Scheduled:
7:00 PM Continuation of Zoning Hearings - Article to Modify the Special Permit A2 Process
Old/New Business
Central Meeting Room North
Present: Planning Board Members, Susan Murphy, Clerk, Paul Healey, Sarah Corey, and Tod McGrath.
Susan Murphy opened the meeting at 1915 hrs relative to continuing the zoning hearing relative to the Special Permit Granting Authority (SPGA) proposed article.
This hearing is held in follow up to the Advisory Board meeting held on 15 March 2006 in which it was suggested that a compromise article be discussed that would garner broader support for what the Board is trying to accomplish in its SPGA article. The Board noted that binding Site Plan Review (SPR) was discussed earlier in the hearing process where the issue was broken into two clearly defined areas, SPR and compliance with zoning. The Board discussed a proposed draft for SPR dated 8 March 2006 and went through it on a page by page discussion. Copies were made available for the audience. It was noted that no ZBA member, past or present was in attendance. Page 6 is the first change with SPR going to the Planning Board initially on applications to the ZBA for Special Permits as found in §I-G of the By-Law; §I-H speaks to applications going to the Building Commissioner would now go to the Board first; §I-I speaks to the procedural changes which would occur and being modeled out of model by-law as shown in the Supplemental Memo distributed last week and containing the Model By-Law drafted by Mark Bobrowski and used by the Attorney General's office-the additional feature included in the proposed by law is that abutters would be provided notice on Special Permit applications, something that is not currently done. There would be a 60 day period relative to notice for special permits and 45 day notice for as of right (building permit);
The applicant has the option under the proposed by-law to either go to the ZBA or the Board first with its application, but if going to the former last, the ZBA has no authority under §3(f) to unilaterally change a Board decision. §6 speaks to the Board having the discretion to classify a change or modification as minor without requiring the applicant to go through a formal hearing process. Section 7 sets forth what a majority of other towns have done with respect to adopting this language in that it gives general parameters as well as specific criteria. It also has additional provisions added to give clarity to the by-law for criteria purposes calculated to ensure a quality of project. Section I(H) governs the appeal rights of an applicant directing that G.L. c. 40A, §17 shall control.
The Board discussed the general purpose of this proposed by-law was to give a separate role for both the ZBA and the Board and establish two independent roles, the ZBA could impose additional criteria beyond what the Board imposed, but that the Board would have primary responsibility for the criteria; there was a general question from Luis Alvarado, Advisory Committee liaison, as to the sequencing of applicants before either the ZBA or Planning Board and whether re-noticing the hearing would be required. The Board opined that such a circumstance would be determined by whether it was a major or minor change.
Michael Connelly of Franklin Rogers Road questioned whether the Board could leave the hearing open until the ZBA issued its decision but it was felt that if the ZBA contested the SPR issued by the Board, it would make sense for the applicant to return again.
Laura Burns, Hersey Street and Advisory Committee member remarked that the ZBA view of discretion was defined differently by four people at the last meeting on this issue and it was obvious that there was a widely differing view. She wondered whether it made sense to have just one big hearing, (more minds the better) but the Board felt that the by law as proposed gave a dual role here, the Board doing a technical review and the ZBA making a decision on the proposed use aspects of the application; it would also serve to reduce inter-board friction by each board having a clearly defined role noting that planning boards historically have had site plan review oversight and ZBA's have had historical oversight on uses of property. Ms. Burns also requested that electricity to the criteria listed in §7(f)
Ms. Burns wondered whether this reduced the role we were originally seeking in our SPGA article and a general discussion ensued on the role of the ZBA with respect to use and perhaps this pointed out the need for further work with the zoning by-law in the future. In terms of discretion, it was noted that the Board takes a larger view of how it is to be applied because as elected officials, the voters have an expectation that we will do that. The Board discussed generally how this has come up in the Derby Shoppes and Shipyard projects and the ZBA's general reluctance to legislate. The Board then heard comments from the audience on issues of extraction and mitigation from developers, as well as off-site cash contributions noting that the ZBA has a different perspective that "meets the bare minimum standards". A general discussion followed on developers working with towns on infrastructure impacts. Michael Connelly spoke to the practice in the town of Waltham where a charge of $1.50 per square foot was assessed to both the traffic contribution fund and the sewer contribution fund for developers building there.
James Watson, Rockland Street, noted that this proposed by-law is a major concession from what was initially proposed, but the Board noted that if this proposed by-law saw substantial watering down, it reserved the right to go forward with the original proposed by-law change. It was noted that the Board was not trying to block projects with this proposed by-law change. Mr. Watson requested that §7(d) be amended to include review of recharging water.
Judith Sneath of North Street asked whether the ZBA could issue variances that conflict with Board decisions and how do we get the discretion issue on the same page. Michael Connelly then opined that having a separate process for the developer ensured that both boards would stay strong and that there is a need to have trust that both boards can fulfill their respective roles. He went on to say that he preferred the SPGA be in the Planning Board hands, but saw the necessity to examine the compromise article.
The Board then advised the AC that it intended to modify the proposed by-law to include site plan review oversight and control over issues of parking and parking waivers, as presently found in §V-A(1) of the Hingham Zoning By-law. The meeting adjourned at 2115 hrs.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Healey