Create an Account - Increase your productivity, customize your experience, and engage in information you care about.
View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
NOTICE OF DECISION
Site Plan Review in Association with a Special Permit A2 and Special Permit A3
Applicant: W/S/M HINGHAM PROPERTIES LLC
Derby Street Shoppes, 90 DERBY STREET
Premises: Derby Street Shoppes Certified Mail #7014 2120 0003 3809 8617 90 Derby Street
Hingham, MA 02043
Date: April 27, 2016
Re: Removal of Parking Spaces by Burton’s Grill
Summary of Proceedings
At a duly noticed public hearing at the meeting of April 11, 2016 Planning Board members Sarah H. Corey, Gary Tondorf-Dick, William Ramsey, Jennifer Gay Smith and Judith Sneath heard the application of W/S/M HINGHAM PROPERTIES, LLC for Site Plan Review under § I-G and § I-I, and Special Permit A3 parking determinations under § V-A of the Zoning By-Law and such other relief as necessary to remove 3 parking spaces and widen sidewalk adjacent to Burton's Grill at 90 DERBY STREET in the Industrial Park and South Hingham Development Overlay District. The Applicant team included Robert Devin, Attorney, Andrew Manning, W/S/M, and Bill Hamilton, General Manager of Derby Street Shoppes.
The Applicant is also seeking a modification to the existing Special Permit A2 from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Devin stated that the overall application has several parts, and suggested that the Boards consider them one at a time, starting with the proposed removal of 3 parking spaces adjacent to Burton’s Grill in order to expand the sidewalk in that area. Mr. Hamilton said the sidewalk is heavily travelled and that a wider sidewalk is best for pedestrian access & flow. He also noted that Apple is an anchor, and is doubling in size and relocating the main entry door. This could result in congestion on the narrower sidewalk by the new doorway. The Chair asked if the intent was to increase the sidewalk to add seats to Burton’s, and the applicant said that was not the intent. The goal is to provide a wider sidewalk for pedestrians and avoid creating a new choke point for pedestrian traffic with the relocation of the entrance door to the expanded Apple store. The Board discussed the shifting of amenities, and the Mr. Hamilton confirmed that the existing streetscape treatment would be continued. The Board asked if the radius of the extended curb could be softened, and the applicant said yes. After additional discussion a 5’ radius on the corner was determined to be acceptable to all parties. The Board then reviewed the location of the new entrance and discussed if removal of two spaces would accomplish the intended goal of increasing pedestrian safety and circulation adjacent to the entrance. The Board noted that while they understood the intent, those spaces identified for removal were the closest spaces to the stores and thus highly desirable for some customers. Chief Olsson spoke to the need for more parking at the shopping center and read his comment letter into the record. He noted that it would be helpful to find ways to create more parking, not eliminate spaces. He also noted that remote parking spaces might be used in the overall parking tabulation but realistically they aren’t the spaces in demand or use by the general public. After discussion, it was found that removal of two spaces instead of three would still accomplish the intent of the request, and yet minimize the loss of parking spaces. The Boards discussed concerns about pedestrians walking out into the parking field and not using the designated crosswalks. The installation of a mounded landscape treatment along the corners was discussed as a way to guide pedestrians to more appropriate crossing locations. The Boards asked if there would be pedestrian impediments in the area of the expanded sidewalk, and the applicant indicated that only a continuation of the existing treatment was intended to possibly include benches or light poles, etc. The Boards asked if a revised plan would be submitted, and the applicant indicated it would. The Board noted that it seemed to provide a safer pedestrian environment and was not objectionable providing it is kept open for pedestrian activity with no impediments.
Findings and Decision
After additional discussion the Board reviewed the Site Plan Review Criteria, and made the following findings:
a. protection of abutting properties against detrimental uses by provision for surface water drainage, fire hydrant locations, sound and site buffers, and preservation of views, light and air, and protection of abutting properties from negative impacts from artificial outdoor site lighting
Any supplemental lighting would follow existing streetscape improvements
b. convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and on adjacent streets; the location of driveway openings in relation to traffic or to adjacent streets, taking account of grades, sight distances and distances between such driveway entrances, exits and the nearest existing street or highway intersections; sufficiency of access for service, utility and emergency vehicles;
The Board found that the installation of a mounded landscape treatment along the corners would be a good way to guide pedestrians to more appropriate crossing locations. The Board found that the radius of the extended curb should be softened, and after additional discussion a 5’ radius on the corner was determined to be acceptable to all parties. The Board then reviewed the location of the new entrance and found that removal of two spaces would accomplish the intended goal of increasing pedestrian safety and circulation adjacent to the entrance. The Board found that the proposal would provide a safer pedestrian environment providing it is kept open for pedestrian activity with no impediments.
c. adequacy of the arrangement of parking, loading spaces and traffic patterns in relation to the proposed uses of the premises; compliance with the off-street parking requirements of this By-Law;
The Board agreed that the removal of the spaces would help eliminate conflicts that occur from the cars backing up into each other on that tight curve.
The Board reviewed the parking table and found that there would still be a surplus of parking per the table with the removal of the two spaces.
d. adequacy of open space and setbacks, including adequacy of landscaping of such areas;
e. adequacy of the methods of disposal of refuse and other wastes resulting from the uses permitted on the site
f. prevention or mitigation of adverse impacts on the Town’s resources, including, without limitation, water supply, wastewater facilities, energy and public works and public safety resources;
g. assurance of positive storm water drainage and snow-melt run-off from buildings, driveways and from all parking and loading areas on the site, and prevention of erosion, sedimentation and storm water pollution and management problems through site design and erosion controls in accordance with the most current versions of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection’s Storm Water Management Policy and Standards, and Massachusetts Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines.
h. protection of natural and historic features including minimizing: the volume of cut and fill, the number of removed trees of 6 inches caliper or larger, the removal of stone walls, and the obstruction of scenic views from publicly accessible locations;
i. minimizing unreasonable departure from the character and scale of buildings in the vicinity or as previously existing on or approved for the site.
The Board found that the existing streetscape treatment would be continued on the extended sidewalk area.
The Board then Moved, Seconded and SO VOTED to Approve the Site Plan Review in conjunction with both a proposed modification to the existing Special Permit A2 dated February 10, 2003, as amended, and a Special Permit A3 Parking Determination to allow the removal of two parking spaces as presented at the hearing, with the following conditions:
1. Two parking spaces shall be eliminated;
2. There shall be a 5’ radius on the corner of the extended curbing
3. There shall be no pedestrian impediments in the expanded sidewalk area beyond the extension of streetscape
4. A mounded landscape treatment shall be installed along the corners and new sidewalk
Town of Hingham Planning Board
Sarah H. Corey, Chair
Cc: Town Clerk, Building Department, ZBA, R. Devin
EXECUTED this _____ day of May, 2016
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Plymouth, ss May __, 2016
Then personally appeared Sarah H. Corey, Chair of the Hingham Planning Board, and acknowledged the foregoing to be the free act and deed of said Board.
_________________________ My Commission Expires March 4, 2022
Dolores A. DeLisle, Notary Public