Minutes Monday, February 9, 2009
Regular Meeting
Planning Board Agenda for Monday, February 9, 2009
Scheduled:
7:00 PM Bristol Brothers Construction-Request to Modify Weathervane FRD To Remove Age Restriction
7:30 PM Continuation of Public Hearings on Proposed Amendments to the Zoning By-Law
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: Bristol Brothers Construction-Request to Modify Weathervane FRD To Remove Age Restriction
Jim Bristol and Carl Erickson came before the Board to discuss the possibility of lifting the age restriction on the Weathervane project on Beal Street. Mr. Bristol responded that they would still be marketing the project for 55+ residents, but that the market for such developments was slow, and prospective buyers were concerned about the ability to resell their units in the future. Ms. Lacy reported that she reviewed the Special Permit and the Subdivision approval, and while the project is described as age restricted, there are no specific conditions requiring an age restriction, and it does not appear that the actual Site Plan will be changing. Further, since no-one yet lives at this development, this modification would not affect agreements entered into by residents at Weathervane.
Ms. Sneath asked whether the proposed change would have any effect on the physical layout of the site. She also expressed concern about the possibility of additional school children moving to the development. Mr. Bristol responded that the building footprints would not get any larger, but that additional rooms allocated for lofts or studies could conceivably be used for bedrooms. Ms. Lacy noted that she had notified the Sewer Department of the request in light of potential modifications to sewer service and fees stemming from the removal of the age restriction and associated change in the rates of flow.
Board members discussed whether this change would require a major or minor modification to the Special Permit and Subdivision approval.
Gary Tondorf-Dick expressed concern that this change might come as a surprise to abutters, and wondered whether it would be a good idea to notify them. Ms. Lacy noted that, according to state and federal housing laws, restrictions based on age were generally viewed as discrimination. The Housing for Older Persons Act (HOPA) of 1995 provides for exemptions from fair housing laws allowing for age restrictions in certain cases, but only if certain specific conditions have been met. At this point the Bristol Company has done nothing to secure such an exemption. Additionally, while in some towns areas are specifically zoned for age restricted housing, the FRD was not specifically intended for age restricted housing.
It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present to approve an administrative modification to the approvals for Weathervane at Chestnut Gardens to strike all references to the project as age restricted.
RE: Continuation of Public Hearings on Proposed Amendments to the Zoning By-Law
Article B To permit residential uses in attached garages
Will the Town amend the By-law of the Town of Hingham, adopted March 10, 1941, as heretofore amended, as follows:
Item 1 At Section III-H, change the title from “Non-Conforming Uses” to “Non-Conforming Uses and Structures.”
Item 2 At Section VI (Definitions)
1. Amend the definition for Single Family Detached Dwelling by adding the following new sentence at the end:
“This definition shall include attached garages, or other fully enclosed, attached structures, whether heated or unheated, connected by means of structural members such a bearing walls, columns, beams, girders, or roof for all purposes in the By-law including the provisions set forth in Section III-H.
2. Amend the definition for Two Family House by adding the following new sentence at the end:
“This definition shall include attached garages, or other fully enclosed, attached structures, whether heated or unheated, connected by means of structural members such a bearing walls, columns, beams, girders, or roof for all purposes in the By-law including the provisions set forth in Section III-H.”
Or act on anything related thereto?
Article E Prohibit Certain Ground-Floor Uses in the Downtown Overlay District
Article N Modify Off-Street Parking Requirements in Overlay District
Tapes of this meeting are located in the Office of the Planning Board.
This was a continuation of the public hearing on these two articles, which was initiated on February 9, 2009. The board was joined by the HDIC for this discussion. As occurred at the initial hearing, these two articles were discussed at the same time due to their interrelated nature. Article E would amend section III-G of the Zoning By-Law by specifying that the use of ground floor space for office space would require a Special Permit with Site Plan Review, as is currently required for restaurants downtown. Article N would further modify the Downtown Overlay By-Law by modifying the parking requirements and/or process for gaining waivers from the off-street parking requirements in such a way that would provide incentives for retail and service uses to locate on the ground floor.
No further revisions to the versions provided on February 2 were presented. Instead Board members sought more input from the public on how to proceed. Board members posed three questions to the audience
1. Should the purpose of the Downtown Overlay District in the Zoning By-Law include preferences for the mix of business uses and the physical location of these?
2. Should there be a Special Permit A2 required for ground floor professional offices and banks, which are now allowed by right?
3. Should the parking requirements for the District be changed to reflect the Town’s preferences for the mix of uses downtown? Does the Town have an interest in seeing its parking being used for specific types of uses?
Several of the audience members were property owners, and expressed opposition to the idea of requiring a Special Permit for certain uses in that it would restrict their ability to lease their property.
Gail Bell, 28 Canterbury Street, who is considering moving into a ground floor space on North Street explained that the proposed change posed extreme challenges for her in that she did not know whether to proceed with the lease or not in light of the possibility that she might be deemed in violation of zoning should Town Meeting pass the article. She pointed out, also, that she felt that it was important for the Square to have office uses as well as retail because it was this mix that distinguished it from nearby shopping areas. Board members noted that they also appreciated the mix, and that this article was to ensure that this healthy mix be maintained. At this point there appears to be a trend towards the conversion of retail space to office space, particularly on upper North Street.
Ben Wilcox and Sue Sullivan of the HDIC explained the rationale behind the article, noting that their primary charge was to protect the economic viability of the Square in the face of competition from developments such as Derby Street Shoppes. Mark Cullings of the HDIC noted that retail uses tend to promote other retail uses, whereas the opposite occurs when areas become dominated by office uses.
Gary Tondorf Dick noted that he felt that the article should be modified to focus on promoting residential development in the Square. He also pointed out that different sections of the Square had different characters and might each require specific zoning requirements.
The hearing was continued to February 23, time to be determined.
Old/New Business
Modification to Special Permit A2 for Community Booth at Derby Street Shoppes
On November 5, 2008 the ZBA approved the temporary placement of a community booth in the alleyway between REI and Kohls until January 15, 2009. At this point the applicant would like to make the booth permanent, to be used for changing seasonal displays, and the ZBA has required that they apply for a modification to the Special Permit for the whole development, which requires Site Plan approval from the Planning Board. The ZBA issued the initial temporary approval as a kind of test, to see if any complaints or concerns associated with the booth would be identified—to date no such concerns have been noted.
It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED, unanimously, by all present to waive the requirement for Site Plan review based on the impermanent nature of the structure.
Discussion of requested approach for modification to Special Permit A2/A3 for 26 Summer Street
Board members reviewed a letter from Attorney Bruce Issadore including 1) a request for a joint hearing for modification to the ZBA’s decision on 26 Summer Street to allow the continued leasing of 46 slips on three docks until such time that the construction of the new building was initiated, and 2) a determination that this would be only a minor modification and thus not require a fully noticed public hearing. The second item is what the Planning Board needs to vote on at this meeting if possible.
The requested modification does not really contradict the Planning Board’s decision, which states that when all is said and done they can only have two docks and 32 slips, but does not address what can happen up until that time. The way that the ZBA decision is currently written, however, they can have three docks until the construction is initiated, but only with 32 slips on them; when construction commences they can have 32 slips on two docks per the 2004 decision.
Zoning Board Administrator Sue Eddy was present at the discussion, and indicated that the ZBA had expressed a preference to address this issue as a joint hearing, whether major or minor.
Board members determined that in their opinion, this would be a minor modification that could be resolved at a joint meeting with the ZBA at their earliest convenience.
Lincoln Plaza-Marshalls Expansion
Ms. Lacy informed the Board that Brian Curtis met with the land use board staff on Wednesday to discuss upcoming modifications to the Lincoln Plaza. In summary, the Vacuum House and music store will be moving in where Nobles was located, Blockbuster and the Shoe Market will get a bit smaller, Robert Lyons hair salon will move in where the Vacuum House was, Marshalls will get a bit bigger, and the overall amount of back-hall storage will increase. Additionally, they are planning on sprucing up the front of the building in preparation for competition from new Shipyard tenants. All of the work will be limited to the interior and front façade, and will thus not require Site Plan Review. The new configuration result in a reduction in parking demand of two spaces.
Minutes
It was moved, seconded, and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present to accept the minutes of February 2, 2009.
The meeting adjourned at 10:50 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Katy Lacy
Town Planner