Minutes Monday, February 25, 2008
Regular Meeting
Planning Board Agenda for Monday, February 25, 2008
Scheduled
7:00 PM 313 East Street – Site Plan Review Sandcastles Day Care
7:45 PM Lincoln Sailing Center – Special Permit A3 (Parking Determination)
8:15 PM Continuation of Hearing on the Proposed Amendments to the Zoning By-Law
• Article D: An article to clarify the Site Plan Review Process for exempt properties such as churches, schools and agricultural uses.
• Article E: An article to clarify the definition of “retail group” in the By-Law, and to require a Special Permit A2 for a retail group in the Industrial and Industrial Park zones (currently by-right)
• Article G: An article to create a 40R District
Old/New Business
Central Meeting Room South _________
Present: Planning Board Members, Paul Healey, Chair, Sarah Corey, Clerk, Judy Sneath and Gary Tondorf-Dick. Also present was Planner Katharine Lacy. Susan Murphy did not participate in this hearing.
RE: 313 East Street – Site Plan Review Sandcastles Day Care
Present for the applicant: Sara Sullivan, owner, Sandcastles Daycare, and Reny Chapman, BSC Engineering.
The applicant came before the Board for Site Plan Review in association with an application for a Building Permit to remodel an existing residential structure at 313 East Street for use by the Sandcastles Daycare Facility. Mr. Chapman reported that the applicant originally submitted a Site Plan showing a very large, 22-space paved parking lot directly in front of the house, with a 20’ wide loop road leading into the site from the west, passing through the parking lot and exiting on the east side of the site. Gary Tondorf-Dick reviewed the plan and expressed concern about its negative impacts on the historic character of the house, which is listed on the Town’s Inventory of Historic Buildings, as well as the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood. Gary’s concerns were mirrored by Historic Districts Administrator, Andrea Young. John Chessia and Conservation staff also expressed concern about potential impacts on adjacent wetlands, and drainage running off from the large parking area down towards East Street.
In response to these comments the applicant revised the plan to show a scaled-down, gravel parking area with 16 spaces and a narrower, one-way site drive. Parking spaces in the gravel lot will be marked with cedar curb-stops. Handicapped spaces directly in front of the building will be paved. The existing driveway to the east of the house will be maintained for stacked parking for employees. Gary Tondorf-Dick asked whether the parking lot could be relocated more to the western portion of the site. Mr. Chapman responded that this would involve paving in the wetland buffer, which would not be encouraged by the Conservation Commission.
Ms. Sullivan explained that the facility has a total of 74 students and 12 staff, though there are never more than 60 people on site at any one time in light of various part-time employment and care arrangements. Children are dropped off intermittently between 7:00 am and up to 9:30 AM, with other dropped off for an afternoon program. The drop-off procedure at this center involves parents actually parking the car, and walking their children into the building for hand-off, as opposed to a “Wilder School” style drop off. The applicant has indicted that the largest number of children being dropped off simultaneously is four, which occurs rarely.
Paul Healey expressed concern that the parking lot and driveway would not be paved, especially in light of the fact that the driveways coming in and out of the site would slope steeply up from East Street. He asked whether this would pose safety concerns for cars pulling out of the site, and asked whether it would be possible to reverse the direction of the driveway. Judy Sneath noted that steep driveways actually pose more problems for cars pulling into the site than cars pulling out of the site. Mr. Chessia stated that the applicant should consider placing a paved or cobblestone apron at the driveway’s edges (which are in the right-of-way) to prevent gravel from washing into East Street, and to provide better traction. Mr. Healey asked whether this could be approved by DPW, which will have to issue a curb cut approval. In the past, grading and the use of cobblestones in the right-of-way have not been looked on favorably.
Ms. Corey asked whether existing trees on East Street will be preserved. Mr. Chapman responded that trees in the right-of-way will largely be maintained, but that some trees at the front of the site have already been removed. Gary Tondorf-Dick asked whether there would be new landscaping at the front of the site that would screen views of the parking lot from East Street. Mr. Chessia noted that low vegetation might work, but that it was important to maintain site lines up and down East Street for cars exiting the site.
Board members concurred that the applicant should provide a landscape plan with their proposed site plan.
Gary Tondorf-Dick noted that the site design entailed raising the elevations in the area under the parking lot by more than two feet. He expressed concern about views of cars from East Street, and asked whether the parking lot could be lowered. Mr. Chapman responded that the elevation of the parking lot was a result of the fact that the septic system was located underneath, and the requirement for sufficient cover. Gary asked whether they could continue to look for possible ways to lower the elevation.
Mr. Healey stated that the hearing would be continued to March 6 at 7:00 PM. He stated that the applicant should provide a landscape plan, and resolve any issues with the Board’s review engineer, John Chessia.
RE: Lincoln Maritime Center – Special Permit A3 (Parking Determination)
Present for the Applicant: Mike Cataldo, Executive Director, Robert Devin, Attorney, and Rod Gaskell, SITEC Engineering,
Prior to the hearing, Mr. Healey disclosed for the record that his daughter had, in the past, worked on a seasonal basis for the center’s rowing program, and might work there again in the future. Ms. Sneath disclosed that she is a member of the rowing program, and Ms. Corey noted that her children had participated in the sailing program.
Ms. Lacy explained that this hearing will be continued for further deliberation by the Board as a joint hearing with the Zoning Board of Appeals (who will address the request for a modification of the existing Special Permit A2). The ZBA discussed the project at length at their last hearing, and they have also dealt with the Sailing Center through previous permits, so the applicant wanted to utilize this hearing to get the Planning Board up to speed.
Mr. Cataldo explained that the Maritime Center is planning to expand their operation to include Barnes Wharf in order to accommodate the rowing program. Up to this point all sailing and rowing activities occur on their current location on Lot 58. With this project the sailing program and associated equipment would be located on their current location, but the rowing program would be re-located to Barnes Wharf. Mr. Cataldo emphasized that even though their application, as currently written, described the project as an “expansion” this does not mean an increase in the number of participants.
Mr. Cataldo presented a Site Plan prepared by SITEC showing that they can provide 34 spaces on the original Maritime Center site, which will serve both the rowing and sailing center. He noted that the Center is currently permitted to operate all existing programs with 26 spaces, though the spaces were supposed to be delineated with curb stops, etc. All program participants would park at the current Center, and rowers would be required to walk to Barnes Wharf. There would be no parking on Barnes Wharf, and no on-street parking would be permitted near Barnes Wharf.
Ms. Murphy noted that since the current application specifically states that the program is expanding, the applicant should revise their application to reflect their actual plans. She also asked if the Center had documented the numbers of participants in their various programs. Mr. Cataldo stated that he would provide that information for the next hearing. Ms. Sneath and Ms. Corey followed up with requests for more information on all of the various programs that use the center, including a specific schedule showing which organizations were using the Center at which times throughout the year.
Ms. Murphy asked about proposed changes to the configuration of the 3A Rotary, and Mr. Devin responded that he was not aware of such plans. Mr. Cataldo noted that despite the proximity to the rotary the Center had been in operation for 30 years without a traffic accident.
Gary Tondorf-Dick asked for specific numbers of sailboats, and crew shells, in an effort to determine how many people were using the center at any one time. Mr. Cataldo responded that only a few programs used the Center at any one time. He estimated that there were 60 sailboats, four 4-person shells, and 10 eight person shells. He noted that all shells would be stored on land on Barnes Wharf.
Mr. Healey continued the hearing to March 27. The specific time of the hearing had not yet been determined.
RE: Continuation of Hearing on the Proposed Amendments to the Zoning By-Law
The Board was joined by Advisory Committee members Jerry Seelen and Richard Innis to continue hearings on proposed amendments to the Zoning By-Law.
Re: Article C
After a brief discussion, the Board voted, unanimously, to re-open their public hearing on Article C, and then voted, unanimously to recommend the following language for inclusion on the Town Meeting warrant
Will the Town amend the Zoning By-Law of the Town of Hingham, adopted March 10, 1941, as heretofore amended, as follows:
Re: Article E
At Section IV-G (9) (a), “Site Area Requirements”, delete the first sentence, and replace with the following: “A minimum of 100 acres is required and a maximum of 140 acres is permitted within the Industrial District.”
The Board voted, unanimously to recommend the following article for inclusion on the Town Meeting warrant:
Will the Town amend the Zoning By-Law of the Town of Hingham, adopted March 10, 1941, as heretofore amended, as follows:
Item 1 At the Section III (A) 4.17 (Retail Group),” replace the word “uses” with the words “two or more businesses” after the words “consisting of”.
Item 2 Change the letter “P” under Industrial and Industrial Park to “A2”.
Re: Article G –to Create a 40R District
Jim O’Brien met with the Board to continue the discussion on the proposed warrant article to create a 40R District. The last meeting on this topic was February 11, 2008. Mr. O’Brien reported that, as instructed at the last hearing, they had prepared design guidelines specifically tailored to the Housing Partnership and Avalon Projects that would be included in the 40R District, which would be included in the warrant article. This criteria had been provided to the Board prior to the meeting.
Ms. Murphy noted that her sense was that it would be better to provide minimal but clear design criteria in the by-law, but reference a more detailed design guidelines document that could be generated by the Permit Approval Authority after the By-law was passed. This would provide a general comfort level to Town Meeting, without going into a huge amount of detail.
Mr. Tondorf-Dick expressed concern that the design guidelines provided were too “watered down”. Ms. Murphy said that the guidelines developed after the by-law was passed could be extremely detailed based on the examples that she saw from other Towns on the DHCD website.
Mr. O’Brien noted that whatever guidelines were generated, that they would have to be reviewed by DHCD prior to approval.
Mr. Healey and Ms. Murphy both expressed concern that the 40R statute required anyone appealing the project to put up a bond to cover the Town’s legal costs, should the appeal be denied. They both stated their belief that, despite the fact that many appeals are frivolous, that the right to appeal is important, and that people should not be prevented from appealing a project due to the fact they could not afford to.
Mr. Tondorf-Dick expressed concern about the level of state oversight and involvement in the 40R process, which he felt undermined local control of development. Ms. Sneath and Ms. Corey noted that in the case of this particular application the two projects were already in the works, and that any future expansion of the district would be subject to great scrutiny.
Ms. Murphy noted that she felt that it would be very appropriate to utilize at least part of the payment for the proposed improvements to Beal Street. Mr. O’Brien said that the Housing Trust could be used as a mechanism to get the money spent that way.
Marianne Jackson in the audience noted her concern with the potential environmental impacts of the Beal Street development on Bare Cove Park.
The hearing was continued to March 6 at 8:30 PM.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Katharine Lacy
Town Planner