Minutes Thursday, March 13, 2008
Regular Meeting
Planning Board Agenda for Thursday, March 13, 2008
7:00 PM 120 South Pleasant Street – Continuation of Scenic Roads Hearing
7:30 PM 349 Lincoln Street - Hingham Shipyard – Joint meeting with Zoning Board of Appeals Request for a Minor Amendment to the modified Mixed-Use Special Permit dated 6/12/07 Condition #13 relating to the design and construction of improvements along Route 3A
8:00 PM 229 North Street – Hingham Square Townhomes LLC, - Joint Meeting with Zoning Board of Appeals Continuation of Hearing Comprehensive Permit, development of 16 age-restricted condominium units, including 4 affordable units, with 1 unit contained within the renovated Hersey House
9:00 PM Continuation of Zoning Hearings
• Article G – To Create a 40 R Overlay District
Old/New Business
Central Meeting Room North ________
Present: Planning Board Members, Paul Healey, Chair, Sarah Corey, Clerk, Judy Sneath and Gary Tondorf-Dick. Also present was Planner Katharine Lacy.
RE: 120 South Pleasant Street – Continuation of Scenic Roads Hearing
Present for the Applicant: Gary James, James Engineering, and Jim Robichaud, applicant.
This was the continuation of a Scenic Roads hearing for a proposed four-lot development at 120 South Pleasant Street. Earlier hearings occurred on December 10, 2007 and January 3, 2008. The project entails the development of four new houses on four Form A Lots with frontage on Lazell Street. The project has triggered a requirement for approval by the Planning Board under the Scenic Roads Act because Lazell Street is a designated Scenic Road, and the driveways into the individual house lots will impact the historic stone wall located in the public right-of-way on Lazell Street. The proposed creation of four new driveways on this narrow, one-way section of Lazell Street has also sparked concern on the part of the Police Department relative to traffic safety, as well as DPW relative to drainage impacts on the public right-of-way.
Gary James provided the Boards with three alternatives for providing access to the property at 120 South Pleasant, showing one driveway opening, two driveway openings and four driveway openings. He also provided calculations showing the quantity of gravel that would be removed with each alternative.
Mr. James and Mr. Robichaud stated that they have determined that putting a common drive behind the houses would present problems from a land planning stand-point in that it would effectively cut all of these yards in half. Mr. James is looking for direction on which of the alternatives presented tonight would best meet the goals of the Scenic Roads act. Mr. James attests that the plan showing four driveway openings would actually result in the least grading and tree removal. Ms. Lacy noted that Joe Stigliani of DPW and Cliff Prentiss of Conservation have both expressed a preference for the alternatives showing 2 or 3 driveway openings.
Board members discussed the merits of the three options. Gary Tondorf-Dick reiterated his preference, voiced at earlier meetings, for a single common driveway entering the site from South Pleasant Street and exiting on Lazell that would pass behind the four proposed house sites, arguing that this approach would require the least amount of grading and alternation to the site. In response to this suggestion, Mr. Healey expressed his discomfort with the concept of common driveways in general, saying that they can result in problems between homeowners about who owns, maintains and uses them. Gary James also added that if a single drive were constructed to serve all four lots that the Fire Department would require that it meet subdivision standards in terms of width, grading, etc. which could be even more disruptive to the site.
In the course of the hearing Mr. James identified a fourth option that might work, entailing two curb cuts, but less grading than what was shown in the two-driveway option submitted to the Board. Board members instructed Mr. James to draw up this option and get back to the Board for review. The hearing was continued to March 27 at 7:00 PM.
RE: 349 Lincoln Street - Hingham Shipyard – Joint meeting with Zoning Board of Appeals Request for a Minor Amendment to the modified Mixed-Use Special Permit dated 6/12/07 Condition #13 relating to the design and construction of improvements along Route 3A
This was a joint hearing with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Susan Murphy joined the rest of the Board at this time.
Dick Cook came before the Board to request a modification to the Special Permit to allow partial occupancy of the site before the completion of all off-site improvements on 3A. Specifically, the proponents are requesting the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for up to 122 residential units within the project prior to the completion of site access and off-site roadway and intersection improvements that were required as part of both the Special Permit and the Section 61 Findings issued by the Massachusetts Highway Department for the Project. Mr. Cook explained that, ideally, all off-site improvement to 3A and its intersections with Shipyard Drive would be complete prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. He explained, however, that Condition 13 of the Special Permit (as modified in Condition #2 of the Roseland Permit) states that
“The Land Owners shall, subject to review, revision, and approval by the Massachusetts Highway Department (“MassHighway”), design and construct all improvements along the Route 3A corridor identified in MassHighway’s January 13, 2004 Section 61 Finding issued pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 30, Section 61 to Sea Chain, LLC for the Shipyard Project, as it may be amended (the “MassHighway Work”). The MassHighway Work shall be constructed and be operational before the issuance of the any certificates of occupancy for any use within the Shipyard Project; provided, however, prior to the completion of the MassHighway Work a Land Owner may submit an application for a Minor Modification hereunder to the Board of Appeals and the Planning Board to request approval for the issuance of specific certificate(s) of occupancy. Such application shall be accompanied by (a) a traffic analysis satisfactory to the Boards and to the Boards’ traffic consultant, demonstrating that the introduction of new traffic onto the roadways within the Shipyard Project shall not adversely affect or exacerbate then existing traffic conditions within the Shipyard Project or on Route 3A prior to the completion of the Mass Highway Work and (b) a written approval from MassHighway to the introduction of such traffic into the state highway.” Approval of the Boards hereunder shall be in addition to satisfaction of all requirements of the Building Commissioner for the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.”
Mr. Cook indicated that they currently anticipate that the required off-site traffic improvements will be substantially complete by September 2008, while occupancy may be sought as early as May 2008. Mr. Cook explained that during this interim period the Existing Shipyard Drive entrance will remain open as is, to accommodate the MBTA water transportation, DCR, and Hewitts Cove marina traffic. When the Shipyard Drive East intersection is completed, the Shipyard Drive West intersection will be modified in accordance with the approved plans. Essington Drive will provide access from Shipyard Drive West to Shipyard Drive East for the existing MBTA, DCR, Hewitts Cove marina and the limited number of housing units until the Shipyard Drive East intersection is completed. Additionally, Amesbury Drive, located at the far eastern end of the site, will provide limited access to the Roseland Sales Office and the residential area. Access to the wharf area in the western portion of the Project Site will be provided by way of the signalized intersection of Essington Drive at Route 3A.
Ms. Lacy reported that this application and accompanying traffic study had been forwarded to Jeffery Dirk, the Town’s consulting traffic engineer, who, in a response dated March 12, 2008 had indicated that the proposed mitigation seemed sufficient and that there would be minimal negative impacts from the temporary occupancy. He also identified several conditions that the Boards could place on the approval.
Mr. Cook noted that he had submitted a request to MassHighway for written approval of this request, but had not yet heard back from them.
Gary Tondorf-Dick asked when the work on 3A was scheduled, and Mr. Cook noted that it would occur this summer, and would take approximately 4 months (May-August).
ZBA and Planning Board members expressed concern about the potential for traffic to cut through Amesbury Drive, and through the residential area to gain access to Shipyard Drive. For commuters traveling from the east, in particular, it would be extremely tempting to enter and exit the site via Amesbury Drive. Mr. Cook noted that the Amesbury Drive entrance would only be open limited hours to provide access to the Roseland Sales Office. He went on to say that signage, barricades and police details could also be used to ensure that traffic did not cut through the Shipyard Site from the east. Board members expressed skepticism that cut though traffic could be controlled without extreme measures in light of the past experience with commuters driving over curbs, etc. to exit the site from the Building 19 area. Ms. Lacy requested a detailed traffic management plan showing exactly when and where chains, barriers and signage and police details would be needed. Mr. Healey directed Mr. Cook to work closely with the Hingham Police Department in developing this plan.
ZBA and Planning Board members determined that further discussion of this matter should be postponed until such time that the applicant could provide the requisite approval from Mass Highway. They also requested that the applicant provide a detailed traffic management plan indicating the location of all signs, barricades, and details (as needed) to be put in place during the interim occupancy period.
The hearing was continued to April 17, 2008.
RE: 229 North Street – Hingham Square Townhomes LLC
Paul Healey, Gary Tondorf-Dick and Sarah Corey joined the Zoning Board of Appeals in an advisory capacity for the continuation of this hearing on the proposed Hingham Townhomes development at the Hersey House.
Present for the Applicant: Mr. Hastings, applicant; Jim Rondstock, Architect; Mark Kablack, Attorney; Tom Pelzerski, Merrill Associates; Brad Seoul, Project Manager.
Tom Hastings distributed a revised plan for the proposed 16-unit development. He explained that the revised plans reflected comments from the earlier hearings, as well as comments provided by Gary Tondorf-Dick. In summary, all units are now shown as the same unit type. All units have been reduced in size, both in their overall footprint (massing) and in their habitable floor area to be no larger than 2100 square feet. Mr. Hastings pointed out that the proposed townhouse units will now be approximately 27’ in height, and the refurbished Hersey House will be 31’, which addresses earlier concerns about the height of the new units. The site plan has been further modified to address all remaining engineering issues regarding driveway length, snow storage, yard setbacks, and stormwater management.
Mr. Hastings outlined the following specific changes to the plan that he had discussed with Gary Tondorf-Dick:
A. Site plan
-All unit driveways to be 20’ in length to prevent overhang of vehicles in public way
-Hersey House front yard trees to remain
-Mature trees at center of site-requested to remain for buffer screen of north units
-Existing Knoll grades requested to remain
B. First Floor Plan-
-All units to be “A” type units
-20% Reduction in Footprint
-Unit size to be 2,000 GSF.
-Delete dining room
-Provide entry court at former dining room location
-Provide eat in kitchen
-Reduce the width of the master bedroom and living room
-Delete the second bedroom
B. Second Floor Plan
-Provide loft
-Provide second guest bedroom
-Provide guest bath
-Delete balconies
C. Elevations- Massing
- Cottage style influence
-Provide 1 ½ story eaves to lower ridge height to 27 feet to match Hersey House
-Provide indentation at center of plan/ side elevation at entry court to reduce building
and roof height and massing to match existing context
-Articulate the roof lines and setbacks at this indentation in the center of the side
elevation to better proportion and reduce scale of façade and the roof forms
-Windows to be 6/6 true divided lights
-Trim to be Greek revival with soffits and cornice mouldings at eaves, projected head
trim at windows and doors
Board Members indicated that they were pleased with the changes shown on the plan.
Ms. Corey asked how large the Hersey House would be, and Mr. Hastings responded that it would be approximately 6,500 s.f. with the garage.
Mr. McGrath asked how the front yard area in front of the Hersey House would be preserved in its traditional appearance to protect views from North Street. Mr. Hastings noted that he was aware that it will be a private residence, but indicated that he would be willing to place a restriction on the deed that nothing could be placed in the yard in front of the house to block views. Gary Tondorf-Dick also pointed out that any changes to the front of the Hersey House would be reviewed by the Historic Districts Commission.
Mr. Healey asked whether the new units would include walk-out basements as was originally discussed, and Mr. Hastings indicated that approximately four of the units would include walk-outs. Mr. McGrath made note of the fact that the size limitation put in place by the Selectmen did not include the potential for basements to be constructed in selected units.
Mr. McLaughlin asked where the affordable units would be located, and Mr. Hastings responded that at this point it appeared that units 13, 10, 4 and 14 would be affordable.
Mr. Kablack, and Mr. Hastings stated that they felt that all of the Town’s requests had been satisfied. Mr. McLaughlin noted that while the plans appeared to be a big improvement over the earlier versions, that the Town’s consulting engineer, Paul Brogna needed to review the plans for compliance with civil engineering standards.
Camille Colantonio expressed concern that the Boards had still not properly reviewed lighting, traffic and guest parking. Mr. Hastings noted that there were 4 parking spaces per unit, which exceeded the parking requirement set forth in the By-Law for off-street parking. Board members noted that parking most certainly would be an issue if one of the residents had a larger event, and predicted that they would probably park on the side of the 20’ site drive despite restrictions against such parking by the Fire Department. Mr. McLaughlin noted that the ZBA would review the lighting plan at the next hearing. Mr. Healey stated that, at this point, the Planning Board’s advisory role on this 40B project would conclude with this hearing. The ZBA continued their hearing to a later date.
RE: Continuation of Zoning Hearings Article G – To Create a 40 R Overlay District
James O’Brien of the Hingham Housing Trust and special legal counsel Adam Costa came before the Board to continue the discussion of the proposed amendment to the zoning by-law to create a 40R district. Mr. Costa reported that as of yet, he had not received a version of the 40R zoning by-law edited by DHCD. Both Attorney Bobrowski and Adam have e-mails and telephone calls in to Don Schmidt, and are waiting for an update. He went on to note that while DHCD has not yet commented on Hingham’s 40R zoning bylaw, he has received comments from Mr. Schmidt on Easton’s 40R zoning bylaw, which included similar language regarding design standards – namely, that the Plan Approval Authority (PAA) is authorized to craft those standards at a future date, following Town Meeting approval of the District. Don Schmidt had indicated, prior to the submission of Hingham’s draft by-law, that such an arrangement would be acceptable with minor modifications. Mr. Costa expressed concern, in particular, at a requirement inserted into the Easton By-law that unless design standards are adopted with the 40R zoning by-law, they cannot be applied to a project for which an application is submitted following Town Meeting approval of the zoning but before adoption of design standards by the PAA and review and acceptance by DHCD.
Mr. Costa went onto say that in the context of Hingham’s 40R District, Mr. Schmidt’s language does not concern him. Because Subzone A will not be developed under 40R (as it would not allow for the same density as the current plans), and Subzone B is under the control of the
Selectmen and will be subject to a land disposition agreement, the “loophole” that DHCD has created is unlikely to affect Hingham’s development plans for the District. Nevertheless, he wanted the Board to be aware of the new language and its possible impact if, for example, Hingham were to create another 40R district on undeveloped land owned by a third party.
Board members discussed, at length, the pros and cons of inserting design guidelines directly into the warrant article or referring them as an appendix. Mr. O’Brien and Mr. Costa pointed out that the design guidelines could be distinct for each 40R District, and for each sub-zone within a single 40R district. At the last meeting Ms. Murphy had expressed a preference for including cursory design standards directly into the article, but leaving open the possibility for preparing enhanced design guidelines if and when the article passed. Board members discussed the potential difficulty for a potentially nine member Permit Approval Authority to agree on design guidelines. They also noted that in the case of this particular application, the Avalon Building had already been designed, and the Selectmen’s parcel would also be controlled by the design guidelines set forth in the RFP.
Board members proceeded to discuss the various pros and cons of the proposed amendment and the 40R program in general. Ms. Murphy noted that the Board had yet to actually review the 40R article line by line. Sarah Corey expressed concern that the article would only appear in the supplement, which would be very challenging for voters who wanted to fully comprehend it. Mr. O’Brien pointed out that the original article, which contained much of the substance of the article would, in fact, be in the warrant, though the supplement would not.
The hearing was continued to March 31, 2008. At that time the Board plans to review the article line by line.
The Meeting was adjourned at 10:35 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Katharine Lacy
Town Planner