7:00 Site Plan Review, 128 Derby Street, Best Chevrolet
7:30 Derby Street Shoppes-Site Plan Review for Chipotle Mexican Grill
Old/New Business
_____________
Present: Planning Board Members, Chair, Judy Sneath, Clerk, Paul Healey, Sarah Corey,
Susan Murphy, and Gary Tondorf-Dick. Also present was Planner Katharine Lacy.
(Ms. Murphy did not participate in this first hearing)
7:00 Site Plan Review for expansion to Best Chevrolet, 128 Derby Street
Present for the Applicant: Jeff Tocchio, Attorney; Jerry Seelen, Roth and Seelen Architects; Kelly Killeen; Coler and Colantonio. John Chessia of Chessia Consulting provided peer review services for the Town.
The 6.6 acre site is located on the south side of Derby Street and abuts the Southeast Expressway. Approximately 1.3 acres of land is leased from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for parking/car storage. Wetlands abut the site on the westerly side. The proposed project is outside of the jurisdictional buffer zone to the wetlands. The site is currently developed with an auto dealership.
The Applicant seeks Site Plan Review in association with the issuance of a Building Permit for a 12,400 s.f. service and storage addition proposed for the South (rear) side of the building. The Applicant also requested a waiver from Site Plan Review submittal requirements relative to lighting, traffic, landscaping and refuse storage on the argument that these things will not be affected.
Automobile Sales and Service is a fully permitted use in the Industrial Park District, though Section III-A (5.3) requires Site Plan Review in accordance with Section I-I. For earlier applications submitted by Best Chevrolet, Site Plan “approval” was issued by the ZBA based on a non-binding recommendation from the Planning Board. While the By-Law does not include a specific parking requirement for Automobile Sales and Service, previous Site Plan Review decisions for Best Chevrolet calculated parking based on the requirements for the various component uses (retail, storage, etc.).
In terms of grading, the project is limited to the existing parking lot area to the south of the building, with improvements intended to accommodate the addition and aid with drainage. No new impervious surface is proposed. The project will not significantly alter existing drainage pattern. Roof drainage and the new paved area will both drain into an enlarged recharge system with leaching galleys sized based on DEP recharge storage requirements, redirecting run-off that formerly flowed uncontrollably into the wetlands to the west of the site. Mr. Chessia pointed out that it is unclear if this system will handle larger storm runoff and it is likely that a puddle will form at the catch basin near the southeast corner of the building in large storm events.
Mr. Healey asked how potential overflows of this system would be handled. Mr. Killeen responded that the infiltration system will need to be cleaned regularly to ensure that it is working properly.
Mr. Tocchio explained that they were in the process of seeking approval from the Board of Health for any modifications to the septic system that might be necessary, though it appeared that the existing system, dating from 2004, was more than sufficient to accommodate the addition.
Board members asked several questions about the proposed addition, as well as existing site conditions and operations. Mr. Tocchio explained that the current business operation, whereby all customers enter at a central location at the front of the building and then directed to the appropriate use, will not change; they do not anticipate customers ever driving around the back of the building. Gary Tondorf-Dick expressed particular concern about the existing paved area adjacent to the building at the northwestern corner of the site, which is characterized by oil and debris which appear to be draining into the adjacent state-owned wetlands. Mr. Tocchio noted that they were currently in the process of Amending the Order of Conditions for the entire site (John, is this right, or was it just the Order of Conditions for the State-owned land?), and could perhaps address this issue at that time. Mr. Tondorf-Dick asked whether the addition would result in additional light impacts. Mr. Tocchio noted that no new standing lights would be added and, in fact, a light could be removed. In addition there will be low-cut-off building mounted lights on the addition itself, though they will be facing the highway and should have no impacts on abutters.
Sarah Corey asked whether the applicant could provide additional landscaping on the front of the building. Mr. Tocchio noted that the site landscaping was entirely revised with the expansion in 2004. Paul Healey expressed concern that additional landscaping could result in safety concerns in that the dealership would be less visible, and thus less secure, from Derby Street.
It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED to waive the submittal requirement for detailed information on lighting, landscaping, and refuse removal per I-I 4 (d).
It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED to approve the Site Plan entitled “Best Chevrolet Proposed Building Addition Site Plan” prepared by Coler and Colantonio, dated August 26, 2009 and consisting of seven sheets, located at 128 Derby Street, subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall provide the Town with a copy of a NPDES Construction Permit.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the plans shall be modified so that the areas labeled “Gravel Storage Lot” coincide with their actual location.
3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the plans shall be modified to show 1) (and provide details for) a properly-sized oil/grit separator upstream from the infiltration system, 2) locations where the proposed trench drains discharge.
4. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the Operations and Maintenance Plan shall be modified as follows:
o Street sweeping to obtain 5% credit should be performed by the Owner not the Town. In addition, the type of sweeper should be specified and a vacuum sweeper should be used quarterly at a minimum. A mechanical sweeper should be used monthly.
o Snow Storage should not reference the Town removing excess snow.
o The plans should identify where the Oil/Grit separator is located and a detail provided, or if an alternative system is used the location and details for that system should be provided.
o It is unclear if the Inspection & Maintenance Matrix is for the entire site. In any case only the specific BMP’s used should be included in the Matrix. A plan shall be provided labels the location of various BMP’s to assist with maintenance. Inspection and maintenance frequency should comply with DEP guidelines.
5. Prior to the commencement of construction, a test pit shall be dug confirming the presence of suitable soils in the proposed location of the infiltration system as noted on the plans.
6. The Applicant shall, as part of their application to the Conservation Commission for an Amendment to the Order of Conditions. Investigate reasonable efforts to tie in the paved service area on the western side of the building to the overall stormwater management system.
7:30 Site Plan Review, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Derby Street Shoppes
Robert Frasier and Carolyn Kennedy of W.S. Weiner came before the Board seeking Site Plan approval in association with the issuance of building permit for a tenant fit-up of the former Baja Fresh Restaurant at 92 Derby Street to accommodate Chipotle Mexican Grill. The Planning Board has customarily waived the requirement for Site Plan review for tenant fit-ups with no exterior impacts. In the course of the recent Site Plan Review process for the Summer Shack Restaurant (also located at Derby Street Shoppes) however, it was discovered the number of seats at Panera and Rustic Kitchen exceeded what was allowed by their lease agreement, which, in turn, resulted in a potential violation of the parking requirements set forth in the Special Permit. Because of this situation, the recent Site Plan approval for Summer Shack includes a condition that, prior to sign-off on the building permit application for Chipotle, the applicant must come back to the Board to reassess the parking situation.
The Board had a frank discussion with Ms. Kennedy, who reassured them that the excess outdoor seating had been addressed. She also noted that from this point onwards the management company would be checking twice a year to make sure that this did not happen again. The Board also instructed Ms. Lacy to ask the Building Department if they could take into account the maximum seating limits when they do their annual certification relative to maximum occupancy.
It was moved, seconded, and SO VOTED to waive the requirement for Site Plan review relative to all aspects of the project with the exception of Criteria C, parking. It was further moved to APPROVE the proposed Site Plan on the condition that the Applicant and the Town building department would provide an annual certification that the number of restaurant seats did not exceed the permitted maximum.
Old/New Business
Minutes/Bills
The Board reviewed the minutes of July 20 and August 17, 2009.
Response to Sewer Commission re: Oakwood Circle Development
Board members discussed a letter sent on behalf of the Sewer Commission seeking input from all land use boards on a proposal put forth by Chris Dubois (resident of Oakwood Circle) and his consultant Tyler Langlois for the development of five Form A lots on the land formerly owned by David Chase on Route 3A (roughly across from Brewer Meadows).The project can only proceed with access to sewer. At this point, however, all of the capacity with the Hull Treatment Plant purchased at the time of the Intermunicipal Agreement (IMA) between Hingham and Hull has been allocated. Therefore, any further additions to the district will require that the developer purchase adequate additional capacity from Hull and that the Selectmen agree to amend the existing IMA or create a new one.
Board members reviewed the proposed plan, which shows four irregularly shaped new lots with frontage on Route 3A, but access from a common drive stemming from Oakwood Circle. A fifth lot, which will be donated to Habitat for Humanity, appears to have access from Ledgewood Circle. In summary, Board members voted to respond to the Sewer Commission’s request for input with a recommendation that the Sewer Commission and Selectmen NOT support the proposed sewer expansion, based on the following reasons:
1. The Board does not support the incremental expansion of Town sewer.
2. The fact that this development would be done as individual Form A lots rather than as a Subdivision would preclude the Town’s right to place appropriate conditions on the development to ameliorate its effects on abutting properties and roadways. Conditions such as screening or traffic safety measures cannot be imposed on individual lots. The Applicant seems very responsible, but
3. Future residents of these lots have every right to seek direct access to and from their lots over their frontage on 3A, which could result in 4-5 new curb cuts on a busy state highway; the Town has no way to prevent this.
4. The construction of a long common driveway represents the de-facto extension of a dead-end roadway, which is not permitted by the Town’s Subdivision Regulations.
5. The soil here is characterized by ledge and rock, and would probably require significant blasting and disruption to develop.
Review of KL Goals and Objectives
Per the Town’s existing evaluation system, Department Heads are required to identify individual goals and objectives for each fiscal year. At the end of the year, the Appointing Authority (in this case, the Planning Board) reviews the employee’s progress on these goals.
Board members reviewed the draft goals and objectives, and made a few revisions.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 PM
Respectfully Submitted,
Katharine Lacy, Town Planner