Minutes Monday, March 17, 2008
Regular Meeting
Planning Board Agenda for Monday, March 17, 2008
7:00 PM 26 Summer Street – Continuation of Public Hearing on Site Plan Review & Parking Determination
8:30 PM Minor Modification to DPW/ athletic Fields Entry Sequence from Fort Hill
9:00 PM Continuation of Zoning Hearings
• Article D
Old/New Business
____________________
Present: Planning Board Members, Paul Healey, Chair, Sarah Corey, Clerk, Susan Murphy,
Gary Tondorf-Dick, and Associate Member Bill Ramsey. Also present was Planner Katharine Lacy.
RE: 26 Summer Street – Continuation of Public Hearing on Site Plan Review & Parking Determination
Present for the Applicant: Thomas J. Hastings, owner and applicant. A stenographer, Jill Kourafas was recording the meeting for Mr. Hastings.
This was the 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. Earlier hearings were held on January 7 and February 11 2008.
Mr. Healey read into the record a letter from Captain David Damstra and Deputy Police Chief Charles Souther regarding the proposed lighting plan, as well as a letter from the Hingham Business Council expressing support for the project.
Mr. Hastings distributed a revised set of plans for the property with revisions through March 17, 2008.
Mr. Healey noted that at the last meeting Board members had initiated the Site Plan Review process by going through the Site Plan criteria one by one, and had gotten through Criteria A and B. One question left unresolved from the previous hearing was what kind of site lighting would be provided Mr. Hastings responded that as requested, the new plans show the type and location of site lighting. Site lighting will include low-level bollard-type lights along the various walkways as shown on the plan. He also indicated that in his recent meeting with the Police and Fire Department he had agreed that he could also add lighting that would shine on to the parking lots from the building soffitts. Mr. Hastings noted that there was currently a significant amount of light coming onto the site from adjacent properties and 3A, and that his goal was not to create too much light pollution. Ms. Murphy replied that she agreed that too much light would be bad, but noted that she was concerned about cars navigating safely around the site at night. Mr. Healey requested confirmation from the Police Department that they felt that the amount of light provided was sufficient for travel around the site.
Mr. Hastings noted that he had shown on the plans, as requested, that the site driveway going around the building was a full 12’ in width. He also noted that there will be a hydrant located at the entrance to the site, and a standpipe system near the marina area. Gary Tondorf-Dick expressed great concern that a fire engine could not access the marina area, and asked how medical or fire emergencies on boats would be handled. Mr. Hastings stated that a Fire engine could not access the water-side of the building, but that Dave Damstra had seemed satisfied with the standpipe system for fire control at the marina. The building itself will have a sprinkler system. Mr. Healey asked that Ms. Lacy get confirmation from Dave Damstra that he was, indeed, satisfied with this amount of access.
c. adequacy of the arrangement of parking, loading spaces and traffic patterns in relation to the proposed uses of the premises; compliance with the off-street parking requirements of this By-Law;
Board members agreed to skip over a discussion of Criteria C until the end of the hearing, when they could address the parking in the context of the request for a parking waiver.
d. adequacy of open space and setbacks, including adequacy of landscaping of such areas;
Board members
Board members reviewed the proposed setback and screening requirements for the Waterfront Business District. Mr. Hastings indicated that there would be a fence around the property boundary with the gas station property, and a landscaped area adjacent to this fencing. He offered to line the site drive with plantings, but Board members expressed concerns about site distances for traffic coming in and out of the site. Gary Tondorf-Dick requested that either side of the site drive be lined with pavers similar to those shown along the site’s other boundaries, and Mr. Hastings concurred.
Ms. Murphy pointed out that the off-street parking regulations require one tree per ten parking spaces. Mr. Healey noted that he did not feel that this would be a good place to plant trees, and that they might further block views. Ms. Murphy said that, whatever the outcome, formal relief from this requirement much be granted in the final decision.
e. adequacy of the methods of disposal of refuse and other wastes resulting from the uses permitted on the site;
Mr. Hastings noted that the site would be carefully managed for litter control and the limited amount of trash removal anticipated. Trash cans will be located on the Boardwalk area, and they will be emptied daily. He noted that there will be no restaurant use permitted on the site, which would preclude excessive waste.
f. prevention or mitigation of adverse impacts on the Town’s resources, including, without limitation, water supply, wastewater facilities, energy and public works and public safety resources;
Mr. Hastings noted that the water and sewer lines into the site were already in existence. He stated that the project would not put additional strain on public works or public safety officials. He pointed out that because his own office would be on-site, that issues such as parking violations would be handled by the building management. He also said that there would be no living or rowdy parties permitted on the boats in the marina.
g. assurance of positive stormwater drainage and snow-melt run-off from buildings, driveways and from all parking and loading areas on the site, and prevention of erosion, sedimentation and stormwater pollution and management problems through site design and erosion controls in accordance with the most current versions of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection’s Stormwater Management Policy and Standards, and Massachusetts Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines.
Board members determined that the project was already subject to an Order of Conditions from the Conservation Commission which fully addresses compliance with State Stormwater Standards.
h. protection of natural and historic features including minimizing: the volume of cut and fill, the number of removed trees of 6 inches caliper or larger, the removal of stone walls, and the obstruction of scenic views from publicly accessible locations: and
Board members determined that there were no stone walls or large trees on the site. In terms of the view, Board members noted that the new building is, indeed, much larger than the current building on the site, and would block more of the view. The proposed boardwalk around the site, however, provided new and improved access to views of the harbor. Mr. Hastings also noted that much of the building was proposed to be glass, which would also enhance views to the harbor.
i. minimizing unreasonable departure from the character and scale of buildings in the vicinity or as previously existing on or approved for the site.
Mr. Hastings pointed out that the building had already been approved for this site. Board members noted that the building was larger than other buildings on the harbor, but did not identify any mitigation or Site Plan conditions related to this criteria.
Board members initiated the discussion of parking on the site. Ms. Lacy noted that she had reviewed the plans and that the aisle widths and sizes of parking spaces met Town regulations. Mr. Hastings pointed out that the project had already been approved with 26 parking spaces when more than 65 were required. Ms. Murphy noted that Town Counsel had indicated that the prior permits had lapsed, and that the Board was considering the request for parking relief de novo. Mr. Healey noted that the hearing was running over, and suggested that the Board continue the Site Plan Review and take up the request for a Special Permit A3 (parking waiver) at a continuation of the hearing.
Dana Baxter and Donna Johnson expressed support for the project.
The hearing was continued to March 31 at 7:00 PM.
RE: Minor Modification to DPW/ athletic Fields Entry Sequence from Fort Hill
Ms. Sneath joined the Board at this time.
David Killory, Business Manager for the Hingham School Department, came before the Board to request a modification to the approved Special Permit plans for the DPW/Athletic Facility. Ms. Lacy explained that the Planning Board’s April 4, 2006 recommendation, and the ZBA’s July 20 2006 Special Permit for the DPW reference a plan showing an entry sequence from Fort Hill with an entrance point south of the former Credit Union Building, lined up with the proposed entrance to the Greenbush Station. Subsequent to this decision, the MBTA moved the entrance to the parking lot northwards, and at that time plans were prepared showing the entrance to the park lined up with the station entrance at a point north of the Credit Union. These revised plans also showed the existing entrance south of the Credit Union as closed off, so that all Town vehicles entering the site would have to use the main entry point, and take a left into the Credit Union/fueling area. The purpose of closing off the southern entrance was to prevent cars from cutting through the fueling area and out to Fort Hill, on the premise that a single point of entry at Fort Hill would be much safer. The permit, however, was never modified to reflect the revised plan.
At this point, Mr. Killory is requesting that the south entrance remain open, to facilitate operations for school buses and other Town vehicles. This option is what is currently shown on the approved Special Permit Plans for the Site, and in greater detail on a plan entitled “Conceptual Improvement Plan-DPW Facility and Athletic complex” prepared by Vanasse and dated November, 2005. Board members considered this matter and agreed that, at least until the fields became operational, there was no need to block off the southern entrance. Board members were very concerned, however, about the potential for cut through traffic once the fields became operation. Mr. Killory proposed the idea of a gate that could provide limited access for Town vehicles only, and Board members concurred. There was further discussion about the specific location of such gate, and the hours that the secondary access would be available.
It was moved, seconded, and SO VOTED, to recommend that the Zoning Board of Appeals amend their Decision of July 20, 2005 regarding the Hingham Department of Public Works Building to require that the ingress and egress to the DPW/Fields complex be completed generally as depicted on the final Special Permit plans dated April 6, 2006 and the Conceptual Improvement Plan of December 1, 2005 prepared by VAI. This recommendation is subject to the following conditions:
1. The entrance to the site from Fort Hill street located south of the former Credit Union Building, and the entrance to the Credit Union area from Bare Cove Park Drive shall be clearly designated and posted for use by municipal vehicles only.
2. At such time that the athletic fields become operational, this entrance shall be chained or gated from 4:00 PM to 6:00 AM on weekdays and all weekends.
3. Any further proposed revisions to the entrance sequence shall be submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board as minor modifications to the original Decision of July 20, 2006.
RE: Continuation of Zoning Hearing - Article D – Establish Site Plan Review Standards for Exempt Religious & Educational Uses
Mr. Innis, Advisory Committee liaison to the Planning Board, came before the Board briefly to discuss the status of Article D. At the last Advisory Committee hearing concerns were raised that
the article would give the Planning Board the authority to create new, broader review standards for exempt uses. Ms. Murphy explained that she had been in communication with Jerry
Seelen, the Board’s other liaison from the Advisory Committee, and that these issues had been resolved, so there was no need to revise Article D further.
Old/New Business
It was moved seconded and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present to accept the minutes of March 6, 2008.
Form A – 5 Heather Lane
It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED, to endorse the Form A plan entitled, “Plan Of Land Heather Lane Hingham, Massachusetts”, dated February 13, 2008, prepared by Grady Consulting, LLC, Kingston, MA for Stephen McCoy, 5 Heather Lane, Hingham, MA, applicant and owner, and Everett Lundgren, 14 Autumn Circle, Hingham, MA, Hingham Congregation of Jehovah Witnesses, Inc., 90 Ward Street, Hingham, MA, owners.
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Katharine Lacy
Town Planner