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

TOWN OF HINGHAM

Planning Board

May 11, 2015 Certified Mail #7013 3020 0000 9990 2443

Mr. John Woodin
Realty Assets, Inc.
156 Union Street
Hingham, MA 02043

Re: 24 Lewis Court Definitive Subdivision

Plan Reference "Definitive Subdivision Cover Sheet Lewis Court Hingham, MA" dated June 20, 2014, Revised to March 3, 2015, consisting of nine (9) sheets, Dated June 20, 2014, revised to March 3, 2015; "Definitive Subdivision Construction Period Pollution Control Plan" dated February 7, 2015, revised to March 3, 2015, 1 sheet; "Proposed Dwellings Lot 2 & 3 Lewis Court Hingham, MA", dated February 27, 2015, 1 sheet; and "Proposed Dwellings Lots 3 & 4 Lewis Court Hingham, MA", dated April 8, 2015, 1 sheet; "Entrance Layout Lewis Court Hingham, MA", dated February 27, 2015, 1 sheet; "Definitive Subdivision Tree Plan Lewis Court Hingham, MA", dated June 20, 2015, sheet 5B of 9; and, "Definitive Subdivision Utility Plan Lewis Court Hingham, MA", dated June 20, 2015, sheet 5A of 9, all prepared by James Engineering, INC., 125 Great Rock Road, Hanover, MASS 02339.
Background
This project proposes construction of a subdivision road and creates 4 residential lots on 3.4 acres of land zoned RA located at the end of the public way known as Lewis Court. Lewis Court is an accepted public way but is currently inadequate in many respects. Serving 8 houses at this time, Lewis Court is a road that varies in width from 9'-15' which is below the required width for roads carrying two lane traffic. There are no sidewalks. There is no drainage system and the storm water simply sheet flows towards the low points eventually entering the wetlands that are beyond the end of the public way.

The proposed project includes an extension of the way and the creation of three additional residential lots. The applicant has also voluntarily offered to improve the existing accepted way, and associated storm water system. Of the four lots one has an existing house on it that is served by sewer, and, one of the new lots will be served by sewer. The other two lots will be on septic. Approval from the Board of Health was granted on March 10, 2015. Both the Fire Department and Police Chief provided letters for the record in favor of the subdivision, road extension, and the proposed improvements to the accepted way.

The Preliminary Subdivision was filed on February 18, 2014, heard at hearings on March 3, 2014 and March 24, 2014, and approved at the meeting of March 24, 2014. The Definitive Subdivision was submitted on June 26, 2014, and heard at duly posted hearings on August 18, 2014; September 22, 2014; October 20, 2014; December 15, 2014; January 12, 2015; March 23, 2015; March 30, 2015; and May 4, 2015.

The Planning Board noted the inadequacy of the existing way in the Preliminary Subdivision approval decision. The applicant acknowledges the inadequacy of the existing public way and, after discussion with the Department of Public Works proposed improvements to the existing public way in conjunction with the proposed subdivision road extension of Lewis Court. The applicant has designed the subdivision plans and the proposed improvements to the public way in such a manner that they function as one continuous way with interdependent utilities. The applicant has expressed that the goal is to have the way within the subdivision (the extension of Lewis Court) be accepted as a public way in the future. Because the proposed road extension was designed with the proposed improvements to the existing public way, the comments and suggested conditions associated with the construction speak to the proposed extension as well as the existing way in some instances. The waivers only apply to the proposed extension of Lewis Court.

Discussion and Findings

The Board discussed at length the existing condition of the accepted way known as Lewis Court and that it was narrow and did not easily accommodate one way traffic, and that there was no formal drainage, or sidewalk presently. It was noted that the Department of Public Works did not have improvement of this accepted way on their 5 year plan. The Board asked extensive questions regarding the drainage, grading and side slope details; width of the right-of-way; roadway length; possible dangerous conditions at the intersection; existing utilities versus new; streetlights; width of right-of-way; possible safety issue with no sidewalks; and identifying which trees will be removed and which will be preserved. The Board discussed the sewer connection proposed for Lot #4 and Mr. Cox explained that the Sewer Department was in agreement with the proposal. The Board discussed the improved turning radii proposed for the intersection with Hersey Street and that it was an improved condition even though the new design still did not meet current standards. The Board discussed that the proposed pavement width of 20' with cape cod berms on either side was an improvement over the existing conditions. The Board discussed the street trees proposed in depth and felt that there should be five additional trees planted to meet the street tree requirements. The Board suggested that two be placed on Lot 4, one on property known as 24 Lewis Court, and, one each on # 16 & 22 Lewis Court. They felt that if that was not possible the applicant could return to the Board to discuss. The Board discussed the low retaining wall proposed within the reconstructed right of way at 115 Hersey Street and found that a condition would be that the applicant work with the DPW and the homeowner on the final design of the wall. The Board received testimony from the public who were in favor of the project as presented. The Board heard testimony from John Chessia, Chessia Consulting, regarding the design as related to the Rules and Regulations. As the Board had no additional questions on the project they discussed the waivers individually and collectively. Mr. Ramsey said that he was not thrilled with the quantity of waivers but found the public benefit to be significant and that this project will improve the road, which is not on DPWs list for improvement. He found that this is a unique subdivision and site so the Board would not be bound by precedent, and that the applicant has worked in good faith with the Town. Ms. Corey agreed with Mr. Ramsey that the waivers improve the site. She said she was uncomfortable with the number of waivers requested but found that they did have public benefits. She also noted that the applicant had been responsive and acted in good faith. Mr. Sullivan commented that he felt the public benefits outweigh any concerns about precedents, and he supports them. The Board found that the constraints of the wetlands and the constraints of the existing way combined to create a unique set of obstacles to the development of this land that likely did not exist anywhere else in town. The Board then discussed the waivers one by one, as follows:

1. Section 4. B. (3) (a). Requiring installation of a 5' wide sidewalk on one side of the street.

The Board found that the original layout of the roadway was a constraint, this waiver had been granted before and this is a short road with only 3 additional houses proposed, and that the proposed reconstructed design of the way is safer than the existing condition. In addition, requiring the sidewalk would not be practical as it would take lawn and trees and detract from the rural character.

2. Section 5 Figure 1 - To allow the centerline of the traveled way to be non-concentric with the right of way.

The Board found that the fact that the existing way and proposed extension of the way do not align completely was a constraint on the design, and that the proposed design has worked with this limitation and the constraints of the wetlands.

3. Section 4. B. (4) a - To allow the length of the dead end to extend from 800 to 859 feet.

The Board found that the public benefit of the proposed design outweighs the road length, and thus granting the waiver is in the public interest and not inconsistent with the Subdivision Control Law. The Board also found that the extra length enabled the disturbance to the wetlands to be minimized by shifting the bulb of the cul-de-sac.

4. Section 5. M. - To allow side slopes within right of way greater than 6:1

The Board found that the design is appropriate given the unique wetlands constraints and the irregular jog in the rights of way, that this waiver is in the public interest, and not inconsistent with the Subdivision Control Law.

5. Figure 1 (Typical Cross Section) - To allow the width of the pavement to be reduced from 22' to 20'.

The Board found that this waiver is in the public interest, and not inconsistent with the Subdivision Control Law. This waiver helps retain the country lane character and enables the preservation of more trees.

6. Section 4.B (2) (a) - To allow a roadway that is not in alignment with the existing public way.

The Board found that the project could be constructed without this waiver and thus did not feel the waiver was needed. They unanimously voted no action on this waiver.

7. Section 4. C (1) - Waiver from the direct subsurface discharge of storm water on the lots through drywells and potentially the driveway pavers.

The Board found that the drywells and pavers are above the water table and that granting this waiver facilitates the infiltration of water which is a best management practice for low impact development. They also found the waiver to be in the public interest and not inconsistent with Subdivision Control Law.

8. Section 4. E - the on-lot drywells and driveway pavers are a critical component of the drainage system to provide overall runoff controls and would be required to be on a separate lot and constructed as an open basin without this waiver.

The Board found that the drywells and pavers are above the water table and that granting this waiver to not require them to be on a separate parcel and allow construction as proposed facilitates the infiltration of water which is a best management practice for low impact development. They also found the waiver to be in the public interest and not inconsistent with Subdivision Control Law.

CERTIFICATE OF ACTION

I, Gary Tondorf-Dick, Chairman of the Hingham Planning Board, certify that at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Hingham Planning Board on May 4, 2015, the Board voted To APPROVE the plan "Definitive Subdivision Cover Sheet Lewis Court Hingham, MA" dated June 20, 2014, Revised to March 3, 2015, consisting of nine (9) sheets, Dated June 20, 2014, revised to March 3, 2015; "Definitive Subdivision Construction Period Pollution Control Plan" dated February 7, 2015, revised to March 3, 2015, 1 sheet; "Proposed Dwellings Lot 2 & 3 Lewis Court Hingham, MA", dated February 27, 2015, 1 sheet; and "Proposed Dwellings Lots 3 & 4 Lewis Court Hingham, MA", dated April 8, 2015, 1 sheet; "Entrance Layout Lewis Court Hingham, MA", dated February 27, 2015, 1 sheet; "Definitive Subdivision Tree Plan Lewis Court Hingham, MA", dated June 20, 2015, sheet 5B of 9; and, "Definitive Subdivision Utility Plan Lewis Court Hingham, MA", dated June 20, 2015, sheet 5A of 9, all prepared by James Engineering, INC., 125 Great Rock Road, Hanover, MASS 02339, prepared for REALTY ASSETS, Inc. (the "Applicant"), with the waivers to the Subdivision Rules and Regulations, approved herewith and incorporated herein by reference, and subject to and on the following conditions which, if not complied with, shall, at the option of the Planning Board (the "Board"), operate as a rescission of this approval:
A. Prior to endorsement of the Subdivision Plan:

1. The Applicant shall submit to the Board a new set of plans revised as follows:

a. Plans shall be signed by a professional civil engineer and stamped by a certified land surveyor;

b. Plans shall include notes to install and maintain the subsurface infiltration system in accordance with the O & M plan;

c. Plans shall include ROW width, pavement width, and proposed ROW width.

d. Plan set must include an easement plan sheet. This must show all existing easements, as well as easements required to facilitate the construction of the roadway or associated utilities.

e. The existing and proposed curb radii at intersection with Hersey Street shall be clearly specified on the plans.

f. All waivers must be listed on the Cover Sheet.

g. Plans must indicate concrete pipe for the drainage system.

h. The Cover Sheet shall include a note stating that "All work must be constructed in compliance with Section 5 of the Planning Board Rules and Regulations as amended through December 15, 2011, except as waived herein"

2. Plans must include at least two stable benchmarks.

3. The utility plan shall be updated to address the following issues:

a. The proposed water main shall be 10 feet horizontally from the sewer based on DEP water distribution regulations.
b. The sewer and electric conduit should be provided greater separation at CB #4.

4. The Sewer Commission shall review the proposed sewer easement and provide a letter to the Planning Board stating that it is acceptable in size.

5. A slope easement is required for the construction work and ongoing maintenance associated with the revetment slope because it will extend past the right of way at Sta. 4+18 +/- at the street jog. Easements shall be shown on the easement plan and filed with or before the mylar.

6. A covenant is to be executed and made a part hereof, and recorded with the Plan in the Plymouth Registry of Deeds, or other performance guarantee in an amount sufficient to the Board to secure performance of the construction of ways and the installation of municipal services required for the lots shown on the Plan, shall be provided pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 41, Section 81U.

B. Prior to Commencement of Construction

1. The Applicant will bear the responsibility to see that any inconsistencies with the Plan and decisions of other state or local agencies or boards are resolved before construction begins.

2. Approval by the Planning Board of this Plan shall not be treated as, nor deemed to be, approval by the Conservation Commission for a permit for construction or use on any lot.

3. A street opening permit shall be obtained by the Applicant and presented to the Planning Board prior to construction.

4. Prior to the start of construction or site clearing, an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan prepared in accordance with DEP requirements (and including details of hay bales and siltation fence) shall be submitted for review by the Town Planner and the Conservation Agent.

5. Before the preconstruction meeting the applicant shall notify all owners on Lewis Court in writing about the scope of the project, providing them a contact name and number for questions or problems during construction, informing them that once the roadway is completed a five year moratorium on road openings will be in place, and encouraging them to take this opportunity to connect to utilities or construct a stub for same. This notice shall be sent certified mail, return receipt required, and copy of the letter mailed, mailing list and proof of receipt shall be provided to the Planning Department.

C. Conditions During Construction

1. Inspection by the Board's engineer is required during the installation of the subsurface drainage system to ensure compliance with the manufacture's specifications.

2. Developer shall maintain access on Lewis Court at all times.

3. Construction of the detention basin shall be witnessed by an inspector for the Planning Board and the basin and its structures shall be shown on the as-built plan to verify construction as per design.

D. General Conditions

1. All work shall be performed in accordance with the Plan, this Certificate, and, except as specifically waived herein, in conformity with the Rules and Regulations of the Hingham Planning Board in effect as of the date of the application. Any waivers from said Rules and Regulations approved herein by the Planning Board shall be noted on the Plan.

2. The Applicant shall complete all work shown on the Plan, including all ways, drainage facilities, and utilities, within two years of the date of endorsement of the Plan or this approval of the Plan shall be null and void, unless, at the request of the Applicant, the Planning Board extends the time for performance of such work.

3. Approval by the Planning Board of this Plan shall not be treated as, nor deemed to be, approval by the Board of Health for a permit for the construction and use on any lot of an individual septic system. No building or structure shall be placed on any lot without septic system approval by the Board of Health or connection to public sewer by the Sewer Commission, as applicable.

4. Except for such easements to be delivered to the Town for its review and acceptance for maintenance of the existing public way portion of Lewis Court, the roadway, drainage facilities and other utilities within the extended subdivision road shall remain private and the maintenance, repair and improvement thereof shall be the responsibility of the Applicant and/or the owners of the lots within the Subdivision until such time as the roadway and appurtenances thereto may be accepted by the Town of Hingham. Such obligation shall be set forth in a Declaration of Easements, Restrictions and Covenants Running with the Land (the "Declaration"), a final version of which shall be approved by the Planning Board prior to endorsement of the Plan and to be recorded with the Plan. This Declaration shall also allow the flow of storm water from the existing public way into, by or under the subdivision road extension approved herein. This Declaration shall be provided for review prior to the endorsement of the plans and shall be filed at the Registry of Deeds with the plans. Proof of recording shall be provided to the Town Planner.

5. Each deed for any lot or lots within the Subdivision shall specifically set forth that the conveyance of such lot or lots is subject to the conditions set forth in this Certificate of Action and in the Declaration.

6. Before the conveyance/sale of any property, the applicant shall provide evidence that all lots in the Lewis Court Subdivision have access over and the right to use the newly constructed roadway including the private road portion known as Parcel B.

7. The applicant shall work with the DPW and the homeowner on the final design of the low retaining wall proposed within the reconstructed right of way at 115 Hersey Street.

8. The applicant shall locate five additional street trees beyond those proposed as follows: two on Lot 4, one on property known as 24 Lewis Court, and, one each on # 16 & # 22 Lewis Court. If it is not feasible the applicant shall return to the Board to discuss.

WAIVERS

A. The Board voted unanimously to GRANT the following request for waivers from the Planning Board Rules and Regulations, unless otherwise noted:

1. Section 4. B. (3) (a). Requiring installation of a 5' wide sidewalk on one side of the street. (The Board voted 3-1 to Grant this waiver with Mr. Tondorf-Dick opposed).

2. Section 5 Figure 1 - To allow the centerline of the traveled way to be non-concentric with the right of way.

3. Section 4. B. (4) a - To allow the length of the dead end to extend from 800 to 859 feet.

4. Section 5. M. - To allow side slopes within right of way greater than 6:1

5. Figure 1 (Typical Cross Section) - To allow the width of the pavement to be reduced from 22' to 20'.

6. Section 4. C (1) - Waiver from the direct subsurface discharge of storm water on the lots through drywells and potentially the driveway pavers.

7. Section 4. E - Waiver to allow construction of the on-lot drywells and driveway pavers as proposed and not require them on a separate parcel, or to be constructed as an open basin.

Gary Tondorf-Dick, Chairman
Hingham Planning Board

Cc: Gary James, P.E., Building Commissioner, Conservation, BOH, Sewer Commission, Town Clerk, R. Sylvester, H. Sylvester, Town Engineer, HMLP, J. Chessia.

 
NOTARIZATION

EXECUTED this _____ day of May 2015

Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Plymouth, ss May ____, 2015

Then personally appeared Gary Tondorf-Dick, Chairman of the Hingham Planning Board, and acknowledged the foregoing to be the free act and deed of said Board.