7:00 PM Old/New Business
Upcoming Schedule
Discussion of proposes alternatives for intersection at Beal/West/North
7:30 PM Joint Meeting-Planning Board and Board of Appeals
Continuation of Hearings -
Roseland Property Company and Samuels & Associates -349 Lincoln Street
Major Amendment to the existing Mixed-Use Special Permit and Site Plan Review at the Hingham Shipyard
Central Meeting Room North and South
Present: Planning Board Members Paul Healey, Clerk, Sarah Corey, and Judy Sneath. Also
Present was Planner Katharine Lacy.
Mr. Healey opened the public meeting at 7:00 P.M. at the Hingham Town Hall.
RE: Discussion of Proposed Realignment of Intersection at West, North and Beal
Mr. Jeff Dirk, Traffic Consultant for the Town, discussed the various options for reconfiguring the intersection at Beal, West and South streets as discussed in the Beal Street Traffic Study. The goal of the reconfiguration is to slow traffic as it flows from Beal Street into the downtown area, and to make this intersection safer.
Ms. Lacy provided the Board with the minutes from the Hingham Traffic Committee from November 29, 2006, indicating that the committee preferred "Option 2B." The Planning Board reviewed the plans provided by Jeff Dirk and concluded that they were also satisfied with this alternative. Mr. Healey noted that DPW and the Fire Department would prefer that the raised crosswalks shown on the plan not be included. Planning Board members stated that would prefer the raised crosswalk, but after confirmation from Jeff that the raised crosswalk would not make it any more or less safe, they said that they could live without it.
Jeff Dirk recommended that the Town should keep an eye on whether the signal at South and West is timed correctly to create sufficient gaps for traffic passing from North to Beal or West. Jeff said that this can be recalibrated if there are problems.
Ms. Murphy arrived at this time.
It was moved, seconded, and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present to accept the minutes of January 8, 2007.
RE: Joint Hearing with Zoning Board of Appeals on Continuation of Public Hearing on Proposed Modifications to the Special Permit for the Hingham Shipyard
For this portion of the hearing the Planning Board was joined by the Zoning Board of Appeals and ZBA Administrator Sue Eddy.
Present for the Applicant:
Joel Sklar and Leslie Cohen of Samuels and Associates
Richard Cook, BSC
Jeffery Tocchio, Attorney
Whitney Perkins, Graphic Designer
Mark Milton, Roseland
Joe Shea, Roseland
Vincent Martin, Roseland
David Hawk, Landscape Architect for Roseland
Historical Interpretation and Monumentation
Ms. Murphy and Mr. McLaughlin opened the hearing, noting that the first item on the agenda was a discussion of the developer's plans to integrate historical interpretation and monumenation throughout the proposed development.
Leslie Cohen of Samuels stated that they had been working with a consultant to develop a full interpretive plan for the Shipyard. She stated that the cinema lobby would house displays or historic artifacts, and would show the recent film on the history of the Shipyard on a regular basis. She noted that they had also been able to locate the steel eagle emblem which was contracted by the employees during World War II, and were planning to locate it at the entrance to the site. Finally she noted that the original gatehouse for the Shipyard would be located in the state's Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) Park.
Ms. Cohen introduced their consultant, Whitney Perkins, to provide an overview of ongoing plans to commemorate the history of the Hingham Shipyard within the development. Ms. Perkins noted that her firm had worked on a variety of interpretive projects in the area including Fan Pier, the Battle Road and the Freedom Trail.
Ms. Perkins noted that she had met with the Shipyard Historical Committee several times, and had been provided with a wealth of historical information and images. Ms. Perkins described a series of interpretive table-top style panels that would be located at regular intervals along Shipyard Drive, each providing images and text about different aspects of the Shipyard's history. On the Riverwalk area in front of Roseland's property each shipway would be marked by another panel including information about the actual ships launched from that location, as well as a steel cut-out of the three types of ships produced at the Shipyard.
Mr. Healey and Victor Popp both stated that they thought it would be better to locate the eagle in a park space closer to eye level, where the inscription could be read. Board members also suggested other topics to be addressed on the panels. Paul Healey suggested a roster of all employees at the Shipyard, display of E Flag, consult with Jane's Fighting Ships, display of Bond drives, list of soldiers, sailors, Marines from Hingham who served in WWII.
Paul Healey wanted more detail with respect to the preservation of the gatehouse, tying in other aspects of the shipyard, Ammo Depot operations, (Bare Cove Park/Bus Depot).
Board members asked about the possibility that the panels would be marred by graffiti. Ms. Perkins noted that the panels were extremely cleanable and durable.
Mr. Steve Heikin, design consultant for the town, noted that the applicant might want to consider mounting some of the panels onto the buildings instead of having them as freestanding obstacles on the sidewalk. Lee Vigil of Wompatuck Road echoed this concern. Joel Sklar responded that the sidewalks were planned to be 15' in width, which should be wide enough to accommodate the panels.
A representative from the Amphibious Veterans of Massachusetts noted that there were other Shipyard sites in the United States, but none had been commemorated to this in any way. He expressed concern that the existing monument located near the Ferry Terminal continue to be located at this site, and was reassured that this would not change.
Judy Sneath noted that the interpretive plans looked great, but wondered if it would be possible to incorporate additional panels throughout the site. Other board members stated that they thought it would be good to provide interpretive markers in locations other than Shipyard Drive and the Riverwalk, such as throughout the residential neighborhoods.
Susan Murphy asked Ms. Cohen what role the National Park Service was playing in all of this. Leslie responded that she had been in contact with Kelly Fellner, Chief of Interpretation, and that they wanted to review the content and appearance of the interpretive displays to ensure consistency with interpretive plans for the Harbor Islands gateway at the DCR Park.
Proposed Roseland Modification
Ms. Murphy initiated this portion by asking Joe Shea whether they would grant the Board an extension for the Site Plan Review process. She noted that the current extension to the Site Plan Review period expires on January 22, 2007. If the applicant chooses not to extend the time period for site plan review, the Board will be forced to prepare a list of binding conditions right away, which the ZBA will be required to include in their permit.
Mr. Shea of Roseland properties responded that he wanted to know if there was a proposed timeline for completion of the hearing. Ms. Murphy responded that the Board was trying to act
expeditiously, but that the applicant had not provided the information requested of them in November until earlier this week. She said that now that the Board had the information she was anticipating that the consultants could make their recommendations at the next hearing, and that the Board would be in a position to vote at the hearing on February 15.
Mr. Lowry stated that they could not make this decision right away, because they were under pressure from their superiors, banks, etc. He asked if it would be possible to seek building permits for the 22 units that were already approved through a minor modification process by the ZBA a few months ago. Ms. Murphy said that it completely depended on whether the site plan review process would result in changes that might affect the size, shape or location of the buildings.
Ms. Murphy noted that the Board's consultant, Steve Heikin, has expressed concern about the lack of sidewalks on the North side of Halstead Drive, and portions of Staynor Drive.
Mr. Heikin stated that for aesthetic reasons it is important to have a sidewalk on both sides of Halstead and Staynor Drive. What he has in mind is a five foot mountable strip running parallel to the buildings, punctuated perhaps by raised planters. In order to accomplish this, the entire street layout would expand by about five feet, which would require that the whole site plan "slide" southward five feet.
Joe Shea responded that there are already engineered plans drawn, and utilities in the ground, and that "sliding" the site plan would not be that easy, and would represent a substantial additional cost. They noted further, that a sidewalk running along the backs of driveways presents a dangerous condition where cars could back into pedestrians.
Mr. Paul Brogna, consulting engineer for the Board, stated that he did not believe that stubs or utilities were in place that would preclude such a design change.
Susan Murphy noted that, based on Ms. Eddy's research, the issue of sidewalks on both sides of Halstead actually came up in the 2003 permit hearings, and at that time the ZBA determined that because of the sidewalk on the other side of the road, plus the presence of the Riverwalk, that there are other options for walking east west in the site.
Board members pressed Traffic Consultant Jeff Dirk on whether he felt that it would be safer to have the sidewalks on both sides, given that on one side of the road they would be regularly punctuated with driveways. Jeff stated that he felt that, if the applicant were willing to comply with his recommendations, a sidewalk on only one side of the street would provide sufficiently safe pedestrian access. He stated that he had met with the applicant and that they had already expressed willingness to comply with several of his suggestions, including relocating the crosswalks, using a different paving treatment for the driveway aprons, and marking the line between the aprons and the street with a granite strip.
Mr. Dirk expressed more concern, however, about the fact that the driveway aprons were only 20 feet in length, saying that this is simply not long enough to fit a larger SUV or truck without it sticking out into the street. Victor Popp measured the plans with a 50' scale and confirmed that they were all around 20' in length.
Ms Lacy pointed out that the road width was 24-26 feet wide, which was wider than many subdivision roadways, and asked if it would be possible to add more length to the driveway aprons by making the street a bit narrower.
Members of both boards noted that they were more concerned with the length of the driveways than the provision of a sidewalk on both sides. The applicant agreed to take a look at the site plan and see how it could be redesigned to allow for more room for off street parking.
Ms. Murphy summarized that because this change was needed, it would not be prudent for the applicant to seek building permits for the 22 "permitted" units, in that their location on the site might be shifting, even just slightly.
Paul Healey wants more information on flagpole placement, lighting etc; placement of markers to reflect activities of the yard.
Jed Lowry showed several slides of the proposed developments, including a view from the Riverwalk, and several elevations within the site.
Landscape Architect David Hawk provided an overview of the proposed plans for all of the park and open space areas included in the Roseland property. Ms. Murphy asked about the proposed landscaping for the Riverwalk, and he showed a plan showing some of the Shipways planted and others open for pedestrian access. Mr. Cook explained that the design of the Riverwalk, because of its proximity to the shoreline, was the result of lengthy negotiation, review and approval from DEP, the Army Corp of Engineers, CZM and the Hingham Conservation Commission. For this
reason, he stated, it would be very difficult to change the plans for this area, which had been approved by the ZBA in 2003.
Ms. Corey asked about the height of the trees that would be planted, and David Hawk responded that they would use the largest trees that would survive transplant in this climate.
Ms. Sneath asked whether the 2-acre buffer area between the Roseland development and Bradley Woods would be protected, or whether it could eventually be developed. Mr. Lowry responded that any future development would be restricted through the permit and property owners' documents.
At this point Ms. Murphy asked whether the plans being shown included the approved location of the walking path from Bradley Woods. Mr. Shea said that they did, and Ms. Murphy invited Bradley Woods residents to come forward and examine the plans. They concluded that the location was acceptable, but that they would like a more direct route shown through the Shipyard to the commuter boat.
Susan Murphy asked about security on the site. The applicants responded that they had not planned for full time security, feeling that the homeowners themselves would keep an eye on things. She suggested that the Roseland applicants look to coordinate with Samuels for ongoing security.
Ms. Murphy asked again for a letter extending the time of the site plan review and he concurred, providing a 30-day extension. Mr. Shea provided a hand-written letter extending the project.
Ms. Murphy noted that the hearing would be continued to February 5. She said that the applicant should respond to the peer review memos prepared by Paul Brogna, Jeff Dirk, and Steve Heikin, and provide them with the information that they requested. She instructed the peer review engineers, in turn, to review this material and get back to the Board by the 5th with their final comments and recommendations.
The meeting adjourned at 11:10 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Katharine Lacy
Town Planner