Loading...
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