Scheduled:
7:00 PM Form A 20 Park View Drive
7:15 PM Site Plan Review, 900 Main Street
Sprint Wireless Communication Facilities
8:00 PM Site Plan Review, 56 Burditt Ave (Derby Academy)
Old/New Business
Discussion of proposed Beal Street/Fort Hill Street Traffic Study
Central Meeting Room North
Present: Planning Board Members, Chair, John Riley, Susan Murphy, Clerk, Paul Healey, and Tod McGrath. Also present was Planner Katharine Lacy.
John Riley opened the public meeting at 7:06 P.M. at the Hingham Town Hall.
RE: Form A 20 Park View Drive
Jeffery Tocchio appeared before the Board on behalf of property owners William and Susan Wye Barber. The applicant is proposing to divide their property at 20 Park View Drive into two substandard lots consistent with a variance granted by the Hingham ZBA on November 4, 2004 and recorded at the Registry of Deeds.
It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED, by all present to endorse the Form A entitled "Plan of Land, 20 Park View Drive, Hingham, MA", dated November 22, 2005, prepared by Cavanaro Consulting, Norwell, MA, for William and Susan Barber, applicant.
RE: Site Plan Review, 900 Main Street Sprint Wireless Communication Facilities
Present for the Applicant: Joseph Pereira, Terra Search, and Keith Valente, PierCon Solutions, both consultants for Sprint Telecommunications.
Mr. Pereira explained that applicant is seeking a Special Permit A-2 under Section V-E.4 of the Zoning By-Law for the construction of a 120' monopole structure and the internal antenna configurations, base station equipment and ancillary equipment for up to three wireless providers. The facility will be located within a 50' by 50' fenced compound. The structure will be located at the Aquarion Co. property at a location approximately 500' back from Main Street. Mr. Pereira described the appearance of the "flagpole" style monopole, in which the top 30' is sheathed in fiberglass in order to be less obtrusive. He noted that the facility would utilize existing utilities and roadways, and would be unmanned.
The application complies with all provisions of the By-Law, with the exception of a proposed height of 120'. The By-Law sets a 100' height limitation for the Towers, but states "The Board of Appeals may waive this restriction to allow for collocation which will reduce the need for other facilities."
Mr. Pereira produced a letter from T-1 Mobile Cellular, indicating a commitment to utilize the pole for their service as well.
Keith Valente, Radio Frequency Specialist, explained that the pole needed to be at least 120' in height in order to exceed the height of surrounding trees and provide adequate service. He showed locations where other Sprint facilities were in the area to illustrate the gap in coverage that they were trying to address with this new facility.
Susan Murphy noted that the By-law required a map showing the location of ALL other wireless facilities in the area, not just other Sprint facilities.
Tod McGrath asked to see a copy of the proposed lease arrangement with Aquarion Water Co. Mr. Pereira noted that it was included in the application submittal.
Paul Healey asked if more than three facilities could be added to the pole. Mr. Pereira stated that with the currently proposed design, only three services could be provided. He noted that Sprint could build a facility that could accommodate more services, but that they had not prepared such plans on the assumption that Hingham would want the smallest pole possible.
Susan Murphy explained that the primary purpose of the By-law was to allow the Town to plan for the future in such a way that the best wireless service would be provided with the least visual impact. In case, where there was a gap in service for a variety of providers, it might be the wisest thing to build a larger pole, and allow multiple services.
Board members asked about the appearance of a facility capable of providing multiple antennas. Mr. Valente stated that the pole would be approximately 24" in diameter, with up to three large rectangular antenna structures mounted tangentially to the exterior.
Mr. McGrath asked if the pole would be visible from the Liberty Pole neighborhood. Mr. Pereira stated that it probably would be.
Garrett Bradley, abutter, asked why the Town Forest was not considered as a location for the facility. He noted that the By-Law required a complete map of ALL other facilities in the area, and noted that the applicant should be required to provide such information. He also asked if soil tests had been conducted, noting his impression that the soil type might have public health implications.
Mr. Pereira pointed out that FCC regulations state that public health is not the purview of the local permitting boards.
Mr. Bailey, an abutter on Main Street, asked why this particular location had been selected. He noted that there was a knoll on the eastern side of the Water Plant that would be more hidden from Main Street. Mr. Pereira noted that this location was selected, in part due to the location of utilities available to service it.
Mr. Jack Gamache, an abutter, asked if there would be room on the antenna to locate Town wireless services for the Police and Fire Department. Mr. Pereira noted that there would not be room available with the current design, but that with a larger pole with flush mounted antennas, Town services would be affixed.
Mr. Riley noted that time was running late. Mr. Pereira stated that he was willing to return to the Board. He noted that one of the requirements of the By-Law was that the applicant performs a "balloon" test showing the height of the antenna in the field. Board members agreed that they wanted to view this demonstration before issuing a recommendation.
The Board instructed Ms. Lacy to provide the ZBA with an update outlining what information was still outstanding, and indicating that they wanted to meet with the applicant one more time before preparing their recommendation.
RE: Site Plan Review, 56 Burditt Ave (Derby Academy)
John Riley left the meeting at this time
Present for the Applicant: Doug Shropshire, Derby Academy, and John Chessia, Coler and Colantonio
Mr. Shropshire explained that the applicant is applying for a modification to an existing Special Permit to renovate the existing Lower School and add a 5,265 square foot addition to the north side of the Warren Building. The addition will house 3 new classrooms, an art room, a new Common/Activity room, and an admissions office. The purpose of the addition is to provide for two classrooms each for grades K, 1 and 2 (there are currently only one each). With the discontinuation of the 9th grade, the school is estimating that this will only result in an increase of 18 new students. Currently the school has 307 students. Mr. Shropshire noted that many of the new students would be siblings of existing students, so they were not anticipating that there would be eighteen new car trips to and from the school every day.
John Chessia provided an overview of how physical layout of the school had evolved over the last decade. He pointed out that when Derby did its big expansion with the construction of the Roy Campus Center in the 1990s, the Special Permit required that the school closely monitor its off-site traffic generation in terms of impacts on neighbors. In response, the school developed a specific procedure for pick-up and drop off, and staggered the scheduling of school starting times for different grades. They also constructed two loop driveways on the campus itself to alleviate queuing on Burditt Street. Finally, as instructed in their 1998 Special Permit, they utilize a crossing guard on a daily basis.
Paul Healey asked about the staggered schedule. Mr. Shropshire noted that the youngest children are dismissed at 1:00, with approximately 25% of them staying at after school. Older children leave at 4:00. Additionally, many children participate in after school sports.
Tod McGrath asked how many teachers were assigned to the ninth grade. Mr. Shropshire responded that there were seven teachers who spent part of their time teaching ninth graders. They would eliminate an upper schoolteacher or two, but only through attrition.
Board members discussed the merits of putting some sort of limit on the overall size of the school, though acknowledging that this was perhaps outside of their purview.
Several abutters from Burditt Avenue complained about the traffic impacts of the school on the surrounding neighborhood. They noted that at pick up and drop off times cars were lined up on Burditt Ave. blocking access to private driveways, and preventing normal traffic flow of area residents. At times cars were left idling in the roadway, while parents got out and chatted with each other.
On abutter suggested that the school could do a better job in terms of outreach to the school community, to let them know how they could be a "better neighbor". In particular parents could be instructed not to stop or park on Burditt unless necessary; and to avoid directly blocking driveways.
Another abutter complained about the frequency and timing of delivery trucks. Mr. Shropshire said that he could instruct vendors to change delivery times if so desired. She also complained
about overflow parking during Special events. Mr. Shropshire responded that the school generally required a police detail for special events.
Paul Healey pointed out that the Planning Board had considered this matter twice before during the 1990s, when the campus was seeking permits for previous expansions. He noted that the 1998 Special Permit already included a variety of conditions aimed at alleviating these problems, and noted that, if enforced, they should still be effective. Board members suggested that the ZBA may want to structure the permit so that further growth above a certain threshold would require that the applicant return for further review.
Board members voted to send a positive recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the proposed renovation and expansion. They instructed Ms. Lacy to let the ZBA know about some of the productive suggestions made by abutters to alleviate traffic issues, and to include a copy of the1998 Special Permit.
RE: Old/New Business
Discussion of proposed Beal Street/Fort Hill Street Traffic Study
Board members reviewed a sample scope of work for a traffic study of the Beal Street/Fort Hill Corridor. They instructed Ms. Lacy to let the Selectmen know that they should move forward with putting together an RFP for this work.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Katharine Lacy
Town Planner