Minutes Monday, March 30, 2008
Regular Meeting
Planning Board Agenda for Monday, March 30, 2008
7:00 PM 26 Summer Street
Continuation of Public Hearing on Site Plan Review and Special Permit A3
8:00 PM Continuation of Public Hearing on the Proposed 40R District
________________________
Present: Planning Board Members, Paul Healey, Chair, Sarah Corey, Clerk, Susan Murphy,
and Gary Tondorf-Dick. Also present was Planner Katharine Lacy.
RE: 26 Summer Street Continuation of Public Hearing on Site Plan Review and Special Permit A3
Present for the Applicant: Tom Hastings, Owner and Applicant and Bruce Issadore, Attorney
Paul Healey announced that this is the continuation of the hearing on the application of Hingham Boat Yard, LLC for 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. The deadline for the completion of Site Plan Review is April 1, 2008. The Board will be making two separate votes at the close of the hearing: one for Site Plan Approval, and one for the Special Permit A3 (parking waiver).Mr. Healey noted that the Board will be represented by Attorney Adam Costa of Blatman, Bobrowski & Mead, LLC.
Paul Healey read into the record several letters that had been received by the Board, including a letter from the Hingham Fire Department indicating that they were satisfied with the plan.
Mr. Hastings provided the Town with a photometric plan as requested.
Mr. Tondorf-Dick expressed his continued concern that the Fire Department would not be able to get emergency equipment around the building due to the narrow width (12’) of the site drive. He noted that his concern was whether emergency access equipment could access not just the building, but the marina area. Mr. Hastings provided many examples of pre-existing structures in Town where emergency access equipment could not access all sides of the building.
Mr. Healey noted that at previous hearings the Board had reviewed the plan’s compliance with all of the Site Plan Review Criteria with the exception of Criteria C, which addresses sufficiency of parking. Board members referred to the Off-Street Parking Regulations set forth in Section V-A of the Hingham Zoning By-Law, with the goal of pinning down exactly how many parking spaces were required, how many were provided, and identifying the percentage of parking spaces that they would be willing to waive.
Board members spent a certain amount of time trying to determine exactly how much area in the building would be used for which kind of use. The total building is 8622 square feet. Mr. Hastings noted that not all of the building was usable spaces, such as the lobby, bathroom, etc. All of this area would be open to the public. After a long discussion, it was determined that the building would include 4353 square feet on the ground floor, and 4269 on the second floor. All of the second floor would be calculated at 3.5 parking spaces per 1000 square feet for a total of 15 spaces. If all of the first floor were programmed for retail use, that would require 22 spaces. The 46 slips would require 23 spaces. Board members concluded that the total number of spaces required would be 60. Mr. Hastings was proposing to provide 26 spaces, which was more than a 100% reduction in the required parking.
Mr. Hastings argued that much of the gross floor was not, in fact, usable space. Board members concurred that the By-Law require that parking requirements be determined by gross floor area, not usable floor area.
There was a long discussion regarding the Chapter 91 License’s requirement for 2140 square feet of public accommodation on the ground floor, and how this might affect the parking requirements. Board members reviewed the Chapter 91 regulations setting forth “facilities of private tenancy” versus “facilities of Public accommodation” and concluded that retail uses or certain businesses would comply with the definition of “public accommodation.”
Mr. Hastings made the case that each marina, and each use in Town, had to be considered on an individual basis. Ms. Murphy noted that in the case of the Shipyard and 3 Otis Street the applicants’ were held to a standard of 1 parking space per 2 spaces.
Ms. Murphy noted that 8 of the parking spaces had to be reserved for the Marina use per the Chapter 91 License, and thus could not be included in a shared parking analysis. Mr. Hastings disagreed with this point.
Bruce Issadore asked for a waiver based on evidence supporting the finding set forth in the by-law that such waiver have no negative impacts on adjacent streets or parking.
Neil Martin, former architect for the project, noted that the Planning Board needed to consider what was the best use for the harbor. Ms. Murphy noted that the Board was not, in fact, being charged with planning the harbor, but applying the zoning by-law to determine compliance.
Tom pointed out that the Board had, in 2003, provided a positive recommendation for the project. Ms. Murphy noted that a variety of circumstances had changed since that time.
Several members of the audience expressed support for the project, including Neil Martin, the original architect for the building; Linda O’Neal, former Planning Board member; Linda Grandy, business owner; Bob Falvey, resident. One of the major points made by the public was that it would be a real advantage to the Town to have a public restroom on the Harbor.
Bruce Issadore argued that he felt it did not make sense that Town Parking lots could not be used by Town businesses. Ms. Murphy pointed out that there was a distinction between businesses that served the general public (such as a store or restaurant) and a private marina.
Sue Sullivan noted that there actually were concerns relative to the potential overuse of the public lots, even though at this point from now it may seem that there is plenty of Town parking available. She pointed out that the applicant’s calculations seemed reasonable on first blush, but that if the office use were something more intensive such as a real estate office. She said that she would prefer if the ground floor was used for retail rather than office use, to provide additional public access.
Ms. Grandy noted that she felt that relatively unregulated parking was what made Downtown Hingham vital and attractive.
Tod McGrath made the point that frequently boats used more than one parking space per berth, such as when a couple brought two cars or a boat owner hosted guests.
Board members and Mr. Hastings had a long discussion of whether they could require office tenants to hold slip leases. Board members concurred that this would be very difficult to enforce, and also did not seem to comply with the requirements of Chapter 91.
Mr. Hastings noted that he would be willing to guarantee that there was sufficient parking for all of the uses on the site, would agree to a condition that if, after a certain amount of time, it appeared that there was not enough parking, he would remove boat slips as needed.
Board members moved to close the hearing and commenced their deliberation.
Board members noted that the By-Law allows the Board to automatically allow a 10% reduction for shared uses. Additionally, other marinas in town had been given a 20% reduction. If this were applied, the current project would require approximately 47 parking spaces, and only 26 were provided. Ms. Murphy noted that she felt that a certain amount of reduction was appropriate due to the justifications set forth by Mr. Hastings of seasonal fluctuations, concurrent uses, and actual use patterns. Ms. Corey noted that she would not feel comfortable allowing a reduction of more than 20%. Gary Tondorf-Dick noted that he had come out to a similar calculation based on alternations to the program for the site. Gary Tondorf-Dick asked if Mr. Hastings would be willing to reduce the size of the building to 6,000 square feet, but continue to provide 46 slips. Mr. Hastings said that he was not willing to reduce the size of the building.
It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present to issue a Special Permit A-3 for the Project subject to the following condition:
The applicant shall provide at least 80% of the number of parking spaces required in the off-street parking regulations set forth in section V-A of the Zoning By-Law for whatever uses are ultimately approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals for the site.
It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present to approve the Site Plan subject to the following conditions
• The applicant shall provide at least 80% of the number of parking spaces required in the off-street parking regulations set forth in section V-A of the Zoning By-Law for whatever uses are approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals for the site.
• The parking spaces shown on the plan as “Marina Loading Space” shall be designated as a general loading space.
• Site lighting will be provided as shown on the plan. In addition, the applicant shall further illuminate the drive aisle with the provision of soffit lighting at the building eaves at the corners and low wattage lighting at the boardwalk site top railing.
• Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant will provide a photometric site lighting plan to the Planning Board for review.
• No fencing will be installed to block views into the site; perimeter planting screens shall not exceed four feet in height
• The internal site drive will be posted as Fire Lanes, and no parking shall be permitted.
• The Site Drive around the building will be marked “One Way” in a counter-clockwise pattern around the building.
• The site exit at Route 3A will be marked “No Left Turn”.
• All site signage will be installed prior to the issuance of an Occupancy permit.
• Landscaping pavers (to match the pavers adjacent to the Boardwalk) will be provided for 4’ on either side of the entry drive.
• The properties southern and western lot lines will be marked with a 4’ hedge.
• Plantings area will be provided along western and southern side yards as shown on the plans.
• No dumpsters will be permitted on site
• Wooden lined trash cans will be provided at the rest room and at the perimeter corners of the boardwalk for litter control.
• Compliance with the Conservation Commissions Order of Conditions
• Compliance with DEP Conditions relative to public access to the public restroom, site and boardwalk
RE: Continuation of Public Hearing on the Proposed 40R District
Judy Sneath joined the Board at this time.
Jim O’Brien, and various members of the Housing Partnership came before the Board to continue the discussion of the proposed amendment to the zoning By-law to create a 40R District. Attorney Adam Costa was assisting the Housing Trust. Advisory members Committee members Jerry Seelen and Richard Innes were also present.
Susan Murphy noted that the Zoning article still needed to include a specific item to amend the zoning map.
Board members discussed the issue of whether there were still funds available from the state for the incentive payment. Gary Tondorf-Dick noted that he has heard that the Medfield Planning Board has been told that there are no funds available. Adam Costa and Jim O’Brien responded that it was their understanding that there were still 15 million dollars available for incentive payments to municipalities from DHCD.
Board members structured their discussion by starting to read the actual by-law line by line, while also addressing concerns set forth in a memo prepared by Jerry Seelen dated March 31, and included in the Planning Board files. Jim O’Brien asked whether the By-Law could be modified to allow for the inclusion of single-family residences, and Adam Costa concluded that it could. Board members completed review of three pages of the 15-page by-law.
The hearing was continued to 7:30 PM on April 7.
Old/New Business
7 Miles Road-Form A
It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED, to endorse the Form A entitled “Plan of Land, 17 Miles Road, Hingham, MA” prepared by Neil J. Murphy, Associates for Sandra L. Pollock March 31, 2008.”
The purpose of the Form A was to relocate an internal lot line separating Map 49, Lot 70 and Lot 49, Lot 75.
Samuels and Associates
Leslie Cohen came before the Board for a preliminary discussion about a proposed change to Building A, which is shown on the approved Shipyard plans at the entry to the site on the northwest corner of Shipyard Drive. This building was originally planned as the site for several small retail and dinning establishments. At this point, however, the developer is negotiating with a drugstore chain who is very interested in this location. Ms. Cohen explained that, due to the poor economic conditions at this time, only 50% of the commercial development was leased, which was behind where they had wanted to be at this point in time for their planned Spring 2009 opening. The drugstore would provide an important anchor, which would, in turn provide reassurance to other potential tenants.
Ms. Cohen presented a draft sketch showing Building A as slightly shortened, with a small parking area directly on Shipyard Drive to the North, and a drive through at the rear. A loading dock was shown on the southern side of the building adjacent to 3A. Board members expressed concern that the placement of a large pharmacy at the entry to the site would diminish the village-like feel of the streetscape. Ms. Murphy pointed out that it was not legally the Planning Board’s role to determine the use of the individual building, but that they could impose Site Plan Review conditions so that the building would maintain an appearance similar to what was originally approved. Board members concurred that the parking lot fronting on Shipyard Drive looked unattractive and created a gap in the continuity of the street. Additionally, they wanted the loading dock on 3A to be screened. Ms. Cohen said that there were no plans for dramatic changes to the appearance of the building, and that she would work with the architects and landscape architects to create an attractive plan which included screening or walls to block the parking and continue the original plan of the buildings, not parking on the streetscape. Board members told Ms. Cohen to come back when a revised plan was prepared.
The Meeting was adjourned at 11:20 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Katharine Lacy
Town Planner