of
release. Mr. Miyares stated he has tightened the language up somewhat by providing the
developer with an option to assign all 6 obligations to a master developer or assign item c
(completion of Legacy Farms Road North) to the master developer of the north parcel if all other
obligations have been fulfilled.
Mr. Miyares referred to condition #27 regarding gateway signage. He stated this was revised.
He noted people should feel free to use Legacy Farms Road North or South with appropriate
signage to make sure the road functions as intended. He stated the applicants have indicated they
are willing to take down the gateway signage at the end of the 15 year period but maintain it
while development is ongoing for marketing reasons. Ms. Sticklor stated the proposed
alternative language achieves their goal. Ms. Wright she understands what they are looking for,
but the Town has never had a 15-year ongoing project. She stated the Town always allowed
temporary signs for marketing purposes, but a 15-year temporary sign is just about permanent.
She stated she does not want to end up with a stone carved “Legacy Farms” sign, but suggested
the use of special motif street signs like the ones used for Wellington Way. Mr. MacDowell
stated the marketing signs would be removed sooner if buildout happens earlier than anticipated.
Mr. Weismantel stated he would like to address this by an application for a special permit or as
part of site plan review. Mr. Miyares stated condition #26 attempts to address this issue with a
reference to the submittal of the first site plan application. Mr. Weismantel asked whether the
Board will have enough teeth in site plan review. Mr. Miyares stated signage will be proposed at
the time of site plan review, but it is a separate component and the Board can either approve or
disapprove. Mr. Abate stated the Board does not really like the proposed alternatives, and the
Board agreed.
Mr. Miyares referred to condition #40. He stated the condition prohibits piles of dirt remaining
on the site after completion of the project unless needed for an active permit. He noted the
Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – April 26, 2010
10
applicant suggested alternative language about anticipated permits up to 2 years in the future but
Ms. Lazarus thought it would be too open-ended. He stated unless a permit actually has been
applied for, the earth will have to be removed.
Mr. Weismantel asked about condition #35 which refers to prohibiting construction the week
before the Boston Marathon. He suggested making it 2 weeks instead of 1 week unless directed
otherwise by the DPW.
Mr. Weismantel referred to condition #42 regarding overhead utility wires. Mr. Abate stated he
understands the change, and Mr. Weismantel stated he has a major problem with the wording of
this condition which basically puts a higher standard on electricity on East Main St. than on the
scenic roads feeding into the development. He suggested alternative wording. Mr. Auslander
stated he thought they did not want to see too many lines on existing poles. Mr. Weismantel
stated the wire conductor size will get bigger but it will not be a big visual change as long as the
old wires are taken down. Ms. DeVeuve stated the Board talked about this before, and assumes
Mr. Weismantel is asking the developer not to visually increase the amount of lines. She stated
she likes the idea but is not sure it is feasible. Mr. Weismantel stated he has asked the applicant
to disclose the content of their conversations with NSTAR. Mr. Abate stated he agrees with Mr.
Weismantel and the $200,000 reimbursement as stated in the draft condition does not move him,
considering the estimated cost for burying utility wires is $2.5 million per mile. Mr. Zieff stated
it took them 2-1/2 years to get a work order from NSTAR which is constantly replacing overhead
wires due to age. He stated NSTAR is anticipating servicing the site from East Main St. and
feels the existing wires along East Main St. are sufficient. He noted NSTAR is also thinking
about coming in on Rafferty Rd. and Clinton St., but that is all they will tell them at this point.
Mr. Abate stated he would rather have above ground utilities and not include a Town share of the
cost to bury them and recommended striking item 42.b. Mr. Weismantel stated he would like to
see the reference to specific streets removed so they are not picking favorites.
Ms. Sticklor stated if they limit burying wires to streets on which the project has frontage, their
lender needs to see a cap on the amount of funds they contribute. Mr. Abate stated if the
developer wants to bury the wires on streets where the project has frontage, they have to pay for
it.
Brian Herr, member of the Board of Selectmen speaking as an individual, stated voltage is
important and he advised against putting pressure on NSTAR. Mr. Auslander stated Mr. Zieff
has indicated there might be other requirements forcing NSTAR to add more lines, and Legacy
Farms might not have any control. Mr. Abate stated if they delay the discussion, it will be too
late to address the situation because by that time the Board will have issued the Special Permit
and done site plan review. Mr. MacDowell stated there may be a big development elsewhere
forcing NSTAR to run more lines, burdening Legacy Farms with the responsibility for things
they cannot control.
Mr. Weismantel stated NSTAR has upgraded service on scenic roads over the years, installing
taller poles resulting in the need for excessive tree trimming to accommodate the wires. Mr.
Abate stated all roads are impacted and he is not sure he has the answer but the Town either
accepts additional lines or not.
Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – April 26, 2010
11
Reference was made to the Table of Baseline Conditions Signalized Intersections in the draft
conditions. Mr. Miyares referred to Special Permit criterion #4. He stated the Table lists 4
significant intersections with respect to 3 out of 4 baseline conditions in the traffic study. It was
noted work on the Rt. 135/Rt. 85 intersection will start this summer after school is out, and Mr.
Miyares noted that the results should be regarded as a part of the baseline condition. Mr.
Miyares noted that unsignalized intersections often function poorly with respect to left turns
from a minor to a major street.
Ms. Wright referred to condition #43 regarding energy efficiency and stated the Board has not
applied this standard to other entities. Ms. Altamura stated she does not want to strike the
condition yet. Ms. Sticklor stated they are fine with this condition in either in the decision or in
the Design Guidelines. Mr. Abate suggested changing the word “shall” to “may”, but other
Board members disagreed.
Ms. Wright referred to condition #50, item c., with respect to replacing the exclusive pedestrian
crossing stage with concurrent crossings at the Rt. 135/Rt. 85 intersection. She stated she is
concerned about this condition with respect to getting people with guide dogs, etc. safely across.
Mr. Miyares stated the main purpose of the proposed changes is to improve the intersection for
vehicular traffic. Mr. Moseley stated in big cities pedestrian crossings are concurrent, and it is
more a policy decision elsewhere. Mr. Nagi stated conditions will be more controlled once the
signalization is improved. Mr. Moseley stated they could go to exclusive pedestrian crossings
during the middle of the day only, as an alternative. Mr. Coolidge stated they could use push
buttons to completely stop all traffic for pedestrian crossing. Ms. Sticklor stated they could
elaborate on item c. by stating “unless otherwise approved by the Planning Board”. The change
was acceptable to the Board.
Mr. Miyares referred to condition #60. He stated the condition refers to 3 sets of triggers, at
intermediate and full buildout status. He noted the hardest one is the Legacy Farms Road North
threshold and therefore the applicant is reluctant to commit. Mr. Abate asked if Mr. Moseley
built in the delay between the trigger and actual construction. Mr. Moseley stated yes, and when
the last occupancy permit is issued, the north road should be open. Mr. Abate asked how long it
will take to build Legacy Farms Rd. North, and Mr. MacDowell stated 6 – 9 months. Ms.
Sticklor stated the condition says that the road should be built and open for public use, and it will
be the applicant’s responsibility to anticipate the appropriate construction time. Mr. Zieff stated
they brought down the traffic numbers, which also reflect background development. Mr.
Weismantel presented a hypothetical question where the development reaches 513 occupancy
permits for the south parcel, and another proposal for 200 units is submitted which cannot be
denied by the Board. He stated he is not sure that site plan approval is the correct approach. Mr.
Miyares stated Mr. Weismantel is making a valid point but he is more concerned about the
commercial component of the development. Ms. Sticklor stated the applicants are looking for
self-monitoring, and site plan approval will take care of it.
Mr. Weismantel referred to condition #75 regarding wastewater, and stated this would be the
appropriate place for a travel time restriction between effluent and the Alprilla Farm well. He
referred to the condition regarding athletic fields. Mr. Abate stated the concept plans already
have land dedicated to athletic fields but it is a Host Community Agreement (HCA) item, outside
the scope of the master plan special permit. Mr. Weismantel stated in the past the Board
Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – April 26, 2010
12
required other developers to build athletic fields. Mr. Abate asked whether the Board should
make completion of the fields a condition of approval. Ms. Altamura stated she thinks Mr.
Weismantel is right, and the Board should have asked for it before. Mr. Mosher asked what
stage of completion he is talking about and Mr. Weismantel stated rough grading and seeding
should be completed so they do not end up with a moonscape. Mr. MacDowell stated they only
agreed to provide the raw land. Mr. Weismantel suggested the applicant work with Mr. Miyares
on this.
Chris Barry, 17 Clinton St., asked about the 29 homes off-site that could connect to the
wastewater system.
The Board decided to post the latest version of the draft decision on the website for public
comment.
The Board voted to continue the public hearing to May 10, 2010 at 8:15 P.M.
Adjourned 11:00 P.M.
Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
APPROVED: May 24, 2010