Town Government &
 Services:

Departments Home Page

Town Clerk

General By-Laws

Election & Voter Information

Election Warrants, Ballots, Results 

Licenses & Permits

Records

Departments: Town Clerk

      ARTICLE 30.  Will the Town amend the Zoning By-Law of the Town of Hingham, adopted March 10, 1941, as heretofore amended, by inserting in Section V-B 2, in the correct alphabetical order the following definitions or take any other action relative thereto?

Changeable Sign:  A sign whose message or content can be changed by means of remote electronically-energized combinations of alphabetic or pictographic components arranged on a display surface, provided that the message on such sign is not legible from any abutting public way.  Illumination shall be integral to the components, such as LED, LCD, Plasma or other comparable technologies. A Changeable Sign shall not be considered a Flashing, moving or animated sign for purposes of this Section V-B.  A Changeable Sign shall not be considered an internally-illuminated sign for purposes of this Section V-B 6 (b).

Electronic Screen Effects:  The face of an Electronic Message Sign produces standard screen effects. These include: 'frame' (a complete, static display); 'dynamic frame effect' (illusion of motion and/or animation); 'dissolve' (mode of message transition, in which the first message gradually appears to dissipate with the gradual appearance of a subsequent message); 'fade' (mode of message transition by varying the light intensity).

Electronic Message Sign: An electrically activated changeable single- or double-sided sign located in a Shopping Center, whose variable message and/or graphic content can be electronically programmed from a remote location. Electronic Message Signs use LEDs, LCDs, Plasma or other comparable technologies as a lighting source. No such Electronic Message Sign shall be legible from any abutting public way. All Electronic Message Signs shall not exceed a luminance level of 750 Candela per square meter between sunset and sunrise.

Off-Premise Sign Message: A sign erected, maintained or used in the outdoor environment which includes commercial or non-commercial messages not appurtenant to the use of or products sold on the property on which it is located.
(Inserted at the request of Stacy Shunk and others)

      COMMENT:  This Article would add definitions to the Zoning By-Law that establish the terms by which electronic signs would be permitted in Hingham.  Together with Article 31, this Article would allow, subject to special permit, electronic signs having the properties and qualities described in the proposed definitions to be placed at the Derby Street Shoppes shopping center. 
The proponents believe the signs will provide information useful to shoppers and enhance the shopping experience by publicizing products or events that will be of interest to Derby Street Shoppes patrons.  The signs would display various messages to include advertisements for merchants and other advertisers, including advertisers not located at Derby Street Shoppes, but who wish to reach the same type of customer.  The content of the messages could vary from general information about a particular advertiser to specific details on items for sale, promotions or events.  The messages would include both a video and audio component and in many instances would be similar in presentation and scope to a television commercial.

The signs, which will be similar to those currently operating at Legacy Place in Dedham, will be situated at certain points within the Derby Street Shoppes property such that the messages cannot be seen or heard except by those walking along the interior perimeter of the shopping center.  Furthermore, the sign structures will not be visible at all from outside the shopping center.  Based on the foregoing, the signs should not create a distraction for drivers either in the shopping center parking lot or on Derby Street.

The manager of the Derby Street Shoppes has committed to providing the Town with a certain amount of air time on the signs free of charge.  Such air time could be used, for example, to announce upcoming events such as Town Meeting, or school activities including sporting events, plays or concerts.

The Planning Board questioned whether the proposed By-Law amendments would give the proponents an unfair advantage over other retail sites in Town and would prefer that the proposals contained in Articles 30 and 31 be considered as part of a comprehensive review of the Town’s sign regulations.  Some members of the Planning Board also had objections to the signs on aesthetic grounds.  By a vote of 4 to 1, the Planning Board voted to recommend that “No Action” be taken with respect to Articles 30 and 31.

In its deliberations, the Advisory Committee considered the issues raised by the Planning Board and encourages the Board to undertake a comprehensive review of sign regulations as it has suggested; however, it seems unnecessary to defer action on this proposal until then.  With respect to any perceived advantage the proponents might enjoy under the By-Law amendment, the Advisory Committee believes the other significant retail areas in Town, most notably Hingham Square and the Shipyard, are configured in such a way (e.g., proximity to public roadways and residential areas) as to make this type of signage inappropriate.  To restrict the proponents due to the inherent limitations of other sites would be unfair.  As for aesthetic concerns, the Advisory Committee recognizes that some shoppers may not embrace the signs as enthusiastically as others, but also recognizes that the property owner, whose success is dependent on creating a positive retail environment for its tenants and their patrons, is best suited to determine what will or will not enhance the shopping experience. 

By a vote of 9 to 3, the Advisory Committee voted in favor of this Article.  In making its recommendation, the Advisory Committee has concluded that the signs contemplated by the proposed By-Law amendments are consistent with the character of the Derby Street Shoppes and represent an appropriate use of current technology to inform shoppers.  In the absence of compelling reasons to conclude otherwise, the Advisory Committee believes deference to the rights of the property owner is warranted. 

Please note that the recommended motion of the Advisory Committee as presented below reflects certain changes from the original petition article submitted by the proponents.  These changes, which have been discussed with and consented to by representatives of the proponents, consist of technical corrections.

      RECOMMENDED:  That the Town amend the Zoning By-Law of the Town of Hingham, adopted March 10, 1941, as heretofore amended, by inserting in Section V-B 2, in the correct alphabetical order the following definitions:
Changeable Sign  A sign whose message or content can be changed by means of remote electronically energized combinations of alphabetic or pictographic components arranged on a display surface, provided that the message on such sign is not legible from any abutting public way. Illumination shall be integral to the components, such as LED, LCD, Plasma or other comparable technologies.  A Changeable Sign shall not be considered a Flashing, moving or animated sign for purposes of this Section V-B. A Changeable Sign shall not be considered an internally illuminated sign for purposes of this Section V-B 6 (b).

Electronic Screen Effects  The face of an Electronic Message Sign produces standard screen effects.  These include: ‘frame’ (a complete, static display); ‘dynamic frame effect’ (illusion of motion and/or animation); ‘dissolve’ (mode of message transition, in which the first message gradually appears to dissipate with the gradual appearance of a subsequent message); ‘fade’ (mode of message transition by varying the light intensity).

Electronic Message Sign   An electrically activated changeable single- or double-sided sign located in a Shopping Center, whose variable message and /or graphic content can be electronically programmed from a remote location. Electronic Message Signs use LEDs, LCDs, Plasma or other comparable technologies as a lighting source. No such Electronic Message Sign shall be legible from any abutting public way. All Electronic Message Signs shall not exceed a luminance level of 750 Candela per square meter between sunset and sunrise.

Off-Premise Sign   An Electronic Message Sign erected, maintained or used in the outdoor environment which includes commercial or non-commercial messages not appurtenant to the use of or products sold on the property on which it is located.

ARTICLE 31.  Will the Town amend the Zoning By-Law of the Town of Hingham, adopted March 10, 1941, as heretofore amended by adding to the Schedule of Sign Regulations in Section V-B the provisions set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto or take any other action relative thereto?

EXHIBIT A
IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT WITHIN THE SOUTH HINGHAM DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT

Electronic Message Sign       120'    12'      10'  6 Per Definition Z

Off-Premise
Sign    120'    10'      10' 5   External       Z
(inserted at the request of Stacy Shunk and others)

      COMMENT:  This Article would modify Section V-B 2 of the Zoning By-Law by adding to the Schedule of Sign Regulations a new category for signs permitted in the Industrial Park and South Hingham Overlay District that would include “Electronic Message Signs” (having the following restrictions:  24’ square foot max. area, 10’ high above the ground, 10’ setback from all property boundaries, and a maximum of 6 signs in total allowed  per property) and “Off Premise Signs” (having the following restrictions: 24’ square foot max. area, 10’ high above the ground, 10’ setback from all property boundaries, and a maximum of 6 igns in total allowed per property). 

These changes to the Schedule of Sign Regulations will allow signs having the properties and qualities described in Article 30 above to be placed at the Derby Street Shoppes.  A special permit will be required to erect such signs.

By a vote of 9 to 3, the Advisory Committee voted in favor of this Article.  The reasoning behind the Advisory Committee recommendation for favorable action is consistent with the comment presented above with respect to Article 30.

Please note that the recommended motion of the Advisory Committee as presented below reflects certain changes from the original petition article submitted by the proponents.  These changes, which have been discussed with and consented to by representatives of the proponents, include a reduction in the maximum size of the signs and certain technical corrections.

      RECOMMENDED:  That the Town amend the Zoning By-Law of the Town of Hingham, adopted March 10, 1941, as heretofore amended, by adding to the Schedule of Sign Regulations in Section V-B the provisions set forth below:

IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT WITHIN THE SOUTH HINGHAM DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT

      ARTICLE 32.  Will the Town amend Section III-I of the Zoning By-Law of the Town of Hingham, adopted March 10, 1941, as heretofore amended, by deleting it in its entirety and substituting therefore the following:

III-I NONCONFORMING CONDITIONS

1.  General – Any structure or any use of a structure or land, lawfully existing at the time of the enactment or subsequent amendment of this By-Law, may be continued although such use and/or structure does not conform with the provisions of this By-Law, subject to the following conditions and exceptions:

A.  Changes – Once changed to a conforming use or once the extent of a nonconforming use is reduced, no structure or land shall be permitted to revert to the prior or a new nonconforming use.

B.  Restoration - A lawfully existing nonconforming building or structure may be repaired or reconstructed if damaged or destroyed by a casualty, including explosion, fire, storm or other natural disaster, but only if such repair or reconstruction is begun within two (2) years of such damage or destruction and diligently pursued to completion within two (2) years of commencement; provided however, that, except as may be allowed by the provisions of M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 6 or this Section III-I governing alterations of nonconforming structures, the repaired or reconstructed structure shall be no less conforming than the structure that was so damaged or destroyed.
C.  Extension of Nonconforming Use – Except as may be allowed under M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 6, no increase in the extent of a nonconforming use of a structure or land may be made.

D.  Abandonment or Discontinuance
(i)  A nonconforming use (other than Single-Family or Two-Family residential use) that has been discontinued for a period of more than two (2) years, or abandoned, shall not be reestablished, and any future use shall conform to this By-Law.
(ii) The nonconforming use of a building or structure as a Single-Family Dwelling or Two-Family Dwelling (and/or any Accessory Buildings related thereto) that has been discontinued for a period of more than four (4) years or abandoned shall not be reestablished and any future use shall conform to this By-Law, provided, however, that the lawful nonconforming use of more than one Dwelling Unit within an existing Dwelling (that has not been discontinued or abandoned) shall not terminate unless such Dwelling has been converted to a Single-Family Dwelling with complete living facilities for only one household.
(iii) A nonconforming structure that has been discontinued (not used or occupied) for a period of more than two (2) years, or has been abandoned, may not be used or occupied for any use, with the following exceptions:
     a.  This subsection (iii) does not apply to and shall not prohibit the conforming use of a lawful nonconforming Single-Family Dwelling as a Single-Family Dwelling (including Accessory Buildings) or conforming use of a lawful nonconforming Two-Family Dwelling as a Two-Family Dwelling (including Accessory Buildings).
     b.  Except as provided in the foregoing subsection (iii) “a”, the conforming use of a building or structure that would be a lawful nonconforming building or structure if it had not been deemed discontinued or abandoned hereunder, may be permitted upon the issuance of a Special Permit A2.

E.  Definitions - As used in this Section III-I:
(i)  “Discontinuance” shall mean the actual cessation of any use or the non-use of any structure. 
(ii) A nonconforming use shall be deemed “abandoned” when it is discontinued for a period of at least six consecutive months, and customary equipment, furniture or supplies for the operation of such use have been removed, and at least one of the following apply:
     a.  The building or structure in which such use was located is not actively marketed for sale or lease.
     b.  Failure to provide for regular maintenance of the building or structure such as failing to heat the building at a level necessary to prevent frozen pipes or related damage, failing to provide snow removal, or failing to maintain landscaping.
(iii) A nonconforming building or structure shall be deemed “abandoned” when it is no longer occupied for a conforming or lawfully nonconforming use for at least six consecutive months and one or more of the following apply:
     a.  It is not actively marketed for sale or lease.
     b.  Failure to provide for regular maintenance such as failing to heat the building at a level necessary to prevent frozen pipes or related damage, failing to provide snow removal, or failing to maintain landscaping.
     c.   Issuance of a written notice of an unsafe structure by the Building Commissioner and failure of the owner to rectify the unsafe condition in the manner and in the timeframe specified in such written notice.

2.  For the purposes of this Section III-I, the alteration of, addition to, reconstruction of, extension of, or structural change in an existing nonconforming Single or Two-Family Dwelling shall not be considered the extension of a nonconforming use or structure provided that:

A.  the Single or Two-Family Dwelling conformed in all respects to the Zoning By-Law in existence at the time of its initial construction; and,

B.  the alteration of, addition to, reconstruction of, extension of, or structural change in the nonconforming Single or Two-Family Dwelling does not further reduce the minimum linear measurement of the existing nonconforming dimensions.

Or act on anything related thereto?
(Inserted at the request of the Planning Board)

     COMMENT:  Under Massachusetts law, uses and structures that do not comply with current zoning are considered legal but nonconforming if they existed before the adoption of the provisions of the zoning by-law with which they do not comply.  Put a simpler way, they are “grandfathered.”  Inasmuch as a substantial portion of the Town was developed before 1941, when zoning was first adopted in Hingham, there are numerous nonconforming conditions in Hingham.  As a general rule, legal nonconforming uses and buildings may continue to exist as long as they are not discontinued, expanded, or changed.  While state law provides some protections for nonconforming conditions, it also gives the Town, through its Zoning By-Law, the right to regulate certain changes to nonconforming conditions.  These regulations are found in Section III-I of the Zoning By-Law, and include the provision commonly referred to in Hingham as the “Hatfield Amendment.”   That provision allows certain home additions as a matter of right, without any permits from the Zoning Board of Appeals.  This Article would not change any rights that homeowners currently enjoy to build home additions under the Hatfield Amendment.  What this Article would do is clarify the answers to two types of issues that have arisen in the past.  First, it clarifies the rights of property-owners to restore a nonconforming structure after a casualty loss has occurred.  Second, it sets forth the circumstances that result in the discontinuance or abandonment of a use or building.  Because the Building Commissioner and the Zoning Board of Appeals must respond to questions regarding nonconforming conditions frequently each year, and because some portions of Section III-I are unclear or ambiguous, the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals believe it is prudent to clarify and amend Section III-I at this time.  The Advisory Committee agrees, and recommends favorable action on this Article.

     RECOMMENDED:  That the Town amend Section III-I of the Zoning By-Law of the Town of Hingham, adopted March 10, 1941, as heretofore amended, by deleting it in its entirety and substituting therefor a new Section III-I as set forth above in the foregoing Article 32.

 
      ARTICLE 33.  Will the Town amend the Zoning By-Law of the Town of Hingham, adopted March 10, 1941, as heretofore amended, as follows:

Item 1.  Amend Section III-A, by deleting subsections 2.1 through 2.4, inclusive, in their entirety and substituting therefore the following:

2.1 Agricultural Use protected under M.G.L. c. 40A §3 (including, without limitation, single-family dwelling for resident proprietor), subject to Special Condition 8 of Section III-B.

Permitted in all zoning districts

2.2 Agricultural Use not protected under M.G.L. c. 40A §3 (except uses governed by subsections 2.3, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7), subject to Special Condition 1 of Section III-B.

Allowed with Special Permit A2 in all Residence districts and in Office Park, Industrial, Industrial Park, Limited Industrial, Business Recreation, and Official and Open Space zoning districts;
Prohibited in all other zoning districts

2.2.1 Single-family dwelling for resident proprietor of use governed by subsection 2.2
Permitted in Residence A, B and C districts;
Allowed with Special Permit A2 in Residence D, Residence E, Office Park, Industrial, Industrial Park, Limited Industrial, Business Recreation and Official and Open Space zoning districts;
Prohibited in all other zoning districts

2.3 Seasonal sale of cut Christmas trees (unless governed by subsection 2.1), subject to Special Condition 6 of Section III-B.

Permitted in Business A, Business B, Office Park, Industrial, Industrial Park, Limited Industrial and Open and Official Space zoning districts;
Prohibited in all other zoning districts

Item 2.  Amend Section III-A, by revising the descriptions of the uses governed by subsections 4.5 through 4.7, respectively, to read as follows:

4.5 Commercial breeding, sale, or boarding of dogs, cats, or fur-bearing animals (unless governed by subsection 2.1), subject to Special Condition 1 of Section III-B

4.6 Commercial Greenhouses (unless governed by subsection 2.1

4.7 Riding stable (unless governed by subsection 2.1), subject to Special Condition 1 of Section III-B

Item 3.  Amend Section III-B by deleting subsection 8 in its entirety and replacing therefor, the following:

8.  The following uses shall be allowed as of right to the extent required by M.G.L. c.40A, §3 but shall be subject to Site Plan Review in accordance with Section I-I of this By-Law, provided that the requirements of Section I-I may only be applied to such uses in a manner consistent with the provisions of M.G.L. c. 40A, § 3.
i.   The uses set forth in Section III-A, Subsections 2.1, 2.3, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7.
ii.  To the extent included within the uses listed in Section III-A, Subsections 3.1 through 3.4, inclusive, the use of land or structures for religious purposes or for educational purposes on land owned or leased by the commonwealth or any of its agencies, subdivisions or bodies politic or by a religious sect or denomination, or by a nonprofit educational corporation, and the use of land or structures, or the expansion of existing structures, for the primary, accessory or incidental purpose of operating a child care facility, all as set forth in M.G.L. c.40A, §3.  Site Plan Review of these uses shall be limited to reasonable regulations concerning the bulk and height of structures, and determining yard sizes, lot area, setbacks, open space, parking and building coverage requirements, or such other matters which may be subject to regulation under M.G.L. c.40A §3 as the same may be amended from time to time. 

Item 4.  Amend Section VI, to add the definition of “Agricultural Uses” immediately after the definition of “Accessory Buildings”, as follows:

Agricultural Uses
Commercial agriculture, horticultural and such other uses defined in and/or governed by the first paragraph of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 3, as the same may be amended from time to time.
Or act on anything relating thereto?
(Inserted at the request of the Planning Board)

      COMMENT:  This Article will amend the Zoning By-Law in order to conform it with Massachusetts law with respect to the special protections the Commonwealth provides to certain agricultural and related uses.  Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 3 provides that no local zoning by-law may prohibit, unreasonably regulate or require a special permit for commercial agriculture and other uses listed in the statute, or for buildings related to those uses.  However, the statute also provides that the protected uses may be limited to parcels greater than five acres or to parcels two acres or more if the sale of products from the protected use generates at least $1,000 per acre based on gross sales in areas not zoned for the protected use.  The state’s definition of “farming” and “agriculture” covers many activities, including, without limitation, traditional farming activities and the keeping of horses as a commercial enterprise.  The other protected uses listed in the statute are aquaculture, silviculture, horticulture, floriculture and viticulture which, for the purposes of the By-Law, are collectively defined in the amendment as “Agricultural Uses”.

The Town Zoning By-Law, particularly the use table, does not currently distinguish between protected Agricultural Uses which must be permitted as of right under state law and those that the Town may more closely regulate.  The amendment makes those distinctions.  In addition, the proposed amendment revises the existing provisions of the By-Law to clarify the applicability of Site Plan Review to these protected uses (as well as to certain educational, religious and child care uses that are also protected under Chapter 40A, Section 3) in order to ensure that Site Plan Review is conducted in a manner consistent with state law.

      RECOMMENDED:  That the Town amend the Zoning By-Law of the Town of Hingham, adopted March 10, 1941, as heretofore amended, as set forth above in the foregoing Article 33.
 
      ARTICLE 34.  Will the Town amend the Zoning By-Law of the Town of Hingham, adopted March 10, 1941, as heretofore amended, as follows:

At Section III-C, delete subsection (1) in its entirety and replace it with the following subsection (1):
The Floodplain and Watershed Protection District shall be shown on a map entitled “Zoning Map of the Town of Hingham, Massachusetts  Part B Flood Plain and Watershed Protection District dated 2012,  as may be amended from time to time.”  The district includes all special flood hazard areas within the Town of Hingham at or below 10 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) as well as all special flood hazard areas designated as Zone A, AE, or VE on the Plymouth County Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) issued by the Federal Emergency Management  Agency (FEMA) for the administration of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).  The map panels of the Plymouth County FIRM that are wholly or partially within the Town of Hingham are panel numbers 25023C0018J, 25023C0019J, 25023C0038J, 25023C0081J, 25023C0082J, 25023C0083J, 25023C0084J, 25023C0091J, 25023C0092J, 250230101J, 25023C0102J, 25023C0103J, 25023C0104J, and 250230111J, dated July 17, 2012.  The FIRM and Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report are incorporated herein by reference and are on file with the Town Clerk, Building Department, and Conservation Commission. 

The Floodplain and Watershed Protection District is established as an overlay district and shall be superimposed on all other districts established by this By-Law.

All regulations in the Hingham Zoning By-Law applicable to such underlying districts shall remain in effect; except that, where the provisions of this Section III-C impose additional regulations, those additional regulations shall govern.
Or act on anything relating thereto?
(Inserted at the request of the Planning Board)

      COMMENT:  The Flood Plain and Watershed Protection District was established in 1969 in response to the creation of the first set of national Flood Plain maps.  The By-Law appears to have been revised in 1975 and 1986.  The last Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) dates from 1986.  Recently, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) completed a re-evaluation of flood hazards in Plymouth County, resulting in the preparation of a new FIRM showing revised Base Flood Elevations measured in 2008.  The revised FIRM was properly publicized, and the statutory appeal period has now expired.  The new FIRM will become effective in Hingham on July 17, 2012.  The Town is required by FEMA to regulate activities located in Flood Hazard areas as reflected in the new maps.  It is therefore imperative that the map reference in Section III-C be updated and amended from 1986 to 2012.   That is the purpose of this Article.  The consequences of failing to update the map reference could be severe.  For example, flood insurance might no longer be available through the National Flood Insurance Program.  Certain types of assistance related to structures within the mapped flood zones would no longer be available to communities and individuals.  Other assistance, such as Small Business Administration loans, might be denied.  In most cases, grants through the hazard mitigation grant programs would become unavailable.
 
The Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of this Article.  The Advisory Committee likewise recommends approval of this amendment of the 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:

At Section III-C, delete subsection (1) in its entirety and replace it with the following subsection (1):

The Floodplain and Watershed Protection District shall be shown on a map entitled “Zoning Map of the Town of Hingham, Massachusetts  Part B Flood Plain and Watershed Protection District dated 2012,  as may be amended from time to time.”  The district includes all special flood hazard areas within the Town of Hingham at or below 10 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) as well as all special flood hazard areas designated as Zone A, AE, or VE on the Plymouth County Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) issued by the Federal Emergency Management  Agency (FEMA) for the administration of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).  The map panels of the Plymouth County FIRM that are wholly or partially within the Town of Hingham are panel numbers 25023C0018J, 25023C0019J, 25023C0038J, 25023C0081J, 25023C0082J, 25023C0083J, 25023C0084J, 25023C0091J, 25023C0092J, 250230101J, 25023C0102J, 25023C0103J, 25023C0104J, and 250230111J, dated July 17, 2012.  The FIRM and Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report are incorporated herein by reference and are on file with the Town Clerk, Building Department, and Conservation Commission. 

The Floodplain and Watershed Protection District is established as an overlay district and shall be superimposed on all other districts established by this By-Law.

All regulations in the Hingham Zoning By-Law applicable to such underlying districts shall remain in effect; except that, where the provisions of this Section III-C impose additional regulations, those additional regulations shall govern.

      ARTICLE 35.  Will the Town amend the Zoning By-Law of the Town of Hingham, adopted March 10, 1941 as heretofore amended, in the “Zoning Map, Part A, of the Town of Hingham, Massachusetts,” by removing from Residence C District and including in the Office Park District the land shown on Assessors Map 176 as Lots 3, 4, and 8; and on Assessors Map 186 as Lots 3 and 5; and on Assessors Map 187 as Lots 10 and 12 which land is situated off Old Derby Street and on the northeasterly side of Route 3 and the easterly side of the Town Line.
(Inserted at the request of James Bristol, Jr. and others)

      COMMENT:  This article would expand the size of the existing Office Park District north of Derby Street from 87.46 acres to 203 acres.  The land to be rezoned includes seven parcels of land owned by the Article sponsors, the Bristol Family and Plymouth Quarries. Under the current Residence C zoning designation, and based on existing soil conditions, it is estimated that approximately 80 to 100 single-family homes could be built on this site.  The rezoning of these parcels would provide the opportunity for commercial development in proximity to the South Shore Industrial Park and Route 3.  The petitioners believe that the proposed rezoning would result in an added economic benefit to the Town with less impact to municipal services than if developed under current Residence C zoning.  It is the belief of the petitioners that inclusion of the 117 acres currently zoned Residence C in the Office Park District would allow for the development of a comprehensive office park master plan for the entire 203-acre area.

The petitioners have also stated that—as part of the future infrastructure development on this site—a wastewater treatment facility could be built to serve not only the needs of the site but also the needs of the Industrial Park.  Such a treatment facility could potentially provide the Town with a viable option for wastewater treatment in the Industrial Park.

The Town’s most recent Master Plan has outlined a desire to spur economic growth in this area.  A study of the fiscal impact of this rezoning on the Town was conducted by FXM Associates at the request of the petitioners.  FXM’s report compares the economic effect of a build-out under current Residence C zoning with that under the rezoned Office Park District.  The tables below show the estimated annual net municipal revenues to the Town in each of the zoning scenarios.

Estimated Annual Net Municipal Revenues to Town of Hingham
Alternative Site Development Scenarios

Annual Difference in Net Municipal Revenues
of Commercial Compared to Residential Development Scenarios

 
If the property were to be developed in accordance with the proposed rezoning, the Town’s Planning Board would have the authority to determine primary and secondary roadway configurations and to impose conditions relative to overall off-site impacts.   The future development of individual lots would then be subject to careful review by both the Planning Board and the Town’s Zoning Board of Appeals.  Uses permitted in the Office Park District would include medical and professional offices, banks, warehouses, and light industrial uses, among others.  Retail development including shopping centers or “big box” stores would not permitted in the proposed Office Park District.

Opponents of the proposed rezoning expressed concerns regarding potential traffic impacts associated with commercial development as well as the possible negative impact of this change on the residential character of the property’s boundary along Whiting Street.   Opponents also voiced some concerns about the perceived lack of community involvement in the rezoning discussion, though supporters note that the economic development of the Derby Street corridor and Industrial Park area has been the subject of Town-wide hearings and deliberations for the past three years.  The Planning Board voted three to two in support of this Article.   The Advisory Committee voted unanimously to recommend affirmative action on this article.

      RECOMMENDED:  That the Town amend the Zoning By-Law of the Town of Hingham, adopted March 10, 1941 as heretofore amended, in the “Zoning Map, Part A, of the Town of Hingham, Massachusetts,” by removing from Residence C
District and including in the Office Park District the land shown on Assessors Map 176 as Lots 3, 4, and 8; and on Assessors Map 186 as Lots 3 and 5; and on Assessors Map 187 as Lots 10 and 12 which land is situated off Old Derby Street and on the northeasterly side of Route 3 and the easterly side of the Town Line.

      ARTICLE 36.  Will the Town amend the Zoning By-Law of the Town of Hingham, adopted March 10, 1941 as heretofore amended, in the “Zoning Map, Part A, of the Town of Hingham, Massachusetts,” to add the following parcels within the South Hingham Overlay District shown on Assessors Map 176 as Lots 3, 4, and 8; and on Assessors Map 186 as Lots 3 and 5; and on Assessors Map 187 as Lots 10 and 12 which land is situated off Old Derby Street and on the northeasterly side of Route 3 and the easterly side of the Town Line.
(Inserted at the request of James Bristol, Jr. and others)

      COMMENT:  This article will add the seven parcels of land requested to be rezoned Office Park in the previous Article 35 to the South Hingham Overlay District.  If Article 35 is not authorized by Town Meeting, inclusion of these parcels into the Overlay District will not be requested.

The South Hingham Development Overlay District was created by Town Meeting in 1991 for the purpose of assisting the Town in providing safe and efficient public infrastructure consistent with future growth potential.  The objectives of the Overlay District are to:  1) encourage planning and development which will maintain the economic viability of businesses within the Overlay District; 2) encourage future development that links major non-residential roadways in the Overlay District: 3) minimize commercial- and industrial-related traffic impacts on surrounding residential neighborhoods; and, 4) support future development that balances the needs of abutting neighborhoods and environmental protection with the long-term fiscal needs of the community.  In addition, development in the Overlay District will be subject to the procedures and regulations of the Traffic, Safety, and Infrastructure Improvement Fund.  This Fund shall only be used to ameliorate development-related impacts within the Overlay District.

The inclusion of these seven parcels of land rezoned Office Park in the Overlay District will add additional impact protections for the surrounding residential neighborhoods.  In addition, the existing adjacent parcels of land are already in the Overlay District so expanding the Overlay District to include these seven parcels will provide for consistent zoning from Old Derby Street, Route 3 to Route 53 for long-term planning and future economic development.

The Planning Board voted three to two in support of this article.  The Advisory Committee voted unanimously to recommend a favorable vote on this article.

      RECOMMENDED:  That the Town amend the Zoning By-Law of the Town of Hingham, adopted March 10, 1941 as heretofore amended, in the “Zoning Map, Part A, of the Town of Hingham, Massachusetts,” to add the following parcels within the South Hingham Overlay District shown on Assessors Map 176 as Lots 3, 4, and 8; and on Assessors Map 186 as Lots 3 and 5; and on Assessors Map 187 as Lots 10 and 12 which land is situated off Old Derby Street and on the northeasterly side of Route 3 and the easterly side of the Town Line.

      ARTICLE 37.  Will the Town expand the existing boundaries of the Industrial/Office Park Sewer District to include those parcels of land as shown on Assessors' Map 176 as Lots 3, 4 and 8; and on Assessors' Map 186 as Lots 3 and 5; and on Assessors' Map 187 as Lots 10 and 12; and as shown on the map entitled "Proposed Sewer District Expansion Plan", prepared by Coler & Colantonio, Inc., dated January 18, 2012, or act on anything related thereto?
(Inserted at the request of the Sewer Commission)

      COMMENT: The Annual Town Meeting in 2010 approved the creation of an Industrial/Office Park Sewer District located in South Hingham. The ability to provide sewer services to potential Industrial or Office Park tenants was viewed as a critical need to attract low-impact growth that has the potential to yield significant, long-term revenue for the Town. This is evident in a number of new tenants that have been attracted to this district, including the recently opened South Shore Hospital Center for Orthopedics, Spine and Sports Medicine.

This article, contingent on the passage of Articles 35 and 36 which add additional land to the South Hingham Industrial/Office Park Overlay District, would expand the existing sewer district to include this property. Having adequate water and sewer infrastructure is a necessary prerequisite for any economic development in this area. As with the existing sewer district, future town meeting authorization would be required prior to any expenditure for wastewater treatment, all of which would be included in end-user betterment assessments.

      RECOMMENDED:   That the Town expand the existing boundaries of the Industrial/Office Park Sewer District to include those parcels of land as shown on Assessors' Map 176 as Lots 3, 4 and 8; and on Assessors' Map 186 as Lots 3 and 5; and on Assessors' Map 187 as Lots 10 and 12; and as shown on the map entitled "Proposed Sewer District Expansion Plan", prepared by Coler & Colantonio, Inc., dated January 18, 2012.

      ARTICLE 38.  Will the Town raise and appropriate, borrow or transfer from available funds a sum of money for the design and construction of an additional sewer system, and authorize the Sewer Commission to proceed with the construction of same along Ship Street from 3A to North Street and Cottage Street from Fearing Road to North Street, or act on anything relating thereto?
(Inserted at the request of the Sewer Commission)

      COMMENT:  The Sewer Commission was approached by a group of residents from Ship and Cottage Streets requesting an extension of the sewer system to service their properties.  Reasons for making this request include aging septic systems, the sanitary, environmental, and economic benefits of connecting to the sewer, the ability to bypass Title V, and the ability to make certain property modifications currently limited by the size of permitted septic systems. 

This project includes a total of 30 homes and 31 properties: Ship Street from 3A to North Street, Cottage Street from Fearing Road to North Street, and three residences located on private drives.  These residences have secured the required easements to participate in the project and will share in its cost.

Following past practices, the Sewer Department notified all affected residents, provided a project cost estimate ($600,000), and requested a response to a project survey.  Twenty-two residences (71%) support the project; five residences (16%) oppose it, one is undecided, and three residences did not respond to multiple outreach efforts.

All costs will be equally apportioned among all affected properties and recouped through 20-year betterments. 

Approval of this article does not preclude the Town from considering other sewer projects, whether initiated by residents or the Sewer Commission.
The Board of Selectmen approved this project.

      RECOMMENDED:  That the Town appropriate up to $600,000 for the design and construction of an additional sewer system on Ship Street and Cottage Street, and to accomplish such action, the Town: (1) authorize and empower the Sewer Commission to contract for design, engineering and construction service for such sewage facilities; and (2) authorize the Sewer Commission and/or Board of Selectmen to impose betterment assessments upon property benefitted by such sewer systems; and (3) to meet this appropriation, the Treasurer/Collector be, and hereby is, authorized to borrow up to $600,000 under and pursuant to Chapter 44 Section 7(1)  of the General Laws, or pursuant to any other enabling authority, and to issue bonds or notes of the Town therefor, and that in connection with this borrowing, any or all of such amount may be borrowed through the Massachusetts Water Pollution Abatement Trust established pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, c.29C, as amended (the “Trust”), and in connection therewith, the Selectmen and any other appropriate Town officers are authorized to enter into a loan agreement and/or security agreement with the Trust and otherwise to contract with the Trust and the Department of Environmental Protection with respect to any such loan and for any federal or state aid available for the project or for the financing thereof.

      ARTICLE 39.  Shall the Town vote to have its elected Treasurer/Collector become an appointed Treasurer/Collector of the Town?
(Inserted at the request of the 2010 Government Study Committee)

      COMMENT: Hingham currently elects the Treasurer/Collector every three years.  This Article proposes that the Treasurer/Collector instead be appointed by the Board of Selectmen.  Pursuant to Massachusetts law, the appointment would be for a term not to exceed three years.  The Board of Selectmen and Advisory Committee support this proposal.

The Treasurer/Collector fulfills the duties of the office as required by Massachusetts state law including the collection of taxes (both real estate and excise taxes), issuance of municipal lien certificates, administration of tax titles and the prudent investment of municipal funds within the control of the Treasurer/Collector.  Importantly, the Treasurer/ Collector also works with residents on payment plans for taxes and in certain circumstances will determine when or whether to institute a tax lien.  In addition, the Treasurer/Collector is an important member of the financial leadership of the Town working closely with other department heads, the Town Accountant, the Town Administrator and the Board of Selectmen on collection and fiscal matters.  Our current Treasurer/Collector, Jean Montgomery, has ably served the Town in this capacity since 2005. 

This is the fourth time town meeting has been asked to consider appointing rather than electing the Treasurer.  In 1991 town meeting approved the appointment of the Treasurer, but that approval subsequently was revoked by a special town meeting action later that same year. In 2000, the question was voted down at town meeting and at the town election.  In 2006, the town election preceded consideration of the issue at town meeting.  The question was voted down at the ballot and, despite an affirmative recommendation by the Advisory Committee, the vote by town meeting was for “no action” given the results at the ballot. 

Anytime one is asked to give up his or her right to vote, the question deserves special consideration.   The right to vote for Treasurer preserves in the electorate the right to choose an important fiscal leader for the Town.  The Treasurer is not “beholden” to any one person or Board for his or her job and has the independence to make decisions within the ambit of the office.  The issue, however, is that there are no job-related requirements that serve as a prerequisite to running for Treasurer/Collector.  Any resident of Hingham who turns in election papers could become a candidate for the position without the need for any fiscal or tax background or any experience in municipal government.  The Government Study Committee researched elected versus appointed treasurers and found that the majority of Massachusetts towns comparable to Hingham in size and budget empower the Selectmen or Town Manager to appoint the Treasurer.   The Government Study Committee believes that (A) given the sophisticated financial requirements necessary to operate an efficient and effective Treasurer/Collector office and (B) the need to be sure that the Treasurer/Collector is integrated into town leadership, it is essential to provide the power to appoint the Treasurer/Collector to the Board of Selectmen.  There are four reasons for this viewpoint:
(i) Qualifications.  The Board of Selectmen would be able to establish professional criteria for the job of Treasurer/Collector.
(ii) Candidate Pool.  The pool of people who could be considered for the job of Treasurer/Collector could extend beyond the confines of Hingham.  In addition, the pool would not be dependent on those individuals who are willing to run for election. 
(iii) Succession Planning.  The Board of Selectmen, with the help of the sitting Treasurer/Collector, could begin to plan for an upcoming vacancy in the office of Treasurer/Collector by training personnel to eventually step into this role.
(iv) Town Financial Leadership and Accountability.  It is important that the Treasurer/Collector work in concert with the other Town departments on fiscal and permitting matters as well as general financial policies.  An appointed Treasurer/Collector would have a job description setting forth professional responsibilities that must be fulfilled.  The appointee would be evaluated against those criteria consistent with Town personnel policies.  The current Board of Selectmen takes the view that the Treasurer/ Collector would be re-appointed so long as he or she continues to fulfill the duties of the Treasurer/ Collector.  An elected Treasurer/Collector must abide by State laws governing the office and is only accountable to the voters. 

Ms. Montgomery’s term will expire in May 2013.  Ms. Montgomery has stated that whether the position becomes appointed or remains elected, she plans to be a candidate for the job.

If Town Meeting votes to approve this change, the measure will also need to be approved at the Town election to be effective.

      RECOMMENDED: That the Town change the position of Treasurer/Collector from an elected office to a position appointed by the Board of Selectmen.

      ARTICLE 40.  Will the Town amend the General By-Laws of the Town of Hingham adopted March 13, 1939, as heretofore amended, at Article 2, “Town Meeting and Notice Thereof”,  Section 9, by deleting the current  Section 9 and replacing it with the following:

SECTION 9 – The  number of voters necessary to constitute a quorum at town meetings, except at such meetings as are devoted exclusively to the election of town officers, shall be two hundred; provided, however, that a number of less than two hundred may from time to time adjourn the same.

Or act on anything relating thereto?
(Inserted at the request of the 2010 Government Study Committee)

      COMMENT:  This article proposes reducing the number of voters necessary to constitute a quorum at town meeting from 300 to 200 voters.  A quorum is required to begin each night of town meeting and to conduct the business of the town as presented in the warrant.  If a voter is in doubt as to whether a quorum is present at any time during town meeting, the voter has the right to raise a point of no quorum and at that point the Moderator must determine whether a quorum is present.   If a quorum is not present, the meeting must be adjourned to another specified day and time or, in rare instances, the meeting can be dissolved without concluding the matters remaining in the warrant.  Those voters present at the time may take the action to adjourn or dissolve regardless of number. 

The Advisory Committee is concerned about the efficient and effective conduct of town meeting, but also is concerned about the message the reduction in the number of voters necessary to constitute a quorum sends to the Town.  At this writing, the Town has approximately 16,000 registered voters and the current By-Law requires that 300 voters or about 1.9% attend town meeting to establish a quorum.  This article would reduce that number to about 1.25% of registered voters.  As a practical matter, well over 300 voters show up rather promptly for the first night of town meeting, so the establishment of a quorum will likely not be affected one way or the other by this proposed change.  However, obtaining a quorum typically can be an issue on subsequent nights of town meeting, unless there is an important or controversial item remaining in the warrant.  If the remaining articles are not controversial, it can often take an hour or more to get the necessary attendance to begin the meeting.  In addition, attendance often wanes at the end of the meeting, creating some risk that a call for quorum could require adjournment or dissolution of the meeting without concluding the warrant.

 While the Advisory Committee believes that it is in the best interest of the Town for as many voters as possible to attend town meeting and engage in the conduct of the town’s business, on balance it views the quorum requirement as a procedural hurdle and not necessarily a facilitator of increased attendance at town meeting.  Nonetheless, the Advisory Committee believes it is in the best interest of the Town to maintain the quorum requirement at 300 voters, and that other means should be utilized to encourage voter attendance and participation.  The Advisory Committee suggests that the Government Study Committee continue its efforts to evaluate the procedures pertaining to town meeting to be sure that it is positioned to continue to represent the interests of the Town in a fair and meaningful way for the future. 

      RECOMMENDED:  That no action be taken on this article.

      ARTICLE 41. Will the Town vote to accept M.G.L. c. 32B, § 20, as amended, and subsequently transfer funds currently in the Retiree Healthcare Liability Trust Fund to the State Retiree Benefits Trust Fund, or act on anything relating thereto?
(Inserted at the request of the Treasurer/Collector)

      COMMENT: Since towns in the Commonwealth were just beginning to recognize this need to fund future liabilities from Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB), the Town required special legislation, Chapter 126 of the Acts of 2002, to establish our current Retiree Healthcare Liability Trust Fund.  Under this legislation, the Treasurer is authorized to invest under G.L. Ch. 44, sec 54.  Investment options under this statute are very limited, and returns are unlikely to meet the return assumption used to calculate our Annual Required Contribution (ARC) payment.  If our investment returns fall below this level over an extended period of time, our annual appropriations will need to increase to fully fund our OPEB liability.

In 2008, legislation was passed in Massachusetts (the Acts of 2008) allowing cities, towns and municipal light boards to create OPEB Trust Funds.  Under this statute, OPEB Trust Funds are authorized to invest “consistent with the prudent investor rule established in chapter 203C”, the same rules applicable to pension trust funds.  Investment options under 203C are broader, and more likely to meet the  return assumption used to calculate our ARC payment.  Since the nature of our OPEB obligations are analogous to the Town’s pension obligations, it makes sense that these funds be invested using a similar long-term strategy.  Further legislation in 2011 now allows such funds to be invested in the State Retiree Benefits Trust Fund.

Town meeting approval is required to accept M.G.L. c. 32B, § 20, as amended.

      RECOMMENDED:  That the Town vote to accept M.G.L. c. 32B, § 20, as amended, and subsequently transfer funds currently in the Retiree Healthcare Liability Trust Fund to the State Retiree Benefits Trust Fund.

      ARTICLE 42.  Will the Town change the requirement from at least every three years to at least every nine years that, under the direction of the Selectmen, the Audit Committee will ask the Town Administrator to issue a request for proposals for an independent auditing firm to conduct, in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, an annual audit of the financial statements of the Town, or act on anything related thereto?
(Inserted at the request of the Audit Committee)

      COMMENT:  The Audit Committee believes, and the Board of Selectmen agrees, that changing the required frequency of the RFP process will not have an adverse impact on the quality of services provided by the audit firm or value received by the Town.  As it is, the Town’s current arrangement with the incumbent audit firm is a year-to-year contract, subject to review by the Audit Committee and cancelable at any time by either party. 

The change proposed in this article does not prohibit the Town from initiating an RFP process more frequently than every nine years; it merely sets an upper limit and provides the Audit Committee flexibility in managing the Town’s relationship with the audit firm.  It is expected that the Audit Committee and the Board of Selectmen, consistent with their fiduciary responsibilities to the Town, will continuously evaluate the relationship between the Town and the audit firm and take action as necessary to ensure the best interests of the Town are served.

      RECOMMENDED:  That the Town change the requirement from at least every three years to at least every nine years that, under the direction of the Selectmen, the Audit Committee will ask the Town Administrator to issue a request for proposals for an independent auditing firm to conduct, in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, an annual audit of the financial statements of the Town.

      ARTICLE 43.  Will the Town amend the General By-Laws of the Town of Hingham, adopted March 13, 1939, as heretofore amended, at Article 13 as follows:

At Section 4-General Rules and Regulations, by deleting the words “a period of at least fifteen days” and replacing them with the words “a period of at least thirty days”,  and by adding the following sentence at the end of said Section 4:
“An electronic copy of this record shall be forwarded to the Police Department within one (1) calendar day of the transaction.”

or act on anything related thereto?
(Inserted at the request of the Chief of Police)

      COMMENT:  Article 13 of the General By-Laws helps the Police Department investigate thefts of jewelry and other second-hand or precious metals by requiring jewelers and other licensed purchasers to hold such items for a period of time and to maintain appropriate records of individual transactions.    The proposed By-Law amendment will increase the required holding period and will also require that records of each transaction, already required to be shared with the Police Department, be transmitted to the Police via electronic means.

Hingham and surrounding communities have seen a significant increase in residential breaking and entering crimes and the Police Department believes the current 15-day holding period is not sufficient to complete a thorough investigation.  In addition, the proposed requirement to send transaction records electronically will allow for faster and more comprehensive sharing of data with other Police Departments as it is reasonable to expect that goods stolen in one town may be disposed of in another. 

Many cities and towns in our area are contemplating or have already adopted similar measures.

      RECOMMENDED:  That the Town amend the General By-Laws of the Town of Hingham, adopted March 13, 1939, as heretofore amended, at Article 13 as follows:

At Section 4-General Rules and Regulations, by deleting the words “a period of at least fifteen days” and replacing them with the words “a period of at least thirty days”,  and by adding the following sentence at the end of said Section 4:

“An electronic copy of this record shall be forwarded to the Police Department within one (1) calendar day of the transaction.”          

      ARTICLE 44.  Will the Town amend the General By-Laws of the Town of Hingham adopted March 13, 1939, as heretofore amended, by amending Article 31, entitled “Demolition of Historically Significant Buildings or Structures” and known as the “Demolition Delay By-Law”, as follows:

Item 1:  Amend Section 2 by deleting the definitions of “Commissioner” and “Demolition Permit” and inserting after the definition of “Commission”, the following definitions:

“Commission Staff – The person(s) regularly providing staff services for the Commission whom the Commission has designated as “commission staff” for the purposes of this Article.

Commissioner – The person occupying the office of Hingham Building Commissioner or otherwise authorized in the Town of Hingham to issue permits under the Massachusetts state building code.

Demolition – The act of pulling down, destroying, removing, razing or commencing the work of any destruction of a regulated building or structure as defined in Section 3 of the Article, or any portion thereof, excluding modifications to the interior of the building or structure having no effect on the exterior thereof.  Without limiting the foregoing, demolition includes the act of removal or replacement of any historic architectural element for which a building permit is required from the Commissioner including, but not limited to, the frame, finish, window(s), roofing, chimney(s), siding, or any other architectural feature affecting the exterior of a regulated building or structure.

Demolition Permit - A permit issued by the Commissioner for any demolition as defined in this Article 31.”

Item 2:  Amend Section 4.B. by adding the following at the end thereof:

“The Commission may delegate the determination of whether a building or structure is historically significant to Commission Staff or to a designated Commission member.  In the event that the Commission delegates the determination to the Commission Staff or to a designated Commission member, the Commission shall adopt criteria to be followed by the Commission Staff or such member in making the determination.”

Item 3:  Amend Section 4, entitled “Procedure”, by adding the following subsection (H) at the end thereof:

“(H) Any change that occurs prior to or after commencing work on a project involving a regulated building or structure subsequent to issuance of a demolition permit previously approved by the Commission must be reviewed and approved by the Commission.”

Item 4:  Amend Section 6, entitled “Non-Compliance” by deleting it in its entirety and substituting therefore the following:

Section 6 - NON-COMPLIANCE
(A)  The Commission is authorized to institute any and all actions and proceedings, in law or equity, as they may deem necessary and appropriate to obtain compliance with the requirements of this Article or to prevent a threatened violation thereof.
(B)  Anyone who engages in demolition in violation of this Article may be subject to a fine of not more than Three Hundred Dollars ($300).  Each day the violation exists shall constitute a separate offense until a faithful restoration of the demolished building or architectural element is completed or unless otherwise agreed to by the Commission. 
(C)  No building permit shall be issued with respect to any premises upon which demolition has occurred in violation of this Article for a period of three (3) years after the date of such violation. As used herein, "premises" refers to the parcel of land upon which the demolished significant building was located and all adjoining parcels of land under common ownership or control.
(D)  Notwithstanding the foregoing, whenever the Commission shall, on its own initiative, or on application of the landowner, determine that earlier reconstruction, restoration or other remediation of any demolition in violation of this Article better serves the intent and purpose of this Article, it may, prior to the expiration of said three-year period, authorize issuance of a building permit, upon such conditions as the Commission deems necessary or appropriate to effectuate the purposes of this Article, and may so notify the Commissioner.
(E)  Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to exempt a landowner from compliance with any requirements of the state building code or prohibit landowners from complying with any requirements of the state building code.

or act on anything related thereto?
(Inserted at the request of the Historical Commission)

      COMMENT: The Demolition Delay By-Law was originally adopted by the town at a special town meeting in 1988 as “part of an overall plan for protecting and preserving the historical and cultural assets of the town.”  Advisory Committee Comment, February 1988.  The By-Law empowers the Historical Commission to impose a six-month delay on the demolition of historically significant buildings or structures located outside the Town’s Historic Districts after a finding that it is in the public interest

that such buildings or structures be preserved.  Currently, there are approximately 800 properties listed on the Hingham Comprehensive Inventory of the Town’s historic assets that are subject to this By-Law.  The proposed changes to the By-Law fall into four categories:

(i)  Definition of Demolition.  The current version of the By-Law does not define the concept of demolition which creates uncertainty about when the requirements of the By-Law apply.  The proposed changes to the By-Law define demolition to include pulling down, destroying, removing or razing a building or structure.  It also expands on that notion to include the removal or replacement of exterior historic elements of an affected building (e.g., frames, finish, siding, windows, siding, chimney and or roofing) if such removal or replacement otherwise requires a building permit.  Section 2, Definitions.

(ii) Delegation of Historically Significant Determinations.  A new provision would allow the Historical Commission to delegate the determination of whether a building or structure or architectural element described above is “Historically Significant” to a member of the Commission or to Commission staff.  A building, structure or element must be found to be Historically Significant in order to trigger a full review of the proposed project by the Commission.  Currently all determinations of Historical Significance must be made by the Historical Commission.  Section 4B, Procedures.

(iii) Remedies for Noncompliance.  Currently, if a homeowner undertakes demolition in violation of the By-Law, the Historical Commission must impose a three-year moratorium on the issuance of any building permit for the premises.  Depending on the culpability and/or the significance of the historic destruction, the moratorium can be out of sync with the violation.  Moreover, in certain instances, the goal of historic preservation is not achieved by prohibiting the issuance of a building permit.  This change would enable the Historical Commission to work with a homeowner to better achieve the goals of the By-Law and to develop remedies that are more fitting to the violation.  Section 6, Non-Compliance.

(iv)     Clerical Changes.  Clean up typographical errors and other ministerial changes. 

The Advisory Committee is mindful of the need to balance individual property rights on the one hand and the public interest in historic preservation on the other hand.  The changes to the By-Law do expand the intuitive notion of demolition; however, the By-Law provides a process to work through demolition and construction issues which takes account of historic preservation and homeowner interests.  The delegation of authority to Commission members and staff to make determinations of Historical Significance pursuant to established criteria will provide the Commission with the ability to provide a more timely response, particularly in respect of demolition or alterations that are found not to be Historically Significant.  Finally, the noncompliance change is long overdue.  In certain instances a three-year moratorium on building permits does not serve the interests of the Town or the resident.  These changes would provide the Commission with the ability to fashion a remedy in keeping with the violation and in furtherance of the objectives of the By-Law. 

The Board of Selectmen, the Inspector of Buildings and the Advisory Committee support these changes. 

      RECOMMENDED:  That the Town amend the General By-Laws of the Town of Hingham adopted March 13, 1939, as heretofore amended, by amending Article 31, entitled “Demolition of Historically Significant Buildings or Structures” and known as the “Demolition Delay By-Law”, as follows:

Item 1:   Amend Section 2 by replacing it in its entirety with the following:
For the purposes of this By-Law the following words and phrases have the following meanings:
Commission - The Hingham Historical Commission
Commission Staff – The person(s) regularly providing staff services for the Commission whom the Commission has designated as “commission staff” for the purposes of this By-Law.
Commissioner – The person occupying the office of Hingham Building Commissioner or otherwise authorized in the Town of Hingham to issue permits under the Massachusetts State Building Code.
Demolition – The act of pulling down, destroying, removing, razing or commencing the work of any destruction of a regulated building or structure as defined in Section 3 of this By-Law, or any portion thereof, excluding modifications to the interior of the building or structure having no effect on the exterior thereof. Without limiting the foregoing, demolition includes the act of removal or replacement of any historic architectural element of any regulated building or structure for which a building permit is required from the Commissioner including, but not limited to, the frame, finish, window(s), roofing, chimney(s), siding, or any other architectural feature affecting the exterior of a regulated building or structure.
Permit - A permit issued by the Commissioner for any Demolition (as defined in this By-Law).  A Permit, as this term is used in this By-Law, shall include a building permit for Demolition activities as defined above and/or a permit for demolition issued by the Commissioner pursuant to the Massachusetts State Building Code.
Historically Significant – a determination by the Commission that a Regulated Building or Structure is:
(1) importantly associated with one or more historic persons or events, or with the architectural, cultural, political, economic or social history of the Town, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or the United States of America; or
(2) historically or architecturally important by reason of period, style, method of building construction or association with a particular architect or builder, either by itself or in the context of a group of buildings or structures.
Item 2:   Except for the clause in Section 5 which reads “procedures for the demolition and/or securing of buildings and structures established by Chapter 143, Sections 6-10, of the Massachusetts General Laws”, capitalize the term “demolition” wherever it appears in Sections 3 through 6 so that it will hereafter appear as “Demolition”.
Item 3:   Replace the term “demolition permit” wherever it appears in Section 3 through 6 with the term “Permit”.
Item 4:   Capitalize the term “historically significant” wherever it appears in Sections 3 through 6 so that it will hereafter appear as “Historically Significant”.
Item 5:   Amend Section 3 by adding to the introductory sentence thereof, prior to the colon, the following: “(and the architectural elements thereof ) which shall be known for purposes of this By-Law as “Regulated Buildings or Structures” and by replacing subsection (3) thereof in its entirety with the following: 
(3) a building or structure included in the Inventory of the Historic and Prehistoric Assets of the Commonwealth, the Hingham Comprehensive Inventory of the historic, architectural and archeological assets of the Town or designated by the Commission for inclusion in either of said Inventories. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the provisions of this section shall not apply to any building or structure located in a local historic district and subject to regulation under the provisions of Chapter 40C of the Massachusetts General Laws.
Item 6:   Replace each of the following clauses with the term “Regulated Building or Structure”:  (i) in Section 4.A the clause “building or structure identified in paragraph (c) of this section”; (ii) in Section 5 the clause “building or structure identified in section 3 of this article; and (iii) the clause “building or structure” wherever else it appears in Sections 3 through 6, except in Sections 4.D, 4.F and the first sentence of Section 4.G.
Item 7:   Amend Section 4.B by adding the following at the end thereof:
The Commission may, by a majority vote of the Commission, delegate the determination of whether a Regulated Building or Structure is Historically Significant to Commission Staff or to a designated Commission member.  In the event that the Commission delegates the determination to the Commission Staff or to a designated Commission member, the Commission shall adopt criteria to be followed by the Commission Staff or such member in making the determination.  A determination by the Commission Staff or by a Commission member pursuant to such delegation shall be deemed a determination by the Commission.
Item 8:   Replace Section 4.D in its entirety with the following:
D. Within sixty (60) days after the applicant is notified that the Commission has determined that a Regulated Building or Structure is Historically Significant, the applicant for the permit shall submit to the Commission ten (10) copies of a demolition plan which shall include the following information: (i) a map showing the location of the Regulated Building or Structure or architectural element(s) thereof to be demolished with reference to lot lines and to neighboring buildings and structures: (ii) photographs of all street facade elevations; (iii) a description of the Regulated Building or Structure or architectural element(s) thereof to be demolished; (iv) the reason for the proposed Demolition and data supporting said reason, including, where applicable, data sufficient to establish any economic justification for Demolition; and (v) a brief description of the proposed reuse of the parcel on which the Regulated Building or Structure  is located.
Item 9:   Replace the last two sentences of Section 4.E with the following:
Within sixty (60) days after its receipt of the demolition plan, the Commission shall file a written report with the Commissioner on the demolition plan which shall include the
following: (i) a description of the age, architectural style, historic association and importance of the Regulated Building or Structure or architectural element(s) to be demolished; and (ii) a determination as to whether or not the Regulated Building or Structure or any architectural element thereof should preferably be preserved. The Commission shall determine that a Regulated Building or Structure or architectural element(s) thereof should preferably be preserved only if it finds that the Regulated Building or Structure or architectural element thereof is Historically Significant because it is important to the Town’s historical and/or architectural resources and is in the public interest to preserve, rehabilitate or restore.
Item 10:   In Section 4.F and the first sentence of Section 4.G replace the clause “building or structure” with the clause “Regulated Building or Structure and/or architectural element(s) thereof to be demolished”.
Item 11:   Amend Section 4 by adding the following subsection H at the end thereof:
H.  Any material change to the plans filed and approved by the Commissioner and the Commission that (i) pursuant to the Massachusetts State Building Code, requires the permit holder to file for a modification, (ii) occurs subsequent to the issuance of a Permit previously approved by the Commission, and (iii) affects the exterior of a Regulated Building or Structure or architectural element thereof, must be reviewed by the Commission.  The applicant shall submit plans detailing the requested changes to the Commission and the Commissioner.  The Commission shall issue a written report to the Commissioner within 30 days of receipt of such plans.  Such report shall either approve the requested changes and authorize the issuance of a Permit pursuant to the revised plans or shall deny the proposed changes.  The changes shall be deemed approved if such report is not received by the Commissioner within said thirty (30) day period.  If the proposed changes are not approved, the applicant may proceed with the work as authorized under the original Permit or the work as described in the revised plans will be subject to Section 4.G above.
Item 12:   Amend Section 5 to replace the words “himself” and “he” with the words “the Commissioner”, and the word “his” with the word “the”.
Item 13:   Amend Section 6 entitled “Non-Compliance” by deleting it in its entirety and substituting therefore the following:
Section 6 - NON-COMPLIANCE
A. The Commission may request that the Board of Selectmen institute any and all actions or proceedings, in law or equity as the Selectmen may deem necessary and appropriate to obtain compliance with the requirements of this By-Law or to prevent a threatened violation thereof.
 B. Anyone who engages in Demolition in violation of this By-Law may be subject to a fine of not more than three hundred ($300) dollars. Each day the violation exists shall constitute a separate offense until a faithful restoration of the demolished Regulated Building or Structure or architectural element is completed or unless otherwise agreed to by the Commission.
C. No building permit shall be issued with respect to any premises upon which Demolition has occurred in violation of this By-Law for a period of three (3) years after the date of such violation. As used herein, "premises" refers to the parcel of land upon which the Regulated Building or Structure (or architectural element thereof) was located and all adjoining parcels of land under common ownership or control.
D. Notwithstanding the foregoing, whenever the Commission shall, on its own initiative, or on application of the landowner, determine that earlier reconstruction, restoration or other remediation of any Demolition in violation of this By-Law better serves the intent and purpose of this By-Law, it may, prior to the expiration of said three (3) year period, authorize the Commissioner in writing to issue a Permit upon such conditions as the Commission deems necessary or appropriate to effectuate the purposes of this By-Law.  Upon issuance of such written authorization by the Commission to the Commissioner, and compliance of the landowner with the conditions, if any, of such authorization, the building permit moratorium set forth in subsection 6.C shall cease, provided that future Permit applications for the premises shall be subject to applicable provisions of this By-Law.
E. Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to exempt a landowner from compliance with any requirements of the State Building Code or prohibit landowners from complying with any requirements of the State Building Code.

      ARTICLE 45.  Will the Town transfer a sum of money from the Receipts Reserved for Appropriation: Insurance Recovery in Excess of $20,000 for use by the Fire Department, or act on anything relating thereto?
(Inserted at the request of the Fire Department)

      COMMENT: The Fire Department experienced the total loss of a 2005 Medic 2 Ambulance while responding to the scene of a collision at the corner of Cushing and Whiting Streets on August  29, 2011. Proceeds from the insurance claim in the amount of $160,000 were received October 2011.  Massachusetts General Law requires the expenditure of insurance recoveries in excess of $20,000 be subject to a vote of town meeting prior to final expenditure. Once appropriated, proceeds will be use to purchase a new ambulance.

      RECOMMENDED: That the Town transfer $160,000 from the Receipts Reserved for Appropriation: Insurance Recovery in Excess of $20,000 for use by the Fire Department.

      ARTICLE 46.  Will the Town transfer a sum of money from the Receipts Reserved for Appropriation: Insurance Recovery in Excess of $20,000 for use by the School Committee, or act on anything relating thereto?
(Inserted at the request of the School Department)

      COMMENT:  As a result of heavy snowfall in the winter of 2011, the 1961 section of the Hingham Middle School roof required emergency stabilization and shoring to preserve structural integrity.  Costs to complete that stabilization, including replacement of a beam and permanent shoring posts, were covered by insurance.  Massachusetts General Law requires the expenditure of insurance recoveries in excess of $20,000 be subject to a vote of town meeting prior to final expenditure.

      RECOMMENDED: That the Town transfer $56,067.67 from the Receipts Reserved for Appropriation: Insurance Recovery in Excess of $20,000 for use by the School Committee.

      ARTICLE 47.  Will the Town authorize, but not require, the Board of Selectmen to (1) petition the Great and General Court to remove a portion of a parcel of land off Fort Hill Street currently being held for public park and public recreation purposes (“Parcel 2”)  consisting of approximately of  3.21 acres known as a portion of Lot 1 on Assessors’ Map 77, in exchange for a parcel of land consisting of approximately 10.08 acres known as a portion of Lot 44 on Assessors’ Map 69 currently held for general municipal use (“Parcel 1”), said Parcel 1 to be held for public park and public recreation purposes,  such Parcels being shown on a plan entitled Open Space Modification Exhibit Bare Cove Park Drive, Hingham, MA 02043 by Coler & Colantonio dated March 8, 2012, and (2) if necessary, to authorize the Board of Selectmen to grant restrictions on such  Parcel  1, or act on anything relating thereto?
(Inserted by the Board of Selectmen)

     COMMENT: In 1972, the United States Government deeded to Hingham a significant amount of acreage along the Back River. The largest parcel is the public park and public recreation land known as Bare Cove Park. The remainder of the land is currently held for school department and general municipal uses. The deed for the park portion carries restrictions as to the usage of the land; specifically, no changes in use are permitted without the approval of the U. S. Department of Interior.

The somewhat unusual configuration of the Bare Cove Park Parcel has it wrapping, in a tail-like fashion, around the back of the new Carlson Fields and the school bus storage parcel up to the main entrance on Fort Hill Street. The result is that the majority of Carlson Fields (approximately 10 acres of land shown as Parcel 1 on the referenced plan) is not part of the park but a small portion of the land (approximately 3 acres of land shown as Parcel 2 on the referenced plan) between the school bus facility and Thomas Auto Body, which is not conducive to park use, is within the park.

To make the highest and best use of existing Town-owned land, the Town would like the ability to build on and/or lease Parcel 2.  Future uses may be for the consolidation of the School Department activities currently being conducted in Buildings 12 and 179. Another possible use is for a lease for a local access cable studio.

Since Parcel 2 is technically part of Bare Cove Park and carries restrictions on such usage, the Town would like to remove it from Bare Cove Park and transfer it to general municipal use. In exchange, Parcel 1, which is more than three times larger than Parcel 2, would be transferred from general municipal use and added to Bare Cove Park as public park and public recreation use consistent with the original deed of Bare Cove Park to the Town.

The Board of Selectmen, upon Town Meeting approval, would then petition the state legislature and the U.S. Department of Interior for their required permission for the transfer.

Members of the Bare Cove Park Committee have been consulted and approve of the transfer.

      RECOMMENDED:  That the Town authorize, but not require, the Board of Selectmen to (1) petition the Great and General Court to remove a portion of a parcel of land off Fort Hill Street currently being held for public park and public recreation purposes (“Parcel 2”) consisting of approximately of  3.21  acres known as a portion of Lot 1 on  Assessors' Map 77, in exchange for  a parcel of land consisting of approximately 10.08 acres known as a portion of Lot 44 on Assessors'  Map 69 currently held for general municipal use (“Parcel 1”), said Parcel 1 to be held for public park and public recreation purposes, such Parcels being shown a plan entitled Open Space Modification Plan Bare Cove Park Drive, Hingham, Ma 02043  by Coler & Colantonio dated March 8, 2012, and (2) if necessary, to authorize the Board of Selectmen to grant restrictions on such Parcel 1.

      ARTICLE 48.  Will the Town authorize, but not require, the Board of Selectmen to enter into a lease of a parcel of land off Fort Hill Street, as shown as Parcel 2 on a plan entitled Open Space Modification Exhibit Bare Cove Park Drive, Hingham, MA 02043, prepared by Coler & Colantonio dated March 8, 2012,  for use as a non-profit local access cable studio and related offices, or act on anything relating thereto?
(Inserted by the Board of Selectmen)

     COMMENT:  Adoption of this Article will allow, but not require, the Board of Selectmen to lease the parcel of land shown as Parcel 2 on the referenced plan, or a portion thereof, for use as a non-profit local access cable studio, upon such terms and conditions as may be established by the Board of Selectmen. Such a lease would allow the Town to lease the land for a use that provides community benefit and also provides a financial benefit to the Town. This lease will be considered at this location only if the Town receives the necessary approvals under Article 47. In addition, pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 30B, before entering into the lease, the Board of Selectmen must issue a request for proposals (RFP) setting forth the required terms for the lease, including the permitted use. Upon receipt of proposals for the permitted use, the Board of Selectmen will review the proposals to determine if any of them satisfy the criteria set forth in the RFP.  If so, the Town may then enter into a lease consistent with the terms of the RFP.

      RECOMMENDED:  That the Town authorize, but not require, the Board of Selectmen to enter into a lease of a parcel of land off Fort Hill Street,  shown as Parcel 2 on a plan entitled Open Space   Modification Plan Bare Cove Park Drive, Hingham, MA 02043, prepared by Coler & Colantonio dated  March 8, 2012, for use as a non-profit local access cable studio and related offices.

      ARTICLE 49.  Will the Town of Hingham raise and appropriate, borrow, or transfer from available funds a sum of money sufficient for the design, engineering and installation of traffic lights equipped with pedestrian signals at the intersection of Main Street (Rt.228), Cushing Street, and South Pleasant Street as recommended by Coler and Colantonio, Inc., a traffic engineering company hired by the Town at the request of the Hingham Traffic Committee?
(Inserted at the request of Bernard Manning and others)

     COMMENT:  Article 32 of the Warrant for the 2003 Annual Town Meeting created a Traffic Safety Study Committee (TSSC), directing the Committee to evaluate and recommend effective traffic safety solutions for the Free/High/Main and Cushing/South Pleasant/Main intersections to the 2004 Annual Town Meeting.  Their investigation produced the following accident data:
                   Free/High/     Cushing/So.
                   Main             Pleasant/Main
1992 - 1994 Avg.      8                  6
1999 - 2001 Avg.      6                  6         
2002                        13               6
2003                      9                  5       

As a result of their deliberations, the TSSC voted to recommend a series of traffic-calming measures (which were subsequently implemented), and then monitor accident rates to see if they were effective in improving traffic safety at these two intersections.  One of the key considerations leading the TSSC to proceed deliberately was a concern about impacts on the historic streetscape.  After watching accident trends climb, the Board of Selectmen voted to install a traffic signal at the Free/High/Main intersection.  This project was completed in 2006.  The statistics below document subsequent accident patterns:

                   Free/High/     Cushing/So. 
                   Main             Pleasant/Main
2004                      13                5
2005                      12                4
2006                      10                4
2002 - 2006 Avg.      11.4             4.8

                   Free/High/     Cushing/So.
                   Main             Pleasant/Main
2007                      4                  5
2008                      5                  6
2009                      5                  0
2010                      2                  5
2011                      3                  6
2007 - 2011 Avg.      3.8              4.4* 
 *(excluding 2009, avg. = 5.5)

The installation of the traffic signal at Free/High/Main has measurably improved safety at that intersection, and the number of accidents at Cushing/South Pleasant/Main has seen no statistically significant change since the 1990’s.  Concerned northbound motorists on Cushing Street planning to make a left turn onto Main now have an alternative.  They can choose to turn left onto Ward Street and utilize the signalized intersection at Free/High/Main to access Main Street northbound.

After significant floor discussion, Article 29 at the 2010 Annual Town Meeting was referred to a study:
That the Town refer the issue of traffic lights at the intersection of Main, Cushing and South Pleasant Streets, and costs associated with such lights, to the Traffic Study Committee, and direct that committee to report thereon to the 2011 Annual Town Meeting.

After a series of eight public meetings in the fall of 2010, and commissioning a report by Coler & Colantonio, the Town’s standing Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) voted 7 to 1 not to recommend signalization.  In their report, Coler & Colantonio opined that installing traffic control at this intersection would cost no less than $370,000 to $462,500.  The TSC concluded “that the safety concerns raised by the proponents of the original article to justify the installation of a traffic light are not supported by the facts.”  Their report went on to state that “the problem seems to rest with the inconvenience associated with the delay in entering Main Street from Cushing Street” but the committee felt that this did not overcome the substantial costs required to solve the problem.  They recommended that “the Planning Board would be the more appropriate town board to continue considering this intersection as it addresses future growth, traffic circulation and development issues affecting the residents of Hingham.”  By a vote of 13 to 1, the Advisory Committee reached the same conclusion last year, and recommended “No Action” on this issue.  After a spirited debate at the 2011 Annual Town Meeting, “No Action” was voted.

In five of the six accidents recorded in 2011, a car traveling eastbound on Cushing Street was at fault.  There are no apparent patterns in regard to time of day or day of week of these accidents.  Three vehicles had to be towed as a result of these five accidents, and one person received a non-incapacitating injury.  The remaining accident occurred when a car traveling southbound on Main Street struck a 12-year-old child on a skateboard in the crosswalk.  The child received non-incapacitating injuries.

It should be noted that while Route 228 is not a state highway (it is a state-numbered route) the MassDOT would restrict the use of state funding for another project on Main Street for ten years.  Therefore, the Town could choose to signalize this intersection, but it could not use any state funding to defray the cost of the project.

After hearing the comments and discussion, the Advisory Committee voted 8 to 5 (with 1 abstention) to recommend “No Action” on this article.  There was general agreement that the traffic safety situation at this intersection has not changed appreciably over the past twenty years.  The minority supporting this article felt that the time had come to address a potentially dangerous situation which has been endured long enough.  The majority felt that, while signalization may be appropriate in the future, the facts do not support moving forward at this time, and any action taken should reflect an analysis of the entire Main Street corridor.  If no action is taken on this article, there was support for addressing the visibility and placement of crosswalks as a way to improve safety for pedestrians.

      RECOMMENDED:  That no action be taken on this article.

      ARTICLE 50.  Will  the Town  vote to accept the provisions of Chapter 43D of the Massachusetts General Laws, as amended, pursuant to Section 11 of Chapter 205 of the Acts of 2006, and to approve the filing of an application with the Interagency Permitting Board for the designation of land commonly known as the South Shore Industrial Park, including properties located at 35 Commerce Road (Map 207, Lot 18);  45 Industrial Park Road (Map 201, Lot 6); 55 Industrial Park Road ( Map 201, Lot 7) ; 65 Industrial Park Road, Map 201, Lot 8) ; 75 Industrial Park Road ( Map 201, Lot 9); 90 Industrial Park Road (Map 201, Lot 12) ; 90A Industrial Park Road (Map 201, Lot 3) 99 Industrial Park Road (Map 201, Lot 8); 110 Industrial Park Road (Map 207, Lot 12); 120 Industrial Park Road (Map 207, Lot 11); 125 Industrial Park Road (Map 207, Lot 2) ; 10 Old Mine Rock Way (Map 207, Lot 14); 1 Pond Park Road (Map 200, Lot 7);  2 Pond Park Road (Map201, Lot 20) ; 3 Pond Park Road (Map 201, Lot 13);  4 Pond Park Road (Map 201, Lot 5); 5 Pond Park Road (Map 210, Lot 4); 20 Pond Park Road (Map 210, Lot 10); 30 Pond Park Road (Map 207, Lot 6); 35 Pond Park Road (Map 201, Lot 11); 40 Pond Park Road (Map 206, Lot 2) ; 45 Pond Park Road (Map 200, Lot 6); 50 Pond Park Road (Map 206, Lot 1); 55 Pond Park Road (Map 207, Lot 10); 60 Research  Road (Map 207, Lot 16); 70 Research Road (Map 207, Lot 15); 75 Research Road (Map 201, Lot 7); 80 Research Road (Map 207, Lot 9); 85 Research Road (Map 207, Lot 5); 90 Research Road (Map 207, Lot 19) ; 100 Research Road (Map 206, Lot 9); 105 Research Road (Map 206, Lot 120) as Priority Development Sites
Or act on anything relating thereto?
(Inserted at the request of the Development and Industrial Commission)

     COMMENT:  This Article reflects a longstanding priority of the Board of Selectmen and the Hingham Development and Industrial Commission (“HDIC”), namely, enhancing commercial development in the South Shore Industrial Park, now known as the South Shore Park (“SSP”).  Situated in the southernmost part of Hingham, the SSP consists of 37 parcels of land zoned for business, industrial, and commercial use since the 1960s.  In the decades that followed, Town Meeting voters and repeated iterations of the Town Master Plan have evinced a desire to spur economic growth and expand the Town’s commercial tax base in the SSP, taking advantage of its proximity to Route 3.  However, while most of the 37 parcels are currently developed, the full potential of the SSP has not been realized, largely due to inadequate infrastructure, such as limited access to water, wastewater treatment, and the highway.  In an effort to facilitate commercial redevelopment in the SSP, the HDIC has proposed that the Town accept Chapter 43D of the Massachusetts General Laws.   First enacted in 2006, this “local option” law was designed to promote economic development of designated parcels of commercially zoned land capable of accommodating a minimum of 50,000 square feet of building area.  Acceptance of Chapter 43D by the Town would require no change in zoning.  This Article would simply authorize the Board of Selectmen to apply to the state for designation of the SSP as a “priority development site” – if and only if all the property-owners have given their written permission to do so.  (The HDIC believes that all the affected owners would grant such permission.)  The Board would have two years within which to make its application.  If granted, the designation would last for five years.  During that time, the Town, acting through its permitting boards (here, the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Planning Board, the Conservation Commission, and the Board of Health) would be required to act upon proposed development projects, favorably or negatively, within 180 days, unless the deadline is extended due to various specified circumstances.  If a permit application is not acted upon in timely fashion, then the project is deemed approved.  Thus, Chapter 43D would give some assurance to the permit applicant that its proposed project will be treated expeditiously, and not languish indefinitely in Town Hall.  Significantly, none of the pertinent boards or commissions has suggested that the 180-day time frame would be difficult to meet.  In most cases, applications are granted or denied in substantially less time.

Benefits to the Town of designation of the SSP as a priority development site are numerous and potentially substantial.   They include priority consideration for state infrastructure grants, priority consideration for quasi-public financing and training programs, brownfields remediation assistance, enhanced on-line marketing of the SSP to the nationwide business community, and eligibility for technical assistance grants.  In sum, the SSP would enjoy competitive advantages over undesignated sites in other towns seeking economic development opportunities.  Further, priority development site designation would enable the Town’s permitting authorities to charge permit applicants additional fees for implementing Chapter 43D.  For these reasons, many cities and towns across the Commonwealth (far too numerous to list here) have accepted Chapter 43D and have obtained priority development site designations, sometimes more than one.  Like the SSP, most are commercially zoned parcels situated near a major state highway.

Of course, skeptics among us might question the wisdom of inviting state involvement in the commercial development of any land in Hingham.  However, the only land in Hingham affected by this Article consists of the 37 parcels in the SSP, which account for less than one percent of the Town’s total land area.  As to those parcels, all the owners must agree to allow the Board of Selectmen to apply for designation as a priority development site.  Nor would approval of this Article cede local control of the Town’s permitting authorities to the state.  Chapter 43D expressly provides that it shall not be construed to alter the jurisdictional authority of the permit-issuing authorities; in other words, the statutory authority of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Planning Board, Conservation Commission, and Board of Health would remain unimpaired.  Lest anyone worry that the appellate rights of parties aggrieved by adverse permitting decisions might be diminished, Chapter 43D provides that appeals from such decisions to the Division of Administrative Law Appeals may be further appealed to the Superior Court.

While acceptance of Chapter 43D may not prove to be the “silver bullet” that propels robust commercial growth in the SSP into the uncertain economic future, it seems “worth a shot.”  At the very least, sending a clear signal to the Governor, the Secretary of Economic Development, owners, tenants, developers, and business-owners everywhere that Hingham welcomes commercial redevelopment of the SSP  would be a step in the right direction.

The Board of Selectmen has voted its approval of this Article, and the Advisory Committee recommends an affirmative vote at Town Meeting.

     RECOMMENDED:  That the Town  accept the provisions of Chapter 43D of the Massachusetts General Laws, as amended, pursuant to Section 11 of Chapter 205 of the Acts of 2006, and approve the filing of an application with the Interagency Permitting Board for the designation of land commonly known as the South Shore Industrial Park,  including properties located at 35 Commerce Road (Map 207, Lot 18);  45 Industrial Park Road (Map 201, Lot 6); 55 Industrial Park Road ( Map 201, Lot 7) ; 65 Industrial Park Road, Map 201, Lot 8) ; 75 Industrial Park Road ( Map 201, Lot 9); 90 Industrial Park Road (Map 201, Lot 12) ; 90A Industrial Park Road (Map 201, Lot 3) 99 Industrial Park Road (Map 201, Lot 8); 110 Industrial Park Road (Map 207, Lot 12); 120 Industrial Park Road (Map 207, Lot 11); 125 Industrial Park Road (Map 207, Lot 2) ; 10 Old Mine Rock Way (Map 207, Lot 14); 1 Pond Park Road (Map 200, Lot 7);  2 Pond Park Road (Map201, Lot 20) ; 3 Pond Park Road (Map 201, Lot 13);  4 Pond Park Road (Map 201, Lot 5); 5 Pond Park Road (Map 210, Lot 4); 20 Pond Park Road (Map 210, Lot 10); 30 Pond Park Road (Map 207, Lot 6); 35 Pond Park Road (Map 201, Lot 11); 40 Pond Park Road (Map 206, Lot 2) ; 45 Pond Park Road (Map 200, Lot 6); 50 Pond Park Road (Map 206, Lot 1); 55 Pond Park Road (Map 207, Lot 10); 60 Research  Road (Map 207, Lot 16); 70 Research Road (Map 207, Lot 15); 75 Research Road (Map 201, Lot 7); 80 Research Road (Map 207, Lot 9); 85 Research Road (Map 207, Lot 5); 90 Research Road (Map 207, Lot 19) ; 100 Research Road (Map 206, Lot 9); 105 Research Road (Map 206, Lot 120) as Priority Development Sites.

      ARTICLE 51.  Will the Town amend the General By-Laws of the Town of Hingham adopted March 19, 1939 as amended heretofore by adding the following paragraph to Article 14, Section 3, Part 1 of the General By-Laws, entitled “Advisory Committee?”

“When a less than unanimous vote is rendered by the Advisory Committee regarding a Recommendation made upon a particular warrant article, any committee member(s) not in accord with the majority’s Recommendation may request and prepare a written dissenting opinion which shall be published in the “Comment” section accompanying the Recommendation that is reflected in the Town Warrant.”

Or act on anything relating thereto?
(Inserted at the request of Bernard Manning and others)

     COMMENT:  The Advisory Committee has procedures in place which support the intent of the petitioner’s article. The Advisory Committee Handbook states that the Comment should, briefly but comprehensively, explain why the Committee took its position, and “accurately reflect the thoughts of the Committee.”  It is this Advisory Committee’s position that the Comment should contain, when appropriate, a summary of arguments both in favor and opposed to the warrant article while supporting the majority opinion. 

      RECOMMENDED:  That no action be taken on this article.

     ARTICLE 52.  Will the Town amend the General By-Laws of the Town of Hingham adopted March 19, 1939 as amended heretofore by adding the following paragraph to Article 3 of the General By-Laws entitled Procedures At Town Meetings?

      SECTION 13 “The purpose of the motion for the previous question is to end discussion and have an immediate vote on the pending question. The motion must receive a second, is not debatable and requires a two thirds vote for adoption. The Moderator will decline to accept a motion for the previous question if other voters are seeking recognition and if both sides have not had a fair opportunity to be heard. The Moderator will accept the motion for the previous question if it appears that both sides have been heard and the discussion is becoming repetitious.”

Or act on anything relating thereto?
(Inserted at the request of Bernard Manning and others)

     COMMENT:  The object of the motion for the previous question is to end debate and bring Town Meeting to a vote on the motion before it.  Under our long-standing practice, it requires only a majority vote for its adoption.  The petitioner would require the motion to be seconded and a 2/3 majority vote to adopt the motion for the previous question. The petitioner refers to Robert’s Rules of Order and other reference materials to support the assertion that a large minority should not be deprived of the right of debate by a simple majority. 

Town Meeting is necessarily a careful balance between the objectives of allowing full and fair debate about each article and coming to a vote on each article so that the business of the Meeting may be done as effectively and efficiently as possible.  It is the Moderator’s duty to preside over Town Meeting and conduct the business thereof.

The Moderator will accept or decline to accept the motion for the previous question based on his/her judgment as to whether there has been full and fair debate about the motion on the floor.  If the Moderator judges that there has been full and fair debate, s/he will accept the motion for the previous question.  If the Moderator judges that more debate is necessary, then the Moderator will decline to accept the motion for the previous question and debate will continue.

The current practice described in the Moderator’s Message with the Warrant is the result of many years of accumulated experience.  While there have been times when the Moderator has declined the motion for the previous question, recent memory cannot recall a time when the Moderator has accepted a motion for the previous question that has been defeated.  This history suggests that the Moderator has used his discretion to allow debate to continue rather than the opposite. 

If the Town were to move to a 2/3 majority vote to adopt the motion for the previous question, the likelihood is significantly increased that Town Meeting will be prolonged as a result of requests for a standing vote to ensure the accuracy of the voice vote count.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the petitioner that it is common parliamentary procedure that all motions be seconded and will recommend that the Moderator make this explicit in the Moderator’s Message with the Warrant.

      RECOMMENDED:  That no action be taken on this article.

      ARTICLE 53.  Will the Town amend the General By-Laws of the Town of Hingham adopted March 19, 1939, as amended heretofore, by adding the following paragraph to Article 3 of the General By-Laws entitled Procedure at Town Meetings?”

     “SECTION 14 The Moderator will decline to accept a motion for the previous question, which must be seconded, if other voters are seeking recognition, a situation the Moderator will determine by his oral request that all voters wishing to speak on the article stand to be observed. The Moderator will then instruct them that the information they desire to impart must not be a repetition of matters already discussed. If this procedure forbidding redundancy is not followed then the offending voter’s presentation will be summarily terminated. The Moderator will then recognize each who seeks the Moderator’s attention.”

Or act on anything relating thereto?
(Inserted at the request of Bernard Manning and others)

     COMMENT:  This article seeks to ensure that every member of Town Meeting wishing to address the assembly is given the opportunity to speak and would require the Moderator to dismiss a speaker if s/he judges the speaker’s comments to be redundant.

Town Meeting is necessarily a careful balance between the objectives of allowing full and fair debate about each article and coming to a vote on each article so that the business of the Meeting may be done as effectively and efficiently as possible.  It is the Moderator’s duty to preside over Town Meeting and conduct the business thereof.

The Moderator has discretion to determine whether the discussion has become repetitious.  If a voter moves the previous question, the Moderator is under no obligation to refuse the motion and recognize additional speakers if both sides of the issue on the floor have been fairly presented.  Our practice, resulting from years of Town Meeting tradition, ensures that the business of the Town Meeting gets done as quickly and fairly as possible.

      RECOMMENDED:  That no action be taken on this article.

      ARTICLE 54.  Will the Town amend the General By-Laws of the Town of Hingham adopted March 19, 1939 as amended heretofore by amending Article 2, Town Meeting and Notice Thereby, by amending the current Section 8 by adding the following paragraph, (c), thereto?

“(c) The Selectmen, while preparing, planning, constructing, and executing the format of the Town Warrant, shall place, those matters produced for insertion as a Warrant Article for the Annual or Special Town Meeting that are known, deemed, or considered controversial, contentious , and or requiring lengthy discussion, first in the Warrant before all other matters. The Articles so placed in the Warrant shall be called first for discussion by the Moderator at said Annual or Special Town Meeting.”
 
Or act on anything relating thereto?
(Inserted at the request of Bernard Manning and others)

     COMMENT:  This article seeks to require the Selectmen to place all warrant articles known, deemed, or considered controversial, contentious, or requiring lengthy discussion, first in the Warrant before all other matters.

Presently the Selectmen have the authority and responsibility to determine the order of the articles as they appear in the warrant and are considered at a Town Meeting. This flexibility provides the Selectmen the ability to carefully plan the placement of articles in the context of the meeting, and to consider the anticipated debate with the need to maintain a quorum for a Meeting that may span multiple evenings.

The Advisory Committee is concerned that, if this article were to be adopted, many of the articles not deemed controversial but equally important to the Town would not receive the appropriate scrutiny and discussion that they may require.  Additionally, the inability to maintain a quorum over an extended meeting period might prevent the Town from completing the annual or special meeting in a timely manner.

      RECOMMENDED:  That no action be taken on this article.

      ARTICLE 55.  Will the Town amend the General By-Laws of the Town of Hingham adopted March 19, 1939, as amended heretofore by amending Article 2, Town Meeting and Notice Thereof, by deleting the current Section 1 and replacing it with the following paragraph?

“SECTION 1: The Annual Town Meeting for the transaction of all business, except the election of such officers and the determination of such matters as by law are required to be elected or determined by ballot, shall be held on the third Saturday of April in each year at 2:00 o’clock P.M.”

Or act on anything relating thereto?
(Inserted at the request of Bernard Manning and others)

     COMMENT:  The Advisory Committee shares the concern implicit in the petitioner’s article that town meeting be held on a day and at a time that might provide the greatest potential for attendance by the registered voters of the Town.  However, the Advisory Committee recommends “No Action” on this article, because without further study, perhaps by the Government Study Committee or another committee or department of the Town, it is difficult to determine whether a Saturday in April provides the potential for better access by voters than a week night.  In addition, if a Saturday town meeting did appear to be the best alternative, it is doubtful that a 2 o’clock start time would be optimal and, if town meeting needed to be adjourned to two or more nights, when those additional sessions should be held. 

      RECOMMENDED:  That no action be taken on this article.

      ARTICLE 56.    Will the Town amend the General By-Laws of the Town of Hingham adopted March 19, 1939 as amended heretofore by amending Article 2, Town Meeting and Notice Thereof, by amending the current Section 9 by adding the following paragraph thereto?

“Once a quorum at Town Meeting has been reached and the business of the Town has commenced, it shall be conclusively presumed that the quorum continues to exist until business has been completed and a motion to dissolve the meeting is in order.”
Or act on anything relating thereto?
(Inserted at the request of Bernard Manning and others)

     COMMENT: Section 9 of Article 2, “Town Meeting and Notice Thereof” requires a quorum of 300 voters to begin each night of a town meeting and to conduct the business of the meeting.  Once established, a quorum is presumed to be present for the duration of the meeting.  However, any voter can raise a point of no quorum at any time during town meeting.  The question is not debatable and the Moderator must determine whether a quorum is present.  If a quorum is not present, the meeting must be adjourned to another specified day and time or, in some instances, the meeting can be dissolved.  The proposed amendment to the By-Law would eliminate the ability of voters to question a quorum in that it conclusively presumes that once a quorum has been established it remains in effect until town meeting is dissolved.  This presumption would extend to subsequent nights of town meeting so that once 300 voters are present to begin the first night of town meeting, a quorum is conclusively presumed to be in place until the business of the meeting is concluded.  While this article would provide for the efficient progression of town meeting, particularly on subsequent nights, and eliminates the risk that town meeting might be adjourned prematurely, the Advisory Committee is concerned that this amendment would prohibit a voter from legitimately asking whether there are a sufficient number of voters present at town meeting to make decisions affecting the town.  The Advisory Committee recommends no action on this article.

     RECOMMENDED:  That no action be taken on this article.

     ARTICLE 57.  Will the Town amend the General By-Laws of the Town of Hingham adopted March 19, 1939 as amended heretofore by adding the following Article No. 42 entitled, “Town of Hingham Municipal Building Authority,” to the General By-Laws as Sections 1 through 7 as follows?

ARTICLE 42

 TOWN OF HINGHAM MUNICIPAL BUILDING AUTHORITY

“SECTION 1. The Town of Hingham Municipal Building Authority, [hereinafter, Authority], shall be composed of professionals with demonstrable experience and expertise as building architects, in building construction, or in matters of municipal finance. The Authority shall be responsible for proposing, examining, reviewing, and critiquing all proposals, plans, suggestions and specifications for all new municipal building projects and any renovations, repairs, and reconstruction projects of existing municipal structures. The Authority shall report its findings and shall make recommendations at the Annual Town Meetings and Special Town Meetings involving building projects, regarding what action the Town should take on such proposed construction.

SECTION 2. The Authority shall serve in a supervisory capacity and a source of reference from the very inception of any municipal building project, including but not limited to, an evaluation of the proposed site, since any decisions made at the earliest stages of the design process have the most impact on the success of the project and reduce the number of change orders that increase the cost of the project. The Authority will oversee the bidding process, examine the credentials of the architect before he is retained, approve the clerk of the works and the general contractor based upon their qualifications and be present when they are interviewed. The Authority shall request modifications to the plans when necessary and determine that the structure is erected according to proper engineering standards and shall continue in its supervisory capacity until the project has been completed and occupancy obtained.
SECTION 3. The Authority must determine at the outset whether the building is adequate for the purpose for which it had been designed to serve and contains all the elements essential to its structural integrity. The building must be devoid of any unnecessary affectations or ornamentation or is ornate in appearance. Every facet of the construction must be needed, necessary, and purchased at the lowest cost available based upon the best objective judgment of the Authority.

SECTION 4. In a hearing, open to the public, the proponent of the project must be prepared to defend every aspect of the construction through a cost benefit analysis predicated upon references to comparable existing structures found in other communities. Financial responsibility shall be of paramount concern to the Authority throughout all phases of the project and guided by the dominant consideration – the best interest of the Town.

SECTION 5. Where the project has been designed to replace an existing building, the proponent of the project must conclusively prove to the Authority through reliable evidentiary means that rehabilitation, renovation or repair of the existing structure is impossible or impractical because it would not be cost effective.

SECTION 6. Maintenance work done on all municipal buildings, grounds, and other property shall be performed by employees of the Hingham Public Works Department under the direction and control of the Authority which shall evaluate the finished product to insure that the performance meets all standards required by the principals of preventive maintenance.

SECTION 7. Members of the Authority shall all be experienced professionals and shall include the following: the Town Engineer, an employee of the Hingham Department of Public Works; a building inspector, an employee of the Hingham Building Department; the Town Planner; a member of the Town Planning Board, who is either a building architect, involved in building construction, or experienced in Town finances. Three members of the Authority shall be appointed by the Selectmen for a term of 5 years. Each appointee must demonstrate experience as either a building architect, involved in building construction, or demonstrably familiar with Town finance.”

Or act on anything relating thereto?
(Inserted at the request of Bernard Manning and others)

     COMMENT: At present, management of the Town’s municipal buildings, including the construction, renovation, repair and maintenance thereof, is the responsibility of either the Board of Selectmen or the School Committee.  As elected officials, both bodies are directly accountable to the electorate.  In carrying out their responsibilities as stewards of the Town’s capital assets, both the Board of Selectmen and School Committee have access to, and often consult with, the Town Engineer.  Fiscal oversight is provided by the Town Administrator/Director of Finance, Town Accountant, School Superintendent and the School Department Director of Business and Support Services.  The Town is fortunate that all of these positions are currently filled by well-qualified professionals.   Additional fiscal oversight is provided by the Capital Outlay Committee, the Advisory Committee and, ultimately, Town Meeting.  In addition, major building projects, including renovations, are usually overseen by an appointed building committee, and the Town often engages qualified firms and individuals to provide project management and related services.

Over the past several years, the Town has undertaken a number of significant building and renovation projects.  While there is no denying that many of these projects have been expensive and not all projects have enjoyed unanimous support among the citizenry, it is also undeniable that these projects have been well executed and the results, in terms of quality, appearance and functionality, are reflective of our values as a community.  Further, certain of these projects have been completed significantly under budget and there has not been a single credible accusation of fiscal impropriety or other malfeasance.

Based on the foregoing, adding an additional layer of bureaucracy as proposed by the petitioners seems unnecessary.

The proposed By-Law also has certain fundamental flaws that raise significant concerns as to its implementation, effectiveness and enforceability.   For example, Section 3 of the proposed By-Law requires that “every facet of the construction must be…purchased at the lowest cost available…”  Since “lowest cost available” is not defined in the By-Law, should the Town assume that all projects will go to the lowest bidder without consideration to quality, durability or environmental impact?  Section 6 of the proposed By-Law requires that “maintenance work done on all municipal buildings…be performed by employees of the Hingham Public Works Department…”  This requirement assumes that the DPW has among its employees sufficient resources to address all manner of building maintenance issues; however, this seems both unlikely and impractical and history will no doubt demonstrate that the Town needs the ability to engage outside contractors to perform certain maintenance functions.  Lastly, Sections 3 and 4 of the proposed By-Law include certain imperatives with regard to the introduction of a proposed building or renovation project that would appear to preclude a Town-funded feasibility study, thus effectively ensuring that no significant building or renovation project is undertaken in the future.  Assuming nothing built to date will last forever, this would be unreasonable.

While the Advisory Committee does not support the proposed By-Law, it does recognize that opportunities for improvement to current policies and practices do exist.   Accordingly, the Advisory Committee encourages the Board of Selectmen, School Committee, Town Administrator and Government Study Committee to review the Town’s policies and practices with respect to property management.  Such a review should challenge the status quo and identify best practices, economies of scale and opportunities to share resources, and thus result in greater accountability and more efficient and effective management of the Town’s municipal and school buildings.

      RECOMMENDED:  That no action be taken on this article.

       ARTICLE 58.  Will the Town amend the General By-Laws of the Town of Hingham adopted March 13, 1939 as amended heretofore by adding the following Article   or act on anything related thereto?
                                            
ARTICLE       RECALL ELECTIONS                                                                                                                                  
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same as follows:

SECTION 1. Any holder of an elective office in the town of Hingham may be recalled from office for any reason by the registered voters of the town as provided in this act.

SECTION 2. An initial recall affidavit signed by at least 200 registered voters of the town containing their names and addresses may be filed with the town clerk. That initial recall affidavit shall contain the name of the officer, the office sought to be recalled and a statement of the grounds for recall. The town clerk shall immediately forward the recall affidavit to the board of registrars for verification of signatures.

SECTION 3. Within 14 calendar days of receipt of the initial recall affidavit, the board of registrars of voters shall (1) verify the signatures on the initial recall affidavit and if found to contain a sufficient number of signatures, (2) the town clerk shall thereupon deliver the first 10 signers of the affidavit a formal numbered printed recall petition sheet with the town clerk’s official seal, and addressed to the board of selectmen demanding the recall. The town clerk shall fill out the top portion of each recall petition sheet naming the elected official, the grounds for recall stated in the petition, the names of the first 10 voters signing the affidavit, and shall demand the election of a successor to the office. A copy of the recall petition shall be entered in a record book to be kept in the office of the town clerk.

The town’s registered voters making the initial affidavit shall then have 30 days from the date of delivery of the recall petition sheets in which to file their signed recall petition sheets with the town clerk.

To proceed with the recall election, the town clerk shall receive by said 30-day deadline, the required number of signed recall petition sheets containing the signatures, names and street addresses of at least 12 and one-half per cent of the registered voters of the town as of the date the signed recall petition sheets are delivered to the town clerk.

Within 5 working days of receipt, the town clerk shall submit the recall petition sheets to the board of registrars of voters and the board of registrars of voters shall forthwith certify thereon the number of signatures which are names of registered voters of the town.

SECTION 4. If the total recall petition sheets shall be found and certified by the board of registrars of voters to be sufficient, it shall be submitted with the certificate of town clerk to the board of selectmen without delay. The board of selectmen shall forthwith give written notice of the receipt of the certificate to the officer sought to be recalled. If the officer does not resign within 5 calendar days of the date notice is given from the selectmen, then the board of selectmen shall promptly order an election to be held on a date fixed by them not less than 64 nor more than 90 days after the date the election is called after receipt of the certificate; but, if any other town election is scheduled to occur within 100 days after the date of said certificate, the board of selectmen may postpone the holding of the recall election to the date of such other election and may include the question of recall on the ballot for such other election. If a vacancy occurs in the office after a recall election has been ordered, the election shall nevertheless proceed as provided in this act.
SECTION 5. An officer sought to be removed may be a candidate to succeed himself in an election to be held to fill the vacancy. Unless the officer requests otherwise in writing, the town clerk shall place his or her name on the ballot without nomination. The nomination of other candidates, the publication of the warrant for the recall election and the conduct of the same, shall all be in accordance with the law relating to elections, unless otherwise provided in this act.

SECTION 6. The incumbent shall continue to perform the duties of the office until the recall election. If the incumbent is not recalled, he shall continue in office for the remainder of the unexpired term, subject to recall as before, except as provided in this act. If not re-elected in the recall election, he shall be considered removed from office immediately and the office vacant.

SECTION 7. Ballots used in a recall election shall contain the following question: shall (insert name and office) be recalled from office? Immediately at the right of the proposition, there shall be a designated place for voters to vote for or against the proposition.

Following the proposition shall appear the word “Candidates” with directions to voters as required by section 42 of chapter 54 of the General Laws. Beneath the word “Candidates” appears the names of candidates nominated as hereinbefore provided.

If a majority of the votes cast upon the question of recall are in favor of recall, the officer shall be recalled and the votes for the candidates shall be counted. In such an instance, the candidate receiving the highest number of votes shall be declared elected for the open office. If less than a majority of the votes cast are in favor of recall, the votes for candidates need not be counted.

SECTION 8. An initial recall affidavit shall not be filed against an officer within 3 months after the officer takes office or within the last 3 months of the term; nor, in the case of an officer subjected to a recall election and not recalled thereby, until at least 3 months have elapsed after the election at which the recall was submitted to the voters of the town.

SECTION 9. A person who has been recalled from an office or who has resigned from office while a recall petition was pending against him shall not be appointed to any town office within 2 years after the recall or resignation.
(Inserted at the request of Bernard Manning and others)

     COMMENT:  Town Counsel has ruled that Article 58, Recall Elections, cannot go forward in the form of a Town By-Law and is not an actionable article for Town Meeting.  The Massachusetts Home Rule Amendment specifically prohibits towns from regulating elections by by-law.  The appropriate way to enact a recall procedure is for Town Meeting to authorize a petition for special legislation.  A recall election process exists in one-third of the 351 towns in Massachusetts. 

This article provides for a process to remove an elected official from office during his/her three-year term.  If an elected official’s actions have been deemed to be not in the best interest of the Town and/or to have violated the public trust, a less disruptive means of effecting officeholder change would be during the next regular election when voters could voice their opinion at the ballot box.  In addition, the initiation of a recall election with as few as 200 signatures could be disruptive to the functioning of Town government and a deterrent to citizens considering running for elected office. 

It was the consensus of the Advisory Committee that, prior to the Town adopting a recall petition process, an in-depth study of the procedural requirements of the process should be conducted, possibly by the Government Study Committee.

      RECOMMENDED:  That no action be taken on this article.

      ARTICLE 59.  Will the Town, in accordance with the Hingham Affordable Housing Trust (HAHT) By-Law, adopted by vote under Article 21 at the 2007 Annual Town Meeting, approve an allocation plan for any funds to be appropriated to the HAHT in FY 2012 and FY 2013; such allocation plan may include, without limitation, the following provisions:

(a)  purpose-restricted funds which come to the HAHT in FY 2012 or FY 2013 for designated purposes via Town Meeting appropriation shall be allocated according to those purposes;

(b)  funds allocated by a previous Town Meeting shall continue to be allocated according to the plan approved at that Town Meeting, or act on anything related thereto?
(Inserted at the request of the Affordable Housing Trust)
    
      COMMENT:  In 2007, the Annual Town Meeting approved Article 21 accepting M.G.L. c. 44, §55C creating the Hingham Affordable Housing Trust ("HAHT") by adding Article 39 to the By-Laws of the Town.  The purpose of the HAHT is to provide for the creation and preservation of affordable housing in Hingham for low- and moderate-income households.  Section 2(a)(16) requires that expenditures from the HAHT be in accordance with an allocation plan recommended by the trustees of the HAHT and approved by Town Meeting.  It specifies that the plan generally outline the use of funds for the coming fiscal year.  The Town Treasurer is the custodian of the funds; any income or proceeds received by the HAHT and any moneys remaining in the HAHT at the end of the fiscal year remain with the HAHT.

Unrestricted funds in the amount of $225,000 appropriated to the HAHT by the 2008 Annual Town Meeting were allocated as follows:

50% for maintaining and improving affordability of existing housing stock,
15% for construction of affordable housing,
15% for loan or grant programs,
15% for third-party costs including, but not limited to, engineering, accounting, appraisal, and financial and legal advice, and
5% for administration of the HAHT.

Moneys remaining in the HAHT from that appropriation will continue to be allocated in accordance with this plan.

      RECOMMENDED:  That the Town, in accordance with the HAHT By-Law adopted at the 2007 Annual Town Meeting, approve the following allocation plan for any funds to be appropriated to the HAHT in FY 2012 and FY 2013:

(a)  purpose-restricted funds which come to the HAHT in FY 2012 or FY 2013 for designated purposes via Town Meeting appropriation shall be allocated according to those purposes;

(b)  funds allocated by a previous Town Meeting shall continue to be allocated according to the plan approved at that Town Meeting. 

      ARTICLE 60.  Will The Town reduce the number of members of the Open Space Acquisition Committee from five members to three, or act on anything relating thereto?
(Inserted at the request of the Open Space Acquisition Committee)

      COMMENT:   The limited funds available for acquiring open space results in a similarly limited amount of work for the Open Space Acquisition Committee to do.   The Committee does not meet regularly.  Under the present structure, an individual member of the Committee will work independently with a property owner and report back to the full Committee.   As a result, some members of the Committee have little to do. 

The present Committee is comprised of five members. Recommendations for property acquisitions are usually forwarded to the Community Preservation Committee for consideration.  The work of the Committee could be accomplished by a three- member board, one member to be appointed by each of the three appointing authorities.  The Conservation Commission, which would lose the power to appoint two members of the Committee by adoption of this article, supports the article.

      RECOMMENDED:  That, effective July 1, 2012, the Town reduce the number of members of the Open Space Acquisition Committee from five to three, to be appointed as follows:  one member to be appointed by the Conservation Commission; one member to be appointed by the Planning Board; and one member to be appointed by the Board of Selectmen.

      ARTICLE 61.  Will the Town authorize the Municipal Light Department, by the Municipal Light Board, to take all actions necessary to acquire easements for the location, management, maintenance and operation of its power lines along the MBTA Greenbush Line; or act on anything relative thereto?
(Inserted at the request of the Municipal Light Board)

      COMMENT: The HMLP originally built its 115kv transmission line on what was then the idle Greenbush Rail Line Right of Way (ROW), and from 1986 until 2006 had made annual licensing payments to the MBTA for this access. The power line in question begins at the Hingham/Weymouth town line and extends alongside the train tracks to the railroad crossing at French Street. In about the 2004 timeframe the Transit Realty Associates (TRA), the MBTA's real estate asset management firm, began to assert that the HMLP had no rights to occupy this land as they were preparing to reactivate the Greenbush Rail Line.  Despite the production of a valid and active license agreement, the TRA threatened to utilize the mutual termination clause contained in the contract. Negotiations then were initiated to enter into a permanent easement, and despite a number of delays over the years, the HMLP and TRA are now close to reaching agreement.  It is anticipated that the contract will be finalized and executed by the end of 2012. This article authorizes the HMLP to enter into this agreement with the TRA. The funding for the acquisition of the easements will come from the Municipal Light Department operating budget which is self-funded from receipts collected from customers of the HMLP.

      RECOMMENDED: That the Town authorize the Municipal Light Department, by the Municipal Light Board, to take all actions necessary to acquire easements for the location, management, maintenance and operation of its power lines along the MBTA Greenbush Line.

      ARTICLE 62.  Will the Town direct and require the Board of Selectmen to amend the Barnes Wharf Lease with Lincoln Maritime Center, Inc dated August 8, 2006, as amended August 16, 2011, November 3, 2011 and December 20, 2011 as follows: 

A.  Barnes Wharf Lease shall be for the benefit of the Hingham Maritime Association, Inc. (the tenant) a 501(c)3 entity to be formed following the successful conclusion of this lease amendment.  The entity known as Lincoln Maritime Center, Inc. is changing its name to Hingham Maritime Center, Inc. with a mission similar to the 501(c) 3 entity known as Lincoln Maritime Center, Inc. but incorporating the entities of the Hingham High School Rowing Association and the Hingham High School Sailing Team.

B.  Extend the lease for 5 years from December 31, 2012 with an option for an additional 5 years.

C.  In recognition of the public benefit provided,
     a.  Set the annual rental rate to $1 on a NNN basis.
     b.  Establish that the total annual payments to the Town shall not exceed the annual rent payment plus any mooring fees currently paid by Lincoln Maritime Center Inc.
     c.  Provide that storage on the Wharf for boats, floats and such other materials as may be necessary for the operation of the entity shall be provided for and in such other Town facilities as may be necessary and practical.

D.  In recognition of the non-exclusivity of the lease and that the tenant does not have full discretion over the use of the property, the Town will maintain the wharf to ensure safe conditions, including maintenance and any necessary repairs of the wharf, seawall, landscaping and parking areas.
(Inserted at the request of Michael Cataldo and others)
 
      COMMENT:  The Lincoln Maritime Center, Inc. (“Lincoln Maritime”) has long taught sailing on Barnes Wharf.   The wharf is currently leased to Lincoln Maritime at an annual charge of $12,000, after years during which rent was charged in the nominal sum of one dollar, in consideration of services and equipment that Lincoln Maritime, a non-profit corporation, made available to the public as inexpensively as it could, and considering that the Hingham High School sailing team and rowing association use Lincoln Maritime’s facilities without the necessity of funding through the School Department budget.

The Selectmen are obliged to put town land to its highest and best use, and take this duty seriously.  Just what “highest and best use” means, however, with respect to Barnes Wharf, in the context of ongoing plans for the inner harbor, has generated a variety of earnestly held opinions.  

This article sought to settle the question by having Town Meeting amend the lease so that (among other things) Lincoln Maritime’s lease payment would revert to one dollar per year, for a five-year term beginning at the end of 2012, with an option to extend for another five years.

It is the opinion of Town Counsel, however, that at the expiration of the current lease, Barnes Wharf must be put out to bid, and that this article would violate Mass. General Laws chapter 30B, section 16, (the so-called procurement statute) which governs disposition of town property.   Town Counsel also opines that the article would violate Mass. General Laws chapter 40, section 3, which vests discretion respecting the terms of real estate leases in the Board of Selectmen. 

Town Counsel’s opinion requires the Advisory Committee to recommend that Town Meeting take no action on the article.  

      RECOMMENDED:  That no action be taken on this article.

And you are hereby also directed to notify and warn the inhabitants of the Town of Hingham qualified to vote in Town affairs to meet at three designated polling places in said Town of Hingham according to their precinct, to wit:  Precinct 1, 2, 3, and 4: High School, 17 Union Street; Precincts 5 and 6: Middle School, 1103 Main Street and Precinct 5a: Derby Club House at Linden Ponds on SATURDAY, the Twenty-eighth day of April 2012 at EIGHT O’CLOCK in the forenoon, then and there to give in their votes on the official ballot for:

A Moderator to serve one year, a Selectman to serve three years; an Assessor to serve three years; a Town Clerk to serve three year; one member of the Board of Health to serve three years; two members of the School Committee to serve three years; a member of the Municipal Light Board to serve three years; a member of the Municipal Light Board to serve two years; a member of the Planning Board to serve five years; a member of the Sewer Commission to serve three years; and a member of the Recreation Commission to serve five years.
 

To give their votes “Yes” or “No” on the following a ballot question:

Will the Town vote to have the elected Treasurer/Collector become an appointed Treasurer/Collector of the Town?

Hereof fail not and make due return of this warrant with your doings thereon to the Town Clerk on or before the 30th day of March 2012.

Given under our hands at Hingham this 29th day of March 2012.

                             John A. Riley
                             Laura M. Burns
                             L. Bruce Rabuffo

A true copy
Attest:

Kathleen A. Peloquin
Constable of Hingham
March 30, 2012 

By virtue of the within warrant I hereby certify that I have noticed and warned the inhabitants of the Town of Hingham, qualified to vote in Town affairs to meet at the time and place indicated in the above warrant by causing an attested copy thereof to be published in The Hingham Journal seven days at least before the day appointed for said meeting.  It was presented and posted by the Town Clerk in the Town Hall on this date.

Kathleen A. Peloquin
Constable of Hingham
March 30, 2012