Scheduled:
7:00 PM Josselyn Way (off Pine Grove)
Request to Modify Approved Subdivision Plan
8:00 PM Old/New Business
Central Meeting Room South
_______
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: Josselyn Way (off Pine Grove) Request to Modify Approved Subdivision Plan
Sarah Corey recused herself from consideration of this matter.
Attorney Peter Puciloski came before the Board on behalf of the Hingham Community Nursery School, to request a modification of the 1966 Subdivision Approval for Josselyn Way. A condition in the original subdivision approval limited access to Lot A (O'Brien's property). The applicant is requesting that the condition be modified to allow frontage for both Lot A and Lot 1, which is the new lot owned by the Hingham Community Nursery School. The purpose of this modification is to save the pre-school the $100,000 cost of the land on Main Street.
Lamberts, O'Brien and the PreSchool filed this request jointly as the result of a legal settlement between all parties.
Per a 2005 Town Meeting Vote (Article 22), the Nursery School has a permanent access and utility easement to the property over Rosemary Drive. This easement will remain in place only as long as the property is used for a non-profit educational use. A resident of Pine Grove Road asked whether this modification could result in Lamberts and the Preschool using Josselyn Way for access. Mr. Puciloski explained that the Planning Board cannot legally deny access over one's frontage. However, the terms of the settlement agreement between Lamberts, O'Brien and the Pre-School limits access over Josselyn Way to Lot 1. Ms. Murphy asked for a copy of the settlement agreements for the project file.
Mr. James Clark asked whether this proposed modification represented a violation of the 2005 Town Meeting vote, which was based on an assumption that the pre-school would gain legal frontage over Main Street on land to be acquired from Lamberts. The Board acknowledged that this was the scenario presented at Town Meeting, but noted that the Town Meeting vote did not specify the location of the legal frontage for the pre-school lot (Main Street vs. Josselyn Way). They further noted that they did not feel that this modification was more or less in the best interests of the Town, in that the shift in frontage, in and of itself, did not impact town interests.
It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED, that the Planning Board approve a modification to the subdivision plan entitled "Plan of Lot A, Pine Grove Road, Hingham, MA" made for Elizabeth G. Josselyn and dated March 2, 1966, approved by the Planning Board on April 11, 1966, as follows:
That Condition 1 of said approval, which states "That the way be used for access to Lot A only" be stricken, and that there be substituted therefore the following: "That the way be used frontage only to Lot A on said Plan and Lot 1 as shown on a plan of Land entitled "Plan of Land, 1099 Main Street, Hingham, Massachusetts", dated September 2, 2004, Applicant Hingham Community Nursery School and prepared by Merrill Associates Inc. 427 Columbia Road, Hanover, MA 02338.
Old/New Business
1. Recap of 7/10 Meeting on Hingham Shipyard
Planning Board members met with consultant Steven Heikin from ICON Architecture to discuss the proposed modifications to the portion of the Hingham Shipyard being developed by Samuels and Associates. Leslie Cohen and Joel Sklar, of Samuels Associates; David Manfredi of Elkus Manfredi Architects, and Dick Cook of BSC were present in the audience.
Steve Heikin summarized what he sensed were the major issues identified in the last hearing: the proposed multiplex theatre; modifications to the view corridors into and out of the site, and the relocation of the 5-story residential structure to a location immediately on the water.
In terms of the cinema, Mr. Heikin pointed out the potential benefits of including some sort of theatre in the Shipyard, and noted that such facilities have worked successfully in other mixed-use complexes. He also noted the potential impact on traffic in and out of the site, and the potential for such a facility to serve as a magnet for large groups of teenagers. He questioned whether it would serve as an effective "magnet" as described by the developer, in that there is little evidence that movie goers actually shop or eat out when attending a movie. Board members reiterated that, in informal conversation, they received almost no positive feedback from the public on the idea of a multiplex theatre.
Board members asked whether the Patriot Cinema Company had accurate information as to the profile of the anticipated user. Ms. Murphy pointed out that there may be an untapped market for more of a high end "artsy" cinema focused towards adult viewers. Joel Sklar commented that the number and type of theatres originated from Patriot, not Samuels.
Sarah Corey expressed concern that the plan represented such a dramatic change from what was originally approved. She noted that the Board had spent many hours reviewing the plans, and that she felt this change was coming in at the last minute. She stated that the cinema represented a major change in the way that the project was presented during prior permitting procedures.
Steve Heikin went on to note that the proposed location of the cinema was problematic, in that it took up a prime waterfront location deep in the site, rather than a more easily accessible site near 3A, which could conceivable ease traffic within the development.
In terms of the placement of the 5-story residential building, the Board reiterated the concern expressed at the earlier hearings that it would block the best views of the Harbor. Steve Heikin noted Tod's suggestion of relocating the building to the other side of the roadway as a potential solution. Judy Sneath asked how much sense it made to have a luxury apartment building located immediately across from a busy multiplex.
Steve Heikin pointed out a few other concerns with the proposed design. He reiterated that it would be preferable to screen some of the view of the massive parking lots from 3A by placing buildings along that boundary of the property. He also expressed concern that the streetscape along Shipyard Drive may not be as "lively" as possible. He pointed to the larger anchor retail building in the middle of Shipyard Drive as something that could deaden the pedestrian experience by presenting a long uninterrupted façade. He also questioned the placement of so many eating establishments on the southern end of Shipyard Drive adjacent to 3A, when it seems that it would be preferable to place them near the waterfront.
Mr. Sklar responded to the meeting by stating that it had been very helpful to hear the Board input, and that the Board comments had been "heard" by the applicant. They noted that they would be filing the formal application for modification in mid-September.
2. Gardner Terrace-Request for Lot Releases and Establishment of Security Bond
The Applicant, Ross Rosano, is requesting the release of 2 of the 3 lots at the Gardner Terrace subdivision. Ms. Lacy reported that Paul Brogna recently inspected the roadway, which has just had the binder coat of paving applied. Based on this inspection, Mr. Brogna prepared a "cost to complete" which sets the bond amount at $55,000. Ms. Lacy also reported that an abutter to the project had expressed concern that too many trucks were coming in and out of the site. Ms. Lacy met with the abutter and the developer on site, and has instructed Mr. Brogna to keep an eye on the situation. It does not appear that the developer is in violation of any Town regulations.
It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present to permit the release of Lots 1 and 2 from the Gardner Terrace Subdivision contingent upon the provision of a security bond in the amount of $55,000.
3. Form A - 17 Miles Road
It was moved, seconded, and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present to endorse the Form A entitled, "Plan of Lots Hingham Town, Massachusetts", dated June 30, 2006, prepared by James E. McGrath Professional Land Surveyor, Weymouth, MA and William King and Associate, Scituate, MA for John and Virginia Fisher Trustee, 17 Miles Road, Hingham, MA, owners and applicants.
4. Weathervane at Chestnut Gardens
At an earlier meeting on July 10, 2006 Scott Turner, of BSC engineers, came before the Planning Board on behalf the applicant, Beal Street LLC, to informally discuss proposed changes to the plans for Weathervane at Chestnut Gardens, a Flexible Residential Development approved by the Planning Board on February 6, 2006. The proposed modifications changed the site grading so as to avoid extensive blasting on the eastern side of the site adjacent to Squirrel Hill Lane. At that time the Board determined that the proposed changes to the approved plan constituted a "minor modification." Further, based on a positive review by consulting engineer Nick Lanney, preliminary approval was granted.
Ms. Lacy reported that the plans submitted at this meeting represented the plans reviewed by Nick Lanney.
It was moved, seconded so SO VOTED, to approve the modifications to the approved subdivision plans for Weathervane at Chestnut Gardens, endorsed 5/15/06, as shown on the plans entitled "Flexible Residential Development Plan, Weathervane at Chestnut Gardens", prepared by Coler and Colantonio and dated December 15, 2005, with revisions to July 20, 2006.
5. Review Minutes of July 24, 2006
It was moved, seconded, and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present to accept the minutes of July 24, 2006.
6. Planning Board Review of Proposed Changes to Hersey House Plans
In response to a request from the Selectmen for comments on the proposed revisions to the development plans for the Hersey House, the Planning Board reviewed the plans during a regularly scheduled meeting on August 7, 2006. Among other things, Board members considered the extent to which the revised plan (as opposed to the plan originally selected) responded to the criteria put forth in the RFP. The following summarizes the comments of Board members Tod McGrath, Sarah Corey and Paul Healey. Judy Sneath and Susan Murphy did not participate in the review process.
. All three Board members participating in the review felt that the original proposal more closely complied with Evaluation Criteria # 3 "Preservation of the external historic appearance of the Hersey House Building, barn and streetscape."
Board members felt that the relocation of the Hersey House closer to North Street, the placement of the new single family home in the southwest corner of the property and the subsequent loss of the sweeping front lawn would be seriously detrimental to the historic character of the surrounding neighborhood and the property itself. Despite the argument put forth by the developer that that there may have been houses located along North Street during an earlier era, Board members felt that the existing sweep of front lawn is a critical character defining feature from the property's primary period of significance which must be preserved in order to maintain the integrity of this portion of North Street.
. In terms of criteria #4 "Advancement of the objectives of the Town" Board members noticed that the original proposal included a commitment to develop bathroom/storage facilities at Hersey Field. The Board urged the Selectmen to require the developer to provide this amenity as promised, as it would represent a valuable and generous contribution to the Town.
. The Board felt that the original proposal, while not ideal, had a much less detrimental effect on the surrounding neighborhood (Condition #5) than the revised proposal. In particular, the Board noted that the open lawn in front of the Hersey House serves an important function as open space in this relatively densely settled section of Town. The relocation of the Hersey House and the inclusion of a new house on a location immediately fronting on North Street would eliminate this open space and the visual relief that it provides. By bringing the development right up to North Street this plan gives a sense of increased density to a neighborhood that is already feeling the strain of new development, and the added complication, noise, and hassle of the nearby Greenbush crossing.
. In terms of Criteria #6, Economic Impacts, Board members urged the Selectmen, rather than focusing solely on the maximum amount of tax revenue that could be generated, to identify the best development outcome for the Town, including possibly a project with less units and a lower purchase price, but less impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. To this end, Board members felt that it would be helpful to review a variety of layouts in order to better evaluate the one that best balances both the Town's aesthetic and economic goals.
. Board members urged the Selectmen to consider whether the development would be improved with the addition of a limited amount of visitor parking and, and, if appropriate, sidewalks. Visitor parking, in particular, seems important given the lack of on-street parking in this section of Town and the added congestion on the surrounding streets that will be created by the Greenbush Crossing.
. Board members asked the Selectmen to require that the applicant get a written determination from DHCD that the five affordable units, if restricted to occupants 55 and over, are eligible for inclusion on the Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI).
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Katharine Lacy
Town Planner