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


Planning Board

Site Plan Review-Notice of Decision

Applicant: Bristol Brothers Development
37 Derby Street; Suite 4A
Hingham, MA 02043

Premises: 141 Derby Street
Hingham. MA 02043

Date: August 4, 2015

Summary of Proceedings
In accordance with Section I-G of the Zoning By-law, the Hingham Planning Board conducted Site Plan Review relative to the application of Bristol Brothers Development ("The Applicant") for Site Plan Approval in Association with an Application for a Special Permit A2-Request for Minor Modification and Waiver from Public Hearing Requirements related to the request to finish Lot 2 with clean crushed stone rather than loam and seed as shown on the site plans.

The application for Site Plan Review - Request for Minor Modification and Waiver from Public Hearing Requirements was filed at the Planning Board on July 30, 2015. The Planning Board heard this request at their regularly scheduled meeting of August 3, 2015 with Planning Board members Sarah Corey, Chairman, Judith Sneath, Gary Tondorf-Dick, and Walter Sullivan Jr. present. Jim Bristol, Carl Erickson, and Gabe Crocker were present representing the Applicant.

Bristol Bros. Development Corp. (BBD), as owner of Lot 2, seeks Planning Board approval to finish Lot 2 with clean crushed stone rather than loam and seed as shown on the site plans. During the hearings on the Site Plan Review, the primary focus was the Lexus Dealership on Lot 1 as a planned use/development for Lot 2 was not being permitted at the time. The Site Plan Review standards that overlap with Lot 1 and were addressed in the plans focus on protection against surface water drainage, adequacy of landscaping and prevention of erosion and sedimentation runoff. Lot 2 was designed with storm water basins to address runoff and included a level pad area that would be loamed and seeded. BBD is proposing to complete Lot 2 with clean crushed stone over the site in order to provide a permeable finish and dust free surface. The storm water basin and associated outfall control structure and discharge pipe would be installed as designed but would be finished with the crushed stone as well. Additional minor adjustments to the pad grading would capture/direct the runoff into the basin which eliminates the need for the culvert pipes. The reason for the loam and seeding treatment was due to the unknown amount of time that lot 2 was to remain undeveloped. At this time a development application is expected to start the permitting process in a few months so it seems to make more sense to treat with stone.

The Board reviewed the photographs and asked if there was a way to eliminate the visual impact of the stone/sand area by installing mulch or plantings and have lot 2 visually blend in with the existing materials. The applicant team said there was and they would do that. The Board asked why the trees in the state right of way were removed as the Board had understood they would remain. The applicant team said that Lexus had requested the tree removal and that the state had granted it. The Board expressed their concern about the impact to the gateway to Hingham and that they felt that Lexus should replace those trees. The Applicant team said they would discuss with Lexus. The Board asked for clarification about the stone retaining wall treatment and discussed that with Mr. Crocker.

The Applicant asked that the Board determine that this is a minor site plan and waive the public hearing requirement.

Decision and Vote
After considering the scope and substance of the application and request, the Planning Board determined that the project constituted a minor site plan in accordance with Section I-I (5) b, and it was moved, seconded and SO VOTED to waive the public hearing requirement.

The Board then 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.

The Board found that the grade change was strikingly visible and asked the applicant if they could cover or screen the grade change with plantings or mulch treatment.

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;
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;

Not applicable

d. adequacy of open space and setbacks, including adequacy of landscaping of such areas;

Not applicable

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

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;

Not applicable

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 the revised design will still manage storm water by directing it to the basin by the grading; there will be better infiltration with the stone surface during storm events.

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;

Not applicable

i. minimizing unreasonable departure from the character and scale of buildings in the vicinity or as previously existing on or approved for the site.

Not applicable


The Board then moved, seconded and SO VOTED to APPROVE Site Plan Review for the project as proposed and presented for Bristol Brothers Development at 141 Shipyard Drive request to finish Lot 2 with clean crushed stone rather than loam and seed as shown on the site plans "Grading & Drainage Plan-Lot 2" 141 Derby Street, Hingham, Ma 02043 dated April 18, 2013, revised to 4/11/14 and as further redlined, sheet c-5.2, prepared by CHA, with the following condition:

1. the Applicant shall cover or screen the grade change with plantings or mulch treatment.


For the Hingham Planning Board

Sarah H. Corey, Chairman

cc: ZBA
Building Commissioner
Town Clerk