Members Present: Mr. Walter, Mr. Limbacher, Mrs. Brennan, Mr. Fagan, Mrs. Chisholm (Alternate Member)

Others Present: Ms. Harbottle, Town Planner; Mr. R. J. Livingstone, Atty. W. Sullivan, Mr. N. Murphy, P.E.; Mr. S. Bjorklund; Mr. D. Aaberg; Ms. M. Monyihan; Mr. S. Warner, Atty. Ohrenberger, Atty. DeLisi, Mr. P. Mirabito, Mr. G. Gardner, Mr. J. Dias, Mr. D. O’Connor, Mr. M. Warner

See Sign-in List for names of others present for this meeting.

Mr. Walter served as Chair for this meeting.

ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Mr. Limbacher Moved to accept the Agenda. Mr. Fagan Seconded the Motion. The vote was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion.

Old Business, New Business, Correspondence, Administrative Items, Updates on Approved Development & Ongoing Planning Board Projects, Acceptance of Minutes March 9, March 23

Pheasant Hill Definitive Plan and Common Driveways: Review Request to Set Surety

Note: Mrs. Brennan recused herself from taking action as a Board member because she is an abutter to the project.

The developer, Mr. R. J. Livingstone, was present along with his engineer, Neil Murphy, and his attorney, Walter Sullivan.

Mr. Walter said, “You are requesting to deposit $50,000 as surety in lieu of the existing Covenant.” Atty. Sullivan agreed and said, “The DPW has reported on two separate occasions that they don’t deal with common driveways. We have provided the Board and the DPW with contracts to complete the work. Has the Board decided that the $50,000 we propose is enough to satisfy the surety in lieu of the Covenant? We have submitted an 81U Lot Release Form (Release of Lot 8).”

Mr. Neil Murphy, P.E., explained that the work on the project started in 2004. He described, in detail, the construction of the roadways within the project noting that pavement was put down in 2004. Mr. Murphy said that the only thing left to do was the As Built Plans which he certifies. The As Built Plans are not required until the final paving is done because those plans must certify that everything was built in accordance with approved plans. Mr. Murphy said that during construction reports were sent to the DPW, Conservation Commission, and the Planning Board and he said he had copies of all these reports if the Board wished to see them. The DPW was shown the location of the water gates.

Ms. Harbottle said, “I have gone through most of the Conditions and I brought up some of them. There have been a couple of things that I have brought up e.g. the restriction against the use of pesticides. If you get the money you are in a better situation than having the Covenant.”

Mr. Livingstone said that he had, about a month ago, given each buyer a copy of the Homeowner’s documents with a cover letter about the restriction on the use of pesticides. A copy of that letter is included in the package of material submitted to the Board. The restriction about the use of pesticides is included in the Homeowner’s Agreements.

Mr. Limbacher said, “I would rather have cash than a Covenant. The common driveways do not fall under the Covenant. I understand that you are certifying them anyway. The As Builts are no big deal – a couple of thousand dollars should cover them.” Mr. Murphy replied, “We are in the process of taking borings of the pavement.”

Mrs. Brennan, 41 Tanglewood Drive, said she was speaking as an abutter and she asked for clarification about a statement made by Mr. Murphy about side lines. Mr. Murphy replied, “On the original plan there were four swales. They are shown on the plans. We checked to make sure that they are in the proper place. They will be on the As Builts.”

Mr. Limbacher asked, “Why would I not link the change from the Covenant to cash with the certification of the common driveways?” Mr. Murphy replied, “You hold that cash until you get everything you need.”

MOTION: Mrs. Chisholm Moved to accept $50,000 as surety in lieu of the Covenant presently being held for completion of the Pheasant Hill Subdivision/Common Driveways. Mr. Fagan Seconded the Motion and the vote was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion.

Atty. Sullivan provided the Board with the required documentation.

Arrowwood Subdivision: Review Request to Release Surety

Mr. S. Bjorklund, the developer, said, “We have completed construction. The DPW has had the As Built for two years. The only thing not on the As Built was the top coat of pavement. The top coat is now on the entire road and the common driveways (private portion). The public portion of the road was accepted at Town Meeting .”

Mr. Bjorklund said that DPW wanted a letter of certification from Mr. Mirabito, the engineer for the project. Mr. Bjorklund gave the Board the letter from Mr. Mirabito. He said that Mr. Mirabito inspected the basins on the property on June 1st and said that the basins are functioning in the manner intended. [Mr. Bjorklund read aloud portions of the letter of certification from Mr. Mirabito.] See file for DPW letter and Mr. Mirabito’s letter.

Mr. Bjorklund said, “So we are basically asking to close out the remainder of the surety being held for the Arrowwood project. The only thing that we have left is to have the grass grow on the edge of the common driveway.”

Ms. Harbottle asked, “Does everyone up there know about the Homeowner’s Agreement?” Mr. Bjorklund replied, “Yes, we have had meetings. Mark Winchester and I are still trustees.”

MOTION: Mr. Limbacher moved to release all of the surety presently being held for completion of the Arrowwood Subdivision. Mr. Fagan Seconded the Motion was voted favorably with a unanimous vote of the members present.

Form A Plan: 29 Dreamwold Road. Applicant: William E. & Mary Audrey Hogan. Owner: The Hogan Family Trust

Mr. Douglas Aaberg, Aaberg Assocs., explained the plan. He said, “We are not creating any new lots. This is a previously approved and endorsed subdivision. The portion in front is Land Court so the Land Court requires their own plan. This can only focus on Land Court land.” There were no further questions or comments.

Motion: Move to endorse as Approval Under the Subdivision Control Law not Required a plan of land in the Town of Scituate located at 29 Dreamwold Road. Plan prepared by Aaberg Assocs. and dated September 8, 2005 and revised 11/22/05. Owner/Applicant: William E. & Mary Audrey Hogan, Trustees, The Hogan Family Realty Trust. Motion made by Mr. Fagan, Seconded by Mr. Limbacher, and the vote was a unanimous vote of the members present.

Mr. Mary Moynihan said, “I am representing Front Street Gourmet and Jeff Brown (the tenant). We want to put a 25 x 20 deck on the side of the building. It will just be a temporary deck. We are not doing any footings. We would like to have one or two steps. It will probably have 2 or 3 tables on it. There is an existing planter already there. We will have a sign saying no open alcoholic beverages there. That area is already lit with an outside light and we have a camera there already. The purpose is to provide a place for someone to sit and have lunch.”

Mr. Walter said, “We did receive a letter from the owner of the building (Mr. McMorrow). I am not sure if you are aware of that. What we approved initially the owner did not have an issue with it. He has issues with this. [Mr. Warner read aloud portions of the letter from Mr. McMorrow. See file for details.]

Ms. Moynihan said, “The only thing I can say in response to that - (according to Jeff ) – Jeff disagrees with the owner and he says that that there is nothing in the lease that says that we can’t prepare food or put in kitchen .”

Mr. Limbacher said, “I don’t think we can approve it until the issues between the tenant and the owner are resolved. You have to go back and make peace somehow. We could discuss the potential of the site plan waiver now. I think the deck makes sense out there. We could put some Conditions on it like we did with Cosmos Café years ago. Cosmos has a little deck. We had conditions, I think, about lighting, how many seats etc. I don’t remember if there was any discussion about the alcohol. I think your sign about no alcohol makes sense.”

Mrs. Brennan asked, “Is this area currently used as parking?” Ms. Monyihan replied, “The area was once a building. I think three cars can park all the way up to our deck. Now we use it for our trucks or for employees. Customers do pull in there but not all the way up to the deck.” Mrs. Brennan added, “I am concerned about cars pulling in there when there are kids and people on the deck.” Ms. Monyihan said, “There will be a railing. I would be very uncomfortable with sitting on the deck and have cars pulling in but nobody pulls up that far.”

Some items mentioned by the members were: some concrete bollards in the ground for protection; a clearly marked pedestrian walkway; additional lighting if needed; screening.

There was a discussion about the number of steps for the deck. Ms. Monyihan said the plan was to keep it shallow (perhaps only one step). Mr. Walter said the deck may have to be handicap accessible and a ramp may be needed to provide the handicap accessibility. Ms. Monyihan said that presently the store is handicap accessible from the back door.

Ms. Monyihan said she was not sure about the number of tables – perhaps there would be three but she was signed up for 1 – 20. The Board of Health has given preliminary approval. There will be a 10’ fence for screening.

Mr. Matt Warner, abutter from across the street, asked about the hours of operation. Ms. Monyihan said that the food service would be for lunch and that no food would be served after 6:00 P.M.

Ms. Harbottle said, “The owner of the property should have really the applicant.

Mr. Walter added, “You need to work that out everything with the owner of the building. You should allow this to be continued until the issues are resolved.” Ms. Monyihan replied, “This will be between Jeff and the owner. I don’t know their availability.”

There was a brief discussion about the action that the Board should take this evening. Mr. Limbacher said the Board had discussed some possible Conditions e.g. barrier of some sort; a pedestrian walkway; adequate lighting (kept on the site); handicap access,

dumpster screening, hours of operation. The Board decided not to take action this evening because the owner was not the applicant and the Board should have some assurance that the owner of the property agrees with the proposal. They told Ms. Monyihan that the issues between the tenant (Jeffrey Brown) and the owner (Mr. McMorrow) must be resolved before the Board can take action. This item will be placed on the June 22nd Agenda.

ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES. Motion: Mrs. Brennan Moved to accept the Minutes of March 9th and March 23rd. Motion Seconded by Mr. Limbacher and the vote was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion.

SITE PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW FORMER WELCH CO. 134-166 FRONT STREET. APPLICANT: FIRST PARISH ROAD COMPANY.

Mr. S. Warner, First Parish Road Company, was present with his attorneys from Ohrenberger Assocs., William Ohrenberger and Jeff DeLisi; his architect from Shesky Architects, Gary Gardner; his engineer, Paul Mirabito of Ross Engineering; John Dias, Traffic Engineer, David O’Connor of The Cecil Group; and Matthew Warner.

The Chair explained how the meeting would be conducted. Mr. Walter said, “I think it is very important with a project of this significance that we have an open and fair discussion. I know there will be strong opinions one way and another. I want to maintain a very cordial environment.”

Atty. Ohrenberger introduced the development team and he said, “Just a quick backdrop – we are prepared to go into as much background as you want. We have had meetings with the Zoning Board (ZBA) and the Design Review Committee (DRC).” Mr. Walter said, “I would suggest that you give as much detail as time will allow because everyone here were not at those meetings. We want to understand what is going on.”

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “This process started approximately 2 ½ years ago. When the first buildings (#1, #2, #3) where the movie theater is, where Curves is, where the Spa is, and where the Welch Co. is was started – this project was always intended to be integrated in after that project was successfully integrated. What has happened since then was that we had an informal with you and then subsequent to that we went to ZBA and after a couple of hearings they approved our Special Permit to allow a lot of things. The first thing is that the building meets all dimensional requirements including height. What the project is is that on the first floor there will be retail space (approximately 17,000 S.F. of space). In addition to that there is an underground parking garage. In addition there will be 26 condominiums on the second and third floors. One of the aspects of the ZBA meetings - they were very involved with a lot of testimony – the ZBA took comments from other town boards and the public. On the north side of the property (where Bailey’s Package Store is) there is now a pedestrian walkway. Currently along the perimeter of the Welch Co. property along the water and along the patio of the Mill Wharf Restaurant there is a Ch. 91 walkway. What has happened is that this walkway was extended all the way out around the property and out to Front Street. On the north side it is wide enough so that it can be used as emergency access. The building is actually set back about five or six feet further back than it is required to be set back (from the lot line). There is a couple of reasons for that. Gary will explain this. The overhang at the existing Welch Co. building is actually in the right-of-way. One commentary that occurred had to do with the modulations of the building - on the third floor we have actually stepped back a few of the sections to add a little more relief. The access between the new Welch Co. building and the older Welch Co. buildings has been widened now to a 56’ wide opening. Initially we had trees in the planting island but they diminished the view so we removed those trees. We will likely have some low type of vegetation. We have a hearing coming up before the Conservation Commission addressing the Wetland Protection Act issues on the 29th. We were at the inaugural DRC meeting Monday night. We went through a lot of things and it was a very productive meeting. We got a lot of ideas and there were a couple of things that Gary Gardner has worked on and incorporated them. One of the things that we heard from the DRC was to have a connection between the side walk and the raised walkway. He has also actually achieved a pedestrian walkway through the building. He will show you this. There will have to be two doors to deal with wind issues but it will still be a public walkway.”

Atty. Ohrenberger continued, “One of the issues that came up was parking. We all know that the Harbor has insufficient parking. One thing that this submittal which you will see is that we are actually creating new parking spaces there. We have also reduced, through the change in use, the parking non-conformity by 31%. So in the finding of the ZBA they found that we have increased – in other words made our property more parking friendly than it was. We are here tonight for a Site Plan Administrative Review which is not a Special Permit. It is just a review and that ties into the nature of what the parking is. One of the things at the ZBA Hearing - there was a very good back and forth analysis of the logic including parking and traffic. The Fire Chief has signed off and gave his input under Section 940 Referrals. John Dias will speak to the parking and traffic. That was something that was discussed in great detail at the ZBA. All the information submitted to them has been submitted to you. If you want, Gary Gardiner, our architect, can give a brief overview to show you how it works. Most importantly – the DRC comments we just handed to us right now. He had incorporated in some of the elements discussed with the DRC. Then I will ask David O’Connor to discuss plantings and lightings as that was part of one of the discussions the other night. He actually has plantings shown on the plan. One of the things that I would recommend is that one of your Conditions of Site Plan approval would be to address the final lighting and landscaping plans. You did that when the first two buildings were approved. After that I would like Paul Mirabito to discuss various issues. About 5:30 P.M. tonight we received a memo from the DPW and I think we can answer them. Then, at that juncture, I will answer any questions that you or the public might have. John Dias will also speak to the DPW memo.”

Mr. Gary Gardner, Architect from Sheskey Architects, described a series of plans in detail. He said, “We have been working on this project for a couple of years. I will show you what the building looks like on the outside. As Bill mentioned I will address some of the comments we received from the DRC.”

Mr. Gardner put up the first sheet of the site plan and described how the primary access to the site would work. He described the locus of the site – Front Street, the Harbor, the Marina, the Mill Wharf Restaurant, new Welch Gift Shop, the condominium buildings, the Theater. He said, “You will enter the same driveway that you currently enter off of Front Street but the difference being that it will become a two-way driveway and provide an entrance and an exit from Front Street. It goes straight from Front Street right down to the water. Here are parking spaces here. There will the same parking spaces near the Marina and the Mill Wharf Restaurant. [Mr. Gardner compared the existing traffic patterns with the proposed traffic patterns/parking spaces.] The second way to get into the site is from Cole Parkway along the waterfront just the way it is now. One other access for emergency vehicles on the northern edge of the site. The building will not be right on top of the neighbors on the north side. The parking for the condos is underground. The entrance to the underground parking is here and there will be parking for 45 cars. We have 46 spaces so we exceed what is needed.”

Mr. Gardner continued by explaining the location of handicap ramps and he explained why certain aspects of the site must be raised because of FEMA requirements.

Mr. Gardner then showed the existing curb line on Front Street and he explained that it has been suggested that nine parking spaces in front of the proposed building, that had been removed years ago under a Front Street project, be recreated. He emphasized the fact that those nine spaces are not part of the calculations for the project because it will be up to the Board of Selectmen to decide if the Town wanted to do that. In anticipation of that happening, the building has been pulled back farther than required under the bylaws to make room for those nine spaces. Those nine spaces will be for public parking. Mr. Gardner listed various dimensions from the curb line to the proposed building.

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “One of the things that this is coordinated with is with the continuing pedestrian walkway near the theater with entrances from Front St. and Cole Parkway and along the water. So this coordinates with the first part of the project.” Mr. Gardner said, “There will be 100% public access.”

Mr. Gardner put up a colored sketch of the project and explained the exterior of the building. He said, “This is a three story building. It meets the height limits. The ZBA concurred that we meet the setbacks. There is a brick base. The concept of this building is to break it up into smaller size elements as shown by the various colored elements.

[Mr. Gardner described other building blocks along Front Street starting with the Conway Building and he gave some measurements for those buildings.] We have approximately 300 linear feet of frontage and we have 68 feet of that is open frontage. So it is 22-23% percent open areas. We will have 20 more feet of opening to the water.”

Mr. Limbacher asked, “Does that include the driveway and the emergency access?” Mr. Gardner replied, “Yes. One of the comments we heard was that we were reducing the visibility to the Harbor and that is not the case. We want the scale to feel like the Harbor so that is why we broke up the buildings. There are spaces between them that are setbacks. There are numerous access points to the building.[Mr. Gardner pointed to the various access points.] Part of that is response to the comments from the DRC. They talked about the railings that might stop people from seeing the store fronts so we opened that up. In response to ZBA concerns we have pulled back part of the third floor.[Mr. Gardner pointed to the areas that would be pulled back.] So we have some variety in the roof heights. The top floor is set back. In between there are decks for the residents.”

Mr. Gardner described the materials in detail. Some of the items he mentioned were: cedar clapboards, asphalt roof shingles, painted wood trim. Mr. Gardner showed a picture of a building in Nantucket and he compared it to what would be used on the project. He described the wood trim noting that it would be similar to what was used at the Theater Building and he showed the Board the places where the wood trim would be placed.

Mr. Walter asked, “Is it smooth finish that you apply molding to?” Mr. Gardner said it was.

Mr. Gardner then described the water side of the proposed building noting that it would be constructed of similar materials with similar massing.

The discussion centered on the public access area from Front Street to the water side (tunnel). Mr. Gardner said there were concerns because of possible wind problems in the tunnel that could create a dangerous situation. He said he had taken another look at it and he suggested that the use of some glass doors would help the situation. Mr. Walter asked if the tunnel area could be wide open on fair weather days and Mr. Gardner said it could He showed the Board a picture of how it would work and he described the type of glass doors that could be used in the tunnel passageway.

Mr. Gardner showed drawings representing what the northern end of the building would look like (near Old Dock Street). He said that the same materials would be used with similar colors. Mr. Gardner indicated that he agreed with comments from the DRC that these sections looked blank. He said there was a landscape design plan for the area that shows some plantings and he suggested that adding some trim details would be helpful.

Mr. Gardner said he did not have the floor plans for the retail space but he expected that there would be a series of small stores and a restaurant. Regarding the condominiums he said that the second and third floors have 13 residences, seven of them are two bedroom units. Mr. Gardner described a typical footprint of a 2200 S.F. two bedroom unit. He noted that the access is by elevator; the units are all on one level; there is a main corridor connecting all units.

Mr. Gardner addressed the comments received from the DRC. See file for this documentation. Mr. Gardner read aloud most of the DRC comments and he said, “The first one I believe I addressed this. [He showed the Board the location of the existing driveway near The Flounder Inn and he described the proposed access drive in that location.] We are not decreasing Harbor views we are increasing them. They are in different locations.”

Mr. Gardner continued, “Item #2 (ramp) – That comment is not correct. The reason for that is that if the Town agrees we can put those nine parking spaces in front. Yes, it can be reworked. Item #3 (parking spaces along driveway back up into the 2-way access) – The parking spaces are along a 56’ wide access. This is how you would pull in and pull out. Paul Mirabito will address that.” Mr. Limbacher asked, “The shaded area on the left side of the building as I am looking at it - how big is that?” Mr. Gardner said it was 18’.

Mr. Gardner continued, “Item #4 – the DRC supports the approval of widening the street to add 9 new parking spaces on Front St. Item #5 (center walkway through parking area from back retail area to water) – we could do that but we would lose parking spaces. We do provide access here and here. We would lose about 8 parking spaces. The ZBA does not want us to lose any parking spaces. Item #6 (additional landscaping) – we have our landscaping designer here tonight. He will develop an as built plan. Item #7 (site lighting) - we will have a site lighting plan developed. That will go along with the landscape plan. We will have a fully developed landscape and site lighting plan developed down the road. Item #8 (maintain trees on Front St.) - any trees that are removed will be relocated elsewhere but they will not likely be as big as the ones that are there now.”

Mr. Gardner then discussed the DRC comments regarding building design. He said, “Item #1 (better integration of the front and back raised walkways to the lower sidewalks) - we have railings so that people won’t fall off the walkway. The concern was that they may block the store front. We addressed that by adding more stairs to the front of the building. That offers more visibility. Item #2 (vary walkway vertical supports) – we will take a look at that. Item #3 (more texture on north façade facing residential neighbors) - on this other board we show that we will have more texture. Item #4 (study additional building openings/walkways through site) - we are providing an additional walkway through the site. Item #5 (insure the quality materials presented are incorporated) - we have shown samples of the materials. We fully intend to use them all and it can be written into your Conditions. Item #6 (massing on Front St.) - the early morning shadows will be on Front St. [Mr. Gardner showed the Board where the shadows would be at various times during the day.] Item #7 (vary the façade massing) – I believe that refers to that we have four similar shapes, but these two are different than these two. e.g. red ones are different from beige ones. Item #8 (ask that affordable units be considered) - that is not my thing.”

Mr. David O’Connor, Landscape Architect from The Cecil Group, said, “These basic elements are – try to add some supplemental detail to the architecture, try to link Front Street to the Harbor, getting views of the Harbor from Front Street, and also add some visual interest. We looked for opportunities to provide landscaping. The best opportunity is at the north end of the site where the sidewalk widens out. We have shown the nine parking spaces in this location. We would put in at least three street trees. We are putting planters in the indentions of the building. There will be larger planters at the corner to form sort of a gateway. This might be a location for additional outdoor seating. We are proposing ornamental brick bands at the curb line. That will pick up the brick banding at the base of the building. I think the most important aspect of this is that we have moved street trees from this access so that there will be unimpeded view from Front St . to the Harbor. It will be a marine type environment. There will be ornamental plantings and I will show those in a few minutes. Wherever the opportunity presents itself there could be a small seating area. So there are elements here and here all the way down to the harbor front. They are relatively low so not to obstruct the view. Plantings in back – every place where there is an opportunity to buffer the ramping systems (here, here, and over here) we will do that. There is a larger opportunity at the driveway to the building. There is pedestrian access along here and a shared emergency access here. We didn’t put any landscaping here because we can’t obstruct emergency access but we did add ornamental paving here. A scoring pattern is used. There are shade trees in the parking lot. These are diamond shaped granite curbing here to protect the trees. This protects the tree but doesn’t cost us any parking spaces and it adds a visual element to the parking lot. Up on the deck itself we will look for an opportunity to have wood planters. Every place we have an opportunity to use plant materials and create visual interest for the building we will do it. I show these as an illustration of some families of character for the ornamental lighting. We can pick up a maritime theme or an early 20th Century theme. The important thing is that they are shielded and they cut out the glare. There will be light on the site but the glare upward is controlled. We have not made a decision but these are the directions that we have been thinking about – a simplified interpretation of very traditional elements.”

Mr. O’Connor continued, “Site furniture: simple - either metal or wood - a modern interpretation of a very traditional design. Let me talk about plant material. Let me talk about trees first: Pear – advantage is that it is an attractive plant with good spring and fall colors and it will stay under the wires. Already on Front St. there are some others but that is one that will work very well. Another good tough plant is the red maple. There are a dozen others that will work equally well. We want to have a good shade tree that is salt tolerant. There are other opportunities where there may be supplemental plants e.g. river birches or a number of other smaller plants. They will work very well. It is important that they are appropriate for a marine environmental, ideally native but there are some that are well behaved introduced species. I think the rugosa rose is a good choice. If you walk by a large rugosa rose one of the best elements is the smell. The smell suggests the ocean. It is a great smell; it smells like the sea. Others are bayberry, northern bayberry, cherry laurel, variety of evergreens. There is a variety of seasonal interests. They will stay low. They can be supplemental with ground covers like evergreen ground covers or a number of grasses. I think the idea is to use material that people are generally familiar with that work in a marine environment – good tough plants.”

Mr. Paul Mirabito, Ross Engineering, showed plans of the existing site conditions and proposed site conditions and described them in detail. He said, “There are five buildings on the site now and four of them will be razed and rebuilt. This is the existing entrance from Front St. As Bill mentioned there is an overhang on the existing building. It is about eight feet out into existing Front Street layout. The existing parking area is here and the entrance to it is here. These two buildings are the first phase of the redevelopment of the Warner Property. Here is the existing Mill Wharf Restaurant.”

Mr. Mirabito continued, “This is the main structure out there – the big red one – the Welch Co. building; this is the Chinese Restaurant; this is the old post office building and there is another office building behind it. These four buildings will be razed. The entrance now to the site is through a very narrow opening here from Front Street and there is also an entrance to the site from Cole Parkway located here. These are the two buildings previously constructed under the first phase of the redevelopment of the Warner property. There is also a sidewalk in this area here. We have put in a larger sidewalk plan around the property. This is Old Dock Street. The proposed site conditions: there is an existing sidewalk here [Mr. Mirabito showed how people could presently walk around the site from the water area to Front Street using the existing sidewalk configuration and he showed how people will be able to walk around the site using the proposed sidewalk configuration.] In front of this building right here – this is approximately 8 ½ feet back from the street line so at this point out the new building will be 14-15 feet further back than now. What we are proposing, as you go down Front St., we will have an opening out to the existing marine. The new opening (between the existing newer building and the proposed building) we will be twice as wide as it is now. It will be the widest opening along Front Street to the Harbor (56’ wide). It will be completely unobstructed. [Mr. Mirabito described the new parking and traffic flow within the site including the driveway/ramp to the underground parking.]”

Mr. Mirabito continued, “We received the review comments from the DPW about 4:30 tonight. I will address them. The three issues they talk about are: water, sewer, and drainage. As far as the water goes – we are proposing to have a looped water main behind the building. They want it looped out to Font St. and we can do it. They want individual services in back rather than Front St. As far as the sewer goes – we are proposing to use the existing sewer connection. The flows for this property will not increase. This is based on the existing water flows for the existing building. As far as the storm drainage - at the present time it essentially drains from Front Street all the way out to the Harbor. Because the Harbor is tidal there is no requirement for storm drainage calculations.

I will say though that based upon plan there is no increase in the rate of runoff. The proposed conditions will be roof area and pavement and that is what it is today. When the first phase was installed there were stormceptor units put in this area here and here. That is being done under Best Management Practices (BMP’s). We have made a filing with the Scituate Conservation Commission and the DEP and we are waiting for notice from the Conservation Commission. The DEP has issued the file number for the project. Again there is no increase in the amount of runoff but because this is a redevelopment site we must treat and clean as much of the water as we can and that is the purpose of the stormceptors. The flow will end up in the Harbor as it does now. There will be no additional flows to abutting properties. One other comment from the DPW - we will be working closely with the architect, the electrical, the plumber. We looked at the needs for fire flow in the building etc. At that time we can tell whether or not the water pressure is sufficient and if the water main on Front St. is adequate to handle the pressure flows for the building. If it is then we don’t have to change anything. If not we may need to add a booster pump on the water line for emergencies. That is standard procedure. So we met the DPW comments. We addressed them at the ZBA hearing. The Fire Dept. is concerned about this entrance here and we have widened it and put in larger roundings. They have direct access to four sides of the building.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “I assume that you will talk to me about construction phasing and

pedestrian and vehicle access during construction.”

Mr. John Dias, Traffic Engineer, said, “I did the traffic study for the project. I also have some response to the DPW comments. [Mr. Dias described how the study was conducted.] We did counts in September of last year and one of the comments that came up at the ZBA and the DPW was a concern about counts being done in September rather than in the summer so we have done an addendum to the original study. We looked at other areas with similar uses. There wasn’t anything directly available for Front St. in Scituate to compare September with July or August. We found, in those areas, that the traffic counts in September were about 20% lower than July and August so we upped the counts we did by an additional 20%. So the counts would represent summer periods.

Traffic generated – during the morning peak now on a typical week day today is approximately 130 vehicles/hour. The evening peak hours will be 350 vehicles/hour. We are taking the office use out of it and putting in a residential use. Residential use is a lower generator than the office use. The result is that the traffic associated with the site would be a reduction of about 50 vehicles/hour (30 to 40% reduction) or 77 trips. There will be a similar reduction in the afternoon of about 115 vehicles. 243 vehicles. That is because the residential use is less than office use.”

Mr. Limbacher asked about the traffic generated be the retail space. Mr. Dias replied,

“What we did, rather than just use these numbers, we provided a more conservative analysis and we studied what is out there today with respect to what the potential could be. We actually counted the traffic today and found 44 vehicle trips in the morning and 140 vehicle trips in the afternoon. So we took a comparison of what it generates today with what it could generate. The result was an increase of about 30 vehicles in the morning and about 100 vehicles in the afternoon.”

Mr. Dias continued, “Level of service - we looked at morning and afternoon peak periods. The site generates minimal impacts. The green circles here at First Parish, at Brook Street, at Harbor Heights and this Cole Parkway intersection there – there are none or small changes in the level of service At Otis Place we see a change in the afternoon with a drop in the level of service at Otis because of the traffic coming out. At Allen Place intersection we see a drop in the morning and afternoon because of the traffic coming out of the site. To put that into perspective as to what that means from a level of service and from the point of view of a driver – we look at the queue at the intersections and what we adding to that queue. At First Parish we are not adding any additional vehicles in either the morning or the afternoon. At Brook Street we add one vehicle in the morning; two along Cole Parkway in the afternoon; two along Brook Street in the afternoon. At Otis Place there is no change in the morning and one additional vehicle coming out in the afternoon. In front of Allen Place there is one additional vehicle in the morning and four additional vehicles in the afternoon. At Harbor Heights Road we have no change.”

Mr. Dias said, “A couple of the comments raised by the DPW – regarding on street parking that you talked about earlier - we can do that or we don’t have to do that.

I talked about the traffic counts in September and that we added counts to make it meet summer criteria.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “I have not seen the traffic study.” Atty. Ohrenberger said it was available. Ms. Harbottle said there were a couple of copies available in the Planning Board office.

Mrs. Brennan said, “Do I understand that essentially there is going to be no increase in traffic.” Mr. Warner explained that the figures in the traffic study reflect the changes in the uses on the site e.g. office use is gone and replaced by residential. He described the present uses on the site, and some of the past uses (gourmet shop, flower shop). He said that the retail space will be about the same as it has been in the past. There will be no new office space in the proposed project. Office space has a lot different time and space considerations than residential.

Mrs. Brennan said, “I thought I was hearing that this was supposed to bring new life to the Harbor so I thought there would be more activity.” Atty. Ohrenberger replied, “The people who live there will frequent the businesses, the merchants. One of the beauties of living in the Harbor is that you don’t have to drive. You can walk to restaurants and stores. It will absolutely create a more vibrant environment but it will not create more car trips. There will be a lot of pedestrian use.” Mrs. Brennan continued, “Aren’t you hoping that I will come and shop there too?” Mr. Warner replied, “If you shop there now it won’t be any different in terms of driving there.” Mrs. Brennan asked, “Aren’t we hoping for more people to drive there instead of going to the malls?”

Mr. Dias replied, “We are taking an office use that generates more traffic and turning it into residential. We studied hard numbers of what is going on all around the country. We looked at what this site is actually doing today. Hopefully when it is built out it will be vibrant and will generate the numbers that we expect. We did a more conservative analysis.”

Atty. Ohrenberger spoke about the Urban Systems project that was done a number of years ago in Scituate Harbor which resulted in a loss of parking spaces. He said, “We pulled back the building here but it is a Selectmen’s call if they want those nine spaces. We accommodated that by moving the building so it is possible. In one aspect, if you have a vibrant harbor, which I think everyone wants, there will potentially be more traffic. Is that something that is undesirable? I don’t think so. One thing – building an g underground parking is extremely expensive. One thing that we looked at early on was what we could do as of right at the site without going through the ZBA. We could do 11 condominium units and use the first floor for parking rather than build an underground parking garage. The economics of the two projects are virtually identical. Bob and Steve have been here for over 25 years. This is a unique situation. Traditionally in Scituate Harbor – you have to go back to 1911 (Welch) along that strip no one has all the contiguous property. It just so happens that the Warners own all that strip. Steve and Bob do not want to turn their backs on the merchants and remove the retail from that area (north area) because, in their estimation, it would virtually kill the business in that end of the Harbor. That was something that was considered during this whole process. In spite of the recent bylaw that was adopted by Town Meeting, and it is a great bylaw and this Board put a lot of effort into it - even though this is dense it is a small fraction of the density that would be allowed under the new bylaw. Our project is exactly the concept, I believe although I may be presumptuous, that the Board was trying to achieve – mixed use with retail on the first floor. Under the new bylaw we could put in over one hundred units of residential housing there although we would have to have a parking garage under the entire premises.” Mr. Limbacher replied, “You could not put in 100 units because you don’t have the infrastructure. You have inadequate parking, inadequate septic. Physically you could put it there but you don’t have the infrastructure.”

Mrs. Brennan said, “This is going to happen because it can. I just want to see it be the very best it can be. The traffic study -- I never heard of a traffic study where it says that we are bringing awful traffic. We want it to a vibrant place. I want to shop in the Harbor, I hate malls. My dismay is that there isn’t going to be more traffic.”

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “I hope the Harbor does become a vibrant Harbor. >From the Warner’s standpoint I think it is a positive progression from several things that have happened there.”

Mr. Limbacher asked for clarification of the reduction in the level of service at Allen Place and Otis Place in the afternoon. Mr. Dias replied, “It is because we are adding traffic to the site and not to Allen Place.”

Mr. Walter, Acting Chair, explained how he wanted this meeting to proceed from here on. He pointed out that the discussion had been on-going for over an hour and a half.

Ms. Harbottle said, “I think it is important that the public knows what section of the bylaw this comes under. This is under Section 730 Site Plan Administrative Review.

There is less of a high standard in terms of how many members have to vote.[Ms. Harbottle explained the differences between a Site Plan Administrative Review and a Site Plan Special Permit and she read aloud pertinent sections of the bylaw.] The Board can approve this with Conditions. The process is different. [Ms. Harbottle read aloud the items that the Board reviews under a Site Plan Administrative Review process.]”

Ms. Harbottle continued, “I really don’t have a lot of comments, I just want to go back to the comments from the DPW and Traffic Rules Comm. One thing the DPW asked for was some kind of a peer review for traffic which means that our consultant can review the applicant’s traffic study. There has been a lot of redevelopment in the Harbor such as Harborside Village and I am not sure that all this has been considered in the traffic study. Also, I think that a lot of the points that have been brought up can be addressed with Conditions e.g. water and sewer.”

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “Two things - we have a traffic plan. The retail space is the same. We had office space and we traded the office space for residential space.

In my mind it is simple. Under section 940 Referrals (the Special Permit part of the process) – as part of the ZBA hearing there was no commentary whatsoever except from Traffic Rules & Regulations and the Fire Chief saying his requirements. On the traffic issue all of this was presented today. I think, with all due respect to the comment that Laura made, John has incorporated other projects in his report. I am not questioning your jurisdiction. At the ZBA hearing there was discussion – they asked us to speak with the Traffic Rules Comm. prior to the next meeting but Traffic Rules did not want to meet with us. That was six months ago. At the next meeting of the ZBA I told them that we attempted to meet with the Traffic Rules Comm. We think our traffic engineer has addressed everything.”

Mr. Walter said, “We have a new Design Review Committee (DRC) as was mentioned earlier. There are three members on that Committee: Michael McGowan, Hal Stokes, Keith Sportack. They did review this project and they prepared a draft of some of the concerns that were raised on Monday night. Mike – do you have anything to add?”

Mr. Michael McGowan, DRC, said, “I think we are happy that some of our issues have been addressed. Like everybody else, we want this building to be the best building it can be. I still have questions about what Mr. Gardner’s explanation about the façade. I am not sure if there is any leeway there. I liked the landscape presentation. We talked about the side access and parking along the roadway and the need to back into the roadway.”

Mrs. Chisholm said, “ I do like the design of the building but it is very large. It will be as high as the CVS building. I went to DRC meeting the other night. I was very impressed with the gentlemen and I thank you. As to the design itself, it is such a long building and takes up so much room. This may sound weird but is there any way you can arch the building or set the building back so it is not all on Front St. e.g. start with the middle building and set it back, set back and set back? Has anything like that been thought of?”

Atty. Ohrenberger replied, “One of the things looking at this building is that parking is tough. Another thing we have said is that the building is back from the street. One of the things discussed at the ZBA – when you look at Front St. most of the existing buildings are right on Front St. We have a pre-existing building on the street but the new building will be pushed back.” Mr. Mirabito said the new one will be 16’ further back in from the property line. Atty. Ohrenberger continued, “So to answer your question – by moving the building we are achieving that. Also, as Gary indicated, the third floor is further back. We have actually increased the parking on the site. By pushing the building back (even though this is not part of this) it is set up to put nine more parking spaces back on Front St. if the Selectmen want to do it. The merchants in the Harbor have been contacted and they said they would like to see that. The other fact – this project (along with our other buildings) – to have ADA compliance is one thing – but we also exceed the ADA compliance so that the disabled will have a more enjoyable experience. Part of the construction is dictated by that also.”

Mrs. Chisholm asked, “So pushing back parts of it is not a consideration? Instead of creating a whole wall it would be nice to push some of it back. You could have some space in front for a nice patio for a restaurant to put tables out front. It is just a thought. I understand that it is set back already. Push it back so there will be a courtyard effect in the back – a u-shape instead of a flat front on the street.”

Mr. Mirabito showed the existing building and its relationship to the curb line. He pointed to the area where the nine additional parking spaces could be placed if the Selectmen want to do that. He said there could be more space if the Selectmen decide against putting back those nine spaces. Mrs. Chisholm indicated she understood what Mr. Mirabito was saying. Mr. Walter said, “They can’t move it back, as mentioned by Mrs. Chisholm, because of parking.” Mr. Mirabito explained that the ZBA had asked that the building be moved back. He showed the Board where that had been done.

Mrs. Chisholm said, “How many bedrooms are there going to be? So there are 40 bedrooms and you are saying there is no increase flow of sewer or water. Are you having public restrooms in the retail area? The reason I ask is that most of the places in the Harbor do not have any public restrooms. The only place I know is Duncan Donuts. So my question is – is there going to be public restrooms?” Atty. Ohrenberger replied, “I am not sure that we can dictate to the tenants whether they can have it or not.” Mrs. Chisholm asked, “Is there a Health code that says they have to have a public restroom?” Atty. Ohrenberger replied, “We would have to ask the Board of Health.” Mrs. Chisholm said, “I would just assume you would. So how do you go from office space (I don’t know how many bathrooms there were) to bedrooms and have less flow?” Mr. Warner replied, “It is all under Title 5.” Mr. Mirabito explained the calculations for office space bedroom space, and retail space.

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “If you want a restaurant there then there will be more flow. If there is an increase then the Selectmen, as Sewer Commissioners, are the ones that would have to decide. Do you want a restaurant or don’t you? It is the Sewer Commissioners call.”

Mrs. Chisholm said, “One more thing - I work in the Harbor so I know about the flooding in storms. The whole parking lot floods and we have to move our cars up to the Marketplace. I noticed that over the past few years Front St. now floods. Will you cause more flooding because of the building?”

Mr. Mirabito explained, “This whole site is in a FEMA flood zone EL 12. In October of 2003 FEMA changed the flood maps and raised it by 2’. So we have to have 13’ (one foot above the FEMA elevations). The whole building will be flood proofed in accordance with FEMA construction standards. The FEMA construction standards have been incorporated into the Massachusetts State Building Code. We will have to meet the Federal construction standards. There will be a garage door here that will come down in floods.” Atty. Ohrenberger added, “The analogy that I would use for all practices and purposes the volume of the ocean is infinite – so if you put a bucket in the seashore by the ocean does that raise the volume of the ocean. So putting something in there does not increase the volume of the ocean.”

In response to a question from Mr. Limbacher about how to handle the water coming off of the roof, Mr. Mirabito explained, “There will be roof leaders. The water is taken to this area and then goes down below ground to the ocean. There will be a separate drain line just for the roof. The roof water is clean and does not have to be treated. There is an Operation & Maintenance Plan that needs to be submitted to the Commission which we have done. It is required to maintain the stormceptors.”

Mr. Limbacher asked, “So you will not impact the current storm drainage system?” Mr. Mirabito replied, “Correct. We have to treat the water from the pavement so they go to catch basins and stormceptors. Some of those were put in with the first phase and we will simple continue that.”

Mr. Fagan said, “I think the design has some movement. There is stuff going on there. It looks pretty good. The parking out front – can we do anything about that? Who has the authority?” Atty. Ohrenberger said he would have to check on that because there was federal money involved with the prior Urban Systems project. Mr. Fagan indicated that he would like to see the nine parking spaces returned.

Mr. Fagan asked about the storage of the marina floats in the winter. Atty. Ohrenberger replied, “As part of the Condition from the ZBA there will be no float storage on site.”

Mrs. Brennan said, “I love the fact that you found a way to have the pass through. It should be visually pleasing. The widening of the driveway is good too. Those parking spaces in that driveway you say there is an unobstructed view - what about if there is a Suburban there?” Atty. Ohrenberger said, “These are compact spaces there.” Mr. Mirabito added, “They are 18’ rather than 20’. You could sign it as being only for compact cars but that would be an enforcement issue.”

Mrs. Brennan asked for clarification about the width of the driveway near the parking spaces. Mr. Mirabito provided her with the figures of the driveway and parking space areas and assured her that there would be room for two-way traffic. Mr. Mirabito explained, “The opening from the side of this building here to this building here is 58’. It is the widest opening you have on this side of Front Street.” Mr. Walter questioned the figures. Mr. Gardner said that it was all on the same plane. Mr. Walter agreed.

Mrs. Brennan said, “Even though you did the cuts in the building – the mass and the height – what the human eye will see will be overwhelming. I think that is what we have all been trying to say.” Atty. Ohrenberger showed the Board a picture taken back in 1956 when the Welch Co. building was a three story building. Mrs. Brennan said, “It is what we see now.”

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “I agree it is a large building. We have to try to build a building, from the tenants and everyone, is a viable building. I said earlier that there were alternatives. To have a lower building we would have to eliminate retail space and most people think that retail space is critical.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “Shame on me, I have not seen the traffic study. Talk to me about parking. Let me tell you what I think you told me. One is that you have given up office space and put in residential space. All of the residential requirements will be underneath the building. Even though the footprint of the building is a little bit bigger, I haven’t lost any parking spaces shown in the gray area. Even though I have given up office space, the retail space has increased by some 3500 S.F.” [Atty. Ohrenberger provided Mr. Limbacher with a summary of the parking calculations.] Mr. Limbacher continued, “I gave up one parking space for every 300 S.F. and added additional parking at 1/200 S.” Atty. Ohrenberger explained the information in the summary of parking calculations. Mr. Limbacher continued, “As nice as those nine spaces are I think you have to agree that they are not realistic at this point in time. Because of the way it was built with federal money I think there is a timing issue associated with that.” Atty. Ohrenberger replied, “What I said is that those nine spaces are not included.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “As I understand it – discounting the marina - all of the parking spaces that currently exist for that building (office or retail) still exists in that shaded area and all the parking for the residential is in that underground area. Okay. I will review the traffic study to make sure that I understand it. I understand the drainage. I am a little concerned about construction phasing particularly with the pedestrian and vehicular access while this building is being constructed.”

Mr. Mirabito replied, “We are working on a final plan. We will work with all the professionals involved (mechanical people). We are also working with the DPW on the phasing. We have to show them how much of the site will be occupied in any one phase. We have to show them how the access will be handled in front of the building. We will come up with a plan to show all of that information.” Mr. Limbacher said, “I am not too concerned about the back as you will leave it open to the Mill Wharf Restaurant. The piece I am concerned about is the pedestrian access in front of building.”

Mr. Limbacher and Mr. Mirabito continued to discuss the construction phasing. Mr. Mirabito offered various measurements of driveway areas, parking areas, sidewalks and how the construction vehicles would access the site. Mr. Limbacher said, “I am concerned about the pedestrian access along the front of the building and the pedestrian access coming down between the two buildings (phase 1 and phase 2). Mrs. Brennan mentioned fencing the sidewalk in some areas for protection. Mr. Limbacher agreed with the need for fencing of the sidewalk in certain locations. Mr. Mirabito described the covered walkway that was used during construction of Harborside Village.

Mr. Limbacher said, “I need to understand that a little bit better. The landscaping and the lighting – you will have to come back to us for approval like you did with the prior buildings. As to the design itself, there are some elements that I like. Is it my style – the answer is no. I think you have done a reasonably good job trying to break it up.”

Mr. Walter said, “Let me make a couple of comments. Thank you to the public – you have been very patient. I will leave parking alone for now. I don’t have concern about backing cars out. I would do anything possible to get those nine spaces back. They will be a benefit for everyone. I take it that the transformer location is set on the southeast corner of the building. There is another one too.” Mr. Gardner replied, “Yes, the one on the right is serving the restaurant. They will be screened with bollards.”

Mr. Walter continued, “The pedestrian access – the access around site works well. Coming from Riva’s is a nice feature. Adding that tunnel through the building is a nice gesture also. You did a good job to create steps into the retail space. In terms of landscaping I am little concerned about the trees in the parking lot and the curbing. I am assuming it will work.” Mr. O’Connor said it works and he compared it to what had been done in Newburyport. He explained the diamond effect.

Mr. Walter said, “You could add some plants to the balconies. That corridor - I am actually not troubled by having those two trees there. Building -- thanks for the old picture of when the Welch Co was a three-story building. The building you propose will be taller. It is a big building I think the setbacks are nice gesture. I look at the building where Thompsons is. They have significant setbacks. By using that dormer approach you may be able to bring scale down. Just a thought. I do like the multiple buildings and the various materials. There is a lot of good going on here. The decks – I like the ones that are integrated into the building, but not the ones flat on the buildings.” Mr. Gardner described the decks in detail. Mr. Walter said, “Some of them look like an after thought.”

Mr. Gardner replied, “I can take a look at that.”

Mr. Walter asked about the roof top equipment which he thought had been taken care of and for information about the dumpster and trash pickup. Mr. Warner said, “ Right now we are replacing a dumpster (showed location) with a compactor. We are making a main trash area at the Mill Wharf Restaurant area. We try to have small retailers. We have been approached by one very large retailer. Most of deliveries are made by UPS and they use small trucks that can park in parking spaces. We did not incorporate a loading dock because we are not after large retailers.”

Mrs. Brennan asked about the proposed signage. Mr. Warner replied, “If you notice the theater has the same color and design as the ice cream parlor. The signs were designed by The Cecil Group. We try to carry a theme throughout. We have wood carved signs.”

Atty. Ohrenberger submitted a list of some proposed conditions. He referred the Board to Condition #10 regarding landscaping and signage.

The Chair called for public comment.

Mrs. Beverly Westerveld, 12 Harbor View Road, asked if any thought had been given to having diagonal parking in the driveway. Mr. Mirabito said that it had been considered. However, he explained that for diagonal parking the length of the stall has to be longer and therefore there would be less parking. Mr. Mirabito described the size of the lanes and parking spaces in various areas of the site.

Mrs. Westerveld mentioned the incline to the underground parking and questioned whether the area will flood when Cole Parkway floods. Mr. Warner said that the area right behind the marina floods when Cole Parkway floods. Mrs. Westerveld suggested that the condominium owners will have to drive through a flooded area to get out of the site and that they would likely end up parking at the Marketplace lot. Atty. Ohrenberger said that in major storm events people will stay put and not be driving about. Mrs. Brennan pointed out that if you live on the water you need to think about what is going to happen in storm events. Mrs. Westerveld asked if people will park in the parking garage during storms or if they would move to higher ground. Mr. Mirabito said that the parking garage has to be flood proofed in accordance with FEMA regulations so the incentive will be to park in the garage.

Mr. Tom Chamberlain, 3 Old Dock Street asked if there would be a change to the current curb cuts of Old Dock Street. Mr. Gardner showed a plan of the Warner property near Old Dock Street. Mr. Chamberlain showed the location of his house and said it appears, from what Mr. Gardner described, that the curb cuts would not be changed. He asked for clarification about the proposed driveway near his house and type of fencing that would be used to separate his property from the Warner project. Mr. Warner explained how the opening at the north end of the property would work and he told Mr. Chamberlain that he could have any type of fence that he wanted. Mr. Chamberlain asked if the walkway would be lit. He thought it should be because the walkway area could become an attractive nuisance for kids. Mr. Warner said the walkway would be lit. Mr. Chamberlain said he lived close to one of the buildings that would be coming down and he asked Mr. Warner to have a fire hose available to keep the dust down when the building is being removed. Mr. Warner agreed to do that.

Mr. Jim Shipsky, 58 Doane Street, Cohasset, commented on the architecture of the building. He thought the design was not appropriate for a charming New England seacoast community and he doubted that anyone would think it was an appropriate design. Mr. Shipsky said that Scituate deserves a beautiful building and Mr. Warner deserves a beautiful building and he urged the Planning Board to ask for a beautiful building. Mr. Shipsky read aloud portions of the bylaw regarding the Harbor Business District and he pointed out that under the Purpose of the Harbor Business District Bylaw is to provide business that contributes to the well being of Scituate Harbor. He suggested that the proposed building would not contribute to the well being of Scituate Harbor and he said that the wording in the bylaw gave the Planning Board the power to deny the application. Mr. Shipsky then read aloud portions of Section 730.1 (Site Plan Administrative Review Purpose) and portions of the Goals & Objectives of the Master Plan regarding the character of Scituate Harbor and to have a sustainable village center. Mr. Shipsky said that the proposal does not reflect the character of Scituate and does not address having a ‘sustainable’ village center.. He urged the Board to deny the project and ask Mr. Warner to go back to the drawing Board and come back with a better project.

Mrs. Westerveld pointed out that Scituate Harbor was a business zoned area. She suggested that rather than the proposed building there could be retail on the bottom floor and one story of condominiums rather than two stories. In response Atty. Ohrenberger said it was a simple matter of architecture, engineering, and economics. Mrs. Westerveld said that while it had to be business it did not have to be residential.

Mr. David Pallotta, 42 Cobb Lane, said he thought Mr. Warner had done a great job. He stressed the importance of bringing people to the Harbor to support the businesses and having people in the Harbor to support the businesses year round. Mr. Pallotta also pointed out that the Warner project would bring a large amount of tax revenue to Scituate and he said that the project should be accepted.

Mrs. Doreen Close, 132 Summer Street, asked to put her drawing of the proposed project up on the easel. Mr. Walter replied, “No, and I will tell you why. You, quite frankly, are not the applicant and I encourage you to speak with the applicant. I don’t think it is appropriate for you to put it up.”

Mrs. Close said, “ Then I will just have to speak. I don’t think that this is a win/lose situation. I think the condos are going to happen. I am a little disappointed to hear that this sounds like a fait a complis. I am not alone. People are very upset that this is going to happen. It could be beautiful. He could have the 26 condos and the residents of Scituate could also have a beautiful streetscape. Right now that isn’t happening. We will have a city block in Scituate Harbor. Make no mistake about it. I promise you. This is the legacy. It is not the Welch building anymore; it is the Warner building. It is going to be massive and it is going to be huge and it is not going to make people want to go to the Harbor. Why would anyone want to go to the doctor’s office with two stories of condos above. There will be a four foot walkway that is four feet above the ground with ramps and stairs etc. This building really could have 26 condos. I know there is not supposed to be any extra parking, any extra traffic, no runoff or any of those things. Aside from all of those issues, this could be 26 condos with beautiful balconies, with beautiful porches, and places where people want to go - not condos that people live in six months out of the year. The rest of the time nobody wants to go down there. I am going to talk to Mr. Warner if he will speak to me to try to get this under control for the residents of Scituate.”

Mr. Walter said, “In terms of the beauty aspect of the building – this is a piece of architecture. It could have taken so many different approaches. You have your own thoughts on it but what we have before us is being presented to us by an architect for Mr. Warner. Whether myself, someone else from the Board, or anyone else in this room would have designed that or something different – we have to consider what has been presented to us.” Mrs. Close asked, “Why don’t you guys have a say?” Mr. Walter replied, “We absolutely do have a say. I think you have heard some of our comments tonight. Maybe what you are hearing is that we may disagree with your opinion. I want to make it clear that we are working to make it the best building that it can be. People have very strong opinions one way or the other and we appreciate that.”

Mrs. Close continued, “I did appreciate that they did try to address some of DRC comments, but bringing the building down a couple of feet doesn’t quite cut it with me. I am seeing some effort. The archway with the glass doors (opening to the Harbor) just doesn’t cut it. It is a glass doorway. It is not the same as having a passageway through the building. I hope that they will reconsider breaking up the building at the ground level so people can pass through. As far as the wind tunnel thing – there are alleyways there now that have been there forever that don’t have wind tunnel issues. I am hoping that is a consideration – break up the building.”

Atty. Ohrenberger responded, “The structure of the building right now – there are a number of architectural, engineering, legal and zoning issues why it can’t happen. So that is what it is. I don’t want to do a tutorial on zoning. Suffice to say that this is the

structure that the ZBA approved.”

Mrs. Margaret Bergsten, 290 Clapp Road, questioned whether there was enough parking given the number of the proposed units and the fact that each property owner could have two cars. Mrs. Bergsten said that the style of the proposed building should compare with other styles in town so it can all pull together – make it a village with the same architecture.

Coleen Strobino, 6 Ann Vinal Road, asked if there was a site for a restaurant.

Atty. Ohrenberger replied, “The owner of Flounder Inn would like to come back with a much reduced size restaurant, but again that will depend (or any other type of restaurant) on what the Sewer Commissions indicate. There is not an area in the building designated for a restaurant.”

Mr. Berne Westerveld, 12 Harborview Road, raised questions about the underground parking area. Mr. Gardner showed him plans for the underground parking area and described the ramp system into the parking area. The incline goes up to the flood elevation.

Mrs. Brennan mentioned the collection of roof drainage Mr. Walter said the water could be collected into a cistern and used to take care of your plantings or a system set up to flush all the toilets. He added that the building will have to meet the current energy codes.

Mr. Walter said, “Here is my thought. We have had a great discussion. I don’t think that we are ready to make a decision tonight. I think it would be helpful if you would extend it to the next meeting. There is a DRC meeting scheduled for June 21st and we meet again on June 22nd.”

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “I have two-fold request. Could I have a consensus of the Board conceptually, not in fine detail, that we are in the right spot. That is number 1. Number 2 would be, and I am wondering in anticipation of the next meeting, and if you are going to vote at the next meeting, could we get some draft Conditions. We could work with Ms. Harbottle to review them and to move it forward so that at the next meeting we could have a good working session and get it finalized. “

The Chair asked for comments from the Board. Mrs. Brennan said, “You were speaking of consensus and I would say that the consensus of the Board is that the massing of building is too big. We are asking you to think about that. You can still get what you need but is there some other way to do it?”

Mr. Fagan said, “I did not say it is massive. It has a lot of merit. They did a lot of work in the last two days. I think it is a viable design. You are not there one hundred percent obviously, but you are getting close.”

Mrs. Chisholm said, “I think it needs to be scaled down a bit. I think that in order to fit it in to that area you should not have a big giant wall. You should break it up somehow.”

Mr. Walter said, “I would offer that I believe it could work. I like the ins and outs of it are good but I would encourage you to look at the up and down.

Atty. Ohrenberger asked, “A procedural question – at the next meeting are all the members planning to be present? I don’t want to run into a quorum problem.”

The members present this evening indicated that they would be present at the next meeting.

Mr. Fagan asked about an area referred to as ‘the green monster’. Mr. Warner replied, “I think you are talking about the fact that we are ramping up but the fact is that that ramp will only go from 9 ½ feet to 13 feet.” Mr. Fagan said, “I thought he was suggesting a wall.” Mr. Limbacher said, “The green monster is right in here.”

Mr. Walter pointed to an area where there was a blank façade and suggested there should be more landscaping. Mr. Warner assured him that he would continue to work with the landscape architect.

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “So can we get Conditions ready so we can vote this at the next meeting? Can I work with the Town Planner?” Mr. Walter told Atty. Ohrenberger that he could work with the Town Planner on the Conditions but that all the Conditions may not be ready at the next meeting. Ms. Harbottle agreed to work with Atty. Ohrenberger and she agreed with Mr. Walter that it may not be possible to get a complete set of Conditions ready for the next meeting. However, she would start to work on them

Atty. Ohrenberger again said he would like the Board to vote on the project at the next meeting.

There was a discussion about the time to continue the hearing. During the meeting there was a mutual agreement between the Board and Atty. Ohrenberger that the Site Plan Administrative Review hearing should be continued to June 22nd at 8:35 P.M. and that the time to file the Decision on the project was extended to June 29, 2006. Atty. Ohrenberger wrote a letter, at the meeting, requesting the date of the continuance to June 22nd . The letter also listed the time to file the Decision (June 29). See file for a copy of this letter.

Atty. Ohrenberger said that he would give any updated information to the DRC in time for their meeting on June 21st.

MOTION TO ADJOURN: Motion duly made, seconded, and voted unanimously to adjourn at 11:10 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Merrilyn O’Brien, Secretary

Mary Patricia Brennan, Clerk

Date Approved