Minutes Monday, July 14, 2008
Regular Meeting
Planning Board Agenda for Monday, July 14, 2008
Scheduled:
7:00 PM Meeting with Harbor Development Committee
8:00 PM Old/New Business
_______________
Present: Planning Board Members, Sarah Corey, Chair, Judy Sneath, Clerk, Paul Healey, and
Gary Tondorf-Dick. Also present was Planner Katharine Lacy.
RE: Meeting with Harbor Development Committee
This was a joint meeting with representatives from the Harbor Development Committee, the Harbor Parking Study Group, the HDIC, the Bathing Beach, and the Selectmen, to discuss the need to create some sort of municipal harbor plan for the inner harbor area, and to define the process for creating such a plan. The group was also joined by Jason Burtner of Coastal Zone Management (CZM). The meeting was set up by the Planning Board in response to the fact that they had identified some sort of harbor plan as one of their top priorities for FY 2009.
Katy Lacy provided an overview of the study area, the players involved, and planning efforts related to the harbor which have been completed to date.
The area includes the nine parcels of land along Hingham’s inner harbor, including the Bathing Beach, Town Pier and Iron Horse Park, 3 Otis Street, Whitney Wharf, the Mobile Station, 26 Summer Street, the Gallery 360 property, Barnes Wharf and Steamboat Wharf. All of the Town-owned land is zoned Official and Open Space; the other parcels are all zoned Waterfront Business.
The Town Pier area, Iron Horse Park, and Bathing Beach Parcels were all acquired by the Town in 1926/1927 for the purposes of creating a public park. This land is subject to Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution, which was created to “prevent government from ill considered misuse or other disposition of public lands..”, and requires a 2/3 roll-call vote of the General Court for such proposed changes in use.
The use of State Funds to improve the Bathing Beach and construct the boat ramp at the Town Pier required the Town to commit to “unrestricted” public access for waterfront users. Jack Sheppard from the Public Access Board of DEP’s Waterways Division is meeting with the Harbor Parking Group to explain what this restriction means, but at this point it remains unclear.
In terms of players, Ms. Lacy identified the following interested parties:
1. Harbor Development Committee was established by Article 30 of the 1971 Town Meeting to replace the Harbor Committee. This change followed the creation of the Waterfront Business District by Article 42 of the 1970 Town Meeting. Its stated role was “coordinate the Planning and Development of the Tide Water areas within the Town Boundaries.”
2. The Trustees of the Bathing Beach were created by an act of the Massachusetts State Legislature in 1934 to “hold title to, and manage and improve as a park, bathing, beach or playground such land (comprising the Bathing Beach parcel). Trustees are elected for life.”
3. Municipal Planning Boards play a special role in the Chapter 91 process, in that they are called out by the statute to receive notice of, and comment on, all Chapter 91 applications. Additionally, pursuant to the statute defining Harbor Plans, the “Harbor Planning Group” must include a representative of the local Planning Board. Planning Boards are also charged with the development of Master Plans, or area plans within a municipality. A final role that the Planning Board plays is in the process of identifying potential zoning changes for the Waterfront Business District.
4. The HDIC was established to promote economic development opportunities in all areas of Town, including the Waterfront areas.
5. The Harbor Parking Study Committee was created, in part, in response to issues that have come up about the permanent or long term use of the Town parking areas on the Harbor to provide dedicated parking for selected businesses.
6. The Selectmen play a critical role in the process in that they own several of the parcels, and appoint the HDC, HDIC and Harbor Parking Study Group.
7. The State, through DEP, controls the Chapter 91 permitting process which is intended to provide fair public access to all waterfront properties.
In terms of previous harbor planning efforts, Ms. Lacy described the following:
1. A “Preliminary Master Plan for Hingham Harbor” was prepared in 1988 under the direction of the Harbor Development Committee with contributions from three graduate students from the Harvard Kennedy School. This report emphasizes the importance of keeping the area open for Town-owned passive and active recreational uses, and throws out suggestions for a promenade, historical markers, marine research center, Harbor Museum, and marine Town recreation facility. It also calls for the creation of a Planning Committee including representation from a wide variety of Town Boards and committees to move the Planning process forward.
2. In 2006 the Harbor Development Committee completed what was referred to as an “ongoing” study of the entirety of Hingham Harbor, broken down by sub-areas in including a historical overview of the harbor, a statement of goals and objectives for the HDC, and fairly detailed action plan for each area. This plan includes a vision of broad-based use of the Harbor by a wide variety of users, and acknowledges the somewhat symbiotic relationship between the Downtown area and the Harbor. It also includes a plea for more authority for the HDC, and an assertion that the Article creating the committee in 1970 requires their inclusion in all harbor planning activities.
3. In 2007 the Harbor Development Committee, along with two representatives of the Community Preservation Committee, oversaw the efforts of consultant Mark Mazarelli in the preparation of the “Master Plan for Hingham Harbor.” In terms of land use options, this plan basically accepts the status quo. Instead the focus is on how to improve the appearance, safety and utility of existing uses. The plan divides the Harbor into distinct zones, and identifies very specific treatment recommendations (plantings, site furniture, walkways) and cost estimates for implementation.
Jason Burtner provided a brief overview of the difference between a state-approved harbor plan, and a locally-driven municipal harbor plan. Basically the purpose of a state-approved harbor plan is to allow for deviations from the requirements of Chapter 91 for specific harbor areas. A state-approved plan requires that the municipality work closely with DEP to develop the plan, and it has to be renewed with the state every five years. A locally-driven municipal harbor plan is simply a community driven plan intended to map out goals and objectives for a local harbor. Mr. Burtner emphasized that, no matter what type of plan was completed, it was very important to the importance of including very specific implementation strategies. He also pointed out completing the state-approved plan does not increase a Town’s chance of getting any state funds for harbor development. Planning Board members asked several questions about the two types of harbor plans.
Chris Daly of the Harbor Development Committee indicated that he had done research on this matter, and felt strongly that the state-approved plan would require a process that was too onerous and time consuming for the Town. Mr. Amdur, Chairman of the HDC, noted that he looked forward to working other boards and committees to develop common goals for the Harbor. He felt it would be helpful for each group to identify their top goals and priorities, and then reconvene to figure out how to accomplish these. He also noted that, as outlined earlier in the meeting, the HDC had already done a significant amount of planning for the area, though he conceded that there may not have been sufficient public input on the 2007 plan.
John Riley and Sturt English provided an overview of the activities of the Harbor Parking Study Group. John noted that the group was created in response to inquiries about the feasibility of leasing or otherwise allocating portions of the Town-owned parking lots in the harbor for nearby private businesses. Although there appears to the naked eye to be ample parking, the Town needed to identify any restrictions or proposed future uses that could be precluded through such an arrangement. Mr. Riley noted, in particular, that the since the Harbor area did not generate much revenue because so much of it was owned by the Town, the Selectmen did not want to cut off future opportunities to develop revenue generating facilities such as a Town-owned marina or a restaurant.
Sturt English noted that the study group was currently engaged in assessing exactly how much parking was available in the Harbor, and clarifying existing restrictions on the Town-owned lots. He noted that when he started this process his sense had been that there was sufficient parking to accommodate overflow from adjacent uses, but that, in light of potential parking restrictions he had changed his mind.
In terms of next steps, Sarah Corey reiterated Mr. Amdur’s point that it would be a good idea for each group to identify their top concerns. She also discussed the possibility of including the Harbor as one of the focus areas should there be another Town forum this fall. In general the group agreed that it would be smart to use the 2007 CPC plan as a starting point to gather public input, rather than reinventing the wheel.
Mid-way through this hearing Judy Sneath left the meeting.
Old/New Business
Minutes
The Board VOTED to approve the minutes of June 30, 2008.
40 North Street –Request for Waiver from Site Plan Review
Raveis Realty is moving from their current location at 14 Main Street (former School Department Building) to 40 North Street. The plans indicate that work is limited to interior fit-up (moving interior walls, adding bathrooms) within the 4,700 s.f. space, and does not include changes to the exterior. This project has been reviewed by the Historic Districts Commission and received a Certificate of Appropriateness. Ms. Lacy explained that Section I-I (5) of the Zoning By-Law allows the Planning Board to waive the requirement for Site Plan Review in association with the issuance of a building permit if the work is limited to interior renovations, and does not require a Special Permit A2 or A3. The office manager for Raveis indicated that they have approximately 35 brokers, but that there are never more than 10 people in the office at once, with the exception of a weekly staff meeting when all of the brokers show up.
Board members expressed concern about the potential impacts of this business on the adjacent Station Street Parking area. Ben Wilcox, HDIC and Historic Districts Commission member, pointed out that many of the downtown employees who have been instructed to park at Station Street have taken to parking closest to the Station Street businesses, when it would be preferable for them to park towards the back of the lot. Gary Tondorf-Dick asked whether it would be possible to require that the Raveis agents park in the Station Street lot. Ms. Lacy said that she would follow up with Dick Morgan, Building Commissioner, as well as Judy Sneath director of the Hingham Downtown to figure out how best to accomplish this. Board members acknowledged that the current location of the building was nearby, and that the change would represent a net increase of cars within the Square area.
The three Board members present voted to waive the requirement for Site Plan Review in Association with the issuance of a building permit for 40 North Street.
56 South Street –Request for Waiver from Site Plan Review
Coldwell Banker is requesting a waiver from the requirement for Site Plan Review in association with the issuance of the Building Permit for the interior fit-up of the former Little Dreams clothing store at 54 South Street to accommodate office space. Ms. Lacy explained that Coldwell Banker is not actually expanding; this 1000 s.f. of office space will replace office space that they currently occupy on the second floor at 56 Main Street. Apparently the building owner is working on leasing the second floor space to a new dentist.
Sarah Corey expressed concern that so much of the ground-level streetscape would be taken up with realtors and professional offices. She asked Ms. Lacy to look into zoning that would limit ground floor use in the Central Business District to retail and service uses only.
The three board members present voted to waive the requirement for Site Plan Review in Association with the issuance of a building permit for 54/56 North Street.
Hingham Shipyard-Samuels and Associates Historical Monumentation
Leslie Cohen of Samuels Associates came back before the Board yet again to discuss the historical monumentation plan for the Shipyard. Her visit was a follow-up to the Board’s discussion on June 30, 2008 regarding Ms. Cohen’s request that the Board “sign-off” on the
following condition in the Special Permit requiring Planning Board approval of the monumentation plan.
“The Shipyard Owners shall finalize and submit for approval an Historical Monumentation Plan consistent with the proposed Historical Monumentation Plan dated 5/9/07 submitted with the Samuels Project Plans, provided, however, that (a) the proposed number of historic panels shown on such plans has been approved and (b) such final plan shall also include the preservation and public display of the Shipyard “eagle”, “gatehouse” and “E” flag (or replica thereof) and flagpole. Implementation of the plan by the Land Owners shall occur prior to the issuance of permanent certificates of occupancy for more than one-half of the residential units and 75% of the commercial square footage in the Shipyard Project as follows: (a) the six waterfront walkway displays shall be implemented, and maintained in perpetuity, by the Property Owners Association and (b) the remaining historical monumentation shall be implemented and maintained by the individual Land Owner within each Land Owner’s site.”
After a lengthy discussion, the Board and Ms. Cohen agreed that, upon the following course of action, Samuels would have complied with the above condition.
- Ms. Cohen will provide a final draft of text and final draft of images for final review and comment by the Board. She will also provide a final copy of the panels with flowed in text for your information, and for minor proof-reading-type corrections.
- The Shipyard Eagle, which is currently in the possession of DCR, can remain in the DCR facility.
- Samuels will construct a replica gatehouse in substantial accordance with the memo prepared by Gary Tondorf-Dick and sent to Samuels with the Planning Board’s letter dated July 1, 2008. Samuels will include a 50’ flagpole adjacent to the Gate House with yard arms for the E-Flag.
- Samuels will also install the two 30’ flag poles as planned at the roundabout.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Katy Lacy
Town Planner