Scheduled:
7:00 PM Preliminary Meeting-Hingham Shipyard Samuels and Associates
8:00 PM South Shore Baptist Church-Special Permit A-3 Parking Determination for Office Use at 20 Free Street
9:00 PM 3 Otis Street-Continuation of Site Plan Review Hearing and Parking Determination (Special Permit A-3)
Central Meeting Room North
Present: Planning Board Members, Susan Murphy, Chair, Paul Healey, Clerk, Sarah Corey,
Tod McGrath, Judy Sneath. Also present was Planner Katharine Lacy.
Ms. Murphy opened the public meeting at 7:10 P.M. at the Hingham Town Hall.
RE: Preliminary Meeting-Hingham Shipyard - Samuels and Associates
Present for the applicant: Dick Cook, BSC; Joe Sugar, Sea Chain Development; Leslie Cohen and Joel Sklar, Samuels Co; David Manfredi, Elkius Manfredi Architects.
Joe Sugar, Sea Chain Development, introduced Samuels, Associates and David Manfredi. He stated that the Shipyard had just recently finalized all agreements with Department of Conservation and Recreation, and the MBTA, was ready to proceed with demolition. He also stated that they had completed a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Samuels to develop the portion of the Shipyard west of the MBTA.
Joel Sklar, on behalf of Samuels and Associates, provided an overview of their plans to develop the commercial (western) portion of the Shipyard. Mr. Sklar explained that the project had been permitted without much input from retailers, and the changes proposed were intended to make the project more appealing to a successful mix of retail/commercial and professional uses.
Richard Cook, BSC Engineering, compared the plans that were originally approved with the proposed plans. The original applicant, Sea Chain, Inc., received a mix-use Special Permit under Section IV-H of the Zoning By-Law for a mixed use redevelopment of the 129 acre Hingham Shipyard in 2003. There are no changes planned for the overall configuration of Shipyard Drive, or the location of utilities. Samuels is proposing several modifications to this permit including changes to the proposed uses, configurations and locations of several buildings. Most significantly, the applicant is proposing to include an 8-10 screen multiplex with 1200 seats, and a health club. In summary the amount of retail use proposed for the site is a bit less than originally proposed. Another important change is the relocation of one of the residential buildings from a location on the western side of the site to a more prominent location immediately facing the Harbor adjacent to the Ferry Terminal.
Mr. Cook also mentioned that Roseland Development was submitting a letter.
David Manfredi, Architect, explained that the design changes proposed were intended to create a pedestrian friendly environment with a strong sense of place.
Charles Souther, Hingham Police Department, expressed concern with the proposed intersection of Shipyard Drive and SS Essington Drive, stating that it would create traffic and queuing problems.
Members of the audience expressed concern about the inclusion of a movie theatre, saying that it would cause too much traffic and attract the "wrong crowd".
In terms of Board input, Susan Murphy stated that the traffic counts for the Shipyard would have to be redone to reflect current traffic conditions. Sarah Corey requested additional information about the actual heights of the buildings, the amount of open space, the location of view corridors, and what measure the applicant would take to "recall the history of the site" as required in the permit. Susan Murphy expressed concern that the movie theatre, health club and eating establishments were "parking hogs" and could potentially reduce the quality of the other tenants. She also noted that she did not feel that the area where hazardous waste had been located was an appropriate site for a park. Tod McGrath expressed great concern about the new location for the large residential building, saying that it blocked public views towards the harbor.
Joel Sklar concluded the meeting by saying that they would take all comments into consideration as the plans proceeded.
RE: South Shore Baptist Church-Special Permit A-3 - Parking Determination for Office Use at 20 Free Street
Present for the Applicant: Tim Ells and Brad Warner, South Shore Baptist Church (SSBC) Board of Elders; Robert Pomerene, Attorney for SSBC.
Susan Murphy provided the following brief chronology of the events leading up to the hearing:
6/5/05 SSBC applied to ZBA for a 1) Special Permit to expand parking lot and 2) a Special Permit A-2 (Parking Determination) for the proposed use of the property at 20 Free Street for church offices. The application to expand the church parking lot was withdrawn.
8/10/05 Planning Board recommended that ZBA approve the applicant's request to locate much of the parking needed for the proposed uses at 20 Free Street in the primary church parking lot.
12/21/05 ZBA votes to deny the request for a parking waiver based on the fact that the applicant "failed to clearly identify its interpretation of the proposed office use and/or had failed to fully identify the intended scope of the Applicant's proposed use for the 20 Free Street premises" but noted that "the Applicant may wish to seek permission to submit a revised and clarified application" via repetitive petition.
1/31/06 Applicant came before Planning Board with a request to approve the submittal of a repetitive petition to apply for a parking determination and waiver for 20 Free Street. The Applicant presented a clarified description of the church office use. Planning Board votes to permit the applicant to submit a "revised and clarified application" for a parking determination.
5/1/06 Town Meeting voted to shift Special Permit Granting authority for Parking Determinations to the Planning Board.
5/16/06 Applicant applied for Special Permit A-3 from Planning Board
The applicant is currently applying for a Special Permit A-3 (parking determination) in connection with a change of use of the property at 20 Free Street from a residence to church offices. The applicant is requesting 1) a determination under Section V-A that the applicant may provide all parking required for 20 Free Street at 578 Main Street, with the exception of handicapped access parking, and 2) a determination that the proposed use of the property at 20 Free will NOT intensify the church use (and thus the required parking for the property as a whole), as the church contests that the new office space will simply replace operations that will be housed at 20 Free are already in existence in the church.
Mr. Warner explained that the plans submitted show pretty much exactly where the Board ended up with the applicant at the end of August '05. There is a driveway and handicapped parking spot proposed for where the driveway is currently located on the east side of the house. There is a 4'wide paved walkway leading from the house to the SSBC parking lot. The use agreement developed by the church limits use of the building and places restrictions on the hours of operation, and activities that can take place of the building.
Ms. Murphy noted that the abutters had provided an alternate use agreement providing counter-proposals to those put forth by the church. Abutters wanted the path located in the middle of the 20 Free Street property, and not either side, with screening planted on both sides of the property. They also wanted to limit office use from 9-5, with no evening or weekend meetings or group activities.
Mr. Warner stated that the church was willing to relocate the path, and plant screening vegetation on either side of the property where the building was located. They also agreed to guarantee that there would be no infant, child, or youth activities in the building. They also committed to not using any additional lighting. Board members suggested that low-level lighting along the path may be preferable to standing lights.
The two groups did not resolve the details about nighttime and weekend use.
The abutters expressed concern that freeing up space at 578 Main there will be a greater intensity of use at the church building. The church asserts that they will simply be less crowded at 578 Main, and will not have to do things like using the office space for childcare. Ms. Murphy asked whether the entire property was seen as "one enterprise" housing all church operations, or as two separate properties addressing distinct functions. Mr. Warner responded that they saw it as one property housing all church functions.
Roberta Sawyer, Attorney, spoke on behalf of abutters Jim and Pat MacAllen in opposition to the project. She emphasized that the Dover amendment protected certain uses, but that the Town can impose "reasonable regulations." She outlined the various concerns that the abutters had with the project and what a difficult neighbor the church had been. She described the future growth that was planned for the congregation. Members of the congregation disagreed.
There was a general discussion about a rock concert held at the church on Memorial Day weekend, which the neighbors found very disturbing and loud. There was also concern expressed about church members parking on Free Street. The Board asked whether it was legal to park on Free Street. Mr. Warner responded that the Hingham Police Department had limited parking to the side of Free Street opposite from the church.
The hearing was continued to June 26 at 8:00 PM.
RE: 3 Otis Street - Continuation of Site Plan Review Hearing and Parking Determination (Special Permit A-3)
Present for the applicant: John Perette, owner; Jeffery Tocchio, Attorney, Kelly McCarthy, Paralegal; Tammy DuRoss, tenant.
Four members of the Harbor Development Committee were also present.
Ms. Murphy explained that this was a continuation of the Site Plan Review hearing initiated on May 5, 2006, as well as a public hearing for a Special Permit A-3 for a Parking Determination. Specifically, the applicant was requesting a reduction in the overall amount of parking that would be required by the Zoning By-Law due to the property's proximity to a large public parking area.
Ms. Murphy started the meeting by explaining that the purpose of the Parking Determination was to determine whether the eight parking spaces at 3 Otis Street were sufficient for the uses occurring in the building. She mentioned that when the property received its Special Permit in 1984 it was the same size as it was today, but that there were no boat slips present at that time. The 32 boat slips were added in 2003 with no modification to the Special Permit. The Zoning By-law requires one parking space per berth at a marina, and therefore the Board was now looking at a formal waiver of the 32 spaces required by the marina.
Jeff Tocchio explained that the waiver was justified because the property was located adjacent to a large public parking area, which included 29 parking spaces big enough to accommodate trailers. He also pointed out that the parking waiver for 26 Summer Street offered a comparable situation in terms of the waiver granted for that property. In that case 65-75 spaces were required by zoning, and only 23 were provided. Mr. Tocchio calculated that the ratio of spaces needed to spaces provided at 3 Otis would be comparable. He also mentioned that the overall number of boats in the Harbor had not increased with the addition of the slips, and that, therefore, there was no increased demand for parking.
Planning Board members asked Mr. Perette how many mooring were in the harbor, and he responded that there were 161, including those that he served and others. He noted that this number was down significantly from years past. The Board asked Ms. Lacy to try to verify those numbers.
Members of the Harbor Development Committee (HDC) expressed frustration with the process, and expressed their opinion that there was no parking problem in the Harbor. They noted that
things were working well currently with the marina utilizing the Town parking lots for their customers, and questioned why this required a public hearing. Ms. Murphy explained that the Town Zoning By-Laws required a certain amount of parking, and that any waivers granted should be done carefully so as not to set problematic precedents.
Maggie Merrill and Nick Amdur of the HDC asked why the Planning Board was adverse to people making money at the Harbor. Ms. Murphy explained that they weren't, but that all business operations needed to comply with zoning.
Planning Board members all affirmed that it did not seem that there was a shortage of parking in this area. However, they determined that they could not grant a waiver that tacitly approved use of the Town parking facilities without input from the Selectmen. There was a general discussion about the purpose of the parking area in the Harbor. Attorney Tom Patch pointed out that all of the parking at the Harbor was created in the 1930s to serve the public facilities in this area, including the Bathing Beach, Town Pier and Iron Horse Park.
Members of the Harbor Development Committee noted that patrons and employees at Stars and the other restaurants downtown routinely used these parking areas. Greg Acera, owner of Stars, noted that he did instruct employees to park there, but that there was still not a parking problem in this area.
The hearing was continued to July 10 at 7:00 PM.
The meeting adjourned at 11:10 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Katharine Lacy