HomeMy Public PortalAbout20100809 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes
1
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
Monday, August 9, 2010 7:30 P.M.
Hopkinton Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton, MA
MINUTES
Members Present: Joe Markey, Chairman, 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. Administrative Business
a) Bills - Ms. Wright moved to authorize payment of an outstanding invoice, Ms. Thomas
seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. (Document: Request for
Payment form)
Mr. Coutinho arrived at this time.
2. Approval-Not-Required Plan – 24 Granite St. – Feheley
Nancy Kelleigh, attorney, appeared before the Board. She stated Mr. Feheley purchased the
parcel behind his house a few years ago and now wants to combine the lots. Mr. Weismantel
moved to endorse the plan as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, Mr.
MacDonald seconded the motion, and the Board voted 6 in favor, 1 abstention (Thomas) in
favor. (Documents: Form A application, approval-not-required plan)
3. Approval-Not Required-Plan – 15-25 Phipps St. - Mezitt
Wayne Mezitt, applicant, and Andy and Cyndy Lindeman appeared before the Board. Mr.
Lindeman stated the application proposes to reconfigure the property and create a new lot to
build a single family home. He stated the Board endorsed the same plan a few years ago, but
recording was postponed at the advice of his attorney in order to resolve a problem with a
building restriction which was supposed to be only on another portion of the property. Mr.
Lindeman requested the Board waive the application fee. Mr. Weismantel moved to endorse the
plan as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law and waive the administrative
fee, Ms. Thomas seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. (Documents:
Form A application, approval-not-required plan)
4. Zoning Advisory Committee Appointments
Mr. Weismantel stated he is pleased to see almost all previous Zoning Advisory Committee
(ZAC) members willing to return and well as three new applicants. Mr. Weismantel moved to
appoint the following individuals to serve on the ZAC to terms expiring on August 9, 2011:
Ken Weismantel, John Coutinho, and Carol DeVeuve (Planning Board)
Craig Nation (Conservation Commission)
Michael Peirce (Board of Appeals)
Robert McGuire (Chamber of Commerce), and
Mavis O’Leary, Sandy Altamura, Gary Haroian, Wayne Pacheco, Ron Thalheimer, Todd
Holbrook, and Brian Karp (Citizens at Large)
2
5. Design Review Board Appointments
Ms. Wright stated she would like to continue serving on the Design Review Board (DRB). She
stated the DRB has had a solid core group of people who have seen a variety of applications with
the ability to exercise a lot of consistency. She noted the current group has worked together well
and she is pleased to see everyone wants to return. Mr. Weismantel moved to appoint Jeanette
Thomson, Sue Ellen Stoddard, Claire Wright, Gail Fallon, Jeffrey Doherty and Ria McNamara
(alternate) to another term to expire August 9, 2011, and Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. In
response to a question of Mr. MacDonald relative to the Board’s function, Ms. Wright stated the
DRB can save the Planning Bd. a lot of time by reviewing a plan to see if it fits with the area, has
suitable landscaping features and screening, and to evaluate the parking lot design. She noted
the Planning Board prefers that a site plan is reviewed by the DRB first, giving it a first pass
from a design standpoint. Ms. Lazarus stated there still is a posted vacancy for an alternate
member. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion.
6. Continued Public Hearing - Bridle Path – OSLPD Concept Plan/Special Permit – PM
Realty Trust – Ridge Rd.
Mr. Markey stated the applicant has requested a continuation of the public hearing due to
vacation schedules. Mr. Weismantel moved to continue the public hearing to September 13,
2010 at 9:00 P.M., the motion was seconded, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Colleen Murphy, 16 Ridge Rd., asked whether the Board has received comments submitted by
her and other Ridge Rd. abutters by email. It was noted the comments were received and
distributed to the Board and the applicant. (Document: Email dated August 5, 2010 to the
Planning Board from Mr. and Mrs. Richard Jackson, 12 Ridge Rd., Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Smith,
14 Ridge Rd., and Ms. Colleen Murphy, 16 Ridge Rd.)
7. Fees for Amendments to Garden Apartment, Senior Housing and Village Housing
Special Permit Applications
Ms. Lazarus stated at the last meeting the Board set the fee for a new special permit application
and asked her to review the special permit fee schedule with respect to fees for amendments.
She stated she determined there should be fees for some of the applications that currently do not
require them, such as Garden Apartments, Senior Housing and Village Housing. She noted she
recommends a $400 administrative fee and no 53G initial account deposit. Ms. DeVeuve stated
the fee seems reasonable, and Ms. Wright stated she accepts Ms. Lazarus’ recommendation. Mr.
MacDonald asked if this could create a hardship for anyone, and Ms. Lazarus stated the applicant
can request a waiver of the fee from the Board. Ms. Thomas moved to approve a $400
administrative fee for an application to amend Garden Apartment, Senior Housing and Village
Housing special permits, Mr. MacDonald seconded the motion, and the Board voted
unanimously in favor.
8. Planning Board Goals for FY11
The Board discussed the setting of new goals for FY11, beginning with a review of the FY10
goals.
Downtown Planning. Ms. Lazarus stated since there now is a plan for the downtown area,
maybe the goal this year could be to “implement” the plan. Mr. Weismantel stated Governor
Patrick is about to sign a measure clearing the way for the Town to borrow $400,000 for
downtown revitalization approved by Town Meeting vote and at the ballot, but delayed
3
because of a procedural issue. It was noted the new DPW Director will need guidance in this
respect, and the Board decided to include implementation of the downtown revitalization
plan as one of its goals.
Alprilla Farm Well Zone Delineation. The Board decided to include this goal, same as last
year.
Economic Impact. The Board discussed whether the evaluation of economic impact of a new
development should be included again as a goal for FY11. It was noted this appears to be
more of a philosophical issue and applicants are required to address this aspect of a new
development under the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Mr. Markey stated the positive
or negative impacts of a new development have to be considered and it would be within the
Planning Board’s authority to require an applicant to help fund mitigation if needed. The
Board decided not to include this as a goal for FY11.
Sidewalk Connectivity. Mr. Markey stated he received a copy of the recently completed
MAPC Pedestrian Plan, and Ms. Lazarus stated she also has it available on CD for those
interested. Mr. Weismantel suggested strengthening this goal for FY11 by including the
preparation of a plan for sidewalks on key arteries. Mr. Markey stated there appears to be a
demand for such a plan according to statements made by applicants. Mr. Weismantel stated
the DPW sometimes gets money that can only be used for sidewalks, and it would be nice to
have a plan for applicants to see how their development fits in. Ms. Thomas asked if such a
plan could be enforced, and Mr. Weismantel stated it would give the Board an opportunity to
get some input. Ms. Lazarus stated having a plan would be beneficial when applying for
grants. In response to a question of Ms. Thomas, Ms. Lazarus stated she would work on a
plan with the DPW and there are other communities that have done them. Mr. Markey
suggested devoting a Planning Board meeting to this subject and get input from the
community. The Board decided to keep and modify this goal for FY11 as discussed.
Regional Traffic. Ms. Lazarus stated the Board had included this goal in FY10 because of
the pending Legacy Farms development. Mr. Weismantel recommended keeping it for the
next session in view of the potential of a casino in Milford, and Mr. Markey stated there will
probably have to be a separate goal if that becomes a reality. Mr. Weismantel stated he
thinks the Board of Selectmen will address the impact of such a development but
recommends keeping this goal.
Viewshed Protection Bylaw. Mr. Weismantel stated the ZAC tried to come up with
something, but it went nowhere as it involves people’s property rights. Ms. Wright stated a
viewshed protection bylaw would be a way to address situations like those experienced at
Lake Maspenock where water views would be at stake. She stated she would like to see
standards so that one property owner does not get robbed of a nice view in favor of another
property owner. She asked if other towns have similar bylaws, and Ms. Lazarus stated a few
towns on the Cape have them. Ms. Lazarus noted it is difficult to draft wording that will be
supported at Town Meeting. Ms. DeVeuve stated she feels it would be better if this is a
proposal brought to the ZAC instead of the Board initiating it. The Board decided not to
include drafting a viewshed bylaw as a goal for FY11.
Historic Home Preservation. Mr. Weismantel stated he feels this goal was accomplished
already through the adoption of the bylaw changes at the 2010 town meeting. Ms. Wright
stated the Historical Commission (HC) has written a letter indicating they would like to
strengthen the current bylaw. She noted the HC appreciates the work done, but more is
needed. Ms. Wright stated the HC thinks that aside from making it a museum, the best way
to preserve a historic home is to keep it in private ownership, and the protection they are
4
looking for has not yet occurred especially if it is a significant property. She stated the
Dempsey/McFarland house at Deerfield Estates was one of 5 remaining Hopkinton homes
from the 1700’s and the developer’s method of preserving the house was to turn it into condo
units, but some of these old properties don’t necessarily fit in with a brand new development.
She noted the HC might want to talk to the ZAC, and Mr. Coutinho stated the ZAC tried to
find a balance requiring the developer to do as much as possible without it becoming an
economic hardship. Ms. Wright stated the Town now owns the McFarland house, but it does
not want to be in that business and she would like it to be attractive to developers to unload
that type of property so they can still develop the land without a significant historic building
falling prey. Ms. DeVeuve stated she feels the ZAC can look at this, and Mr. Weismantel
stated the HC is welcome to come and talk to the ZAC but he thought this goal had been
accomplished. Ms. Pratt asked about protection under the Massachusetts Historic
Commission through the MEPA process, and Ms. Wright stated MHC has no authority and
the only true protection is provided by being in a historic district and to some degree by the
demolition delay bylaw. She noted being on the list of historic places and a plaque to go
with it is nice but gives no protection. Ms. Lazarus asked if historic preservation restrictions
prevent demolition, and Ms. Wright stated she will have to look into that. It was decided to
reword the goal to focus on the preservation of the home.
Consultant Services. Mr. Markey asked if the Board is satisfied with FST’s services, and Mr.
Weismantel stated it is not a bad idea to ask them to come in once a year. The Board decided
there is no need to include this as a goal in FY11. Mr. Weismantel stated he is not sure
everyone is totally happy and he did not like the switch in personnel after the contract was
finalized. Ms. Lazarus stated she knows FST wants to maintain communication with the
Board, and she will invite them to a meeting.
Downtown Parking Study. The Board stated the parking study has been completed. Muriel
Kramer, 19 North St., reporter, stated the School Committee has decided to decommission
the Center School, which could free the building up for municipal uses with perhaps the
potential for a parking garage in back. Mr. Weismantel stated the parking study concluded
there is enough parking capacity in the near term, but the main problems were caused by the
Library, Center School and Town Hall so eliminating the Center School will bring relief. He
noted parking behind the school will not be a good solution for parking for downtown
businesses because of the distance involved. Ms. Wright stated there is no parking crisis for
now, but they can reevaluate if conditions change. Mr. Weismantel stated the creation of an
additional municipal parking lot has been considered, but this idea is not high on the list
although the Downtown Revitalization Committee has looked at it as part of their overall
concept plan. Mr. Markey suggested keeping the goal and modifying it to include an
evaluation of the creation of downtown parking lot. Ms. Wright stated she does not want to
see congestion, but adding parking lots and more asphalt does not necessarily create a vibrant
downtown feeling. Ms. Lazarus stated the Board’s goal should be paying attention to the
balance, adding language about the exploration of the need for an additional municipal
parking facility if conditions warrant. The Board decided to keep this goal but modify it as
discussed.
Contact Major Landowners. Ms. Lazarus stated she drafted a letter to major landowners, but
it was never sent. Mr. Weismantel stated it is important to keep this goal for the Town in
order to be prepared for the next wave of development. He added the Board did something
like this in the 1990’s and more recently in connection with the East Hopkinton Master Plan
5
study. The Board decided to keep the goal and contact major landowners about their long
term plans.
Other Departments/Coordinated Review. It was noted land use departments were
consolidated at the beginning of the year, and there is no further need for this goal.
Scenic Road Educational Program. Ms. Lazarus stated a program was established, and now
has to be implemented. Ms. Wright stated they should contact the Tree Warden and get a
cost estimate for replacing regular street signs on scenic roads with “scenic road” street signs
so there will be no question about the scenic status. She noted they should also once a year
notify tree companies by certified mail, return receipt requested. Ms. Thomas asked how
people will know if they live on a scenic road, and Ms. Lazarus stated the Land Use Dept.
monitors sales and sends letters to new owners. She noted they used to send mass mailings
but they are now too expensive. Mr. Markey stated this might not be overly effective as the
letters might get lost when people are in the middle of a move. Ms. DeVeuve stated she likes
the idea of scenic road street signs. Ms. Pratt referred to the shade tree law which helps the
Town to enforce violations, and Ms. Lazarus stated this is in the Tree Warden’s jurisdiction,
but it does not really address specific scenic road issues. Ms. Lazarus stated she will publish
an educational article in the newspaper and write to landscape and tree companies, but street
signs would also be a good idea. The Board stated its goal for FY11 will be to implement the
program and find out about road signs.
Evaluation of Commercial and Residential Tax Base Mix. Ms. Lazarus stated she did not
have time to work on this goal during FY10. She stated there is no right or wrong answer to
the question, and it depends on what the Town wants to be. Ms. DeVeuve stated they have to
look at the impact of additional businesses to see if the Town needs more. Ms. Wright stated
Sasaki Associates had a formula for revenue positive and negative development when
developing the East Hopkinton Master Plan. She stated some people feel there should be a
lot of commercial development while others would rather preserve the character of the Town
by taking their business to other towns. She stated she is not sure this question lends itself to
a formulaic approach. Ms. DeVeuve stated the issue is worth investigating and Mr. Markey
suggested making the goal more specific, perhaps comparing conditions to those of other
towns. He stated this debate always comes up at times of rezoning proposals and people end
up going with their gut feeling because they don’t have the right data. Mr. MacDonald
stated there is no right answer, but during his campaign for Planning Board he spoke to the
Principal Assessor who has all the statistics and knows how the Town compares to others.
Mr. Markey stated the Planning Board should have this type of discussion more often. He
asked when the Master Plan was adopted, and Ms. Lazarus stated 2007. In response to a
question of Ms. Thomas, Ms. Lazarus stated it can be amended at any time if the Planning
Board so desires. Ms. Pratt stated the Town has an Economic Development Committee, and
asked how much it reaches out. In response to a question of Mr. Markey, Ms. Lazarus stated
if she were to work on this she would look at other towns and basically see what type of
literature is out there, then bring it to the Board for discussion. Mr. Coutinho stated they
could ask the Economic Development Committee to come in and invite the Principal
Assessor as well. The Board decided to keep this goal and expand on it.
Site Plan Review Process and Procedures. Mr. Weismantel stated he would like to add
review of the site plan review bylaw and procedures to the list of Planning Board goals. The
Board agreed to add this goal.
Library/Center School. Mr. Weismantel stated the Board should provide input with respect
to proposed new locations for the Public Library and Center School as well as potential
6
replacement uses for both. He stated these issues are coming into play with the School Dept.
wanting to pick Fruit St. as a location for a new elementary school, which will have an
impact on downtown as well as the Town as a whole.
Ms. Kramer stated another municipal use for the Center School would be a good idea. She
noted combining Town departments would save money in facility and overhead costs. She
stated the Center School has a recreational area and kitchen facilities and could be a good
option for a youth center. She stated the building will need work, but perhaps the Town
could use it to house the DPW. Ms. Thomas asked if Ms. Lazarus has been consulted about
this, and Ms. Lazarus stated no, she has been asked to provide statistics and general
information only. Mr. Weismantel stated the DPW Board has met with the Town Manager to
look at the current Fruit St. school site plan, and concluded the original plan proposed by the
Fruit St. Committee was much better. Mr. Weismantel stated he would like to invite the
School Committee for an informal discussion before they get too far into the process. The
Board agreed to include this goal for FY11.
Ms. Thomas stated the Board should periodically (quarterly) follow up on the status of the goals
set for FY11. The Board agreed.
Documents Used/General:
Memorandum from Elaine Lazarus to the Planning Board, dated 8/5/2010
Planning Board Agenda (revised 8/9/2010)
Adjourned: 9:00 P.M.
Submitted by:
Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
Approved: September 13, 2010