Scheduled:
7:00 PM 6 Station Street - Continuation of Site Plan /Special Permit A3 Hearing
Unscheduled: Old/New Business
_______________________
Present: Planning Board Members, Judy Sneath, Clerk, Paul Healey, Susan Murphy and Gary
Tondorf-Dick. Also present was Planner Katharine Lacy.
RE: 6 Station Street - Continuation of Site Plan /Special Permit A3 Hearing
Present for the Applicant, Margaret Walker, owner; Tom Pozerski, Merrill Associates; Tom Fuller, Landscape Architect; M.J. Shultz, Zoning Consultant; Doug Abend, Traffic Consultant, and Bonnie Hobbs, Building Designer
This was a continuation of a joint hearing with the Zoning Board of Appeals hearing initiated on October 6, 2008, and continued on November 17, 2008.
M.J. Shultz re-introduced the project team. She stated that at the last hearing on November 3, 2008 the two boards requested additional contextual information about the comparable size of the building relative to surrounding buildings, as well as revised floor plans and elevations.
Bonnie Hobbs, project architect, described the changes in the building plans since the last hearing. In summary, the overall building footprint had been reduced by 300+ feet, resulting in a reduction in finished floor area of 1000 sf. The exterior wall around the Biergartern was lowered in height with 5’10” posts and 4’8” fencing topped with vegetation.
In terms of capacity, the overall number of seats had been reduced to 185, which would include outdoor seating in the Biergarten. Rather than attempting to close off certain areas at the restaurant to accommodate seasonal seating changes, the Applicant had decided to literally purchase 185 seats, and move them inside or out as needed.
Peer Review Engineer John Chessia stated that, in general, the site engineering complied with Town and industry standards, though he identified a few outstanding items to be addressed by the Applicant. First, the Applicant needed to provide a letter from the Aquarion Water Company indicating that the Applicant had met the water balance requirements and that they could supply water for the project. Second, he noted that the Sewer Commission needed to be consulted as to whether they would require an outdoor grease trap for the kitchen facility, and, if so, to approve the design of such trap. Third, Mr. Chessia noted that when the building plans were complete, the final plans for the roof drain system needed to be reviewed to ensure that roof-run-off was being adequately handled. Mr. Chessia also asked if the Board of Health needed to approve the use of gray water and roof run-off for toilets. Ms. Shultz stated that she was under the impression that Board of Health approval was not required. Finally, Mr. Chessia noted that a final lighting plan must be submitted for review and approval of the Planning Board.
Tod McGrath asked about hours of operation, as well as times for deliveries and trash pick-up. Ms. Walker responded that deliveries and trash pick up would be coordinated so as not to overlap with peak dining, and to avoid potential conflicts between customer parking and restaurant operations.
Gary Tondorf-Dick inquired if the North Street windows were operable at the stage area. Concerns about mitigating noise from impacting residential neighbors were expressed. The applicant indicated that the windows were not operable.
Mr. Chessia identified a few issues relative to the on-site parking and circulation. Specifically, he noted that the turn-around appeared difficult to navigate, and noted that the handicapped space appeared to be too close to the doorway on Station Street. He also asked whether more than one handicapped space would be required in light of the number of spaces actually required (46), even though only 12 spaces were provided. Finally, he noted that the Zoning By-Law required one tree per every 10 parking spots, and while trees were located in the Biergarten, there were none in the parking area. Board members determined that they would address these parking related issues in the Special Permit A3.
Board members reviewed the Site Plan Criteria set forth in the Zoning By-Law in light of Mr.
Chessia’s comments.
It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED to approve the “Site Plan for Six Station Street”, prepared for 6 Station Street, LLC by Merrill Associates, dated October 23, 2008, with revisions
through November 8, 2008, subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant will provide, for the review and approval of the Planning Board and their peer review engineer:
a. a final set of project plans, stamped by a licensed civil engineer, including all revisions approved through November 8, 2008;
b. a final site lighting plan;
c. a letter from Aquarion Water indicating compliance with an Approved Water Balance Plan and indicating that that they will provide water for the project
d. a final roof-drain plan;
2. On an ongoing basis, the applicant will comply with all requirements set forth in the Construction-Phase and Post-Construction Phase Operation and Maintenance Plans dated November 18, 2008.
There was a brief discussion as to whether the ZBA could now close their hearing for the Special Permit A2. ZBA members noted that they needed to receive the actual Site Plan approval letter from the Planning Board before closing their hearing. They also noted that they really could not address the number of seats, and even hours of operation until the size of the parking waiver, and thus the maximum number of seats, had been determined.
The Boards switched their focus to the Applicant’s request for a parking waiver (Special Permit A3). Jeffrey Dirk of VAI reviewed the plans for compliance with Town and industry standards for safety and maneuverability relative to on and off-site traffic circulation. Based on this review, Mr. Dirk concluded that the site layout could really only accommodate 11 parking spaces, not twelve as shown. He also made the following two recommendations relative to off-site traffic safety:
1. A STOP sign and stop-line should be added to the Station Street Approach to North Street;
2. “No Stopping Any Time” signs should be installed along the Project frontage on North Street and along the east side of Station Street between North Street and the existing angled parking spaces situated opposite the Project site.
Board members concurred that such off-site changes should be addressed by the Selectmen.
Mr. Dirk reported that, based on the seat count, 46 parking spaces would be required, leaving a deficit of 35 parking spaces. The Applicant was requesting, therefore, a 75% reduction in the amount of required parking. The Applicant has made an arrangement with a neighboring business, Country Weddings, providing evening access to12 additional parking spaces. Because this arrangement could change should a new business move in, however, these 12 spaces could not be counted as on-site parking.
Mr. Dirk noted that based on the findings of the ongoing downtown parking studies, there appear to be 91 spaces available in the vicinity during the peak evening hour. The 35 spaces required to serve the Biergarten would amount to approximately 1/3 of the available off-street parking in this area.
Board members discussed the pros and cons of effectively “giving away” 30% of the available off street parking to one business, and wondered if this represented an appropriate share for this one property. M.J. Shultz made the point that it seemed silly to worry about potential future businesses, when there was no guarantee that they would ever materialize. Ms. Lacy referred to the finding required for an A3 Permit for parking waivers which state that: “The Planning Board may grant a Special Permit A-3 which provides relief from portions of these regulations if it finds that it is impractical to meet these standards, and that a waiver of these regulations will not result in or worsen traffic and traffic problems on the surrounding streets or adversely affect the value of abutting property.”
Mr. Richard Heapes, owner of the “Sub Galley” building across Station Street from the proposed restaurant, expressed concern about the impact of the new business on the use of the eight parking spaces in front of his building, which currently provide short-term parking for the five
businesses located in the building, noting that without the parking, the businesses could not succeed. He asked whether it would be possible to ensure somehow that some of these spaces be
posted for 15 minutes only so that they could continue to provide short-term parking for customers at the Sub Galley and the dry cleaners. Board members and the applicant concurred that this was an issues that needed to be addressed by the Selectmen.
The Applicant’s traffic consultant, Mike Abend, pointed out that unless changes were made to the time limits for the parking spaces in front of the Sub Galley building, Biergarten customers would overwhelm this strip of parking spaces no matter how large or small a waiver were granted. Because of this, he felt that the question of how to regulate these parking spaces, and the request for a parking waiver for 6 Station Street were really distinct issues. The board instructed Ms. Lacy to meet with the Selectmen at their earliest convenience and ask them whether they would be willing to vote in changes to Town parking policies to protect these spaces for short-term parking.
North Street residential abutters Louise Montillio and Bill Ramsey expressed concern regarding the impact of this project on their quality of life and property values. They both stated that they were not opposed to the concept of a restaurant at this location, and were fully aware of such a possibility when they moved into a commercial district, but noted that, as proposed, the Biergarten seemed too big. They expressed concern about potential levels of noise, light and traffic.
Ms. Murphy stated that, in light of these abutter concerns, she did not feel comfortable approving a waiver of this magnitude until the Board had a clear sense of whether these concerns could be adequately addressed. She discussed the possibility of a meeting between the police, abutters and the applicant to develop strategies to address potential negative impacts.
The Applicant and their team took a brief recess. On their return, M.J. Shultz and Margaret Walker expressed their frustration at the amount of time that this approval was taking. Tod pointed out that, although the applicant had, indeed, been working with the Town for several months, this particular application had not been before the Boards for that long. Further, the plan had changed during the course of the hearing.
Paul Healey and Judy Sneath pointed out that the 6 Station Street location is difficult in that, unlike Tosca, this site has immediate residential abutters. Judy Sneath noted that, as a resident downtown she feels that she and her neighbors are accustomed to a certain level of activity associated with the downtown businesses, but that it is a fine line between benign activity and negative impacts. Ms. Sneath went on to say that it seemed to her that the proposed restaurant was still too large. She did not understand why it was so critical that the restaurant include 185 seats to be financially viable when Tosca Café, the Square Café, Stars and the Liberty Grill to all operate successfully with no more than 120 seats.
Joe Freeman of the ZBA concurred that the ZBA would need to consider abutter concerns carefully in order to balance their needs with the needs of the restaurant.
The hearing was continued to Monday, December 8 at 7:00 PM.
RE: Old/New Business
Minutes
It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present to accept the minutes of November 17, 2008.
2. Preliminary Discussion of Proposed CVS at Building L and M Site
Ms. Lacy reported that following the meeting with the working group last week, Samuels submitted a preliminary plan to locate a CVS at the location where the Kindercare and TD Bank were to be located, after both businesses pulled out of their agreements with the developer. Leslie Cohen of Samuels Associates had asked Ms. Lacy and Sue Eddy of the Zoning Board of Appeals to show this plan to their respective boards to determine if it was even worth it for them to submit an application to allow for this modification. At their meeting on November 17, working group members had concurred with Samuels that, while not ideal, a CVS in this location would be convenient for residents and commuters in this location. Though exact impacts on
traffic volume have not yet been determined, they have sufficient parking for the size of the
building (64 feet), and the pedestrian safety issues stemming from the mix of uses (daycare/bank) would not be an issue.
Board members reviewed the proposed plan and noted that, ideally, the CVS structure would be
located in the corner of the site adjacent to Route 3A and Shipyard Drive, with the parking and drive-thru located around the rest of the building. Tod McGrath of the ZBA pointed out that there is a significant drop in topography from 3A into the site, which, with landscaping would effectively screen views of parked cars from the public way. Board members present took a straw poll, and voted 3 out of 4 that they would be willing to consider this modification, and encouraged Samuels to submit an application.
3. Continuation of Discussion of Proposed Zoning Articles for 2009 Town Meeting
Board members continued to discuss potential zoning articles for inclusion on the 2009 Town Meeting warrant. The Board decided to send one more article to the Selectmen in addition to the five articles submitted on November 12, 2008 and the three submitted on November 17, 2008. A decision was made not to proceed with a proposed article to prevent historic stone walls from being dismantled and removed from private properties.
ARTICLE N: Will the Town amend the Zoning By-Law of the Town of Hingham, adopted March 10, 1941, as heretofore amended, as follows:
To amend Section III-G and V-A as needed to modify the off-street parking requirements in the Downtown Overlay District; or act on anything related thereto?
Submitted by the Hingham Planning Board
4. Proposed Zoning By-Law to Allow Wind Facilities
Pam Harty of the Hingham Energy Action Committee came before the Board to discuss a proposed zoning by-law to provide for the creation of larger scale wind power facilities. Ms. Harty reported that they have been working with the Hingham Municipal Light Plan on collecting wind data at the Hingham Landfill to determine the viability of placing a wind turbine at this or other location. At this point the committee does not have a specific by-law drafted, though it is in possession of two model by-laws. Pam’s goal for the meeting was to ask the Board if now is a good time to get such a by-law in front of the community, so that if the wind data show that it is viable (at the end of February), a developer (HMLP or another party) could proceed with the installation of a wind turbine.
Board members expressed appreciation for the work done to date by the wind energy subcommittee of the Energy Action Committee (EAC), but also expressed concern that it was late in the year to be developing such a complex and potentially controversial article. Board members noted that, in light of the fact that the data collection was not even complete, and the financial pros and cons had not yet been worked out, that it would be a better idea to hold off on submitting the article for another year. Board members concurred that the truly challenging aspect of this article was not the technical specifications of the turbines, but exactly where they would be permitted, citing opposition already expressed by Hingham residents towards views of the Hull Turbine.
Jerry Seelen and Richard Innis of the Advisory Committee were also present for this discussion, and confirmed that it would be very hard to get the article approved until all data had been collected, and the pros and cons had been very clearly articulated.
Board members noted that it might be a good idea to submit a general warrant article asking Town Meeting to approve the creation of creating a wind energy committee, or, alternatively, mandating the EAC to develop a comprehensive implementation plan for wind energy, in which they would figure out zoning, financing and any other relevant issues. In this way the EAC would have another year to do more planning, and to get the Advisory Committee familiar with the issues and on board.
Board members agreed to work with Ms. Harty and her committee over the next year to assist in the preparation of a zoning by-law for the 2010 Town Meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 10:20 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Katharine Lacy, Town Planner