HomeMy Public PortalAbout20100614 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes1
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
Monday, June 14, 2010 7:30 P.M.
Hopkinton Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton, MA
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Markey, Chairman, Mark Abate, Vice Chairman, John Coolidge,
Ken Weismantel, Carol DeVeuve, Deb Thomas, Claire Wright, John Coutinho
….Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting
….Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
1. Other Business
Bills – The Board voted unanimously to authorize payment of outstanding bills.
Minutes – The Board voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of May 10, 2010 as written.
2. Public Hearings: 1) Legacy Farms Road South Preliminary Subdivision Plan; 2) Legacy
Farms Road North & Frankland Road Relocation Preliminary Subdivision Plan\
Roy MacDowell and Steven Zieff, Legacy Farms LLC, applicants, appeared before the Board.
Mr. Markey referred to recent news reports regarding the Legacy Farms development with
respect to the decision to sell off various parcels. Mr. MacDowell stated he would like to
address the issue. He noted they have spent 3 ½ to 4 years working on the Legacy Farms project
with the community, abutting neighborhoods and consultants, and they still have a long way to
go. He stated it has always has been their intention to be the master developer of the site and are
looking at this project as their legacy as well, but it would not be realistic to assume they are
going to do all the work themselves. He stated Legacy Farms, LLC has engaged Cushman &
Wakefield (C&W) to do a nationwide search for potential partners to develop the various pieces
of the site which consists of a lot of different types of development, both residential (single
family, multifamily and apartments) as well as commercial/retail. He noted they have shared
with the broker the various development aspects that will be the responsibility of Legacy Farms,
LLC, such as the Design Guidelines (DGL) and the Host Community Agreement and assured the
Board they are committed to the successful completion of the project.
Mary Pratt, 102 Fruit St., asked if there will be a RFP-like process when searching for potential
partners because it will be good to know that candidate developers have been accepted and
approved in the area they come from. Mr. MacDowell stated they will be checking references
and the process will be similar to that followed by the Town with Legacy Farms LLC in the very
beginning.
Chris Barry, 17 Clinton St., referred to the Host Community Agreement and the requirement for
a revenue-positive development for the Town. He asked how this would work and if some
portions of the site will be completely sold off. Mr. MacDowell replied that it could be complete
sales or joint ventures, and most likely will involve a mix of very large as well as smaller
companies, some specializing in specific types of developments. Mr. Markey stated the C&W
2
ad references sales “in part or in bulk”. Mr. MacDowell stated the ad could have been worded
better, but bulk means anything more than a few. Mr. Markey asked about the term “master
developer”, and Mr. MacDowell stated Legacy Farms LLC as such will maintain control over the
site, making sure the roads are done right and building styles will be as agreed on. Mr. Markey
stated the Board did its due diligence with respect to the OSMUD zoning and also with the
Master Plan Special Permit (MPSP) to make sure the Town is protected. Ms. Wright stated the
Subdivision Rules and Regulations (SRR) are there to protect the Town with requirements for
proper sequencing and a performance guarantee to make sure the development is completed in
accordance with the approved plan, so that the Town will not end up holding the bag when for
instance a developer goes out of business. She noted it has happened before and things can be
tied up forever in legal battles, unfinished and unresolved. Ms. Wright asked if Legacy Farms
would act immediately and find a replacement partner if the parcels are sold to different parties
and something happens to one of those entities. Mr. MacDowell stated any type of agreement
will include Legacy Farms as the master developer overseeing the development. Ms. Wright
asked what happens if there is a problem, and Mr. MacDowell stated it will be the master
developer’s, not the Town’s responsibility.
The Board discussed the preliminary plan applications. Mr. Markey stated the main purpose of
the public hearings is to provide preliminary and general feedback and guidance to the
developer, not to authorize construction. Mr. Weismantel stated the time allotted is not
sufficient, and the Board will either have to approve or deny the proposal tonight unless there is
an extension of time. He questioned the best way to proceed. Mr. Markey suggested starting
with a review of the list of waivers of the SRR requested by the developer, and Fay, Spofford &
Thorndike (FST)’s recommendations on them. Mr. Zieff stated they have reviewed FST’s
recommendations and with a few exceptions agree with them, but have prepared a version of the
list highlighting the sections they don’t quite agree with, for discussion. Ms. Wright stated she
cannot respond to comments regarding Legacy Farms Road North as she just received the
response tonight, and it was noted the waiver requests for both applications are now identical.
Mr. Markey asked Mr. Zieff to review the requests for waivers. Mr. Zieff stated in general most
of the waiver requests are consistent with the DGL/MPSP Low Impact Development (LID)
concepts. The Board discussed each waiver request:
Sec. 5.2 –Mr. Zieff stated they propose using 40 scale plans only for the definitive phase
for sections showing roadways, utilities and drainage to save time and conserve paper.
Ms. DeVeuve asked for clarification, and Mr. Zieff stated some of the pages just show
vacant land.
7.4.4 – parks
8.1.2D – horizontal curves – Mr. Zieff stated they are trying to keep the right of way
(ROW) as narrow as possible, but FST is not in favor of granting the waiver and Legacy
Farms accepts their recommendation.
8.2.2 – The Board noted that the definitive stage would be the time for the Board to
review this request relative to curbing.
8.2.4 – maximum grades
8.2.7 – disturbance to natural topography - Mr. Abate stated he thinks these are the
requirements for type of fill and composition which if not in compliance will result in
problems, such as the ones experienced at Hearthstone Rd. and Greenwood Rd. The
issue was discussed further.
3
8.3.1 – sidewalks – It was noted that the location and width should be waived for
compliance with the DGL, but the requirement for a sidewalk would not be waived.
8.4.5 – catch basins – Mr. Zieff stated they would like to use MassHighway standards
while also looking for flexibility. Ms. Wright stated she has an issue with this as well as
the next two requests on the list. She noted the developer is asking permission to use
MassHighway instead of the Town’s usual standards and she would feel more
comfortable if the Legacy Farms developer has to abide with the same standards as other
developers. Mr. Zieff stated FST, and especially Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB) have
indicated that sometimes MassHighway, AASHTO and ITE standards are more stringent
then Hopkinton’s. He stated he is not trying to turn Hopkinton into anything other than
Hopkinton but would like to apply state of the art methods. Ms. Wright stated she would
not be concerned as long as the State regulations are more stringent, but that might not
consistently be the case. Mr. Coutinho referred to an earlier statement regarding the
recent frequency of 100-year storms which would make using more stringent State
requirements a better option. Ms. DeVeuve asked if requiring compliance with
MassHighway standards would make it easier to achieve LID goals, and Mr. Zieff stated
the State’s requirements are further along in this respect although federal and Army
Corps standards are even better. Mr. Markey stated it appears the developer is proposing
MassHighway standards and FST’s recommendation is to grant the request.
8.4.6 – manholes.
8.4.10 – stormwater basins – It was noted the reason for the request is to achieve a more
naturalized approach to buffering stormwater basins. Mr. Coutinho stated they have to
make sure there is enough absorption through vegetation. Mr. Weismantel asked about
the rationale behind the required 25 ft. buffer. Ms. Wright stated it could be a safety
concern and Mr. MacDowell stated that could be addressed by installation of a guardrail.
5.4.1L(1) – It was agreed that road profiles would be provided at 40 scale.
5.4.1L(7) – It was noted that FST recommended granting the waiver request, with the
right, center, and left line provided on the profile sheet.
5.4.1.N – cross sections at 50 foot intervals should be provided on the definitive plan.
5.4.1.R – The provision of street trees was discussed, and the Board noted that it is not
likely to waive the requirement, but encourages trees to be planted in landscaped groups
rather than at regular intervals along the roadway.
5.4.1.S – A waiver of site quantities was discussed, and noted that it would be
appropriate.
5.4.1.BB - Ms. Lazarus stated the waiver is acceptable to FST as long as the developer
provides the required soils information where necessary.
8.7.3 – Ms. Wright stated that maybe the request should be worded differently to allow
for irrigation systems in the ROW in areas where there is no other option available. Ms.
Lazarus stated the hope is irrigation will not be necessary within the ROW. Mr. Markey
stated FST refers to concerns about plows damaging irrigation systems in the ROW, and
Mr. MacDowell stated they would have to hit the trees first. He added they thought this
would be a better approach, and the use of private irrigation a benefit to the Town. Mr.
Zieff stated irrigation is intended primarily for the tree to get a start, not for the life of the
tree.
9.6.2 – use of GPS rather than grade stakes.
4
9.9 – Driveway apron materials were discussed. The Board noted that materials other
than bituminous pavement would be acceptable as long as the alternative is a hard
surface.
9.10.9 – grass seed.
9.11.1 – concrete bounds – Mr. Zieff stated he does not agree with FST’s
recommendation but has no further comment.
9.11.2 - monumentation
7.6.1B - performance guarantee – Mr. Zieff stated he thinks there is a disconnect here.
He noted they are not asking for relief from performance guarantee requirements, just
asking for flexibility as the project moves forward. Ms. Lazarus stated she is not sure a
waiver is needed for what the applicant wants to do.
Mr. Markey asked if the Board is ready to close the public hearing, and Mr. Weismantel stated
there are other items that need further discussion and a continuance might be needed.
Russ Ellsworth, 6 Curtis Rd., stated he would like to comment on the applications and agreed
with Mr. Weismantel that the applicant ask for a continuance.
The applicant requested an extension of time for the Board to file a decision with the Town
Clerk. Mr. Coolidge moved to continue the public hearings for the preliminary Legacy Farms
Road (South & North/Frankland Road Relocation) applications to June 28, 2010 at 9:00 P.M.
and grant an extension of time for the Board to file a decision to July 2, 2010, Ms. DeVeuve
seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
3. 151 Hayden Rowe St. Farm Stand – Todaro – Informal Discussion
Wayne Belec, Waterman Design Associates, engineer, Phil Todaro and Jeff Barton, Hopkinton
Hydroponics, appeared before the Board. Mr. Belec stated Mr. Todaro has filed a site plan
review application with the Planning Board to construct a farm stand building at 151 Hayden
Rowe St. but would like to discuss it with the Board prior to the public hearing for preliminary
input on the proposal.
Mr. Todaro stated he purchased the property to develop it agriculturally, and he and Mr. Barton
have been in business together for about 12 years growing and selling produce and helping other
farmers as well. Mr. Markey asked about hydroponic produce and Mr. Todaro explained they
don’t use soil but nutrient-enriched water instead. Mr. Todaro stated it is an efficient growing
process which uses very little water, and they would need a lot more space (5 times as much) if
they used traditional growing methods. Mr. Belec stated Mr. Todaro is looking to continue the
agricultural use for the property which was owned by the Colella family at one point.
Mr. Belec explained the existing conditions and proposed new farm stand building, which will
focus on LID with no pavement on the site with the exception of the driveway aprons on Hayden
Rowe St. He stated he met with Ms. Lazarus, the Fire Dept., and the DPW Board and developed
a traffic circulation plan which will actually eliminate congestion experienced at times with
delivery trucks under existing conditions. He noted they will use crushed stone which will allow
for stormwater infiltration on site, and there will be 47 parking spaces in accordance with the
zoning bylaw requirements but will try to make as many green spaces as possible. Mr. Belec
explained the proposed stormwater drainage design including rain gardens and water quality
5
basins. He showed architectural drawings and stated it will look like a barn with an added silo
feature. Ms. DeVeuve asked if Mr. Todaro is going to build all proposed parking spaces as the
requirement seems high for what she envisions for traffic. Mr. Belec stated the parking lot will
be grassy with a honeycomb grid design, except for the handicap spaces, which will have
permeable pavers. Ms. DeVeuve asked how many spaces will be needed in reality, and Mr.
Todaro stated about half the amount will be sufficient to run the business. Mr. Weismantel
stated the Board can waive the requirement with the condition to hold additional spaces in
reserve, and Ms. Wright stated that is what the Design Review Board had in mind for the site.
Mr. Weismantel asked about future development plans for the back portion of the property and
Mr. Todaro stated there are no plans at this point. Mr. Barton explained that in the new building
there will be retail on the first floor, an office in the 2nd floor mezzanine, and receiving on the
south side of the building. Ms. Thomas stated it sounds like it will be a year-round operation.
Ms. Lazarus stated the property is in the RB district and the agricultural use is permitted. Mr.
Weismantel stated the use seems to cross the line between Chapter 40A and retail. Mr. Todaro
stated they would not be able to do this if they were not growing produce and they are within the
requirements based on what they do on the site. Mr. Markey stated the Board appears to be in
favor of the proposal but has recommendations regarding parking. Mr. Pratt asked if hydroponic
growing techniques are limited to tomatoes and Mr. Barton stated they also grow hydroponic
lettuce, cucumbers and basil.
Mr. Markey stepped off the Board at this time.
4. Continued Public Hearing – Hopkinton Square – Amendment to Decision of Site Plan
Review – 157, 159, 161, 167 West Main St. and 22 South St. – CJPM Development LLC
Peter Markarian and Chuck Joseph, CJPM Development LLC, applicants, Scott Richardson and
Steve Lewis, Gorman Richardson Lewis Architects, and Bill Scully, traffic engineer, appeared
before the Board. Mr. Joseph referred to the discussion at the prior hearing. Mr. Markarian
referred to the FST review letter dated June 10, 2010. He noted there were a lot of comments but
thought these were already addressed under the larger project and some might be explained
quickly. Mr. Abate referred to Ms. Lazarus’ meeting memorandum dated June 10, 2010, page
17. Ms. Lazarus referred to a list of FST comments and the applicant’s responses. She noted
there is another memo today which is not included.
Mr. Markarian stated the Board knows the drive-through window is not on the new plan and
specific tenants are not yet identified. He added he expects to come in later with information
regarding those tenants and show the façade with the corporate image for the Board’s review.
He noted other possible tenants could be a bank, dry cleaner, or a restaurant. Ms. Wright asked
what would happen if a bank required a drive-through window, and Mr. Markarian stated they
would have to go back for a Bd. of Appeals. Ms. Wright referred to the crosswalk across the
West Main St. driveway. Mr. Scully stated there has been a FST review of site circulation and
off-site traffic conditions, and they just updated the information using a modified forecast, and a
reduction of 30,000 sq. ft. will result in less traffic. He stated he talked with the FST traffic
engineer and submitted a response, but indicated that FST’s comments generally were relatively
minor in nature including some housekeeping issues. Mr. Scully stated they have for the most
part already addressed the comments or will be able to take care of them. He noted the on-site
crosswalks will be changed to meet the guidelines requiring a 6 ft. width. Mr. Scully stated they
6
will look at it in full detail and should be able to make modifications, but everything is pretty
much feasible including additional signage and addressing the location of the utility pole on
South St. Mr. Scully referred to a study update and forecast analysis and noted that 3 years ago
the site was maxed out so they added turning lanes. Mr. Abate stated he thinks the current
configuration is fine. Mr. Scully stated he has responded to FST and they concur with their
suggestion to monitor traffic conditions after occupancy, and they will work with the Town and
the State.
Ms. Pratt stated she hears the applicant’s statement regarding collaboration with the Town and
the State. She noted studies are being done regarding congestion but the State has no money to
fund any solutions, so modifications in this area should be part of a mitigation plan.
Ms. Wright referred to the location of the utility pole on South St. which is not just a sight line
issue. She stated it is important to make the sidewalk user friendly and bring it into ADA
compliance and the “It will be hard to move the pole” response would not be an acceptable
answer. Mr. Coutinho asked if sidewalks are required, and Mr. Markarian stated members of the
community have requested them. He stated this is shown exactly as on the old plan. Ms.
DeVeuve asked about the easement along West Main St. and Mr. Markarian stated they can’t
accommodate sidewalks everywhere because of wetlands. Mr. Scully stated the sidewalk along
a portion of West Main St. has been added since the last meeting. Mr. Markarian stated
deliveries will be directed to come in on South St., but they could exit on West Main St.
Bea McMullen, 8 Lakeshore Dr., stated she lives in the area and has seen people walking from
EMC to West Main St. She stated she is concerned about pedestrian safety and there should be
sidewalks. Ms. Wright stated they requested a connection to Downey St. to benefit the whole
neighborhood. Mr. Markarian stated the potential exists for the neighborhood to use it. Mr.
Weismantel stated he has been to the site and is not sure a sidewalk can be built there without
affecting the property owner at the corner of Downey and West Main Streets because of the trees
and huge hill. Ms. Lazarus stated she too went there, noting there is a slope but a short retaining
wall could be an answer. Mr. Markarian stated he has sidewalks on his own site to connect to
abutting properties.
Joseph Karner, 176 West Main St., stated he is still concerned about the impact of eastbound
traffic coming out of the site. He referred to the discussions regarding the previous plan where
they talked about extending the double eastbound lanes. Mr. Joseph stated there were competing
interests and Mr. Karner’s point is well taken, but the Police Chief was concerned that people
would go across anyway in spite of the signage for a right turn only. Mr. Coolidge stated
perhaps some striping on the ground going into Hopkinton Square would be a solution. Ms.
DeVeuve asked about people coming out of the site to take a left, and Mr. Markarian stated
drivers would be competing with two lanes of traffic which is not a good thing. Mr. Abate asked
about time restrictions. Ms. Wright stated it is important to keep traffic flowing and it is a
balancing act for drivers making decisions using good judgment. Ms. Lazarus stated drivers
typically ignore striping and it is probably better if people have to concentrate on one lane of
traffic only. Mr. Abate recommended sending the plan back to Chief Flannery for comment, and
Mr. Markarian stated he thought the Chief had already weighed in. Ms. Wright stated taking a
left out of South St. could be an alternative but not necessarily easy.
7
Ms. McMullen referred to a recent storm event and wondered how many storm drains there are
in this development on the street.
The Board discussed the options regarding the public hearing process going forward. Mr.
Markarian stated he had hoped to wrap this up tonight and believed Mr. Scully successfully has
addressed FST’s comments with the exception of the turn out of the driveway. Mr. Abate stated
it seems to him there are too many open issues to condition a decision, and Ms. DeVeuve and
Mr. Coolidge agreed. Mr. Weismantel asked about the status of the condition of approval with
respect to screening abutting properties for the previous plan, and Mr. Markarian stated they are
taking care of the trees. Ms. Wright asked about ways to reduce the amount of pavement. She
noted the parking space width seems excessive and she is seeing a sea of asphalt. Mr. Joseph
stated there is now less pavement compared to the approved plan. He stated he knows what Ms.
Wright is talking about but the parking lot was designed this way on purpose at the request of a
specific tenant. Ms. Lazarus stated she knows certain companies like to stick to specific layouts
but they don’t really need the wide lanes they think they do. Mr. Coutinho stated some people
need wider spaces. Mr. Markarian stated he already fought this battle with the potential tenant
and would like to leave the plan as is. Mr. Richardson stated smaller spaces would be ok for an
office park setting but in the case of grocery stores people are constantly coming and going, but
they tried to convince the potential tenant to reduce spaces. Mr. Markarian stated from his
perspective as a developer he would welcome a reduction of pavement to save money. He noted
it might appear there are too many parking spaces but he is certain they will be needed at times
especially if there is a restaurant in this location.
Mr. Abate stated the Board can go ahead if they want, pending more information regarding
signage, sidewalks, utility pole location and additional input from the Police Chief. Mr.
Markarian noted it will take more than 2 weeks to resolve the utility pole situation, but they can
comply with the Board’s request especially since they have to comply with ADA requirements
anyway. Ms. DeVeuve stated she would like to know about the right turn lane and in her opinion
it makes sense to have the other lane. Mr. Coutinho moved to approve the plan as submitted.
The motion was not seconded, and Mr. Abate stated it appears there is no support for the motion.
Jeff Doherty, 3 Angel’s Way, stated he is concerned that the space in front of the store will turn
into additional retail area as seen in other grocery store locations resulting in a degradation of
grocery stores in the Town of Hopkinton. He stated he therefore is requesting a $0 zone which
can be used as a pedestrian walk or fire lane but prohibits merchandise in front of the store.
Ms. Pratt referred to comments received from the Police Chief. She stated the discussion has
focused on right turns out of the site but she is concerned about drivers attempting to take a left
out of the shopping center going west. Mr. Weismantel stated people will manage as long as
they are patient and careful. Mr. Abate stated the Board talked about this already for the
previous plan and he does not want to get into another debate of an issue that was addressed 2
years ago to the Board’s satisfaction. Mr. Karner stated he will accept the Police Chief’s
opinion. Mr. Markarian stated the development could happen quickly if they can get the right
tenant and he would like to get a decision as soon as possible and start the appeals period. Ms.
Wright stated they could approve the plan as submitted and make modification with respect to
the turning lane if needed, and Ms. Lazarus stated it would then be the Town’s responsibility.
Mr. Weismantel asked Ms. Lazarus to draft the decision so that the Board will be ready to take
8
action with the revised plan at the continued hearing. Mr. Weismantel moved to continue the
hearing to June 28, 2010, at 8:00 P.M., Ms. Thomas seconded the motion, and the Board voted
unanimously in favor.
Mr. Markey returned to the Board at this time.
5. Other Business
Bills – The Board voted unanimously to approve an outstanding bill.
Planning Board Appointments
o Downtown Revitalization Committee (DRC) - Mr. Markey stated he enjoyed serving
on the DRC last year but would like someone else to take over to offer fresh ideas.
Ms. Wright stated she would like to continue on the Design Review Board (DRB) and
served as the Historic District Commission (HDC)’s representative on the DRC. She
stated she assumes the HDC will ask her to continue serving and feels the Planning
Board should have a full time representative. Mr. Abate nominated Ms. Thomas.
Mr. Markey stated he would second the nomination, and stated DRC discussions will
focus mostly on funding of the downtown design plans. Ms. Thomas stated she
would like to do it but has a conflict on the regular DRC meeting nights.
o Community Preservation Committee (CPC) - Mr. Abate nominated Mr. Coolidge,
Ms. Wright seconded the nomination, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
o Design Review Board - Mr. Abate nominated Ms. Wright, Ms. Thomas seconded the
nomination, and the Board voted unanimously in favor of the nomination.
o Housing Committee – Mr. Coutinho nominated Mr. Abate, Ms. Thomas seconded the
motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor of the nomination.
o Open Space Preservation Committee – Mr. Abate nominated Mr. Coolidge, Ms.
Thomas seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
o Zoning Advisory Committee – Mr. Abate nominated Mr. Coutinho, Mr. Weismantel,
and Ms. DeVeuve to represent the Planning Board on the ZAC, Ms. Thomas
seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor of all three
nominations.
o Sustainable Green Committee - Ms. DeVeuve stated she served last year as the
Planning Board’s liaison but is not volunteering again this year. The Board decided
to make the appointment at the next meeting.
Meeting Packet Distribution – Ms. Wright stated the distribution system, from U.S. Mail to
electronic, was changed for this meeting without discussion and/or vote of the Board. It was
noted reducing postage cost was one of the reasons for the change. Ms. Wright stated she
does not want to spend her own supplies to print out the documents and it is inconvenient
having to pick up the packet from Town Hall especially during vacation season. Mr.
Weismantel stated he prefers receiving the actual packet in the mail. Mr. Markey stated they
don’t have to impose the new system on everyone and it was decided that meeting material
will be distributed electronically to everyone and Mr. Weismantel, Mr. Abate, Ms. Wright
and Ms. Thomas will continue receiving hard copies in the mail as well, while the other
members can pick up the packet from Town Hall or wait till the meeting to receive it.
Adjourned 10:00 PM
Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant APPROVED: July 12, 2010