April 4, 2006
Regular Session 7:40 PM
Mr. MacIver, Mr. Edmundson, Ms. Tully
Mr. Reeves indicated he had information on Lincoln Sailing Center retained earnings, etc.
Mr. MacIver asked that Mr. Reeves wait for a minute. Mr. MacIver then recused himself from the meeting and left the room.
Mr. Reeves said he had tax returns that Lincoln Sailing had filed and the club should be charged rent based upon those returns. Mr. Edmundson questioned Mr. Reeves' contention that the rent should be based upon how much money a person or business has. Mr. Reeves again proposed that the rent be based on the ability to pay. Mr. Edmundson asked how would this increase of rents be accomplished within a legal framework.
Mr. Reeves insisted that the Town should realize more money from the sheet of water than the $75,000 currently realized. Again, Mr. Edmundson asked about the legality of such an approach.
Mr. MacIver rejoined the meeting.
Amendment to the Hersey House Purchase and Sale Agreement
Mr. Isadore noted that there have been developments since the signing of the Hersey House Purchase and Sale Agreement. The McDowells had filed litigation so it made no sense for the Hastings Companies to go forward on permitting until the litigation had been settled. The P & S called for a $5,000 payment just prior to the 2nd anniversary of the signing of the Purchase and Sale in order to keep the agreement in effect. Mr. Isadore said if this litigation does settle Mr. Hastings will make the payment. The amendment also deals with the LIP program issue. Under the original P&S there was to be a LIP program for the "over 55" housing. Because of the size of the parcel, an owner of land who discriminates on the basis of age (which this would because it is a 55 and over project) could not go through the LIP process. One alternative would be to go through the Mass Housing program. There would be no problem with the over 55 requirement of the proposed project. The amendment would do away with the five-acre limitation and the Board of Selectmen would still have the approvals up front.
The payment schedule will start if everything related to the project passes at town meeting and the stipulation is filed. Although this proposed project has been changed to a 40B instead of a LIP because of the restriction to 5 acres it will act like a LIP.
Voted - to sign the first amendment to the Hersey House Purchase and Sale Agreement between the Town of Hingham and Thomas J. Hastings Properties Inc.
Building Department Update
Mr. MacIver explained that the Selectmen get regular reports from the Building Department. The Board wanted to know how things were doing as far as the time necessary to process a building permit. New structures tend to be the one category that runs over the 30-day goal. Ms. Young explained that in talking about the process it became evident that it was necessary for each department to take some responsibility for moving the process along. The new pre-permitting form would indicate which approvals are necessary for a permit to be issued. It is suggested that the process start at the Treasurer's Office and then visit each department whose approval is necessary to the proposed project. Ms. Tully noted that the 8:30 am - 10:30 am time frame could be difficult for the homeowner and suggested the Tuesday evening hours should be available for homeowners wanting to visit the permitting boards and departments.. The Board suggested the new form be put into use immediately.
Voted - to sign the warrant for the 2006 Annual Town Meeting.
Selectmen/Town Administrator's reports
Mr. Edmundson said he pad been talking to members of the public, members of the Planning Board and members of the Advisory Committee about the Planning Board article. There seems to be a lack in the communication between the two boards. Mr. Edmundson noted that there is no perfect answer. In theory he likes the idea where a Planning Board spends its time on planning. The present by-law gives the Zoning Board of Appeals significant discretion in the granting of a Special Permit. The Planning Board doesn't think the Zoning Board of Appeals uses that discretion enough. Mr. Edmundson would like to see the Planning Board put more teeth in the by-law to address development concerns. He said he was concerned that a Planning Board that makes policy and then administers it would be like the legislative and judicial arms tied up together. He also commented that he did not necessarily like the original proposal that would trade the authority from the Zoning Board of Appeals to the Planning Board but he would be open to some compromise.
Ms. Tully said that she had also been talking to people and felt that there were about five different threads that could not be pulled into a cohesive whole. This proposed by-law change does not address the need to control development. The general public interprets this as a containment of growth and development and it doesn't do that. The greatest tool is the Zoning By-law and the opportunity to do something about growth lies with the Planning Board and the by-laws they put forth. Communication is the key problem. The Planning Board was upset that the Zoning Board of Appeals did not come back to them when they changed conditions yet the Planning Board did not talk to the Zoning Board of Appeals before this article was submitted. I am concerned that the original article vested too much of the authority in one place. The compromise referred to binding - which might mean the only appeal would be to the state. This is a dramatic change that warrants a long look before it is made. This is a zoning change and it is not easy to do or undo it.
Mr. Edmundson said he is very sympathetic to the idea of joint site plan review and hearings - most importantly because members of the public can attend more easily. Ideas either beg a significant change in the motion or a study committee that would address the issues over the next year.
Mr. MacIver agreed with the perceptions both of Ms. Tully and Mr. Edmundson had expressed. The fact remains that the hearings were oriented to a board that was presenting the change. He noted that the board can reach some conclusions by deconstructing what came out of the discussions. What effect would this have on the way development occurs in town? He said he would be in favor of broadening the discussion and see what can be done as a town to address the concerns about development. Mr. MacIver noted that there are dozens of tools that we could use in the smart growth process. A conclusion from that work could lead to a study of other towns. There are 15 towns that are pure Planning Board and 7 or 8 are pure Zoning Board of Appeals and all the rest of the 80 towns have mixed divisions of responsibilities. He suggested making the process as user friendly as possible and as customer service friendly as possible. Mr. MacIver said elected boards do best making policy.
Mr. MacIver will report these positions to the Advisory Committee. He will also cycle back with the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals. This topic will be on the agenda for discussion and vote next week. Ms. Tully expressed her real concerns about this being a premature solution that does not really address the overall issues..
Ms. Tully has been working with Rappaport Institute on a three series program on the South Shore. The first program would be on fiscal woes with Michael Widmer; the second on growth & development by Marc Draisnen; and the third would deal with intermunicipal coordination or labor relations and personnel issues. These workshops would be offered this fall for Selectmen, Advisory Committee Chairs, etc. Ms. Tully attended the Glastonbury chapel rededication this past weekend as well as the New North Church 200th anniversary.
Mr. MacIver reported that he sat in on a conference call with the chief financial officer of the Massachusetts School Building Authority that was quite instructive. The reimbursement number we should be looking at is probably about 40%, not because the Town qualifies for certain categories but that may be the minimum. There is a modest risk that we will be putting earnest money into jeopardy by hiring a project manager at the end of the summer in advance of the promulgation of full regulations. Mr. Killory asked to be on the agenda next week to have a statement of interest signed. Mr. MacIver also attended the Weir River Watershed Fundraisier in Hull last weekend. He had breakfast with Russ Heisner and John Tzimorangas to follow up on energy policy recommendations. He said the time has come to look at this a little more closely and to consider formation of an energy policy for the Town. Mr. MacIver also went to Carver to discuss the Community Preservation Act. That town has had an initiative on the ballot that has failed twice. Mr. Cristello reported that there will be a demolition and bulky waste collection on Saturday, the 29oth. There have been four such Saturdays to date. The Department of Public Works will issue a maximum of 50 permits. Mr. Cristello also advised the Board that Keyspan will be replacing a gas main on Main Street between Elm and South beginning next week..
Meeting adjourned 9:00 pm.
Betty Foley, Clerk