TOWN OF HINGHAM
BOARD OF APPEALS
IN THE MATTER OF:
Applicant: Hawthorne Partners
3 Baldwin Green Common
Suite 210
Woburn, MA 02801
Property Owner: John J. Flatley Company
35 Braintree Hill Office Park
Braintree, MA 02184
Premises: Intersection of Beal Street and Sgt. Wm. B. Terry Drive
Hingham, MA 02043
Deed Reference: Land Court Certificate of Title No. 110147, Book 550, Page 147, and Land Court Certificate of Title No. 102313, Book 511, Page 113
SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS:
This matter came before the Zoning Board of Appeals on the application of Hawthorne Partners (the “Applicant”) for a use Variance from §III-A, 3.8 and/or a Special Permit A2 under §III-A, 3.8 along with a rear yard setback Variance under §IV-A of the Zoning By-Law and such other relief as necessary to develop a 64-unit healthcare and assisted living facility for early- and mid-stage Alzheimer’s and dementia patients at the intersection of Beal Street and Sgt. William B. Terry Drive (the “Property”), in the Industrial and Limited Industrial Park Districts, along with Site-Plan Review to be done by the Planning Board under § I-G and § I-I and a Special Permit A3 parking determination, with waivers if necessary, under § V-A. The 2010 Town Meeting voted to make this a permitted use in the Industrial and Limited Industrial Park Districts with a Special Permit A2, and thereafter the application for a use Variance was withdrawn.
A joint public hearing was duly noticed and scheduled on February 1, 2010 and subsequently continued to June 10, 2010 and July 22, 2010. The hearings were held at the Town Hall before a panel consisting of regular members Joseph M. Fisher, Chairman, Joseph W. Freeman and W.Tod McGrath. Planning Board members present were Paul Healey, Chairman, Judy Sneath, Sarah Corey, and Gary Tondorf-Dick. The applicant was represented by Attorney Robert L. Devin and a team of consultants.
BACKGROUND:
The Applicant has a Purchase & Sale Agreement with the owner of the Property, the John J. Flatley Company. The Applicant has also reached agreement with the abutter at 225 Beal Street, Hitchcock Shoe, for a land swap which will make the subject parcel more rectangular in shape. The Applicant desires to develop a 64-unit assisted living facility for early- to mid-stage Alzheimer’s and dementia patients.
The Property consists of roughly 4 acres of land with frontage on both Beal Street and Sgt. William B. Terry Drive. The proposal calls for a one-story approximately 40,600 sq. ft. building
with 50 parking spaces. It will have three wings or “households” including 16 studio units for a total of 48 units. Individual living units, consisting of a bedroom and bathroom, will be organized into “households” with shared living, dining and kitchen facilities. Meals will be prepared on site in a central kitchen and delivered to each “household” dining area. The facility will include 24-hour health care staff, housekeeping services, beauty/barber salon, and activity and fitness areas and will have full access to enclosed outdoor gardens and walking areas. A fourth wing, approximately 10,600sq.ft., consisting of 16 units will be designed for the project but construction of this additional wing will be determined in the future (Phase II of the project). Upon completion of all four wings the total size of the building will be approximately 51,200sq.ft. The Applicant explained that the footprint of the proposed building is based on industry experience showing that Alzheimer’s and dementia patients are best served by living in “pods” of sixteen units.
The parking lot will provide on-site parking for 40 vehicles, including 2 handicapped accessible spaces as part of the initial phase of the project, with 10 additional spaces (including one handicapped space) proposed as part of Phase II of the project for a total of 50 spaces at the project completion. This amount of parking meets the requirement of Hingham’s off-street parking regulations under §V-A of the Zoning By-Law for hospitals and nursing homes, thus no further relief was needed under the provisions of a Special Permit A3.
DISCUSSION:
As part of the joint hearing process, and in accordance with Section IV-G and I-I of the Zoning By-Law, the Hingham Planning Board conducted Site Plan Review in connection with the application. The Planning Board also consulted with Jeffery Dirk of Vanasse and Associates, who acted as a consultant to the Planning Board relative to vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation. Mr. Dirk suggested several revisions aimed at improving the safety and ease of access, circulation and parking on the site. John Chessia of Chessia Consulting acted as a consultant to the Planning Board, reviewing the project for compliance with DEP Stormwater Management Standards and general engineering design standards relative to grading and drainage. During the course of the hearings, the applicant agreed to and did make changes to the plan to accommodate suggestions by the Board’s consulting engineers.
The Board of Appeals and the Applicant discussed the need for the setback Variances at length. Mr. Freeman pointed out that the property is in two different zoning districts 1) Industrial and 2) Limited Industrial Park therefore creating different setback requirements. He explained to the Applicant that there are two encroachments into the setbacks 1) 10’ with the fourth wing (Phase II) on the northeast side of the Property and 2) 5’ into the 40’ front yard setback for the Industrial District with the wing on the eastern side of the Property adjacent to Beal Street. One aspect of the discussion centered around the issue of whether the relief needed for the fourth wing (Phase II) on the northeast side of the Property was from the rear yard requirement or the side yard requirement applicable to the Limited Industrial Park District. The Board of Appeals ultimately decided that relief from the side yard setback requirement of 35’ was appropriate. The fourth wing (Phase II) is estimated to have a ±50sq. ft. intrusion within the setback. The Applicant stated that conforming to the setback requirement on the northeast side of the Property would result in the loss of three units in the fourth wing (Phase II), creating both an economic and functional hardship. The Applicant is unable to move the building closer to Sgt. Wm. B. Terry Drive because the corner lot requires two front yard setbacks under Hingham’s Zoning By-Law. Further complicating the situation, the front yard setback requirements differ on both Sgt. William B. Terry Drive and Beal Street as the street frontages are located in different zoning districts. During the course of the hearing, the Applicant agreed to revise the site plan to move the building five feet (5’) further back from Beal Street to conform to the Industrial District setback for the Beal Street frontage. This move has further inhibited the ability to conform to the setback requirements for the fourth wing (Phase II) proposed for the northeast side of the Property.
FINDINGS:
After consideration of the Applicant’s proposal, together with the plans and diagrams submitted by the Applicant and the representations made at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals finds that the proposed healthcare and assisted living facility is consistent with all of the applicable criteria as set forth in the Zoning By-Law for the issuance of a Special Permit A2.
1. The operation of the proposed healthcare and assisted living facility is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning By-Law. The use proposed by the Applicant was explicitly approved in the applicable zoning districts at the 2010 Town Meeting with an amendment to Zoning By-Law.
2. The proposed use complies with the applicable purposes and standards of the Zoning By-Law. As noted, the use proposed is now an allowed use in the zoning districts on the premises. The Planning Board site plan review has ensured that the project complies.
3. The Property is an appropriate location for the operation of the proposed healthcare and assisted living facility. The use is an allowed use in the applicable zoning districts on the premises.
4. The potential adverse impacts of the operation of the healthcare and assisted living facility will be adequately mitigated. The Planning Board site plan review approval ensures that any potential adverse impacts of the facility will be mitigated.
5. The operation of the proposed healthcare and assisted living facility will not create a nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians. Changes to the proposed vehicle circulation along Sgt. William B. Terry Drive were made during the course of the public hearing at the suggestion of the Planning Board, these changes improve the safety of vehicular traffic.
6. Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the healthcare and assisted living facility. The Applicant has demonstrated that the facility will be constructed and operated in accordance with accepted industry standards.
7. The healthcare and assisted living facility meets accepted design standards and criteria for the functional design of facilities, structures, stormwater management and site construction. The Planning Board site plan review, and the technical review by the traffic and site plan consultants, ensures that the facility will meet these standards.
At the conclusion of the public hearing the Board of Appeals also considered whether the Applicant qualified for a Variance pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 10 which authorizes local zoning boards to grant Variances where:
(1) owing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape, or topography of such land or structures and especially affecting such land or structures but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located
(2) a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or by-law would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner, and
(3) desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of such ordinance or by-law.
The Board finds that conforming to the setback requirement would result in the loss of three units in the fourth wing (Phase II), creating both an economic and functional hardship. The Board finds that the Applicant is unable to move the building closer to Sgt. Wm. B Terry Drive because the corner lot requires two front yard setbacks. During the course of the hearing, the Applicant agreed to revise the site plan to move the building five feet (5’) further back from Beal Street to conform to the 40’ Industrial District front yard setback (the district in which the Beal Street frontage is located). This move has further inhibited the ability to conform to the side yard setback, and a side yard setback Variance under §IV-A of the Zoning By-Law is therefore appropriate. Given the limited nature of the Variance, the Board further finds that the Variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Zoning By-Law. Therefore, all of the conditions of M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 10 and the Zoning By-Law pertaining to the granting of a Variance have been met.
RULING AND DECISION:
Based upon the findings of the Board as set forth above, the Board of Appeals voted unanimously to GRANT the Applicant a side yard setback Variance from §IV-A of the Zoning By-Law for the fourth wing (Phase II) to build a 64-unit assisted living facility for early- and mid-stage Alzheimer’s and dementia patients subject to the following condition:
1. intrusion into the side yard setback not to be greater than 10’ and consistent with plan for the fourth wing (Phase II plan) that will have a minimum impact on the building (±50sq. ft. intrusion into the setback)
Also, based upon the findings of the Board as set forth above, the Board of Appeals voted unanimously to GRANT the Applicant a Special Permit A2 under §III-A, 3.8 of the Zoning By-Law to build a 64-unit assisted living facility for early- and mid-stage Alzheimer’s and dementia patients subject to the following conditions:
1. The decision of the Planning Board entitled “Notice of Decision, Site Plan Review in Association with the Issuance of a Special Permit A2, Hawthorne Partners Memory Care Center, Beal Street and William B. Terry Drive” dated August 9, 2010 is attached hereto and incorporated as Exhibit “A”. In accordance with the provisions of the Hingham Zoning By-Law the conditions imposed in the Planning Board decision are binding conditions to this decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
2. Applicant to submit a revised site plan showing conformance with the 40’ front setback requirement from Beal Street.
The zoning relief granted herein shall not become effective until (i) the Town Clerk has certified on a copy of this Decision that twenty (20) days have elapsed after the decision has been filed in the office of the Town Clerk and no appeal has been filed or that if such an appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied, and that (ii) a copy thereof has been duly recorded in the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds and indexed in the grantor index under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner’s certificate of title.
For the Board of Appeals,
_______________________
Joseph W. Freeman
August 25, 2010