HomeMy Public PortalAbout20100510 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes
1
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
Monday, May 10, 2010 7:30 P.M.
Hopkinton Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton, MA
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Abate, Chairman, John Coolidge, Vice Chairman, Ken
Weismantel, Carol DeVeuve, David Auslander, Claire Wright, Joe Markey, Sandy Altamura,
John Mosher
….Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting
….Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
1. Continued Public Hearing – Minor Site Plan Review Application – 71 West Main St. –
Paul Lee Construction
Rob Truax, GLM Engineering, engineer, and Paul Lee, Paul Lee Construction, applicant,
appeared before the Board. Mr. Truax referred to the outstanding issues from the previous
hearing: 1) site exit traffic pattern – Mr. Truax stated he spoke to the Police Chief, who indicated
he has no problems with allowing left turns out of the parking lot and has issued an email/memo
to this effect; 2) walkway – Mr. Truax stated the walkway is now located immediately adjacent
to the building with a planting strip to separate it from vehicles; 3) lighting detail – Mr. Truax
stated he has submitted a new fixture detail to Ms. Lazarus, and the change was necessary
because they could not get shields for the original fixture; 4) stormwater drainage system – Mr.
Truax stated the stormwater report has now been reviewed by the Conservation Commission’s
consultant scientist. He noted they are scheduled to discuss a couple of minor issues with the
Commission later tonight, but the Commission will not vote until the Planning Board has voted
to close its hearing. Mr. Truax stated he has submitted a revised site plan which he believes
addresses the outstanding issues.
Ms. DeVeuve asked about the capacity of the stormwater management system, and Mr. Truax
stated the system will be able to mitigate any storm up to a 100-year event.
Ms. Wright stated the new proposed exterior light fixture can be shielded but according to the
product literature uses a sodium vapor light with a dawn-to-dusk sensor, meaning it would be on
all night long. She stated this could be a problem as the Planning Board in its decision often
includes a condition requiring that lighting is reduced at night a level necessary only for safety
and security. Mr. Truax stated they can add a switch so the light can be turned off at night, and
they will have 60W porch lights which will stay on for safety. Mr. Weismantel stated they will
probably need the timer as well. The applicant stated the business closes between 5:00 and 6:00
PM, and they can use a timer to shut down the light after closing. Ms. Wright recommended the
applicant check with the manufacturer to make sure the fixture has that option. The Board noted
a time limit of 1 hour after closing would be reasonable.
2
Mary Pratt, 102 Fruit St., stated 100 yr. storms are now a common occurrence and asked how the
drainage system will handle that type of rain event. Mr. Truax stated the water will first go into
the underground storage system and from there towards the wetlands through a pipe sized to
handle a storm that delivers 7 in. of water in a 24 hr. period.
Mr. Weismantel moved to close the public hearing, Mr. Auslander seconded the motion, and
Board voted unanimously in favor.
Mr. Weismantel moved to find that the application for 71 West Main St. meets all 8 approval
criteria under the site plan review zoning bylaw, Mr. Auslander seconded the motion, and the
Board voted unanimously in favor. The Board discussed potential conditions of site plan
approval. Mr. Weismantel referred to draft condition #3 regarding dumpster screening and
stated he is not in favor of the reference to a stockade fence. He recommended using the word
“solid” in parentheses, noting a stockade fence would meet that definition but so would other
types of fences. The Board discussed the wording of this condition, and it was determined that
“screened from view with a solid or stockade fence” would be the preferred language. Mr.
Weismantel stated he would like to include a condition requiring issuance of the stormwater
permit by the Conservation Commission. Ms. DeVeuve stated the current application is for an
off-site dry cleaning business and asked if the Board should include a condition to make sure that
it stays that way. Mr. Weismantel moved to approve the site plan with conditions, Ms. DeVeuve
seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously to approve the site plan application for
71 West Main St. with the following conditions:
1. All work within the right of way of West Main Street shall be undertaken under the direction
of the Hopkinton DPW, and shall meet all requirements and specifications of the DPW,
including, but not limited to, surface materials, timing and manner of construction.
2. The type and color of siding shall be consistent on all sides of the building which are visible
from the street.
3. Any dumpsters on the property shall be screened from view on all sides by a 6 ft. tall solid or
stockade fence with a gate.
4. Mechanical equipment on roofs and on the ground shall be screened from view from the
ground.
5. The one-way driveway entrance and exit shall be marked with arrows and other pavement
markings to convey the one-way status to drivers.
6. Exterior lighting shall not spill onto property not owned or under the control of the
Applicant. Light levels shall be reduced at night to only that which is necessary for safety
and security. The two new Lithonia Lighting fixtures shown on the Site Plan shall be turned
off no later than one hour after the business is closed to the public.
7. In accordance with Zoning Bylaw § 210-138, the Applicant shall provide a performance
guarantee in the amount of $5,000 to the Town prior to the commencement of construction.
The guarantee shall consist of a deposit of money or negotiable securities to guarantee
completion of improvements to be made in compliance with the approved plans. The funds
will guarantee that any unforeseen problems which arise, such as erosion and sedimentation
and the correction of site lighting problems, will be addressed. The funds will be held by the
Town and returned to the Applicant upon completion of the project.
3
8. The Site Plan shows stormwater management facilities which are wholly within the
jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission. The Applicant shall comply with all terms and
conditions of the Order of Conditions issued by the Conservation Commission.
9. The application submitted to the Planning Board requested Site Plan approval of a dry
cleaning business with only the drop off and pick up of items occurring at the site, and no dry
cleaning on the premises. Therefore, this approval is for the drop off and pick up business
only. Further, the Board noted that the land is within the Water Resources Protection
Overlay District, and on-premises dry cleaning may not be an allowed use.
2. 14 Main Street – Bill’s Pizza – Proposed Amendments to Decision of Site Plan Review
George Vasilakeris and Zach Siarkos, Bill’s Pizza, appeared before the Board.
A. Lighting – Mr. Vasilakeris stated some time ago someone from the Town requested that
they leave the rear entrance light on after closing when the Town Hall is still open for
municipal business. He stated they installed additional lighting to accommodate the
request and to provide better security and safety for Bill’s Pizza. Mr. Siarkos stated
initially the light was too bright so it was dimmed and visors added to reduce spill onto
neighboring property. Mr. Abate asked whether there have been complaints, and Ms.
Lazarus stated she is not aware of any since the shield was added. Mr. Weismantel stated
lighting seems to be contained on site and he is comfortable with the situation, which is a
lot better than the Town Hall lights which do not meet any of the criteria being applied to
the applicant. Mr. Markey stated it is good to have lighting in the back of Town Hall, but
people generally overestimate their lighting needs. Mr. Coolidge referred to a
demonstration given at the Liberty Mutual facility some time ago, and stated even very
dim lights seem to work. Mr. Abate stated maybe they can ask the applicant to reduce
the wattage when the bulb has to be replaced. Ms. Wright stated that the light in question
is still extremely bright and the Liberty Mutual workshop showed that lower wattage can
be adequate, and the Board just required a business at 71 West Main St. with few
residential neighbors to turn the exterior lights off after business hours. She stated she
agrees the Town Hall parking lot has been dark but unless there specific problems the
Board should be consistent. Mr. Weismantel referred to the presence of the bank next
door, and Ms. Wright stated the bank will take care of itself. Mr. Markey stated every
property is different and the dry cleaning business is on a major road while this concerns
the back of a building with the potential for mischief late at night. Mr. Coolidge
suggested applying the same standards as long as there is enough light for safety. In
response to a question of Mr. Abate, Mr. Vasilakeris stated the lighting is for the benefit
of both Bill’s Pizza and Town Hall business and discourages kids from hanging out at the
back entry. Ms. Wright asked about the amount of wattage used, and Mr. Vasilakeris
stated it is now 150W, down from 250W originally.
Ms. Altamura arrived at this time.
Ms. Wright asked if the existing fixture could accommodate a smaller bulb, and Mr.
Vasilakeris replied no.
B. Dumpster Area - Mr. Abate stated he is satisfied with the dumpster area as constructed.
Mr. Coolidge stated it is the applicant’s responsibility to pay attention to the conditions of
4
approval and the general public expects a project to be constructed as approved. Mr.
Vasilakeris stated they never discussed the exact type of dumpster screening, which was
installed a long time after construction of the new building. Mr. Siarkos stated it was felt
the current fence and gate design was the most cost efficient approach for them.
Mr. Auslander moved to accept the amendments to the approved site plan as written in Ms.
Lazarus’ meeting memorandum. Mr. Weismantel seconded the motion, and the Board voted 8 in
favor with 1 abstention (Altamura).
Mr. Weismantel stated the Town Hall has a beautiful screened-in dumpster area, but is leaving
the dumpster as well as recycling barrels out in the parking lot. He stated the Town should set an
example and use the screening it requires from applicants.
3. Permanent Building Committee – Norman Khumalo, Town Manager
Mr. Khumalo thanked the Board for giving him time to further discuss the forming of a
Permanent Building Committee (PBC). He stated he is here to confirm he listened to the
Planning Board’s earlier comments on the proposed committee and has made an honest attempt
to incorporate them into the document. He stated he specifically addressed the Board’s
comments regarding: 1) finding a way to bring in members from existing Town
boards/committees to provide necessary expertise; 2) how to bring in and incorporate “passion”
by the proposing entity. He stated in addition to other measures mentioned during the previous
discussion he has increased the number of temporary members from the proposing entity from 1
to 3, and included a provision that if the Board of Selectmen so desires, they can appoint a
separate building committee for a particular project. He noted the School district projects will
not be covered by this proposal and instead will follow existing procedures. Mr. Khumalo stated
the previous draft already had a provision for the proposing entity to supervise and manage
construction if so desired.
Mr. Abate stated the establishment of the PBC does not impact the Planning Board per se, but
because of the fact that school building projects are exempt, the idea does not stick together for
him. Ms. Altamura stated this type of setup could be great for bigger cities and towns but she
cannot see it happening in Hopkinton. Mr. Mosher stated he is pleased to see that membership
restrictions have been eased with respect to people serving on other committees. He stated with
respect to a establishing a knowledge base, a PBC could benefit from including the schools even
if only in an advisory role. Mr. Khumalo stated that’s what he thought initially, but from
discussions with the schools it became clear they are committed to the present system, and
maybe changes should be made on an incremental basis for now and perhaps 2-3 years down the
road there might be a different discussion. Mr. Abate stated the PBC proposal sounds like
change for the sake of change, and the real issues are going to be the schools and the DPW, with
the schools following one set of rules and others, mostly the DPW, following a different set of
rules. Ms. DeVeuve stated she understands some projects like the sewer treatment plant and
roadways will be exempt, and Mr. Khumalo stated yes, if they are done independently or as
routine maintenance and not part of a bigger project, addressing one of the Planning Board’s
concerns regarding a PBC. Mr. Khumalo stated the new Town Engineer is starting on May 24
and it was felt that independent projects could be handled by the DPW Director, Town Engineer,
Town Manager and possibly some resident engineers in Town. Ms. DeVeuve stated she
5
preferred to see these projects under a PBC but had concerns about being able to find enough
volunteers willing to sit in on projects like that, but if so, it would be a good starting point to
move on to more exciting projects. Mr. Auslander asked what will happen if they cannot find
volunteers with the skills they are looking for, and Mr. Khumalo stated they have preferred
qualifications or otherwise will look for people who are most interested. Mr. Coolidge stated the
Town Manager will have the ultimate responsibility. Mr. Abate suggested a joint meeting with
school representatives and the other boards approached by Mr. Khumalo to find a solution that
could include the schools. Mr. Weismantel stated that is not a bad idea, but he is not sure that it
meets with what Mr. Khumalo is trying to accomplish. He stated maintaining records and
keeping projects on track can be done with the help of paid Town Hall staff, and he still does not
see this component in the administrative order. Ms. Wright stated she is glad to see a section on
the role of the Design Review Board (DRB). She noted the project proponents need to meet with
the DRB early on in the process, and if there are major changes along the way they will need to
go back. Mr. Mosher stated including the school and its bigger budget and scope would provide
the ability for cross knowledge, and Mr. Khumalo stated that interaction will happen informally
based upon discussions with the schools because they will ask for the Town Engineer’s services
for some of their projects. Mr. Khumalo asked the Board members to let Ms. Lazarus know if
they have any other suggestions, and noted she helped him with the language addressing the
DRB.
4. 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, Rob Nagi, Vanasse Hangen
Brustlin (VHB), engineer, Steven Schwartz, Goulston & Storrs, applicant’s attorney, Ray
Miyares and Brian Falk, Miyares and Harrington, Town Counsel, appeared before the Board.
Fred Moseley, Fay, Spofford & Thorndike (FST) was also in attendance.
Mr. Abate stated the Board needs to review: 1) the applicant’s answers to submitted public
questions (Q&A), and 2) review the Design Guidelines (DGL) which has been updated to reflect
the evolution of the draft Master Plan Special Permit (MPSP) decision.
Q&A - Mr. Markey referred to comments made regarding the rental (apartment) units and a
concern about a financial loss to the Town. He stated the Host Community Agreement (HCA)
addressed this issue and the timing of construction in the context of achieving a revenue positive
project.
DGL - Mr. Abate stated revisions made to the DGL are mostly attributed to the evolution of the
MPSP decision, including signage and the issue of burying utility lines. Mr. Markey stated he
likes the changes with respect to more explicit encouragement of the use of organic pesticides
and gray water recycling.
Draft Decision dated 4/30/2010 - Mr. Miyares referred to the comments submitted by the Bd. of
Health regarding conditions #75 and #76. He noted the Bd. of Health is concerned that the
language in these conditions could be interpreted to suggest that 20 units of housing can be built
with private septic systems and that the Planning Board is somehow authorizing that to happen.
He noted the Bd. of Health is commenting that: 1) the Planning Board does not have that
6
authority, which is true, and b) this involves a groundwater discharge permit and DEP would not
sign off, which is most likely true. Mr. Miyares stated the condition as written states the
Planning Board does not object but is not in a position to actually authorize development, and
therefore a change was made to condition #23 which as drafted states that the MPSP cannot be
construed to waive or supersede any other permit. Mr. Miyares stated he exchanged phone
messages with Ed Wirtanen, Public Health Administrator, who seems really concerned that
conditions #75 and #76 could be misleading to a potential developer. Ms. DeVeuve asked why
this language is even needed, and under what circumstances the developer would want to build
20 dwelling units with private wells and septic systems instead of using the Alprilla Farm well
and wastewater treatment facility they will be developing. Mr. Miyares stated it would give the
developer 20 dwelling units up and built/sold for cash flow improvement while developing the
infrastructure. Ms. DeVeuve referred to the HCA requirement for an overall revenue positive
project, and Mr. Miyares stated they would pretty much be talking about townhouses as opposed
to rental units and single family homes which are considered revenue negative. Mr. Zieff stated
the condition does not necessarily mean they want wells for potable water, but is related to
Legacy Farms potentially utilizing the municipal water system while developing the Alprilla
Farm well. He noted as it relates to septic systems on the other hand, the Bd. of Health required
them recently to install a septic system for one of the East Main St. properties even though they
asked if they could hold off and use the treatment plant.
Mr. Weismantel referred to approval condition #9 on page 8 of the draft MPSP decision. He
stated this provision does not seem too negative and lower development density is not
necessarily a bad thing, but asked how it fits in. He stated the HCA states the development has
to be revenue positive all the way, but it is possible that just prior to full buildout the office park
in the far north does not get built causing the overall project to be less revenue positive. He
noted he thinks the language allows this to happen, which is the only reason he is bringing this
up. Mr. Weismantel stated he is not sure from a practical standpoint how one can ask the
developer to do more if he says he is done. Mr. Miyares stated there is always a possibility with
a project this size that less could be built and there are provisions in the decision which allows
both parties to determine they are done. He stated the HCA is designed to make sure the project
will always be positive but does not guarantee by how much. Ms. DeVeuve referred to condition
#51 on page 19 with respect to the widening of major roadway approaches and asked if the cost
of necessary land takings will be borne entirely by the developer. Mr. Miyares stated any
necessary land takings would be at Legacy’s expense but all planned mitigation will be in the
Town’s right of way. Ms. DeVeuve referred to p. 22, and asked if they should address any
improvements to Rafferty Rd. at this stage. Mr. Falk stated this is addressed in condition #62A.
Ms. Wright asked about a sidewalk on Rafferty Road, and Ms. Lazarus stated this is addressed in
the same section.
Reference was made to condition #63. Mr. Abate stated some of Colella’s Supermarket’s
parking spaces are in the Grove St. right of way (ROW). He noted the planned mitigation will
not include literal takings, but he does not want these changes to be automatic without a public
hearing. Ms. Lazarus stated a public hearing process might give the impression that
improvements will or will not be approved. She stated the developer will have to work with
Colella’s Supermarket on implementation. Mr. MacDowell stated detailed plans for the
intersection would first be submitted to the Planning Board for review. Mr. Abate stated he is
7
still concerned about the impact on Colella’s, and Mr. Miyares stated there is reason for concern
because condition #63 refers to full buildout intersection improvements, which are automatically
required unless the Board waives or delays implementation. Mr. Weismantel stated the
intersection will not function properly unless improvements are made. Mr. Markey stated the
current Rt. 135/Rt. 85 intersection condition is a high priority for people, and the Town would
regain control over its ROW under certain buildout conditions. He noted that is a good thing,
and the fact that a property owner has parking spaces in the ROW is a secondary issue. Ms.
Lazarus stated the current roadway/parking lot configuration happened a long time ago,
predating site plan review. Mr. Miyares stated the Board could add language to condition #51A
that road widening shall require the Board’s prior approval. Mr. Schwartz stated his clients are
not comfortable with the proposed change which could jeopardize the development. Mr.
Miyares stated the Board’s traffic expert has recommended certain mitigation measures to keep
the intersection from functioning no worse than level E during weekday peak hours, and level D
during Saturday peaks, and lifting the requirement will have an interesting ripple effect later on.
Ms. Lazarus stated improvements to the intersection are a huge public benefit and should not be
held up solely because of one property owner’s interest in retaining use of the town ROW. Mr.
Markey stated this discussion seems to start unraveling the conclusion of a 6-month traffic
impact study. Ms. Deveuve stated she understands the reasons, benefits and Town’s rights with
respect to planned improvements, but would not like to see this portion of Colella’s parking lot
made unusable and unsafe. Mr. Weismantel suggested including a requirement that some work
be done on the other side of the property line if agreeable to the property owner, adding a
construction easement, and maybe requiring Legacy Farms to restripe that portion of the parking
lot to make it functional. Mr. Auslander asked if it would be part of site plan review with input
from the Police Chief. Mr. Miyares stated condition #45 probably will address the Board’s
concerns, and Mr. Markey agreed.
Frank D’Urso, 173 Saddle Hill Rd., referred to the planned reconfiguration/reduction in on-street
parking spaces in downtown. He asked about the potential use of the empty gas station property
as part of a solution to the Rt. 135/Rt. 85 intersection problems. He stated he is not sure if this
would be part of Legacy Farms, downtown revitalization or general public works roadway
improvements. Mr. Abate stated the discussion here is about Legacy Farms mitigation and other
improvements (Downtown Revitalization Committee (DRC), DPW) all are separate but aligned.
Mr. Markey stated he is a member of the DRC and the group is aiming to align the separate
projects as much as possible. He noted the details of the downtown revitalization project are just
being initiated and there is an opportunity for all parties to work side by side. Mr. Weismantel
stated no one want the Town to dig the road up more than once, and the question is whether the
Town gets credit for some of Legacy’s work or if they get a free ride out of this mitigation. Mr.
Markey stated the applicant is bound by the mitigation specified in the MPSP package, and
therefore any necessary state/federal funding would not be needed for what the applicant is
providing, and this should be clarified. Mr. Zieff stated the funding application forwarded by the
Bd. of Selectmen in connection with downtown revitalization accounted for many Legacy Farms
improvements, but specifically signalization improvement is equity on the part of the Town.
Ms. Altamura moved to close the public hearing on the Legacy Farms Master Plan Special
Permit application, Mr. Auslander seconded the motion, and the Board voted 7 in favor with 2
abstentions (Markey, Mosher). It was noted that Mr. Markey would be abstaining from the votes
8
because more than one public hearing session had been missed, and Mr. Mosher would be
abstaining from the votes because he joined the Board mid-way through the public hearing
process and is not eligible to vote.
Mr. Coolidge moved to grant the request for waivers from the requirements of the OSMUD
Regulations, Ms. Altamura seconded the motion, and the Board voted 7 in favor with 2
abstentions (Markey, Mosher).
Ms. Altamura moved to approve the Design Guidelines, dated May 10, 2010, Ms. DeVeuve
seconded the motion, and the Board voted 7 in favor with 2 abstentions (Markey, Mosher).
Mr. Auslander moved to approve the forms of Restricted Land Covenants, dated April 30, 2010,
Mr. Weismantel seconded the motion, and the Board voted 7 in favor with 2 abstentions
(Markey, Mosher).
Ms. DeVeuve moved to find that the MPSP Approval Criteria have been met, Mr. Weismantel
seconded the motion, and the Board voted 7 in favor with 2 abstentions (Markey, Mosher).
Mr. Auslander moved to grant the MPSP, Mr. Weismantel seconded the motion, and the Board
voted 7 in favor with 2 abstentions (Markey, Mosher).
The Board congratulated the applicant on the successful completion of the Master Plan Special
Permit application process for the Legacy Farms development. Mr. MacDowell thanked the
Board and stated he is looking forward to working with the Town on this project.
5. Other Business
The Board voted unanimously to authorize payment of outstanding bills.
The Board voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of April 26, 2010 as amended.
The Board unanimously voted to cancel the Planning Board meeting scheduled for Tuesday,
May 11, 2010.
The Board thanked outgoing members Mr. Auslander and Mr. Mosher for serving on the
Board, and thanked Ms. Altamura in the event that she is not re-elected to the Board.
Adjourned 9:05 P.M.
Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
APPROVED: June 14, 2010