View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Town of Hingham
Board of Appeals
TOWN OF HINGHAM
Board of Appeals
SPECIAL PERMIT A2
IN THE MATTER OF:
Applicants: Norfolk Downs Realty Trust and 185 Thomas Burgin Parkway Trust James M. Drew, Jr. and Susan Drew, Trustees
191 Beal Street
Hingham, MA 02043
Premises: 191 Beal Street
Hingham, MA 02043
Title Reference: Plymouth County Registry of Deeds, Land Court Cert. #107464, Book 537, Page 64
Plan Reference: "Site Plan, 191 Beal Street, Hingham," prepared by
Cavanaro Consulting, 687 Main Street, Norwell, MA, dated May
27,2014, revised July 28, 2014, Sheets 1-2
SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS:
This matter came before the Board of Appeals on the application of
James M. Drew, Jr. and Susan Drew, Trustees of the Norfolk Downs Realty
Trust and 185 Thomas Burgin Parkway Trust ("Applicants"), for a Special
Permit A2 under § IV-A of the Zoning By-Law, with Site Plan Review
under § I-G and § I-I and a Special Permit A3 Parking Determination
under § V-A to be done by the Planning Board, and such other relief as
necessary to construct a 5,500 SF, single story addition to an existing
multi-tenant industrial building at 191 Beal Street in the Industrial
The Board of Appeals and Planning Board heard the application at a
duly advertised and noticed joint public hearing on Monday, July 28,
2014. The Board of Appeals panel consisted of its regular members Joseph
M. Fisher, Acting Chairman, and Joseph W. Freeman and associate member
Alan Kearney. Planning Board members present were Gary Tondorf-Dick,
Chairman, Judy Sneath, Bill Ramsey, Walter Sullivan and Sarah Corey.
The Applicant was represented by Attorney Jeffrey A. Tocchio, John
Cavanaro, P.E., and Jerry Seelen, R.A. The Applicants were also in
Throughout its deliberations, the Board has been mindful of the
statements of the Applicant and the comments of the general public, all
as made or received at the public hearing.
The subject property is approximately 97,010 SF in size. The Applicant
proposes construction of a 5,500 SF, single story addition on the
northwest corner of an existing multi-tenant industrial building at the
corner of Beal Street and Churchill Road in the Industrial District. The
proposed addition would increase the floor area ratio ("FAR") from
34.2% to 39.9%. An increase in FAR above 35% up to a maximum of 50%
requires a Special Permit A2 in the Industrial District.
The application narrative describes the appearance of the proposed
addition as similar to that of the existing structure and in keeping
with the character and scale of surrounding industrial properties. The
new space would be utilized for both a contractor shop (3,272 SF) and
additional warehousing (2,228 SF). Thirteen (13) parking spaces along
Churchill Rd. and the rear property line will be relocated to
accommodate access to three proposed overhead doors in the addition and
circulation around the building. The Fire Prevention Officer submitted a
letter to the Board verifying that the proposed plan provides adequate
access for fire fighting. Most of the proposed improvements are located
in previously paved areas. The plan is expected to improve stormwater
treatment and runoff overall.
At the end of its hearing the Planning Board voted to waive Site Plan
Review in association with a Special Permit A2 for the project and
conditionally to grant a Special Permit A3/Parking Determination.
The Board reviewed the Special Permit Approval Criteria as follows:
a. The proposed use will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning By-Law, for the following reasons:
The proposed addition will support allowed uses in the Industrial Park.
b. The proposed use complies with the purposes and standards of the
relevant specific sections of this By-Law, for the following reasons:
The proposed plan complies with the relevant special requirements of
the Schedule of Dimensional Requirements. The Planning Board determined
that the existing site provides the requisite parking for the proposed
use and voted to waive its Site Plan Review Requirements.
c. The specific site is an appropriate location for such use,
structure, or condition, compatible with the characteristics of the
surrounding area, for the following reasons:
The Property is an appropriate location for the expanded industrial
use and the design will improve the overall use of the site.
d. The use as developed and operated will create positive impacts or
potential adverse impacts will be mitigated, for the following reasons:
The proposed use will not create adverse impacts as the proposed
expansion is not expected to generate additional traffic. No new
lighting is proposed on portions of the building that are located across
the street from Residence E.
e. There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians, for the following reasons:
There will be no nuisance or serious injury to vehicles or pedestrians.
f. Adequate and appropriate facilities exist or will be provided for
the proper operation of the proposed use, for the following reasons:
The building has adequate facilities for the operation of the existing uses within the building.
g. The proposed Project meets accepted design standards and criteria
for the functional design of facilities, structures, stormwater
management, and site construction, for the following reasons:
The proposed plan meets accepted design standards.
DECISION and CONDITIONS:
Upon a motion made by Joseph Freeman and seconded by Alan Kearney, the
Board voted unanimously to GRANT the a Special Permit A2 to allow the
proposed construction which will result in a FAR of approximately 0.4
(39.9%) subject to the following conditions:
1. The use shall be operated in accordance with the plans submitted
with the application and the representations made at the public hearing.
This Decision shall not become effective until (i) the Town Clerk as
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 Town of Hingham
Board of Appeals,
Joseph M. Fisher, Acting Chairman
October 24, 2014