Scheduled:
7:00 PM Continued Public Hearings on Proposed Changes to the Zoning By-Law
8:30 PM Discussion of Modification of Subdivision Approval for Josselyn Way
Old/New Business
Discussion of the Project Turnabout Special Permit A-2 decision and possible appeal
Minutes/Bills
Central Meeting Room North
Present: Planning Board Members, Susan Murphy, Clerk, Paul Healey, Sarah Corey, and Tod McGrath. Also present was Planner Katharine Lacy.
Along with the general public, Selectmen Mat MacIver was present along with Lou Alvarado and Jerry Seelen from the Advisory Committee.
Ms. Murphy opened the public meeting at 7:00 P.M. at the Hingham Town Hall.
1. An Article to Remove Special Condition 1 (requiring 100' setback from Residential Zones) from the Intensity Requirements for the Official and Open Space District
Ms. Murphy announced that there will be no discussion of this article at this hearing. The Board had been informed by the Selectmen that they were going to pull it from the warrant.
2. An Article to Amend Parking Requirements for Dwelling Units in Commercial Residential Building
Ms. Murphy explained that the proposed amendment relates only to parking requirements in the Downtown Hingham Overlay District. This Overlay District was created for the Business A zoning district in Hingham Square in 2004 and its primary intent was to allow for the creation of mixed use commercial/residential buildings in the square. The current provisions of the By-law for the Overlay District allow some or all of the parking spaces required for residential uses contained within buildings existing as of 2003 to be accommodated off-site in leased parking areas. The proposed amendment would allow off-site parking to also be accommodated in designated resident parking areas of public parking lots, should the Town, through the Board of Selectmen, enact a resident parking permit program. The enactment of this amendment would further enable the creation of mixed use commercial/residential buildings in the Square, and the language of the proposed amendment contains adequate safeguards against overburdening the municipal parking areas and public streets with new resident parking.
The Board voted to make a positive recommendation at the 2006 Town Meeting for the following amendment to the Hingham Zoning By-law:
RECOMMENDED: That the Town amend the Zoning By-Law of the Town of Hingham, adopted March 10, 1941, as heretofore amended, as follows:
Item 1: At Section III-G (6) d, remove subsection iii in its entirety and replace it with the following language:
"(iii) Parking for all dwelling units (including, without limitation, dwelling units
proposed in newly constructed or reconstructed buildings or in newly constructed stories to existing buildings) shall be located on the same parcel or on a contiguous parcel under common ownership."
Item 2: At Section III-G (6) d, following the revised subsection iii, insert the following new subsection iv:
"(iv) Notwithstanding the foregoing, for dwelling units proposed in existing
stories of existing buildings which, as of December 1, 2003, (a) are at least two stories in height and (b) lack required on-site, off-street parking to meet the requirements of this Section, the Board of Appeals may grant a waiver to permit the following:
A. Leased Parking for Commercial/Residential Buildings, provided that a copy of a written, fully executed and effective lease, with a term of at least one (1) year, permitting
use of sufficient parking spaces to comply with this Section for a minimum of overnight parking shall be provided to the Board of Appeals prior to the issuance of the Special Permit. For purposes of this Section III-G, "Leased Parking for Commercial/Residential Buildings" shall be the provision of parking for dwelling units in a Commercial/Residential Building on land of a third party located within 500' of the benefited parcel (but excluding parcels with single-family or two-family dwellings outside of the Overlay District). The granting of this parking waiver shall require a finding by the Board of Appeals that such lease of parking spaces does not create a violation of the zoning of, parking requirements for existing uses on, or any special permit or variance granted to, the burdened parcel. In addition, the applicant (or its successor) shall be required, as a condition of the issuance of a Special Permit, (i) to certify to the Building Commissioner annually, on the anniversary of the date of the issuance of a Special Permit, that such lease remains in full force and in effect and (ii) no later than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration or other termination of such lease, to apply to the Board of Appeals for a modification of its Special Permit which application shall provide for the required parking in another manner consistent with the requirements of this subsection 6(d).
B. Off-site parking in designated resident parking areas of public parking lots, provided that a resident parking permit program or the like is adopted by the Town, and provided that, as a condition of the issuance of the Special Permit, the applicant applies for and presents written evidence to the Board of Appeals and the Building Commissioner of approval by the Town of sufficient resident parking permits to comply with the parking requirements of this Section.
C. Provision of off-street parking in accordance with the requirements of this Subsection (iv) may be satisfied by any combination of on-site parking and/or alternative parking options described herein, provided, however, that where, prior to the application for a Special Permit under this Section, sufficient off-street parking exists or may be reasonably constructed on-site to satisfy the parking requirements of this Section, such parking shall be located on-site and shall not be eligible for relief under this subsection to allow for alternate parking options
Item 3: At Section III-G (6) d, renumber the final three subsections that are currently numbered iv, v, and iv (sic), to be v, vi and vii respectively.
3. An Article to Modify the Process for Special Permits A-2
Mario Romania and Steve McLaughlin of the Zoning Board of Appeals joined this discussion, along with Mary Jean Shultz, former Zoning Administrator.
Ms. Murphy explained that this article proposes to switch the Special Permit Granting Authority for projects requiring Special Permits A-2 from the Zoning Board of Appeals to the Planning Board. A2 Permits are required for multi-family and commercial projects such as the shipyard, Derby Shoppes, and Project Turnabout. The board granting the permit is given broad discretion under state law. This article would also eliminate the dual site plan review process currently in place which has both Boards conducting the same site plan review for each project with the Planning Board's conditions being completely non-binding.
Tod McGrath summarized the argument by saying that it all boiled down to with whom the voters felt more comfortable to review and permit larger and more complex projects.
Mr. McLaughlin and Mr. Romania both expressed the opinion that it was preferable to have both boards review each Special Permit project. They also noted their opinion that the ZBA generally did incorporate most of the Planning Board's recommendations, and left them out only when they felt that such recommendations would impose onerous conditions on the developer. Mr. Murphy responded that she felt that the Planning Board looks at the entire Town with a broad lens that factors the impacts of new projects on the Town, and tends to favor the interests of the Town over those of the abutters.
Ms. Murphy noted that, as an attorney for large developers, she felt that she had a pretty good sense of what kind of conditions would be economically feasible. Mr. McLaughlin stated that, based on his professional experience he also felt that he had a sense of what made a reasonable condition.
Paul Healey reiterated his opinion that he was tired of being "blamed" for development decisions in Town when the Planning Board's recommendation was just advisory. He noted that by having an elected board rather than an appointed board review Special Permit applications, the individuals making the decision would be more accountable in that they would not get re-elected if they made bad decisions. M.J. Shultz weighed in that she was concerned that if an elected board became the permit granting authority that it would result in "permitting by poll" based on how the board decided things.
Russell Reeves, 4 Edgar Walker Court, stated that he felt it was not appropriate for a board appointed by the Selectmen to be reviewing projects sponsored by the Selectmen.
Michael Connolly, 28 Franklin Rogers Road, expressed his support for the article, noting that he worked in the field of development and that the Planning Board's lack of authority in Hingham was rare.
Lou Alvarado, 8 Issac Sprague Drive, on behalf of the Advisory Committee, noted that he could see the redundancy, but was not sure as to the best way to address it and still ensure that the projects would be properly reviewed.
The Board agreed to continue the hearing to February 27 at 7:00 -8:00 PM.
RE: Discussion of the Project Turnabout Special Permit A-2 decision and possible appeal
Board members expressed their concern and dissatisfaction with the ZBA's recent decision regarding the Back River Condo development. Specifically, they were concerned that the conditions that the Board recommended requiring sidewalks and better integration of affordable units were ignored. After a lengthy discussion, they determined not to proceed with the appeal.
RE: Discussion of Proposed Modification to Subdivision Approval for Josselyn Way
Attorney Pete Puciloski was present representing the Hingham Preschool. The attorney for Mr. O'Brien, Doug Salvesen, was also present. Mr. Puciloski clarified that the purpose of the hearing was simply to discuss a possible approach to the modification, and that a formal application to modify the subdivision approval would be forthcoming.
Mr. Puciloski explained that the Form A lot for the Hingham Preschool was approved based on the premise that the lot had frontage on Main Street, but would get access via Rosemary Drive (the road to the middle school). The preschool gained frontage on Main Street by buying a piece of land from the Lambert's property for $100,00), and granting an easement back to Lamberts for continued use for the nursery. In fact, the preschool property has frontage on Josselyn Way (off of Pine Grove). This frontage could not be counted as "legal" in that the original approval for Josselyn Way limited access on the way to one lot (the lot currently owned by Mr. O'Brien).
Mr. Puciloski presented a proposed settlement between O'Brien, the Hingham Pre-school, and Lamberts which would involve modifying the condition limiting access over Josselyn Way to allow the preschool to have frontage (but not access) on the Way. The preschool could then sell their chunk of frontage on Main Street (which is actually used by Lamberts). At issue is whether the proposed modification should use the term "legal access", "access" or "legal frontage" or "frontage". The Board recommended that the modification use "legal frontage". They also recommended that the modification be treated as a major modification, which would require notification and advertisement.
It was moved, seconded, and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present to accept the minutes of February 6, 2006.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Katharine Lacy
Town Planner