Scheduled:
7:00 3 Otis Street Continuation of Site Plan Review Hearing Special Permit
A-3 Parking Determination
8:00 Viking Lane-Request for Project Extension
8:20 Weathervane at Chestnut Gardens - proposed modification to Subdivision Approval re: site grading
Unscheduled: Old/New Business
Central Meeting Room South
Present: Planning Board Members, Susan Murphy, Chair, Paul Healey, Clerk, Tod McGrath, and 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: 3 Otis Street: Continuation of Site Plan Review Hearing, and Special Permit A-3 Parking Determination
Present for the applicant: Jon Perrette, owner, Tammy DuRoss, tenant, Jeffery Tocchio and Kelly McCarthy, legal counsel.
Susan Murphy opened the hearing by stating that it was a continuation of a Site Plan Review Hearing first initiated on June 5, and continued to June 12. It was also the initial public hearing to consider the application for a Special Permit A3 for a parking waiver.
Waiver of Technical Compliance
Jeffrey Tocchio spoke on behalf of the applicant to request a Waiver of Technical Compliance.
The applicant submitted a letter dated requesting that the Board waive submittal requirements listed in Section I-I (5) (a-h) as outlined in the letter from Jeff Tocchio dated 5/5/06. The applicant justified the waiver on the basis that no physical changes were proposed to the site or exterior of the building, and that therefore this material was not needed. The Board voted to approve the waiver request.
Continuation of Site Plan Review Hearing
In accordance with Section I-I of the Zoning By-Law, the Hingham Planning Board conducted Site Plan Review relative to the application for a Special Permit A2 for the creation of an art gallery and "on-line real estate office" within the existing building at 3 Otis Street. The applicant, building owner John Perette, and his tenant, Tammy Duross, propose to renovate approximately 1300 square feet of the 2600 square foot building for the gallery and office. Section III (A) 4.10 and 4.18 of the Zoning By-law, respectively, require a Special Permit A2 for a "professional office" and "retail store" use in the Waterfront Business District.
Ms. Murphy continued with the Site Plan Review Hearing by reviewing the conditions from the 1984 Special Permit. Board members discussed the fact that the overall size of the building had not changed since that time, and that, in effect, the Art Gallery simply replaced one retail use (the Chandlery) with another. Judy Sneath brought up the fact that there always seemed to be large trucks and/or boats in the parking lot in front of the building. Ms. Murphy responded by noting that the Board would be addressing the parking in the Special Permit Application. She asked the Board whether, if the slips and marina uses were taken out of the equation, the existing site configuration would work.
Mr. Tom Patch expressed concern that the Planning Board was not conducting Site Plan Review as instructed in the By-Law by not looking at the compounded impacts of all of the uses in the harbor area. Ms. Murphy responded that she felt that the Board had, indeed, looked at the "big picture".
The Planning Board identified the following conditions to be included in the permit in the event that the Zoning Board of Appeals approves the application for a Special Permit A2 for the proposed art gallery use at 3 Otis Street:
1) Eight spaces shall be provided along the face of the building at an angle of 45 degrees.
2) Circulation on the site shall be marked "one way" from east to west along the face of the building
3) The site exit (to the west) shall be marked "Right Turn Only".
4) No other change in the traffic flow pattern shall, parking layout or curb cuts shall be made without approval from the Planning Board or Board of Appeals, as applicable
5) The existing five-foot, fenced clear strip to the rear of the property shall be maintained to allow public access, with appropriate gates to provide emergency access to the fenced area
6) Site dumpster should be located entirely on the applicant's property, but not in a designated parking space, or so as to impede emergency access or site circulation.
3. Special Permit A-3 Parking Determination
Ms. Murphy asked the Board whether they felt the eight spaces on site were adequate to serve all of the uses on the site. Paul Healey asked for more information about what exactly goes on in the building. Mr. Perette and Mr. Tocchio asserted that uses included office space, two businesses, and the marina operation including the 38 boat slips. Ms. Murphy asked Mr. Perette where the offices for the Marina operation where located, and he said that they occur in his house in Scituate.
Ms. Murphy noted that the Zoning By-Law requires one parking space per each boat slip. Ms. Lacy calculated that if you measure up all of the uses taking place in the building that the applicant would be requesting a waiver of approximately 42 parking spots (4 for the building use, and 38 for the boat slips).
Ms. Sneath came back to the issue of trucks and other vehicles parked in the marked customer parking spots. Mr. Perette stated that he had just rented a place in Cohasset to store his vehicles and that this would not be a problem in the future. Ms. Lacy asked about the large boat that was parked in front of the store, and he explained that this was an emergency situation where the boat was sinking and had to be pulled out of the water. Ms. Murphy advised the applicant to contact the police in the future about emergency parking so that everyone knows what is going on.
Mr. Tocchio reiterated that there was plenty of parking in the vicinity, including 129 spaces in the Town lot immediately adjacent to 3 Otis. Susan stated that the Board was aware of this, but that because a waiver would implicitly approve the use of a Town lot for parking, that they had asked the Selectmen for their input on this issue. The Selectmen had responded that they would like the Board to grant a temporary waiver that would allow the slips to remain operational for the remainder of the boating season, but give the Selectmen some time to think about how and if they wanted to regulate parking in the Town lots near the Harbor. Ultimately the Selectmen would have control over whether the slips remain in place in their authority over the "10A" process by which the Selectmen can permit, on an annual basis, the installation of marinas and slips.
Ms. Murphy spelled out three scenarios that the Board could pursue. First, they could deny the requested waiver, which would place the boat slips in noncompliance Second, they could grant the waiver, which would allow things to continue much as they are. Finally, they could do as the Selectmen requested and grant a temporary waiver, and see what the Selectmen determined.
Paul Healey made a motion to approve the request for a parking waiver to allow the property to operate with 8 parking spaces instead of the approximately 43 that would be in required by the Zoning By-law, with the following conditions:
1. The eight existing parking spaces existing in the site will be used for building tenants and customers ONLY and will not be used by marina employees or customers.
2. There will be no parking of storage of commercial vehicles, boats or equipment in the designated parking spaces, driveway or walkway.
3. The waiver will expire on December 31, 2006, at which time the applicant will be required to return to the Board for another waiver to remain in compliance with Zoning regulations.
Judy Sneath seconded the motion, and all present voted in favor.
RE: Viking Lane-Request for Project Extension
Present for the developer: Bill Murphy, owner and Attorney George Ford.
The developer requested a one year extension to the subdivision approval. This project was first submitted in the mid 1990s, and finally endorsed in 2002. Since that time the developer has
requested several extensions. According to engineer Paul Brogna the site has been secured, and there are no erosion issues at this time. There are, however, ongoing drainage problems on abutting properties. Abutters feel that the construction of the roadway (compounded by other growth in the area) has exacerbated the problem, though it is difficult to prove.
Ms. Murphy expressed concern about endlessly extending the approvals on the roadway, saying that she did not like the idea of letting these project drag out. Mr. Ford stated that the developer was willing to go ahead and complete the road according to the plan, but that it would probably get damaged when the houses were built, and have to be rebuilt, thus causing noise and disruption for the neighbors twice instead of just once. Mr. Ford noted that they were scheduled to go back before the Board of Health for variances relative to proximity to wells and lot sizes on Thursday, July 13. He noted that, whatever the outcome, it was his belief that there were going to be houses on the lots eventually.
Ms. Ellie Hickey, Autumn Circle, expressed frustration that the "approval process" had been taking so long, and that the applicant had cancelled various hearings at the Board of Health. She spoke passionately about the fact that Autumn Circle residents were being flooded, and that the development would only make the problem worse. Mr. Healey responded that the subdivision roadway had already been approved in 2002, and that all that was left to approve or disapprove was the variances required by the Board of Health for the individual homes. He emphasized that potential drainage issues had been carefully scrutinized in the subdivision hearing, and that the approval put precautions in place to prevent the additional damage. He noted that pre-existing problems would not necessarily get worse with new development. Ms. Hickey stated that she was aware of people's right to develop their land, but asked if the Town was doing enough to protect existing residents. Ms. Murphy and Ms. Lacy noted that there had been a record amount of rainfall in May and June 2006. Mr. Hickey pointed out that perhaps developments should not just be designed to handle 100 year storms, but even greater inundations in light of the fact that the 100 year storms seemed to be happening with greater frequency.
At the end of the discussion Paul Healey made a motion to extend the approval period until August 1, 2007, and Tod McGrath seconded, and it was voted to allow a one year extension.
RE: Weathervane at Chestnut Gardens - proposed modification to Subdivision Approval re: site grading
Present for the Applicant: Jim Bristol, owner; Carl Erickson, Bristol Brothers Construction; Scott Turner, BSC.
The applicant came before the Board for an informal discussion of a proposal to modify the proposed grading on the site in order to prevent significant blasting. Scott Turner explained that there is a significant amount of ledge on the western side of the site near Squirrel Hill Lane The applicant is suggesting that, rather than blasting the ledge and removing it, that they even out the site by filling portions of the site to create a smooth gradient from the higher ledge areas on the west to existing elevations on the east. This will have the end result of raising elevations approximately five feet higher than originally approved on the western end of the site.
Nick Lanney, who was present, stated that the revised plan would not have negative impacts on site drainage or safety, but he expressed concern about potential impacts on site aesthetics. In particular, he noted that with the grade change some of the houses would have walk-out basements, and might appear to "loom" over abutting properties. The applicants showed the board sections and roadway profiles as seen from Beal and Rhodes Circle showing that the roofs of some of the houses would be five feet higher.
Board members asked whether the proposed change would require the applicant to get variances from the height limitations put for the in the zoning by-law. Specifically, members expressed concern that the top of the basement floor would be more than five feet above the pre-construction grade. Jim Bristol explained that none of the buildings were more than 1.5 stories, so even if the basement were counted as a story they would still comply with the 2.5 story limit.
Board members determine that it would be preferable to prevent blasting. Jim Bristol asked them if they felt the change would be a minor or major modification to the approved subdivision, and they concurred that it would be minor. Mr. Bristol stated that they would submit a formal request for modification as soon as possible.
Old/New Business
1. Linden Ponds Building Permits/Update on Housing Plan
Ms. Lacy reported that the Board needed to sign off on building permits for two new residential buildings (97 and 122 unit buildings in Neighborhood 2). Ms. Lacy reported that the option of trying to move forward on the Planned Production Plan prior to the pursuit of litigation (as discussed with Housing Partnership Chairman Jim O'Brien at the Planning Board meeting of June 5, 2006) no longer makes sense, in that the Town has gotten a clear response from DHCD that we cannot use Linden Ponds as part of a Planned Production strategy.
Susan Murphy noted that she is aware that Jim Toomey's office is working on a complaint, but did not know a sense of the actual time frame. The Board elected not to sign off on the building permits, and to continue not doing so until there was some progress on the litigation.
2. Select Project Inspector
Ms. Lacy reported that they had received proposals from Nick Lanney, Paul Brogna, John Chessia and Tibbetts Engineering. The Board opted to stick with Paul Brogna and Nick Lanney, but noted that there was no problem with adding additional consultants as well. Ms. Murphy pointed out that it might be good to have a firm with more varied experience (traffic, soils, grading) readily available for consulting.
3. The Board voted to approve the Minutes of 6/12/06, 6/17/06, and 6/26/06.
4. Ms. Murphy reported that she had contacted the State Ethics Commission to ask about the propriety of members of permit granting boards attending opening parties, ribbon cutting ceremonies and the like. The individual with whom she spoke stated that officials should be very careful when considering such invitations to determine whether attending would create the appearance of impropriety, even if nothing inappropriate was occurring. They pointed out that if a Planning Board member were to attend an event celebrating the opening of a business it could appear to the public that they had been predisposed to vote favorably on it from the beginning.
The meeting adjourned at 10:10 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Katharine Lacy
Town Planner