HomeMy Public PortalAbout20100913 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes
1
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
Monday, September 13, 2010 7:30 P.M.
Hopkinton Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton, MA
MINUTES
Members Present: Joe Markey, Chairman, Mark Abate, Vice 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. Scenic Road Public Hearing/Joint Hearing with Tree Warden – 71 Front St. - Tolan
Ms. Lazarus noted the Tree Warden was unable to attend the meeting due to illness. Jeff Tolan,
applicant, appeared before the Board. He described the lot layout and stated construction of the
new driveway requires removal of one tree in the road right of way for safety reasons. Mr.
Weismantel stated he has seen the existing conditions and just taking down one tree as proposed
does not seem to make sense in this case and the right thing would be taking out the bump in the
right of way also. Mr. Tolan stated the proposed lot layout would limit the amount of tree
cutting which would achieve what he believes is the Town’s goal. Ms. DeVeuve stated if this is
the best location for the driveway, she would like to see replacement trees to fill the void. Ms.
Wright noted it appears the Tree Warden is only reluctantly agreeing to removal as it concerns a
healthy significant oak and hard to replace. She asked whether the driveway could be located
elsewhere to save the tree and stated the applicant’s entrance design will detract from the rural
character of the scenic road. Ms. Thomas noted the Tree Warden has commented that moving
the driveway will not save the tree. Mr. Tolan stated the septic system is in the front of the lot
and there is not enough room to put the driveway somewhere else. Mr. MacDonald moved to
approve the application with the following conditions:
1. As compensatory action, the Applicant shall plant four trees within the Front Street right of
way within the area cleared for construction access. The species of tree and planting location
shall be as selected by the Tree Warden. The minimum tree diameter at the time of planting
shall be two inches in caliper.
2. The four trees shall be planted to the satisfaction of the Tree Warden prior to the issuance of
an occupancy permit for the lot.
Mr. Weismantel seconded the motion. Mr. Abate suggested the Board ask the applicant to
review the plan one more time for an alternative location to potentially save the tree. Mr.
Weismantel asked if Mr. Abate has visited the site, and Mr. Abate stated no. Mr. Weismantel
stated there is definitely a traffic safety issue in that location which in his opinion would require
lowering the berm by a couple of feet. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion.
Documents: Application for a Scenic Road Public Hearing and Plan entitled “Proposed Sewage
Disposal System” dated 3/11/2005, rev. 7/28/10, prepared by Connorstone
2
2. Scenic Road Public Hearing – 41 Saddle Hill Rd. – Doyle
Dan McIntyre, McIntyre Engineering and Septic Services, Inc. (MESS), engineer, appeared
before the Board on behalf of Brendan Doyle, applicant. He stated the septic system at 41
Saddle Hill Rd. needs to be replaced and the area can only be accessed from the street by coming
through the stone wall. Mr. Abate moved to approve the temporary opening in the stone wall
with the following conditions:
1. The stones shall be stockpiled on site during the construction activity;
2. The stone wall shall be replaced immediately upon completion of the work; and
3. The manner of stone wall construction shall be the same as it was before the stones were
removed.
Ms. Thomas seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Documents: Application for a Scenic Road Public Hearing and Plan entitled “Septic System
Design Plan” dated 9/13/10, prepared by MESS
3. Continued Public Hearing – Golden Pond Resident Care Center – Major Project Site
Plan Review – 58 and 60 West Main St. – 5860 Realty Trust
Kerry Kunst and Larry Kunst, Golden Pond Resident Care Center, applicant, Wayne Davies,
applicant’s attorney, Joseph Marquedant, J.D. Marquedant & Assoc., Inc., surveyor, and Al
Marzullo, TKG East Ltd., applicant’s lighting consultant, appeared before the Board. Ray
Miyares and Brian Falk, Town Counsel, and David Glenn and Fred Moseley, Fay Spofford &
Thorndike LLC (FST), the Board’s consultant engineer, joined the Board.
Mr. Markey stated he wants to acknowledge this has been a long journey from the applicant’s
point of view, starting with the Board of Appeals special permit application, to a Town Meeting
petition for rezoning of the property at 58 and 60 West Main St. and adjacent parcels, to the
ongoing Planning Board site plan review public hearing process. He stated he thinks the Board
has the necessary information to wrap up the public hearing tonight and encouraged the members
and applicant to proceed in a mutually respectful way focusing on the 8 criteria for site plan
approval under the zoning bylaw. He noted the Board members are all volunteers inspired to
join to work towards positive change.
Mr. Marquedant updated the Board on the following items:
1) Water/Sewer Connection
Mr. Marquedant stated the applicant met with Ms. Lazarus, DPW Director Brendan O’Regan,
Dave Daltorio, Town Engineer, and Dan Cloutier, FST, on 8/16/10. Mr. Markey noted Mr.
O’Regan in a letter dated 8/19/10 to Ms. Lazarus wrote that he had no comments, and Mr.
Marquedant stated he will follow up on the issue but as far as he knows the DPW director is OK
with the proposed design of the water and sewer connections. Mr. Weismantel stated from his
perspective as a former DPW Board member it appears the design meets the requirements for
both water and sewer connections, but there should be a proper easement to be reviewed by the
Town.
3
2) Lighting Plan
Mr. Marquedant stated the lighting plan has been modified, moving the location of light poles
and reducing light levels significantly since the initial submission. He stated the three issues
listed in FST’s review letter dated 9/8/10, items a, b, and c, are minor in nature. It was clarified
that the luminaires will use the lower intensity 100W fixtures, the overall foot-candle values are
reduced and will further lessen over time due to environmental exposure, and the light pole
foundations located within the stormwater treatment/rain garden area should not negatively
impact the drainage system as long as the flow is not blocked. Ms. DeVeuve asked if the levels
on the plan include the light from fixtures located on the building itself, and Mr. Marzullo stated
the impact of the light from the building is minimal. Mr. Marzullo noted the existing fixtures
have no refractors resulting in light being scattered all over the place, which is something they
are trying to avoid here and will be addressed. Mr. Weismantel stated he is satisfied with the
proposed lighting levels which should be reasonable for this particular use which includes a day
care center. Ms. Thomas stated a neighbor’s child attends the center and the parents currently
find the parking lot too dark at times. Mr. Marzullo stated the 5 foot-candle standard he cited is
really the upper limit of the range and the proper level depends on the property use, but the most
important issue is that there is no light pollution. He added he always uses shoebox type
fixtures, otherwise light will bounce off especially during overcast conditions.
Ms. Wright stated light poles have been moved to the interior and the plan now shows reduced
lighting levels, but levels are still higher than what the Illumination Engineering Society of North
America (IES) thinks is adequate, as noted by FST. She noted the plan shows 4 light poles along
West Main St., and the EIS experts recommend putting the light where it is needed which is near
the parking spaces, not the street. She stated building-mounted lights would help achieve that
goal. Mr. Weismantel stated having lights along the right turn lane on West Main St. is OK as
long as there is no spillage onto adjacent property. Mr. Marzullo stated presently the street lights
overpower the existing site lighting, and the proposed lighting plan is going to help the situation,
most importantly without lighting up the sky or spilling onto adjacent property.
Mr. Marquedant stated the foot-candle level now is around 2, basically complying with the
request made by the Board. Ms. Wright stated she understands the desire to justify the higher
levels, but the IES indicates that 0.5 foot-candle is enough for basic parking lot lighting. She
noted for elderly people the problem is more the ability to adjust going from a very light to a
darker area, for instance when leaving a brightly lit parking lot pulling onto a dark road. Mr.
MacDonald stated FST considers 0.5 foot-candles suitable for a medical/day care facility and the
initial levels here are 10 to 40% higher based on initial values which will go down over time. He
stated he agrees with Mr. Weismantel that the lighting issue appears to be resolved. Mr.
Coutinho stated the Board should be careful as they have carried this issue through 3 meetings
and they cannot keep moving the finish line.
Mr. Glenn stated the proposed light level averages 1.4 foot-candles, which is the initial value and
which will go down to about 1.1 over a period of time and it should be adequate for this site. Mr.
Marquedant stated Mr. Marzullo is experienced in the lighting industry, but there is disagreement
between lighting professionals. Mr. Markey asked for clarification regarding the light pole
foundation locations near the stormwater management system. Mr. Marquedant stated he does
4
not think it will be a problem and the raingarden will function well. Ms. DeVeuve stated the
issue was to keep the poles out of the swale, and Mr. Marquedant stated they were able to.
3) West Main St. Left Turn Lane
Mr. Markey stated at the 7/12/10 meeting the Board asked Ms. Lazarus to get FST’s input which
has now been received. Mr. Marquedant stated traffic flow from the east was discussed
previously with the Board of Appeals and the applicant decided to use an approach similar to that
for #50 West Main St. He stated there have been no revisions to the latest plan in this regard.
Mr. Weismantel stated FST feels that conditions warrant construction of a turning lane. Mr.
Moseley stated criteria are reviewed based on opposing traffic volume and the ability of the left
lane to move unimpeded, and they are looking for a design that complies with that requirement
while blending in with existing driveway. He noted what is provided on the current plan does
not meet the standards. Mr. Davies stated he received the letter dated 8/16/10 from Mr. Glenn.
He noted Golden Pond’s response indicates why they would be hesitant to assume responsibility
for building a third lane. He stated Golden Pond had hoped to receive some type of positive
feedback from the DPW based on Town Counsel’s recommendation, but that did not happen and
therefore Golden Pond is not willing to change its position. Mr. Abate stated it would be
irresponsible for the Board to go against the opinion of the DPW and its consultant engineer.
Mr. Weismantel stated he feels adding a turning lane is the only way to make conditions safe.
He stated it might be different if there was one single driveway into the complex, but the
applicant did not want to do that. He noted the DPW Board agreed to work with the applicant to
get the permits but is not able to contribute financially.
Mary Pratt, 102 Fruit St., noted West Main St. was resurfaced only a few years ago and asked if
just striping would solve the problem, and Mr. Moseley stated the road is not wide enough. Ms.
Pratt stated she is concerned about snow and deicing chemicals going into the wetlands.
At the request of Mr. Markey, Mr. Moseley provided additional engineering details regarding the
proposed widening of the road and the creation of a turning lane. Mr. Coutinho stated the
existing pavement adjustment happened by accident and asked whether creation of the turning
lane will have any environmental issues. Ms. Lazarus stated the work will require a Notice of
Intent filing for an Order of Conditions. Mr. Weismantel stated he feels from past DPW Board
experience that the Conservation Commission will allow the work to happen. Mr. Davies stated
the applicant went before the Conservation Commission at the Planning Board’s request and was
given no assurances for approval without an official filing, only that construction would have to
be with Best Management Practices. Mr. Weismantel agreed that the Commission does not rule
without having an actual application in front of them, but there is plenty of precedent.
Vascen Bogigian, 204 Winter St., asked whether the Board’s consultant has a rough estimate of
construction costs, and noted the general feeling is that all this will be the applicant’s
responsibility. Mr. Markey referred to the site plan review approval criterion which addresses
vehicular and pedestrian safety. He stated according to the letter received from the DPW
Director and FST comments submitted to the Board, the current plan does not ensure safety and
needs to be modified. He stated it would be difficult for the Planning Board to justify not
requiring the turning lane in order to ensure the safety of the general public. Mr. Moseley stated
he estimates the cost of pavement materials to be $10,000. Mr. Davies asked the Board to
confirm and fine tune its expert’s statement with respect to the cost estimate, and Mr. Markey
5
stated the Board is not in a position to do that. Mr. Markey stated he does not want to be the one
having to defend the Board’s decision to approve the plan without a turning lane in the future if
there is an accident in that location. Mr. Weismantel stated the right thing would be to revise the
plan, but perhaps the decision can include a condition specifically worded to achieve what the
Board is looking for. He noted the Board has been challenged by the Bd. of Appeals for issuing
decisions without the proper plan, but would have to take that risk. Mr. Markey asked if this is
an intractable problem in Town Counsel’s opinion. Mr. Miyares stated the Board could include
the requirement for a turning lane in the form of a condition although having a properly revised
plan would be preferable. He noted it does not seem likely the Board will get such a plan, so
following Mr. Weismantel’s recommendation would be OK. He stated a reference to FST’s
recommendation incorporating a sketch plan would be the way to go.
Ms. Pratt asked if it would make sense to include a time limit in fairness to the Board, the Town
and the applicant. Mr. Miyares stated that is a valid point, and it will be better if the decision
specifies when certain conditions need to be met, before build-out or whatever the Planning
Board feels is an appropriate time frame. He added this will also help the Zoning Enforcement
Officer later on.
Mr. Bogigian referred to the statement made that it would not be wise to go against the
recommendation of the consultant engineer. He stated he agrees safety is extremely important,
but there are as many opinions as there are engineers and as a citizen of Hopkinton he did not
elect engineers to make decisions. Mr. Markey stated he drives through the area on a daily basis
and personally is not comfortable with the applicant’s solution. Mr. Weismantel stated it is OK
to follow a consultant’s recommendations when they are based on good engineering data. He
stated in this case the Board has decided to side with the consultant because West Main St. is a
major transportation corridor and the traffic study shows there is a problem there.
4) Sidewalks
Mr. Markey stated there clearly is disagreement on the sidewalk between the Board and the
applicant. Mr. Kunst stated Golden Pond has done business in Hopkinton for 18 to 20 years and
has contributed more than 20 million dollars in taxes contributing to a lot of municipal projects,
employment and services. He stated Golden Pond is not a financial burden on the Town and
there is a potential of an additional $100,000/year in taxes if this project goes forward which
could double with expansion through Phases 2 and 3. He noted Golden Pond wants conditions to
be safe and give back to the community, but there is a difference between private and municipal
projects. He added lending conditions are stricter now and banks will not be willing to lend
money for a project that includes municipal work. Mr. MacDonald stated he appreciates Mr.
Kunst’s statement and Golden Pond’s business in Town but this is an existing situation which
will get worse, and maybe there could be a cap on the amount of money the applicant is required
to contribute. Mr. Coutinho asked whether there is precedent for this type of arrangement for
other businesses going in and it would be in the Town’s interest to help move the project forward
so that the applicant can start paying more taxes. Ms. Wright stated there is precedent for the
Town asking for mitigation for projects that have a major impact and she does not remember a
situation where the Town has made a deal and imposed a cap. Mr. Markey stated residents do
not want higher taxes and using this application to get improvements which would have to be
funded through taxes would not be the proper mechanism.
6
Mr. Marquedant stated the site plan has not been changed with respect to sidewalks. He noted
the current plan shows a sidewalk ending east of the entrance to 58/60 West Main St. Mr. Abate
stated bridging the gap in front of the two remaining properties does not seem to be a big deal,
and it was determined this would translate into an additional 191 ft. of sidewalk. Mr.
Weismantel stated that according to the Town Engineer it could cost the Town $22,000 to
construct the sidewalk, about 20% more than a private entity. He stated he would like to see a
continuation of the sidewalk which would be beneficial to the residents of Golden Pond and
other businesses in the area. He stated the part of the applicant’s proposal he really dislikes is a
sidewalk going into the development in front of a building on private property. Mr. MacDonald
stated he would prefer to see grass as opposed to a badly maintained sidewalk and he is not sure
there is anything to connect to going east. Ms. DeVeuve stated the issue is a safe connection for
pedestrians going from one side of the property to the other and one of the Town’s long term
goals in the Master Plan is making it workable and pedestrian friendly.
Mr. MacDonald stated the State and the Town want sidewalks, but no one wants to pay for them
and these are bad economic times. He stated he would rather see the Board focus on a sidewalk
in front of the Golden Pond property. Ms. Wright referred to the site plan approval criteria, and
there are problems with respect to meeting the requirements regarding vehicular/pedestrian
safety and the Master Plan’s goal for connectivity unless there are some major plan revisions.
Mr. Coutinho stated if there is a sidewalk in front of the building the applicant would meet the
criterion as long as they feel comfortable with a walkway through private property. Mr. Markey
asked about the connectivity aspect, and Mr. Coutinho stated it will get people from one side to
the other, and the rest will be up to the Town eventually connecting the dots. Ms. Thomas stated
that would be a good compromise.
Mr. Miyares stated the Board can write a condition which includes a statement that the applicant
will not be fully responsible for funding, but the Planning Board does not have the legal
authority to promise Town funding. He stated if the Board decides on a sidewalk outside of the
right of way, it needs to think about an easement for public access so it is not just physically but
also legally there. Mr. Davies stated the applicant is not willing to grant an easement for public
use of the sidewalk on their property.
Mr. Davies thanked the Board for the way the public hearing was conducted. He stated he wants
to reiterate Mr. Kunst’s comments with respect to Golden Pond’s position and is hoping for a
positive decision approving the application with reasonable conditions. Mr. Weismantel stated
he would like to see a revised plan and a cost estimate for a sidewalk extended in front of the 2
remaining properties on West Main St. and wrap up the application two weeks from now. Ms.
DeVeuve stated she would like the applicant to take one more look at pedestrian safety, and Mr.
Markey stated the Board has asked before and the applicant has not made any plan revisions.
Mr. Davies stated Town Counsel asked the DPW to determine what it is willing to contribute,
however it appears nothing is forthcoming and therefore Golden Pond stands by the current
plan. Mr. Markey stated he personally recommends that the Planning Board not continue the
hearing as the discussion has been fairly consistent. Mr. Miyares stated the recommendation was
to approach the DPW with respect to a potential contribution to the project, and they indicated
they are unable to contribute due to lack of funds. Mr. Davies stated he did not intend to
misquote the DPW. Mr. Abate stated he would like to continue the hearing in order to resolve
open issues. Mr. Weismantel stated the Board is of one mind on the turning lane and he would
like to continue the hearing pending a revised sidewalk plan.
7
The Board discussed the possible implications of closing the public hearing with respect to the
process moving forward. Mr. Davies stated there are potentially two open issues remaining and
asked the Board to close the hearing and make a decision based on the available information.
Mr. Abate moved to continue the public hearing to 9/27/10 at 8:00 P.M. The motion was
seconded. Ms. Thomas asked for clarification regarding the Board’s ability to get additional
engineering and legal advice if the hearing is closed. Mr. Miyares clarified that the Board will
be allowed to request legal advice in drafting conditions only. The Board voted 4 in favor
(Weismantel, Wright, Abate and DeVeuve) and 4 against (Markey, Coutinho, Thomas and
MacDonald), and the motion failed.
Mr. Coutinho moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Weismantel suggested closing the hearing
but allowing the applicant to submit revised plans showing a sidewalk closer to the road. Ms.
Thomas seconded the motion. Mr. Miyares stated Mr. Weismantel’s suggestion is good but also
problematic because the Board would not be able to get FST’s input at that point. Mr. Davies
stated there will be no revised plans. The Board voted 4 in favor (Markey, Coutinho, Thomas
and MacDonald) and 4 against (Weismantel, Wright, Abate and DeVeuve) to close the public
hearing and the motion failed. Mr. Weismantel moved to continue the public hearing to 9/27/10
at 8:00 P.M., the motion was seconded and the Board voted 5 in favor (Weismantel, Wright,
Abate, DeVeuve and Markey) and 3 against (Coutinho, Thomas, MacDonald) on the motion.
Documents:
Drawing on aerial photo with standards for West Main St. sidewalk, prepared by Dave
Daltorio, Town Engineer
FST Recommendation 8/16/10 – West Main St. turning lane – concept plan
Memo to Dave Glenn, FST, from Dan Callahan, FST, dated 9/8/10, re: Site Lighting
Comments
Letter to Joseph P. Marquedant from Brendan O’Regan, DPW Director, dated 9/7/10, re:
Golden Pond Development
Memo to Dave Glenn, FST, from Alan Cloutier, FST, dated 8/26/10, re: Justification for Left
Turn Lane on West Main St.
Letter to Elaine Lazarus from Brendan O’Regan, DPW Director, dated 8/19/10, re: Golden
Pond Development
Letter to Elaine Lazarus from Joseph P. Marquedant, 8/13/10, re: Golden Pond Medical Care
Facility Expansion
Letter to Dave Glenn, FST, from Joseph P. Marquedant, dated 8/31/10
Memo to Town of Hopkinton, Planning Board from Al Marzullo, TKG East Ltd., dated
8/27/10, re: Lighting Issues
Phometric (sic.) Site Plan prepared by TKG East Ltd., received 8/31/10
Letter to Kerry Kunst from Elaine Lazarus dated 7/30/10, re: Application for Major Site Plan
Review – 58 & West Main St.
Site Plan set sheets 1 of 4 through 4 of 4, revised through 8/17/10
4. Administrative Business
a) Minutes – The Board voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of the meetings on 7/12/10,
7/26/10, and 8/9/10 as written. Documents: Draft Minutes for same.
b) Bills – The Board voted unanimously to authorize payment of outstanding bills. Documents:
Requests for Payment forms and Invoices
8
5. Continued Public Hearing – Bridle Path – OSLPD Concept Plan/Special Permit – P M
Realty Trust
Michael Casasanta and Robert Guigli, P M Realty Trust, applicant, Chuck Scott, CFS
Engineering, engineer, and Doug Resnick, attorney, appeared before the Board.
Mr. Resnick stated the Open Space and Landscape Preservation Development (OSLPD) bylaw
was adopted in the late 1980’s and refined considerably over the years. He stated the bylaw was
more recently modified to require a developer of parcels of 10 or more acres to file an OSLPD
concept plan/special permit application, and only if the application is denied the developer can
pursue a conventional layout. He noted Ms. Lazarus in her memo to the Board has provided
comprehensive information regarding the Bridle Path application and the approval process under
the OSLPD bylaw in general for the benefit of the new members.
Mr. Resnick referred to FST’s initial response letter dated 6/19/10 and Ms. Lazarus’
memorandum dated 9/9/10 to the Board for the 7/12/10 meeting. He noted FST’s
recommendations are now incorporated into the plan. He noted they listened carefully to what
Board members said at the last meeting and tried to revise the plan accordingly. He stated the
revised plan leaves 71% of the total acreage undeveloped and hoped that the Board will look at
the plan from that perspective.
Mr. Scott stated minor changes have been made to the plan which takes the natural wetland
system out of the developed area and places it in the open space portion. He noted the amount of
open space was increased by 1 acre by reconfiguration of lots 4, 5 and 6, and all existing wetland
systems on the site are now within the boundaries of the open space. He stated the development
is designed to preserve existing natural landscape features including the ridge, and they will be
able to enhance and extend existing trails. Ms. Lazarus stated the Board has not received the
revised plan presented tonight and asked the applicant to submit the revisions. Mr. Abate stated
he likes the plan, but some of the lots are still oddly shaped, and Ms. Lazarus stated it is
acceptable if the lots are not box shaped, and the plan appears to comply with the regulations.
Mr. Weismantel questioned the need for a tot lot as he is not sure whether residents will actually
use it. Ms. Lazarus stated the area needs to be cleared for an underground detention system, and
in response to a question noted she is not aware of such facilities in other developments. Ms.
Wright asked who would be responsibility for the maintenance costs. Mr. Markey asked if there
will be a homeowners association, and Mr. Resnick stated he is not in favor of having one.
David Beattie, 114 Wood St., asked about access from Proctor St. Mr. Scott stated the Proctor
St. cart path runs along both of their properties and the foot path off Ridge Rd. will be relocated.
Mr. Beattie stated he owns ½ of the road and will not allow people to enter off Proctor St. Mr.
Resnick stated that a long time ago this was an old road to Westborough. He noted that even
though the applicant owns only ½ the road, people have the right to use it. Mr. Weismantel
referred to the proposed trail along the top of the ridge. He stated that considering the area
topography, hikers would be looking into people’s second floor windows. Ms. Lazarus noted the
concept plan is just the first stage and a decision with respect to trail location and the possible tot
lot can be made at the definitive stage. Mr. Weismantel stated he initially preferred the
conventional layout, but now likes the open space version better with the changes made. In
response to a question of Mr. Weismantel, Mr. Scott noted the location of the homes on the site
has not really changed even though the lots were reconfigured.
9
Ms. DeVeuve stated the proposed tot lot will be in the open space and asked if the recipient of
the open space will like the responsibility that goes along with it. Mr. Resnick stated the open
space will be conveyed to HALT who will find an appropriate Conservation Restriction holder.
Colleen Murphy, 16 Ridge Rd., stated she is not in favor of having a noisy playground to replace
the quiet of the wooded area currently behind her home.
Randy Charland, 7 Palomino Dr., stated he wants to see as many trees preserved on the ridge as
possible, also from a noise barrier perspective.
Mr. Beattie referred to his ownership of the Proctor St. cart path and stated a “no trespassing”
sign is not a solution. He stated he maintains the path and has no problem with neighbors using
it, but there are liability issues and he is not going to put up a fence. Mr. Resnick stated he is not
contesting ownership, but it has been previously determined the public has gained rights to use
the path. Mr. Markey noted that this issue is not part of the application, and Mr. Resnick agreed.
Dickran Babigian, 15 Ridge Rd., referred to an email sent to the Planning Board on 8/5/10 the
Jacksons at 12 Ridge Rd., the Smiths at 14 Ridge Rd., and Colleen Murphy at 16 Ridge Rd. He
stated he feels the subdivision entrance should be from Appaloosa Circle and asked why that
option is not being pursued as the Ridge Rd. residents are opposed to the current design and the
property owners of 3 and 5 Appaloosa Circle are willing in principle to allow the use of their
land for a through road. Mr. Markey stated the Town in general encourages an open space
layout rather than conventional. Mr. Resnick stated the applicant already owns a 50 ft. right of
way off Ridge Rd. He noted the Board has copies of the agreement between the applicant and
the Appaloosa Circle property owners and they will be compensated whether the applicant uses
their land or not. Ms. DeVeuve stated Mr. Babigian’s question is why an open space plan with
access from Appaloosa Circle is not being considered. Ms. Lazarus stated the topography off
Appaloosa Circle is more difficult, and development will require tree cutting, site disturbance,
and more construction activity for the neighborhood. Mr. Babigian expressed concerns about
runoff onto Ridge Rd. Mr. Scott stated the drainage system will be designed to collect as much
of the water as possible before it reaches the bottom, and under the Subdivision Rules and
Regulations there can be no post-development increase in peak flow off site. Ms. Lazarus asked
whether the 18 Ridge Rd. detention basin plan has been changed since the Board issued the
stormwater permit, and Mr. Scott stated no. Mr. Resnick stated engineering details for
stormwater management will be provided at the definitive stage.
Mr. Weismantel asked how the new homes will compare to the existing neighborhood in terms
of square footage and style, and Mr. Scott stated they will be similar. Ms. Wright asked what is
planned for fire protection, and it was stated there will be a cistern.
Mr. Resnick stated the revised plan was presented to get input from the Board. Ms. DeVeuve
moved to continue the public hearing to 9/27/10 so the Board will have an opportunity to review
the revised plan presented and discussed tonight. Mr. Markey asked whether the revisions need
to be reviewed by FST, and Ms. Lazarus stated that will not be necessary if the plan has not
changed with respect to the road and infrastructure. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. The
Board voted unanimously to continue the public hearing to 9/27/10 at 9:00 P.M.
10
Documents: OSLPD Exhibit Plan entitled “Bridle Path Map U10, Parcels 4-0 & 15-A,
Hopkinton”, dated 5/5/10 revised through 9/13/10.
4. Other Business:
Maillet Wood (Trevor Lane) – Ms. Lazarus stated the developer has asked for approval of a
residential style light pole fixture in line with the ones used on the buildings and referred to
the manufacturer’s information distributed. It was noted that the location of the poles are on
the plan but a fixture type has not been selected. Mr. Weismantel moved to approve the
Quoizel NY9043K product. Mr. Abate seconded the motion, and the Board voted
unanimously in favor. Document: Light fixture product information sheet – Quoizel
NY9043K
Draft Planning Board Goals for FY11 – The Board decided to postpone discussion to the
next meeting.
Cranberry Cove (Wescott Drive) – Ms. Lazarus stated the developer of Cranberry Cove has
requested that the Board authorize release of the remaining performance guarantee and 53G
account balance. She stated the subdivision is complete, the road accepted, there are no
problems, and the remaining bond funds were for sidewalks and street trees. Mr. Weismantel
moved to approve the developer’s request, Mr. Markey seconded the motion, and the Board
voted unanimously in favor.
Mr. MacDonald stated he will not be able to attend the 9/27/10 Planning Board meeting
which includes the continued public hearing for Golden Pond. Ms. Lazarus stated she will
notify the applicant and give them the option to further continue the hearing.
Mr. Weismantel stated the next Zoning Advisory Committee meeting will be held on 9/20/10
with a public forum at 7:15 P.M. He stated if the Historical Commission wants to attend the
meeting and present ideas regarding preservation of historic homes as discussed by the Board
at a previous meeting, they are welcome.
Documents Used/General:
Memorandum from Elaine Lazarus to the Planning Board, dated 9/9/10
Planning Board Agenda
Adjourned 10:05 P.M.
Submitted by:
Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
Approved: October 18, 2010