Planning Board Agenda for Monday, March 12, 2007
Scheduled:
7:00 PM 74 North Street, The Wine Merchant - Site Plan Review
7:30 PM 174 Lincoln Street, New Bank Use - Site Plan Review
8:00 PM Continuation of Public Hearings on Proposed Zoning Amendments
Central Meeting Room South
Present: Planning Board Members, Susan Murphy, Chair, Paul Healey, Clerk, Judy Sneath,
and Gary Tondorf-Dick. Also present was Planner Katharine Lacy.
Ms. Murphy opened the public meeting at 7:10 P.M. at the Hingham Town Hall.
RE: 74 North Street, The Wine Merchant - Site Plan Review
Ms. Murphy explained that the Wine Merchant is moving from its current location on North Street to a portion of the space previously occupied by Faneuil Kitchens. The Planning Board is required to conduct Site Plan Review because the work will cost more than $20,000 and because the building is located in the Downtown Overlay District and there will be changes to the exterior. In accordance with Section III-G (5) of the Zoning By-law, "Any project located within the Overlay District, but not within a Local Historic District, and 1) subject to Special Permit or site plan review or 2) which requires a building permit and affects the exterior architectural features of a building or structure, shall also be subject to design review."
The applicants, Ms. Moira Sullivan and Duncan Routh, stated that they plan a complete tenant fit-up to accommodate a small retail area, showroom, office space, conference room, and universally accessible restroom. The area they will be occupying is approximately 3500 square feet in size, broken down into office, storage and retail space. There are 7 dedicated off-street parking spaces in a lot adjacent to the building, and on street parking on North Street.
The Board determined that the applicant did not need parking relief due to the building's grandfathered status, and the fact that the use (retail, office and storage) is not changing substantially from the previous use.
In terms of the building façade, the applicant proposed to replace the existing plate glass storefront windows with new thermal plate-glass windows in metal frames divided into three sections, with a glass transom. The single door will become a double door with a transom. The new entrance would be recessed, and flanked on either side by plate glass display windows. They also plan to replace the steel roll-up door on the east wall with a hinged door to meet code requirements.
Because this property is located in the Overlay District, the application was forwarded to the Historic Districts Commission for their review and comment. Andrea Young, Administrator for the HDC provided a comment letter dated March 12, 2007. Ms. Young, who was at the meeting, noted that, in summary, the HDC recommended installing new windows in wood frames, with transoms containing individual lights similar to other older buildings on North Street. They noted that if the Board allows the aluminum windows as indicated in the proposal, then the satin aluminum frame should be painted, noting that the factory white would not be appropriate for this location. They also encouraged the Planning Board to require detailed drawings reflecting required changes to the façade before giving final approval.
Mr. Routh noted that the building had previously been an auto parts supply store and garage, and had a utilitarian look. He said that the improvements suggested by the HDC did not seem appropriate for the building. He presented a colored elevation showing the improvements to the façade. Mr. Tondorf-Dick reviewed the elevation and said that it looked like an improvement over what was there, but that the building would benefit from the addition of a parapet, or perhaps divided lights in the transom window. Mr. Routh responded that he would have to review the potential additional costs before committing to such changes. Ms. Murphy asked Ms. Young if she was satisfied with the elevation as proposed by Mr. Routh and she said that she thought it was an improvement but could benefit from a few minor adjustments.
Ms. Murphy explained to the applicant that this was the first instance where an applicant located outside of the Historic District Commission has been required to engage in design review, and that the goal of the by-law was to ensure a design that was compatible with the surrounding downtown context. She stated that it seemed that the sticking point was treatment of the lights in the transom, and asked whether the applicant would be willing to continue working directly with the HDC to resolve the situation. Ms. Sullivan and Mr. Routh concurred with this approach.
It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present:
1) to waive the requirement for Site Plan Review Requirements c-i
2) To approve the proposed site plan subject to the requirement that the applicant satisfy the Historic Districts Commissions with respect to treatment of the upper transom windows on the front façade prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed work.
RE: 174 Lincoln Street, New Bank Use - Site Plan Review
Present for the Applicant: Kevin Burns and John Rooney of Citibank, and James Owens. Architect.
Ms. Murphy reported that Citibank is moving into the site formerly occupied by West Coast Video at Thaxter and Lincoln streets. There is no drive thru planned. A bank is a by-right use in Business B. They need Site Plan Review in association with their building permit for work over $20,000. Parking is not an issue in that they had sufficient parking for a retail use @5/1000 square feet, and banks only require 4 spaces /1000 s.f. Ms. Lacy reported that all 97 parking spaces are fully available for use, and handicapped spaces are fully marked.
This space (the former West Coast Video location and Starbucks) was added onto Brooks Pharmacy in 1997, and was subject to a Special Permit for a sit-down/take out restaurant and for building signs. In terms of outstanding conditions on the original permit, it appears that the enclosure intended for the dumpsters are being used to store sand. Dick Morgan would like the Board to encourage them to put the dumpsters back in the enclosure.
It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present to:
1) waive the requirement for public notice for Site Plan Approval;
2) waive the Site Plan Review submittal requirements for items c-I;
3) approve the proposed Site Plan, subject to the condition that, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant satisfies the Building Commissioner with regards to placement of the dumpsters within the enclosure and proper placement of the sand.
RE: Continuation of Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to the Zoning By-Law
Article F-Changes to Section IV-D, Flexible Residential Development
This article is intended to make dimensional regulations for Flexible Residential Developments more internally consistent and specific, particularly regarding required setbacks for condominium type developments, where there is no subdivision road layout from which to measure front setbacks. The article refines parking requirements to assure better accommodation of on-site parking, and the article also includes a provision defining specific requirements for guest parking.
It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present to recommended favorable action on this article.
Article H-Proposed changes to the Non-Conforming Use By-Law
The Board had discussed this length at the meeting on March 5, and agreed to hold off on the vote until this meeting.
This article would modify Section III-H (6), which addresses non-conforming uses, by requiring a Special Permit A1 determination from the Zoning Board of Appeals in order to make alteration or additions to a non-conforming single or two family residential building whenever the alteration or addition increases the non-conformity (as, for example, extending a residential building wall that already encroaches into the setback). The Zoning Board's (ZBA) determination would be made, pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Section 6, that "the alteration of, addition to, extension of, or structural change to an existing non-conforming single or two family residence or structure which increases the non-conformity of the building or structure" is not "substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming use to the neighborhood."
This section of our Zoning By-Law has commonly been referred to as "The Hatfield Amendment." This amendment, which was put in place in 1984, currently allows alterations and additions to non-conforming single and two family residential structures by-right. This amendment would not prohibit or limit alterations to non conforming properties. However, it would provide for a notification to abutters and a public hearing giving abutters, members of the community, and the ZBA an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed modifications.
Board members in favor of the article argued that it would provide an appropriate balance between the rights of property owners and abutters. Mr. Healey stated his position that he had viewed a variety of homes modified using the current provision, and felt that the bulk of them did not have negative impacts on abutters. He felt further that the proposed change could hinder the rights of property owners seeking to make minor adjustments to older homes, adding unnecessary time and expense to such modifications.
It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED, 3 to 1 in favor of this article. Mr. Healey voting in opposition.
Article E-Changes to Section V-A, Off Street Parking Regulations
This article would reduce the amount of required off-street parking associated with berths at marinas and other similar waterfront facilities, from one parking space per berth to one parking space per two berths. Initially the article included a revised definition of "berth" and "marina" that would include both slips and moorings, but the Board did not feel ready to address what would result in a significant change in the parking requirements for boating operations without a greater understanding of the full impact of such a change. The proposed parking ratio is closer to the ratio more commonly found in marinas throughout the region, and the Planning Board has applied it in the past to major marina projects in Hingham, such as the Shipyard project. The Planning Board believes this ratio will provide adequate parking for marinas and other similar waterfront facilities. This article also includes minor clerical and "clean-up" type changes.
It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present to recommended favorable action on this article.
Article I-Changes to Section V-E, Personal Wireless Services By-Law
Mr. Cristello, Town Administrator, John Tzimorangas, Director of Hingham Light and Mike Cooper from National Grid appeared before the Board as proponents of this article. Section V-E of the By-Law regulates the provision of Personal Wireless Service facilities for the town, and addresses such elements as towers, antennae, associated transmission wires and the like.
Mr. Cristello explained that the existing provisions of this section V-E assume that sending and receiving signals of wireless devices would be accomplished primarily via large towers and by antennae concealed within structures such as cupolas and steeples. The location of large towers has sparked controversy in the past, and town officials have been concerned that more large towers could be proposed in the future, based on the lack of wireless service coverage in various parts of the town. The proposed By-Law amendment is intended to allow and encourage the construction of a distributed antenna system (DAS) that would replace the need for additional large towers.
Mr. Tzimorangas noted that this DAS would be installed primarily on utility poles, it would be owned by the Hingham Municipal Light Plant, and it would be made available, for rent, to wireless service providers. Based on the provisions of this amendment, service providers would be forced to use the DAS in lieu of constructing a new tower, provided that capacity were available on the DAS, thereby minimizing the possibility of future towers in sensitive areas of the town.
The Board requested additional technical information about the proposal. Mr. Cooper stated that each antenna assembly consists of a fiberglass antenna approximately 10 feet in length, plus an associated control box or boxes; if placed on utility poles along a roadway, the frequency of these assemblies would be approximately every ½ mile, or every 20 utility poles, though the design and layout of the DAS would be subject to oversight by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
DAS falls well within the safety standards established by the federal government for wireless service facilities.
Board members insisted that the proposed amendment incorporates a provision to require removal of unused system components after a specified period of time, as is currently required for traditional towers; it also requires a periodic re-application for permission to maintain the DAS (after 10 years), in order to assure that the town has the opportunity to take advantage of new technology that might develop over time.
It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present to recommended favorable action on this article.
Article J, To Rezone the Property Owned by the Old Colony Montessori School
Mr. Carlos Perez, President of the Board of Trustee of the Old Colony Montessori School appeared before the Board as the proponent of the property.
The Old Colony Montessori School is currently situated in a Residence B zoning district and it directly abuts single family house lots. There is commercial development nearby, including property zoned Business B and Industrial Park across Derby Street and Recreation Park Drive respectively. The Board felt that although a school is a permitted use in any Residence district, Old Colony Montessori wants to have its property re-zoned to Business B to increase its value to the school and/or to a future owner; the Business B zoning district would allow non-residential, commercial use on the property.
Board members concluded that this proposed re-zoning would result in a piecemeal incursion of commercial development into the adjacent residential neighborhood, and this does not comport with the Town's policy regarding the re-zoning process or with the Town's current master plan for this part of Hingham.
It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present to recommend no action on this article.
The Meeting adjourned at 11:05 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Katharine Lacy
Town Planner