Scheduled:
7:00 PM Discussion of Petition for Street Acceptance
7:45 PM DPW and Athletic Fields, School Depot Tract and Bare Cove Park - Continuation of Site Plan Review
Hearing for Special Permit A-2
Old/New Business
Central Meeting Room North
Present: Planning Board Members, Chair, John Riley, Susan Murphy, Clerk, Paul Healey, Sarah Corey and Tod McGrath. Also present was Planner Katharine Lacy.
John Riley opened the public meeting at 7:10 P.M. at the Hingham Town Hall.
RE: Discussion of Petition for Street Acceptance
Resident Bill Murphy and Attorney George Ford came before the Board to discuss the pending petition for the acceptance of Olmsted Drive. Mr. Ford explained that the roadway was approved as part of the Mansions of Great Hill Subdivision by the Planning Board in 1989. The approval included a number of waivers for width of the right of way; minimum centerline radius; turnaround configuration; sidewalks; and length of roadway. Condition 18 of the Certificate of Action states that "all roads shall remain private be and maintained by an association of homeowners". This was reinforced in a Declaration of Easements, Restrictions and Covenants dated 1991, which states that "The ways shown on the subdivision plan shall be and shall remain private ways." The residents petitioned for acceptance in 1996 and 1997, but it did not make it on to the warrant either year. Concerns voiced by the DPW and Planning Board focused on the waivers that were granted, as well as the presence of ornamental lights, mailboxes, and two granite block walls within the roadway layout.
Mr. Murphy explained that they had originally gone before the Selectmen to ask that Olmsted Drive be plowed. The Selectmen responded that the Town's Plowing policy stated that the Town was not responsible for plowing private roads built after 1980. They encouraged Mr. Murphy to come before the Planning Board to discuss ways to modify the original subdivision approval so that the roadway could be accepted, and therefore plowed. Mr. Ford argued that none of the specific waivers granted for the construction of the roadway would result in additional costs or maintenance burdens. He noted that, unlike in other instances, the waivers at this subdivision did not represent "cost saving measures" that would result in substandard construction. He also stated that all of the deficiencies noted by DPW to date could and would be easily addressed by the owners if there were a commitment by the Town for long-term maintenance. Finally, he stated his belief that it was NOT a premise of the approval that the roadway never be accepted.
Paul Healey responded that he remained unconvinced that the road should be accepted. He noted that it was a specific term of the approval, and written into the deed of each individual property owner that the roadway would remain private. He emphasized the fact that accepting this roadway could set a dangerous and costly precedent in that there are many other roads in a similar situation that the Town would then be hard put not to accept. He argued that the waivers granted for the roadway construction were not inconsequential, and recalled numerous difficulties in its construction and during the first few years after it was built. He stated that just the premise that a roadway will be private can cause the Board to review things differently, in that they assume that it will never be the Town's responsibility.
Tod McGrath stated that the Subdivision Approval was based on an agreement that maintenance of the roadway would not cost the Town a penny. In this way, changing the terms of the approval would be a violation of this initial agreement, in that the maintenance costs would now go directly to the taxpayers. He stated that in order to make this decision in a truly informed fashion, the applicant should gather information about the potential costs to the Town of having to maintain this and other similar roadways.
Mr. Riley noted that during the approval process a big deal was made of the fact that this would be an exclusive neighborhood with residents who could afford to take care of the special amenities offered.
In summary, Board members felt that there is no compelling reason to change either the street acceptance or snowplowing policy at this time. That said, it would ultimately be less costly and have less precedent setting legal implications to modify the snow plowing policy than to "un-do" the terms of a subdivision approval.
RE: DPW and Athletic Fields, School Depot Tract and Bare Cove Park - Continuation of Site Plan Review Hearing for Special Permit A-2
Present for the DPW Building Committee: Charles Cristello, Town Administrator, Joe Stigliani, DPW; Jeff Dirk, Traffic Engineer; Bill Seymour; Gale Engineering.
This was a continuation of the Site Plan Review hearing last addressed on November 7, 2005. At that hearing, outstanding issues were identified as 1) off site traffic impacts; 2) revisions to the lighting plan and 3) protection and screening for Hillside Terrace abutters.
Jeff Dirk of Vanasse Associates provided an in-depth analysis of potential traffic impacts of the project, and potential mitigation measures. Mr. Dirk reviewed revised Trip Distribution, Trip Volumes and Level of Service (LOS) information for the project area extending from West and South Streets to Fort Hill and Commercial Street. Basically, the overall increase in traffic volumes will be minimal, though the 2003 Build and No Build options both show a deterioration of conditions. The intersection of Fort Hill and the Park Drive, and Fort Hill and New Bridge are both projected to be operating at a Level of Service F.
Ms. Lacy asked if the light at West and South was taken into account. Mr. Dirk responded that it was, and that it would have a positive impact by creating small gaps in the traffic, thus facilitating right-hand (and, to a lesser degree) and left hand turns out of the site.
Susan Murphy expressed concern that counts were not taken at Charles Everett Drive. Mr. Dirk responded that they had tried to perform these counts but that ongoing construction activity in the area prevented the counts from being completed.
Mr. Dirk noted that, despite the high volumes of traffic projected for the Fort Hill/Park Drive intersection, it would not meet the warrants for a traffic light. He explained that intersections with lights were more likely to be sites of accidents than intersections with no light. He recommended that for larger events, such as soccer tournaments, that the Town may want to engage a police detail.
Paul Healey asked if crash rates had changed over the past five years since they were last compiled for Hingham. Mr. Dirk responded that, by and large, they had not.
Tod McGrath asked whether there would be two lanes leading out of the park site. Mr. Dirk responded that there would be a left and right-hand turn lane leading out of the park to facilitate exodus.
Paul Brogna asked whether the lines of site from the park were blocked by the automobiles parking at Thomas Autobody. Mr. Dirk noted that cars should be prohibited from parking within 20 feet of the entrance to the park. Mr. Brogna also asked whether Adams Circle (which is supposed to exit through the park out to Fort Hill) was taken into account in the traffic counts. Mr. Dirk said that it was.
Paul Brogna expressed concern about potential conflicts between the Greenbush West Hingham Station, and the people leaving the park after games and practice in the evening. Mr. Dirk reiterated that a traffic management plan might be needed, and that details may have to be employed. It will only be possible to determine all of this when both functions are operational. He recommended that the entire intersection be re-assessed after one year.
Ms. Murphy asked for a plan showing all of the intersections with Fort Hill Street from West Street to New Bridge, including the Station driveway, Country Club, bus depot driveway, etc. Ms. Murphy went on to ask how the Town planned to coordinate bus traffic into this whole scheme, and prevent cut-through traffic from exiting the site via the bus depot driveway. Mr.
Seymour responded that it would be posted that all non-bus traffic had to leave via the main driveway.
Mr. David Pinkus, West Steet, from the audience asked why this location was being considered for the DPW when it would have negative impacts on abutters. He complained that too much stuff was being put into this area of town, and that the conflicts would be overwhelming.
Mr. Seymour responded that they were given an area to plan, and that the current plan appeared to be the best way to fit all of the desired elements on the land. In particular, it was difficult to fit all of the fields anywhere but where they are currently shown. The bus depot and fueling station were left where they were on request of the school department, and the rest of the front area is being reserved for potential use as future parking for the Greenbush Station. Ms. Corey asked about putting the housing where the DPW was planned, and the DPW right on Beal Street. Mr. Seymour responded that the Partnership site was not included in their area of study.
Mr. Seymour responded to a question from the last meeting regarding why the site could not be cut down to better screen it from adjacent neighborhoods. He noted that test holes had revealed that much of the site was built on ledge. Mr. Riley reviewed the test logs, and expressed concerns that all of the test holes had been dug in one area of the site. Mr. Seymour offered to dig more test pits. John agreed.
Ms. Corey responded to an earlier comment from Susan Hofses, Hillside Terrace, about whether the proposed DPW facility could be expanded as needed if the Town continues to grow.
Mr. Seymour presented the revised lighting plan. All of the lights were brought down to 16' in height in accordance with Town standards. He showed one plan with lights included in the parking area, and one without. Mr. Healey asked the applicant to get a recommendation from the Police Department about whether they felt comfortable with no lights in the parking lot. Tod asked for more information on the durability of the taller lights proposed as compared to a bollard type light as proposed for the PAL fields parking lot.
Board members discussed the potential impact of the lights on the adjacent Hillside Terrace neighborhood. Mr. Stigliani noted that in the vast majority of cases, the lights would not be on in the evening. He also stated that many of the standing lights shown on the original plan had been changed to wall mounted lights. Board members also suggested that perhaps the two lights closest to Hilllside Terrace could be relocated to be less visible. Board members asked for some sort of assessment showing exactly what it would look like from the Hillside area looking out towards the DPW facility, and how bright the lights would be.
The Landscape Architect, Danielle DeSallets of Gale Associates, briefly presented the screening plan. Ms. Murphy asked her to revise the plan based on how she would personally want her property screened if a DPW facility were to be built next door.
The Board decided to continue the hearing to November 28 to review the revised screening plan.
Mr. Seymour summarized his sense of the information that the Board was looking for:
1. Working with the DPW to evaluate the potential need for expansion of the facility in the future, based on a comparison of existing usable space and the proposed conditions.
2. Addressing traffic related issues with Vanasse Associates:
a. Developing a map of the relevant intersections impacted by the project from the So Shore CC to the end of Ft Hill St. This is to be to scale and reflect all curb cuts.
b. Developing a 10-scale drawing of the Site entrance/exit to Fort Hill Street and a traffic management plan that de-conflicts the DPW/athletic field traffic and that of the bus depot and the credit union. How are cut throughs precluded? Should bus traffic and DPW traffic be combined to one curb cut?
3. Working with our lighting subcontractor on related issues:
a. Evaluating the use of low profile (bollard type) lights in the field parking lot. Provide a detail and model for a highly durable, vandal proof fixture.
b. Obtaining a written opinion from the Police Chief on lighting recommendations of the field parking lot
c. Developing a lighting operation plan based on the non-emergency operational needs and emergency needs of the DPW which reflects what lighting is on during non-emergency or non-operational nights.
d. Evaluating the visual impacts of the proposed lighting to the surrounding neighbors. The Board requires a light impact study that definitely quantifies what neighbors see given the light fixture types and locations proposed.
4. Conducting additional test pits at the Site and developing a cross-section of the DPW facility soils and the ledge profile with the intent of estimating the cost of reducing the proposed site elevation by 10 feet (from elevation 45 to elevation 35).
5. Developing a detailed "Screening and Noise Mitigation Plan" for the Hillside Terrace area, including the installation of stockade fencing and additional landscaping. Produce a 10-scale plan and details and planting schedules.
Old/New Business
It was moved, seconded, and SO VOTED to accept the minutes of October 24, 2005.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:11 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Katharine Lacy
Town Planner