MINUTES 

NOVEMBER 20, 2007 
 
Members Present:  Mr. Walter, Mr. Limbacher, Mr. Fenton, Mrs. Brennan

Others Present:  Ms. Harbottle, Town Planner; Ms. K. Sunnarborg, Housing Consultant; Mr. Larry Koff and Larry Bluestone, Zoning Consultants.
 
See sign-in list for names of others present at this meeting
 

INTERVIEW CONSULTANT TO COMPLETE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN (KAREN SUNNARBORG)
 
Ms. Sunnarborg said, “The idea was to take off where we left off with the process for the  Housing Needs Assessment  (Laura – is that the proper name of what she did before???) The idea was to have a public forum and to present the highlights of the housing needs assessment study.  I could facilitate that and do a power point presentation and obtain input on what the concerns are.  Specifically we should look at the strategy, the resources, and arrange the input with priorities. [Ms. Sunnarborg described how the public forum could be conducted.]   The first initial meeting could discuss what you would like to see come out of the public forum.  Then I draft a plan based on your input and what is in the housing needs assessment, input from the public forum and then I give it to you for another layer of review.  Then at another public forum we would present the draft plan and then later present the plan to the Board of Selectmen who would present the plan to Town Meeting.”
 
Ms. Sunnarborg described some changes that are proposed at the state level with Ch. 40B.  At this point it is unclear if any of these changes will be adopted, the general sense is that some of the proposed changes will go through.
 
Ms. Sunnarborg said, “Based on the proposal I would suggest that the initial meeting and the public forum be held during the first month which might be kind of complicated given the holidays.  You will have to decide when you want to go forward.  The whole plan could be done within three months.  The State has ninety days to review it.    There must be public input.”
 
Mr. Fenton said, “As I recall we talked about having a working group.  Remind me of the complexion of that working group.”  Ms. Sunnarborg replied, “I had suggested that you put together some kind of  ad hoc committee representing various boards.  It would still be managed by the Planning Board and perhaps have a representative from the ZBA, Housing Authority, Council on Aging, or any other group you think might be helpful.  One of the things that we do in the second phase (the property management phase) is to identify the town owned parcels that might be used for affordable housing.  The committee is a good idea as long as it does not upset the time frame.  You don’t want to take three months putting together the committee.  Perhaps you could do it before the holidays.”   [Ms. Sunnarborg described some projects she was working on with other towns and with  CHAPA.  She described some of the strategies she used on these projects.] 
Mr. Walter asked if some strategies worked better than others.  Ms. Sunnarborg said, “Yes – working with developers to increase affordability for a for-profit or for a non-profit development.”  Ms. Sunnarborg described some programs being conducted in other towns e.g. first time homebuyer programs.
 
Mr. Fenton said that it appears that the tool kit is growing for obtaining affordable housing.  Ms. Sunnarborg agreed.
 
Mr. Limbacher asked, “The public forum – how do I get the right people there?”  Ms. Sunnarborg replied, “Try to get feature articles in the newspapers – not just a notice; put information on the web site.  The forum should be held at a convenient time e.g. at 7:00 P.M. and not on holidays because people are busy.  You should encourage other boards and committees  to be involved and tell them that you really want their input.”
 
In response to points raised by Mrs. Brennan, Ms Sunnarborg said, “In order for developers to do affordable housing they need to get something back.  You will have to work with developers and you will need to make some accommodation on what makes sense.  The cost of the land effects what a developer will do because the cost of  land is so expensive.  There will likely have to be a compromise.”
 
Ms. Harbottle and Ms. Sunnarborg discussed how the public forum should be conducted.  Ms. Sunnarborg again said she would do a power point presentation.  She stressed the importance of hearing the concerns of the residents and getting their input on what they think the town should be doing about affordable housing.  She said that perhaps the forum could be divided into break-out groups but that would depend on the number of people present and the time involved.  Ms. Sunnarborg said she would be willing to conduct  the public forum  on a Saturday. 
 
See Page 19 of  these Minutes regarding a Motion to hire Ms. Sunnarborg to complete the Affordable Housing Production Plan.
 
PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONING ARTICLES FOR THE MARCH 2008 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING  [HUMAROCK ZONING]
 
The Board’s consultants, Larry Koff and Larry Bluestone, were present.  There was a large group of approximately 50 people in attendance for this Public Hearing.  See sign-in list.
 
The Chair, Mr. Walter, read aloud the legal advertisement for this hearing and he referred to the meeting Agenda as well.  A handout entitled ‘Draft Zoning Changes for 11/20/07 Public Hearing’ including two maps dated October 29, 2007 were distributed to the audience.  The maps were as follows:  1) Humarock Village Residential Overlay District; and 2) Rezoning Oceanfront Business Lots in Humarock to Residential A-3.  See file for all this documentation.  ** The handout and maps are attached to these Minutes.
 
Mr. Walter said, “On the Agenda there are three items that we are going to be discussing this evening.  The three major points are: Humarock Village Overlay District; Humarock Village Residential Overlay District Map Change; and potential Rezoning of Oceanfront Business Lots in Humarock to Residential A-3. That is an overview of why we are here tonight.  We will go through various presentations and then open it up to public discussion.  It is a very important process that we are going through.  I am sure that there will be a lot of comments and suggestions made by the public.  [Mr. Walter explained how the meeting would be conducted.]  We understand that everyone may have different points of view – from the Board, from the audience, and between us and our Consultants.  In terms of where we are going to go from here I will turn it over to Laura Harbottle, Town Planner, to give an overview of the process that we have gone through to date.  Most of you probably know that this goes back quite a ways.  This discussion first started way back when we had our discussions about having Village Overlay Districts for Greenbush, North Scituate, and Scituate Harbor.  At the time we consciously left Humarock out of that discussion because Humarock is so unique and is different from those other three villages.    So this has been percolating ever since that time.  So Laura will give an overview of the process that we have gone through.  We also have our Consultants, Larry Koff and Larry Bluestone, here – a planner and an architect.  They can discuss the bylaw as it has been proposed to date and discuss some of the highlights of that.    They will not go through every word but will give you a better sense of what is behind the decisions that have been made to date.  I also want to give Keith Jansen a chance to speak.  He is representing an ad hoc group that has been meeting in Humarock and they have helped this process along to where it is.  I think that will help some of the discussions from that particular group.  From that point on we will open it up to public discussion.    Please try to be brief and concise.  I will turn it over to Laura.”
 
Ms. Harbottle said, “About  a year and a half ago a property owner ( add name ????)came into T.Hall to talk about redevelopment of his property in Humarock.  He met with the department heads and the Planning Board.  Then in August of 2006 another property owner came in before the Planning Board to discuss the possibility of mixed use on his property.  That was just informally.  The Planning Board over the past couple of years has developed mixed use zoning in the Villages.  When he came in to talk about mixed use the Board thought that mixed use could possibly be done in Humarock.  It was discussed for the last Town Meeting but there were concerns about it so it never went through.  Back in January of 2007 there was a big meeting at the Nautical Mile Restaurant with 50 or 60 people there and a group was selected out of that group.  The group was selected democratically.  There was a vote.  The idea was to try to put the zoning together and then bring it back to the group so it would have more of a Humarock point of view.  They met quite a few times and they decided they would like to have some help so they came back to the Planning Board and we ended up hiring Larry Koff and Larry Bluestone (the Larrys) to work on this.  Over the summer they got some more momentum and in the fall it really started to gel and I think the committee and I and the Larrys have been working full tilt over the past couple of months.  We developed a draft for you tonight.  Not everything worked out.  I had about six major points from the last meeting that we had.  I think that in general this is a really good start.  That is the bylaw that you have tonight.”

Mr. Larry Koff said, “I am a community planner and Larry Bluestone, designer, is here.  As you may recall we were in Humarock and we discussed on August 13th???? (16th????) the review of existing conditions and zoning.  We had a great opportunity to meet with a lot of you and to walk around and discuss – we toured the area and we had a meeting at the South Humarock Civic Association hall.  We discuss the concerns of the property owners and business owners.  As Laura said, subsequently we have been moving and developing in a collaborative process the draft zoning that you have before you.   I will review, with Larry, some of the highlights.  What I want to say at the beginning here is – the purpose is to help facilitate some change.  When we went on our walk it was clear that there were some properties that had concerns for a lot of the residents (larger parcels).    There was a desire to see if we could come up with some zoning that would perpetuate change and we are talking about the Business District and properties within that District.  To go through some of the highlights – I just want to point out that the Overlay District is to provide some bonus/incentive so that on these properties there will be the kind of change that the residents and the town are looking for.  These are not the village areas that we worked on two years earlier.  They are not locations that have transit.  These are not locations that have great vehicular access.  They are on a barrier beach and there are certain limitations as to what can happen.  This is a Business District that grew up over time.  In terms of the market potential it has not been there for a lot of businesses.  There really is an opportunity for change.    We created this Overlay to provide an incentive.  You will not have change unless you build in some incentive.  So we have provided some level of incentive and it really is going to be a balancing act on the Planning Board to make some judgments.  The kind of changes that would be rewarded and  I am on Page 2 of the bylaw Section 570.5. [Mr. Koff read aloud parts of Section 570.5 Bonus Density Requirements.  See proposed bylaw for details.]  So we created some improvements that we think would justify some density.  Would one of these improvements justify three additional units per acre – that will be up to the Planning Board to make that decision.  We don’t know what is going to be involved, what the cost is.   These are the kinds of projects that we feel  would be of benefit for an upgrade in Humarock.  How many of you were on that tour?  Please raise your hands. [A number of people raised their hands.]  So a lot of you may be new to this process but you have probably been hearing some of the discussions.”
 
Mr. Koff continued, “Back on Page 1 and I want you to note Section 570.1 Purpose.  This zoning change is not supposed to solve all of the problems of Humarock.  We are looking at the Business District.  Do you all know where the Business District?  It is identified on that map.  Are you all aware of where the Overlay District is?  Is it clear to everybody?    It is basically Dartmouth St. and Webster Street.”
 
Ms. Harbottle listed the streets included in the Overlay District.  See maps.  She said, “This is what is proposed right now, but there is still some discussion going on about where the District should be.”
 
Mr. Koff said, “You all have this map.  See the dashed area there.  That is the Overlay District.  It is basically the Davis Property and the Mad Fish property.  Is everybody clear now?  That is the Overlay District that we are talking about.  Again, the Purpose is identified in Section 570.1.  We are not trying to solve all of Humarock’s problems.  We are looking at the Business District.  We are doing it ‘to protect the village center of the small ocean-front community of Humarock which lies on an environmentally sensitive barrier beach…..’. [Mr. Koff read aloud S570.1 Purpose.]   That is what we are shooting for.”
 
Mr. Koff read aloud Section 570.3 Uses Permissible by Special Permit.  He said, “So to get this bonus you need a minimum of 20,000 S.F.  Most of the properties out there are 7500 S.F., right.    A lot of you have homes that are on 7500 S.F. lots.  The zoning currently if you wanted to build you would need 10,000 S.F. on a lot.  Most of you are on lots that are smaller than what you would need if you were to come in and build new (10,000 S.F.).  You would not be allowed to build a house on 7500 S.F.  It is saying 7 houses on an acre and with a bonus you could get up to 10.  When I get into dimensional standards I will have Larry Bluestone talk about that.”
 
Mr. L. Bluestone said, “Larry just said that there could be 7 units per acre.  We will say 40,000 S.F. is an acre.  The current zoning – you can do about 4 per acre, but what is actually built out there is closer to about 6 units per acre.  So the recommendation that starts at 7 is really just a bit more density from what you really see out there.  However, it is several more than what the zoning allows.  So what has actually been built out there over the years is higher than what the current zoning allows.  So 7 units per acre is just a little bit higher than what you see out there.  It also shows that you can build to 10 units per acre to encourage change if you have a significant public benefit.  That would encourage redevelopment of these larger sites and it would not be that much out of scale from what is there now.  Just to give an example - seven units per acre is a little more than small cottage single family homes.  It is more to scale of two-family homes.  It seems reasonable for the scale of it.  As Larry said, if you want to build 10 units per 40,000 S.F. rather than 7 the owner will have to provide the town some benefit.  There is a list of the benefits to choose from.”
 
Mr. Bluestone continued, “Height – we suggest 40’ for the height (see page 2).  That is about 5’ higher than what is common throughout most of the town.  I will tell you why we said that.  Typically with 35’ what you get is two and a half stories – first floor, second floor, and attic space.  Since we are on a barrier beach most of the properties here will have to raise the first floor three, four, five feet under current FEMA  regulation to allow for flood waters.  On the ocean side the houses go up as much as twelve or thirteen feet.    So we have accommodated that extra height and that is why we suggested 40’ rather than 35’.  That allows for two and a half stories and for the lift up from the ground.  If I am a property owner and I am required to lift up three, four, or five feet I start thinking that if I lift up another three or four feet I can put parking underneath – a garage underneath or open parking underneath.  Remember you have to let the water flow through there.  So you really do need 40’ to make that work.  That was our rationalization.”
 
Mr. Bluestone continued, “Setbacks  (see Page 1) – we have a front yard setback of 30’ and 15’ side and rear yard setbacks except for any site that shares a common lot boundary with a parcel residentially zoned or in residential use.  There shall be a 30’ setback from that lot boundary.    That seems reasonable.  There is an open space requirement of 30’.  We have also added a measure of floor area ratio (FAR).  See Paragraph D on Page 2. We say it is 0.4.  We add FAR to control bulk and mass. [Mr. Bluestone gave an example to illustrate FAR with various densities per acre.]  The FAR controls the mass of the building and the amount of building that can be done.  It  controls it so you won’t get McMansions so that is why that is in there.  The parking ratios (S570.6 on Page 3) are basically what the Bylaw calls for throughout the town.”
 
Mr. Koff referred to Section 570.6 Parking and Landscaping and he read parts of this section aloud.  He said, “Instead of requiring one space per slip we are giving some flexibility there (one half space will be required for any slip or mooring).  Screening we talked about on Page 4 and it should be 4’ in height.  We say that when parking is located under any building it shall be screened except for the location of entrances and exits.  In the flood areas the screening has to be penetrable to let the water flow through.”
 
Mr. Bluestone discussed S570.7 Design Standards for Multi-family Dwellings and he mentioned that balconies, awnings or canopies shall be encouraged.  Mr. Koff mentioned S570.7.C Utilities and Drainage noting that all utility service lines shall be underground.  See Page 5.      He then went on to Page 6  Section 570.8 Housing Affordability Standards.  He said, “Unlike in the other Village Overlay areas where 15% was required, given some of the complexities here, the affordability requirement is 10%.  Section 570.9 Special Permit Review Procedure – needs a pre-application meeting.    If a developer has a plan he is going to have to have a pre-application meeting to meet with the Planning Board in order to get some feedback.  There are a lot of factors that you can see as we have been going over this.  The Planning Board is going to have to weight and judge, look at, and work with a developer to come up with a plan that meets these guidelines.  There are limits.  There is a height limit, a FAR limit etc.”
 
Mr. Keith Jansen, 148 Central Avenue, submitted a letter dated November 19, 2007 said, “I am not going to go through the exhaustive work that this team did (the add hoc commit tee).  I will briefly review the people and the process of how we came to the consensus on a lot of different discussion points.  As Laura indicated it was really a process that started off at the public meeting in January.  We were sort of in a conundrum.  At least that is the way I look at it.  A lot of people recognized that Humarock probably needed some changes but could not agree on what that change was.  How can we go to a Town vote when nobody can agree.  So I was the guy who raised the hand and said we should get together and have a little group.  That group turned into about 60 people at the Mad Fish and those people formed a group of eight as an add hoc committee and I was elected as Chair.  The people in the group have a wide variety of interests and experiences and they represent a wide variety of Humarock. [Mr. Jansen listed the members of the committee as listed in his letter.]  This is a group of people who represent Humarock very, very well.  We identified 8 or 9 key issues.  In the 11 months this group has been together we met about 12 times mostly in person.  There were a couple of phone calls when we couldn’t get together.  We met for a total of 300 people hours.  A lot of effort has been put into this thing.  There has been a lot of off time where people spent with their neighbors, friends, outside counsel, Planning Board members from other towns like Marshfield, watershed associations, conservation commissions, police and fire departments.  The list goes on and on.  We have tried to cast the net to get a large indication of what should happen.  We came up with a Mission Statement which was ‘to review and provide comment on thoughtful development of the 12 acre Business District while maintaining the small oceanfront community that Humarock currently enjoys’.  We want change but we want to maintain that small oceanfront community.”
 
Mr. Jansen then read aloud a list of specific topics researched by the group and designated as critical to Humarock.  See Page 2 of his letter.  He said, “So those are the topics we talked about for a long time.  We reached unanimity, or at least consensus, in all but two areas.  Our consensus is not necessarily on what Mr. Koff and Mr. Bluestone presented.  On Page 2 and Page 3 are some suggestions to the wording in the bylaw which you guys obviously spent a lot of time on and which we are appreciative of.  The two where we could not reach consensus was on density and height.  In terms of density we all agreed that 7 was reasonable.  It is the bonus that we kept going back and forth on – one, two, three, what is it?  Unfortunately, we never came to a consensus on that.  In terms of height -  similarly we kept going back and forth.  Correct me if I am wrong – the current actual allowable height is 40’ in that area.  We were going back and forth.  Is it 40’ or is it 35’.  How is it measured?  We couldn’t exactly put our arms around that.    We think a little more work is needed in that area.”
 
Mr. Jansen said, “In closing, we all recognize as a group, this ad hoc committee, and we want to acknowledge  that it was a true honor and privilege to have this opportunity to represent our community and we all feel like we have.  We worked very, very hard and we recognize that change is probably necessary.  Fighting some sort of change is like fighting gravity.  We want to have thoughtful development and we want to have input on that thoughtful development.  For that we really, really do thank the town, especially Laura for the hours that she put up with me, especially, and the team.  At that meeting in January at the Mad Fish everybody put their faith in us to hopefully represent all of Humarock and to effect change as we, as a group, want to effect change.  Rather than going through all the details that this group recommends we put it in writing.  So it might be best, Mr. Chairman, to open it up for public comment.  It is up to you to decide how to run the meeting.  Certainly the members of the group and myself are happy to comment when asked to.  Thank you very much.”   
 
Mr. Walter said, “I just want to make it clear also  that the ad hoc committee came together out of our initial public hearing.  As I see it it has been a true grass roots effort.  People of the neighborhood came together to try to form what their piece of the community should look like.  Between the work that has been done by the add hoc committee and the work done by Larry and Larry and Laura Harbottle – that is why we are all here tonight.  The proposed bylaw is up for discussion.  I want to thank the ad hoc committee for working on this.  I will open it up now for public discussion.”
 
Mr. John P. Davis, 104 Manomet Avenue, Hull, said, “This group here are the owners of the Davis property.  It is a trust.  We asked Russell Clark to find us a good, honest, developer to go in there and look and see what they could do with our property.  We wanted to get something done in there to upgrade all of our property and he did find somebody.  We have made a contract with that developer and we will be talking to that developer and having them plan out what they want to do there and what they think they can do there and what the town will allow them to do there.  It isn’t that we don’t want that upgraded.  We absolutely want it upgraded because we have other houses on the property that are not for sale.  I just want to let you know that  we are in favor of doing something down there.” Mr. Walter said, “So you are not necessarily commenting on the height or the density or anything like that.”  Mr. Davis replied, “I don’t know anything about that.
 
Mr. Russell Clark, 8 Webster Street, read aloud a petition signed by approximately 45 residents of Humarock.  The petition stated:
I/we the undersigned believe that the Scituate Planning Board should diligently work and plan with any developer in the redevelopment of the Humarock business district section of Scituate.  I/we believe a positive change would be a mixed-use project with business space on the lower floor and residential space on the second and third floors.  Twenty-five units per acre could be within the latitude of discussion to make it economically viable for some entity to take interest and therefore develop a beneficial project for the community as a whole.  I/we would attend the meetings on behalf of the above items but are unable to attend due to family care, health, and/or residency at time of meetings.  I/we pray these signatures of the silent majority find good understanding hearts at the Scituate Planning Board.  Thank you for reading, understanding and acting according.
 
Mr. Clark said, “I did do some research on the density.  There are some people on this petition and signed it that thought the 25 per acre was a little high and definitely 7 is too low.  There are some lots that are 50’ x 65’ which equal 3250 S.F. which would come out to 12.3 units per 40,000 S.F. Some lots are 50’ x 75’ which would be 3750 S.F. which would be 10.6 units per 40,000 S.F.  Then you get into 50’ x 100’  which is 5,000 S.F.  which would be 8 units.  That is probably the average down in Humarock.  Then you get into 75’ x 100’ which is 7500 S.F. at 5.3 units and then 100’ x 100’ which is 10,000 S.F. which would be 4 units.  That is just raw numbers.  [Mr. Clark gave some examples of specific addresses listing the square footage, and  existing and proposed density.  A couple of examples he listed are as follows: 98 Central Avenue, 2614 S.F., one housing unit and that would be 15.3 per 40,000 S.F.  Also, 22 Marshfield Ave. two family that sits on 5,000 S.F.  with 2500 S.F. per unit, which comes out to 16 per 40,000 S.F.]  I just listed a couple but I have more examples.  I could go on and on.  I also have a map and if you want you can go through it.  I cut out some 40,000 S.F. pieces that you can slide around.  It is an average of about 8 units per acre in Humarock per 40,000 S.F.  So if you do the 7 in the Business District you will make it the rural part of Humarock.  So we are looking for a higher density.”
 
Mr. Walter asked, “Are you talking about as proposed in the Bylaw for the 25 units or are you talking about the entire Business District – the Overlay District or the entire Business District?  As proposed right now it is not the entire Business District.”  Mr. Clark replied, “The Overlay District.  That would be fine within the Overlay.  I just wanted to present those numbers.  It is a change from what was presented earlier.  I will submit the information.”
 
Mr. Richard Tornsey, 75 Dartmouth Street, said, “I have a question.  If you look at the Overlay District map there is a square.  If you take an east/west line and bisect that square you are talking about vacant land and the  residences bordering Webster Street.  The question is – whereas the residents bordering Webster Street are currently in a residential district what was the rationale in including them in 570?”
 
Ms. Harbottle replied, “The main idea was that all that property was in one ownership and it made sense to bring the Overlay District over this entire parcel of land,”
 
Atty. E. Pattern said, I am representing Mr. David Ford, the owner of 19 Webster Street.  My questions and comments are sort of similar to the previous gentleman and the objection to the proposal of the extension of the Overlay District into the residentially zoned portion of Webster Street .  The consultant indicated that the  purpose of this initiate was to assist in the redevelopment of the Business District  but what is happening here to the residents of Webster Street is that the multi-family zone (albeit it is a special permit) is now encroaching into their district where the three Davis lots on Webster Street currently have two single family homes and a vacant lot.  When I run the numbers it appears that the Davis property in total may be the beneficiary of up to as many as 16 multi-family units by Special Permit right in the residential neighborhood of Webster Street.  Quite frankly extending the Overlay District into the residential goes against the Purpose.”
 
Mr. Koff again read aloud the Purpose of the Overlay District.   He said, “We are looking at the entire area owned by the David property.  We are not allowing business uses into that residential area.  We are allowing  an overlay with  increased density.  We are not allowing business type uses into that residential area.”
 
Mr. Jeff Barisano, Central Avenue, said, “I am overwhelmed because there are so many issues I want to address.  Just to get back to the overlay -  I thought when we used the term overlay I thought that that referred  to the first level being retail and the second level residential.  Again, the problem that I have had with all these proceedings here is that very often we have come to terminology that has been difficult to understand.  It is difficult to discuss any of these issues.  We are discussing an overlay and we seem to have a misunderstanding in terms of what an overlay actually is in terms of the Overlay District.  I think what Larry just explained was – he described the Overlay as a high density residential.  That is frankly what I have been discussing with Mr. Solimondo and anybody in the neighborhood.  I have to reiterate that I don’t understand how this portion of the Davis property ever came into play.  How can we possibly go forward at this point without understanding exactly what the overlay is – what the definition of an ‘overlay’ is.  Is it high density residential or is it what I thought we were talking about.  The type of overlay that I thought we were talking about was for commercial/retail second floor residential.  This new overlay actually excludes what I thought was our existing overlay. It excludes  four buildings that currently  have first floor retail second floor residential.  They are excluded from the overlay.  There is another area where you come over the bridge into Marshfield.  That was an area where I was encouraged that we would have overlay there.  Where the fish building is that is currently for sale – I thought that we would encourage an overlay there with first floor retail and second floor residential.  This just came out of nowhere on me.  I was completely shocked and not a heck of a lot of it made sense to me.  One of the few things that made sense to me was that we finally eliminated beach front properties from our Business District.  I thought that when we did that we would go a step further and eliminate the river front from the Business District.  There is a swamp and a whole marsh area there that is still included.  I am concerned with the way this whole thing came out in terms of  the revised Business District boundaries.  I think that we could have excluded some areas that we didn’t and I think that we did exclude some areas from the Overlay that should have been in it.  I am concerned because at this point I don’t know what an Overlay is.  I thought that the Overlay was going to be out on Marshfield Avenue.  What we have out there is quaint, comfortable, attractive.   It could accommodate it because the road is wider there on Marshfield Avenue.   The road there is 10’ wider than Central Avenue with parking on one side and it has sidewalks and that was always our Business District and retail district.  I thought that the idea was that we came over the bridge we would encourage people to take the areas that have basically been left out of that plan and brought into it.  On the other hand, what I thought we were going to do was  to go into these other areas e.g. The Mad Fish property and create a high density area there (and Davis is the back part of this property)  so that we could encourage them to go forward and create a terrific barrier between single family homes and our Business District.  It would be the perfect transition, a perfect barrier, to segway between single family homes and the Business District.  To me that is high density – condominiums.  It all made sense to me.  It was all in my head that there would be a transition as you came down Central Avenue from single family homes to high density residential to an Overlay – an Overlay that would fit into the architecture that has been there forever.  We have had overlays; we invented overlays years ago.  My number one concern at this point is that we don’t have a clear definition of the Overlay.  Thank you.”
 
Mr. Walter said, “I think what has happened is that it has changed from the initial discussion that took place almost a year ago.  I would like to see how you guys who have been working with this group see it now from what it was originally.  What are your thoughts on that.”
 
Mr. Koff said, “We didn’t  want to create an Overlay that would wind up and displace waterfront  related uses.  Those have been there for a long time and are historically important now and on into the future.  They are appropriate places.  Where else would you provide for a marine kind of uses.   So we did not want to create an incentive that would wind up displacing those uses.  The two larger parcels that are under single ownership  - this is a barrier beach – we are not trying to create great density here.  We struggle quite a bit with what would be appropriate levels of density so we wound up on the Davis and the Mad Fish property and excluded the waterfront related uses that back up on the River.  There is a 20,000 sq. ft. lot requirement and we avoided these properties on Marshfield Avenue.  We have moved the Business District away from the beach but we kept the balance of the District just as it has been shown.”
 
Ms. Barbara Callery, 25 Webster Street, said, “It was always my understanding that Webster Street was zoned for single residences and now it looks like one side of the street the zoning is going to be changed and now it will no longer be single residences on, I believe, 15,000 S.F.  How does that happen?  It was never commercial.  Did you just assume to change it over – to change the zoning on Webster St.?”  Mr. Koff replied, “Not as businesses, it is an Overlay.   The Overlay density would be allowed but not the businesses.  It would be residential only.  We are providing the opportunity for 7 units per acre or possibly up to 10.”  Ms. Callery continued, “That property was purchased by my parents and I don’t think that they would consider that an opportunity.  If I live on a single residence street and it is a nice quiet street why would I now want it to be changed?”
 
Mr. Walter said, “That is why it is being discussed tonight.  The basic zoning as it exists today will still be there.  The Overlay District is like putting a piece of paper on top of it.  It would allow someone the opportunity to submit to the Planning Board for a Special Permit to have up to 7 units per 40,000 S.F. or 10 with substantial give back to the town.”  Ms. Callery said, “That may be an opportunity for them but I don’t see it as an opportunity for myself and my family.  We have put generations into it and money.  Why would I want to give that up?”  Mr. Walter said, “Point well taken.”
 
Mr. Russell Clark said, “One of the houses at 20 Webster St. is a two-family unit.  The conceptual plans that I have seen – anything on the Webster St. side there will not be any buildings.  It would be more parking.  That is conceptually.  They would want to keep it over to Marshfield Ave. and Central Ave. where it would be suitable.  I don’t think there would be any impact on Webster Street.”
 
Mr. Walter said, “We don’t know what may be presented to us.  We have no idea.”
 
Mr. Keith Jansen, 148 Central Avenue, said, “On the mixed use component we (the Ad Hoc Comm.) discussed that for hours, literally hours.    We felt that mixed use may be a potential but not mandatory.   Frankly, we struggle to support the businesses we have now on a twelve month basis.  There are people who own businesses are on the Ad Hoc Committee and they are not afraid of competition, but they are being realistic.  On the Overlay  map – there is a further recommendation from the Ad Hoc Committee – to include Seafood USA and the Humming Rock Gifts in it as well.”  Mr. Walter said, “So it is essentially from Marshfield Avenue north.”
 
A lady from Marshfield Avenue said,  “I have owned or rented there for years.  My question why not change the stores to residential as it is primarily residential now?  If the idea is to preserve then it does not make sense to me.”  Mr.  Walter said, “Are you talking about the three homes that continue from the Sands End Café to the water?”  The lady continued, “Yes.  Why would you do it?”  Ms. Harbottle said, “That was another topic that the Committee discussed.  The most recent recommendation from the Committee was to enlarge the group of properties that were going to be rezoned from business to residential and to go from 18 Marshfield Avenue to the ocean and make that whole area going across Marshfield Avenue extending the line across the street from the end of the Business Zone and make everything from there to the ocean residential. That is the most recent proposal. 
 
Mr. Fenton asked, “For clarification – is that an L-shaped area that includes the four parcels along the water plus 22, 20, and 18 Marshfield Avenue?  It goes all the way across.  It also includes a portion – take that line across from 18 Marshfield Avenue and would chunk off a big piece where the words ‘Davis vacant land’ and make that residential too.  That was the other proposal.”  
 
Mr. John Cronin submitted a picture of a tall yellow house.  See file.  He said, “With respect to some comments made by Mr. Bluestone a beg to differ.  He has suggested that in Humarock we were averaging six units per 40,000 sq. ft.   Russell Clark was cherry picking some small lots for as he petitioned for Harbor Towers South.   If you actually take the residential land that abuts the proposed zone (and the owner has land that abuts  to the portion to the north)  - so take from Manchester Street to Webster Street – you have three large lots roughly 300 x 400 – about 350,000 sq. ft.  The units that are on that property calculate out to be 3.5 units per 40,000 sq. ft. which is less than the zoning of 4 per 40,000 sq. ft.  That supports   our goal to have appropriate zoning in the Overlay District which is low density and low profile.    We think it is absolutely necessary, and we have been working with the Planning Board since last year, to achieve that goal.  People may say they don’t want condos but we have to do it so we have to have condominiums.  The uses that are allowed there now are upholstery shops, light industry, retail, restaurants.  Those businesses have all been allowed since 1961 when they adopted the General Business zoning district and it hasn’t happened.  I think it is time for us to make a change, adopt some conservative condominium zoning and see what we can do and what the owners of the properties can do.”
 
Mr. Cronin submitted two pages of material to the Board and the audience regarding Section 570.4B. and 570.4C.  See file for this documentation.  He first read aloud the page re S570.4.B and he said that this would go a long way in preserving the character of the Humarock community.  Mr. Cronin said, “We would like to have a 30’ setback from the River be specified and we while we now rely on the Conservation Commission to do what they can do they get over-ridden by the state.  The zoning laws allow the Planning Board to at Town Meeting to vote for dimensions in a bylaw which can be enforced.  At the January 4th previous public hearing  it was suggested that there be a sentence requiring handicap parking.  So many of us have aged while enjoying Humarock that such a provision would be appreciated.”
 
Mr. Cronin continued, “Bonus density requirements – the people right now who own this property have a right to build 4 units per 40,000 sq. ft. (4 residential units).  The incentive that we are giving them is to change it to 7.  We are suggesting that they be allowed to have 1 bonus to bring it to 8.  That is all the incentive that my neighborhood wants to see authorized under the bylaw instead of giving 1, 2, 3 bonuses that would bring it up to10 units.  That would be 18 units on the Mad Fish property and that would be too much.  It would be crowded.  It could be a 8 unit building block 125’ long facing Central Avenue and Dartmouth Street and 40’ tall.  I don’t think that is acceptable and I would hope that there are some people here in the audience that would agree.  So my neighbors are very upset with the 3 bonus units that could be allowed.  We believe that  crowding condominiums onto adjacent property will jeopardize the values in our neighborhood.  We are willing to support 1 bonus unit to allow an increase to 8 units per 40,000 sq. ft. which is double the density allowed as matter of right, but  3 units represents a 43% increase over the base.  That is 43% that is not in the Zoning Bylaw and that will not be controlled by Town Meeting.  That will be vested in the Planning Board and that is an awesome responsibility.    In Greenbush and North Scituate  the smart growth plan where the idea was to increase density, the Planning Board is limited to bonuses which increase density by only 25%.  We want to get back into the harmony that we were looking for earlier.  To the neighborhood, this bonus process vesting authority in the Planning Board to increase the scale and size of this abutting project by almost 50% is frightening.  We ask that the bonus units be limited to 1 which is a 15% incentive, far more appropriate with your stated purpose ‘to protect the village center of the small ocean-front community of Humarock’.
 
Mr. Cronin continued, “570.4.C. Height.  He read this document aloud.  See file for details.  He said, “The bylaw does not limit the number of stories.  We request that 2 ½ stories be specified.  The bylaw may not even require a pitched roof.  The height is 40’. [Mr. Cronin read aloud the section about how height is measured in Scituate.]  We would support a proposal of 2 ½ stories with a ridge and average height of 5’ lower than the Residential A-3 bylaw height.  That would require that the buildings would be 5’ lower than the tall yellow house.  That is 35’ to the ridge and 30’ average on the sloped roof. [Mr. Cronin described the height of some houses on Dartmouth Street.]  We support a condominium development at this site but ask that you resist efforts to squeeze too many, too high, onto this small riverside property.”
 
A gentleman asked if he understood that there was an offer on the table for a section of the Clam Haven and the laundry mat.  Another gentleman said that was not the case.
 
Mr. S. Tripp, 30 Marshfield Avenue, said, “I want to extend my wife’s comments about the shift of the Business District away from those four homes on the ocean.  I have to say that if the plan is not to convert the rest of that street on Marshfield Avenue to residential and leaving that as a Business District – again talking transition at my driveway and my next door neighbor – then we will fight vehemently about the conversion of properties that are a hundred years old and that have been Business District for a hundred years in that place.  Lets be clear.  We have to look at this as residential and you can’t take those four properties out of the Business District unless it is all together.”
 
Mr. Walter asked, “So lets be clear, what is being proposed is to become residential along the water.  You are saying that if that is the proposal you want to see those other three units on Marshfield Avenue (#18, #20, #22) should all go to residential or the other way around where they all stay business.”  Mr. Tripp replied, “Yes, or the other way around – they all stay business.”
 
Mr. Solimondo said, “First of all I want to thank the Committee.  They have really worked hard.  I have been developing for thirty years. [Mr. Solimondo mentioned other projects he has developed in other towns.]  For a whole year these people have put in their time and effort.  There have been a lot of  you and a lot of different people involved.  Six months before I bought the property I went and talked to the neighbors when I put it under agreement.  I talked to them and I told them what I wanted to do.  I put my heart on my sleeve and said what can I do, what can I do to improve it.  We came up with a lot of different schemes.  I worked hand in hand with John Cronin.  I showed him everything we had.  We had different meetings.  I worked hard to try to put this together and to make it all fit.  If you want an affordable element you have to pay for it.  You have to pay for it with units.  There must be a balance to get the units saleable and appealing.  A lot of the time you are talking with people who are not going to buy this and that is going to be the neighbors.  They don’t care what is inside but they do care about what it looks like outside.  There have been a lot of nights where I just tossed and turned.  I have tried to make it right.”
 
Mr. Solimondo continued, “There is a big building that I am proposing and it is about 125’.  I said to the Larry’s, in order to really make good livable units it has got to be around 35’ or 40’ wide.  The setbacks become very important.  Those are issues that we have to contend with.  Then there must be access for the public.  The economic problem is not your problem it is my problem.  I still have to have this number of units and the setbacks.  There are so many things that come into it.  There are so many elements that encompass the whole process when planning this out.  I have worked on this for a year and a half.  Seven units – that is really on the edge to make this project work.  I have to have more density.    Someone said that we should not let go what is pre-existing. Right now there is a building that is 144’ long and it is 11’3” off of Dartmouth Street.  The building on the right of it is 125’ wide.  I hope you all will see it.  I know that the people on the Board did.  It can give you a good scale of what it exactly is.  There are buildings there that are 40’ high and 125’ wide.  There are two of them.  I abut them.  Architecturally you can really do a lot with the buildings.   Everyone including the Davis’ - if you take a 30’ setback from their residential zone and a 30’ setback on the other side you will have a little building like this.  There has to be some leeway.  If you take 30’ from all sides from all the residences – what have you got?  You don’t have anything.”
 
Mr. Rich Tornsey, 98 Humarock Beach, said, “I am a twelve year resident. I also own the property at 10 Marshfield Avenue.  Because I am a resident and because I own property in the Business District I certainly understand the concerns about all the development in Humarock.  However, I do believe that everyone is dissatisfied with the current state of the Business District.  I don’t think anyone would say to leave it as it is.    I have learned an awful lot working with John on the Committee.  I disagree with his bonus units of 1 as opposed to 3.  The reason I do that is that I had money down on the Davis property three years ago.  I wanted to develop it.  I did my due diligence and before I had any idea of Mike Solimondo’s  proposal.  For full disclosure – I have know Mike Solimondo for thirty years.  After I put the money down and did my due diligence I realized that it was not financially feasible to do it.  Before I bought my property on the corner it was pretty messy but I cleaned it up and I have received Scituate Beautification awards.  I was going to buy the Davis property because I drive by it all the time and I thought it could be a good project.  I wanted to put time and effort into the community but I backed out because it just would not work.  It did not add up.  Then Mike Solimondo came in and bought The Mad Fish.  Between the affordable housing requirement,  mitigation requirements to beautify Humarock, quality construction – we need something that will be there now and twenty/thirty years from now and not something that in ten years is not looking so good -  between all those requirements you have to get a certain density.  What happened from my point of view,  --  I feel that the difference between 8 and 10 may not be so apparent from someone driving by but it is dramatically apparent to the difference between a developer going the full distance and put in high quality units and improve the area with the mitigation fund – I truly believe that it will help everyone.  I may know Mike Solimondo but I absolutely will not sell my soul to anyone.  I know the quality of work that Mike has done before.  I have seen it on the islands (Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard).  I absolutely do trust him.  We will all be better off if we work on things like setbacks.  We have a designer on that Committee and she looked at the setbacks and said that you can’t do it in certain areas.  I think that we are close but the difference between 8 and 10 is a difference that I walked away from before so that is why I urge people to look at it --  don’t look at this like Scituate Harbor.  It is not Scituate Harbor.  Don’t let the fear of something paralyze us from allowing something good to happen here.  Someone is willing on The Mad Fish property, but I don’t know about the Davis property, to invest between nine and ten million dollars into Humarock.  Please don’t have what happened to me have him turn away and put in boat slips or something.”
 
Mr. Barisano, 42 Central Avenue, said, “I have to agree with the gentleman.  I think everything boils down to dollars and cents.  We have to find a happy medium to make it financially viable and feasible for Mr. Solimondo to develop his property.  I live at 42 Central Avenue.  I used to be able to look out my window and see across the River and now I see a yellow house.  I can understand Mr. Cronin’s concerns.  I have to live with those same concerns but we have to be willing to come together to find a happy medium where we can make it financially viable for the folks who want to develop these properties, particularly Mr. Salimano because he has already invested.  He knows that a restaurant does not work out there.  When the weather gets bad people come as far as The Bridgeway to watch the waves crash.  They won’t go over that bridge and into a flood zone and then come out and have to wade to their cars.  There are a lot of reasons why restaurants don’t work there.  If there is entertainment – loud entertainment – there are neighbors with legitimate concerns.  It is just a difficult place to run a business.  [Mr. Barisano spoke about Solimondo property when it was known as The Humarock Lodge.]
Now we have someone who is willing to take this property that should never have been in the Business District and he is willing to make it into residential properties.  Because he talked about the big buildings beyond him and he talked about what is position is, what our Business District is, what our Residential District is – again I think that that type of development (condominiums) is a perfect buffer between single family and commercial.  Again the one problem I am having with this entire conversation – once we agree that that property should be residential, high density – then we need to know that that is what we are talking about.  If we are talking apples, we are talking apples.  I would like the next time we meet, because obviously we have a way to go with this, is for Laura to have for us clear definitions of single family zoning, high density residential, and mixed use.  It is difficult to discuss any of these properties without knowing exactly what we are talking about.  That is my concern.  If I walk in to Town Meeting and I cast my vote for high density residential on Mr. Solimondo’s property I want to know that that is what it is and that is what it will always be – that it will always be high density residential condominiums and that when he puts the slips in that those people in the condominiums will have the same  river rights that I have and Mr. Cronin has and anyone else who owns property along that river.  They would have a right to a slip.  He could put a beautiful attractive dock in there – one slip per unit.”
 
Mr. Barisano continued, “When we talk about offsets there is another variable.  When you take a 40’ building and put it 15’ off the property line that is difficult to deal with but if you take a 40’ building that is transitioned to the 40’ and steps up that becomes easier to tolerate.  You could be talking about only 20’ at the peak.  It gets taller as it moves away from the property line.  That is a variable that we haven’t looked at yet.”
 
Mr. Barisano said, “We have all given it a ton of thought.  We have all been talking about this forever.   I really think it can be done and it should be done.  I have been in construction my entire life.  Mike took the time to speak with me.  He understands what my concerns are.  Because I have been in construction my whole life I understand what his concerns are.  I would love to see five condominiums out there.  For me that would be great, but is that feasible?  It is not possible so we have to be realistic in terms of what we are going to allow out there.  If we say that we only want to do 7 because that is all Humarock can support because of the barrier beach and because it is sensitive and because of wash over and this and that -  that is kind of skirting the issue because putting in sidewalks does not alleviate those concerns.  They do anything to make the septic systems work or make the storm damage any less.  We need to be willing to look at the numbers realistically and give a little bit along the way.    To know that I am going to have residential there my tolerance to density goes way up.  I want to know when I am voting for these higher densities and I want to see in black and white exactly what we are talking about.  If we are going to have mixed use – we have always had mixed use.  We have had it for a hundred years.  We should take Marshfield Avenue and allow anybody on Marshfield Avenue have the right to do that.  I don’t think we should decide what is preserved and what isn’t.  We should not say it would be good to preserve the Lobster Company.  Has anybody asked the guy who owns the Lobster Company what he thinks about preserving the Lobster Company?  Maybe he doesn’t want to.  I went out there with a tape measure and I measured Marshfield Avenue – it is ten feet wider, it has parking and sidewalks.  It is built to accommodate retail space.”
 
Ms. Samantha Woods, Director of the North & South Watershed Association, said, “Your discussion is very interesting but there has been very little discussion about the sensitive area that you are in.  It is a barrier beach.  I will not get into specifics.  We would not recommend that anybody live there, but that is not the way it is.  I am here to speak on behalf of the members of the organization.  We are concerned about the River.  They are abutters to this particular overlay zoning district.  I want to specifically comment on some of them aspects that have the potential to impact water quality both stormwater and wastewater.  In the earlier rendition of the overlay district you had for septic systems a minimum of 200’ from the South River when you would require further treatment.  From my perspective anything where you will allow increased density should have requirements for increased treatment.  Nitrogen, no matter where you are in the watershed, will end up in the River so 100’ does not have any meaning.    I think there is some good stormwater stuff in here but there is one small area where I would differ and that is with stormceptors.  They require a certain amount of maintenance and frankly they don’t work that well  so I don’t think that recommending that particular technology would actually meet the goals. [Ms. Woods read aloud some material in the draft on Page 5 Utilities and Drainage.]  Some of the other things that you are talking about such as minimizing impervious surfaces would actually get you there and would not cost as much for the developer.  I would also mention that some of the mitigation you are suggesting particularly in the parcels that are abutting the River – I would like to see mitigation that is in kind e.g. apples for apples.  If you are going to impact the River you should have mitigation or benefits to the River.  If you allow increased density on parcels that are abutting the River and allowing for public access to the River, then pay attention to the stormwater and wastewater issues and maybe even offer off site mitigation to offset the additional density.”
 
Mr. Barisano said, “I have one quick question.  The elimination of the restaurant – how much does that improve the situation?”  Ms. Woods replied, “I have not read the calculations on that.  What I am saying is that anywhere in that area we should have better treatment than you have got.  Everybody who lives there should have better treatment.  Whatever comes out of the septic system eventually percolates into the River and/or the ocean.”
 
Mr. Walter thanked everyone for coming to the meeting and for their input/questions/comments.  He asked the Board if they had any further questions or comments.   He said this public hearing would be continued.
 
Mr. Fenton said, “Thank everybody who came tonight.  You are my heroes because you have hung in there for a year.  It was over a year ago when I was Chairman that we started on this.  I thank Keith for letting us throw him into the fire.  It is hard to be a chairman for any exercise like this.  I want to acknowledge that.  Having said that, I am actually more encouraged than not with some of the thoughtful input that I have heard tonight, much of which are things that I have been scribbling in my notes and had set aside before hand e.g. the observation about lack of mixed use.  That was an early topic and it seems to have been abandoned here.  A number of things you have talked about suggests to me that  there is real opportunity here and I can actually see a pathway forward out of the thoughts that you have given tonight.    I have heard a lot of areas of consensus,  areas of opportunity and a recognition that there is an opportunity for positive change without loss of the character of the community.  We still have to consider details like the height numbers and density numbers.  I think we are in a ballpark range that I think is workable on those kind of figures.   An interesting idea that is coming to me out of the discussion is the notion of cleaning up the question of what goes where by not abandoning the old business zone and recognizing and truly defining where the existing residential is, and a transitional zone (I am thinking about the property that abuts Webster and the property that abuts Dartmouth and talking about  setbacks and step height in those areas).  Those are ideas that came out earlier but did not make it into the final language of the bylaw.  Recognizing what I would call a higher density residential zone, to steal your words Jeff,  and then still go back and acknowledge that the business zone/district could also benefit, Mr. Tornsey,  to incentives for the kind of redevelopment that you have been  exploring  which we have completely abandoned here.  I find myself sympathetic although I understand the rationale for leaving out Seafood and so on.  I find myself compelled to bring them into the mix.  I am thinking of the existing business zone with some of the incentive tools but creating a buffer between the existing residential – particularly to the north where it comes closer.  I think that is doable.  I have my version of a sketch here.  My point is that I am listening really closed and I think the Board is and I  hearing a pathway forward that is sustainable from a business standpoint, Mike.  I think we can make it workable but also recognize that you want a transition from the residential and downtown business.  One of the things that I was worried about losing was – I would still like to see a viable village downtown there because one of the greatest environmental benefits is to obviate a few vehicle trips – that is to allow people to walk down to a corner store or a video rental place or occasionally hop on your bicycle rather than get in your car.  Automobiles are one of the greatest non point contributors to watershed damage.  So any time I can get someone out of their car and into a business in their neighborhood that is a benefit.  So that is sort of where I am.  In the transitional zone we can think about height and setbacks that reflect the transition from pure residential to a business district.  I think that is doable.  You guys – does that sound insane or does it sound remotely plausible?”
 
Mr. Bluestone replied, “Insane but doable.  Yes, you can look at a transitional zone.  You are looking for balance but you need to provide the financial incentives.  I think we can find it.    One other comment – on the issue of front yard setbacks – everything is up for discussion.”
 
Mr. Fenton said, “I was just going to mention that we could use different numbers in a transitional zone rather than in the heart of the business zone.    In the Business District by law right now you can build within 8’.  That is what the setback is in the Business District because, in general, that is what a village center feels like.  You have buildings fronting the sidewalk e.g. Sands Café.  You can have an understanding that you can have different feelings in different parts of a village.  Also I have, in my notes, written LID right next to that whole discharge watershed.  There are all of these new low impact development practices.  I thought we could be a lot more explicit.”
 
Mr. Koff said, “The question about mixed use – what has been lacking tonight is anyone here representing the marine and the seafood.  When we came into this district it was comfortable seeing the mixed uses but seeing the waterfront related uses.  I don’t think there was ever any discussion when we were creating this overlay to eliminate those uses.  They are there today but if they are replaced by housing you will not get them there again.  I have not heard a discussion as to what the benefit would be.  It would be an easy thing to extend the overlay over those areas.  I have not heard any substantive discussion other than it would be nice to have residential.  We are trying to cover up some past problems in some ways with the two properties that we are dealing with in the overlay district.  It is not clear to me that eliminating waterfront related uses is in the best interest of the town.”
 
Mr. Fenton replied, “I was not proposing to extend the residential overlay over those.  I was imagining a true mixed use something that looks more like the Village Business.  You could do a residential model for the transitional zone and then once you are back into the heart of the Business District you go to a more Village Business District model where you will still have retail/commercial first floor activity.  You have to think clearly about whether that works before you eliminate something like a lobster pound.  They don’t go away automatically because condos are viable.  I am looking for first floor retail in the real Business District.”
 
Mr. Limbacher said, “I find myself in a unique position of agreeing with you but I am not going to suggest that everybody sells their cars.  I think you can come up and maintain a mixed use and keep that opportunity so it does not become all residential.  In all deference to the discussion that says the density bonus has to be 1 or 2, I think that going back to Mike’s point that makes it uneconomical.  It might be a nice plan on paper but the reality is that it will never happen.  I think there is an opportunity and I am not sure that we are that far away from getting some sort of consensus to go forward from where we are on it.  The decision as to whether the residences remain as is or they come in or are moved into the Business District (or out of the Business District) – I need to think through that more.”
 
There was a brief discussion on the date, time, and place to continue this Public Hearing.
MOTION:  Mr. Limbacher Moved to continue the Public Hearing on the proposed zoning articles which will be on the Warrant for the march 2008 Annual Town Meeting  to December 13, 2007 at 8:00 P.M. in the Gates Intermediate School Library/Media Center at 327 First Parish Road.  [Mr. Walter, Mr. Limbacher, Mr. Fenton, and Mrs. Brennan voted on the Motion.  Mrs. Chisholm and Mr. Duncan (Associate Member) were absent.]
________________________________________________________________________    
 

Old Business, New Business, Correspondence, Administrative Items
 
ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES:  Motion duly Moved by Mr. Limbacher, Seconded by Mrs. Brennan, and voted unanimously to pay the following:
1. W. B. Mason ($97.66) for office supplies.
2. Ockers Company ($78.00) for 2008 maintenance contract on Planning Board typewriter.
3.
 

HIRE CONSULTANT TO COMPLETE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN
 
Motion:  Mr. Fenton Moved that the Board engage Karen Sunnarborg to complete the Affordable Housing Production Plan based on the RFP.  Motion Seconded by Mr. Limbacher and the vote was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion.
 
 
APPLY FOR STATE ASSISTANCE TO COMPLETE STUDY OF COLE PARKWAY
 
PARKING STUDY: Ms. Harbottle asked the members if they wanted to proceed with an application to obtain funds for a parking study of the Harbor area, in particular Cole Parkway.  Mr. Limbacher said he did not see the need for a parking study as he did not see a parking problem in Cole Parkway.  Except for two or three times a year such as the Carnival and Heritage Days parking is available in Cole Parkway.    Mr. Fenton thought the study should be done and he volunteered to be a contact person and to assist Ms. Harbottle in preparing the application.
 
MOTION:  Mr. Fenton Moved that the Planning Board should move ahead and submit the application for the parking study as Laura Harbottle has laid out.  Mrs. Brennan Seconded the Motion.  Mr. Walter, Mr. Fenton, and Mrs. Brennan voted in favor of the Motion.  Mr. Limbacher voted present.  Mrs. Chisholm and Mr. Duncan were absent.
 
BUDGET:  Ms. Harbottle said there will be a meeting with the Advisory Committee on the Planning Board budget on December 15th.
 
MOTION TO ADJOURN:  Motion duly Moved, Seconded, and voted unanimously to adjourn at 10:25 P.M.
 
                                                            Respectfully submitted,
 
 
                                                            Merrilyn R. O’Brien, Secretary
 
_____________________________   Mary Patricia Brennan, Clerk
 
_____________________________   Date Approved