Scheduled:
7:00 PM Continuation of Public Hearings on Proposed Changes to the Zoning By-Law
8:00 PM South Shore Baptist Church, Repetitive Petition for 20 Free Street
8:45 PM Continuation of Site Plan Review, 900 Main Street, Sprint Wireless Communication Facilities
Old/New Business
Central Meeting Room South
Present: Planning Board Members, Susan Murphy, Chair, Paul Healey, Sarah Corey, and Tod McGrath. Also present was Planner Katharine Lacy.
Ms. Murphy opened the public meeting at 7:05 P.M. at the Hingham Town Hall.
RE: Continuation of Public Hearings on Proposed Changes to the Zoning By-Law
Ms. Murphy listed the three proposed zoning articles for consideration at tonight's hearing:
1. An Article to Capitalize Defined Terms
2. An Article to Remove Special Condition 1 from the Intensity Requirement for the Official and Open Space District
3. An Article to Modify the Downtown Overlay District to permit the creation of a Resident Parking Program by the Selectmen
Ms. Murphy noted that this was a continuation of the first zoning hearing, held on January 9, 2006. She explained that the first article, to capitalize defined terms, was intended to clarify the by-law, and ensure consistency in its interpretation. Due to the complexity of the article to modify the Special Permit process (to be discussed on February 13 at 7:00 PM), she suggested that the Board withdraw this article. The Board concurred.
It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present to withdraw the "Article to Capitalize Defined Terms" from the warrant.
In terms of the "Article to Modify the Downtown Overlay District", Ms. Murphy asked Ms. Lacy if the Selectmen had had a chance to discuss the details of a resident parking program. Ms. Lacy responded that she had not received any information from the Selectmen about such a program. Ms. Murphy suggested that they continue the hearing on this article until such time that the Selectmen had ironed out some of the details.
To initiate the discussion of the "Article to Remove Special Requirement 1 from the Intensity Requirements for the Official and Open Space", Ms. Murphy asked Ms. Lacy to provide an overview of what information she had been able to find since the last hearing.
Ms. Lacy noted that Special Condition 1 to the Intensity Regulations (IV-A) was inserted into the By-law in 1964 as follows: "No building or structure shall be erected within 100' of a Residence District, except where the zoning district is in a street, in which case the setback shall be 50." This applied to all Industrial Districts. The Official and Open Space District was created in 1977, and included almost all Town-owned land, parkland, and land trust land. Ms. Lacy noted that, unfortunately, the actual map referred to in the zoning hearing, describing exactly which parcels were transferred to the new zone, has not yet been located.
In terms of the intent of the article, based on the Planning Board and Town Meeting transcripts, it was put forth both as a housekeeping effort to accurately reflect the land use activities occurring in the Official and Open Space zones, and as a way to protect abutters from potential development or construction activities on such sites. Town Meeting transcripts include the following statement from Planning Board Chairman Brian McSweeney "Intensity regulations do, we believe, further conceptualize the idea of open space, and provide the Board of Appeals some guidelines upon which special permits may be sought."
At the time that the District was created a conscious decision was made to not include private schools (Notre Dame Academy, Derby Academy, St. Pauls).
The fact that other certain existing town-owned buildings might be thrown into dimensional non-conformity (due to the fact that they already did not meet the 100' setback from residential zones) did not seem to be considered or discussed.
1986 Special Condition 1 was modified to read, as it currently does, that "No building, structure, parking area, or septic system shall be constructed within 100' of a residence district, except where the zoning district is in a street, in which case the setback from said boundary shall be 50'. A natural or landscaped vegetative barrier as approved under site plan review shall be retained or created and maintained within this setback." Discussion at Town Meeting and in the Planning Board hearings focused on the benefits of this article in terms of protecting residence areas adjacent to industrial areas with little mention of Official or Open Space uses.
Ms. Lacy went on to say that in an effort to fully grasp the consequences of the proposed zoning change, she had tried to pull together a list of all parcels of land in the Official and Open Space Zone. A search using the GIS system had resulted in a list of over 240 properties, but it appeared that there were some errors on this list as many of them were privately owned. The Selectmen's Office had also provided an inventory of land deeded to the Town dated 1986.
Board members all agreed that it was critical to locate a copy of the original map used to illustrate the Official and Open Space Zone when it was created in 1977 to use as a starting point from which to identify all impacted parcels. Tod McGrath expressed concern that until the Board had a handle on exactly what land would be affected, it could result in unintended consequences for abutters.
Ms. Murphy noted that letters opposing the change had been submitted by Josh Gates, Jay Cross, and John MacDonald. She then opened up the discussion to the public, who, without exception, spoke out in opposition to the proposed zoning change. Comments against the article were received from Peter Bickford, 65 Lazell Street, Liz Comrack, 340 Main Street, Mark White, 33 Jarvis Ave., Stephen Skinner, 27 School Street, Camille Colantonio, 223 North Street, and Jim Clarke, 79 Tower Road. Dick Cook, former Planning Board member, noted that it seemed short sighted to simply remove the special condition without looking at all of the requirement and restrictions on the Official and Open Space Zone as a whole. M.J. Shultz, former Zoning Administrator, noted that in the case of the library and the Town Hall, variances from the 100' setback requirement were not appealed.
Ms. Murphy continued the hearing to February 13 at 8:00 PM. She noted that in the interim the Board and its staff would attempt to coordinate further research gathering with the Office of the Selectmen.
RE: South Shore Baptist Church, Repetitive Petition for 20 Free Street
Present for the Applicant: Robert Pomerene, Attorney, and Brad Warner, Board of Elders.
Representatives from South Shore Baptist Church presented the Board with a request for the Planning Board's consent to filing with the ZBA a re-petition as provided in Section ID-Section 5, of the Hingham Zoning By-Law, and Chapter 40A Section 16, for a Special Permit A-2 for the use of 20 Free Street as church office space. Ms. Murphy explained that the State statute and the Town's Zoning By-Law allow denied applicants to petition the Planning Board for permission to resubmit their application in less than the two year waiting period customarily required if they can show "specific and material changes in the conditions upon which the previous unfavorable action was based." She asked the applicant to describe why the application was originally denied, and how the current application was materially different.
Mr. Pomerene, Attorney for the applicant, explained that the ZBA had denied an earlier application for a Special Permit A-2 (parking waiver) for use of the 20 Free Street property for office and classroom use. He noted that the ZBA denial focused on a lack of clarity in terms of the uses proposed for the building, and suggested that the applicant file a "new revised and clarified" application for zoning relief associated with the proposed use of 20 Free Street. His explanation for the misunderstanding was that church's understanding of what uses customarily took place in an office was different than that of the ZBA. Specifically, uses such as counseling, child-care, and prayer groups did not fit into the Town's definition of general business use. In response to this misunderstanding, church representatives had met with the neighbors to identify uses that would be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Brad Warner, from the Church Board of Elders, presented a one-page "Description of Church Office Use" outlining a proposed list of all activities that they anticipated occurring at 20 Free Street. This included office use by 4-7 employees or volunteers; pastoral visits and counseling; study; meetings of church committees and staff; and on-site parking limited to one handicapped parking space in the existing driveway. Unlike the earlier application, activities for youth, play groups, and outdoor recreation would NOT be permitted on the property.
Attorney Pomerene noted that they would also be restricted by all applicable building code and capacity restrictions. Board members asked about how parking would be provided for uses at the 20 Free Street Building. Mr. Pomerene replied that parking would all take place in the main church parking lot with the exception of one handicapped parking space in the current driveway location at 20 Free Street.
Attorney Roberta Sawyer, on behalf of abutter Pat MacAllen, spoke in opposition to the request to re-petition the ZBA. She noted that the neighbors had attended hearing relative to the proposed expansion of the church for six years, and that the ZBA denial should remain final. Ms. Murphy pointed out that the application relative to 20 Free Street only dated back to 2005, and noted that the applicant certainly had the right to request permission to repetition under state statute.
Pat MacAllen spoke out against the application, saying that the church had not been a good neighbor, and was proposing activities that would disrupt the residential character of the area. Church member Herb Hess responded that the new request was specifically intended to respond to neighbor concerns.
It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED, to grant the South Shore Baptist Church's request to re-petition the Zoning Board of Appeals for a for a Special Permit A-2 for uses proposed for 20 Free Street.
RE: Continuation of Site Plan Review, 900 Main Street, Sprint Wireless Communication Facilities
Present for the Applicant: Joseph Pereira, TerraSearch; Bob Visalli, Attorney for Nextel/Sprint; Keith Valente, Sprint.
Ms. Murphy announced that this was a continuation of a hearing initiated on December 15, 2005.
Mr. Pereira stated that since the last hearing T-Mobile is now officially a co-applicant with Sprint/Nextel for this facility. He also noted that Verizon and Cingular were considering utilizing the facility for their service. Finally, he noted that the Hingham Fire and Police had contacted Sprint to indicate their interest in using the facility for local emergency service communications.
He explained that the Town services could only be provided to a structure mounted to the outside of a pole, and could not be internally installed. He explained that they had provided a visual demonstration on January 21, 2006 using a bucket truck to show a 120' pole and a 140' pole. Photos were then taken from various locations around South Hingham to identify from which points the tower would be visible. The photos that they provided showed that the tower could be seen from the Hope Road area, as well as across Fulling Mill Pond.
Ms. Lacy asked whether the taller facility would require additional or larger facilities on the ground. Mr. Pereira responded that whereas base facilities for a 120' facility would take up 50' by 50', base facilities for the taller pole would take up 70' by 70'. It did not appear that additional trees would have to be removed for the taller facility. Ms Corey asked about the size of the carrier structures for each service provider. Mr. Perreira responded that they were box-like structures around 12' by 20' in area and 10 feet high. Ms. Corey asked if they would be visible from adjacent properties, and Mr. Pereira responded that the closest property was over 500' away. Jim Bailey, an abutter said that his sense was that you could see up to the site where the facility would from Main Street.
Ms. Murphy noted that the Planning Board was aware that a condition in the original permit for the Water Company stated that no additional facilities could be built on the Water Company property. She noted that the removal of this condition could be done through a modification to the Special Permit, but that it would be up to the Zoning Board of Appeals to figure out how best to handle this. She acknowledge that this condition was a serious oversight, and should have been considered when the Water Company land was designated as part of the Wireless Overlay District.
Tod McGrath asked the applicant if the Town had approached them to use Town-owned land for such a facility. Mr. Pereira responded that they had not. Garrett Bradley, Main Street abutter and State Representative, noted that he had discussed this with the Selectmen and encouraged them to use Town or State-owned land. He also noted that the Hingham Light Company was in the early stages of proposing the use of a network of small relays mounted on utility poles rather than a monolithic structure. Ms. Murphy asked Mr. Valente if a facility in Wompatuck State Park would provide the level of and extent of service as the proposed facility at the Water Company. Mr. Valente stated that he would have to conduct further research to know the answer.
Abutter Rick Knapp asked whether the equipment could be buried to make it less visible. Mr. Pereira responded that it would be difficult to do so. Ms. Murphy noted that there could be a condition to provide appropriate screening using landscaping. Mr. Pereira expressed frustration that the Water Company did not have a good track record installing or maintaining landscaping. He also noted that when the Water Treatment Plant was permitted in 1991 the neighbors fought extremely hard to restrict further growth, and that the condition that the facility would not expand was very important and should not be modified lightly.
Abutter John D'Angelo expressed anxiety that the tree coverage currently in place may not always be there. He cited the microburst experienced in the spring of 2005, where hundreds of trees were knocked down. Ms. Murphy noted that this was a valid concern but that it would be impossible to plan for the weather.
It was moved, seconded, and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present to recommend that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the application for a Special Permit A-2 pursuant to Section V.E-4 of the Zoning By-laws for the installation of a 140' monopole with associated antennas, along with base station equipment sufficient to serve up to five wireless carriers. The following conditions were also recommended:
1. The applicant shall provide adequate screening to obscure views of ground-level site facilities from all off-site locations.
2. A fencing detail shall be provided to the ZBA prior to installation to ensure adequacy as a visual screen.
3. The tops of ground-level site facilities and structures shall not exceed the height of the surrounding fence. If necessary, structure foundations shall be submerged to the extent needed to comply with this condition.
4. The applicant shall be responsible for ongoing maintenance and necessary replacement of all screening vegetation.
Such conditions shall be enforced by the Building Commissioner through regular inspections of the facility.
Old/New Business
· It was moved, seconded, and SO VOTED, to accept the minutes of January 9 and January 23, 2006.
· Mr. Healey signed the Certificate of Action for Christina Estates dated January 1/09/06.
The meeting adjourned at 10:55 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Katharine Lacy
Town Planner