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 DECISIONSITE PLAN REVIEW UNDER SECTION IV-B.6.b.2Certified #7017 1000 0000 1993 7652 IN THE MATTER OF:Applicant: Brian Cooney104 HMS Stayner DriveHingham, MA 02043Premises: 49 Harbor View Drive Hingham, MA 02043 Date: January 9, 2018Plan Reference: “Proposed Site Plan 49 Harbor View Drive, Hingham, MA 02043”, prepared for Brian Cooney, 104 HMS Stayner Drive, Hingham, MA 02043, prepared by Cavanaro Consulting, dated 12/4/17, revised to 12/18/17, 1 sheet.Summary of Proceedings:This matter came before the Planning Board on the application of Brian Cooney, 104 HMS Stayner Drive, Hingham, MA, for Site Plan Review under Section IV-B.6.b.2 for the installation of retaining wall for the purposes of creating a more usable rear yard, property zoned Residence A. The Planning Board heard the application at the regular meetings of December 18, 2017, and January 3, 2018 in the Hingham Town Hall at 210 Central Street. Members of the Planning Board present were: Jennifer Gay Smith, William Ramsey, Gary Tondorf-Dick, and Gordon Carr. Patrick Brennan, Amory Engineering, served as the peer review engineer for the Board. Mr. John Cavanaro, Cavanaro Consulting was present with the Applicant, and presented the proposal to the Board. He explained this project triggers site plan review due to the proposed earthwork in the area of the existing steep slopes. The property is developed with a single family home which is proposed for demolition and subsequent construction of a new larger single family home with a retaining wall at the rear of the property to help create a more usable back yard area. The storm water drainage is improved in the 2 and 10 year storms, and matched for the 100 year storm so there will be an overall improvement of the drainage on the property. The property is very small in size so essentially the entire property will be re-graded as part of the redevelopment. The Board spent a great deal of time reviewing the drainage and grading to ensure that the abutters do not have any negative impacts from the project. They reviewed staff and abutter comments and received two reviews from the peer review engineer. They also reviewed the retaining wall and discussed the proximity to the property line and if it could be moved away from the property line. The concerns expressed by the Board included a question as to if the wall could be installed and maintained over time with the proposed 2’ setback from the property line. The Applicant team indicated that the setback as provided was sufficient and that there was very little maintenance indicated for the proposed installation. Mr. Cooney also noted that the yard was very small already so even moving the wall slightly would reduce the usable yard area noticeably. The Board ultimately determined that a setback sufficient for the installation and maintenance of the wall needed to be provided by the applicant team, and the plans should be revised to reflect that. Board members then reviewed the project in accordance with the Site Plan Review Criteria contained in Section I-I (6) as follows: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 Drainage was reviewed by Amory Engineering. Storm water runoff will be reduced in the 2 year and 10 year storms, and matched for the 100 year storm. They also found that no views will be impacted. This is the leveling off of an existing back yard area adjacent to fenced back yards of others. 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 this was not applicable. 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 this was a single family house. d. adequacy of open space and setbacks, including adequacy of landscaping of such areas;The Board found that given the proximity of the retaining wall to the property line that a sufficient setback as need for the footing design, access, and maintenance along the northern property line without going on abutting properties is required, and the applicant shall provide revised plans. 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 was 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 the DPW has provided comments in an email of December 12th regarding additional permitting requirements. These will be conditions. The Dec. 12 email from Sewer Dept. indicates they have reviewed the material and spoken to the contractor and are satisfied. They have no concerns or issues.g. assurance of positive stormwater 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 stormwater 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 Stormwater Management Policy and Standards, and Massachusetts Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines.The Board found that the Project complies with MA DEPs Storm water Standards; Erosion Controls shown on the plans, and that the site drainage will be improved overall as a result of the construction with the infiltration system, swales, and stone trench. 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 this is the redevelopment of an existing single family house. 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 this is a single family residential neighborhood and the proposed project is construction of a new single family house with the installation of a retaining wall to improve the rear yard.DECISION AND VOTE:It was Moved, Seconded and SO VOTED to APPROVE the Site Plan Review for 49 Harbor View Drive as presented at the hearing and shown on the plans titled “Proposed Site Plan 49 Harbor View Drive, Hingham, MA 02043”, prepared for Brian Cooney, 104 HMS Stayner Drive, Hingham, MA 02043, prepared by Cavanaro Consulting, dated 12/4/17, revised to 12/18/17, 1 sheet, based on the findings and subject to the following conditions:1. An as-built plan shall be submitted (electronically and hardcopy) to the Planning Board, Building Department and Conservation Department to demonstrate that construction and grading was completed in substantial compliance with the approved plans.2. The Board found that given the proximity of the retaining wall to the property line that a sufficient setback as need for the footing design, access, and maintenance along the northern property line without going on abutting properties is required, and the applicant shall provide revised plans. 3. Work within Town Layout requires a street opening permit, and, a trench opening permit may be required for trenches on private property. Contractor to work with DPW on this.4. Off-Loading of Tracked Equipment requires plywood to protect the pavement. The contractor will be responsible for any damage to the public way.5. The Town is not responsible for the staging area or equipment or materials, and, it is not allowed in the public way.6. The contractor shall take extreme care while working around shade trees in the Town Layout. No Work shall be done within the drip line of the tree.7. Construction shall be as shown on the plans and presented at the hearings, or, a modification to the approval is required. 8. Applicant is responsible for securing all other local permits and approvals. _____________________________Jennifer M. Gay SmithChairman, Hingham Planning BoardCc: Town Clerk; Building Department; Assessor; DPW; Sewer; BOH; Cavanaro Consulting; Pat Brennan, Amory Engineering; NOTARIZATIONEXECUTED this _____ day of January, 2018Commonwealth of MassachusettsPlymouth, ss January ____, 2018Then personally appeared Jennifer M. Gay Smith, Chairman of the Hingham Planning Board, and acknowledged the foregoing to be the free act and deed of said Board._________________________ My Commission Expires: October 29, 2021Mary F. Savage-Dunham, Notary Public