Scheduled:
7:00 PM - Joint Meeting with the Zoning Board of Appeals
Continuation of Hearing - Roseland Property Company, 349 Lincoln Street (Hingham Shipyard) Major Amendment to the existing Mixed-Use Special Permit and Site Plan Review at the Hingham Shipyard
Old/New Business
Central Meeting Room North _____
Present: Planning Board Members, Susan Murphy, Chair, Paul Healey, Clerk, Sarah Corey, and
Judy Sneath. Also present was Planner Katharine Lacy.
This was a joint meeting with the Zoning Board of Appeals, which included Steve McLaughlin, Tod McGrath, and Victor Popp. Sue Eddy, acting Zoning Administrator was in attendance.
Ms. Murphy opened the public meeting at 7 P.M. at the Hingham Town Hall.
Present for the Applicant: Joe Shea, Roseland Properties; Richard Gallogly, Rackeman, Sawyer and Brewster; Vince Martiny, Architect; and Bart Lapinski, Hawk Design.
Board members reviewed recently received materials for approximately 15 minutes.
Ms. Murphy provided an update on the status of the project, noting that at the last meeting the applicant was instructed to meet with the various consulting engineers to resolve all outstanding issues, and provide any missing material relative to site design, on-site traffic circulation and civil engineering. Since that time, the applicant had provided the consultants, and the Board, with the following information as requested:
1. Fire and Car Circulation Plan, dated 1/31/07
2. Concrete Walkway Detail, dated 1/31/07
3. Road and Drive Cross Section, dated 1/31/07
4. Hadco Lighting Plan, dated 1/25/07
5. Revised Layout Plan, undated
6. Conceptual Landscape plan for 2 and 3-story units
The Board received final peer review reports form Paul Brogna, Seacoast Engineering; Steve Heikin, ICON Architecture, and Jeffery Dirk, VAI.
Jeffery Dirk presented an overview of the peer review comments included in his memo of 2/2/07.
He noted that, according to the plans provided the applicant, it appeared that the proposed treatment of the front-loaded driveways along Halstead Drive, including the narrowing of Halstead Drive to 22' and the provision of one sidewalk on the opposite side of the road from the driveways was satisfactory. He noted that the plans for Staynor Drive, with a similar front-loaded condition, showed sidewalks on both sides of the road, which was also satisfactory. At this point Mr. Cook noted that it seemed that the wrong plans had been submitted, in that the applicant had decided to request a waiver from the requirement for sidewalks on both sides of the roadway, and was planning on treating Staynor Drive in a similar fashion to Halstead. Board members asked Jeff Dirk if they thought this would be safe, and he stated that, as long as provisions were put in place for traffic calming (crosswalks, signage, etc.) that a sidewalk on one side of the roadway would be safe. Board members ultimately concurred that it would be acceptable to treat Staynor in a fashion similar to Halstead, but they reiterated that the applicant needed to provide a comprehensive sign and pavement marking plan.
Jeff Dirk noted that it would be preferable to use raised crosswalks, or stamped or textured material for the crosswalks. The applicant agreed.
Steve noted that he had received the Auto Turn analysis showing adequate access for emergency vehicles, and had found it to be satisfactory. Mr. Healey asked whether the Fire Department had reviewed the plan, and Ms. Lacy said that she had shown it to David Damstra, and he was satisfied. He was also satisfied that sufficient parking, including guest parking, had been required.
Ms. Murphy went over the comments received from Steve Heikin. Basically, most of Steve's outstanding concerns have been addressed with the provision of the additional material. He noted that the treatment of the front loaded garages on Staynor and Halstead has been modified according to his recommendations. He did note that a pedestrian crosswalk leading from the path at Bradley Woods where it crosses Staynor Drive should be provided. The applicant concurred.
Ms. Murphy noted that the revised plan did not address Steve's concern about creating a strip of alternate paving material along edge of the driveway apron to serve as a path from the street to the door.
Victor Popp commented that it did not appear from his comments that Mr. Heikin had received a satisfactory number of elevations to fully review the design. The applicant, and several of the Board members noted that there were only a few types of units, so it did not seem necessary to include more elevations.
In response to Steve's request for more information about proposed paint colors for the residential units, Ms. Shea indicated that the applicant would be selecting colors for the residential units from the California Paint palette approved by the Historic District Commission.
Ms. Murphy reviewed Paul Brogna's comments as included in two emails February 4 and February 5. She noted that he had received most of the material that he had requested, but that they had not received detailed landscape plans. Ms. Murphy and Mr. McLaughlin discussed the need for receiving detailed plan prior to the issuance of the permit, and agreed that this could be handled by putting a condition in the permit that complete landscape plans which conform to the conceptual ones submitted to date must be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The applicant stated that the portions of the planting plan approved in 2003 which pertain to the Riverwalk will not change.
Ms. Murphy noted that lighting plans have been received, but Paul was still looking for information on what lighting will be provided for the rear of the units on Staynor Drive. The applicant has indicated, and Paul has agreed, that this can and will be provided with the building permit applications. At this point they are not sure if they will include any lighting at the back of the building, as it was originally placed there because the garages where to be located on this side of the building. With the modifications, the garages are now on the other side of the building, and lighting may not be required.
Mr. Brogna's memo noted that the plans do not include information on the location of a/c pads and electric meters, but has stated that these could be provided with the building permit applications. The applicant concurred.
Mr. Brogna asked for more details regarding snow removal. Current plans propose stockpiling the snow on grassed areas throughout the site. This may be minimally adequate for small storms, but we still question this plan for major storms (northeaster). Some areas of the site show considerable impervious surfaces with roads, driveways, and sidewalks. The plan should show more details for contingencies to address the heavy snow storms.
Victor Popp asked if there was a way to measure the amount of snow that would needed to be stored in order to determine if there was enough storage space on the site. Mr. Cook said that this would be difficult due to the wide variety of snow situations. Board members discussed this issue at length. Tod McGrath noted that perhaps the best way to deal with the snow issue would be to put proper performance measures in place via conditions in the permit, such as requiring that the roads always be 22 feet wide. The applicant concurred, and noted that such conditions were in place in the Property Owner's documents. Board members concluded that it might be worthwhile to insert a condition that a snow removal plan be provided prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
Dave Dow, of the Carpenters Union, asked whether granting Roseland their modification did not somewhat defeat the position that the Shipyard was one permit. He asked why this portion of the project was being allowed to proceed when the Samuels modification had not been approved. The Board explained that the entire project had been approved, and that what was before the Boards now was a request for a modification.
Mr. Dirk noted that, in light of the Section 61 Finding from MEPA for the whole Shipyard (including the Roseland portion of the project) all off site improvements would have to be completed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for any buildings within the Shipyard.
Ms. Murphy reviewed the material that the applicant needed to provide for the next hearing on the 15th, including a traffic control, paving marking and traffic calming plan; the approved lighting plan for the property, revised plans showing exactly where the sidewalks were proposed, and a list of approved plans that were to be changed as a result of the requested modification.
Ms. Murphy noted that the Planning Board would enter into public deliberations to identify site plan review conditions on February 15 at 7:00 PM.
Old/New Business
It was moved, seconded, and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present to approve the minutes of January 29, 2007.
Request for Waiver of Technical Compliance for small storage addition at 5 Keith Way
Mr. David Chase has submitted a building permit application to enlarge a storage structure supporting the uses at 4 Keith Way (which include Mass Gymnastics, Falvey Painting, LinPro Oxygen, and Omnion Co.). They have added five additional parking spaces to respond to the increased 2500 square feet of storage space. The applicants received a use variance for the operation of the gymnastics center (not permitted in Industrial Park) in 1992. The applicant received another variance in 2003 when the center was expanded at that time. For both permits the ZBA determined that parking exceeded the amount required by the By-Law. Because the property has previous permitting history, the Building Commissioner is concerned that the Board conduct full site plan review.
Ms. Lacy explained that in 1992 the Hingham Zoning Board of Appeals granted the owner a use variance to operate a gymnastics facility, which is not permitted in the Industrial Park District. Another variance was granted in 2003 for an expansion to the gymnastics facility. In the case of both variances the amount of parking provided was determined to comply with the requirements of Section V-A (Off-Street Parking Requirements), and therefore no Special Permit A-2 for a parking waiver was required. In the case of the current application, the applicant is seeking site plan review in association with the issuance of a building permit in accordance with Section I-H of the Zoning By-Law. The proposed change entails the construction of a 2,592 square foot addition to the existing 2,400 square foot storage structure located at 5 Keith Way, to provide for increased storage for the uses housed at 10 and 4 Keith Way. Additionally the applicant is proposing to create five new spaces on an already paved area east of the building.
Board members noted that, while the new addition effectively doubles the size of the existing storage building, when completed it will represent only a 5% increase in the overall building space on this property. Board members determined that the proposed new addition would have no impact on site parking, in that even without the addition of five new spaces the property complied with off street parking requirements. In terms of drainage, the Board acknowledged the potential for impacts on site drainage due to the creation of approximately 3000 square feet of new impervious surface. Because this site is within the jurisdiction of the Hingham Conservation Commission, however, the Board felt that potential drainage impacts would be sufficiently identified, and mitigated as needed, through the process of Con Com review.
It was moved, seconded, and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present to waive the requirement for a site plan review for the proposed new structure at 5 Keith Way.
Request for Determination of Eligibility for 250 Unit 40B Application on GW Blvd.
The Town has received a request for comments from Mass Housing for a 250-unit 40B project on GW Boulevard (property owned by Cliff Boyle). Comments are due March 2. The property has no access to sewer, and the development appears to violate wetland, ACEC and River Act setbacks. All Town boards, and departments and the Weir River Estuary groups (Weir River Estuary Park Committee and Weir River Watershed Association) have been notified and are preparing comments.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Katharine Lacy, Town Planner