Scheduled:
7:00 Meeting with Open Space Acquisition Committee
7:30 Board of Appeals and Planning Board Continuation of Hearings
Roseland Property Company and Samuels & Associates
349 Lincoln Street - Major Amendment to the existing Mixed-Use Special Permit and Site Plan Review at the Hingham Shipyard
Old/New Business
Form A - The Talbots, Inc. - 175 Beal Street
Central Meeting Room South
Present: Planning Board Members, Susan Murphy, Chair, Paul Healey, Clerk, Sarah Corey,
and Gary Torndorf-Dick. Also present was Planner Katharine Lacy.
Ms. Murphy opened the public meeting at 7:10 P.M. at the Hingham Town Hall.
RE: Meeting with the Open Space Acquisition Committee (OSAC)
John Davenport and Rod Gaskell of the Open Space Acquisition Committee came before the Planning Board to discuss the process that they use for identifying and determining the developability (and potential purchase price) of open space parcels to recommend that the Town purchase using Community Preservation Funds. In particular, they discussed two properties for which the Community Preservation Committee is currently considering recommending that the Town purchase using CPC funds.
The first property discussed was a six acre parcel located at 667 Main Street and owned by Scott and Robin Baker. Mr. Gaskell described the property, and noted that it met all of the criteria put forth by the CPC for consideration, including proximity to the Town's water supply, the fact that it was adjacent to existing dedicated open space, and having the potential for public access.
Mr. Gaskell outlined the review process that he used to determine the developability of the project as a 3-lot subdivision (including the existing house-lot). He provided a series of plans that he had developed showing how the land could be divided, where the roadway would go, wetland lines, and required dimensional compliance. He also noted that whether the property was developable or not hinged on whether the owner could purchase a small piece of land from his neighbor, which would provide the requisite space for the installation of the subdivision roadway. In the alternative, it might be possible to move the existing house further north, which would leave enough room for a 40' right of way along the property's southern boundary. Gary Tondorf-Dick noted that the Historic Districts Commission would possibly not approve the relocation of the house because there is currently no precedent of the HDC approving houses in Historic Districts.
Board members asked whether there was public access to the property. Mr. Davenport noted that conversations were underway with the adjacent 2nd Parish Church to determine whether it would be possible to gain access to the Baker property through an easement over the church property.
Prior to discussing the development potential of the Gratta Property on Popes Lane, the Open Space Committee asked the Planning Board to go into executive session, as a purchase price had not yet been determined. Ms. Murphy polled all of the Board members, and, at 7:40 PM all members present VOTED to go into executive session. The discussion of the Gratta Property continued in executive session. At approximately 8:00 PM the Board VOTED to come out of executive session.
RE: Continuation of Public Hearings with Roseland Property Company on Proposed Modifications to the Mixed Use Special Permit for the Hingham Shipyard
The Board was joined by the Zoning Board of Appeals for this portion of the meeting.
Gary Tondorf-Dick did not participate in this portion of the meeting.
Present for the Applicant: Jed Lowry, Lennar Associates; Joe Shea, Roseland; Vincent Martiny, Architect; Richard Cook, BSC; Richard Galoogly, Attorney.
Present for the Town: Jeff Dirk, Traffic Engineer, VAI; Paul Brogna, SeaCoast Engineering and Steve Heikin, ICON Architecture.
Ms. Murphy asked the applicant if they had provided the material requested at the last meeting, including revised plans, and a revised table of roadway dimensions. Mr. Cook responded that this material had been supplied. He noted that there had been one revision to the plan since the last meeting, which was to relocate the seven on-street parking spaces on Halsted Drive to a location near the clubhouse. This change was made due to concern that cars backing out of their driveways on the other side of Halstead might hit the parked cars. Board members expressed concern that this would eliminate guest parking in the vicinity of the residential units on Halstead, but Mr. Cook showed that there was sufficient parking on the two intersecting side streets. Traffic Consultant Jeff Dirk noted that if this parking were eliminated, the street would have to be marked "No Parking".
Judy Sneath entered the meeting at this time.
Board members reviewed the draft Site Plan Approval document prepared by Chairman Murphy with input from the Board.
It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED, by all present to send the following Site Plan Review Decision to the Zoning Board of Appeals:
NOTICE OF DECISION-SITE PLAN APPROVAL
REQUEST FOR MAJOR MODIFICATION TO
MIXED USE SPECIAL PERMIT A2
For THE HINGHAM SHIPYARD
Applicant: Roseland/Hingham LLC ("Roseland")
Roseland Property Company
Fanueil Hall Market Place,
One South Market Building, 3rd Floor
Boston, MA 02109-1616
Shipyard
Premises: Approximately 129.5 acres of land within the Hingham Shipyard on Lincoln Street in Hingham shown as Map 35, Lot 2; Map 35, Lot 9; Map 35, Lot 5, Map 35, Lot 8, Map 35, Lot 10, Map 35, Lot 4, Map 36, Lot 102, Map 36, Lot 108, Map 35, Lot 11, Map 36, Lot 107, Map 36, Lot 109 on the Hingham Assessors Map
Roseland
Premises: Hingham Assessor's Map 36
Parcels 107, 108 and 109
Date: February 26, 2007
SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS
In accordance with Section I-I of the Hingham Zoning By-Law (the "Zoning By-Law"), the Hingham Planning Board (the "Planning Board") conducted Site Plan Review relative to the application by Roseland for a Major Modification to the Special Permit A2 for the Mixed Use Development at the Hingham Shipyard issued by the Hingham Zoning Board of Appeals (the "Board of Appeals"), dated May 12, 2003, as amended by (a) a Minor Modification dated January 12, 2004, (b) a modification Consistent with Approved Project Plans, dated September 1, 2004, a Minor Modification, dated October 14, 2004, a Minor Modification dated January 19, 2005, a modification Consistent with Approved Project Plans, dated September 18, 2006, a Minor Modification dated October 23, 2006 (collectively, the "Original Permit"). The Original Permit also granted certain sign variances that expired pursuant to state law and were subsequently granted again pursuant to a Variance issued by the Board of Appeals on March 20, 2006.
Roseland filed the application for Site Plan Approval (the "Roseland Application") with the Town Clerk and Planning Board on October 24, 2006. A public hearing was duly noticed and opened on November 30, 2006, and continued on December 8, 2006, January 8, 2007, January 18, 2007, February 5, 2007, February 15 2007, and February 26, 2007 at the Hingham Town Office Building at 210 Main Street. The hearing was conducted by Board members Susan Murphy, Chairman, Paul Healey, Sarah Corey, and Judy Sneath. The Planning Board also consulted during its review with Paul Brogna of Sea Coast Engineering, Jeffrey Dirk of Vanasse and Associates and Steven Heikin of ICON Architecture, each of whom acted as consultants to the Planning Board pursuant to Section I-I, 2 of the Zoning By-Law. Roseland was represented by a team of design consultants headed by Richard Cook of BSC Group.
BACKGROUND
Reference is made to the Background section of the May 12, 2003 decision of the Original Permit for a description of the originally proposed project. Sea Chain LLC filed the original application for the entire Shipyard Project on behalf of itself and certain affiliates (collectively, "Sea Chain"). Sea Chain subsequently sold portions of the Shipyard Project to third parties (each a "Land Owner" and all of the fee owners of the Shipyard Premises are collectively referred to as the "Land Owners"). For purposes of this decision, all references in the Original Permit to the "Project" consisting of all of the permitted improvements to the Shipyard Premises are hereinafter referred to as the "Shipyard Project". The improvements to be made to the portion of the Shipyard Premises described above as the Roseland Premises, as modified by the Roseland Application and this decision, are referred to as the "Roseland Project".
Sea Chain submitted the original application to the Board of Appeals pursuant to Section IV-H of the Zoning By-Law. In Finding #4 of the Original Permit, the Board of Appeals determined that an application for a Mixed-Use Special Permit is in effect an application for a Special Permit A2, with Site Plan Review, in accordance with Sections I-G and I-I of the By-Law. At the time of the issuance of the Original Permit, the Planning Board conducted Site Plan Review and submitted a recommendation to the Board of Appeals. Subsequent to the issuance of the Original Permit, Section I-I of the Zoning By-Law was amended by the 2006 Hingham Town Meeting to provide that any application for a Special Permit A2 or a modification of a Special Permit A2 shall require an approved site plan and any conditions imposed by the Planning Board on a site plan shall be incorporated in any Special Permit A2 issued by the Board Appeals. The Planning Board reviewed the Roseland Application in accordance with the relevant provisions of Section IV-H and Section I-I of the Zoning By-Law for the Major Modification of the Original Permit.
The improvements approved under the Original Permit for the Roseland Premises consisted of 150 units of for-sale housing with a clubhouse for residents and guests, and associated infrastructure, including twenty (20) detached single-family units along the boundary with the Bradley Woods neighborhood ("Bradley Woods"), forty-three (43) three-story units along the waterfront and eighty-seven (87) two-story "courtyard" units. Seventy-two (72) of the units could contain three-bedroom.
The Roseland Application proposed to modify the approved improvements by eliminating the twenty (20) detached single-family units and constructing instead fifty-six (56) two-story units and ninety-four (94) three-story units, forty-four (44) along the waterfront and the remainder in the interior of the Roseland Premises. Minor modifications to the clubhouse were proposed and a tennis court added.
The plans, narrative reports, traffic studies and other materials submitted by Roseland with the Roseland Application to the Planning Board for review have been modified by Roseland in accordance with the findings set forth below and a full and complete set of plans for the Shipyard Project have been delivered to the Planning Board. These modified plans (as herein described) replace in their entirety the Approved Project Plans listed in Exhibit D to the Original Permit.
FINDINGS
In accordance with Section I-I, 7 of the Zoning By-Law, the Planning Board considered the following criteria and made these findings:
a. protection of adjoining premises against detrimental uses by provision for surface water drainage, fire hydrant locations, sound and sight buffers and preservation of views, light, and air;
The modifications to the Roseland Project reduce the overall building coverage on the Roseland Premises and thereby do not affect the adequacy of the surface storm water drainage system approved under the Original Project. The proposed plans have been reviewed by the Hingham Fire Department and found to be satisfactory. The modifications offer more protection to the adjoining Bradley Woods neighborhood by relocating the twenty (20) detached units elsewhere on the Roseland Premises and creating in their place a landscaped open space area, as more particularly described in Site Plan Condition # A7 below. Condition #22 of the Original Permit governing the fence between the Shipyard Project and the Bradley Woods neighborhood is modified by Site Plan Condition # A10 below.
b. convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and on adjacent streets; the location of driveway openings in relation to traffic or to adjacent streets, taking account of grades, sight distances and distances between such driveway entrances, exits and the nearest existing street or highway intersections; sufficiency of access for service, utility and emergency vehicles;
The modifications to the Roseland Project were reviewed by the Planning Board's review consultants and were found to improve the vehicular and pedestrian movement within the Roseland Project by increasing the length of the driveways for each of the front-loaded units, providing pedestrian sidewalks on at least one side of each roadway, providing a dedicated walkway to the Shipyard Project from the Bradley Woods neighborhood and adjoining public park, and providing a detailed signage and marking program for pedestrians and vehicles. A turning plan for emergency vehicles was submitted to and reviewed by the Hingham Fire Department and found to be sufficient.
c. adequacy of the arrangement of parking, loading spaces and traffic patterns in relation to the proposed uses of the premises; compliance with the off-street parking requirements of this By-Law;
The modifications to the Roseland Project maintain the number of resident, guest and clubhouse parking spaces provided under the Original Permit and comply with the off-street parking requirements of the Zoning Bylaw.
d. assurance of positive stormwater drainage and snow-melt run-off from buildings, driveways and from all parking and loading areas on the site;
As stated under criteria "a" above, the modifications to the Roseland Project reduce impervious surface and allow for positive stormwater drainage. In response to concerns of the Planning Board and Board of Appeals regarding snow removal within the Shipyard Project, a program for snow removal from roadways and sidewalks for the Shipyard Project is set forth in Site Plan Condition # A11 and B4 below.
e. adequacy of the methods of disposal of refuse and other wastes resulting from the uses permitted on the site;
Refuse disposal within the Roseland Project will be managed by curbside pick-up by private trash removal company and is also governed by Site Plan Condition # B6 below.
f. prevention or mitigation of adverse impacts on the Town's resources, including, without limitation, water supply, wastewater facilities, energy and public works and public safety resources;
The demand on the water supply, the use of the public sewer system and other impacts on Town resources were originally determined based on the overall proposed improvements permitted under the Original Project. While the currently proposed modifications to the Roseland Project do not increase the number of housing units or other uses within the Roseland Project, the overall changes proposed to the Shipyard Project by all Land Owners and resultant impacts on Town resources will be evaluated as modifications are proposed.
g. prevention of erosion, sedimentation and stormwater pollution and management problems through site design and erosion controls in accordance with the most current versions of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection's Stormwater Management Policy and Standards, and Massachusetts Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines;
The modifications to the Roseland Project were reviewed by the consultants to the Planning Board and determined to meet all applicable standards for stormwater management.
h. protection of natural and historic features including minimizing: the volume of cut and fill, the number of removed trees of 6 inches caliper or larger, the removal of stone walls, and the obstruction of scenic views from publicly accessible locations: and
The Roseland Project will contain a number of open space and park areas, including the maintenance of an open space buffer area between the Shipyard Project and the Bradley Woods neighborhood and access to the Town-owned Bouve property. In addition, the Roseland Project will be part of, and be required to comply with, the overall public access and open space plan and historic preservation plan for the Shipyard Project, including the construction and maintenance of a "Riverwalk" along the waterfront and the inclusion of historical displays throughout the open space in the Roseland Project.
i. minimizing unreasonable departure from the character and scale of buildings in the vicinity or as previously existing on or approved for the site.
The modifications to the Roseland Project include the elimination of twenty (20) detached single-family units along the boundary with the Bradley Woods neighborhood and the replacement of those units with additional units in the interior of the Roseland Premises (away from the boundary with Bradley Woods), including an increase from forty-three to ninety-four three-story units. The Planning Board's design review consultant, ICON Architecture, reviewed the proposed layout of the units and elevations for the two- and three-story units to those approved under the Original Permit and found that the submittals are equal to or better than the original building design. In addition, Roseland has agreed to develop a color scheme for the units consistent with the color palette required by the Hingham Historic District Commissions for historic homes in Hingham.
DECISION AND CONDITIONS
The Planning Board voted unanimously to grant Site Plan approval for the Roseland Project shown on the "Approved Project Plans" listed in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof (which plans supersede in their entirety the list of plans set forth in Exhibit D to the Original Permit), including the roadway dimensions as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof (which roadway dimensional table supersedes Schedule E to the Original Permit), provided that such approval is subject to the following Site Plan Conditions which shall be included as conditions in the decision of the Board of Appeals in accordance with Section I-I of the Zoning By-law if the major modification is granted by the Board of Appeals.
A. Conditions Governing the Shipyard Project
1. Subsection (B) and subsection (C) of Condition #3 of the Original Permit shall be replaced in their entirety as follows:
"B. Minor Amendments
As a general rule, a proposed change shall be determined to be a Minor Amendment where:
The area of the relevant use or structure is increased by more than five percent (5%) but less than ten percent (10%), building locations are not changed by more than ten percent (10%) and the relative intensities of general use categories are not changed by more than ten percent (10%);
All dimensional requirements of Section IV-H of the Zoning By-Law are met;
The limits on intensity of use for the various general use categories (i.e., retail, residential, general commercial, and limited industrial) as ser/forth in Section IV-H.8 of the Zoning By-Law are not exceeded;
Architectural elements, including massing, fenestration, materials and details, are substantially similar to those shown in the Approved Project Plans;
Landscape elements, including shape and size of landscaped areas, planting types, sizes and arrangements are substantially similar to those shown in the Approved Project Plans;
Parking accommodations are adjusted proportionately to reflect the proposed changes in area and/or use; and
None of the circumstances triggering a Major Amendment (as set forth below) is present.
The Board believes that, because of the more than de-minimus changes involved, consideration and approval of a proposed change as a Minor Amendment should be made by the Board of Appeals and Planning Board. Accordingly, the Zoning Administrator and Town Planner shall determine that a plan showing changes in accordance with the above standards is potentially a Minor Amendment of the Approved Project Plans. Final determination/approval shall be made administratively, at a noticed public meeting of each of the Board of Appeals and the Planning Board, but without a public hearing in accordance with MGL Chapter 40A, Section 9 or notice thereof in accordance with MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11.
Land Owners proposing changes in the Approved Project Plans which they believe constitute Minor Amendments as set forth above shall 1) first discuss such changes with the Zoning Administrator and the Town Planner and then 2) submit to the Board of Appeals and the Planning Board a request for such a determination together with appropriate supporting materials. All determinations by the Board of Appeals and the Planning Board with respect to Minor Amendments shall be made in writing, with reference to appropriate plans, and shall be filed with the Town Clerk and appropriate Town departments, with copies to the Applicant.
Major Amendments
As a general rule, a proposed change shall be determined to be a Major Amendment where:
The area of the relevant use or structure is increased by more than ten percent (10%);
The proposed change involves the introduction of a new land use(s) abutting land zoned residential;
The proposed change involves modifications that materially reduce areas of the site dedicated to the public or that materially impact access to abutting public land;
The proposed change involves subdivision of the property beyond that contemplated in the Approved Project Plans;
The proposed change involves material alterations to the geometry of the primary circulation (Connector Road, Amesbury Drive, Halstead Drive and Stayner Drive) excluding Shipyard Drive, a public way;
The proposed change involves the introduction of land uses not permitted by the Zoning By-Law for a Mixed-Use project or approved by the Board of Appeals as part of the Approved Project Plans;
The proposed change involves changes that require material reconsideration of the parking criteria established in the Approved Project Plans;
The proposed change involves significant modifications to architectural and/or landscaping elements; or
The proposed change involves other modifications that the Board, in its discretion, does not consider to be consistent with the Approved Project Plans or to be minor modifications to the Approved Project Plans.
Plans showing changes which constitute a Major Amendment, as set forth above, must be reviewed and approved by the Board in accordance with Section IV-H.12.b. of the Zoning By-Law, after a public hearing in accordance with MGL Chapter 40A, Section 9 and notice thereof in accordance with MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11 and shall be subject to Site Plan review in accordance with Section I-G of the Zoning By-Law."
1. Condition #13 of the Original Permit is replaced in its entirety as follows:
"The Land Owners shall, subject to review, revision, and approval by the Massachusetts Highway Department ("MassHighway"), design and construct all improvements along the Route 3A corridor identified in MassHighway's January 13, 2004 Section 61 Finding issued pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 30, Section 61 to Sea Chain, LLC for the Shipyard Project, as it may be amended (the "MassHighway Work"). The MassHighway Work shall be constructed and be operational before the issuance of the any certificates of occupancy for any use within the Shipyard Project; provided, however, prior to the completion of the MassHighway Work a Land Owner may submit an application for a Minor Modification hereunder to the Board of Appeals and the Planning Board to request approval for the issuance of specific certificate(s) of occupancy. Such application shall be accompanied by (a) a traffic analysis satisfactory to the Boards and to the Boards' traffic consultant, demonstrating that the introduction of new traffic onto the roadways within the Shipyard Project shall not adversely affect or exacerbate then existing traffic conditions within the Shipyard Project or on Route 3A prior to the completion of the Mass Highway Work and (b) a written approval from MassHighway to the introduction of such traffic into the state highway." Approval of the Boards hereunder shall be in addition to satisfaction of all requirements of the Building Commissioner for the issuance of a certificate of occupancy."
2. Condition #22 of the Original Permit is replaced in its entirety as follows:
"Each of the Land Owners of the Hingham Shipyard shall establish their own credit facility in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5000) from which the Planning Board, Board of Appeals or the Building Commissioner may draw funds to pay for engineering and other professional consulting services engaged by the Town to review plans and/or construction in progress. Each Land Owner shall deposit additional funds as necessary to maintain the balance, however, in the event that the Land Owner disputes the need for any aspect or portion of such engineering or consulting services, or the projected cost thereof, then the Land Owner may return to the Planning Board, Board of Appeals and Building Commissioner for resolution. At the conclusion of the construction period any balance remaining in the account shall be returned to the applicable Land Owner."
3. Condition # 28 of the Original Permit is replaced in its entirety as follows:
"During periods of construction the Land Owners shall ensure that dust from exposed soil surfaces (including stockpiled materials) and construction noise shall be controlled as necessary in accordance with the standards of the Hingham Board of Health and Building Commissioner. In the event that mitigation is required, the Land Owners shall cover all costs for the planning, review and implementation of mitigation efforts. Failure to comply with this condition may result in the issuance of stop work orders by the Board of Health and/or the Building Commissioner."
4. The Land Owners shall implement and maintain in perpetuity the Historical Interpretation Program throughout the entire Shipyard Project, including the park areas within all residential areas, as presented in concept to the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals by consultant Whitney Perkins of Roll Barressi and Associates on January 18, 2007.
5. The Land Owners shall construct and maintain in perpetuity the Riverwalk as shown on the Approved Project Plans as part of a public waterfront access program for the Shipyard Project.
6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant will submit final Landscape Plans for the Roseland portion of the site consistent with the conceptual plans presented to the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals January 18, 2007. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in perpetuity substantially as shown on the approved landscaped plans, including without limitation the landscaped buffer area between the Shipyard Project and the Bradley Woods neighborhood.
7. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Land Owners shall provide a landscape maintenance plan for review by the Conservation Agent, including proposed chemical applications (fertilizers, pesticides, herbicide) and strategies for storage or removal of landscape debris (leaves, clippings, etc.)
8. Condition # 21 of the Original Permit is replaced in its entirety as follows: "Access from Bradley Woods shall be provided by a five (5) foot wide walkway from the Town park to HMS Staynor Drive as shown on the Approved Project Plans. Such access shall be maintained by the Land Owners, in perpetuity, including removal of snow and ice."
9. Condition # 22 of the Original Permit is replaced in its entirety as follows: "Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any residential building on the easterly side of the Shipyard Project, a fence shall be installed between the Shipyard Property and the Bradley Woods neighborhood. The fencing shall be maintained in perpetuity by the Land Owners. The specific type of fencing shall be determined between the Land Owners and representatives of the residents of the Bradley Woods neighborhood directly abutting the Shipyard Premises and a description of the agreed upon fencing shall be submitted in writing to the Boards and the Building Commissioner. Chain link fencing will not be permitted. If the type of fencing cannot be agreed upon the decision shall be made by the Planning Board."
10. All roadways shall be cleared of snow and ice to their full width, including on-street parking. Sidewalks on at least one side of each roadway shall be cleared of snow and ice to allow safe pedestrian passage. Snow will not be stockpiled adjacent to area roadways to a height greater than 3.5'. Snow in excess of this height shall be removed from the site, unless alternate snow storage is approved by the Boards.
B. Conditions Governing the Roseland Project
1. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a "Sign and Pavement Marking Plan" for the Roseland Project must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board's consulting traffic engineer.
2. Driveway aprons shall be visually separated from the adjacent roadway by a strip of granite or other alternate paving to be approved by the Planning Board.
3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Roseland shall submit in writing, with adequate graphic illustrations, a lettering and numbering system, satisfactory to the Hingham Police Chief and Hingham Fire Chief or their designees, to identify all units from the front and back of each unit, as well as curbside identification points.
4. The Roseland Project shall be subject to the provisions of Site Plan Condition #A.12, provided that, in lieu of removing snow off-site, snow from the Roseland Project may be placed in the "Proposed Snow Storage Area" shown on the Approved Project Plans. The Proposed Snow Storage Area shall be managed as follows:
i. The Proposed Snow Storage Area shall be loamed and seeded and maintained as grassed surface.
ii. An overflow structure with sediment basin shall be constructed within the Proposed Snow Storage Area with the fore-bay located at the down gradient edge thereof; final the specifications for such structure shall be approved by the Board's review engineer prior to construction.
iii. No snow shall be placed beyond the limits of the Proposed Snow Storage Area and when full, excess snow shall be removed off site.
iv. Access to the existing sewer pump station adjacent to the Proposed Snow Storage Area shall be maintained at all times.
5. Condition # 17 of the Original Permit is replaced in its entirety as follows: "The parking area serving the clubhouse shall be built as shown on the Approved Project Plans."
6. Regularly scheduled curbside trash pick-up will be provided to the residents of the Roseland Project. All trash shall be stored in covered containers. No dumpsters will be permitted on site. The Land Owner will be responsible for preventing litter or trash from blowing onto abutting properties.
7. Paint colors for residential units will be consistent with the approved color palette of the Hingham Historic Districts Commission (HDC) entitled "A Guide to Colors Styles and Architectural Periods developed by Historic New England", provided, however, that formal approval by the HDC is not required for any aspect of the Shipyard Project. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Roseland Project, Roseland shall provide the Planning Board with the actual palette selected for the project.
8. Condition # 32 of the Original Permit is replaced in its entirety as follows: "Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, Roseland shall provide the Boards as as-built plan showing the location of the water line loop through the property to the northeast owned by Welch Health Care Group."
Following the vote on the Site Plan Review decision by the Planning Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals discussed whether they would be able to vote on the proposed use, and identify any additional, non-site plan conditions. Mr. McLaughlin noted that they had received a list of recommended conditions from Mr. Paul Healey, as well as other conditions from the Planning. Board, the Police Department and a project abutter (Ms. Anne Mannion). They determined that, given the hour, and the fact that Samuels was waiting to make their presentation, that theu would identify any additional conditions and vote on March 19.
RE: Samuels and Associates: Proposed Modifications to the Mixed Use Special Permit for the Hingham Shipyard
Present for the Applicant: Joel Sklar, Mike Fitzpatrick, Robin Mosle, and Leslie Cohen from Samuel and Associates; Bill Dillon and Doug Husid from Goulston and Storrs; David Manfredi from Elkus Manfredi Architects; Dick Cook and Sam Offeiaddo from BSC.
Joel Sklar provided an overview of the applicant's activities since the last public hearing on this proposed modification, which was held on January 18, 2007. He noted that a Working Group, including two members of the Planning Board, one member of the ZBA and the Town's consultants had been meeting with the applicant to resolve issues relative to the Site Plan, and the proposed location of buildings within the site. He also noted that they had been working with the Town's traffic consultant, Jeffrey Dirk, to resolve issues relative to traffic flow in and out of the site. Of particular concern has been the ability of the intersection at Essington and Shipyard Drive to handle projected traffic volumes.
Mr. Manfredi outlined how the plan had changed. He noted that the primary change to the plan has been the relocation of the Residential North Building to a location on the south side of Shipyard Drive. The cinema would be located south of that, facing south towards the central parking lot. The waterfront area where the Residential Building was located previously will be taken up by a small parking lot, and a 40-50' wide waterfront, esplanade-type of park. The parking lot will include 56 spaces, including 13 reserved for the Sea Chain Marina office. A small new building, building "O" will also be placed on the waterfront, and is planned for restaurant use. Design changes also included changes to Building B, located on 3, as well as modifications to the central parking lot.
Mr. Manfredi provided elevations of the Shipyard from 3A, showing how berms and trees will be used to soften the views into the site from the roadway. Another elevation showed the two buildings flanking the entrance way to Shipyard Drive, including small, wall-enclosed areas for outdoor eating.
Sarah Corey asked, realistically, how long it would take for the trees to get as tall as shown on the elevations. Mr. Manfredi said that it would take 5-10 years. She also asked how tall the new Residential North building would be. Mr. Manfredi said that, with the "flat-roof" option, it would be 64', just like the original proposal. Mr. Healey expressed concern that it might be difficult to find trees hearty enough to survive so close to the traffic, and Mr. Manfredi concurred, and noted that he would leave it to the landscape architects.
Ms. Sneath commented that the elevations of the buildings on 3A, featuring turret-like towers, looked somewhat generic, and a little too much like Derby Street Shoppes. Mr. Manfredi said that they were trying to do something relatively simple.
Ms. Murphy asked whether there would be a pedestrian walkway or crosswalk to the site from William B. Terry Drive. Mr. Manfredi responded that all elevations would be sent to the Board's design review consultant, Steve Heikin, for further comment.
Ms. Mosle gave a presentation on why it was so important to include a movie theatre in this development. She noted that this was a relatively small development, and that the movie theatre would set it aside from other developments which already existed in Town. She also noted that it would help draw better eating establishments. She said that the developer had been working on a restrictive use clause to ensure that teen or "slasher" movies would not be shown, and limit use to family and adult features. In terms of the size of the development, she reiterated that the only reason that they wanted six screens is that all of the cinema operators with whom they had spoken insisted that a cinema complex would be viable with less than six screens. Mr. Scott from the Patriot Cinema reiterated this statement from the audience. At the end of her presentation, Ms. Mosle stated that the applicant needed to get a sense of how likely it was for the theatre use, including six screens and 1000 seats as proposed, to get approved, noting that if it simply was not possible, they would have to reconsider their entire plan.
Mr. McLaughlin asked his fellow board members if they felt ready to make a preliminary determination as to whether they would vote positively on the cinema use, with six screens, if all other site plan and traffic issues associated with such a use were ironed out. Tod McGrath said that it completely depended on whether the developer could reassure the Town, through use clauses, design provisions, and traffic studies, that there would be little or no negative impacts from the use.
Paul Healey asked what the impact of this theatre would be on the ongoing operations to Loring Hall. Mr. Scott replied that it was their intent to continue running Loring Hall as they do now, though he said that if the use clause restricted the Shipyard facility to only "art" type movies, that they might show less art films at the Loring than they do now. Ms. Murphy asked whether the six screen minimum required by the movie industry could possibly include five screens at the Shipyard and one at the Loring. Mr. Scott said that it could not. Ms. Sneath added that she still felt strongly that the six screen theatre could have negative impacts in terms of traffic and general quality of life, and urged them to continue looking into the feasibility of building a smaller venue.
Gary Tondorff Dick, from the audience, noted that if it was not feasible to keep running the Loring as a movie theatre, that it might be possible to convert it back to a more traditional "proscenium" type theatre with a stage for community events.
Sarah Corey asked why they needed 1000 seats, and whether they could have less. Ms. Mosle and Mr. Scott reiterated that the six screen, 1000 seat theatre was seen by the cinema industry to be as small as a theatre could be.
Ms. Mosle reiterated that, since this was a relatively small development compared to other shopping centers, that the focus on movies and dining would be the only way that the Launch could stand out from other centers. Mr. McGrath asked for more information on the amount of commercial and dining space. Ms. Mosle responded that the development would include 240,000 square feet of commercial space, including 37,800 square feet of restaurants.
Ultimately, the ZBA agreed that they would continue to consider the proposed cinema use, adding that it could be approved if all other site plan issues were resolved.
Susan Murphy and Steve McLaughlin concluded by noting that their hope for the next meeting was to resolve all outstanding traffic and parking issues. The applicant noted that they would be working closely with the Town's consultant over the next weeks.
The Board did not have time to address any Old/New Business.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Katharine Lacy
Town Planner