Minutes Monday, January 5, 2009
Regular Meeting
Planning Board Agenda for Monday, January 5, 2009
Scheduled:
7:00 PM Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to the Zoning By-Law
8:00 PM Samuels & Assoc., Hingham Shipyard Modification to Site Plan and Special Permit A3 for proposed CVS Pharmacy
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: Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to the Zoning By-Law
Board members provided a brief overview of all of the following proposed articles; identified which Board member would be in charge of tracking the progress of the article through the amendment process, and set a schedule for zoning hearings. This was followed by the initial discussion of five of the proposed articles. The Board was joined by Jerry Seelen and Richard Innis of the Advisory Committee, along with several members of the public.
Proposed Schedule for Zoning Hearings and Assigned Board Members
January 5 7:00 PM
Article A Rezone Land in Bare Cove Park from Waterfront Recreation to Official and Open Space Susan Murphy
Article B Modify Section III-A 1.8.7 to permit accessory uses in attached garages
Paul Healey
Article C Remove Definition of Planned Unit Development
Judy Sneath
Article D Amend Section III-A 4.12 to allow private gyms in Industrial Districts with A2 Judy Sneath
Article F Clarify FAR Requirements in South Hingham Overlay District-Paul Healey
January 26 7:30 PM
Article J Rezone Land in Office Park District to Industrial Park District-Paul Healey
Article K Rezone a Parcel of Land from Residence District C to Industrial Park District Paul Healey
Article L To Permit Additional Uses to the Industrial Park District with a Special Permit A2 Paul Healey
Article M To Rezone Land In Residence District B To Business District B
Gary Tondorf-Dick
February 2 7:30 PM
Article I Rezone Former Police Station from Business B to Residence A
Sarah Corey
Article E Prohibit Certain Ground-Floor Uses in the Downtown Overlay District
Judy Sneath and Susan Murphy
Article N Modify Off-Street Parking Requirements in Downtown Overlay District
Judy Sneath and Susan Murphy
February 9 7:00 PM
Article G Regulations for Outdoor Lighting
Gary Tondorf-Dick
Article H Modifications to Section IV-D (FRD)
Gary Tondorf-Dick
Board members moved on to discuss the following five individual articles:
ARTICLE A Rezone Land in Bare Cove Park from Waterfront Business to Official and Open Space and Remove Waterfront Recreation District
This article would rezone approximately 11.5 acres located in Bare Cove Park from Waterfront Recreation to Official and Open Space. The Waterfront Recreation District was created by a vote
of Town Meeting in 1971, with the intention of allowing for the creation of privately developed marina facilities at the former location of the Navy Pier fronting in the Back River. This District was created as part of an overall land use planning effort undertaken by the Town for the U.S.
Ammunition Depot in preparation for the disposition of the land by the Federal Government following the end of military activity.
In 1973, this land (and the rest of the 470-acre Bare Cove Park) was given to the Town of Hingham, as part of the United States’ Government’s “Legacy of Parks” program on the
condition that the land be used for recreational and parks purposes. In 1977, much of the park area surrounding the Waterfront Business District (including a portion of the Waterfront Recreation District) was re-zoned Official and Open Space. In 1982 Bare Cove Park and Weymouth Back River were declared an Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the park was declared a Wildlife Refuge in 1987.
In light of Bare Cove’s current status as a park and Wildlife Refuge, former members of the Bare Cove Park Committee determined that the current zoning no longer makes sense, and it would make more sense to re-zone this area as Official and Open Space like the rest of the surrounding park.
Ms. Murphy noted that it was important to try to determine the actual metes and bounds of the parcel in question for the warrant article. Ms. Lacy noted that she would pursue this.
Jim O’Hare of the Bare Cove Park Committee noted that they had had not yet voted on this articles, and were unsure of the ramifications such as restricting potential future uses. A resident of Beals Cove noted that it seemed to her that it might be a good idea to retain the current zoning, as it would allow for a commercial boating or marina facility in this area. Board members expressed concerns about commercial uses that would result in cars and trucks being present in the park. Planning Board members noted that there was no need to push this article forward this year if the Committee has reservations. Ms. Lacy noted that she was scheduled to meet with the Bare Cove Park Committee on Monday January 12 to discuss the article further. Discussion of the article was continued to 9:00 PM January 14.
ARTICLE B: Modify Section III-A 1.8.7 to permit accessory uses in attached garages (now allowed in detached garages/barns)
In 2004, Town Meeting voted affirmatively on Article 26, which was intended to allow residents to more fully use accessory buildings on their property for any use that could customarily occur within the house itself, such as home offices, workshops, artist studios, living rooms, eating areas, cooking facilities and sanitary facilities so long as in combination these uses do not create a detached dwelling unit with complete living facilities. This article would clarify that such residential uses can occur not merely in detached structures such as barns or outbuildings, but that homeowners can also modify attached accessory structures (such as a garage) to accommodate residential uses. This would apply to all conforming and grandfathered non-conforming properties. Currently, however, if an attached garage is located in the setback, the Building Commissioner requires a variance to allow renovation of the unheated garage space for use as living space.
Board members reviewed this article, and wondered whether it wouldn’t be more effective to suggest a modification of Section III-I 2 (a) which states that “Accessory uses may be located in any area contained within a non-conforming residential building (whether primary or accessory) existing as of April 26, 2004,” to clarify that this would pertain to attached garages. Ms. Murphy instructed Ms. Lacy to re-advertise this hearing accordingly.
The hearing on this article was continued to January 26.
ARTICLE C: Remove Definition of Planned Unit Development
Article 30 of the 2004 Town Meeting eliminated the provision for the development of Planned Unit Developments (PUD’s) in Residence E. Inadvertently, the definition for PUD’s was left in Section VI (Definitions). This article would remove the definition, which could cause confusion by referring to something that is not mentioned elsewhere in the By-law. Subject to a final search of the zoning by-law to make sure that the term does not occur in other locations, board members voted to provide a favorable recommendation for this article as written:
“Will the Town amend the Zoning By-Law of the Town of Hingham, adopted March 10, 1941, as heretofore amended, as follows:
At Section VI (Definitions) remove, in its entirety, the definition for Planned Unit Development, or act on anything related thereto?
Submitted by the Hingham Planning Board
ARTICLE D Amend Section III-A 4.12 to allow private gyms in Industrial, Limited Industrial, and Industrial Park Districts with a Special Permit.
Currently, athletic clubs and private gyms are prohibited in the Industrial, Limited Industrial and Industrial Park zoning districts. To date, however, the Zoning Board of Appeals has granted at
least three use variances permitting a gym use in an industrial district. Rather than prohibit such uses outright, therefore, this article would allow indoor recreational facilities with a Special Permit A2 from the Zoning Board of Appeals with Site Plan Review by the Planning Board.
Board members reviewed the proposed By-law, and noted that the language used at Section 4.12 “Commercial indoor amusement or recreation place or place of assembly” did not sound quite right for gyms. She also wondered whether an unintended consequence of this article would be to allow things like an arcade to be built in industrial districts. Ms. Murphy suggested that it might be more appropriate to define a gym under Section III-A 4.2, “Commercial service establishment.” Mr. Seelen noted that he thought that the current designation under 4.12 was more appropriate. The hearing on this article was continued to January 26.
ARTICLE F: Clarify FAR Requirements in South Hingham Overlay District
This is a housekeeping article intended to clarify the floor area ratio requirements for uses within the South Hingham Overlay District in which the underlying zoning is “Office Park”. This will not result in a change to the requirement, simply a clarification. Board members voted to recommend that Town meeting approve the article as follows:
RECOMMENDED: That the Town amend the Zoning By-Law of the Town of Hingham, adopted March 10, 1941, as heretofore amended, as follows:
At Section III-E, South Hingham Development Overlay District, Subsection 5 (c), delete the second paragraph titled “Section IV-A” in its entirety, and replace with the following:
“Section IV-A
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): For office use (as described in Section III-A 4.10) an FAR of 0.25 is permitted as-of-right, and up to 0.45 by Special Permit A2. For all other uses an FAR of 0.35 is permitted as-of-right, and up to 0.45 by Special Permit A2.
Maximum Height: Forty-eight (48) feet, but not more than four stories.”
RE: Samuels & Assoc., Hingham Shipyard Modification to Site Plan and Special Permit A3 for proposed CVS Pharmacy
Samuels and Associates is requesting a modification to the approved Special Permit plans to replace the bank and daycare uses at Building L and M with a 11,700 sf drive thru pharmacy. Ms. Murphy reported that Samuels and Associates had requested that this hearing be continued so that the Town’s traffic consultant, Jeff Dirk, could review the plans.
It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED, to continue this hearing to Wednesday, January 14 at 7:00 PM.
Old/New Business
Minutes/Bills
It was moved seconded, and SO VOTED, unanimously by those present to accept the minutes of December 15 and December 29, 2008.
The bill from Vanasse & Associates, Inc. for services from November 9, 2008 to December 6, 2008 for the downtown parking study was approved for payment.
Eric Brasier-Preliminary Discussion of Proposed Subdivision off Tower Road
Mr. Braiser came before the board seeking input on two potential development scenarios for a 5-6 acre parcel at the very end of Tower Road in Residence District B. Mr. Brasier does not own the land, but he is doing due diligence before pursuing its purchase. One development scenario would result in the creation of two new house lots off a very short subdivision roadway lots, and the other would be a five-lot subdivision arranged around a 220’ cul-de-sac. Both would require extending an existing subdivision roadway (Tower Road) to a length greater than 800’, which
would require a waiver from Section 4 (4) (a) of the Rules and Regulations regarding dead-end roads.
Board members reviewed the schematic plans. The land in question is currently part of an
approximately 6-acre parcel of land at 85 Tower Road owned by Mr. Victor Nosiglia. Ms. Murphy pointed out that both schemes resulted in an insufficient side setback for the existing home at 85 Tower Road, which would have to be corrected. Board members noted that Tower
Road was quite narrow, and might not be in good enough condition to endure the additional traffic resulting from the new homes.
Mr. Brasier pointed out a few examples where roadways far exceeded the 800’ dead-end maximum, including the nearby WhitcombAve/Grist Mill Lane, River/Plymouth Road (off Cushing), which were approved in an earlier era.
Paul Healey noted that the waiver that would be required for the length of the roadway had only rarely granted by the Board in recent years and only if provisions were made for secondary access sufficient for emergency services. For example, the Board did waive this maximum length provision in recent years for Commerce Road extension, and Baker Hill Drive, but only with fairly elaborate provisions for emergency access. Mr. Healey also expressed concern about the narrow and winding character of the roadway, and the difficulties the existing topography could present for site distances at the intersection of the new roadway with Tower Road.
Ms. Lacy noted that Captain Damstra drove out to take a look at this location this afternoon, and discussed it with the Fire Chief, and neither one had major objections to the proposal, though they would like to make sure that any new development would require a new and needed hydrant at that end of Tower Road.
Mr. Brasier noted that he was looking into developing smaller, 2-3 bedroom homes, and wondered whether wondered whether the Town’s goal of creating moderate-sized housing as expressed in the FRD By-Law would help in the approval process. Board members pointed out that even with an FRD the project would add a new roadway and new homes at the end of an already very long dead-end roadway.
Mr. Brasier also discussed the possibility of someone developing a 40B on this site, and noted that a traditional subdivision would be preferable. Board members responded that they did not think this was likely.
The meeting adjourned at 9:50 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Katharine Lacy
Town Planner