7:00 Continuation of Public Hearings on Proposed Amendments to the Zoning By-Law
Article H Amend Section III-H (Nonconforming Uses)
Article I Modify Section V-E (Personal Wireless Services)
8:00 Old/New Business
303-317 Main Street Form A
Christina Estates Re-Vote on Bond Reduction
Minutes/Bills
Update on Community Preservation Committee
Central Meeting Room North __________
Present: Planning Board Members, Susan Murphy, Chair, Paul Healey, Clerk, Sarah Corey, Judy Sneath and Gary Tondorf-Dick. Also present was Planner Katharine Lacy.
Ms. Murphy opened the public meeting at 7:10 P.M. at the Hingham Town Hall.
Article I Modify Section V-E (Personal Wireless Services)
Charlie Cristello presented this article on behalf of the Board of Selectmen, who submitted this article in cooperation with the Hingham Light Company. This article will modify Section V-E to permit the use of a Distributed Antenna System (DAS), a multiple antenna system for providing personal wireless service using a network of small, omni-directional (whip) antennas affixed to existing utility poles. The intent of permitting the DAS system is to ensure adequate personal wireless service to all areas in Town without the use of large stationary wireless towers.
Ms. Murphy asked whether this technology would be limited to certain identified areas in Town, or would be permitted all over. Mr. Cristello responded that the purpose of the zoning amendment was simply to modify the current by-law so as to permit this kind of technology to be considered. It would still require a Special Permit A2, and the review typically associated with that process. Ms. Murphy responded that she felt that it was important to have very specific standards about the location, appearance, and size of these structures.
Board members asked a number of questions about how this system would work, where the facilities would be located, etc. Mr. Cristello stated that Mr. Tzimorangas from the Light Company was not able to attend, and since he (Charlie) was not an expert in this type of technology, suggested that the Board compile a list of questions to be resolved at a later hearing.
The following questions were identified for further discussion:
1. What is the source of the defined terms used in the by-law? Do they reflect industry standards?
2. What is the required frequency of the whip antennas (every 1/8 mile?)
3. How are the antennas attached to the utility poles, and what is the height of the antennas above the top of the poles?
4. Would there be specific districts, streets, or classes of street (major, minor, etc.) where DAS systems would be permitted, and others where they would not?
5. What do the radio boxes look like-color, size, and mounting fixtures?
6. Would the DAS network be coordinated to work with existing wireless facilities?
7. Could more than one provider be served by one DAS system, or would different services each require their own system of boxes and whips?
8. If a utility pole gets hit or taken down, does it affect the entire network?
9. Could the radio boxes and wires be placed underground?
10. How will this system adapt to changing technology? Is it anticipated that the boxes and/or wires will change or get smaller in the near future?
11. How can the zoning by-law be amended to allow for "sun-shining" to adapt to changing technology so that the Town does not get stuck with an outdated system?
12. If other utilities get placed underground, would it be worth it to keep the poles in place just to serve this utility?
13. Are there safety issues associated with this type of technology in terms of exposure to radio waves?
The hearing was continued to March 5, 2007.
Article H Amend Section III-H (Nonconforming Uses)
Victor Baltera and Mary Powers of the Zoning Permit Study Committee presented the background on this article, which was submitted by the Planning Board in collaboration with the Zoning Permit Study Committee.
Mary Power outlined the charge given to the Zoning Permit Study Committee when they were created by Town Meeting in 2007, noting that one of the roles was to look at "growth management" issues, and these could be affected by changes to the zoning by-law. She noted that one of the concerns brought up by Town residents was the perceived rash of unusually large additions and reconstructions of existing houses (tear-downs replaced by McMansions). This is particularly noticeable in the older sections of Town, which are generally characterized by smaller lots.
Ms. Power explained that the current non-conforming use By-Law (known commonly as "the Hatfield Amendment" was put in place to allow owners of non-conforming, usually older, homes to put on modest additions to accommodate normal family growth and change. In recent years, however, the Town has witnessed this provision being used to permit the construction of large additions, and wholesale reconstruction.
This article would modify Section III-H (6), which addresses non-conforming uses, by requiring a Special Permit A1 determination from the Zoning Board of Appeals in order to make alterations or additions to a non-conforming single or two family residential building whenever the alteration or addition increases the non-conformity (as, for example, extending a residential building wall that already encroaches into the setback). The Zoning Board's determination would be made, pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Section 6, that "the alteration of, addition to, extension of, or structural change to an existing non-conforming single or two-family residence or structure which increases the non-conformity of the building or structure" is not "substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood."
Currently, alterations and additions to non-conforming single or two family residential structures are permitted by-right. This change would provide for a public hearing process for abutters to meet with the applicant and the Zoning Board of Appeals for review and comment if they do not further reduce the minimum linear measurement of the existing non-conforming dimensions (i.e. the existing setback).
Mary Power noted that this change would not necessarily prohibit or limit alterations to non-conforming properties. However, consistent with provisions of the Special Permit A1 process, it would require posted public hearings, giving abutters, members of the community, and the ZBA and opportunity to review and comment on proposed modifications in the early stages of a project.
Mr. Baltera reported that he looked at Zoning By-laws for approximately 25 other Towns. Of these, 17 or 18 required a Special Permit for "Hatfield" type of situations. Six appeared to allow these situations by-right, with the Building Commissioners making the determination in accordance with the standard set forth in Section 6 that the change is not "substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood."
Jerry Seelen, Advisory Committee Liaison to the Planning Board, expressed concern that this would result in a large amount of additional work for the ZBA, as well as for residential homeowners. He estimated that there would an additional 40-60 permits sought from the ZBA, effectively doubling their current average caseload of 45-60.
Steve McLaughlin, ZBA Chairman, stated that he did not feel that the additional workload would place an undue burden on the ZBA. He stated further that by getting the applicant in the same room with the abutters it would ideally promote a productive dialogue that would result in the resolution of potential disputes.
Paul Healey asked Mary Powers how the Hatfield amendment was most commonly used, and she said that extensions along the sidelines were the most common application. He expressed concern that requiring the special permit process would add time and cost to an already cumbersome permitting process.
Lou Alvarado expressed concern that by making this a Special Permit process rather than requiring a variance it would put the ZBA in the role of Solomon, settling arguments between neighbors.
Sarah Corey asked whether the committee has considered simply changing the By-Law to prohibit the extension of non-conforming structures. Mary responded that they had, but that they saw the benefit in leaving some flexibility for homeowners to modify their non-conforming structures.
Judy Sneath stated that she saw some value in having the applicant have to justify and explain their proposed modification, in that it might make them design it more carefully so as not to impose on abutters.
Lou and Paul both stated that they would feel more comfortable if the Special Permit process was only required after a certain threshold of change was reached. Susan Murphy and Victor Baltera explained that state law allowed only one standard to be applied when reviewing these cases, and that was that the change was not "substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood."
Old/New Business
Minutes/Bills
It was moved, seconded, and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present to approve the minutes of February 5, 2007
303-317 Main Street Form A
This property is located on Main Street immediately across the Street from the Hingham Common in Hingham Centre. The property includes two large structures (a multi-family dwelling, and a single family house). Ms. Lacy noted that one of the two new lots would not have sufficient frontage, but that this division was permitted due to the exception provided by Section 81L to allow the division of properties with two "substantial structures" which pre-date zoning. Ms. Murphy instructed Ms. Lacy to notify the Building Commissioner that on of the resulting lots would be non-conforming, and would require a frontage variance if any building permits were sought for modifications or reconstruction of the building.
It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present to endorse the form A entitled, "Plan of Land Hingham, Mass.", dated January 30, 2007, prepared by Keefe Associates, Pembroke, MA for Hersey Real Estate Trust, 105 R North Street, Hingham, MA, applicant and owner,.
Christina Estates Re-Vote on Board Reduction
Susan has asked that the Board reconsider the vote on the bond reduction for Christina Estates. At our last meeting the Board voted to reduce the bonds contingent upon the final review and recording of a revised easement document. Susan now believes that the necessary easements may already be in place and putting on a new "confirmatory" declaration at this point may create more ambiguity than it resolves. The combination of the recorded subdivision plans, the existing homeowners' association declaration and the deeds to the lot owners may be completely sufficient.
It was moved, seconded, and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present to approve the requested reductions as follows:
Hilltop Road - $88,874 held currently, reduced to $36,421; and Baker Hill (Sta 20 + 15 to 29 + 75) - $227,000 tripartite reduced to $117,979.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Katharine Lacy
Town Planner