Scheduled:
7:00 PM Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to the Zoning By-Law
. Article J-Rezone Montessori School Property from Residence B to Business B
. Article E-Amendments to Section IV (D) Flexible Residential Development
. Article F-Amendments to Section V (A) Off Street Parking Requirements
. Article G- Modify parking requirements in Section IV (E) Multi-Family Housing
9:00 Old/New Business
1. Form A 383/387 East Street (Reed Property)
2. Update on 119 Beal Street-request for modification
3. Update on Housing Partnership activity re: Selectmen's Parcel
4. Report from CPC Liaison-Judy Sneath
Central Meeting Room North _______
Present: Planning Board Members, Susan Murphy, Chair, Paul Healey, Clerk, Sarah Corey,
Judy Sneath and Gary Tondorf-Dick. Also present was Planner Katharine Lacy.
Ms. Murphy opened the public meeting at 7:00 P.M. at the Hingham Town Hall.
RE: Hearing on Proposed Amendments to the Zoning By-Law
The Board was joined by Jerry Seelen and Joe Bierworth of the Advisory Committee for this hearing. Selectmen John Riley was also present.
Article E-Amendments to Section IV (D) Flexible Residential Development
This article would create additional minimal dimensional requirements for condominium projects developed under a Flexible Residential Development Special Permit A3; and clarify the requirements for resident and guest parking.
These changes had been originally proposed by Jerry Seelen, largely in response to the fact that at Ridgewood Crossing, which was permitted under the FRD, the houses seemed too close to the roadway, and, in some cases, cars parking in the driveway apron were hanging out into the street.
The proposed changes focused on the creation of some minimal dimensional requirements for developments that were developed as condos, with no individual lots as in a proposed subdivision. Mr. Seelen pointed out that the issue that comes up in these cases is that there is no front lot line from which to measure a setback from the roadway. Board members discussed the possibility of requiring a minimal distance from the paved right of way to the front of the house. Ms. Murphy noted that if the real issue was to ensure a minimum length for driveway aprons, it might be better to incorporate standards for driveway aprons rather than require setbacks from the roadway, when the whole intent of the by-law was to allow flexibility in site layout.
Article F-Amendments to Section V (A) Off Street Parking Requirements
This article would 1) modify the amount of off-street parking required for marinas; 2) add definitions for berth and marina to Section VI and 3) other clerical and "clean-up" type changes as needed.
The focus of this discussion was the proposed changes to the requirement for marina parking. Nick Amdur of the Harbor Development Committee, and Dana Baxter, boat launch operator in the inner harbor, were present to discuss the matter.
Ms. Murphy started the hearing by explaining that the purpose of this discussion was not to address the current parking situation at any one location, such as 3 Otis Street, but to identify a reasonable standard requirement for marina parking. She acknowledged that shared parking analyses were appropriate in many cases, but pointed out that even for shared parking it was important to have a baseline requirement from which to start. She went on to note that not matter how low the requirement was reduced, it would not address the current problem at 3 Otis Street, where there was absolutely NO parking available for the boat slips. The eight spaces in place now were required for the building.
Ms. Lacy said that she had looked into the requirements for marina parking, and had found a fairly wide range of recommendations as follows:
University of Rhode Island Study .25 spaces per berth
Scituate 1.5 spaces per berth
Vine Associates .75 spaces per berth
Fairhaven .5 space per berth
International Marina Institute no more than .5 spaces per berth
ITE .27 to .59 spaces per berth depending on day, time, season
In summary, it appeared that the proposed amendment to change the amount of parking required from one parking space per slip to .5 parking spaces per slip was consistent with industry standards and general practice. Board members all expressed a full understanding that these spaces were generally not used in the winter months at all, but were providing for full access to the harbor during the high demand period in the spring, summer and fall.
Ms. Lacy pointed out that it was unclear from these studies whether they were setting forth parking requirements for slips or all boat berths, including moorings. She noted that, in Hingham, the parking requirement had always been limited to private slips. Susan Murphy asked the Board whether they concurred with the concept that more parking should be required for private slip owners. Sarah Corey responded that that made a certain amount of sense, in that it was so much easier to access a boat on a slip that owners were much more likely to use the boat, even if just to relax or socialize on the boat tied up at the slip.
Ms. Lacy pointed out that changing the requirement to include moorings would have huge implications for the Shipyard, the Hingham Yacht Club, and possibly the Lincoln Sailing Center. Ms. Murphy noted that the Shipyard was effectively already permitted, and that therefore would not be affected by any change in parking requirements.
Ms. Murphy asked Ms. Lacy how many parking spaces were at the Harbor (not including the Bathing Beach Lot). Ms. Lacy responded that there were approximately 160 spaces, including 30 trailer parking spaces. Mr. Baxter, in the audience, noted that there were 168 boats moored in the inner harbor, along with the 38 slips associated with 3 Otis Street.
Mr. Nick Amdur of the Harbor Development Committee stated that the HDC was proposing an amendment to the article to require one space per five boat slips. He pointed out that he had also done some research, and that his findings were fairly consistent with Ms. Lacy's, though he had also spoken with various experts and found that they all felt that the standards generally applied were too conservative.
Sarah Corey stated that she wanted to continue looking into whether it might be sensible to set a minimum requirement for boats on moorings as well as slips.
Article G- Modify parking requirements in Section IV (E) Multi-Family Housing
This article will amend Section IV (E) (Multi Family Housing) to require guest or visitor parking as needed and determined through the Site Plan Review process.
This article came about in response to the permitting of a few multi-family projects in the past few years, in which there was lots of discussion relative to the provision sufficient parking for visitors.
Ms. Lacy reported that she has communicated with Planners from other Towns, and almost none of them had a clear standard for the provision of guest parking per unit, though they all said that some visitor parking was needed to prevent congestion within multi-family developments.
Board members concluded that it would be best to leave this requirement vague, so that the Boards could determine at their discretion how much parking would be needed depending on the type of development. In order to protect the developer, the Board agreed to revise the By-Law so that no more than a 10% increase over the required 2 spaces per dwelling could be required.
Article J-Rezone Montessori School Property from Residence B to Business B
This article will change the zoning of the land shown on the Hingham Assessor's Map 195, parcel 37 and Map 195, parcel 26, from Residence B to Business B.
Mr. Carlos Perez, President of the Board of Trustees of the Old Colony Montessori School, stated that the school community wanted to rezone their land to either increase the value (for the purposes of getting loans) or to sell so that they can move to another location. He noted that the parcel included land with frontage on Derby Street, Recreation Park Drive and extended all the way back to a single family house lot on Gardner Street. He pointed out that looking at the Zoning Map this proposed change makes a certain amount of sense in that it would be hard to develop this site, located at the corner of Gardner and Derby Streets, for residential use. Route 53 is zoned Business B (Starbucks, etc.) at this location. Further, the entire southern side of Recreation Park Drive is zoned Industrial Park, and the ZBA already granted a use variance for another lot on the north side of Recreation Park Drive to be used for office/commercial use (the Kellem and Kellem offices).
Board members acknowledged that it would benefit the school to proceed with the re-zoning, but wondered if this would be the best planning outcome for the Town. They noted that by changing the whole lot to Business B it would bring commercial uses right into the residential neighborhood on Gardner Street. Mr. Perez responded that he would be willing to amend the article so as not to include the former single family lot on Gardner Street, but that he still wanted to rezone the portion of the lot right on Derby Street. He noted that the school had always had problems with pick-up and drop-off at this location, and that the recent addition of the Starbucks at 1 Derby Street made morning traffic even worse.
Board members continued to express concern that by rezoning this parcel on Derby Street it would encourage the abutting residential properties to also seek rezoning to commercial, which could have negative impacts on this already congested area. In particular, they noted that there were, in fact, other residential properties on Derby and Whiting, and they were not sure if they wanted to set a precedent that could move this area towards all commercial use. In short, the Planning Board felt that this re-zoning would require additional study and input from the residents in this area to determine if it was in the best interest of not just the school but the Town as a whole.
Zoning hearings on all of these article were continued to March 5, 2007.
Sarah Corey left the meeting at this point.
Old/New Business
RE: Baker Hill Walking Paths and Bond Reduction
Jeff Tocchio, John Chessia and Dave Gooley came before the Board on behalf of the developer, Intoccia Builders, to discuss the legal status and proposed route of the dedicated walking paths. Several months ago, a property owner within the Baker Hill Subdivision brought to the Board's attention that portions of the easements that the Board thought were set aside for public walking paths were not, in fact, noted in the deeds for the affected properties. Ms. Lacy examined the recorded subdivision plans, and, due to some confusion in how they were marked on the original subdivision plans, it appeared that portions of the easement for the walking paths had not been recorded.
John Chessia, the original design engineer for the Baker Hill Subdivision, went over the thought process used in identifying the walking paths, and the Board concluded that the easements originally intended are actually in place, and are shown on the easement plans recorded with the original subdivision. The confusion is that they are poorly marked on the plans, and not clearly labeled. Portions of what had appeared to be the route of the walking path on the Grading Plan was, in fact, a sewer and utility access easement.
Mr. Tocchio noted that he had prepared a Declaration of Drainage, Sewer and Access Easements, which further articulate the easements as shown on the Subdivision Plan recorded at the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds in Plan Book 43, Pages 1182 to 1191 and 1193.
Jeff Tocchio asked the Board, now that the issue of the paths had been resolved, to vote favorably on the reductions to the security bonds in place for Hilltop Road and Baker Hill Drive that he had requested several weeks ago. He stated that consulting engineer Nick Lanney had prepared a Cost to Complete, and that the applicant agreed with the cost of the remaining work to be done.
It was moved, seconded, and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present to approve the requested reductions as follows:
Hilltop Road - $88,874 held currently, reduced to $36,421; and
Baker Hill (Sta 20 + 15 to 29 + 75) - $227,000 tri partite reduced to $117,979.
RE: Form A, 387 East Street
This is the latest iteration of the division of the Reed Property on East Street, formerly the site of the Country Way Nursery. This plan divides it into three lots, two with frontage on Side Hill
Road, and one with frontage on East Street. All lots appear to meet frontage, area and lot shape factors for Residence C.
It was moved, seconded, and SO VOTED, to endorse the Form A entitled "Subdivision Plan of Land 383-387 East Street & Side Hill Road in Hingham, Mass.", dated December 19, 2006, prepared by James Engineering, Inc., Hanover, MA for Bruce Reed, 387 East Street, Hingham, MA, owner and applicant.
RE: Update on 119 Beal Street-Request for Modification
Ms. Lacy reported that the Board voted last summer to modify the approved plans for 119 Beal Street (Weathervane Condominiums) relative to site grading to allow them to build up the site a bit to avoid blasting that would have been needed to build according to the originally approved plan. At this point, however, developer Jim Bristol has moved a lot of dirt around on the site, and determined that the quality of the fill is not good enough, and that they would have to bring in an extensive amount of new fill. Jim Bristol would like to go back to the originally approved plan. He also stated that the previous modification allowing them to change the originally approved plans, dated August 25, 2006, was never recorded.
Ms. Murphy stated that in order to have an honest record of proceedings, the applicant should record the August 25, 2006 Certificate of Action allowing them to change the site grading. The Board discussed the request to vacate the August 25 modification and determined that it would not be a problem, in that they had originally approved the project in this form.
It was moved, seconded, and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present to vacate the Certificate of Action dated August 25, 2006, allowing the owner to grade the site as originally approved.
RE: Update on Housing Partnership activity re: Selectmen's Parcel - No action required tonight
Ms. Lacy reported that the Selectmen received four responses to the RFP for the Selectmen's parcel on Beal Street, which was approved for the development of affordable Housing by Town Meeting in 2005.
Ms. Lacy summarized the projects for the Board as follows:
A. Hart/Judge 40 units with 63 parking spaces. Nine 3-bedroom townhouses, 11 first floor, two bedroom "flat" style apartments and 20 two bedroom duplexes. 50% affordable to those earning 50-120% AMI, and 50% market rate. $587,000 purchase price for the land.
B. South Shore Housing 40 two and three bedroom townhouses. 50% affordable to those earning 50%-80% AMI, 10 below 120% median income, and 10 market rate. $350,000 purchase price for the land.
C. LandWorks Inc. 40 units with 10 affordable and 30 at market rate. Eighty parking spaces. Eight buildings with five units each. No payment to the Town for the land.
D. Affirmative Investments 38 units in 18 "traditional" looking duplexes. 76 parking spaces. 25 units will be priced for 65- 120% AMI, and 13 market rate. Habitat for Humanity may build two of the units, which would then be priced for 50% AMI.
Ms. Lacy told the Board that no action was needed at this time, but that she wanted to give them a heads up that this was coming, and that one of these projects would be selected as the preferred alternative for the site. Board members requested that the executive summary for each project be provided to them.
RE: Update on Community Preservation Committee (CPC) Activity
Judy Sneath, the Planning Board's liaison to the Community Preservation Committee, updated the Board on a recent meeting regarding the process for determining which open space parcels should be acquired using CPC funds. They talked specifically about the Baker property on Main Street, and how the CPC had determined a value for the purchase and sale.
RE: Minutes
It was moved, seconded, and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present to accept the minutes of January 18, and January 22, 2007.
The meeting adjourned at 10:35 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Katharine Lacy
Town Planner