|
|
View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
TOWN OF HINGHAM
Planning Board
NOTICE OF DECISION
Site Plan Review in Association with a Special Permit A2
IN THE MATTER OF:
Applicant: Elizabeth Thompson, Esq.
Duval & Klasnick LLC
10 Cedar Street, Suite 17
Woburn, MA 01801
Petitioner: Global Tower Assets, LLC and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (Petitioners): 207-225 Lincoln Street
Premises: 207-225 Lincoln Street
Hingham, MA 02043
Deed Reference: Plymouth County Registry of Deeds, Book 22660, Page 46
Date: June 12, 2014
Site Plan Reference: GTP GLOBAL TOWER PARTNERS, SITE NAME: HINGHAM, SITE NUMBER: MA5056, ADDRESS: 207-225 LINCOLN STREET, HINGHAM, MA 02043, PREPARED BY PROTERRA DESIGN GROUP, LLC, 1 SHORT STREET, SUITE 3, NORTHHAMPTON, MA, 01060, Dated 8/2/13, revised to 1/21/14.
Summary of Proceedings:
This matter came before the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals on the application of Global Tower Assets, LLC and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (Petitioners) for a Site Plan Review in Association with a Special Permit A2 under §I-I and §I-J of the Zoning By-Law to allow for the installation of a 120' + Personal Wireless Service (PCS) Facility within a 49' by 49' fenced compound area with space for up to 4 wireless service providers, at property known as 207-225 Lincoln Street. This property has a split zoning designation with a portion of the property zoned Business B and a portion of the property zoned Residence A. The proposed PCS facility is located at the rear of the property on land zoned Residence A. The Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals opened the hearing on the Special Permit A2 and Site Plan Review at duly advertised and noticed hearing on December 19, 2013 at 7:35 PM in the Hingham Town Hall at 210 Central Street. Members of the Planning Board present were: Judy Sneath, William Ramsey, Chairman; Sarah Corey and Richard Cook, Alternate. Mr. Tondorf-Dick was not present at the December 19, 2013 meeting, but completed a so-called “Mullin Affidavit” in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 39, Section 23 prior to participation in the February 24, 2014 meeting. Mr. Sullivan was not present at the December 19, 2013 meeting, but completed a so-called “Mullin Affidavit” in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 39, Section 23 prior to participation in the February 24, 2014 meeting. The hearing was continued from December 19, 2013 to January 21, 2014, however prior to January 21, 2014 the applicant requested an extension to February 24, 2014. Planning Board members at the February 24, 2014 meeting included William Ramsey, Chair, Gary Tondorf-Dick, Clerk, Judy Sneath, Walter Sullivan, Jr. and Alternate member Richard Cook. Due to the absence of Ms. Corey, Alternate member Richard Cook participated in this hearing. Ms. Corey was not present at the February 24, 2014 meeting, but completed a so-called “Mullin Affidavit” in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 39, Section 23 prior to participation in the March 19, 2014 meeting. Planning Board members present at the March 19, 2014 meeting included William Ramsey, Gary Tondorf-Dick, Judy Sneath, Sarah Corey, and Walter Sullivan, Jr. Planning Board members William Ramsey, Chair, Gary Tondorf-Dick, Clerk, Judy Sneath, Walter Sullivan, Jr. and Sarah Corey were present at the May 14, 2014 hearing. Planning Board members Gary Tondorf-Dick, Acting Chair, Judy Sneath, Walter Sullivan, Jr. and Sarah Corey were present at the June 9, 2014 hearing.
The Peer Review Engineer for the Planning Board was John Chessia, PE, of Chessia Consulting. The Petitioners Team included Earl Duval, Attorney, Duval & Klasnick, LLC; Elizabeth Thompson, Attorney, Duval & Klasnick, LLC; Jesse Moreno, Proterra Design Group, LLC; Doug Shidell, Sound Specialist, Modeling Specialties; Keith J. Tindall, P.E, Sabre Industries; Shane Eagleson, RF Engineer, AT&T; Donald Haes, Jr., Ph.D., CHP, Radiation Safety Specialist; Michael Lawton, Engineer; Steven Kelleher, Outside Real Estate Consultant; Andrew LeMay, Real Estate Specialist; and Jackie Swenson, AT&T.
Project Description
The Applicant requested Planning Board site plan approval in Association with a Special Permit A2 as shown on the Site Plan as referenced above, and as more particularly described in testimony before the Planning Board at the public hearings, as well as a Special Permit A-3 Request for Parking Determination.
Findings
In accordance with Section I-I, 6 of the Zoning By-Law, the Planning Board considered the following criteria and made these findings based on submissions reviewed and discussion at the public hearing:
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 Planning Board discussed the storm water drainage system. Mr. Chessia noted that the applicant had investigated the location of the drainage system and that the adjacent storm basin had essentially no sump. The Board discussed a concern that fuel oil from delivery trucks might enter the basin and asked if there should be a schedule of cleaning the basin out. Mr. Chessia noted that that would be included in the Operation & Maintenance Plan. The Board asked if the basin with no sump should be upgraded at this time. Mr. Chessia stated that the catch basin was outside the immediate area of this project, but, if a change to the overall site were to be submitted it would be a good idea. The Board discussed the reason why infiltration is not preferred in areas that might have a contaminant plume in the groundwater, which is not the case at this location now based upon State records, and, the Phase I EIS report. The Board discussed the landscaping both as the landscaped buffer, as well as parking lot plantings. The Board found that there was no opportunity to add additional plantings within the parking field without eliminating spaces, and noted that the applicant had added one island with two trees the previous year as part of another application. With regard to the landscaped buffer the Board was concerned that the site be fully screened at the time of installation. The Board asked the applicant if some of the proposed arborvitae could be substituted with Canadian Hemlock, which are resistant to the wooly adelgid. The Applicant said that that was possible but that the spacing of the plantings might change due to the width of the species. The Board found that the applicant should substitute Canadian Hemlock for Arborvitae (3-4" Caliper), and some Arborvitae may be interspersed to supplement the screening. The Board found that the site was to be fully screened at the time of installation.
The Board discussed that there will be no lights on the top of the cell tower and that the lighting on the equipment building will be mounted adjacent to the doors, at approximately 8' in height. The Cell Tower enclosure is to be a 8' stockade fence and the lighting is to be similar to what is lighting an entry on a residential unit, as such the Board found that the lighting on the equipment building was screened adequately.
The Board discussed the sound generation on the site and the proposed mitigation of sound. The Board discussed that inside generators are not necessarily quieter because the building vents have to be opened while running. To mitigate the sound, cowling hoods and horizontal baffles are proposed to be on the building vents. There also will be a sound barrier shield placed on the fence, The Board discussed that it was reasonable to condition the installation of the sound mitigation in accordance with the plans and sound report. The Board discussed the performance standards in the sound report and found that sound testing in the future would be a reasonable condition. The Board found that when the facility is operational, or, when new or replacement equipment is added, sound testing will occur and the results will be compared to the projected levels in the Environmental Sound Assessment. If the results exceed the projections the applicant shall return to the Planning Board to discuss mitigation measures. The Board also found that the installation of additional generators or equipment will require site plan modification. The Board discussed the fence surrounding the equipment shelter and found that the fence shall be kept in good visual and structural repair. The Board discussed the uncertainty of approving the project knowing that the ultimate location of the facility might change. The Planner advised the Board to review the project as proposed and that a condition could be made that that the approval was subject to the application for and receipt of all other required permits and approvals.
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 discussed that no changes to the driveway openings or front of the site are proposed. The Board advised the Applicant that there was a Noise By-law in Town and found a reasonable condition to be that service to the site shall be in accordance with the Noise By-law.
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 discussed the parking and if the amount provided was adequate. The Applicant provided one space with room to stack a second vehicle. The Board noted that the applicant had applied for a Special Permit A3. The Board discussed that there were some parking spaces that were not striped. The property owner agreed to stripe the spaces. The Board discussed the request to waive curb stops at the rear perimeter to not interfere with the snow removal plan. The Board noted that no curb stops currently exist in this location. Mr. Chessia noted that the Conservation Commission had approved a snow storage plan to allow the property owner to stockpile snow at the rear of the property until such time as he needed to truck it off-site. The Board found that the parking on the ground must match the plan as submitted. The Board also found that the parking plan and dimensional requirements are in compliance for a 24' aisle to rear of building.
d. adequacy of open space and setbacks, including adequacy of landscaping of such areas;
The Board noted that they had discussed landscaping extensively under criteria a. The board noted that Holly was to be planted and discussed that Holly, like Japanese Yew, will not fruit unless plants of both genders are installed. The Board found that when planting Holly, or if the Applicant plants Japanese Yew, shrubs of both genders shall be planted to facilitate fruiting.
e. adequacy of the methods of disposal of refuse and other wastes resulting from the uses permitted on the site;
The Board discussed that there was no intent to store trash at the site, and, that the technicians would carry their trash out with them upon completion of their service. The Board found it was reasonable to condition that no parts or equipment shall be stored at the site.
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 discussed that Note 2 on Sheet A1 states "The project owner's PCS facility is an unmanned private and secured equipment installation. It is only accessed by trained technicians for periodic routine maintenance and therefore does not require any water or sanitary sewer service." The Board also discussed the status of the ground test well located within the lease area, and that the State had determined that any contaminant levels were so low as to be deemed no significant risk, and that no further remedial action was needed. Given that, Mr. Chessia stated that there was a well closure handled through the Board of Health. The Board found that a reasonable condition would be that the Applicant or property owner shall obtain all necessary local (Board of Health) and state (Department of Environmental Protection) permits before capping or modifying well (as identified on Sheet A-2).
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 discussed that Storm water was reviewed in depth with Conservation Commission and existing storm drains were video inspected as part of that review process to locate them. An Order of Conditions was issued by the Conservation Commission on April 14, 2014 for this project as proposed. The Board found that the project should be constructed per the Conservation Commission's Order of Conditions dated April 14, 2014. The Board discussed the storm water in association with the retaining wall and Mr. Chessia stated that a condition precluding the flow of groundwater under the footing was recommended. The Board found that the retaining wall shall be designed by an approved structural engineer such that the design prevents flow under the footing or through the wall. The Board also discussed the need to have not only an Operation and Management plan for construction, but also to receive post-construction an O&M Manual and as-built plans. The Board found it reasonable to condition that "Prior to the start of any work on site the Applicant shall file with the Planning Board a Construction Phase O&M plan, including contact information for the selected contractor, and post construction shall receive the O&M Manuals and as-built."
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 discussed that this portion of the site was previously disturbed and that only a minimal amount of fill was to be brought in. The Board made no findings on this criteria.
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 also discussed that any changes to the location of the proposed tower or configuration of the structures shown on the site plan shall require a site plan modification from this Board. The Board discussed what would happen to the site if the use were no longer in use as a wireless telecommunications facility. The Board found that if the Tower is no longer in use as a wireless telecommunications facility, GTP shall remove the facility within six months. The Board also found that the Applicant should obtain an estimate for and post with the town a removal bond prior to the start of construction.
VOTE and CONDITIONS
It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED to APPROVE the Site Plan subject to the following conditions:
- The applicant should substitute Canadian Hemlock for Arborvitae (3-4" Caliper), and some Arborvitae may be interspersed to supplement the screening.
- The site shall be fully screened at the time of installation.
- The sound mitigation shall be installed in accordance with the plans and sound report.
- When the facility is operational, or, when new or replacement equipment is added, sound testing will occur and the results will be compared to the projected levels in the Environmental Sound Assessment. If the results exceed the projections the applicant shall return to the Planning Board to discuss mitigation measures.
- The installation of additional generators or equipment will require site plan modification.
- The fence shall be kept in good visual and structural repair.
- Service to the site shall be in accordance with the Noise By-law.
- The parking on the ground must match the plan as submitted.
- When planting Holly, or if the Applicant plants Japanese Yew, shrubs of both genders shall be planted to facilitate fruiting.
10. No parts or equipment shall be stored at the site.
11. The Applicant or property owner shall obtain all necessary local (Board of Health) and state (Department of Environmental Protection) permits before capping or modifying well (as identified on Sheet A-2).
12. The project should be constructed per the Conservation Commission's Order of Conditions dated April 14, 2014.
13. The retaining wall shall be designed by an approved structural engineer such that the design prevents flow under the footing or through the wall.
14. Prior to the start of any work on site the Applicant shall file with the Planning Board a Construction Phase O&M plan, including contact information for the selected contractor, and post construction the Planning Board shall receive the O&M Manuals and as-built.
15. The approval is subject to the application for and receipt of all other required permits and approvals.
16. Any changes to the location of the proposed tower or configuration of the structures shown on the site plan shall require a site plan modification from this Board.
17. If the Tower is no longer in use as a wireless telecommunications facility, GTP shall remove the facility within six months.
18. The Applicant should obtain an estimate for and post with the town a removal bond prior to the start of construction.
For the Planning Board,
____________________
Gary Tondorf-Dick, Acting Chair
Hingham Planning Board
June 12, 2014
NOTICE OF DECISION
Planning Board
Special Permit A3 (Parking Determination)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Applicant: Elizabeth Thompson, Esq.
Duval & Klasnick LLC
10 Cedar Street, Suite 17
Woburn, MA 01801
Petitioner: Global Tower Assets, LLC and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (Petitioners) 207-225 Lincoln Street
Premises: 207-225 Lincoln Street
Hingham, MA 02043
Deed Reference: Plymouth County Registry of Deeds, Book 22660, Page 46
Date: June 12, 2014
Site Plan Reference: GTP GLOBAL TOWER PARTNERS, SITE NAME: HINGHAM, SITE NUMBER: MA5056, ADDRESS: 207-225 LINCOLN STREET, HINGHAM, MA 02043, PREPARED BY PROTERRA DESIGN GROUP, LLC, 1 SHORT STREET, SUITE 3, NORTHHAMPTON, MA, 01060, Dated 8/2/13, revised to 1/21/14.
Summary of Proceedings:
This matter came before the Planning Board on the application of Global Tower Assets, LLC and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (Petitioners) for a Special Permit A3 Parking Determination, with waivers if necessary, under Section V-A Off-Street Parking Regulations of the Town of Hingham Zoning By-law to construct a multi-user personal wireless services facility consisting of a 120' cell tower and equipment shelter on land of Anchor Plaza Realty Trust located at 207-225 Lincoln Street in Residence District A.
The application was received and the Board opened the hearing on the application at a duly advertised and noticed hearing on February 24, 2014 at 7:00 PM in the Hingham Town Hall at 210 Central Street. Members of the Planning Board present were: William Ramsey, Chair, Gary Tondorf-Dick, Clerk, Judy Sneath, Walter Sullivan, Jr. and Alternate member Richard Cook. Due to the absence of Ms. Corey, Alternate member Richard Cook participated in this hearing. Ms. Corey was not present at the February 24, 2014 meeting, but completed a so-called “Mullin Affidavit” in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 39, Section 23 prior to participation in the March 19, 2014 meeting. Planning Board members present at the March 19, 2014 meeting included William Ramsey, Gary Tondorf-Dick, Judy Sneath, Sarah Corey, and Walter Sullivan, Jr. Planning Board members William Ramsey, Chair, Gary Tondorf-Dick, Clerk, Judy Sneath, Walter Sullivan, Jr. and Sarah Corey were present at the May 14, 2014 hearing. Planning Board members Gary Tondorf-Dick, Acting Chair, Judy Sneath, Walter Sullivan, Jr. and Sarah Corey were present at the June 9, 2014 hearing.
The Peer Review Engineer for the Planning Board was John Chessia, PE, of Chessia Consulting. The Petitioners Team included Earl Duval, Attorney, Duval & Klasnick, LLC; Elizabeth Thompson, Attorney, Duval & Klasnick, LLC; Jesse Moreno, Proterra Design Group, LLC; Doug Shidell, Sound Specialist, Modeling Specialties; Keith J. Tindall, P.E, Sabre Industries; Shane Eagleson, RF Engineer, AT&T; Donald Haes, Jr., Ph.D., CHP, Radiation Safety Specialist; Michael Lawton, Engineer; Steven Kelleher, Outside Real Estate Consultant; Andrew LeMay, Real Estate Specialist; and Jackie Swenson, AT&T.
Discussion and Findings:
The Applicant proposes to provide one parking space with room to stack another vehicle. The overall site still has a surplus of four parking spaces. The Planning Board discussed that no changes were being proposed to the front portion of the site. The Board found that there was no opportunity to add additional plantings within the parking field without eliminating spaces, and noted that the applicant had added one island with two trees the previous year as part of another application. The Board found that the parking aisle is to be compliant to the rear of the site for emergency access. The Board discussed that the dumpsters were not in the dumpster area because a storage container was there. The Applicant stated that the storage unit and other zoning violations were cited in a letter from the Building Commissioner, and, that he was working to resolve them. The Board found that prior to the start of work any outstanding zoning violations shall be resolved with the Building Commissioner. The Board discussed the parking and if the amount provided was adequate. The Applicant provided one space with room to stack a second vehicle. The Board discussed the request to waive curb stops at the rear perimeter to not interfere with the snow removal plan. The Board noted that no curb stops currently exist in this location. Mr. Chessia noted that the Conservation Commission had approved a snow storage plan to allow the property owner to stockpile snow at the rear of the property until such time as he needed to truck it off-site. Installation of curb stops would impede the snow removal and storage work.
Vote:
The Planning Board voted, unanimously, to waive the requirement for curb stops on spaces #1-6 on Sheet P-1 of the Site Plans to facilitate snow removal in accordance with the snow storage plan approved by the Conservation Commission.
It was moved, seconded, and SO VOTED to APPROVE the Special Permit A3 relative to the operation of a PCS facility as shown on the Site Plans as referenced above, with the following conditions:
1. The parking aisle is to be compliant to the rear of the site for emergency access.
2. Prior to start of work any outstanding zoning violations shall be resolved with the Building Commissioner.
This Decision shall not become effective until (i) the Town Clerk has certified on a copy of this decision that twenty (20) days have elapsed after the decision has been filed in the office of the Town Clerk and no appeal has been filed or that if such an appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied, and that (ii): a copy thereof has been duly recorded in the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds and indexed in the grantor index under the name of the owner of record.
For the Planning Board,
____________________
Gary Tondorf-Dick, Acting Chair
Hingham Planning Board
June 12, 2014
|
|