Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20090608 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD Monday, June 8, 2009 7:30 P.M. Hopkinton Town Hall MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Jaime Goncalves, Chairman, Joe Markey, Vice Chairman, Sandy K. Altamura, Carol DeVeuve, John Coolidge, Mark Abate, David Auslander, Ken Weismantel, Claire Wright ……. Elaine Lazarus, Planning Director ……. Cobi Wallace, Administrative Assistant 1. Fire Protection – Discussion with Ken Clark, Fire Chief Ken Clark, Fire Chief, appeared before the Board. The Board congratulated Mr. Clark on his recent appointment to the position of Fire Chief. Mr. Markey stated that when the Board looks at new construction, there is usually concern about adequate access to a water source in case of a fire. He stated the question is whether there would be need for fire suppression equipment, and the Planning Board is not always sure what the requirements are. He noted the Planning Board is looking for guidance in this regard. Mr. Clark described the requirements for commercial buildings and residential dwellings with respect to sprinkler installation. He stated the Building Code dictates whether sprinklers have to be installed or not. He noted the best situation would be fire hydrants on the road every 500 ft. but the Town does not have that luxury in a lot of areas. He stated fires burn hot because of the material contents in a home. Mr. Clark stated tanker truck load capacities have changed over the years. He stated the Fire Dept. should arrive with at least 1,000 gallons of water, and the pumper and brush fire trucks hold 2,000 and 1,200 gallons respectively. He noted firefighting equipment has changed a lot over the years. He stated when he first started there were no portable radios or booster tanks and now the available equipment includes dry hydrants, fire cisterns, and sprinkler systems in some residential dwellings. He stated the use of smoke detectors has enabled occupants to get out faster. Ms. Altamura referred to areas without Town water where the Planning Board struggles with the question of whether it has the right to ask for sprinklers. Ms. Wright asked which situations would warrant such a request. Ms. Altamura asked about the Drowne subdivision, and Mr. Clark stated for 5 homes a 15,000 gallon cistern would have been required and the Drowne’s opted to install sprinkler systems instead. Ms. Altamura asked if Mr. Clark is aware of any proposed State regulations that would require sprinkler systems in residential dwellings. Mr. Clark stated he has not heard of any and builders typically lobby against such proposals. Ms. Wright stated the fire protection issue came up with respect to a proposal for one house on a dead-end street, and according to the Fire Chief fire protection provisions will be adequate. Mr. Clark stated there are two levels of fire fighting, and the majority of the effort concerns dwelling and contents. Mr. Auslander asked how a cistern is used as part of the firefighting effort. Mr. Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – June 8, 2009 2 Clark described how a cistern works and how many people are needed to hook it up. He noted one person could hook up a cistern, which is important because there usually is not a lot of time to extinguish a fire. Mr. Goncalves asked about sprinkler systems and if they have to be hooked up to a potable water source in the home. Mr. Clark stated there are different types of sprinkler systems and different standards are applied to commercial vs. residential settings. He noted the sprinkler will contain a fire in the area of origin and someday there will be a requirement but probably not for another 10 to 12 years. Mr. Markey stated a tanker truck with 1,000 gallons can handle a lot of situations and asked if there are cases where the Board still should be looking for additional protection if there is no water source nearby. Mr. Clark stated cisterns are a good solution, but they need regular monitoring and maintenance. Mr. Goncalves asked who pays for that, and Mr. Clark stated the Fire Dept. does. Ms. Wright stated that maybe the Board should not encourage the use of cisterns because of the maintenance cost to the Town. Mr. Clark stated that if the Fire Dept. can prove that the cisterns improve the level of fire protection it could lower everyone’s insurance rate. Mr. Markey asked if the Board should just continue to run proposals by the Fire Chief. Ms. Lazarus stated a subdivision plan has to comply with the standards in the Subdivision Rules and Regulations which require cisterns if there is no Town water in the area. Mr. Weismantel asked if the cistern regulations are specific to the size of the development, and Mr. Clark replied yes, and stated a 15,000 gallon tank is required for up to 10 homes. Ms. DeVeuve questioned the need for a 15,000 gallon tank for just one house. She stated her concern is with small subdivisions and asked what the Board would feel comfortable with saying “no” to. Mr. Clark stated there are a lot of single family homes and questioned how they would use that definition for one home. Ms. DeVeuve stated the Board may require sprinkler suppression systems in subdivisions but has no jurisdiction over approval-not-required lots in this respect. She asked at what point the Board needs to require a cistern or a sprinkler system. Mr. Clark stated the Drowne Family development will have sprinklers but it was the applicant’s choice. Ms. Altamura stated the Board may have the right to require sprinklers, which would be a good idea in view of the available firefighting equipment, but asked if it would be too expensive. Mr. Clark stated he is not familiar with the cost but estimated it takes 8 to 12 man-hours for periodic maintenance and testing of one cistern. Ms. DeVeuve asked if Mr. Clark would require sprinklers if he had the right to. Mr. Clark responded yes in a perfect world, but the courts will not allow the Fire Dept. to require them. Ms. Wright referred to the office building that was approved at 81-83 Main St. and stated that the applicant during the approval process implied it would be very expensive to install sprinklers. Mr. Clark stated in that case the Fire Dept. recommended sprinklers because they felt it would be difficult to navigate around the building. Ms. Wright noted that residential dwellings pose a bigger risk because a fire could start at night when the occupants are asleep. Mr. Weismantel stated it seems a 1,000 gallon tanker truck is okay for getting in the building, do a quick search and get out, but the building itself might be a loss. Mr. Clark agreed and stated it is a 2-pronged approach: a couple of firefighters search the building while the others fight the fire. Mr. Markey stated if a particular case is not covered under the Subdivision Rules and Regulations or addressed by granting a waiver of the cistern requirement, it becomes a policy discussion by the Board although it appears installation of sprinklers is the safest method. Mr. Weismantel asked about the maximum distance to the cistern, and Mr. Clark responded 2,000 ft. Mr. Weismantel stated maybe the Board should take a look at the nearest water source and if there is something within 2,000 ft., the Board might be Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – June 8, 2009 3 able to waive the requirement. Mr. Clark stated they can draft out of the pumper, and having dry hydrants is good because then they don’t have to cut through ice when the lake or pond is frozen. Mr. Weismantel stated if there is an existing water main in the street or if the Board has the ability to require the installation of water mains in the street for a new development, adequate fire protection measures can be required under the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Mr. Auslander stated it does not help the immediate problem. Mr. Weismantel stated the Fire Chief has given the Board some criteria and the specified 2,000 ft. distance to a water source is a key element. Mr. Goncalves stated additional discussion is needed, and the Board might want to see what they can do under the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and possibly draft some language through the Zoning Advisory Committee. Mr. Clark stated the Board should feel free to ask him any other questions. Lyn Nealon, 30 North Mill St., asked if dry hydrants are the Town’s responsibility or if the lake residents get involved. Mr. Clark stated there is a dry hydrant on South Mill St. and there is no building connected to it. He noted the Fire Dept. bought the supplies and there is an installation charge. He stated dry hydrants are planned in other areas of Town when bridge work is done and usually installation falls in line with other construction activity. Mary Pratt, 102 Fruit St., stated the homeowner associations should be charged for subdivision cistern maintenance. It was stated it is something the Board can look into. The Board thanked Mr. Clark for attending the meeting and sharing his expertise. Mr. Goncalves noted that one of the Board members eligible to vote on the Bridle Path OSLPD Concept Plan Special Permit application will be late arriving. The applicants indicated they would prefer to wait for Mr. Abate to arrive before starting the Continued Public Hearing. 2. Administrative Business  Bills – The Board voted unanimously to authorize payment of outstanding invoices.  Minutes a. The Board voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of May 11, 2009 as amended; b. The Board voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of May 19, 2009 as written; c. The Board voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of May 29, 2009 as written.  Commercial Tenant Choice – Planning Board Role – The Board discussed an anonymous note received recommending a specific retail tenant for Hopkinton Square. Mr. Markey asked if it is appropriate for the Board to be involved. Ms. Lazarus stated the Board can refer suggestions like that to the owner/applicant. Mr. Auslander asked if it is inappropriate for the Board to approach a certain retailer. Ms. Lazarus responded not as long as the project is not currently before the Board, but the owner/applicant might be talking to another potential tenant who is a competitor, and the Board does not know what other arrangements or negotiations are ongoing with respect to the leasing of space. She stated making suggestions is okay.  Invitation for Bids (IFB)/Peer Review – The Board discussed the process for opening of the bids, initial review and interview process. Ms. Lazarus stated the bids are due on Friday, June 12, 2009 at 2:00 P.M. She noted the bids will be opened by her in the Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – June 8, 2009 4 presence of one witness. Ms. DeVeuve stated she might be able to be a witness to the bid opening and will let Ms. Lazarus know. Ms. Lazarus stated more than 30 IFB packets were sent out. Mr. Weismantel stated there could be quite a few responses and asked if there should be a subcommittee to review the submittals and make a short list of potential candidates. Ms. Lazarus noted there will be an initial checklist and the selection will not just be based on the lowest price. Mr. Auslander volunteered to be one of the initial reviewers, and Ms. DeVeuve stated she is also willing to assist. Mr. Weismantel asked how it is possible to rank an unknown company by the amount of experience, and Ms. Lazarus stated she will call references. Mr. Weismantel noted he is willing to assist. It was decided that Mr. Auslander, Mr. Weismantel and Ms. DeVeuve will review the submittals and come up with a short list of potential candidates, along with a member of the Board of Appeals. Ms. Lazarus suggested holding interviews at the June 22 meeting. Mr. Goncalves asked how many submittals are anticipated, and Ms. Lazarus stated she does not know. She added the bids will be valid for 90 days.  Planning Board Goals - Mr. Markey stated development activity is low and this might be a good opportunity for the Board to think about long term planning. Ms. Lazarus stated the Board might want to focus on downtown revitalization. Mr. Weismantel suggested the Planning Board make a list of goals for the next year at the next meeting. He added he would like the DPW Board to attend a Planning Board meeting to discuss water main extension policy, and Ms. Lazarus stated she has invited them a number of times. Ms. DeVeuve stated that maybe the Planning Board should attend a DPW Board meeting. Mr. Abate arrived at this time. 3. Continued Public Hearing – Bridle Path OSLPD – Concept Plan Special Permit Application – P M Realty Trust Michael Casasanta and Robert Guigli (P M Realty Trust), applicants, Doug Resnick, attorney, and Chuck Scott (CFS Engineering), engineer, appeared before the Board. Paul Finger, Paul Finger Associates, landscape architect, was also in attendance. Mr. Goncalves stated at the last hearing the Board reviewed the conventional and OSLPD concept plans, and there were a number of outstanding issues. He noted Planning Board members walked the site since the last hearing. Mr. Scott noted there are no changes to the conventional plan. He stated the outstanding issues relate to two waiver requests with respect to the conventional plan: road construction on an area of 25% or more slope, and required fill in excess of 8 ft. He pointed out the areas in question on the plan, including land behind 3 and 5 Appaloosa Cir., which was already disturbed in connection with the construction of the homes. He stated in his opinion it is possible to construct a roadway on 8 ft. of fill. Ms. Altamura asked about the resulting grade, and Mr. Scott stated it would be 9%. Mr. Markey stated the Board also had questions regarding the purchase and sale agreements with the homeowners at 3 and 5 Appaloosa Cir. He asked whether any other waivers Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – June 8, 2009 5 would be needed. Ms. Lazarus stated there would be a waiver of the requirements for detention pond setbacks, and Mr. Scott stated he would be able to modify the plan to eliminate that waiver. Mr. Goncalves asked whether there is agreement among the members that the conventional plan is feasible. Mr. Weismantel stated he attended the site walk and it seems like lots 1 and 2 are right in the middle of the ridge. He asked if those lots are truly buildable, and Mr. Scott stated they have already laid out the footprint of the homes. Mr. Weismantel referred to lots 5 and 6 on the conventional plan and asked whether these are the same ones discussed by the Conservation Commission (ConComm) in its letter. Mr. Scott stated the ConComm comments referred to the OSLPD plan and the Commission actually preferred the conventional plan if the grade is modified to a 2 to 1 grade. He noted he met with Ellen Chagnon, Conservation Scientist, and discussed the OSLPD plan in greater detail. Ms. DeVeuve noted Ms. Chagnon had concerns about the impact on the vernal pool, and Mr. Scott stated her comment referred to an off-site lot. Mr. Scott noted he has seen a number of letters from abutters with respect to the existing detention basin and has started to look into the problem. Mr. Scott noted the ridge will prevent all water from the new subdivision from going to the existing pond. He added the existing basin does not seem to work correctly and needs to be modified. Ms. DeVeuve stated it is her understanding that Ms. Chagnon’s comments referred to detention basin #2, and Mr. Scott stated it will be designed so that there will be no impact on the vernal pool. Ms. Lazarus stated ConComm had positive as well as negative comments about both plans and they did not state that they preferred the conventional plan. There was a discussion regarding ownership of the existing detention pond. It was noted the parcel is owned by Mr. Guigli’s son. Ms. Lazarus requested a copy of the recorded conveyance record for the drainage easement. James Kobe, attorney, addressed the Board. He stated he represents Michael and Pamela Moynahan, 5 Appaloosa Cir., and Jeri Esper, 3 Appaloosa Cir. He stated Mr. and Mrs. Moynahan have asked him to analyze the subdivision application for Bridle Path. He stated he reviewed the purchase and sale agreements which are options unlimited as to time. He noted options unlimited to time are not valid and therefore these so-called purchase and sale agreements are not valid. He referred to the project in a historical context as it relates to his clients. He stated the agreements were signed in 2006 and Mrs. Esper and the Moynahans were shown one sketch with access going through their property and another layout which did not include their properties. Mr. Kobe noted his clients were told they would be paid either way and there would be no need to hire an attorney. He stated it appears his clients signed agreements not knowing exactly what they were getting. He noted approval of the OSLPD plan depends on approval of the conventional plan and the approval of the conventional plan depends on the agreements with the homeowners at 3 and 5 Appaloosa Cir., but it seems the applicants wanted to build the OSLPD plan from the start. He noted his clients have been told they will only get a small deposit under an agreement that tied up their land for a number of years. He stated his clients are not opposed to talking with the developer, but there are no valid agreements in place and the Board should not approve the OSLPD plan. Mr. Resnick stated he realizes there are occasional disputes in cases like this but the purchase and sale agreements with the Moynahans and Mrs. Esper are 100% enforceable. He stated he Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – June 8, 2009 6 strongly disagrees with Mr. Kobe, and suggested at whatever level this issue will be discussed, the Planning Board has no jurisdiction to review and decide if contracts are valid and enforceable. Mr. Resnick stated the applicants have been before the Board several times and on each occasion showed the plan that required inclusion of the Moynahan and Esper properties. He noted the number of lots was reduced over time and, when it was down to 6, the applicants were able to do it on the land owned by Robert (Guigli) and Michael Casasanta. He stated there was nothing intentional about eliminating the Moynahan and Esper properties from the ultimate OSLPD plan. He stated the Board should not entertain the legal essence of a contract as a basis for a decision. Mr. Resnick stated the plan has been reduced to 6 lots at the Board’s suggestion and he believes this is the better plan. Mr. Markey stated he is not sure what other Planning Boards would do in this case, but the maximum number of OSLPD lots is based on the number of feasible conventional plan lots, and if it turns out there is no valid agreement with the owners of 3 and 5 Appaloosa it would be impossible for the Board to determine that the conventional plan is feasible. Mr. Abate referred to the language of Rider A (Item 2) to the Purchase and Sales Agreement(s), which indicates that the agreement among other things is contingent on the buyer obtaining permits necessary for construction of a single family subdivision containing at least 5 lots, including a Special Permit under the OSLPD bylaw. Mr. Resnick stated he thinks there are several other situations similar to this case, and the applicant’s degree of confidence deserves the Board’s consideration. He referred to the “Hopkinton Square” development on the corner of South St. and West Main St. where there is litigation between the landowner and a neighbor about a parking easement. Mr. Weismantel stated the “Hopkinton Square” application met the criteria for approval without the easement. Mr. Resnick stated it was a good example of the Board taking action and allowing contract issues to be resolved later. Mr. Auslander stated the easement issue was raised after the decision was made. Mr. Resnick stated he would like to go forward with the current “Bridle Path” application and the possibility that the agreements are not enforceable should not have an impact on the Board’s decision. Mr. Abate stated the purchase and sale agreement issue should be resolved before the Board makes a decision. Mr. Goncalves stated the feasibility of the conventional plan is a key aspect of the application and it seems to him that the validity of the agreements should be resolved first. Mr. Resnick stated the purchase and sale agreements with the Moynahans and Mrs. Esper do not need to be updated periodically. Mr. Abate asked about the lack of time limits, and Mr. Resnick stated purchase and sale agreements do not always include time limits. Ms. Wright stated the Planning Board is not in a position to look at two dueling legal opinions, but she is uncomfortable with the landowners’ misinterpretation or lack of understanding causing them to get into a legal contract they did not intend for their properties. She noted according to Mr. Kobe something was said which led to the homeowners’ understanding with respect to the construction of the conventional vs. OSLPD plan including assurance that the OSLPD was going to be built, and maybe the homeowners did not realize an OSLPD concept plan can be denied and a conventional plan may be approved instead. Mr. Resnick noted the landowners repeatedly declined legal representation in this matter. He stated in 2006 the applicants did not think they would be able to design an OSLPD plan entirely on their own property. Mr. Kobe stated it appears the applicants are saying if they get approval for the OSLPD plan, the homeowners will Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – June 8, 2009 7 get $1,250.00 for tying up their land for three years, and they were also told they were going to be paid whether their property was needed or not. Mr. Resnick asked to be excused, and the applicants left the room at this time. The applicants returned to the meeting. Mr. Resnick stated there may be other ways to resolve the dispute and requested a continuation of the public hearing. Ms. Altamura asked if the applicants have met with the abutters. Mr. Resnick stated Michael Casasanta has attempted to talk to the neighbors and Mr. Scott has talked to the abutter to the existing detention basin but there has been no community meeting per se. Beverly Falk, 1 Appaloosa Cir., asked when the lot known as Lot 25 at the end of Ridge Rd. was purchased by Mr. Guigli’s son. Mr. Resnick responded earlier this year. Ms. Falk asked if it is a buildable lot. Mr. Resnick stated there is no way of knowing and it is not part of this application. Ms. Falk asked who owned the lot before, and Mr. Scott responded P M Realty Trust. Dickran Babigian, 15 Ridge Rd., stated his big concern is drainage. He stated he lives across from the proposed new road. Mr. Babigian stated he does not know how much he can trust the statements made by the applicants as they initially said that water from Bridle Path would not add to the current drainage system but now admit the existing detention pond is not working correctly. He stated he does not understand how additional water cannot have an impact. Mr. Babigian asked if this plan can be approved now, and Mr. Goncalves stated the plan is conceptual and not completely engineered, but, when it is, the Board’s engineer will review the plan to make sure it has been designed correctly. Mr. Scott stated the OSLPD bylaw only requires the location of structures to be shown on a concept plan. He stated all water will go through a culvert to the Beattie property and they will direct as much of the runoff in that direction as possible. He stated the stormwater drainage system will be designed pursuant to the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and will be reviewed by the Board’s consultant. He noted this is only a concept plan, but if approved they will move on to the definitive stage which includes an in-depth drainage analysis. Randy Charland, 7 Palomino Dr., asked about the location of the new detention basin. Mr. Scott indicated its location. He stated he has talked to Ms. Chagnon and there are restrictions because of the presence of the vernal pool. He stated they will be outside the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act. He noted information obtained from Town records is very limited with respect to the design of the existing detention basin, but the edge needs to be raised about 3 to 4 ft. to work properly and the final design is yet to come. Richard Jackson, 12 Ridge Rd., asked if water will flow onto his property if a road is built on top of the ridge. Mr. Scott stated the new road will be on the other side of the ridge and there will be no change in the direction of flow. Mr. Charland asked about potential impact on his well. Mr. Scott stated there will no impact. Michael Beattie, 47 Proctor St., asked how they can possibly prevent the development from causing flooding of his and his father’s property. He asked how they can add more water to the Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – June 8, 2009 8 vernal pool if it is supposed to be “hands off” with respect to vernal pools. Mr. Scott stated the development will have to comply with the Subdivision Rules and Regulations with respect to peak amount of runoff before and after development. Mr. Beattie stated he is concerned about any runoff on both sides of his property. Daniel Smith, 14 Ridge Rd., stated he would like to comment on the proposed development but is considering waiting till the next continued hearing as long as there is a guarantee that abutters will still be allowed to speak. Mr. Goncalves stated the abutters will absolutely have an additional opportunity to be heard. Ms. Pratt stated it appears the water will ultimately go onto Route 135 and expressed concerns that there will be flooding in that area as soon as the ground freezes. She stated this is happening on Fruit St. and there should be something in the Bridle Path plan that will retain the water. She added she does not believe in directing runoff to other people’s property. She stated the plan should utilize good Low Impact Development (LID) and she does not see any LID here. The Board voted unanimously to continue the public hearing for the Bridle Path OSLPD concept plan/special permit application to July 13, 2009 at 7:30 P.M. 4. Continued Public Hearing - 30 North Mill St. - Definitive Subdivision Plan Application – Christian Nealon At the applicant’s request, the Board voted unanimously to continue the public hearing for the 30 North Mill St. definitive subdivision plan to July 13, 2009 at 9:30 P.M. It was noted the applicant is preparing a stormwater analysis for a small portion of the property and considering the disposition of the open space parcel. At the applicant’s request, the Board voted unanimously to grant an extension of time in which to file the decision with the Town Clerk to July 17, 2009. 5. Other Business – Appointments The Board made the following appointments:  Sustainable Green Committee (SGC) – Ms. DeVeuve stated she would rather have someone else take over the appointment or share the position with another member. Ms. Lazarus stated it used to be a liaison but now the Selectmen are calling it membership. Mr. Auslander stated he is willing to do it but might not be able to attend all meetings due to his travel schedule. Mr. Weismantel suggested sending a letter to the SGC chairman requesting a meeting schedule and meeting minutes. Ms. DeVeuve was nominated as a full member, and the Board voted unanimously to recommend the appointment. The Board voted unanimously to recommend the appointment of Mr. Auslander as an alternate.  Housing Committee – Mr. Markey, the current Planning Board liaison, stated there is not a lot of activity now. He noted the Committee was scheduled to meet this Wednesday but the Chairman instead is proposing that the Committee be suspended until September. Ms. Lazarus stated she just sent a draft Affordable Housing Trust bylaw to the Committee for review, but maybe the Planning Board can work on it instead. Ms. Pratt stated she is not in favor of suspending the group. Mr. Markey stated he would rather serve on the Downtown Revitalization Committee (DRC). It was noted the DRC meets Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – June 8, 2009 9 on the first Monday of the month at 7:30 P.M. Mr. Abate offered to serve on the Housing Committee, and the Board voted unanimously to recommend the appointment.  Downtown Revitalization Committee – The Board voted to recommend the appointment of Mr. Markey as a representative to the DRC. It was noted that Ms. Wright will continue attending as a representative of the Historic District Commission.  Community Preservation Committee (CPC) – Mr. Coolidge stated he would like to continue serving on the Committee, and Mr. Weismantel stated he is interested in serving. Mr. Weismantel stated he has been interested in open space issues since the 1980’s and was one of the first ones, with Mr. Coolidge, to advocate a change of policy. He stated he loves the outdoors, and is also interested in historic preservation and housing. He stated he feels the CPC needs more openness and easy access to meeting minutes filed with the Town Clerk. He noted there are some pieces of land in Hopkinton he would recommend for open space, and others he would not. He referred to the Open Space and Recreation Plan which provides the systematic review criteria for potential land acquisition. He stated he thinks Mr. Coolidge has done good work on the Committee, but the Town vote at the last election indicates the need for a broader land use scope with respect to active vs. passive recreation. Mr. Markey stated he does not see an appointment of Mr. Weismantel as a huge change in viewpoint. Mr. Weismantel stated he truly believes the Community Preservation Act (CPA) is a good thing as long as there are decent matching State funds and it is a good way to get money for open space. Ms. Wright stated there was a clear message from the voters with respect to the use of CPC funds and there is a need to respond to the voters when a proposal comes up, but at the same time she does not want to see the CPA being turned into a bank account for the Parks and Recreation Commission. She stated she certainly hopes the CPC would recommend acquisition of a parcel as passive open space if that is the most suitable use and thinks the CPC leadership recognizes the will of the voters and there are nine members. She stated she would like to ask Mr. Coolidge about the lack of meeting minutes. Mr. Coolidge stated the Committee used to have a clerk who took the notes, and now there are 2 or 3 members taking turns. He stated the Minutes are on the State web site, all CPC members have them, and no requests for Minutes have been made since the Whitehall property issue that he knows of. It was noted that there is no requirement that Minutes be filed with the Town Clerk. He stated the CPA controls 5 or 6 different funding categories, not just open space. Mr. Coolidge stated there has to be a certain degree of openness and he knows about the legal requirements to respond to requests for public records. Ms. Lazarus referred to a recent court case involving the City of Newton, noting that money allocated for active recreation can only be used for land purchased with CPA funds unless the legislation is changed. Mr. Coolidge stated he is the longest serving CPC chair in the state and is active on the Community Preservation Coalition. He noted the CPC articles have a good track record at town meeting and are paying for projects the Town does not want to fund by overrides. Mr. Markey stated his opinion is not a reflection of what Mr. Coolidge has achieved, and the last time the Board voted on this appointment he did not feel the timing was right to make changes. Mr. Goncalves asked about the duration of the appointment, and Ms. Lazarus stated it is for one year. Mr. Auslander asked about turnover on the Committee, and Mr. Coolidge stated the membership has been consistent with a few exceptions and the members work well together. Ms. DeVeuve stated she would like to attend the CPC meetings because there Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – June 8, 2009 10 should be a succession plan and there is a learning curve. The Board agreed. Mr. Coolidge was nominated as the Planning Board representative to the CPC, and the Board voted 6 in favor and 3 opposed (Weismantel, Markey, Auslander) to recommend the appointment.  Open Space Preservation Commission (OSPC) – Mr. Coolidge stated he would like to continue serving as Planning Board representative. He noted they are in the process of trying to resolve an ongoing issue with an abutter to a parcel of OSPC land, and Mr. Markey stated if that is the reason to continue there could never be a change. Mr. Coolidge stated the OSPC membership is 1 year for Board of Selectmen, Planning Board, and ConComm representatives and 3 years for the two at-large members. Ms. Wright asked about membership longevity. Mr. Coolidge stated Jeff Doherty and he have been there from the beginning, but ConComm representation has changed. Mr. Abate stated he is a firm believer in mixing things up and voted for Mr. Coolidge to serve on the CPC but there has to be a succession plan. Ms. Pratt stated that experience is very important and everyone knows there is a learning curve. She stated the meetings are posted but not well attended. Mr. Goncalves stated from private career and volunteering experience he feels the negotiation process should not just be up to one person, and Mr. Coolidge stated there are usually one or two other people involved. He noted he would not mind having an alternate but does not know if the legislation allows it. Mr. Coolidge was nominated to serve on the OSPC as a representative of the Planning Board, and the Board voted unanimously to recommend the appointment. Mr. Weismantel was nominated to serve as an alternate to the extent allowed under the law, and the Board voted unanimously to recommend the appointment. Meeting adjourned: 10:05 P.M. Cobi Wallace, Administrative Assistant Approved: July 13, 2009