Scheduled:
7:00 PM Dennis Road Extension - Continuation of Subdivision Hearing
7:50 PM Discussion of Proposed Amendment to the Zoning By-Law
8:15 PM 224 Beal Street (Back River Condos and Athletic Fields) Continuation of Site Plan Review Hearing
Old/New Business
Central Meeting Room North
Present: Planning Board Members, Chair, John Riley, Susan Murphy, Clerk, Paul Healey, Also present was Planner Katharine Lacy.
John Riley opened the public meeting at 7:10 P.M. at the Hingham Town Hall.
RE: Dennis Road Extension - Continuation of Subdivision Hearing
Present for the Applicant: Chris Solomini and Mike Ferrara Applicant; Jay Donovan and Paul Marabito, Engineers.
At the last hearing on October 28, 2005 the Board agreed to approve waivers # 1, 2, 3, 9, 11, and 12. They voted to deny #4, and insisted on the use of granite curbs instead of cape cod berm at the cul-de-sac. John Riley had significant concerns regarding waiver requests #5, 6, 7, 8, and 10, and stated his preference was to deny the plan at this time. Before the project came up for a vote, however, Mr. Riley agreed to meet with the Conservation Agent and the Town's consulting engineer, Mr. Lanney, to further discuss the proposed waivers. Ms. Murphy asked Mr. Ferrara if he would allow for another extension if the hearing were closed with the exception of further discussion on waivers # 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10. Mr. Ferrara said that he would grant the Board an extension. The Board agreed to vote one way or the other on the project at the next hearing.
Since that time, Ms. Lacy and Mr. Riley met with Cliff and Nick Lanney to discuss the technical aspects of the proposed waivers. Additionally, the applicant has submitted a detailed explanation of why the remaining five waivers are necessary for constructing the project. Nick Lanney written a letter of response, which basically states that there is no technical reason to deny the waivers, but also notes that, without such waivers, the project would be different.
The applicant proceeded to go through each of the outstanding waiver requests, and the Board voted on each one as shown below. Ms. Murphy noted that the Board should strengthen the provisions that the road remain private based on recent requests to have private roads made public for acceptance.
The following VOTE was adopted: to APPROVE the Definitive Subdivision Plan entitled "Dennis Road Extension, Town of Hingham, Massachusetts", dated February 25, 2005, last revised September 30, 2005, prepared by Ross Engineering Co., Inc., for Michael Ferrara & Chris Solomini, Trustees of C & M Realty Trust, 24 Orchard Street, Quincy, MA, consisting of twelve (12) sheets subject to and on the following conditions which, if not complied with, shall, at the option of the Planning Board (the "Board"), operate as a rescission of this approval:
1. Prior to the endorsement of the Plan, a covenant to be executed and made a part hereof, and recorded with the Plan in the Plymouth Registry of Deeds, or a Letter of Credit in an amount sufficient to the Board to secure performance of the construction of ways and the installation of municipal services required for the lots shown on the Plan, shall be provided pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 41, Section 81U.
2. Prior to the endorsement of this plan, the cover sheet shall be revised to show any waivers from said Rules and Regulations approved herein by the Planning Board shall be noted on the Plan.
3. All work shall be performed in accordance with the Plan, this Certificate, and, except as specifically waived herein, in conformity with the Rules and Regulations of the Hingham Planning Board in effect as of the date of the application.
4 The Applicant shall complete all work shown on the Plan, including all ways, drainage facilities, and utilities, within two years of the date of endorsement of the Plan or this approval of the Plan shall be null and void, unless, at the request of the Applicant, the Planning Board extends the time for performance of such work.
5. The Applicant will bear the responsibility to see that any inconsistencies with the Plan and decisions of other state or local agencies or boards are resolved before construction begins.
6. Approval by the Planning Board of this Plan shall not be treated as, nor deemed to be, approval by the Board of Health for a permit for the construction and use on any lot of an individual septic system. No building or structure shall be placed on any lot without septic system approval by the Board of Health.
7. Utilities shall be placed on all lots to the satisfaction of the appropriate public or private authority. The Applicant shall deliver to the Planning Board written approval of the design from each authority prior to the issuance of a building permit.
8. A street opening permit, and any other permits or authorizations necessary to do work within any public or private way, shall be obtained by the Applicant and presented to the Planning Board prior to construction.
9. The roadway shall be named, and the name shall be approved by the Fire Department and Planning Board.
10. In consideration of the waivers granted from the Planning Board Rules and Regulations for this subdivision, the Applicant acknowledges and agrees that the roadway, drainage facilities and other utilities within the Subdivision shall remain private, shall not be offered for acceptance as a public way, and shall not be maintained by the Town of Hingham. Maintenance, repair and improvement thereof shall hereinafter in perpetuity be the responsibility of the Applicant and/or the owners of the lots within the Subdivision, at their sole cost and expense. Such obligation shall be set forth in a Declaration of Easements, Restrictions and Covenants Running with the Land (the "Declaration"), a final version of which shall be approved by the Planning Board prior to endorsement of the Plan and shall be recorded with the Plan. In the event of a conflict between this Certificate of Action and the provisions of the Declaration regarding maintenance, repair and improvement of the roadway, drainage and other utilities, the provisions of this Certificate of Action shall govern.
11. The site's stormwater management system shall be maintained as outlined in the "Operations and Maintenance Plan", submitted with the Definitive Subdivision Plan application, and shall be recorded with the Plan.
12. Following the construction of the Subdivision roadway, the Applicant and/or the owners of lots within the Subdivision shall submit to the Planning Board and the Hingham Department of Public Works on the anniversary date of this Certificate of Action an annual report on the operation of the storm water drainage system (a "Drainage System Report"). The Drainage System Report shall include the details of all inspections and maintenance conducted on the system for the preceding year, and a certification by a licensed contractor that the system is in good working order. If a Drainage System Report is not submitted within sixty days of such date, the Applicant and/or the owners of the lots within the Subdivision, as applicable, shall be liable to the Town for all costs and fees (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees) incurred by the Town in the enforcement of this Section 12.
13. Each deed for any lot or lots within the Subdivision shall specifically set forth that the conveyance of such lot or lots is subject to the conditions set forth in this Certificate of Action and in the Declaration.
14. A copy of the NPDES permit application submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency shall be provided to the Planning Board, as well a copy of the subsequent permit. A copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by EPA shall be submitted to the Con Com and the Planning Board.
15. Details of hay bales and silt fence should be provided to and approved by the Conservation Agent and Town Planner prior to the start of construction.
16. Endorsement of this Plan shall be contingent upon a final review by the Town's consulting engineer.
Waivers:
The Board voted individually on the following requests for waivers from the Rules and Regulations for the construction of Subdivision Roadways:
1. The applicant has requested a waiver from Section 4, Table 1 and Figure 1, which requires a 22' travel way for a minor roadway. The applicant proposes to construct a 20' travel way. The Board voted to grant this waiver to reduce impacts to abutting properties and reduce impervious surface.
2. The applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement set forth in Table 1 for a 30' minimum curb radius at the street intersection for minor roadways. The proposed plan shows a 20' curb radius at the intersection of Dennis Road and Abington Street. The Board voted to grant this waiver in that the curb radius in question is an existing condition on a pre-existing roadway (Dennis Road) with existing homes on either side. Widening the radius would be more disruptive to the adjacent properties.
3. The applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement set forth in Table 1 for 18" of Cape Cod berm on both sides of the roadway. The proposed plan shows 12" of Cape Cod berm on either side of the roadway. The Board voted to approve this waiver to make the overall paved way narrower, and reduce the amount of impervious surface. The narrower curb was also deemed suitable for a roadway with so few houses on it, which would not get extensive use.
4. The applicant has requested a waiver from Section 4.B. (4) (b) and Figure 2, which requires the use of sloped granite curb at the cul-de-sac island. The applicant proposes to use 12" Cape Cod Berm around the cul-de-sac island. The Board voted to deny this waiver. The sloped granite is far more durable, and can withstand truck and car tires riding up on it, as well as nicks from snow plows, etc.
5. The applicant has requested a waiver from Section 4C (3) (a) which requires that catch basins shall be used exclusively for the roadway's drainage system.
After careful consideration, the Board voted to approve this waiver because the proposed design would offer a more aesthetically pleasing roadway that would be integrated more naturally into the surrounding environment, and would have less impacts on abutting properties. This waiver would impact Basin's 1 and 2, which would both be served by non-traditional technology.
For Basin 1 (as shown on the plans) the applicant is proposing the use of a water quality structure and paved swale inlet. The paved swale inlet is designed to collect the storm water run-off from the roadway discharge it into a fore bay, where pre-treatment is provided. According to the applicant the proposed fore bay would provide approximately 1,550 cubic feet or 31 times greater sediment storage volume than that offered by a catch basin.
The applicant is requesting this variance because, in order to accommodate a catch basin at this location, an increase of 2-3 feet in the roadway elevation would be required. This elevated roadway would require a retaining wall along the eastern edge of the proposed road.
Since the abutting properties naturally slope towards the site from the east, such a retaining wall would act as a dam and impede the flow of storm water from abutting properties on to the road. The use of a retaining wall would require drain lines under the roadway to prevent ponding of storm water run-off against the wall.
The use of a retaining wall at this location would provide a roadway design that complies fully with the Planning Board's Rules and Regulations. In lieu of a retaining wall, the paved swale inlet and fore bay were provided as an alternative to "hard" engineering, which typically includes catch basins, drain manholes, drain lines, retaining walls, etc. The "soft" engineering approach, as proposed eliminated the need for retaining walls and allows for the natural
unimpeded flow of storm water runoff from abutting properties onto the proposed road. The proposed design would offer a more aesthetically pleasing roadway design that can be integrated more naturally into the surrounding environment, and would have less impacts on abutting properties.
For Basin 2, in lieu of a catch basin, the proposed design includes the use of a pre-treatment structure followed by a water quality structure. The combined level of pre-treatment provided by these two structures complies with DEP regulations, and exceeds the pre-treatment provided by a single catch basin.
6. The applicant has requested a waiver from Section 4C (3) (d), which requires 12" diameter drain lines. The applicant is proposing 10" drain lines from the water quality structure.
The Board voted to grant this waiver based on the following argument put forth by the applicant. This waiver is requested because the 10' drain line in question is an existing condition. The existing portion of Dennis Road is currently unpaved and devoid of a stormwater collection/treatment system, such as catch basins. Under existing conditions, surface run-off from the existing portion of Dennis Road flows, uncontrolled and untreated, into a drainage ditch located at the Dennis Road/Abingdon Street intersection. From the drainage ditch, run-off continues to drain west under Abington Street via an existing 10-inch culvert, where it enters a wetland complex. The applicant contacted DPW to discuss the possibility of replacing the 10" pipe with a 12" pipe as required by the Planning Board Rules and Regulations, but DPW has requested that the 10" remain. The proposed design would utilize the existing 10" culvert, but will improve upon the existing conditions by providing the treatment and controlled release of stormwater run-off entering the wetland. The applicant is willing to upgrade the 10" culvert to a 12" culvert whenever requested by the DPW.
7. The applicant has requested a waiver from Section 4C (3) (d), which requires that discharges into detention areas shall be above the area's ten-year flood elevation. The Board voted to approve this waiver.
Specifically, the invert elevation of the inlet into Detention Basin 2 is located below the 10-year flood elevation. This is, again, due to the fact that Basin 2 is actually a modification of an existing basin, with grades set to meet an existing pipe crossing under Abington Street. If the basin were to be raised, the entire roadways would have to be raised, this causing the aforementioned impacts to abutters, and a less aesthetically pleasing roadway. The proposed detention basin has been designed to control storm water run-off generated by the 2, 10, and 100-year design storms.
8. The applicant has required a waiver from Section 4.E, which requires that the side slopes of catch basins not exceed 25% (4:1). The applicant is proposing 2:1 slopes for Basin 2, and 3:1 slopes at Basin 1 and 1A. The Board voted to grant this waiver.
The applicant has argued that the use of retaining walls could provide detention basin designs that comply fully with the Planning Board's Rules and Regulations. Rather than using extensive retaining walls, the 2:1 slopes at Basin 2 and 3:1 slopes at Basin 1 and 1A were provided as an alternative. The use of 2:1 and 3:1 slopes, when proper stabilization is provided, is an acceptable engineering practice, and would prevent future problems with the maintenance of such walls.
9. The applicant has requested a waiver from Section 4.G and Figure 1 requiring a 5' sidewalk on one side of the road for minor roadways. The Board voted to grant this waiver to reduce impervious surface, and light of the small number of homes planned for this roadway.
10. The applicant has requested a waiver from Section 5.M, which requires 6:1 side slopes for areas of cut and fill less than 4' in depth or height outside the traveled way. The applicant is proposing to construct side slopes at 3:1. The applicant has argued that the use of retaining walls could be used to comply with the Planning Board's Rules and Regulations. Rather than using extensive retaining walls The Board voted to approve this waiver, due to the fact that the overall slope is quite shallow.
11. The applicant is requesting a waiver from Figure 1, which shows the typical roadway cross section as crowned with 2% pitch on both sides. The applicant is proposing a super-elevated (sloped) roadway with a 2% slope from Southeast to Northwest. The Board voted to approve
this waiver, due to the fact that a sloped rather than crowned roadway would fit in better with the surrounding topography, and have less of an impact on neighboring properties.
12. The applicant is requesting a waiver from Section 5M, which requires that for side slopes greater than 3:1 a guardrail shall be placed no less than 4' from the edge of the traveled way. The plan shows a guard rail less than two feet from the traveled way. The Board voted to grant this waiver only if a steel guardrail approved by the Town is utilized instead of the wooden guardrail specified in the Rules and Regulations. Ross Engineering also suggests that an additional section of guardrail be provided along the left side of the roadway from Station 4+00 up to the driveway located on Lot 2.
RE: Discussion of Proposed Amendment to the Zoning By-Law
Tod McGrath and Sarah Corey joined the meeting at this point.
The Board voted to submit the following proposed amendments to the Town's Zoning By-Law to the Selectmen for inclusion in the 2006 Town Meeting Warrant:
Article A Proposed Zoning Article to Capitalize and Clarify Defined Terms
(The Planning Board reserved the right to split this into two articles (one addressing the capitalization, and the other addressing the clarifications to the definitions" if, during the zoning hearings, it becomes clear that this would be a more effective way to handle this change)
Will the Town amend the Zoning By-Law of the Town of Hingham, adopted March 10, 1941, as heretofore amended, as follows:
Item 1. At Section I, Administration and Procedure, add the following subsection (4)
"Unless expressly otherwise provided in the Section of the By-Law in which it is found, each capitalized term used in this by-law have the meaning attributed to such term in Section VI of this by-law."
Item 2. At Section III-A, Schedule of Uses change "5.1 Automotive filling or service station" to "Automotive Filling Station".
(Note to change at Section III-G 4 as well-also Container at Section 4.14)
Item 3. At Section III-D (3)
a. change the following definitions as follows:
i. At the start of the definition for Container, add the phrase "As used in this Section III-D, the term Container shall mean.."
ii. At the start of the definition for Discharge, add the phrase "As used in this Section III-D, the term Discharge shall mean.."
iii. At the start of the definition for "Store or Storage", add the phrase "As used in this Section III-D, the terms "Store or Storage" shall mean.."
iv. Delete the current definition for "Use or Usage" and replace with the following:
"Use As used in this Section III-D, the term 'Use' shall mean the possession, manufacture, processing, or transporting of Toxic or Hazardous Substances upon the Premises, into the Lot or in any Structure thereon."
b. Throughout Section III-D, capitalize all terms defined in this section.
Item 4. At Section IV-D (2) change the definition for Open Space by adding the phrase "As used in this Section IV-D, the term "Open Space" shall mean."
Item 5. At Section V-B, make the following changes:
a. At Section V-B (2), Definitions, delete the word "In this Section."
b. Throughout Section V-B, capitalize all terms defined in this section.
Item 6. At Section V-E (3) change the following definitions as follows:
a. At the start of the definition for Act, add the phrase "As used in this Section IV-D, the term "Act" shall mean.."
b. At the start of the definition for Antenna, add the phrase "As used in this Section III-D, the term "Antenna" shall mean.."
c. At the start of the definition for Existing Structure, add the phrase "As used in this Section III-D, the term "Existing Structure" shall mean.."
Item 7. At Section VI, Definitions
a. Between the definitions for Automotive Filling Station and Basement, add the following definition: "Awning--As defined in Section V-B."
b. Between the definitions for Non-conforming Use and Premises delete the definition for "Planned Unit Development".
c. Between Shoreline and Single-Family Detached House, add the following definition: "Sign--as defined in Section V-B"
d. Between Two-family House and Yard: Front Side and Rear, delete the definition for "Wireless Communications Tower"
Item 8. Throughout the By-Law, capitalize all terms included in Section VI-- Definitions.
Item 9. Throughout the By-Law the terms "single-family detached dwelling" and "single family dwelling", will be replaced with Single Family Detached House.
Item 10. Throughout the By-Law, the term "two-family dwelling" shall be replaced with Two-Family House.
or act on anything related thereto?
Submitted by the Hingham Planning Board
Article B To Allow for Creation of Resident Parking Program for Residents of Commercial/Residential Buildings in the Downtown Overlay District.
Will the Town amend the Zoning By-Law of the Town of Hingham, adopted March 10, 1941, as heretofore amended, as follows:
At Section III-G (6) d, insert, at the end of subsection iii, the following language:
"Off-site parking in designated resident parking areas of public parking lots may be permitted if a resident parking permit program or the like is adopted by the Town, and provided that, as a condition of the issuance of the Special Permit, the applicant applies for and presents written evidence to the Board of Appeals and the Building Commissioner of approval by the Town of sufficient resident parking permits to comply with the parking requirements of this Section.
Provision of off-street parking in accordance with the requirements of this Section may be satisfied by any combination of on-site parking and alternative parking options above, provided, however, that where, prior to the application for a Special Permit under this Section, sufficient off-street parking exists or may be reasonably constructed on-site to satisfy the parking requirements of this Section, such parking shall be located on-site and shall not be eligible for relief under this subsection to allow for alternate parking options."
or act on anything related thereto?
Submitted by the Hingham Planning Board
Article C: Reserved Article
Will the Town amend the Zoning By-Law of the Town of Hingham, adopted March 10, 1941, as heretofore amended, as follows:
(The Planning Board would like to "reserve" a zoning article)
or act on anything related thereto?
Submitted by the Hingham Planning Board
RE: 224 Beal Street (Back River Condos and Athletic Fields) Continuation of Site Plan Review Hearing
Present for the Applicant: John Chessia, Coler and Colantonio; Jana Silsbee and John Pears, AIA, Steffian Bradley Architects; Bruce Isadore, Attorney for the Applicant, and Tom Hastings, Applicant. Also present was David Sanderson, peer review engineer from PCSPC.
Ms. Murphy opened the hearing by reviewing the material that the Board had received since the last hearing. This included a letter responding to the peer review comments from PCSPC prepared by John Chessia of Coler and Colantonio dated November 23, 2005; a response to the response prepared by David Sanderson, PSCPC; a report on Back River Landscape Architectural Features prepared by Dan Orwig, and dated November 10, 2005; and a letter from abutter Pat Young dated November 11. All correspondence is located in the files of the Hingham Planning Board.
Tom Hastings provided an overview of the few changes to the site plan since the last hearing. Basically, the overall building footprint had been expanded from 45,000 s.f. to 50,000 to provide for the expansion of the first floors on several of the buildings to allow for additional ground floor bedrooms. Based on concerns from the Board, a gate was proposed for the emergency access drive, which could be opened using an Opticom Device. This would prevent conflicts between cars leaving the complex and pedestrians on the park road. Hydrants would be placed throughout the complex, and R-13 sprinklers would be located in each building for fire suppression. All market rate units will have two car garages, and residents will be required to park in their garages.
Jana Silsbee of Steffian Bradley Architects provided an overview of the project architecture. The project includes a variety of unit types, including 2 and 3 bedroom units, some with one and two bedrooms on the ground floor, and some with two bedrooms on the upper floor. Overall, the buildings (not including garages, decks, and patios) comprise 90, 000 s.f. of floor area, with a building footprint of 50,000 s.f. Buildings are arranged so as to provide staggered massing and façade for the overall complex by avoiding having building entryways right next to each other.
Twenty of the buildings have master bedrooms on the ground floor, with the remainder having the bedrooms upstairs. Building heights to the ridge-line of the roof are from 35-40' high, and no first floors are more than five feet above the existing grade as required in the by-law.
Susan Murphy pointed out that the by-law requires that there be a proportional number of 1,2, and 3 bedroom market rate and affordable units. The current plan, however, shows only 2 bedroom affordable units, and many 3-bedroom market rate units. She also noted that the construction of the affordable units must be done at the same rate as the construction of the market rate units, and could not be left until the end of the process.
David Sanderson went over his comments one by one. The bulk of the comments had been responded to his satisfaction by Coler and Colantonio. He expressed serious concern, however, with the lack of maneuverability on the site for larger vehicles, and lack of turn-around capability for any vehicles. He also suggested the use of more substantial curbing throughout the site. Finally, he noted that internal walkways or sidewalks would be a good idea for this site, given the tightness of the overall design, and potential safety risks to pedestrians.
The Board discussed the possibility of using roof-run-off to irrigate the athletic fields. John Chessia noted that the quantity of water would just not be sufficient. Tod asked about the possibility of digging a well in this area, and John said that was possible, but that it would not ensure a steady flow of water during the driest times of year.
Paul Healey asked about the amount of fill required for the project, and whether it would be a good idea to establish a truck route. John Chessia responded that around 1000 truckfuls would be required, and that they would work with the Hingham Police to figure out an appropriate route. Tod McGrath asked about snow storage, and Mr. Hastings responded that snow would be stored adjacent to the roadways. Tod went on to ask about visitor parking, and Mr. Hastings noted that visitor parking was never used in complexes like this. There was a general discussion about the need for visitor parking, and how this complex could accommodate a situation where one or more residents had a party. Bruce Isadore noted that cars would probably just park on the road.
Tod asked the applicant why they had not created a loop road connecting Heron and Osprey Drives, when the current dead-ends looked so cramped and difficult to navigate. Mr. Pears provided a brief overview of "New Modernism", explaining how dead end roadways were more conducive to the creation of good neighborhoods. Tod reiterated that the he had no problem with density or narrow roads, but felt that the design as proposed was not safe or convenient. He suggested that Tom build a retaining wall along the North side of the property, relocate the end unit, and create a loop road around the the site. Mr. Hastings and Tod agreed to disagree on this point. Mr. McGrath asked Ms. Lacy why the Fire Department had backed off from their serious concerns regarding the roadway. Ms. Lacy noted that the Fire Department had met with Mr. Hastings and Charlie Cristello, and had agreed to accept new Opticom devices as a trade-off for the dead-end roadway. Mr. McGrath asked Ms. Lacy to follow up on what the Fire Department's thought process was as they changes their mind.
RE: Old/New Business
It was moved, seconded, and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present to accept the minutes of November 7, 2005, November 12, 2005, and November 14, 2005.
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Katharine Lacy
Town Planner