HomeMy Public PortalAbout20091109 - Zoning Advisory Committee - Meeting Minutes1
ZONING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Monday, November 9, 2009 7:00 PM
Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton MA
MINUTES
PRESENT: Ken Weismantel, Chairman, Sandy Altamura, David Auslander, John Coutinho,
Carol DeVeuve, Gary Haroian, Robert McGuire, Craig Nation, Wayne Pacheco, Michael Peirce
Elaine Lazarus, Planning Director
1. 89 Hayden Rowe St. and 75 Hayden Rowe St. – Proposed Zoning Changes
Ken Driscoll, owner, and Doug Resnick, attorney, appeared before the Committee. Mr. Resnick
described the proposal to change the zoning of 89 Hayden Rowe St. from Residence B to
Business. He stated that the major uses of the property at this time are school administrative
offices and an educational use (Hooray for Books), both of which are “exempt uses” allowed
pursuant to MGL c.40A sec. 3 (i.e. the “Dover Amendment”). He noted that other uses of the
property that were approved over the years include storage and a cell tower.
Ms. DeVeuve noted that the rear portion of the lot is not developed and asked if the remainder of
the lot could be developed if the zoning was changed. Mr. Resnick replied yes. Mr. Driscoll
stated that they have reviewed the area and there are no wetlands. Mr. Peirce asked whether site
plan review would be required if additional development was proposed there, and the response
was yes. He asked about parking requirements and how it would change if the land was rezoned.
Mr. Resnick stated that proposed changes would have to meet parking requirements. He added
that site plan review was required for the modifications to the existing building in the front and
the parking lot. Mr. Peirce asked if the parking requirements could be met on site, and Mr.
Resnick replied yes, that they could use the back area if necessary. Ms. DeVeuve asked if the
number of parking spaces is sufficient for the current use of the property, and Mr. Driscoll
replied yes. He stated the spaces are only filled if the School Dept. hosts a meeting or
conference. He noted that the front building has 6,800 sq. ft.
Karl Morningstar, 93 Hayden Rowe St., stated that Mr. Driscoll has been a good neighbor, and
he would support the proposed change. He added that if the zoning is changed, he would want
his property rezoned also, since he would be one of the last residential uses in the area. He noted
that the neighbor on the other side of his property has a business too.
Mr. Weismantel noted that a lot of the commercially zoned areas outside the downtown are
zoned Rural Business. He asked about the difference between them. Ms. Lazarus noted
described some of the differences, including the minimum lot size, frontage requirement and
some uses. It was noted that the land on the north side of 89 Hayden Rowe St. is zoned Business
already. Mr. Haroian stated if the zoning is changed it would be best to have it the same as the
abutting property, and someone could combine them in the future.
2
A discussion was held about buffering from adjacent residential uses in the rear, if the property
was developed in that area.
Mr. Weismantel suggested looking at the auto repair business on the corner of Hayden Rowe St.
and Grove St. for a possible zoning change as well.
Ms. Altamura stated she is concerned about the creep of commercial zoning into residential
neighborhoods, and she would like feedback from the abutters to the rear of 89 Hayden Rowe St.
Mr. Resnick stated they are requesting the change because the land has already been
commercially developed and is a showpiece. He stated because this property is already
commercially developed and used, it is not really a commercial creep issue like it could be for
other properties in the area. Ms. Altamura stated that when the owners modified the front
building from residential units to the Dover Amendment uses, the Planning Board was very clear
that if the owner wanted to change the uses in the future, it might not work. Mr. Driscoll agreed.
He stated that if the current uses moved out and couldn’t be replaced, he would convert it back
into residential use. Mr. Haroian stated the owner has improved the property and bettered the
Town. He stated he is not sure it should be a bigger issue than that.
Tom Nealon, 50 Front St., owner of 75 Hayden Rowe St., stated he proposes to change the
zoning of that property from Residence A to Business, and because of spot zoning issues, other
properties nearby would also have to be rezoned as well. He stated he doesn’t want to be the
buffer between commercial and residential uses, he wants to be in it. He stated the neighborhood
will change dramatically if 89 Hayden Rowe St. is rezoned.
Mr. Peirce stated that changing the zoning of #75 would create an outpost surrounded by
residential zoning. He stated the Town should think about whether it would work from a land
use perspective and whether it would work as a commercial district. He stated he would need to
be sold on the merits of a 0.3 acre property surrounded by residential uses/zoning as being
appropriate. Ms. Altamura noted that the area has many older and smaller homes, which serve a
housing need in Town. She stated that changing #75 would cause the neighborhood to collapse.
She added that the Town needs new business in the downtown, and the Town should concentrate
commercial growth in that area.
Mr. Nation stated it would be difficult to say no to one request and yes to the other. He stated he
would be in favor of changing the zoning for anyone who wanted it.
Mr. Haroian stated it would be riskier to propose changes at town meeting that don’t really fit,
and people may question the intent. Ms. DeVeuve stated she is concerned about the precedent
set by recommending zoning changes after properties have been developed for Dover
Amendment uses. She stated she is not sure that the new mix of uses that the Business District
would bring to the area would fit, without considering their ramifications. Mr. Coutinho stated
that with respect to 89 Hayden Rowe, it was a great restoration project and a new development
on the property could be similar and fit well.
3
Mr. Driscoll stated that the cell tower has a 99 year lease and is located in the middle of the
property. He noted that any potential development has to deal with it, including the guy wires,
and he has no development planned for the rear of the property.
Mr. McGuire stated that the size of the 89 Hayden Rowe St. parcel is good, the location is good
and the current use has worked. He stated that with respect to #75, he thinks that it is different,
and shouldn’t be considered similar. He noted that each has a different setting, use and size. He
noted that #89 makes sense because of its location also.
Mr. Morningstar stated he has considered whether the commercial zoning next door would hurt
them, and is not concerned about future development of the rear of the property. He stated that
since he has lived there, the area across the street changed from a farm to a school and changed
the nature of his property. He stated he would like a zone change for his property to be
considered because it is the only way he could get out of the area without taking a loss. He
stated his house would make good office space.
Mr. Weismantel suggested holding off on Mr. Morningstar’s proposal until feedback from the
abutters is received.
Mr. Peirce stated the Committee should think about the lot area requirements and if the existing
lots will meet the new dimensional requirements. He noted that most of the properties extending
from the existing Business district to #75 are small and as a practical matter, developing them for
commercial use would require waivers because they could not meet parking requirements on site.
Mr. McGuire noted that people could combine lots. Mr. Peirce asked if that is what people want
to happen. He noted it is also unlikely, as he has seen other communities try to encourage that
and it doesn’t happen. He noted that if one compared the value of today’s homes in this area
with future businesses on the properties, there would not be much gain.
The Committee voted 8 in favor with 1 opposed (DeVeuve) and 1 abstention (Altamura) to
recommend to the Planning Board that it sponsor an article to change the zoning of 89 Hayden
Rowe St. to Business.
Mr. Nealon asked what he can do to advance his proposal. Mr. Weismantel noted that the area
he is proposing is not on the main road and is in more of a residential neighborhood than the
other location. Ms. DeVeuve stated she is concerned that the most moderate housing in Town is
in that area, and is worried about its loss.
The Committee decided to schedule a discussion of Mr. Morningstar’s proposal at a future
meeting.
2. Downtown Parking
The Committee reviewed the data from the Downtown Parking Study being prepared by the
Planning Board. After discussion, the Committee requested that additional information should
be provided, specifically, what the parking requirement for each building in the downtown would
be if it was constructed today.
4
The Committee discussed the use of the existing parking spaces downtown, both on and off-
street. Mr. Coutinho stated he doesn’t see there is much possibility for people to combine lots
and construct additional parking. It was noted that the obstacles for new development and
redevelopment in the downtown are the small size of lots, stormwater management, and the need
to provide parking spaces with the change of use.
Possibilities for change were discussed, including the treatment of older buildings differently
than new construction.
Mr. Peirce stated that the Town could issue waivers allowing on-street spaces to be used, or a
special permit to allow those with excess parking to “donate” them to someone else. Ms.
Altamura noted that downtown could be treated differently, but there needs to be a mechanism to
make new construction provide parking. Mr. Weismantel stated the Town needs to make it work
or the commercial center will move to Legacy Farms. Mr. Auslander stated that in the
downtown, the Town could decide not to require parking for existing businesses/buildings, but
for new buildings only. Different thresholds and formulas were discussed.
Mr. Peirce stated that he would like people to invest in the downtown. Mr. Nealon stated that
this is the major issue for the revitalization of downtown. Mr. Haroian stated that there needs to
be public investment in the downtown too. Mr. Peirce stated the more uses by right there are, the
better for the landowner for marketing and tenant selection purposes.
The Committee tentatively agreed that a workable solution could be a bylaw change stating that
if a new use/building requires less than a specified number of spaces, then no parking is required.
3. Preservation of Historic Structures via Development
Ms. Lazarus described the proposed language changes as discussed at the last meeting. The
Committee voted unanimously to recommend:
A. That the Planning Board sponsor an article to adopt a new definition of Historic
Structure, either in the Garden Apartments in Residential Districts, Senior Housing
Development, Article XIIA, Village Housing and Open Space and Landscape
Preservation Development bylaws or in Section 210-4, Definitions, as follows:
HISTORIC STRUCTURE – Any structure which may be worthy of preservation by reason
of the fact it may have been constructed, in whole or in part, 75 or more years prior to the
application date, and it is determined by the Historical Commission to be either:
A. Associated in some material respect with a person or event which has contributed
to the cultural, political, economic, social, or architectural history of the Town, the
Commonwealth, or the United States of America; or
B. Historically or architecturally important (in terms of period, style, construction, or
material association with an architect or builder), either by itself or in the context of
a group of structures.
5
B. That the setback provisions of the Garden Apt. bylaw (210-74.B(7) and Senior Housing
bylaw (210-105.3.B(7)) be amended as noted below:
Setbacks. All buildings must be located a minimum of 100 feet from any side or rear lot line
and 100 feet from any established street layout or, where applicable, any defined street line
of a public road, which street setback area shall be undeveloped and/or landscaped. Upon a
finding by the Planning Board that a setback of lesser width would be sufficient to screen
and/or separate the development from adjacent property, or would allow a historic
structure to be preserved, the setback may be reduced. The Board may require no-cut
easements, conservation restrictions, historic preservation restrictions or the like where the
setback has been reduced. Buildings shall be located a minimum of 20 feet from interior
roadways and driveways which are not considered streets or public roads.
C. That the setback provision in the Village Housing bylaw (210-75.3.B(7)) be amended as
follows:
Setbacks. All buildings must comply with the setback requirements of the underlying zoning
district. The street setback area shall be undeveloped and/or landscaped. Upon a finding by
the Planning Board that a setback of greater width would be necessary to screen and/or
separate the development from adjacent property, the setback may be increased to a width of
100 feet. Upon a finding by the Planning Board that a setback of lesser width would
allow a historic structure to be preserved, the setback may be reduced. The Board may
require no-cut easements, conservation restrictions or the like in any setback area, and may
require a historic preservation restriction where appropriate. Buildings shall be located
a minimum of 20 feet from interior roadways which are not considered streets or public
roads.
D. That the Open Space & Landscape Preservation Development (OSLPD) bylaw (Article
XVII) be amended as follows:
1. Modify the Intensity regulations, § 210-111 as follows:
The Planning Board may grant a reduction of all intensity regulations of the underlying
zoning regulations for all portions of an open space and landscape preservation development
if the Planning Board finds that such reduction will result in better design, improved
protection of historic, natural and scenic resources and will otherwise comply with these
regulations, provided that in no instance shall any lot deviate from the following Table of
Minimum Requirements unless a further reduction is necessary in order to preserve a
historic structure.
2. Modify the open space use and design standards, § 210-113.A as follows:
Within an open space and landscape preservation development, no less than 50% of the land
area shall be devoted to common open space. The common open space shall not include land
set aside for roads and/or parking uses. The Planning Board may reduce the common open
6
space requirement to 30%, if it is demonstrated that a minimum lot area of 45,000 square feet
is required because of soils and topographical conditions, or if it would facilitate the
preservation of a historic structure. No more than 50% of the common open space shall
contain wetlands as defined by MGL c.131, § 40.
3. Modify the buffer areas provision, § 210-113.C(1) as follows:
There shall be a buffer at the perimeter of the site consisting of trees, shrubs, vegetation and
topographic features sufficient to separate and/or screen the development from abutting
properties. This buffer shall be no less than 100 feet in width. The buffer shall be considered
common open space. Upon a finding by the Planning Board that a buffer of lesser width
would be sufficient to screen and/or separate the development from adjacent property or
would allow a historic structure to be preserved, the buffer may be reduced.
4. Administrative Business
The Committee voted 8 in favor with two abstentions (DeVeuve, Altamura) to approve the
Minutes of the October 26, 2009 meeting.
Adjourned: 8:50 PM
Elaine C. Lazarus, Planning Director
Approved: November 23, 2009