Minutes Monday, February 2, 2009
Regular Meeting
Planning Board Agenda for Monday, February 2, 2009
Scheduled:
7:00 PM Continuation of Public Hearings on Proposed Zoning Amendments
Article B Modify Section III-A 1.8.7 to permit accessory uses in attached garages
Article D Amend Section III-A to allow private gyms in Industrial Districts with A2
Article I Rezone Former Police Station from Business B to Residence A
Article E Prohibit Certain Ground-Floor Uses in the Downtown Overlay District
Article N Modify Off-Street Parking Requirements in Downtown Overlay District
Unscheduled: Old/New Business
_________________________
Present: Planning Board Members, Chair, Sarah Corey, Judy Sneath, Clerk, Paul Healey, Susan
Murphy, and Gary Tondorf-Dick. Also present was Planner Katharine Lacy.
RE: Continuation of Public Hearings on Proposed Zoning Amendments
Article B Modify Section III-H and III-I to permit accessory uses in attached garages
This was the third public hearing on this article, which is intended to further clarify the right of property owners to utilize existing space located within a residential building (including within attached garages) for all permitted primary and accessory uses. This would apply to all conforming and grandfathered non-conforming properties. The article had originally been written so as to result in modifications to Section III-A 1.8.7, which addressed accessory uses, but on further examination the Board determined that the real issue that they wanted to address was to protect the usability of all residential space, whether for primary or accessory uses.
Board members reviewed the latest version of the article, which included several changes suggested by Jerry Seelen. Board members asked for clarification on how to define “attached structure”—does this include buildings attached by a breezeway, for example?
Ms. Lacy said that she would circulate another draft. The hearing was continued to February 9 at 7:00, though the exact hearing time was not specified.
Article D Amend Section III-A to allow private gyms in Industrial Districts with A2
This was the second discussion of this proposed zoning article. Currently, athletic clubs and private gyms are prohibited in the Industrial, Limited Industrial and Industrial Park zoning districts. To date, however, the Zoning Board of Appeals has granted at least three use variances permitting a gym use in an industrial district. Rather than prohibit such uses outright, therefore, this article would allow indoor recreational facilities with a Special Permit A2 from the Zoning Board of Appeals with Site Plan Review by the Planning Board.
After looking at the use described in Section III-A 4.12, in which health clubs were included as a category when permitted as the past, Board members raised questions about whether other uses described in this section (such as commercial indoor amusement-arcade?) would be appropriate in the industrial use districts. Instead, Board members determined to insert an entirely new definition specifically for “health club”.
It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED, to recommend that Town Meeting vote positively on the following amendment to the Zoning By-law:
Will the Town amend the Zoning By-Law of the Town of Hingham, adopted March 10, 1941, as heretofore amended, as follows:
Item 1 At Section III-A, Schedule of Uses, insert, after Subsection 4.12, a new use “4.12A Health Club” permitted with a Special Permit A2 in Residence D; Industrial, Industrial Park, Limited Industrial Park and Office Park districts; permitted by right in Business A and Business B, and prohibited in all other districts.
Item 2 At Section VI, Definitions, insert, after the definition for Height, Building, the following new defined term:
“Health Club An establishment that provides members and non-members with equipment, space, and/or facilities for the purpose of physical exercise as a primary or accessory use.”
Article I Rezone Former Police Station from Business B to Residence A
This article, submitted by petition, would rezone the parcel of land on Lincoln Street formerly occupied by the Hingham Police Station from Business B to Residence A. Betty Foley, on behalf of the Selectmen, explained that the proposed re-zoning was one of the terms of a legal settlement between the Town and abutters to the property who had opposed the disposition of the property for commercial purposes.
Attorney George Ford, on behalf of the abutters and himself an abutter, described the chronology of events leading up to the settlement. He urged the Board to recommend approval of the article, saying that it was a commitment made in good faith with the neighbors. Dr. Shahinian, who was awarded the lease for the property through an RFP process, and currently holds a 99-year lease to use the building for medical/dental offices, expressed concern that she did not fully understand the ramifications of the re-zoning, and wanted to ensure that her investment was protected. Board members assured Dr. Shahinian that the current use was fully grandfathered.
It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED, to recommend that Town Meeting vote positively on the proposed re-zoning of the subject parcel from Business B to Residence A.
Article E Prohibit Certain Ground-Floor Uses in the Overlay District
Article N Modify Off-Street Parking Requirements in Overlay District
For this hearing the Planning Board was joined by the members of the Hingham Development and Industrial Commission, who had originally suggested the article. Jerry Seelen and Richard Innis of the Advisory Committee were also present. There were also many people in the audience.
These two articles were discussed as a group. Susan Murphy provided an overview of the articles. Article E would require that certain uses (business and professional offices) would require a Special Permit be located on the ground level in the Overlay District. The intent of the article was to ensure a healthy business mix, and deflect what appears to be a trend of retail space being converted office space. A recent example of this was the transition of 44 North Street from mixed ground floor retail/upstairs office to all office when it was purchased by Raveis Realtors. This article would not prohibit office uses on ground floor uses, but allow the Board to place conditions on the outward appearance of such uses, and provide them with the ability to maintain a healthy business mix throughout the District.
Article N would introduce various modifications to the off-street parking requirements in the Overlay District including 1) clarification and modifications to the process for getting parking waivers and 2) the introduction of incentives in the form of parking relief for the placement of certain types of businesses on ground floors. It also included a removal on the blanket prohibition on parking waivers for commercial/residential buildings, which would greatly enhance the possibility of adding new residential units to the upper stories downtown. Article N also included various administrative modifications, including some reorganization of Section III-G, and the transfer of the Special Permit granting authority for parking relief for commercial/residential buildings from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The primary intent of this article was to utilize the information gathered during the Downtown parking study, which provided information on actual parking demand and capacity, and provided a mechanism with which to determine the likely parking impacts of a new or modified use on the parking demand within a reasonable distance. Additionally, the article intends to compliment Article E providing an incentive for the provision of service and retail uses on the ground level, and a disincentive for the transformation of existing retail and service uses to office space. Existing office space on the ground floor would be grandfathered, and thus protected.
Opponents to the articles expressed concern that by adding additional regulations it would make it more difficult to lease space, and thus result in more vacancies downtown. They stated that it was silly to try to control the “market” by designing an ideal business mix. Commercial realtors Joe O’Neil and Al Chambers stated that they felt that the real problem was that the Square needed more parking, perhaps in the form of a parking garage. Jeff Tocchio, representing the Hingham Business Council and also acting as attorney for Gail Bell, spoke in opposition to the articles, saying that they were\e trying to make the Square more like a mall.
HDIC members expressed the concern that the recent trend towards increases in office space at the expense of retail space would, in effect, “kill the goose that laid the golden egg.” Ms. Sneath pointed out that many realtors want to move to the Square because of the high levels of foot
traffic, but by moving there, they reduce the amount of foot traffic by eliminating higher volume retail businesses. Sue Sullivan and Judy Sneath pointed out that the Town had invested more than 2.5 million dollars fixing up the Square, and had a right to control the Town-owned off-street parking as a way to encourage a business mix that would benefit the whole Town, and not just a single property owner seeking to fill a vacancy. Property owner Brian Curtis noted that he felt that the article had some potential as a way to shape the development of the Square in a positive manner but was also concerned about potential restrictions and permitting roadblocks which might make it more difficult to lease space in the Square.
The hearing on these two articles were continued to the following Monday, February 9, 2009.
RE: Old/New Business
Minutes
It was moved, seconded, and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present to accept the minutes of January 26, 2009.
The meeting adjourned at 10:50 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Katy Lacy
Town Planner