Scheduled:
7:00 PM 229 North Street, Hingham Square Townhomes LLC - Continuation of Hearing for 40 B Permit for 16 unit development
8:00 PM 26 Summer Street – Hingham Boat Yard LLC Site Plan Review and Parking Determination for Mixed-Use Building and Marina
Old/New Business ____________________
Present: Planning Board Members, Paul Healey, Chair, Sarah Corey, Clerk, and Gary Tondorf-
Dick. Also present was Planner Katharine Lacy.
RE: 229 North Street, Hingham Square Townhomes LLC - Continuation of Hearing for
40 B Permit for 16 unit development
Judy Sneath was not present for this hearing.
Present for the Applicant: Mr. Hastings, applicant; Jim Rondstock, Architect; Mark Kablack, Attorney; Tom Pelzerski, Merrill Associates; Brad Seoul, Project Manager; and Bob Engler
Board members Paul Healey, Gary Tondorf-Dick, and Sarah Corey joined the Zoning Board of Appeals in an advisory capacity to conduct Site Plan Review relative to the application of Hingham Townhomes, LLC to develop 15 units of age restricted (55+) housing and one single-family home on Town-owned land at the Hersey House located at 229 North Street. Earlier hearings on this matter occurred on Thursday, October 4, Thursday, November 15 and December 17. Mr. Hastings has the land under agreement after being selected by the Selectmen in response to an RFP process to dispose of the land conducted in 2003/2004.
Prior to the last ZBA/Planning Board hearing on December 17, the Selectmen met with the applicant and requested that they revise the plans to reduce the size of the proposed units to between 1800-2200 sf. Selectmen indicated that it had been their understanding that these were to be modestly sized units tailored for an affordable market, not upscale Townhouses. At that meeting Mr. Hastings questioned the Selectmen’s ability to request such revisions, noting that there had been no such information included in the RFP issued for the project. In response, Town Counsel Jim Toomey wrote a letter to Attorney Mark Kablack stating that the Town did have the right to make such a request. Mr. Kablack responded with detailed denial of this claim.
Mr. Hastings started the hearing with an explanation of why he did not want to reduce the size of the individual units to 2,000 s.f. or less as requested by the Selectmen. He pointed out that he had already reduced the size of the units from 2,350 -2442 sf to 2312-2318 sf representing a 5% reduction in size. He also pointed out that he had re-designed the two buildings flanking the Hersey House so that their footprint was reduced by 43% by designing larger second stories and smaller first floors. He noted that it would be very difficult to sell smaller units to the upscale market that he had intended to serve. He then compared the project to a variety of other multi-family projects in Hingham. He noted that the lot coverage and units per acre were well below what was suggested by DHCD for 40B developments.
Tod McGrath noted that Mr. Hastings was able to market smaller units at his other project at Back River. He also pointed that that the reduction suggested by the Selectmen represented only 5000 sf total.
Gary Tondorf-Dick suggested that the bulk of the units could be reduced by trimming down some of the second story space created by the vaulted ceilings and cross-gables. He pointed out that a single gable structure was more traditional and would fit in better with the surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. Hastings’s consultant, Bob Engler, explained that the bulk of the units was due, in part, to the fact that seniors were looking for a ground-floor master bedroom suite and single-level facilities in general. With such a large ground floor, the second floor could only be so small before it looked out of proportion with the rest of the building. Mr. Hastings noted that he could build single-story ranch buildings but he did not think that it would be fitting for the site.
Board members asked again abut the height of the new buildings as compared to the height of the Hersey House. There were conflicting reports about the actual height of the Hersey House.
Mr. Hastings suggested that when the Hersey House was restored, the new units would be similar in height, and much less bulky.
Sarah Corey once again spoke out against the overall density of the project. She noted that the buildings looked too big in the context of the surrounding neighborhood, and that the general crowding of the site created problems in terms of internal circulation, snow storage, and aesthetics. Mr. Hastings responded that density was not a bad thing, and that, in fact, it created a more traditional, village-like atmosphere.
Bill Cross, 88 Downer Ave., in the audience, expressed concern that the drainage onto abutting properties had not been accounted for.
Camille Colantonio, 4 Ringbolt Farm, expressed concern that traffic impacts had not bee sufficiently studied. She pointed out that the traffic study submitted with the original application predated the operation of the Greenbush Train Line.
ZBA Chairman Steve McLaughlin suggested that Mr. Hastings meet with Tod McGrath and Gary Tondorf-Dick to see if it would be feasible (economically and architecturally) to reduce the size of the units and still have an attractive project. The three agreed to meet on Saturday, Feb 9.
The hearing was continued to Thursday, March 13.
RE: 26 Summer Street – Hingham Boat Yard LLC Site Plan Review and Parking Determination for Mixed-Use Building and Marina
This was a joint hearing of the Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board. Associate Planning Board member Bill Ramsey joined the Board in place of Judy Sneath.
This was a continuation of the hearing on the application of Hingham Boat Yard, LLC for Special Permits A1, A2 and variances from the ZBA, with Site Plan Review and a Special Permit A3 (parking waiver) from the Planning Board relative to an application for the construction of an 8,622 square foot mixed-use building and 46-slip marina with associated parking (26 spaces) on a 23,507 square foot site located at 26 Summer Street.
Mr. Hastings explained that what he was presenting to the Board was a slightly modified version of the project that was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals (with a Planning Board recommendation) in April 2004. Since that time some changes were required to the original design based on the Special Conditions required in the Chapter 91 License. Changes required by the Ch. 91 License included 1) that the proposed boardwalk be expanded to encompass the entire perimeter of the site, 2) that additional square footage on the ground floor be dedicated to retail use (the original permit included a restriction that limited commercial or retail use on the ground floor to 1808 square feet, the Ch. 91 License requires that “Not less than 2140 s.f. be dedicated to Facilities of Public Accommodation”) and 3) that the building shift 3’2” away from the water towards Summer Street. The Applicant also wants to modify the previously approved project by expanding the number of slips by 12. These twelve slips are currently in place with a 10A License granted by the Harbormaster AFTER the 2004 permit was granted; Mr. Hastings has also applied for.
Mr. Healey read a letter submitted by Dave Damstra expressing concern about emergency access around the building, saying that the access lane around the building was too narrow for emergency vehicles to navigate. This letter also indicated Captain Damstra’s concerns that there was insufficient parking on the site, which would lead people to park in ways that would block safe access. Mr. Issadore and Mr. Hastings both protested that Captain Damstra had approved the plan in 2003 with no concerns. Mr. Issadore suggested that it appeared to be collusion.
Mr. Isadore noted that at the last hearing there was a lot of discussion comparing this project to the marina at 3 Otis Street. He noted that this was not an appropriate comparison since the marina at 3 Otis was put in place illegally, whereas Mr. Hastings had all of his permits and parking waivers in place in 2004.
Mr. Murphy concurred with Mr. Isadore, but noted that it was also not appropriate to make comparisons between the parking requirements in the waterfront business district and downtown, as they were two different districts, with distinct precedents relative to how requests for parking relief have been requested.
Mr. Hastings noted that he had commissioned a study by HML Associates in 2003 that indicated that the 46 slips would only need a maximum of 12 spaces on weekends, and much less during
the week. Based on this information he was requesting a waiver from the requirement for 1 space per every 2 slips. Tod McGrath pointed out that Town Meeting had just considered the issue of whether to reduce the parking requirement for boat slips the year before, and had, in fact, reduced from 1 space per 1 berth to 1 space per 2 berths. This zoning change had been based a significant amount of research into parking requirements for marinas in other locations. Mr. Hastings insisted that power boats were different, in that they were not used a frequently as sail boats.
Ms. Murphy noted that the Chapter 91 License for the project required that 8 spaces be reserved for marina use during the summer months; those same spaces shall be reserved for the general public.
Thus ensued a long discussion about whether the Special Permits and variance issued for the project in 2004 (and renewed once in 2005) were still valid, or had lapsed. The Town’s Zoning By-Law, and MGL Chapter 40A state that Special Permits lapse after two years, and variances after one year, unless a building permit has been issued or due to good cause. Mr. Hastings argued that he had done a significant amount of work by bringing in utilities, and also that he was unable to get a building permit until his Chapter 91 License was issued.
Both boards agreed that they needed confirmation in writing from Town Counsel indicating that the permits had, indeed lapsed. Joe Fisher indicated that he would contact Jim Toomey.
Sturt English stated that while he supported the idea of providing more slips in the Harbor, that he felt that it would be premature to grant a parking waiver for the marina at this time. He pointed out that the other water-related properties in the vicinity (Lincoln Sailing Center and 3 Otis) were also struggling with this issue, and the Selectmen had appointed a committee to look at parking issues in the Waterfront Business District.
Mr. Schrader of 3 Seal Cove Lane spoke in opposition to the project. He noted that despite the fact that it was approved in 2004, there were many abutters and other residents opposed to the project. He did not feel that the scale or appearance of the building fit in with the desired appearance of the Harbor.
Ms. Murphy pointed out that the Planning Board needed to proceed to a discussion of Site Plan Review issues other than parking. The Planning Board agreed to continue the Site Plan Review hearing to February 11 at 8:30 PM.
Old/ New Business
It was moved, seconded, and SO VOTED, unanimously, by all those present to accept the minutes of January 14, 2008.
Request for Minor Modification-Samuels and Associates
Ms. Lacy reported that Samuels Associates had submitted a request to modify their plans so that building K (formerly a bank) would now house a small specialty grocer.
The Shipyard Permit was set up to acknowledge that the project was so complex that multiple changes could be anticipated. To address this, the permit includes a process for addressing three levels of change: 1) consistent with approved plans (which get approved by the Building Commissioner) 2) minor modifications (which get approved by the Planning and Zoning Boards without a posted public hearing) and major modification (requires a public hearing). Criteria for determining which level is appropriate is included in the permit.
Samuels is requesting from the Boards 1) a determination that the proposed change is minor and 2) approval of the minor change. According to Samuels, the new grocery use meets the threshold for a minor modification in terms of square footage, parking, etc.
Ms. Lacy pointed out that because changes in traffic flow were a potential concern, that Jeff Dirk of VAI was reviewing the proposal to determine if there would be any negative impacts. The one area of concern is traffic generation, and to that end Jeff Dirk is reviewing the proposal, but has not yet completed his review. Board members agreed to postpone their consideration of this matter to the next hearing on February 4, 2008.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Katharine Lacy,
Town Planner