HomeMy Public PortalAbout20090126 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
Monday, January 26, 7:00 P.M.
Hopkinton Fire Station, 73 Main St.
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Markey, Vice-Chairman, Sandy K. Altamura, John Coolidge,
Carol DeVeuve, David Auslander, Jaime Goncalves, Claire Wright, Ken Weismantel
……. Elaine Lazarus, Planning Director
……. Cobi Wallace, Administrative Assistant
1. Administrative Business
a. Bills – The Board voted unanimously to approve payment of an outstanding bill.
b. Minutes – The Board voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of January 12, 2009 as
amended.
Mr. Auslander arrived at this time.
2. Public Hearing – Proposed Zoning Bylaw and Zoning Map Amendments; Joint Meeting
with Zoning Advisory Committee
The following members of the Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC) were present: Sandy K.
Altamura, David Auslander, Ken Weismantel, Robert McGuire, Mark Gates, Mavis O’Leary,
Craig Nation, Peter Ficarri.
a. Housekeeping Article
Ms. Lazarus stated the proposed amendment involves changes to several sections of the Zoning
Bylaw. She stated these changes are of a “housekeeping” nature and, if adopted, would not
change the meaning or intent of any of the provisions in the Bylaw.
Mary Pratt, 102 Fruit St., member of the Bd. of Selectmen speaking as an individual, asked about
the Wetlands (W) district that would be deleted. Ms. Lazarus stated there is no Wetlands district
anymore so the reference to it would be deleted.
b. Floodplain District
Mr. Markey stated the article if adopted will amend the Floodplain District bylaw to correspond
with the new Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood maps. He added the new
maps will only have minor changes as far as the Town of Hopkinton is concerned. In response
to a question by Ms. Pratt, Ms. Lazarus noted that town meeting cannot adopt this amendment
without the final FEMA maps. A person in the audience asked what is holding up the maps, and
Ms. Lazarus replied that FEMA has not released the final version yet. She added that cities and
towns are required to reference the new maps no later than September 2009, but FEMA will
grant an extension if the maps are not available.
Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – January 26, 2009
2
c. Common Driveways
It was noted that this article originated with the Conservation Commission representative on
ZAC and would allow a shared or common driveway by Special Permit from the Planning
Board.
Ms. Altamura stated that ZAC wrestled with this article and did not necessarily like the idea but
acknowledged that sometimes there are environmental benefits to allowing a shared driveway.
Mr. Coolidge asked if both homes will have to be on lots with sufficient legal frontage, and Ms.
Altamura responded yes. Ms. Altamura stated that the homeowners will need to have an
agreement regarding maintenance and repair.
Mr. Weismantel arrived at this time.
In response to a question, Ms. Lazarus stated that the common driveway can be located on either
one or both of the properties.
Mr. Goncalves asked for clarification regarding the minimum requirements for construction
standards. It was determined that the maximum grade of the driveway shall be no greater than
5% within 40 ft. of the street right of way. Mr. Goncalves asked about limits on total driveway
length, and Ms. Lazarus stated there are no limits.
Mr. Goncalves stated the proposed language in section D. Administration, Item 4(a) indicates
that the common driveway cannot serve more than two dwellings and asked about the definition
of a “dwelling”. Ms. Lazarus referred to the definition of a dwelling in the Bylaw. It was
decided to change the wording to single family dwellings.
In response to a question by John McBride, 23 Whalen Rd., Mr. Goncalves stated the bylaw
would allow common driveways for two lots which are side by side.
Steve McBride, 1 McBride Dr., asked how the new bylaw would affect his development. Ms.
Lazarus noted McBride Dr. is laid out as a subdivision street, and Mr. Goncalves stated that a
road created through the subdivision process is not considered a common driveway.
Doug Resnick, 63 South Mill St., stated it appears lots being considered for the use of a common
driveway need to comply with the legal frontage requirement under the Bylaw. He stated there
are already some private ways in Town with shared access. He added a mutual agreement
between homeowners is sufficient to address driveway maintenance and repair issues, and there
is no need to form a homeowners association.
Mr. Weismantel stated allowing common driveways would be beneficial in certain wetlands
situations by reducing the amount of disturbance.
d. Sign Bylaw
Mr. Weismantel stated ZAC spent most of its time on the Sign Bylaw and the Planning Board
tried to deal with the issue a couple of years ago. He stated ZAC first set out to consolidate the
various sign provisions in one bylaw, but then there was an outcry from the business community
Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – January 26, 2009
3
when the Zoning Enforcement Officer enforced the Zoning Bylaw, resulting in an effort to figure
out what kind of new bylaw would make the most sense. He noted ZAC addressed
consolidation of the various sections, created provisions to allow temporary signs, and redefined
the appropriate sign size allowed in the Business, Downtown Business and Rural Business
districts. Mr. Weismantel stated ZAC also included language to allow the Board of Appeals to
issue a special permit for signs which are not quite in keeping with the Bylaw. He noted the
business owner can make his/her case to the members of the Board of Appeals but does not have
to prove hardship. Mr. Markey stated that currently the sign provisions are scattered throughout
the Bylaw.
Ms. DeVeuve asked about neon signs like the ones displayed in coffee shop windows. Mr.
Weismantel stated ZAC only talked about exterior signage and anything on the inside would not
be regulated.
Ms. DeVeuve referred to page 2, item g, and asked what types of signs would fall under the
category of “decorations”. She questioned the merit of the decision to exempt “decorations”
from the provisions. Mr. Weismantel stated ZAC tried to come up with a broad enough
definition to make sure that certain things like Christmas lights/decorations and Marathon flags
on utility poles would not be considered signs. Ms. DeVeuve stated she feels the definition is
very broad and suggested it could be more specific by adding the word “seasonal”. Ms.
DeVeuve stated that Marathon signs would be excluded anyway, and Ms. Lazarus stated the only
current exemption for the Marathon is for race pavement markings.
Ms. Wright asked about signs announcing a Masonic Lodge or Rotary Club. She stated
provisions for that type of sign do not appear to be spelled out and it might be good to include a
catch phrase regarding civic organizations.
Ms. DeVeuve stated she is curious about legal nonconforming signs and the reason for the 10-
year cutoff period for grandfathering. Ms. Lazarus stated this was discussed at length and ZAC
decided to go with the 10-year split as it was thought the longer a sign is exposed to the
elements, the more it will deteriorate, and a newer sign might only need repair instead of
replacement. Ms. DeVeuve stated it appears if the sign is older than 10 years it can only be
maintained or repaired. Ms. Lazarus stated the new bylaw would allow it to be replaced with an
identical sign. She stated the intent is that eventually all signs are gradually brought into
conformance. Ms. DeVeuve stated she has a problem with the 10-year cutoff period and
questioned whether this even applies to any Hopkinton signs. Ms. Wright stated she is thinking
in terms of a business owner who has just invested in a new sign a couple of years ago. Ms.
DeVeuve stated it would not matter if the sign in question is really old, and Ms. Wright stated the
regulations will apply if there is a change in use or tenants. Ms. DeVeuve stated she has a
problem with the time frame and recommended eliminating item B from the section on
nonconforming signs. Ms. Altamura stated that then the reference to the 10-year period in item
A has to be taken out as well. Mr. Markey stated this issue will have to be worked out.
Ms. Pratt asked about the section on signs for adult uses. She stated she wants to be sure the
proposed language is in compliance with the two prior bylaws regulating these uses. Ms.
Lazarus stated that the language in the Sign Bylaw has been copied from the Adult Uses Zoning
Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – January 26, 2009
4
Bylaw, but it can be referenced. She stated without the use, there would be no need for a sign.
Mr. Weismantel stated ZAC did not make any changes to the wording of the Adult Uses bylaw.
Mr. Markey stated the Board understands what Ms. Pratt is looking for, and it will make sure it is
done right.
Mr. Goncalves referred to the use of custom name signs on homes. He stated this is very
common on the Cape and asked if it is something the Town wants to allow. Ms. Altamura stated
that a sign like that on the house or garage is not a problem. She stated that ZAC worked very
hard on the Sign Bylaw, mainly trying to consolidate the different sections and working with the
business community on things like sandwich board signs. Ms. Altamura stated the bylaw still
might have to be tweaked but it needed to be done as soon as possible because there was a lot of
confusion.
Scott Richardson, 43 Wood St., stated he thinks custom house signs are covered in the bylaw.
Mr. Resnick stated that he wants to thank Mr. Weismantel and Ms. Lazarus for working on the
Sign Bylaw. He stated the people in the business community had a real wakeup call. He stated
the regulations would apply to business signs on the front of a house, and a unique name plate is
more a decoration.
Mary Arnaut, 51 Teresa Rd., referred to large window displays and asked if the Sign Bylaw
applies only to the building exterior. Mr. Weismantel stated ZAC talked about this in detail. He
stated a window display facing the street might be considered a sign, and another important
example is whether or not they should allow neon “open” or “coffee” window signs. He stated
in the end ZAC decided to leave the word “interior” out, and if the sign is on the inside of the
building, it is not considered a sign.
Mr. Markey stated ZAC recognized the need for a consolidated Sign Bylaw, worked on it and
wants it to pass at town meeting. Mr. Auslander stated the proposed bylaw is a good baseline
document.
Ms. Arnaut stated she feels that Section G under General Regulations is too loosely written and
certain exemptions should be subject to Board of Appeals approval or as deemed necessary. She
stated this will give people the ability to do something about signs that are totally out of place.
Mr. Weismantel stated that decision should be left up to the Building Inspector/Zoning
Enforcement Officer (ZEO) and the homeowner will have the opportunity to file an appeal.
Mr. Markey stated that right now people do not have to go to the Board of Appeals for a sign
permit, and adding language such as proposed by Ms. Arnaut would change that. Ms. Arnaut
stated the Board of Appeals would only get involved in problem cases that are brought to their
attention. Ms. Wright stated that ZAC did not want to be too intrusive so that the new bylaw will
have a chance to pass at town meeting. She stated it is a balancing act. Mr. Coolidge asked if
the Building Inspector/ZEO participated in the ZAC discussions, and Mr. Weismantel stated only
in the beginning. Ms. Lazarus stated that the ZEO has reviewed the current language and is in
agreement.
Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – January 26, 2009
5
Jackie Potenzone, 12 Wood St., Jackie & Co., stated she has a business sign for her hair salon
but also frequently displays a number of non-profit advertising signs. It was noted that the bylaw
allows such signs, up to 8 sq. ft. in size.
Robert Falcione, 93 Downey St., asked how many different non-profit sandwich board signs can
be displayed at a business like Jackie & Co., and Ms. Lazarus stated there is no limit.
Ms. Wright stated ZAC did an amazing job on temporary signage but an 8 sq. ft. sign is very
small. She stated a certain drive-by visibility is needed and recommended increasing the
maximum allowed square footage a little. Mr. Weismantel stated these are non-permanent signs
and he does not want to create a hazard.
Don Nash, 222 Winter St., stated a sandwich board has 2 sides and asked whether the bylaw
should say 16 sq. ft. to be clear. It was noted the definition of “sign area” in the bylaw covers
this.
Ms. Wright referred to the section on Temporary Signs, Item C, which states they will only be
allowed on the Town Common for actual events taking place there. She asked whether the
Board wants this to be restricted to Town Common events only and recommended changing the
wording. Mr. Weismantel stated that the Parks & Recreation Commission is the property owner
in this case, and it is up to them. He stated ZAC in this item is referring to events like the annual
Poly Arts show. He added that the Parks & Recreation Commission has a process for renting
out the Town Common for a number of community events. It was determined that this issue is
covered under Temporary Signs, Item A, and no changes to the language are necessary.
Mr. Resnick stated the veterans asked him to check on the 17 or so events per year advertised
through sandwich boards on the Town Common, and it appears this is covered under item A.
Ms. Wright referred to the section on signs permitted by right, item (1) (a), regulating signs
advertising property for sale or rent. She stated she would not want businesses to leave the signs
up permanently and would prefer this to be in the temporary sign category. Mr. Weismantel
stated he does not think that will happen unless a business wants to be constantly bothered.
Mr. Falcione asked if real estate “for sale” signs are exempt. Ms. Lazarus stated they are
allowed. Mr. Falcione referred to random signs with out-of-town phone numbers and Ms.
Lazarus stated that the ZEO can investigate a complaint and remove a sign if warranted. Mr.
Resnick stated the advertising sign has to relate to the property is it located on.
Ms. Wright stated that sometimes there are multiple signs on one building and asked whether it
is possible to require some coordination with respect to style and colors. Mr. Weismantel stated
he does not think the Town can regulate sign content under freedom of speech and it is difficult
to regulate class. Ms. Wright stated she is looking for similarity in design and is just bringing
this up for the Board to consider. Ms. Wright stated there are a number of places where this is an
issue. Ms. Altamura stated she anticipates that a lot of the signs will be installed on new
buildings which will be reviewed by the Planning Board and Design Review Board (DRB).
Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – January 26, 2009
6
Mr. Markey stated the Board will postpone the 8:00 P.M. continued public hearing regarding the
Next Generation Children’s Center site plan review applications for 5 Meserve St./2 Wood St.
and 11 Meserve St. to later in the evening.
Mr. Goncalves asked about “Open House” signs placed on a main street for properties on side
streets. Mr. Weismantel stated this is not covered in the bylaw. He stated realtors are not
allowed to put the signs somewhere else unless they have permission and attaching them to
utility poles is not legal anywhere without approval of the utility company.
The Board discussed size and height regulations for signs in the Business, Downtown Business
and Rural Business district. Mr. Weismantel stated that a 15 ft. high sign measuring 32 sf. ft.
basically compares to a piece of plywood on a pole.
Jeff Doherty, 3 Angel’s Way, stated he is a former DRB member and understands Ms. Wright’s
comment with respect to style. He stated the new Sign Bylaw presents a golden opportunity.
Mr. Doherty stated the DRB always tried to do things in a classy way to the benefit of the Town.
He referred to towns on the North Shore and in New Hampshire that have requirements for
colors or lettering so that certain corporate logos will not be an eyesore. Mr. Auslander stated
ZAC talked about this but decided not to tackle the issue now. Mr. Markey stated he
understands Mr. Doherty’s point but it is not a good idea to push too far. Ms. Altamura stated
concerns regarding maximum allowed height and preferred style are valid and should be further
discussed. Mr. Auslander stated they should be able to get something through town meeting.
Ms. Wright stated she is concerned about multiple signs on a single building and it should not be
too much to ask of a business to use similar colors and styles so that one sign is in harmony with
the others. Mr. Markey stated it appears the bylaw has some issues that need to be further
discussed.
e. Office Park District
Ms. DeVeuve stated she is an abutter to the property considered for rezoning and will not be able
to vote on this article. She removed herself from the Board.
Mr. Weismantel described the location of the property proposed for rezoning to a new Office
Park District. He stated the property is owned by Bill and Mary Terry and NSTAR, and current
zoning is split between Industrial B (IB) and Agricultural (A). Mr. Weismantel stated it is
basically the property once considered by Erickson Retirement Communities. He stated
Ericksen looked at the property to determine its development potential. He noted there are
pockets of wetlands throughout the property, and it was felt that an office park would be the best
use. He referred to the Planning Director’s memo dated January 26, 2009 for a list of uses
allowed by right or by special permit in the new district if approved by town meeting. Mr.
Weismantel stated that the bylaw is modeled after the existing Professional Office (Liberty
Mutual) district.
Mr. Resnick stated he has been asked to represent the Terry’s and he also represented Ericksen
Retirement Communities with respect to this property. Mr. Resnick stated a lot was learned as a
result of Ericksen’s evaluation of the property and the Terry’s inherited a lot of plans and other
documentation. Mr. Resnick stated the Terry’s, upon further thought, have changed their mind
Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – January 26, 2009
7
about rezoning the entire parcel and would prefer to leave the east side near Chamberlain St. the
way it is and only consider changing the zoning on the Lumber St. side.
Mr. Weismantel stated that this is new information but doesn’t think ZAC would be against only
partially rezoning the property and at one time talked about adding a buffer zone.
Mr. Resnick stated that the non-Terry parcels are owned by Boston Edison, not NSTAR.
Mr. Resnick stated they intend to concentrate on the western portion of the site and double the
amount of land now zoned IB and rezone it to Office Park. He noted he has talked with small
retirement community developers and they don’t need a lot of land. Mr. Resnick stated it would
be very expensive to deal with the wetlands areas as Erickson found out.
Mr. Markey stated it appears that the Terry’s like the content of the bylaw but want to limit the
total area.
Mr. Richardson asked about exact acreages. Mr. Resnick stated the Terry property is about 204
acres and about half of that would be rezoned to Office Park. He noted they are in the process of
preparing a survey to determine the exact numbers.
Mr. Weismantel stated he would like to poll the ZAC members in attendance regarding their
opinion. Ms. Altamura stated they could amend the proposal to reflect the new boundaries, and
Mr. Markey stated this would require more detailed information, but the discussion regarding
bylaw language can continue. Ms. DeVeuve, speaking as an individual, asked if the parcels
would be separated along existing lot lines and Mr. Resnick responded no.
Florence O’Donnell, 5 Weybridge Ln., asked why the Town should create more land for
retirement communities with Golden Pond already existing. Mr. Weismantel stated it seems to
be a good idea and would not require a lot from the Town in services while at the same time
providing an opportunity for some of the senior citizens to stay in Town. Ms. Altamura stated
that Golden Pond is more a nursing home and the retirement communities considered in the new
proposed Office Park District would be a different style with more independent living. Ms.
O’Donnell stated that the Town already has a place for continuing care retirement communities
and it sounds like the Board is looking for something else. Ms. Lazarus stated the Zoning Bylaw
has a definition of Continuing Care Retirement Communities already and it is it referenced in the
proposed Office Park bylaw. She read the definition. Mr. Resnick explained the retirement
community model they have in mind as compared to the Ericksen development proposed a
couple of years ago. Ms. Altamura asked if the Zoning Bylaw definition allows single home
units, and Ms. Lazarus responded yes. Ms. Altamura asked whether a Legacy Farms type host
community agreement should be required in the bylaw. Mr. Weismantel stated the Town will be
covered through the special permit process. The issue was discussed.
Mr. Falcione referred to increased tax revenue mentioned as one of the reasons to change the
zoning to allow Continuing Care Retirement Communities. He remembers that Ericksen would
have been tax exempt. Ms. Pratt stated that issue was straightened out and they would have had
to pay. Mr. Resnick stated that building an Ericksen-type retirement community is very
Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – January 26, 2009
8
complicated and they could not do it there because of the lack of water and sewer, but there
would have been a financial agreement for payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT).
Ms. DeVeuve, speaking as an individual, asked whether a PILOT agreement is needed if the
developer does not pay taxes. Mr. Markey stated the Town has to make sure it gets revenue.
Mr. Resnick stated that not every retirement community provider works like Ericksen but even
with a smaller community, this would have to be addressed as nobody should get a free ride.
Michael Brusser, 2 Colella Farm Rd., expressed concerns about the rapid growth of the Town.
He stated 900+ housing units are planned for the Weston Nurseries property, probably resulting
in the need for new schools. He wondered if this type of growth is sustainable and what the
Town will look like in the future.
Ms. Arnaut referred to the list of allowed uses including Research & Development facilities and
laboratories. She stated this might open it up to a biological laboratory and she is not in favor of
that type of development. Ms. Arnaut requested the Board review the language and remove
R&D and laboratories from the list.
Bob Slaman, 32 Chamberlain St., referred to the dimensional requirements and asked about the
reasoning for a minimum development area of 5 acres and 50 ft. minimum setback from the
street. Ms. Lazarus stated this is the same language as used for the Professional Office district.
Mr. Slaman stated he is concerned that it will result in a higher density development and reduced
open space. Mr. Weismantel stated that because of the wetlands characteristics of the site, the
buildings would be spread out in small clusters on a number of upland areas. He stated there are
only 5 to 7 of these upland areas, and Mr. Resnick stated the areas are numbered on the plan and
not every area will be used. Ms. Altamura asked how the remaining residential parcel will be
accessed. Mr. Resnick stated it has not been determined yet. Ms. Altamura stated it can be
shown as a non-buildable lot.
The Board voted unanimously to continue the public hearing on proposed zoning amendments to
9:00 P.M.
Ms. DeVeuve returned to the Board.
Ms. Altamura stepped off the Board.
3. Continued Public Hearings – Major Project Site Plan Review Applications - 11 Meserve
St. - Next Generation Children’s Center, Proposed Satellite Facility and Parking
Lot/Walker Realty LLC & 5 Meserve St./2 Wood St. - Next Generation Children’s Center,
Proposed Building Addition & Parking Lot Expansion/Walker Realty LLC
At the written request of the applicant, the Board voted 6 in favor with 1 abstaining (Goncalves)
to continue the public hearings for the major site plan review applications for the Next
Generation Children’s Center for both 11 Meserve St. and 5 Meserve St./2 Wood St. locations to
February 23, 2009 at 8:00 PM.
Ms. Altamura returned to the Board.
Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – January 26, 2009
9
4. Public Hearing – Minor Site Plan Review – 225 Wood St. - 20th Century Homes
Craig Nation, applicant, appeared before the Board. He explained his proposal for installation of
a shed roof over the walkway at commercial property located at 225 Wood St. He stated the
current situation is dangerous in the winter because of the potential of falling icicles. He noted
that he met with the Woodville Historic District Commission (WHDC), as required, and received
a Certificate of Appropriateness with the condition the construction is with brackets instead of
arches, and he has a revised project narrative for the Board. Ms. Wright stated the Board did not
receive the revisions and wished the WHDC had informed them of their recommendations. She
stated the concept of adding a shed roof makes a lot of sense. She stated that the applicant is
scheduled to come before the DRB on January 27 and asked him to bring a copy of the WHDC
Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Goncalves asked the applicant to submit an updated
application package with the change recommended by WHDC and new pictures.
The Board voted unanimously to close the public hearing.
The Board voted unanimously to find that with respect to the criteria for approval of a site plan
under Section 210-136 of the Zoning Bylaw the following criteria are met:
A. The Site Plan conforms to the purpose and intent of the bylaw and proposes an appropriate
and beneficial development of this site;
B. The surrounding area will be protected from the proposed use on the site by provision of
adequate surface water drainage, buffers against light, sight, sound, odors, dust and vibration
and the preservation of adequate light and air;
C. The convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and in
relation to adjacent areas and public ways is ensured;
D. Environmental features of the site and surrounding areas are protected;
E. The Site Plan is consistent with the Master Plan adopted January 22, 2007;
F. The proposed building scale and/or site development plan is consistent with the surrounding
neighborhood;
G. No special permits or variances are required of the Board of Appeals.
H. The project is not a use referred to in MGL c.40A, §3 of the General Laws.
The Board voted unanimously to approve the site plan for installation of a shed roof over the
walkway at 225 Wood St. in a manner consistent with what was approved by the WHDC.
Ms. Lazarus requested that the applicant submit a revised narrative to the Board including a copy
of the WHDC Certificate.
Mr. Weismantel stated that the Board should not look at site plan applications until after the
DRB has reviewed them. Ms. Lazarus apologized and stated in this case the scheduling was due
to busy Planning Board agendas and because the DRB only meets once a month.
5. Cedar Street – Rezoning Proposal – Capital Group Properties
Doug Resnick, attorney, Bill Dipietri and Martin Loiselle, Capital Group Properties (CGP),
proponents, appeared before the Board to discuss the possibility of rezoning property on Cedar
St. from RA to IB so they cold build a flex development.
Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – January 26, 2009
10
The proponents handed out photographs of a typical building design.
Mr. Resnick stated the Board has received a booklet submitted by CGP and described the
property. He stated that Mr. Dipietri has identified an opportunity to rezone a portion of their
Cedar St. property adjacent to the Town of Hopkinton snow dump by (1) rezoning the parcel to
IB and (2) amending the IB language in the Zoning Bylaw to allow construction contracting
businesses. Mr. Resnick stated that Mr. Dipietri proposes 4 separate flex space buildings for
businesses and other contractors sharing as little or as much of the building as they want. Mr.
Resnick stated the proponents feel this parcel is perfect for this type of development because of
its isolated location and potential tax revenue for the Town. He referred to other towns and
stated there is a demand for this type of storage facility in part because of the downturn in the
economy. Mr. Resnick stated the CPG booklet starts with a description of the rezoning proposal
followed by a discussion of spot zoning. He stated under current case law this cannot be
considered spot zoning. He stated that right now it is a little presumptuous to ask for the Board’s
support but they would like to talk about it and possibly file a citizen’s petition later.
Mr. Weismantel stated that ZAC has not seen the proposal. In response to a question from Mr.
Markey whether ZAC should be involved right now, Mr. Weismantel stated no, but he would
like to make some comments. Mr. Markey stated the proponents are looking for feedback from
the Board. Ms. Altamura asked how visible the development would be from the street. Mr.
Resnick stated the buildings will be 800 ft. from Cedar St. with wetlands and wooded areas in
between and additional wetlands to the north on adjacent MDC property. It was noted the
property to be rezoned is not close to residential areas, and the closest home is 550 ft. away on
Wilson St.
Bob McGuire, 4 Huckleberry Rd., member of ZAC, stated he would be in favor of this proposal
in order to get more tax revenue for the Town. He stated he is a commercial real estate broker
and has worked with Capital Group but not on retail or flex development.
Ms. Altamura stated that this would introduce an area with bright lights in the middle of now
mostly undeveloped (State Park) land, and there are residences nearby. Ms. Wright asked about
the portion of the property which would remain residentially zoned. Mr. Dipietri pointed out its
location and stated CGP is planning to build 7 homes on a short cul-de-sac. Mr. Weismantel
stated other uses for the property could be more detrimental, and this might be one of the better
ideas. He stated that if the Town wants to see this go in this direction it may also want to include
the snow dump. Mr. Weismantel stated he is concerned about the location of the septic system
in another zone and the proposed roadway should be moved away from the gas transmission line.
Mr. Dipietri stated the septic systems shown are for the residential development. Mr.
Weismantel stated the plan needs a lot of work before people will be comfortable with it. Mr.
Resnick stated the proposal has a lot of merit although the timing of it could be better. Ms.
Wright stated she recalls there were a lot of complaints a couple of years ago regarding
landscaping businesses parking their equipment in residential neighborhoods. She stated the
other problem was finding a place to put their construction equipment and this would solve the
problem. Ms. Altamura stated it is an interesting idea to solve the equipment storage problem,
but people are already suggesting including the snow dump and she does not want this entire area
Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – January 26, 2009
11
industrially zoned. Ms. Wright stated this would be in the middle of nowhere, and Ms. Altamura
responded this could be the beginning of a trend.
Tom Shambo, 15 Wilson St., stated he has seen a lot of plans for this property and the residential
development portion now has been modified to 7 homes on a dead-end street. Mr. Shambo
stated the flex buildings would be in the middle of nowhere and he does not think they will be
able to see it.
Ms. Arnaut stated Rt. 85 traffic is already backed up to the Southborough town line at rush hour
and she is not sure that the proposed access point is good. She stated she is concerned about
development near the gas transmission line. Mr. Dipietri stated that there will be no construction
on the pipe line, and Mr. Goncalves suggested Mr. Dipietri talk to the gas company.
6. Continued Public Hearing – Proposed Zoning Bylaw and Zoning Map Amendments
e. Office Park – Continued
Mr. Slaman asked if the proposed bylaw has provisions for reduced minimum setbacks in order
to allow a more dense development. Mr. Weismantel stated if the owner retains the property as
one lot there would be a lot of flexibility but the Board wants them to recognize that less than
50% of the property can be developed anyway. Ms. Lazarus stated that the minimum lot area
requirement in the IB district is 60,000 sq. ft. so that is the minimum lot size now. Mr.
Weismantel stated that development seen from Lumber St. would look better under the proposed
Office Park District than the current IB zoning.
Mr. Goncalves addressed the request to remove Research & Development companies and
laboratories from the list of allowed uses. He stated eliminating these categories would defeat
the purpose of the new district and suggested addressing safety concerns through additional
language in the bylaw. Ms. Arnaut stated Governor Patrick is a proponent of biotech and R&D
and if this rezoning goes forward, the Town would be looking at these uses very closely. She is
concerned about things like biological or chemical warfare agents. Mr. Weismantel stated that
the IB zone already allows a lot of the uses Ms. Arnaut is worried about.
Ms. Pratt stated she is not in favor of allowing companies like Lonza or Stryker in the proposed
Office Park zone. She stated the biotechnical industry is strictly regulated, and wastewater has
to be put through reverse osmosis in order to release clean water into the sewer system. She
noted Lonza has a groundwater discharge permit from the State, and Stryker does all their water
treatment in New Hampshire. Ms. Pratt stated that the Town is losing drinkable water because
of this and it needs to limit the amount of pharmaceutical industry it wants to allow.
Michelle Long, 54 Teresa Rd., stated she has lived at the end of Teresa Rd. for 20 years and the
water table has changed considerably as a result of new development in the area and sewer
installation. She stated the land is very wet and more development of any kind will worsen the
situation. Ms. Long stated she does not want more water going in her direction. She stated the
neighborhood residents have spent a lot of money on sump pumps. She stated she has talked
about this before but nobody wants to listen.
Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – January 26, 2009
12
Nancy Peters, 258 Wood St., asked what is planned for the portion of the area which will remain
zoned Agricultural. Mr. Resnick stated they want to leave it the way it is and there are no
current development proposals. Mr. Markey asked if any of it will be rezoned, and Mr. Resnick
stated they propose to rezone some of the area currently zoned Residence B (RB) and A.
A woman in attendance stated she is a commercial real estate broker and this type of
development can be very dense. Mr. Weismantel stated some pods could be very dense, but
development of this property under the new Office Park District will result in a net density
reduction after the wetlands are taken out of the formula. Ms. Lazarus stated 40% of the 5 acre
parcel has to be open space also. Ms. Wright stated they will try to squeeze in as much as
possible. Mr. Weismantel stated it will be similar to the OSMUD. Mr. McGuire asked about the
amount of upland acreage, and Mr. Resnick estimated out of 204 acres, 103 are upland. Mr.
Markey stated this will be discussed further when more details regarding property boundaries are
available.
f. Hotel Overlay
Mr. Weismantel stated the proposed Hotel Overlay District was recommended by the Economic
Development Commission a few years ago. He stated hotels are allowed in the OSMUD overlay
district, but it is unlikely any will be located there. He noted ZAC looked at the type of hotel
they would allow and recommended focusing on high-end type hotels with 8,000 sq. ft. or more
of function rooms. Mr. Weismantel stated ZAC also looked at special permit criteria,
requirement for a traffic impact report and availability of water and sewer. He stated it is an
overlay district and the use will be allowed by special permit, added to the things a property
owner can already do. Mr. Weismantel stated ZAC evaluated a number of parcels for the
proposed use and picked (1) West Main St. and South St. on the west side of Rt. 495, (2) a
section of Lumber St. backing up to Rt. 495, and (3) Elmwood Park near Rt. 495. He stated they
looked at other properties but picked these because there are no direct abutters and they have
highway visibility. Mr. Weismantel stated Elmwood Park has a few low value buildings in the
back and the current property owner was in favor of rezoning a 500 ft. strip of land. He stated
the decision on exactly where to put a hotel is subjective but has to be made with the impact on
neighbors and neighborhoods in mind. Mr. Markey asked why they picked the Lumber St. area.
Mr. Weismantel stated the area is currently zoned Industrial and contains an automotive repair
business, a garden shop and other uses which are not great for tax revenue. Mr. Markey asked
about the area along West Main St., and Mr. Weismantel stated the Golden Spoon parcel will
remain the way it is. Mr. Weismantel stated that in terms of traffic volume ZAC found that a
hotel will generate less traffic than an office building. Mr. Wright asked about the reason for just
allowing one hotel on each side of the highway. Ms. Altamura stated ZAC compromised on this,
and Mr. Weismantel stated the requirement for function space will limit the number of
applicants. The Board discussed the potential of revenue from hotel room tax and Ms. Altamura
stated the numbers were impressive.
Ms. O’Donnell read from a prepared statement (copy attached) and stated she is not in favor of
allowing hotels in Town. Mr. Markey stated Ms. O’Donnell has a lot of good points.
Jay Cohen, Equipment & Systems for Industry (ESI), 71 South St., asked why his property was
not included in the area under consideration for a Hotel Overlay District. Mr. Weismantel stated
Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – January 26, 2009
13
the Lake Maspenock Preservation Association (LMPA) strongly requested that ZAC exclude the
property at 71 South St. Mr. Cohen stated he feels ZAC should have taken the property owner’s
interests into consideration when making this decision. Mr. Weismantel stated ZAC considered
including the property at 71 South St. but decided not to in view of the neighborhood opposition.
He stated rezoning proposals need a 2/3 vote at town meeting. Mr. Cohen stated his business is
on the corner of South St. and Hayward St. and rezoning would create a favorable option for the
use of his property.
Malcolm Page, 74 Pine Island Rd., President, LMPA, stated the Association has given this parcel
additional thought and is not totally against including it in the Hotel Overlay District. He stated
the Association might not be opposed if the building is set back from the intersection so that it
does not face Hayward St. He stated that maybe the land on the corner can be used for parking
only.
Chuck Joseph, 5 Benson Rd., CJPM Development LLC, stated he owns the parcel on the corner
of West Main St. and South St., and received approval for a mixed use development entitled
“Hopkinton Square”. He stated that CJPM Development is in favor of being included in the
overlay district. He stated he is here to request that Hopkinton Square be included but expressed
his dismay with the process. He stated he and Pete Markarian, his business partner, went to the
ZAC meeting to present their case and ZAC voted to include the Hopkinton Square property in
the hotel overlay. Mr. Joseph stated 2 to 3 weeks later their parcel was taken off the list and no
one told them about it or explained why. He stated Hopkinton Square would be great as a hotel
location, traffic would be less and the infrastructure is good. Mr. Joseph stated they are not
planning to remove the retail component but might replace the office building.
Mr. Markey stated that the articles are now being reviewed by the Planning Board and it is not
too late to make changes. He stated people have the option to submit articles by petition also.
Mr. Richardson stated he feels including Hopkinton Square is a good idea and it is an overlay
district. He stated that both Mr. Joseph’s parcel and 71 South St. are really good for this type of
development and recommended that the Planning Board add these parcels.
Mr. McGuire stated he is in favor of adding Hopkinton Square. He stated he feels that would be
the best location for a hotel. He stated he is also speaking on behalf of Gary Haroian, member,
Zoning Advisory Committee, who cannot attend tonight.
Ms. Arnaut stated at first she thought allowing hotels would be really good for the Town but
there are a total of 26 other hotels already in the surrounding towns and she is not sure about
revenue. Mr. Markey stated that “location” is the answer. Mr. Auslander asked if Ms. Arnaut
looked at the type of hotels offered in other towns, and Mr. Arnaut stated there were all kinds.
Mr. Markey stated that right now people in Hopkinton for business stay at hotels in other towns.
Mr. Arnaut stated that people do not travel as much now and if they do they look for cheaper
places. She stated that as far as Hopkinton Square is concerned, the developers proposed a
mixed retail/office development and now they want to make changes. Mr. Markey stated that
Hopkinton Square was approved a couple of years ago and things change. Mr. Richardson stated
Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – January 26, 2009
14
the hotel overlay would offer incentives and add opportunities, and it would be good for the
Town from a revenue perspective.
Mr. Page stated that the LMPA is strongly against including Hopkinton Square but the property
at 71 South St. is further removed from the Lake. He stated the LMPA likes the reduced density
offered by the new district compared to the current Industrial A zoning. Mr. Markey stated he
hopes Mr. Page is not saying this is a bait and switch, and Mr. Page stated he is not saying that.
Mr. Markey stated Mr. Joseph should talk to the Lake Maspenock neighborhood. Ms. Altamura
stated ZAC felt that including Hopkinton Square would jeopardize the entire idea at town
meeting.
The Board voted unanimously to continue the public hearing to February 23, 2009 at 8:30 PM.
Adjourned: 10:00 PM
Cobi Wallace
Administrative Assistant
Attached: Comments on Hotel Overlay District, Florence M. O’Donnell
Approved: February 9, 2009