View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

Certified Mail # 70142120000338099935


Special Permit A3 for a Common Driveway under Section I-G and V-I with Site Plan Review under Section IV-B.6.b, and, in association with the Special Permit A3
property known as 39 & 47 Canterbury Street

Applicant: Canterbury Street, LLC
156 Union Street
Hingham, MA 02043

Project Site: 39 & 47 Canterbury Street
Hingham, MA 02043

Plan Reference: “Plan of Land 39-47 Canterbury Street Hingham, MA”, prepared for Canterbury LLC, prepared by Gary James Consulting, dated December 16, 2016, revised to 3/30/17, 7 sheets.

The Applications before the Board are for Site Plan Review under Section IV-B.6.b, and, in association with a Special Permit A3 for Common Driveway under Section I-G and V-I. The Planning Board opened the hearings on the Site Plan Reviews on January 9, 2017 and immediately continued them with no testimony to the meetings of 1/23/17 and 2/3/17. The Board held the first substantive hearing on February 27, 2017 to hear the site plan review and open the duly noticed application for a Common Driveway. The hearings were further continued to 3/13/17, 3/27/17, 4/3/17, and 4/10/17. All Planning Board hearings were conducted by Sarah Corey, Gary Tondorf-Dick, Jennifer Gay Smith, Judith Sneath and William Ramsey, with the exception of the hearing on March 27, 2017. Mr. Ramsey missed that hearing but subsequently reviewed the recording of the hearing and the record, and completed a Mullins Affidavit for the file.

The Applicant, Canterbury LLC, was represented at the hearings by John Woodin, the developer, Jeffrey Tocchio and Scott Golding from Drohan, Tocchio and Morgan, and Gary James, James Engineering. John Chessia served as the peer review engineer for the Board. Mr. James presented the application and explained that it involves the development of two single family houses on Form A lots, and, a common driveway is proposed to serve both lots. Mr. James reviewed the alternative options for driveway openings and stated that the amount of ledge removal could be minimized somewhat by having a common driveway. Also, the grades are difficult and it was a better design to work with the grades along the frontage for one driveway instead of two separate driveways. Mr. James reviewed the proposed ledge removal and drainage plan in great detail. This is a very complex site to develop and much of the drainage is inter-related to the adjacent definitive subdivision (under review but not approved at this time). The Board made it clear to the Applicant that this project and all associated drainage must be able to function independently of any other project. The Applicant has been working to design the drainage to divert as much drainage as possible away from Canterbury Street towards the pond. This will alleviate some of the existing drainage concerns on Canterbury Street. The Applicant has agreed to construct some drainage in the public way to help convey storm water where existing infrastructure is deteriorated or compromised. The Applicant team reviewed the common driveway design criteria with the Board and demonstrated compliance as designed with the exception of the drainage. The Applicant explained that there are some variables related to where the drainage will discharge which will be determined by the development on adjacent land. The Board was clear that they understood the intention to incorporate the drainage diversion to the pond for this project into the design for the drainage on the adjacent lands. They also determined that prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for these houses the final design of the diversion must be reviewed and presented to the Board. The Board noted that they would consider conditions to ensure completion of the work at no risk to the town. The Board also spent a great deal of time on the streetscape, working to ensure that as much of the trees and existing vegetation is retained as possible, and, that the old jeep road be closed by utilizing existing materials to create a terraced effect which could ultimately be landscaped. The Board discussed the extent of the blasting being proposed and identified conditions intended to be protective of the abutters, and, also ensure that the limit of work remain as proposed on the plans. If the limit of work is substantially enlarged the applicant must return to the Board for a modification. The Board ultimately determined that one curb cut was more desirable than two in this location, and, it minimized the amount of cut along the streetscape somewhat. The Board noted letters in the record memorializing the agreements that the applicant made with the Department of Public Works, as well as the signoffs from the Board of Health and the Fire Department.

After extensive discussion, and public comment, the Board reviewed the Construction and Design Standards for Common Driveways and made findings, as follows:

a) Common Driveways shall provide the following minimum easement widths and minimum paved surface widths as applicable:

Use Served Minimum
Width Minimum
Paved Surface
Residential 24 Feet 20 Feet
Non-residential 40 Feet 24 Feet

Access roads serving individual lots off of Common Driveways shall comply with 527 CMR 1.00, Chapter 18. The Planning Board may require that the Minimum Paved Surface Width of a Common Driveway serving residential multi-family dwellings, non-residential lots or any combination thereof be increased based on the type and volume of traffic projected to be generated by the proposed development, provided that the Minimum Easement Width must at all times be a least 4’ greater than the Minimum Paved Surface Width. If no development is proposed with the application for the Common Driveway, the minimum non-residential standard shall be required. There shall also be provided an 18” Cape Cod berm on each side of the Common Driveway serving non-residential uses.

The Board found that the driveway as proposed meets these standards.

b) Common Driveways shall not exceed 400’ in length in residence zoning districts and 800’ in all other zoning districts, measured from the street line to the end of the shared portion of the Common Driveway. Where a Common Driveway exceeds 150’ in length, turnarounds for emergency vehicles shall be provided in locations approved by the Fire Department. There must be adequate directional signage provided identifying the addresses served by the Common Driveway for emergency vehicle response, as well as routine traffic.

The Board found that the driveway is 110’ long.

c) No Common Driveway shall be allowed to be constructed off any cul-de-sac or dead end of a public or private way. No Common Driveway shall be connected or attached to any other Common Driveway. No Common Driveway shall be extended without prior approval of the Planning Board pursuant to this Section V-I.

The Board found that this was not applicable.

d) Sight distances at the entrance of a Common Driveway along the intersecting street shall conform to current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards and be indicated on the plan.

The Board found that the sight distances are noted on the plan, and that the current location of the driveway is a better location for sight distances than the previously proposed location.

e) To provide better traffic safety and reduce the visual impacts of traffic on abutting properties, the Planning Board may require Common Driveways to be set back a minimum of 15’ from lot lines and/or be screened with a buffer of trees and/or shrubs.

The Board found that the plans show retained landscaping on one side of the streetscape.

f) Common Driveways shall be constructed using a minimum 12” thick sorted gravel sub-base. The base course shall be a minimum of 2” binder and the top course for paved driveways shall each be a minimum 1 ½” thickness. Surfacing with gravel, crushed stone, or another permeable or semi-permeable surface may be proposed, especially for use within one hundred feet of a wetland or in other sensitive areas.

The Board found that this criteria has been satisfied.

g) Runoff draining onto abutting properties shall not exceed that which existed prior to construction of the Common Driveway, or be concentrated at any one point of discharge. Runoff shall not discharge into the public way. The Design Engineer shall provide a drainage statement and sufficient analysis to support the proposed storm water drainage system, including pre and post construction flows.

The Board found that the design with conditions as required by the Board, meets standards.

h) Common Driveway easements may allow space for installation of water lines and other utilities as needed. Utilities shall be shown on the Common Driveway Plan. The Planning Board may require that utilities be installed underground.

The Board found that the utilities will be sleeved.

i) No portion of a Common Driveway or turning area shall be located above major components of a septic system, including septic tanks, leaching fields, and distribution boxes, except where approved by the Board of Health, and only upon a finding by the Planning Board that there will be no negative impact on access for the lots served by the Common Driveway during future maintenance or replacement of these components.

The Board found that this was not applicable.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board voted 5-0 to grant a Special Permit A3 under §V-I of the By-Law for a Common Driveway at 39 & 47 Canterbury Street and approve the Site Plan Reviews for both lots, with conditions.

Based on the information submitted and presented during the hearing, and subject to satisfaction of the conditions set forth below, the Board made the following findings under Section I-I, 6 of the By-Law:
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.

The Board found that the lots are served by an existing fire hydrant, the DPW supports the drainage design and a draft right-to-flow has been submitted. The Board found that the Applicant will be rebuilding some drainage in the public way.

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 houses will have sprinkler systems. They found that the location of the common driveway minimizes intervention to the grades and eliminates one curb cut. They also found that the sight distances are shown on the plan and meet the minimum standards.

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 found that single family houses require 2 parking spaces. This criteria is met.
d. adequacy of open space and setbacks, including adequacy of landscaping of such areas;

The Board found that this is not applicable because these are single family houses. The Board found that the proposed limit of clearing is identified on the plans and efforts have been made to retain the existing trees and vegetation as possible.

e. adequacy of the methods of disposal of refuse and other wastes resulting from the uses permitted on the site

The Board found that this is not applicable.

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;

The Board found that there is a Board of Health approval letter dated March 21, 2017 and that the Applicant is working with Aquarion to extend water line down Canterbury Street. The Board found that Police details may be required at the discretion of the Chief of Police to assist in managing construction traffic entering or exiting site, and when material is being imported or exported from the site during construction of the driveway or drainage improvements.

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.

The Board found that Drainage design and erosion control measures are shown on the plans and maintenance is detailed in the O&M Plan. The Board found that a preconstruction meeting will be held on site to review the installation of the erosion controls prior to the start of work. They found that the Applicant must submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and provide more details on the construction management.

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;

The Board found that the extent of ledge removal has been minimized as much as possible during project design, most notably with the proposal for a common driveway. The Board also found that the design is sensitive to the existing landscape and utilizes terraces in the vicinity of the existing jeep path to maintain the existing streetscape.

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 project proposes the development of single family residences in a single family area.

a) The parking is sufficient in quantity to meet the needs of the proposed Project;

The Board found that this criteria is met. Single family houses require 2 parking spaces

b) Pedestrian access and circulation has been provided for;

The Board found that this is not applicable. Two single family houses are proposed.

c) New driveways have been designed to maximize sightline distances to the greatest extent possible;

The Board found that the proposed project does not create any sightline concerns, and the plan indicates the available sight lines and lists the required clear sight distance. The Board found that the location of the driveway is such that it minimizes the driveway grade as much as possible, and that having a shared driveway eliminates one curb cut. The Board also found that the proposed Common Driveway complies with the Design Criteria in Section V-I of the Zoning By-law.

d) It is impractical to meet these standards and that a waiver of these regulations will not result in or worsen parking and traffic problems on-site or on the surrounding streets, or adversely affect the value of abutting lands and buildings and

The Board found that no waiver is needed, and that the development of two single family houses with one shared driveway will not worsen traffic or adversely affect values
e) The granting of relief is consistent with the intent of this By-Law and will not increase the likelihood of accident or impair access and circulation.

The Board found that this project complies with this criteria.

Upon a motion made by William Ramsey and seconded by Gary Tondorf-Dick, the Board voted 5-0 to APPROVE the Special Permit A3 for a Common Driveway with Site Plan Review under Section IV-B.6.b and in association with the Special Permit A3, for Canterbury LLC as presented at the hearings and shown on the plans titled “Plan of Land 39-47 Canterbury Street Hingham, MA”, prepared for Canterbury LLC, prepared by Gary James Consulting, dated December 16, 2016, revised to 3/30/17, 7 sheets, based on the findings, and subject to, the following conditions:
1. Applicant shall comply with conditions in March 10, 2017 letter from CHA to the Hingham DPW.
2. Applicant shall file the right-to-flow with the common driveway agreement and related decision at the Registry of Deeds.
3. Applicant must comply with comments in the Fire Department memo dated March 6, 2017.
4. Applicant must comply with BOH letter dated 3/21/17.
5. Applicant shall meet with the Police Chief or his designee prior to the start of work to discuss if police details are necessary.
6. Applicant shall coordinate with the Fire Chief and Police Chief in advance of any blasting work to comply with the required regulations, and, determine if police details are indicated.
7. Applicant must mail a letter to all abutters one month prior to the start of blasting to notify them of the upcoming construction work and provide a 24/7 contact name and number.
8. Applicant will comply with all other State and local regulations regarding blasting.
9. The Applicant must file the “Declaration of Common Driveway and Utility Easement” including Attachment A (the Operations & Maintenance Plan) at the Registry with the Notice of Decision prior to issuance of Building Permit.
10. No work on Lots 4 and 5 (aka 39 & 47 Canterbury Street) shall commence without an approved Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP should be submitted a minimum of one month prior to the start of construction for review by the peer review engineer. The SWPPP shall be phased.
11. Applicant must submit a detailed E&S Plan with construction sequence including runoff controls during the different phases of the work.
12. All easements and rights to flow must be recorded prior to start of work.
13. All drainage outlets shall be fully designed including outlet protection sizing calculations and, treatment BMP’s consistent with the DEP Handbook
14. A street opening permit is required prior to the start of the construction.
15. Prior to implementing the diversion of drainage to the pond, the calculations shall include a full pre- and post-development analysis of impacts to the pond. The analysis shall also include pipe capacity analysis. The diversion of drainage to the pond must be completed within 3 years of project approval.
16. A preconstruction meeting will be held on site to review the installation of the erosion controls prior to the start of work.
17. The bottom of the infiltration system and common drive detention system must be inspected prior to backfill by an independent party and the design engineer to confirm soil conditions.
18. The detail for the common drive system liner must be corrected to match the system.
19. The calculations rely on construction of the culvert under the access drive to #29 Canterbury Street and associated outfall on the west side of the drive. Prior to issuance of building permits for lot 4 or lot 5 the design of this culvert and downstream controls as necessary to address this runoff shall be designed, reviewed by the peer review engineer and built. Foundation permits may be issued and the site work is authorized to begin at the same time. Easement documents for rights to flow over land of others shall also include the flow path from the outlet of this culvert or any other proposed drainage work associated with the culvert.
20. The Applicant must provide the design of drainage diversion to the pond for peer review and appear before the Planning Board to present it prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy on either lot. The Applicant shall provide a projected cost to complete and bond for the work to the Board’s satisfaction prior to CO.
21. Blasting on the western edge of Lot 4 required for the drainage diversion to the pond shall be done prior to CO.
22. Operation and Maintenance Plan:
a. Provide details for observation ports including elevation in system cross section.
b. Increase size of 8” observation well in reservoir 1 to an 18 inch diameter pipe.
c. Provide requirements for snow removal. Depict snow storage areas on plan. No snow storage in swale.
d. Add cleaning gutters in the spring as well as the fall.
e. The basin berm on Lot 5 should be mowed at least twice per year and the area of the berm and around the outlet shall not be allowed to revegetate as woods.
f. Include requirements to correct the infiltration system and common drive detention system/sand filter if not operating in accordance with the plan.
g. Add the manufacturer’s maintenance manual for the Cultec systems to the O&M.
h. At the end of the project the final O&M Plan information & manuals should be provided to the town and both homeowners.
23. The blasting program (extent of work) and procedural memo must be submitted to staff and approved prior to the start of construction. If the limit of work is substantially enlarged, including but not limited to the areas east of the common driveway intended to remain as woods and landscaped area preserving property line buffers and streetscape, the applicant must return to the Planning Board for a modification.
24. Prior to occupancy, the Building Inspector will review the common drive side slope and determine if vehicle protection is required.

Judith S. Sneath
Chairman, Hingham Planning Board

In favor: Sneath, Corey, Tondorf-Dick, Ramsey, Gay-Smith
Opposed: none

Cc: Town Clerk; Building Department; C. DiNapoli, Fire Prevention; D. Horte, HPD; Police Chief; Fire Chief; Assessor; Conservation; DPW; J. Tocchio/S. Golding, DTM; Board of Health; Sewer Commission; J. Chessia, Chessia Consulting; G. James, James Engineering; S. Girardi, HMLP; S. Olsson, Aquarion.
EXECUTED this ______ day of April, 2017

Plymouth, ss April _____, 2017

Then personally appeared Judith S. Sneath, Chairman of the Hingham Planning Board, and acknowledged the foregoing to be the free act and deed of said Board.

Dolores A. DeLisle, Notary Public
My Commission Expires: ______________