Town Government &
  Services:

Committees Home Page

Committees: Zoning Permits Study Committee

2007 Annual Report

During the past year, the Zoning Permits Study Committee considered project mitigation, impact fees and corridor studies. In addition, two zoning proposals discussed by the committee last year resulted in Planning Board zoning articles for this year’s town meeting.

The committee believes it would be useful for the town to conduct “corridor studies” (either on a town-wide basis or for specific roadways) in order to determine the capacity of particular roadways to support further development (with respect to traffic and other infrastructure). We believe that an understanding of the town’s infrastructure capacity would enable the permitting boards to better gauge the impact of new proposals and, thereby, better tailor mitigation requirements. Projects would not be considered in isolation, but rather in the context of existing and likely future development. This year, we proposed retaining a consultant to review existing traffic reports and prepare a study of the Route 3A corridor. However, no funds have been available for such an analysis.

The committee reviewed existing nonresidential zoning on Route 3A from Thaxter Street to the Weymouth line to see whether zoning changes are needed to control growth, primarily new traffic generation. Much of this area is in the Business B zoning district. In Business B, retail and office uses are allowed as of right. The committee considered whether special permit requirements or an overlay district, along the lines of the South Hingham Overlay District, made sense. Based on our review, we concluded that a significant restriction on the size of as-of-right developments in this district is found in the existing parking requirements. At least in the 3A corridor, this limitation appears to provide effective control under current conditions.

The committee discussed impact fees and mitigation. How should the town address projects which may have a significant impact, directly or indirectly, on town resources, and projects that may be able to contribute to town needs? For large project mitigation, a centralized negotiation process, perhaps through the board of selectman or town administrator makes sense. However, given the nature of town government with dispersed authority in a variety of boards, such a negotiation process may not be fully effective because a project developer cannot be confident that understandings reached with the negotiator will be accepted by the permitting boards. The committee noted the danger of demanding “impact fees” for every project, regardless of actual, direct impacts. Putting aside legal issues, impact fees that bear little or no relation to actual impacts from the project create an unfavorable climate for small business. Permitting boards should recognize that they are on tenuous legal ground if they demand “mitigation” where the project is not having a direct impact, particularly for smaller proposals. On a related matter, the committee believes that changes in the special permit or site plan review criteria are not needed because those criteria are currently broad enough to authorize mitigation in appropriate circumstances, i.e. for direct project impacts.

We reviewed the “working group” concept that has been employed with some success by the planning and zoning boards in the past. We support the continued use of such groups on an ad hoc basis in appropriate cases (generally larger and complex projects). In general, a member of the planning board and a member of the ZBA, along with staff, meet with the project proponent to hammer out technical details of a project and then report back to the permitting boards at a full hearing. The working group can also be a forum to discuss mitigation. The concept raises the question of whether such a group could be considered a formal “governmental body” under the Open Meeting Law, such that meetings would need to be posted and open to the public. It appears that, to the extent such working groups remain informal and ad hoc, they would not be considered governmental bodies subject to the Open Meeting Law, but this issue should be reviewed further.

Two proposals that the committee discussed last year have been taken up by the planning board and are being reviewed for recommendation at town meeting. The first of these is a proposed change in the minimum size requirement for a mixed use special permit (e.g. residential combined with commercial uses) in the Industrial District. Currently, such a project requires at least 25 acres. By substantially increasing this minimum, the town would have further control (beyond the existing special permit standard) over the location of large-scale mixed residential and industrial/commercial projects in the Industrial District. The second proposal would require a special permit for a retail group in the Industrial Park and Limited Industrial Park Districts. Currently, a development of this nature (such as Derby Street Shops) is allowed as of right, with only site plan review. Under the proposal, a retail group would need a special permit, thereby assuring full review by the permitting agencies.