Minutes Monday, March 6, 2008
Regular Meeting
Planning Board Agenda for Monday, March 6, 2008
Scheduled:
7:00 PM 313 East Street Sandcastles Daycare Continuation of Site Plan Review Hearing
7:30 PM 26 Summer Street –Site Plan Review and Special Permits A2 and A3 Joint Hearing with Zoning Board of Appeals
8:30 PM Continuation of Zoning Hearings
• Article D Site Plan Review for Exempt Uses
Unscheduled: Old/New Business
Central Meeting Room North ________
Present: Planning Board Members, Paul Healey, Chair, Sarah Corey, Clerk, Susan Murphy,
Judy Sneath and Gary Tondorf-Dick. Also present was Planner Katharine Lacy.
RE: 313 East Street Sandcastles Daycare Continuation of Site Plan Review Hearing
Present for the Applicant: Reny Chapman, BSC Engineering, Ralph Froio, Froio Landscape Co. and Sara Sullivan, applicant. Mr. Froio, Froio Landscaping.
The Board was joined by consulting engineer, John Chessia.
Ms. Lacy noted that at the last hearing on February 25, the Board asked the applicant to return with a landscape plan, and resolve any outstanding issues with the Board’s review engineer, John Chessia. As requested, the applicant provided a landscape plan for the site. The plan was accompanied by a brief “maintenance schedule” indicating a commitment to plow, and maintain gravel as needed during the winter months.
Mr. Chessia stated that he had provided his review comments to the applicant, and in response the plans were revised again and resubmitted on March 3. Mr. Chessia noted that the parking spaces were switched to 45 degrees to meet the Town’s aisle-width requirements. The grading on the exit drive was reduced to 7.5%, and the grading on the entrance drive was modified to direct run-off onto the grass adjacent to the driveway. The change in grading would also mean that less of the stone wall would be modified. The applicant also provided a snow storage area on eastern side of the site as requested.
Mr. Chessia noted that there were no horizontal wheel stops shown on the plan, though each parking space was marked with vertical cedar posts. Mr. Chessia noted that the stacked parking adjacent to the house should be posted for employees only.
Mr. Chessia suggested that the applicant perform soil tests before digging the proposed drainage trench adjacent to the eastern portion of the site driveway, and the applicant concurred.
Ms. Lacy noted that she had spoken with Harry Sylvester at DPW, who noted that the applicant will be required to get curb cut approval for all work in the right of way, as well as a Street Tree hearing for any trees that will be removed in the right-of-way. Mr. Sylvester noted that the lighting fixtures shown at the site’s exist will need to be moved out of the right-of-way.
There was a long discussion about the final treatment of the stone wall in front of the property. Mr. Froio explained that the existing column and curved section of the wall would be preserved at the western entrance. At the new opening on the eastern side of the side the stones removed to create the opening would be used to craft a curved turn-in on either side of the driveway. Mr. Tondorf-Dick asked if the applicant could provide a detail showing the proposed final treatment of the wall entrances, and Mr. Froio agreed.
Mr. Froio explained that the landscape plan includes a planting area including ivy, grass, yews and existing trees along the front of the property. Plantings are located so as to screen views of the parking lot while allowing site lines to the east for cars exiting the property. Mr. Healey expressed a preference for privet hedge instead of evergreen hedge, and the applicant concurred with this preference.
It was moved, seconded, and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present to approve the Site Plan for the Sandcastles Daycare Facility located at 313 East Street in Hingham, as shown on plans dated January 23, 2008 with revisions through March 3, 2008, with the following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall revise the Landscape Plan dated March 1, 2008 and submitted with the application to show the “proposed planting area” along the front of the property specified as Common Privet and resubmit such plan to the Planning Board.
2. Prior to the application for a Street Opening Permit from the Hingham Department of Public Works, the applicant shall provide the Planning Board with details showing the proposed treatment of the two openings in the stone wall along the site’s boundary on East Street. The Town Planner will review and approve/disapprove such details within 7 days of receipt. The DPW will be notified of this condition.
3. Prior to the construction of the infiltration trench adjacent to the exit drive on the easterly side of the site, the applicant will perform appropriate soil tests. Results of these soil tests shall be submitted to the Town Planner.
RE: 26 Summer Street –Site Plan Review and Special Permits A2 and A3 Joint Hearing with Zoning Board of Appeals
Judy Sneath left the meeting at this time. Bill Ramsey, as Alternate for this hearing, joined the Board.
Present for the Applicant: Thomas J. Hastings, owner and applicant, Bruce Issadore, Attorney for the Applicant. The applicant was also accompanied by Jill Kourafas, REPORTERS, INC.
Mr. Healey noted that this was the continuation of a public hearing on the application of Hingham Boatyard, LLC for Site Plan Review under Section I-G of the Zoning By-Law (in association with an application for a Special Permit A2 from the Zoning Board of Appeals) and a Special Permit A3 (parking waiver) for the construction of an 8,622 square foot building with appurtenant parking, public bathroom, public walkway and 46-slip marina at 26 Summer Street in the Waterfront Business District in Hingham. The Planning Board (not the ZBA) had met with the applicant on January 7, 2008, at which time a full description of the project was provided.
Mr. Healey reported that since the last hearing the Boards have received a letter from Town Counsel James Toomey indicating that the permits issued for the project in 2004 have lapsed. Mr. Healey also noted for the record the following correspondence (or copies of correspondence) received by the Board and on file at the Planning Board:
Letter from Attorney Bruce Issadore to Hingham ZBA and Planning Board. 3/06/08
Letter from Sergeant David B. Horte, Hingham Police, to Katy Lacy dated 1/30/2008
Letter from Captain David Damstra, HFD, to ZBA dated 3/06/08
Letter from Captain David Damstra, HFD, to ZBA dated 1/28/08
Letter from Kenneth Corson, Office of the Hingham Harbormaster, to Thomas J. Hastings, 2/06/08
Letter from Linda A. Parsons, 54 Cushing Street, to the ZBA, dated 3/06/08
Letter from Galen Hersey, 67 High Street, to the ZBA and Planning Board dated 3/06/08
Tom Hastings provided a summary of his development history in Hingham. He explained that what he was presenting to the Boards tonight was an only slightly modified version of the project which 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 and 3) that the building shift 3’2” away from the water towards Summer Street.
Mr. Hastings noted that the project that was approved in 2004 required 70+ parking spaces, and was permitted with 26. The current project requires 60 spaces. Additionally, he would be willing to modify the project by reducing the number of slips by 12, and reducing the size of the retail area on the ground floor.
Mr. Issadore noted that the applicant is operating under the assumption that the existing permits are still valid.
Mr. Healey stated that the Planning Board was going to proceed with the hearing by running through the Site Plan Review criteria outlined in Section I-I of the Zoning By-Law.
Criteria 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;
Mr. Hastings noted that he had met with David Damstra and Chief Mark Duff of the Hingham Fire Department that day (March 6) and they were satisfied that there was sufficient access in and around the site for fire safety and emergency vehicles. Mr. Duff had requested a dry stand-pipe system for the marina, and Mr. Hastings had concurred. In terms of visual screening, Mr. Hastings noted that the site’s boundary along 3A, and along the gas station property would be screened by a 6’ high wooden fence. Additionally, the side along the gas station would be screened with a dense planting of 4’ juniper shrubs. Tod McGrath noted that there was a 4-5’ drop from the gas station parcel to the boatyard site, and expressed concern that the proposed fence would screen views of the Harbor from 3A. Mr. Hastings responded that the intent was to screen the view of cars from 3A, and pointed out that even the presence of the parked cars along the site’s eastern boundary would block views out to the Harbor.
Ms. Murphy asked whether the Site Plan complied with the lot coverage requirement. Mr. Hastings and Tod McGrath confirmed that the lot coverage of the building was less than 20%.
Mr. Healey asked about site lighting, and its potential impacts on adjacent property. Mr. Hastings responded that all overhead lights and utilities would be removed, and he would be providing low-level lighting at key locations including landscape islands, walkway entrances, etc. Mr. Healey requested a lighting plan, and asked that both Police and Fire review such plan.
Gary Tondorf-Dick asked about potential run-off onto adjacent properties. Ms. Lacy noted that the Conservation Agent, Cliff Prentiss, indicated that the Conservation Commission reviewed and approved these plans in relation to the Ch. 91 License application for the project. Con Com’s review encompassed stormwater management relative to adjacent properties as well as potential impacts on coastal or wetland resources.
Criteria 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;
Mr. Healey referred to Sergeant David Horte, who was in attendance at the hearing, and had provided a letter to the Board dated 01/03/08 expressing concern about the site plan. Sgt. Horte indicated that his primary concern was the insufficiency of parking on the site, which he felt would lead to “creative” parking on and off-site requiring lots of enforcement, and could potentially block emergency access. He also expressed concern about cars exiting the site and making a left-hand turn onto 3A, which could be dangerous. Finally, he expressed concern about pedestrians crossing 3A at this location to get to or from the site.
Gary Tondorf-Dick asked whether the proper templates had been used to enter, exit and navigate the interior of the site. Mr. Healey requested that the applicant provide evidence from the Fire Department that all turning radii were to their satisfaction. Mr. Hastings noted that the Fire Department has indicated that they were satisfied with the plan.
Ms. Murphy asked Ms. Lacy to measure all parking spaces and aisle widths shown on the plan to ensure compliance with the provisions of V-A (Off Street Parking) of the Zoning By-Law, and report back at the next hearing.
Ms. Murphy noted that Ms. Lacy had been in contact with David Hill at DEP to get clarifications on the meaning of some of the Special Conditions included in the Ch. 91 License. She instructed Ms. Lacy to write a memo to Mr. Hastings outlining her finding from Mr. Hill prior to the next hearing.
The hearing was continued to Monday, April 17 at 7:00 PM.
RE: Continuation of Zoning Hearings
The Board was joined by Jerry Seelen and Richard Innis of the Advisory Committee.
The Board voted to recommend the following proposed amendment to the Town’s zoning by-Law for inclusion in the warrant for the 2008 Town Meeting:
To see if the Town will amend the Zoning By-Law of the Town of Hingham, adopted March 10, 1941, as heretofore amended, as follows:
Item 1: At Section III-B, Special Conditions to Schedule of Uses, add a new Section 8 as follows:
8. The uses allowed in Section III-A, Subsections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4, to the extent provided under M.G.L. c.40A, §3, are allowed as of right, but subject to Site Plan Review in accordance with Section I-I.
The site plan review under this Section III-B (8) shall apply to:
i. land or structures used for religious purposes, or for educational purposes on land owned or leased by the Commonwealth or any of its agencies, subdivisions or bodies politic, or by a religious sect or denomination, or by a nonprofit educational corporation;
ii. land or structures, or the expansion of existing structures, used for the primary, accessory or incidental purpose of operating a child care facility; and
shall be limited to developing guidelines and determining compliance with regulations under this By-Law concerning bulk and height of structures, yard size, lot area, setbacks, open space, parking, and building coverage requirements, or such other matters subject to reasonable requirements under M.G.L. 40A Section 3 as the same may be from time to time amended. A building permit shall only issue upon the completion of the site plan review in accordance with Section I-I.
Item 2: At Section III-A, subsections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4, add the following phrase after each use description: “(Subject to Special Condition 8 of Section III-B)”.
Old/New Business
RE: 100 Industrial Park Road-Waiver from Requirement for Site Plan Review
The Planning Board reviewed the Site Plan for 100 Pond Park Road prepared by Feldman Professional Land Surveyors showing a proposed new loading dock. In accordance with Section I-I (5), the Board voted to waive the requirement for Site Plan Review on the premise that the proposed changes “do not materially or adversely affect conditions governed by Site Plan Review.”
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Katharine Lacy
Town Planner