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


Planning Board


Site Plan Review in Association with a Building Permit
for the Whitney Wharf Bridge


Applicant: Town of Hingham
210 Central Street
Hingham, MA 02043

Premises: Whitney Wharf: 4 Summer Street/3 Otis Street
Hingham, MA 02043

Date: February 4, 2015

Plan Reference: Entitled "WHITNEY WHARF IN HINGHAM, MASSSACHUSETTS (Plymouth County), Permit Plans prepared for: Notice of Intent - October 17, 2014, Prepared by Beals and Thomas, Inc., Reservoir Corporate Center, 144 Turnpike Road, Southborough, Massachusetts 01772, consisting of three sheets.
Summary of Proceedings
At the regular meeting of the Planning Board on January 5, 2015 Mr. Eric Las, of Beals & Thomas presented the Whitney Wharf Bridge project, and, reviewed the material that was submitted for review for the Site Plan in association with Building Permit. The submittal included plans dated October 17, 2014 as listed above, and a bound submittal packet dated December 22, 2014. He said the Conservation Commission had already reviewed the project and had granted an Order of Conditions. Paul Losordo of the HDC and John Thomas, formerly of the HDC were present and spoke in favor of the project. Mr. Las said there was a public easement to 3 Otis Street to allow public access over the bridge. The Board asked questions regarding the railings and considerations for safety. The Board discussed lighting, and the structural stability and physical dimensions of the bridge. The Board felt the project was a positive addition to the waterfront area.

Project Description and Findings
the Board reviewed the Site Plan criteria 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 the project would have a positive impact on the community, and would provide improved safety for pedestrians in the area. The Board noted that easements had been secured.

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 project would be improving the current situation by providing a new pedestrian connection away from the roadway, and mitigating a safety hazard.

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 there would be no change.

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

The Board found there would be no change.

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 to the project.

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 this is not applicable to the project.

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 noted that the area is impervious now and will remain that way. There would be no ground disturbance with this project and so change in drainage.

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 not applicable to the project.

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 there would be no change.

The Board then moved, seconded and so VOTED to approve the site plan depicted in the application package titled WHITNEY WHARF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE; SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH BUILDING PERMIT, 4 SUMMER ST/3 OTIS STREET, dated December 22, 2014, as proposed.




Gary Tondorf-Dick, Chairman
Hingham Planning Board
February 4, 2015