Make this a link back to page with list
Scheduled:
7:00 PM Special Permit A3 269/271 North Street (Parking-Riley)
7:30 PM Project Update and Certificate of Occupancy Sign Off, Blue Cross Blue Shield
8:00 PM Continuation of Site Plan Review
Samuels & Associates, 349 Lincoln Street
Modification to Mixed Use Special Permit at the Hingham Shipyard
Old/New Business
1. Site Plan Review Waiver Request - 45 Pond Park Road
2. Roseland Building Permit, Hingham Shipyard
3. Minutes and Bills
Central Meeting Room North and South
Present: Planning Board Members, Paul Healey, Clerk, Sarah Corey,
Judy Sneath and Gary Torndorf-Dick. Also present was Planner Katharine Lacy.
Mr. Healey opened the public meeting at 7:00 P.M. at the Hingham Town Hall.
RE: Special Permit A3 269/271 North Street (Parking-Riley)
Mr. Riley has requested that this hearing be continued to May 7 due to his illness.
RE: Project Update and Certificate of Occupancy Sign Off, Blue Cross Blue Shield
Present for the applicant: Buzz Constable, A.W. Perry and Larry Healey, Blue Cross Blue Shield.
Mr. Constable explained that the Blue Cross Blue Shield facility on Commerce Road was complete, and that they were seeking sign-off's from the Board for the final Certificate of Occupancy.
Ms. Lacy explained that the extension of Commerce Road to provide access to the new Blue Cross Blue Shield facility was approved by the Planning Board on July 20, 2004. One of the conditions of this approval was that all off-site traffic improvements to Exit 14 and Hingham Street would be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building in the new subdivision. On February 28, 2005 the Board voted to modify this condition to allow occupancy to be granted if the applicant had gotten all necessary permits and approvals and construction was well underway, contingent upon posting an appropriate bond or surety.
Mr. Constable explained that at this point the developer is seeking occupancy permits, and would like to exercise the option to bond the off-site mitigation at Exit 14. Though the applicant has made significant progress towards the completion of the new on and off ramps, completion has been held up by multiple postponements by Verizon for work which must precede removal of poles and final paving. The roadway contractor, Mount Blue Construction, has prepared a "cost to complete" prepared by Mount Blue Construction for the off-site work, totaling $168,787.50.
The Board asked Paul Brogna, consulting engineer for the Town, whether this amount would be enough to cover the cost of the remaining work, and he concurred that this amount would be sufficient.
Paul Healey asked what the motivation would be for the applicant to complete the work in a timely fashion. Mr. Constable responded that Blue Cross Blue Shield and the Town would be holding large escrow account to insure the completion of the work, so one motivation would be to get this money back. Board Members asked about plans for occupying the building. Mr. Healey responded that they needed to "air out" the building for two weeks, and then wanted to get their IT staff inside to set up computers and phones, etc. The first 150 employees would not start working in the building until June 1, and they would add 150 more each week for the next eight weeks.
Mr. Healey noted that traffic was already very bad on this section of Route 3A, due, in part to heavy volume, and in part, to the ongoing work at the exit ramps and the Route 3 overpass. He expressed great concern that the new office building would come on line before the expansion of the off and on ramps was completed.
Ms. Corey suggested that the amount of the bond be increased to provide greater incentive to complete the work. Mr. Healey noted that no amount of money could make Verizon move any faster to remove the poles in question. Mr. Constable conceded that he had no control over Verizon. He went on to say that they would be willing to provide police details as needed to facilitate the movement of traffic through this area.
Mr. Brogna pointed that the presence of a police detail would make very little difference in terms of making traffic flow more smoothly, due largely to the fact that a lane has been closed down nearby for the repair of the Route 3 overpass.
Gary Tondorf-Dick asked several questions about whether the building itself was complete and had passed all inspections. Mr. Constable noted that the Building Commissioner had been working closely with them and was ready to sign off.
Ms. Sneath and Mr. Healey determined that they did not feel comfortable signing the Certificate of Occupancy until the off-site work was complete and operational. They told the applicant to request a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Commissioner to allow them to proceed with the work that needed to be done in the building in the next month, and that they would sign off once the off site work was complete.
Ms. Murphy joined the meeting at this time.
RE: Site Plan Review Waiver Request - 45 Pond Park Road
The Planning Board discussed the application of Webb Plumbing Supply, who is seeking a building permit for proposed interior renovations at 45 Pond Park Road, the former location of Driscoll Plumbing Supply. Ms. Lacy reported that the current site layout was reviewed and approved by the Planning Board on May 18, 1988 at the time that an addition was added to the building. Based on a visit to the site on April 24, 2007, it appears that the site is in compliance with the conditions set forth at that time. There is sufficient parking on site to comply with the Off-Street parking regulations set forth in Section V-A of the Zoning By-Law.
In light of the fact that there will be no substantive change of use of the building and proposed work is largely limited to interior, non-structural renovations, the Board voted to waive the requirement for site plan review in accordance with Section I-I (6) of the Zoning By-Law, which states that "The Planning Board may, upon written request of the applicant, waive any of the requirements of this Section, including the requirement for a public hearing, where the Planning Board determines that the project constitutes a minor site plan."
RE: Roseland Building Permit, Hingham Shipyard
Ms. Lacy reported that Vin Martiny from Roseland Development has been pushing to get the building permit signed for the first 22 units on the site. The Board directed Ms. Lacy to submit the following letter to the Building Commissioner:
"The Planning Board has been asked to sign off on the Building Permit Application for the first 22 units in the Roseland portion of the Hingham Shipyard. As you know from the working group meeting that took place on April 18, 2007, the Board has raised two issues. First, Halstead Drive, abutting the 22 units on one side, is being shifted slightly as part of the current major modification pending before the Zoning Board. Second, a construction management plan which will address many of the Town's and abutters' concerns about the construction process in under review by the Zoning Board.
As the footprints of the buildings containing the 22 units have not changed and the Zoning Board is close to completing its hearing on the major modifications, including the construction management plan review, possibly at its next hearing on May 10, 2007, the Planning Board does not object to your accepting the application and commencing review of the building plans. The Planning Board, however, will hold off on signing this building permit until the Zoning Board has voted and the construction management plan has been completed and the Planning Board requests that the building permit not issue until that occurs."
RE: Continuation of Site Plan Review Samuels & Associates, 349 Lincoln Street
Modification to Mixed Use Special Permit at the Hingham Shipyard
Present for the Applicant: Leslie Cohen and Joel Sklar, Samuels and Associates; Richard Cook, Scott Turner, Sam Offeiado BSC; Jeffery Tocchio and Kelly McCarthy, Drohan, Hughes, Tocchio and Morgan; David Manfredi, Elkus and Manfredi; Ed Hodges, DiMella Shaffer.
This was a continuation of the joint Planning Board/ZBA Site Plan Review hearings on the proposed modifications to the 2003 approved plans for the Hingham Shipyard. Steve McLaughlin was not present, and so the ZBA voted to continue their hearing until May 10, and the Planning Board continued on with Site Plan Review.
Ms. Murphy explained that they had received a large amount of material from the applicant in response to various requests, and that the intent of the meeting was to wrap up all outstanding items.
Mr. Chessia, consultant to the Town, summarized his findings relative to the engineering design of the site. Mr. Chessia had provided the Board a full peer review report dated April 27, 2007 in which he reviewed compliance with all aspects of the requirements set forth in the Zoning By-Law.
Mr. Chessia reported that his primary concern was that the pipe between DMH 1 and DMH 1A has been installed at a slope less than approved in the original design and has less than the required capacity as installed. He reviewed drainage calculations regarding the as-built conditions as well as a set that reflected the pipe being installed as designed, and independently checked the calculations using an independent program and the result of the as-built condition is an increase in the depth of water within the storm sewer system of eight inches at the upstream manhole for this pipe (DMH 1) and four inches at catch basins #3 and 4 where the water level is closest to the surface. In summary, although the pipe should be installed at the correct elevations, the impact of the as built condition does not result in water surcharge above any rims in the 10 year design storm. Board members determined that the pipe should be re-set at the correct elevation.
There was a general discussion of the drainage design for the entire site, which was designed in accordance with industry standards to accommodate the 10-year storm. Board members and members of the public expressed concern that, due to the recent frequency of 10-year storm events, that the capacity of the drainage system may be insufficient. Mr. Chessia explained that because of the proximity of the ocean, where all of this drainage would end up, that this did not mean that the site would be flooded if a 100-year storm occurred, nor did it mean that neighboring properties would be flooded because water would eventually, through drainage or sheet run-off, all end up in Hingham Harbor.
Ms. Murphy expressed concern with a comment in Mr. Chessia's peer review report that adjustments may be required to the grading of the Avalon site to ensure proper drainage. She noted that future changes to site grading should be treated as minor modifications, and be subject, therefore, to Site Plan Review before approval by the Building Commissioner.
Mr. Chessia noted that he had requested a table of the open space areas with a plan that identifies them in a measurable way for the entire shipyard. Mike Fitzpatrick of Samuels and Associates provided the Board and Mr. Chessia with this plan.
Mr. Chessia noted that his prior review noted discrepancies between the engineering and architectural drawings, which have provided a challenge in terms of determining compliance with limits on floor/area ratio, and the mix of uses on the site. Ms. Murphy went on to ask whether the Weber Dodge building was included in these calculations. Ms. Cohen responded that initially it was not, but that the Weber Doge would not "max-out" their limit on commercial development.
Ms. Murphy asked that the revised Approval Not Required plan be included in the final set of plans to be approved by the Board.
Jeff Dirk provided a summary of his peer review report dated 4/25/07. He noted that he had received all outstanding material requested in his earlier memos, including Truck Circulation Plan, Dumpster Layout Plan, Bicycle Access Plan, Traffic Signage and Pavement Marking Plan, Snow Storage and Events Parking Analysis, Parking Designation Plan, Moving and Delivery Plan, Dumpster Layout Plan, Snow Storage Plan, Pedestrian Connectivity Plan, and Boat Storage/Winter Parking Plan.
As a part of the snow storage plan, the developers will remove snow from the site during peak shopping months (November and December) and store it on site in designated areas during the less busy winter months.
Ms. Corey expressed concern with the snow storage plan, particularly the plan to store snow against the landscape buffer along 3A. She also expressed concern with the designated loading areas on Shipyard Drive to accommodate deliveries and moving trucks. She would prefer moving and delivery trucks to access buildings from the rear. Outstanding issues in terms of traffic include the need for revised sign and pavement marking plan, as well as off-site mitigation.
Board members instructed the applicant to meet with the Hingham Police to discuss further the truck circulation and loading plans.
At 10:00 the Boards and many in the audience gathered around the scale model of the site. Mr. Manfredi reviewed the various changes that had been made to the architectural design of the commercial buildings, including changes to roof-lines and concealing roof-top mechanical devices. Ed Hodges of DiMella Shafer described his rationale behind the design of the residential buildings. At the end of the hearing Board members approved the overall site layout, location, size and massing of all of the buildings. There were concerns, however, about the elevation of the Residential North building. Design of Residential North Building still may be an issue. Steve Heikin has suggested that the board condition approval on the ability to continue design review on the building as the plans evolve.
Mr. Torndorf-Dick who is not on the panel for the Hingham Shipyard offered the following comments from the audience:
The Residential North building's conceptual design and massing departs from the model of the other buildings along Shipyard Drive. Given that it is a pivotal building due to its location on the waterfront, the Residential North building's design is very important. It is a "book end" which defines the scale and character of this project as or more than the entry buildings at the Route 3A entrance. The water proximity suggests larger windows for the views; however, these larger windows are better delineated on the west residential buildings in terms of scale and character. It is a long rectangular façade that is punctuated with large horizontal openings. Although the architects have made a strong presentation that this building should be made of the contextural materials found in Hingham and the 20th century shipyard buildings (now razed), I think that the scale of the massing, façade, windows and roof eave lines are "over scaled-too large" and need to be refined and reworked. The proportional components and form language of this building do not address the scale and form language of the Hingham maritime and village vernacular architecture in the current elevation drawings and model proposed. The sketch of the corner view of this building that was included in the earlier presentation could be developed to better refine this conceptual design.
Ms. Murphy asked the Board if they would consider addressing subsequent design review of the final plans for the Residential North building through a condition to the Special Permit. Board members conceded that there was a difference of opinion on the design of the Residential North Building and agreed to consider this further.
The hearing was continued to May 14 at 7:00 PM.
Old/New Business
RE: Minutes and Bills
It was moved, seconded, and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present to accept the minutes of April 9, 2007.
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Katharine Lacy
Town Planner