Scheduled: PERMIT TYPE PERMIT FILING FEE NUMBER OF PLAN COPIES REQUIRED PEER REVIEW FEES(for Approval Phase only) APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED(ANR / FORM A) $250 plus $250 per buildable lot 1 Mylar6 Copies $0 PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION $500 8 Sets $0 DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION $2,000 14 Copies As estimated by Peer Review Engineer and approved by Applicant per MGL 44, S. 53G LOT RELEASE $250 per lot NA $0 INSPECTION FEE $16 per linear foot NA Supplemental Fee as needed and determined by DPW, and Approved by Applicant SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION $1,000 14 Copies As estimated by Peer Review Engineer and approved by Applicant per MGL 44, S. 53G SITE PLAN REVIEWin association with a Building Permit $500 7 Copies As estimated by Peer Review Engineer and approved by Applicant per MGL 44, S. 53G. SITE PLAN REVIEWin association with Special Permit A2 Included in ZBA Fee Included in Submittal to ZBA $0 SPECIAL PERMIT A3 A3-Parking: $500; A3 for FRD: $2000 14 Copies As estimated by Peer Review Engineer and approved by Applicant per MGL 44, S. 53G.
7:00 PM Planning Board Rules and Regulations
7:30 PM Baker Hill Extension
8:00 PM Old/New Business
_____________
Present: Planning Board Members, Chair, Judy Sneath, Clerk, Paul Healey, Sarah Corey,
and Gary Tondorf-Dick. Also present was Planner Katharine Lacy.
7:00 PM Planning Board Rules and Regulations
Roger Fernandes, Harry Sylvester and Randy Sylvester joined the Board for a discussion of the following subjects relative to the Subdivision Regulations, including, fees, peer review and inspection procedures and general revisions and updating.
1. Proposed Increase to Administrative Fee for Applications
Ms. Lacy proposed the following revised fee schedule in line with comparable Towns:
It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED to modify the Fee Schedule accordingly.
2. Proposal to Use DPW Staff for Bulk of Roadway Inspections
Ms. Lacy explained that currently, just as the Town uses outside consultants to review plans during the approval process, we continue to use those consultant to conduct inspections during the construction of a subdivision roadway. This system has worked OK, though it often turns out that when the roadway is ultimately inspected by DPW prior to acceptance they identify various issues that were not identified by the consulting engineer. Additionally the Town is also seeking to generate revenue to support our in-house staff. In light of this, Ms. Lacy and DPW presented the Board with a proposal to shift the inspectional role away from outside consultants to DPW staff, as is done in many comparable Towns including Wellesley, Hanover, Westwood, and Weymouth to name a few. Under this proposal the Town would charge a fee equal to a minimum of $16 per linear foot, with a provision that such fee can be reasonable adjusted up or down following a review of the plans by the DPW. If the services of an outside consultant were also needed, the Town could also create a supplemental inspection account in accordance with 53G.
The current “Peer Review Process” which occurs during the approval process, whereby funds are collected into an escrow account and used to pay an outside consultant, such as Paul Brogna or John Chessia, to review the plans, will basically stay the same.
After a long discussion, the Planning Board voted approve the primary responsibility for roadway inspections from outside consultant to DPW staff, contingent on a review of the legality of the fee collection process by Town counsel.
Proposal to Continue with Revisions to Subdivision Regulations
DPW has suggested that they participate in a revision of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations to ensure that they comply with what the Town is actually looking for in terms of construction, etc. In 2005 Roger Fernandes had developed extensive proposed revisions to Section V, Construction Specifications, and this would also be an opportunity to incorporate some of the LID changes suggested by Horsley and Witten in 2007. Board members concurred that they would work with DPW on this over the next months.
7:30 PM Baker Hill Extension
Dave Gooley came before the Board for 1) a project update, and 2) to a request an extension to the time for completion. They last came before the Board on June 8, 2009, and were given a six-month extension and urged to complete the sidewalk and streetlights as the residents requested. Mr. Gooley reported that at this point they have recently completed the construction of a sidewalk, and are in the process of installing streetlights.
Dayton Nordin, a resident of Baker Hill Drive, conceded that progress was being made on the sidewalks and lights, but noted that it was important to the quality of life of the residents that the pace of such improvements does not drag on indefinitely. He further expressed his hope that the landscaping and installation of trees would be complete by the Spring. The Board and Mr. Gooley agreed. Mr. Healey noted that in order to keep a fairly tight hold on the project, he felt it was appropriate to grant only another six month extension, with the goal of completing all roadway improvements within that period.
It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED to grant a six month extension to the time of completion for Baker Hill Drive, to June 1, 2010.
8:00 PM Old/New Business
Minutes of November 9 and November 23
Three Board members reviewed and initialed the minutes of November 9 and November 23.
Form A-Lazell Street
This Form A adds a small amount of land to an existing parcel owned by Peter Bickford at 65 Lazell Street (a portion of his overall property) to create a buildable, conforming lot to serve as the destination for the Free Street house currently owned by South Shore Baptist Church.
It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED to endorse the Form A entitled “Approval Not Required Plan of Land in Hingham, MA,” prepared for Peter Bickford, dated December 3, 2009 and prepared by SITEC, Inc., Dartmouth, MA.
1. Beal Street Signal
Ms. Leslie Cohen of Samuels and Associates came before the Board to discuss issues relative to the fulfillment of a Condition in the Special Permit requiring the installation of a traffic signal at Beal Street and WB Terry Drive. Midway through the meeting the Board was also joined by Selectmen Laura Burns and John Riley.
Ms. Cohen explained that the Shipyard Owners originally approached the Selectman for approval of the Beal Street light which is a requirement of Condition #12 of the Original Mixed Use Special Permit and Condition #6 of the Modified Mixed Use Special permit, as this is the process required by the Town. As part of these discussions, the Owners always acknowledged the obligation of having to install a signal but noted that the signal today is not currently warranted.
In terms of the future need for the signal, the engineers representing Samuels feel that the signal will not be warranted even after full build-out of the project, but the Town’s engineer, Jeffrey Dirk of Vanasse and Associates, disagreed with this assessment.
In their discussions with the Selectmen, Samuels raised the concept of writing a check to the Town for $180,000, the cost to build the signal, and the Town could use this money to fund other obligations if the signal is not warranted in the future.
Ms. Lacy ran this concept by Mr. Dirk, and received the following comments via email:
“I offer three points for your consideration:
1. The trip estimates for the Shipyard redevelopment combined with current and potential future development in the area appears to result in traffic volume levels at the intersection that would warrant the need for the installation of a traffic control signal. Further, pedestrian and bicycle access between the Shipyard, Beal Street and Bear Cove Park would be facilitated by the installation of a traffic control signal at the intersection.
2. The monies provided to the Town ($180,000) are not sufficient to cover the cost of the design and construction of a traffic signal at the intersection.
3. The transportation mitigation program for the Shipyard and subsequent development projects in the area (CVS/Pharmacy and the pending T.D. Bank) assume that a traffic signal will be installed at the intersection in the future in order to accommodate the safe and efficient operation of the intersection.”
After a lengthy discussion, the Board voted to direct Samuels to simply install the partially activated, blinking signal, with the idea that the signal; would be fully activated as soon as warranted. The Board agreed that Samuels would not be responsible for the cost of activating the signal later.
2. Water Street Crosswalk
Ms. Lacy noted that the Traffic Committee had met with Mr. Greg Sullivan, one of the owners of the property at 59 Water Street, to discuss the possibility of adding a crosswalk from his building across to Station Street. As a result of the creation of a new crosswalk, a single parking space associated with the building would be eliminated. The Traffic Committee and Police Chief endorsed this idea, but referred Mr. Sullivan to the Planning Board to see if additional permitting was needed.
The Board discussed the concept of a Water Street crosswalk and concurred that this was a good idea, but noted that the elimination of a parking space may be subject to a Special Permit A3 or modification of an existing Special Permit, but more in the form of a formality as to anything else. The Board agreed that there seems be adequate parking in the area, but noted that they need to know formally from the applicant what the parking number is for purposes of maintaining our parking formula model. Ms. Lacy agreed to work with Mr. Sullivan on moving this forward.
Next Meeting: December 21
The Meeting was adjourned at 9:30 PM
Respectfully Submitted,
Katharine T. Lacy, Town Planner