HomeMy Public PortalAbout20100712 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes
1
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
Monday, July 12, 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, John
Coutinho, Carol DeVeuve, Claire Wright, Ken Weismantel, Deb Thomas, Richard MacDonald
…..Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting
…..Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
1. Continued Public Hearing – 58 and 60 West Main St. – Golden Pond Resident Care
Center – Major Project Site Plan - 5860 Realty Trust
Kerry Kunst, Golden Pond Resident Care Corporation, applicant, Wayne Davies, attorney, and
Joseph P. Marquedant, J.D. Marquedant & Associates, Inc., surveyor, appeared before the Board.
Ray Miyares, Town Counsel, joined the Board. Mr. Davies stated Ms. Lazarus summarized the
revisions to the plan in her memo to the Board dated July 8, 2010. He stated at the previous
meeting the applicant responded to comments submitted by Fay, Spofford & Thorndike (FST),
the Board’s consultant, and would now like to hear from the Board. Ms. Thomas asked about the
requested modification to the landscape plan. Mr. Davies stated the landscape plan was
reviewed as part of the Board of Appeals (BOA) special permit application for this project. He
stated he received comments from the abutters at 62 West Main St. (Christianson) and an
agreement was reached with them as well as the BOA with respect to landscaping and screening.
Mr. Markey stated FST has requested that the landscape plan show quantities and spacing, and
Mr. Davies stated that information is on the landscape plan submitted with the site plan review
application and is also part of the BOA decision filed with the Town Clerk. Ms. Lazarus the plan
does not show information on spacing and quantities, and Mr. Davies stated this can be easily
calculated by measuring the distances and counting the plants. Ms. Lazarus stated FST wants
this information readily available by looking at the plan. Mr. Davies asked the Board to provide
substantive comments on the landscape plan to avoid having to change the plans more than once.
Mr. Marquedant noted the plan has not been changed since the site plan application was
submitted.
Sandy Altamura, 33 Elm St., asked about the depth of the planting area and whether it will
provide year-round screening. Mr. Marquedant stated the abutters to the southwest
(Christianson) and northwest (McRobert and Chase) will have a year-round 15 ft. deep planting
strip, which is what was approved by the BOA.
Mary Pratt, 102 Fruit St., asked if the emergency exit to Elm St. will stay open, and Mr.
Marquedant responded yes.
Mr. Abate asked about snow storage, and Mr. Marquedant pointed out several areas to be used
for this purpose.
Mr. Weismantel stated all lots on this stretch of West Main St. are now zoned Rural Business
(BR) and asked if there is a landscaping/screening requirement from one BR district to another.
Ms. Lazarus stated there are minimum setbacks for structures only, but no screening
2
requirements. Mr. Davies asked if just amending the landscape plan would be acceptable to the
Board, and Ms. Lazarus stated the landscape plan is part of the set and should be updated as
such. Mr. Davies stated they can modify the plan to show fencing details, quantities and spacing
and asked the Board for suggestions, and Mr. Markey stated he assumes there is information out
there on best practices and either Weston Nurseries or FST should be able to provide guidance.
Mr. Weismantel stated it would be a codification of what was approved by the BOA, and it was
determined this is an administrative request by the Planning Board for clarification.
Ms. Wright noted the proposed lighting levels for the site are much higher than anywhere else in
Town. She stated lighting should be concentrated where it is really needed instead of lighting
the aisles and flooding the area with light, and scaling it down would be more economical for the
applicant as well. She noted the plans show light levels of 4.6-4.7 foot candles and if reduced by
2/3 there would still be more than enough light. Mr. Davies stated the plan does not appear to
show off-site spillage, which is confirmed by Ms. Lazarus in her 7/8/2010 memo to the Board,
and asked why the Board is so concerned, given the fact that this is an elderly housing/assisted
living facility and potentially a nursing home. Ms. Wright stated it is not just about the spill of
light off site and the Town as a whole is not in favor of excessively lit sites. She noted that there
is no need for 4 to 5 foot candle levels to provide appropriate lighting and reminded the applicant
there are residential neighborhoods nearby. Mr. Marquedant stated the applicants have found
that pole bases in parking lots are problematic from a safety standpoint. He stated they can be
flexible with respect to pole height but their lighting expert did not feel candle power is dramatic.
Ms. Wright stated the lighting on the recently approved Hopkinton Square shopping center was
not as intense as proposed here. She stated she went to several area big box stores and
supermarkets today and in general observed 12 parking spaces being served with 1 pole as
opposed to a 3 to 1 ratio for Golden Pond. Mr. Coutinho stated in his opinion the site could
actually use additional lighting and a .4. to .5 foot candle level like at Liberty Mutual would be
insufficient for this use. Ms. DeVeuve stated she feels they can move the lights to the center of
the parking lot, reduce the level by 50% and still achieve appropriate levels without lighting up
the neighborhood. Ms. Altamura stated the Board has done an amazing job over the last 10 years
working towards sites with enough lighting as needed for safety and security only. Ms. Lazarus
asked if the lighting plan takes into account any other lighting sources, such as building-mounted
fixtures or street lights and, if so, whether this information is on the plan. Mr. Marquedant stated
the building lights have no impact on parking lot lighting levels.
Mr. Markey stated appropriate lighting levels are a big deal and it is important to only provide as
much as needed for safety. He added the requirement of zero off-site spill is one aspect, but
lighting glow visible from a distance would be considered light pollution. Ms. Wright stated
there are too many poles, the poles are too tall, and the light readings are too intense. Mr. Abate,
Mr. Coolidge and Ms. DeVeuve agreed. Mr. Weismantel recommended the applicant obtain an
opinion from the lighting consultant with respect to this use. He stated he is not opposed to edge
lighting and suggested installing additional lights on the sidewalk closer to the building. He
noted it appears the applicant’s consultant did not come up with uniform lighting levels. Ms.
Wright stated the important thing is that lights are where they are really needed and the current
plan has intense light on the aisles and lower levels where cars will be parked.
Ms. Thomas referred to Mr. Davies’ letter dated June 22, 2010, in response to the Board’s
request for a sidewalk connection. Mr. Marquedant stated they initially considered the
3
northeasterly end of the site as part of the design and concluded there were too many
impediments to construction of a sidewalk in that location, such as a narrow shoulder, guardrail,
steep slope and wetlands areas. He stated they therefore proposed the sidewalk where it works
well with the walkway network anticipated for the complex. Ms. Thomas stated there is a
sidewalk on the opposite side of West Main St. and asked if it would make more sense having a
crosswalk there. Mr. Markey asked if the applicant is planning to connect to the existing
sidewalk. Mr. Marquedant stated sidewalk construction will be limited to the property owned by
Golden Pond. He stated there appears to be a municipal program in place to move forward with
the construction of sidewalks in the general area and further integration can take place later as
part of future development plans. Mr. Markey asked whether Golden Pond could accommodate
linkage as part of the current application, and Mr. Davies stated all these properties have
wetlands issues and Golden Pond does not want to file for permits for land they don’t own. Mr.
Weismantel stated the DPW Board discussed the issue and will send a letter to the Planning
Board recommending that the Golden Pond sidewalk and curb be continued in front of the
recently rezoned West Main St. properties. Mr. Marquedant noted Golden Pond residents, guests
and employees will be familiar with the internal path network and will be less likely to travel on
a sidewalk near West Main St. He stated the site incorporates the use of raingardens, infiltration
basins and swales, and construction of a redundant sidewalk flies in the face of the objective of
minimizing impervious areas.
Mr. Markey stated one of the abutters at Town Meeting asked for connectivity across this stretch
of West Main St. and he feels 5 years from now or so the Town would regret not doing
something about this when it had the chance. Mr. Kunst stated the Board’s proposal to connect
the sidewalk as part of this plan would create an unsafe condition asking pedestrians to go onto
the turnout lane with no place to go. Mr. Marquedant stated it would be better to move people
further west onto a safe walkway network that Golden Pond has allowed people to use for many
years anyway. Ms. Lazarus asked if there will be signage directing pedestrians into the site
along the walkway and then continuing down the street, and whether it is on the plan. Mr.
Marquedant stated it is not on the plan. Ms. Thomas asked about other alternatives, and Mr.
Kunst stated they considered other options, one which was not as safe as the proposed layout,
and another which would place the sidewalk only 35 ft. from the existing path network. He
noted neither scenario would create a link to sidewalks in front of the newly rezoned properties
as further development plans are unknown with the potential that newly constructed sidewalks
will be ripped up later on.
Mr. Weismantel stated the Planning Board can require mitigation for the safety of the site. Ms.
Lazarus stated the Town has a history of working with private entities such as in the case of
Legacy Farms, and if the applicant is working on behalf of the Town there will be no filing fees.
Mr. Miyares stated that the DPW already appears to be supportive of the proposal and the
question is who will pay for the work. He stated that if the Planning Board requires the work as
part of mitigation working cooperatively with the DPW, he does not see a problem with making
it a condition of approval. Mr. Davies asked whether this should be discussed with the adjacent
property owners, and Mr. Weismantel stated they are talking about the right of way. Mr.
Weismantel stated he feels the residents would be in support, considering statements made
during public hearings and at Town Meeting. Mr. Kunst stated the residents should be consulted,
the Rhodes in particular as construction of a sidewalk in front of their home would affect them
considerably. Mr. Miyares stated if the Board prefers pursuing this option, the applicant should
4
talk to the property owners to get feedback. Mr. Markey stated to the applicant that Town
Counsel recommends that if the Planning Board wants to work with the applicant to fund
sidewalks along the properties to the west, and if other departments are willing to work with
them, the applicant should ask the property owners for input and relay the information to the
Board.
Mr. Abate stated he echoes the DPW recommendation and is in favor of making it a condition of
approval. Mr. Markey asked Mr. Abate to summarize the Board’s opinion. Mr. Abate stated the
Board recommends construction of a sidewalk at least from the corner of Lumber St. to the end
of the Golden Pond property and the Board would prefer a sidewalk along West Main St. that
does not necessarily meander through the interior of the Golden Pond property. Mr. Markey
stated the Board wants the applicant to fund construction of a sidewalk connection, working
cooperatively with the adjacent property owners and the Town. Mr. Kunst objected and stated
he is not sure that Golden Pond wants the liability for a proposal that would dump people into a
busy entrance way, referring to the eastern most driveway. The Board encouraged the applicant
to work with FST and find out if there is a safe way to achieve the linkage the Town is looking
for. Mr. Davies asked why this would be Golden Pond’s obligation, and Mr. Markey stated the
Planning Board is requesting their cooperation in this regard. Mr. Miyares referred to site plan
approval criterion #1 regarding the determination whether the proposal will be beneficial. He
noted the Planning Board is stating the Town wants connectivity and is looking for an
appropriate and beneficial development that will make that happen. Mr. Davies stated the
adjacent properties are not part of this site plan application which is for 58 and 60 West Main St.
Mr. Miyares stated that issue is covered under approval criterion #3, the convenience and safety
of vehicles and pedestrians in relationship to adjacent areas and public ways. Mr. Markey asked
if FST has weighed in, and Ms. Lazarus stated they have not yet reviewed the revised plans. Ms.
Pratt referred to an earlier comment regarding people wanting to walk all the way up to the
Lumber St. shopping center and stated people should not be encouraged to walk through private
property. Mr. Weismantel asked about the turning lane. He stated he feels the Board would
want FST to comment on how that will work.
Ms. DeVeuve asked about water and sewer issues with respect to the 2 properties under separate
ownership. Mr. Davies clarified that #58 and #60 will be merged, but #50 will be a separate
parcel. Ms. DeVeuve stated she understood from the previous meeting that the sewer connection
for #58 and #60 is going through the tunnel, and asked if this is also true for the water hookup.
Mr. Marquedant stated they have been informed by the Highway Dept. that there is a moratorium
on service from West Main St. to preserve the road surface. Ms. DeVeuve asked about a sewer
easement, and Mr. Weismantel stated the DPW Board is willing to work with the developer, but
a connection through the tunnel will probably not meet the Westborough regulations, in which
case an easement is needed. Mr. Weismantel asked about handicap curb cuts, and Mr.
Marquedant indicated there were several locations throughout the site.
Ms. Thomas and Ms. DeVeuve left the room at this time. The Board took up the following
agenda items pending their return.
2. Administrative Business
Minutes. Mr. Coolidge moved to approve the Minutes of June 14, 2010 as written, Mr.
Weismantel seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
5
Bills. Mr. Coolidge moved to authorize payment of outstanding bills, the motion was
seconded, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Documents used during discussion:
Draft Minutes June 14, 2010
Requests for Payment forms
Ms. Thomas and Ms. DeVeuve returned to the meeting.
3. Continued Public Hearing - 58 and 60 West Main St. – Golden Pond Resident Care
Center – Major Project Site Plan - 5860 Realty Trust
In response to a question of Mr. Markey, Mr. Miyares stated he does not see any conflict
between the Board’s recommendations with respect to the BOA decision, but it is up to the
Zoning Enforcement Officer to decide whether these are considered major modifications. He
stated perhaps the condition requiring construction of the sidewalk is the closest to a major
modification, but he feels all these things can be accomplished.
The Board discussed a possible continuance date for the hearing. Ms. Lazarus suggested that
Mr. Marquedant meet with FST and discuss revisions to the plan. Mr. Davies stated the only
changes he can see are the sidewalk and the lighting plan and they will need to meet with the
Conservation Commission to find out whether the revised sidewalk would violate the existing
Order of Conditions before spending money on plan revisions. Mr. Marquedant stated the
sidewalk requires Conservation Commission input, but the issues are more safety related. Mr.
Weismantel moved to continue the public hearing to July 26, 2010 at 7:45 P.M., Mr. Abate
seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Documents used during discussion:
Letter from Planning Board to Kerry Kunst, Golden Pond Resident Care, 5/26/2010
Email from J.D. Marquedant & Assoc., Inc. to Elaine Lazarus, 5/28/2010
Letter from Wayne R. Davies to Norman Khumalo, Town Manager, 5/28/2010
Email from Elaine Lazarus to Wayne R. Davies, 6/17/2010
Letter from J.D. Marquedant & Assoc., Inc. to Elaine Lazarus, 6/22/2010
Letter from Wayne R. Davies to Charles Kadlik, Building Inspector, 6/22/2010
Letter from Wayne R. Davies to Charles Kadlik, Building Inspector, follow up to above,
6/23/2010
Letter from Elaine Lazarus, to Kerry Kunst, Golden Pond Resident Care, 6/30/2010
Letter from Charles Kadlik to Wayne R. Davies, 7/1/2010
Golden Pond Expansion site plans revised through 6/22/2010
4. Administrative Business
Bills – The Board voted unanimously to authorize payment of an outstanding bill.
Document used during discussion: Request for Payment form
5. Parks & Recreation Commission - Proposed Amendment to Site Plan Decision - Fruit
Street Athletic Fields
Ken Driscoll, Chairman, Parks & Recreation Commission, applicant, appeared before the Board.
Mr. Driscoll stated the change was recommended and supported by the new Town Engineer. He
stated traffic safety was one of Parks and Recreation’s first concerns especially with respect to
construction traffic for the wastewater treatment plant which passes through the area. Mr.
6
Driscoll explained the change to parking lot design which would move some spaces closer to the
playing fields. He stated they now have enough funding to do two artificial fields with an
irrigated grass area, and the proposed new parking area was intended to be part of the total plan
as extended parking. Ms. Wright stated she likes this configuration a lot better as she never liked
the idea of construction/wastewater treatment traffic going through the parking lot. Mr.
Weismantel moved to support Mr. Driscoll’s request and determine it to be a minor change, and
Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. Mr. Weismantel commended the Parks & Recreation
Commission for getting the project off the ground and moving along. The Board voted
unanimously in favor of the motion.
Documents used during discussion:
Letter from David Daltorio, Town Engineer, to Elaine Lazarus (undated)
Revised Fruit Street Athletic Fields site plans 5/5/2010
6. 30 North Mill Street Subdivision - Christian Nealon
Christian Nealon, applicant, appeared before the Board. He stated he is here for approval of the
Conditional Approval Agreement for the 30 North Mill Street subdivision and for the Board’s
endorsement of the definitive subdivision plan. He stated he is not prepared to go ahead with his
request that the Board establish a performance guarantee and release lots because his engineer
and the Town Engineer still have to sort out a few things. Mr. Weismantel moved to approve the
Conditional Approval Agreement and endorse the definitive plan. Mr. Abate seconded the
motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Documents used during discussion:
Letter from J. Timothy Nealon to Elaine Lazarus, 7/7/2010
Draft Form E (Conditional Approval Agreement)
7. Continued Public Hearing – Bridle Path – OSLPD Concept Plan Special Permit
Application – P.M. Realty Trust
Mike Casasanta, P.M. Realty Trust, applicant, Chuck Scott, CFS Engineering, engineer, and
Doug Resnick, attorney, appeared before the Board. Mr. Resnick stated they had originally
submitted an 8-lot conventional subdivision plan, but are now proposing an OSLPD plan with
just 6 lots. He submitted updated purchase and sales agreements with the two property owners
on Appaloosa Circle in case the applicant has to pursue a conventional plan. Ms. Wright asked
about the Boston Edison agreement, and Mr. Resnick stated this was submitted to the Board,
including a subsequent amendment. Ms. Wright stated a lot of open space is shown on what is
now the Boston Edison easement, and Mr. Resnick stated they did not even start the
development process without first addressing the Boston Edison easement, and the utility
company is very particular about releasing them.
Jim Kobe, attorney for Jeri Esper and Michael Moynahan, 3 and 5 Appaloosa Circle
respectively, stated he has negotiated an agreement that addresses the open space plan, and the
property owners have no objection to it going forward. He stated due to the decision to withdraw
the original application and resubmit, the applicant had the benefit of being able to meet with the
Conservation Commission. He noted he believes the Conservation Administrator has submitted
a brief note indicating that the applicant made the recommended revisions and the Commission
prefers the Open Space layout.
7
Mr. Scott stated their landscape architect, Paul Finger Associates, is unable to attend due to
vacation. He stated he filed a new special permit concept plan application on May 13, 2010 after
withdrawing the previous submittal so that the applicant would have the benefit of a full board
and there would be an opportunity to renew the wetlands resource delineation for the property.
He recited a history of proposals for the site going back to a 2006 plan which got mixed reactions
from the Board but consensus with respect to the need to reduce density. He referred to a recent
stormwater permit application for the detention pond lot at 18 Ridge Rd. which has now been
approved for a single family home. Mr. Scott described the locus and existing conditions of the
site, which is located in the Agricultural zoning district and has a Boston Edison easement which
will be relinquished. He described the natural characteristics of the land, including topography,
wetlands, vernal pools and boulder outcrops. Mr. Scott stated extensive soil testing for septic
systems did not find bedrock. He noted some interior stone walls will have to be disturbed to
gain access to the site. He stated the existing foot path is highly utilized by Ridge Rd. residents
and follows along the berm of the existing detention basin connecting to the Proctor St. trail
system that goes to the back of property on Appaloosa Circle. Mr. Scott showed the
conventional subdivision plan previously discussed. He noted the plan generally conforms to the
subdivision regulations but requires waivers with respect to altering slopes greater than 25%
grade and the depth of fill. Mr. Scott stated the Open Space concept plan proposes a 6-lot
subdivision and fully complies with local, state and federal regulations. He noted the
Conservation Commission was concerned about the proximity of lots 2 and 3 to the vernal pool
buffer zone. He stated the Commission prefers the Open Space plan with the changes made even
though the revisions do not result in greater separation from the vernal pool. He stated
construction of lot 4 might result in a minor alteration to the 100 ft. wetlands buffer zone, but
will otherwise be in compliance. Mr. Scott noted they have not yet received an Order of
Conditions from the Conservation Commission and comments made thus far are based on an
informal discussion.
Mr. Abate asked the applicant to explain the rationale for submitting an OSLPD vs. conventional
plan. Mr. Scott stated the applicant will build either plan, but the Open Space plan is preferred in
terms of degree of disturbance and preservation of existing vegetation. It was determined that
the density for the conventional and OSLPD proposal is the same. In response to a question of
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Resnick stated for a conventional plan the existing trails would go through new
individual lots. Mr. Resnick stated they have discussed disposition of the open space parcel with
HALT with a conservation restriction as preferred by the Board. He stated HALT would act as
an agent to identify an appropriate conservation restriction holder after they take title to the land.
Mr. Abate stated one of the goals of the open space bylaw is a quid pro quo in exchange for
allowing a dead end street, and in this case such a tradeoff does not appear to exist. Mr. Scott
stated he feels maintaining and doubling the existing trail network by extending it to a full loop
would be a plus for the area residents. Mr. Resnick stated under the OSLPD layout the current
Ridge Rd. residents will have a strip of open space behind their homes instead of houses. Ms.
Wright stated, in comparison, an earlier version of the conventional plan was better, but the
revised concept plan will not need waivers, will reduce the amount of site disturbance and
preserve more natural vegetation which will help buffer the highway noise. She stated there is
some concern regarding protection of the vernal pools, and it appears there will be less impact
under the OSLPD scenario. Mr. Resnick stated they will address the vernal pools and follow the
Commission’s recommendation. Ms. Wright stated she wishes the lots could be reduced in size
to create more open space as there is no assurance that the vernal pools will be totally protected.
8
Mr. Weismantel stated he would like to get input from the neighborhood and encouraged the
three new Planning Board members to walk the site. He stated he thinks he likes the
conventional layout better than an open space design with oddly shaped lots but perhaps a 4-lot
open space plan would be ok.
Colleen Murphy, 16 Ridge Rd., asked why the entrance cannot be between 3 and 5 Appaloosa
Circle since the property owners don’t seem to mind and have agreed that access can be through
their property if needed. She stated the residents on the other side of Saddle Hill Estates are not
in favor of access off Ridge Rd. as proposed.
Dickran Babigian, 15 Ridge Rd., stated he would like to reiterate his concerns about the
development with respect to traffic safety and density. He questioned the applicant’s approach
with respect to the agreements with the Appaloosa Circle property owners and stated it appears
the well on the Esper property will have to be moved. Mr. Resnick stated this is a real
agreement, not a paper arrangement and very significant whether the land is used or not. Mr.
Kobe stated the agreements are real, and if the land is needed for the development the well has to
be relocated. Mr. Resnick stated he suspects the Ridge Rd. right of way was established as part
of the approval for the original Saddle Hill Estates subdivision in the 1980’s so that the property
owner in the back would not be landlocked. He stated having an entrance off Appaloosa
Circle would be more problematic from a development standpoint. Ms. Pratt asked whether
access off Appaloosa Circle would involve an easement, and Mr. Resnick stated no, as the strip
would be owned in fee. She stated the Beatties (Wood St., Proctor St.) are not here tonight, but
would have some comments regarding drainage from Rt. 495 all the way to Wood St. She stated
she is in favor of a new improved, extended trail system.
Dan Smith, 14 Ridge Rd., asked about alternative access from Appaloosa Circle. Mr. Resnick
stated expanding the road to Appaloosa Circle might cause the road to exceed the length allowed
under the OSLPD bylaw. Mr. Scott stated the roads under either scenario would be similar in
length, but the Appaloosa Circle option would require more site disturbance. Mr. Resnick stated
they would prefer an open space layout without using the lots on Appaloosa Circle, and the
Espers and Moynahans will be paid either way.
Mr. Weismantel moved to continue the public hearing to August 9, 2010 at 7:45 P.M., Mr.
Coutinho seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Documents used/referred to during discussion:
Concept plan/special permit application submitted by P.M. Realty Trust (cover letter
5/13/2010, Form L)
Bridle Path concept plan dated May 5, 2010
Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement – Michael & Pamela Moynahan and PM Realty
Trust – undated
Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement – Jeri Esper and PM Realty Trust - undated
Letter review by Fay, Spofford & Thorndike, 6/18/2010
Email from Don MacAdam, Conservation Administrator, to Elaine Lazarus dated 7/12/2010
Documents used for discussion – General:
Memo from Elaine Lazarus to Planning Board, 7/8/2010
9
Planning Board Agenda for 7/12/2010
Adjourned: 10:10 P.M.
Submitted by:
Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
APPROVED: September 13, 2010