Printer Friendly Layout

News/Events - Meeting Minutes

MINUTES

FEBRUARY 7, 2008

Members Present: Mr. Walter, Mr. Limbacher, Mr. Fenton, Mrs. Brennan, Mrs. Chisholm
Others Present: Ms. Harbottle, Town Planner

See Sign-in List for names of others present at this meeting.

[For this meeting see ‘Fifth Draft: Compromise Version Zoning Changes for 2/7/08 Public Hearing’; Chart ‘Humarock Zoning Changes Comparison of the Most Recent Draft and New Compromise’ in Annual Town Meeting file.]

Mr. Walter read aloud the section of the Agenda pertaining to these continued hearings. See Agenda for details on the proposed zoning changes.

Mr. Walter said, “Our last meeting was January 10th and there have been some continuing discussions. We have gone from a third draft to a fourth draft and tonight there is a fifth draft that the Board is going to be considering. I will add that the fourth draft is under consideration to because we really have not talked about that. I will turn this over to Laura to walk us through the changes.”

Ms. Harbottle said, “The last public hearing was very well attended and this one is also. There was a lot of discussions on the main points of this bylaw, particularly the density and the height. There was also discussion on just about every aspect of this bylaw. There are a variety of opinions on some of these different things and there are some different options. One option is not going to please everyone. One option is not necessarily better than another one. What the Planning Board wants to do is to find out what the people in Humarock really want for their community when it gets to some of these issues. At the end of the last Planning Board meeting the Planning Board asked me to go ahead and make some changes to the draft. Those were really just two changes from the draft that everyone saw before the January 10th hearing. One of those was to reduce the 7 + 3 density to 7+2 density. That was a compromise that they decided like applying the wisdom of Solomon as it was not going to please everyone. Hopefully it will work out for the good of the whole in the long run. The other compromise that they asked me to put in (and this is in draft #4 that I am talking about now) was to allow a 40’ height to the ridge but to make it so that that five extra feet (35’ + 5’) would have to be obtained through providing some more public benefit. Those two changes are in a fourth draft and it is the basis of the fifth draft. The fifth draft just has some very recent changes which represent another option for people to think about.”

Ms. Harbottle continued, “During the hearing process there were a couple of petitions that people brought forward. One of them was to have a density of twenty-five units per acre per 40,000 sq. ft. It was pretty clear that that did not have a whole lot of support. There was also a petition that was brought forward with a considerable lower density (7 +1). So without really knowing completely who was behind all those petitions and how valid they were the Planning Board still has to come to some kind of closure on the bylaw by the end of tonight. The reason for that is that the bylaw is going to be put in the Warrant and there will be an advertisement for the Warrant published on February 10th. That is the deadline that the Town Administrator’s secretary gave us. That puts the pressure on to flush out some of these options and get them out on paper. People will not like all the options. Hopefully there is one that will work.”

Ms. Harbottle continued, “Just to go over what the options are you should have this chart [Chart: Humarock Zoning Changes Comparison of the Most Recent Draft and New Compromise] of changes between the most recent draft and the new compromise. This allows you to look at it and make a quick comparison. This is actually going back to the third draft and the new compromise which is the fifth draft. I will talk about the fourth draft in there too for some of the options where we had a different option in the fourth draft. I want to say also that the final set of options was something that was worked out between one member of the Ad Hoc Committee and the developer of the Mad Fish property. It does not mean that everyone supports it. It means that it seems to be financially feasibility in terms of being able to make what someone considers to be a reasonable profit from that property. So just to summarize this. As far as the density – the fourth draft was to have a basic density of 7+3 bonus units where a developer would have to perform certain things that were not otherwise required whether it was putting in some new water mains, some park area, providing public access to the water or any or all of those types of things. The fourth draft went to 7 + 2 and the new compromise (with input from the developer) was 7 + 1. All that means is that it seems to be financial feasible to do the 7 + 1. There may be a downside to the 7 + 1 in that you don’t get all the benefits that you would get with the 7 + 3. That is something to consider.”

Ms. Harbottle said, “The height has been another subject that people keep coming back to. They have ideas of what they think is right for Humarock. This may be referring to the fourth draft. The fourth draft was 35’ to the ridge plus an extra 5’ possible height if there was some additional public benefit. The new compromise is just 35’ to the ridge.”

Ms. Harbottle said, “The front setback that was in the third and fourth draft was 30’. The new compromise is only 25’. The floor area ratio in the third and fourth draft was .4. That is the ratio of all the buildings floors to the area of the lot and in the new compromise the developer of the Mad Fish property told us that he really did not think he could make the thing work with .4. So that is going to be increased slightly to .425. The driveway width we allowed a little more reduction in that. Either of those should work. They are both typically of a common driveway. This is a driveway inside of a condominium development. It is not some place where people will be getting up a high rate of speed. Where you are on a barrier beach you really don’t want a lot of driveway surface, even if it is pervious you will still have some hard packed surface underneath. The setbacks from the South River had been 30’ but it could be reduced to 20’ if a public boardwalk was provided and the new compromise is 25’. The length of the building was something where we worked pretty hard in our negotiation, if you want to call it that, with the developer. The most recent draft had 125’ as the longest length that any single building could be. You may wonder what is the significance of that. It really has an effect on what the site looks like. If you have a couple of really long buildings it can look huge. If you can break them up into several smaller buildings it can really look a lot better. So the draft had 125’. His buildings as proposed – the largest one was going to be 150’ and the compromise that was worked out was 135’. That is really the explanation as well as I can of the past two drafts, the most recent draft, and the new possible compromise.”

Mr. Fenton said, “We should all think about and talk about two things. One – the Overlay District does not preclude the underlying zoning. So the existing height under current zoning for the Business District could go to 40’ . So one could use the underlying zoning and you could end up with a 40’ structure. I am just talking about the physical structure. This is not for the multi-family condominium. In the current Business District you could do 4 units per 40,000 sq. ft. “ Ms. Harbottle said, “With an Accessory Dwelling above a building you could do 3.” Mr. Fenton continued, “I am just trying to recount what the underlying zoning would allow. Number 2 – do I understand that even in the Residential District we still have a 40’ max?” Ms. Harbottle replied, “Yes, to the ridge.” Mr. Fenton said, “So it is an absolute maximum of 40’ to the ridge and the way it is written now it is an absolute maximum to the ridge of 35’. So a rebuilt of a residential could end up being taller than what you would have in the Overlay Zone. The last thing is that I do caution us all collectively to be careful about imagining what the bylaw could look like based on only one application. I commend the work of the abutters and the current applicant. I hope that you all, including the Board, will think about the whole area. If we do the map changes as we imagine them these rules will hold for all of that. If you leave some flexibility in the bylaw there is still need for Board approval. It would be a Special Permit that this Board has to approve and we can take into account lots of details e.g. the part of the district that abuts residences should consider the character of the area. The part that is right in the heart of the Business District might look differently.”

Mr. Walter said, “I will open up the meeting for public discussion and comments. We have heard a number of different opinions and we appreciate them all. We are trying to take them all into consideration.”

Mr. John Cronin, 5 Dartmouth Street, said, “I am an abutter to the proposed overlay and I am speaking for myself. I had the opportunity this morning to meet with Laura and with the developer, Mike Solimando, and Atty. W. Sullivan to see what we could do to help move this forward so the Planning Board could have an article for Town Meeting. After a long meeting an agreement was reached by all of us to recommend to the Planning Board the adoption of this fifth draft for all three parcels of the Overlay. I will just go through a short version of the changes. It is going to be all townhouses now. That was not mentioned on the chart. There will be a 35’ maximum height to the ridge. The density will be 7+1. In the case of the down the street property it will be 14. I believe it will be 15 for the original Davis property. I have done the calculations for the Lobster Pound/Seafood USA because they don’t have enough area to do it by themselves. They would have to acquire other properties to qualify under the bylaw. That would be quite possible. The other change is the 25’ setback from the street instead of 30’ except for Webster Street where there is a 8’ setback across from the South River Yacht Yard barn. There will be a 15’ setback from residential property lines. The FAR has been increased by six percent. The allowable building length was increased by 10’. The agreement incorporated the key parts of the petitions that we received from the neighbors/abutters and the initial changes were agreed to do solve problems with developers e.g. with the change to all townhouses. I want to give thanks to Laura Harbottle for pulling this all together and also to the developer, Mike Solimando who has worked with us to try to bring this to a conclusion.”

Ms. Kate McDonald, 37 Revere Street, said she was concerned with the proposed 7+1 density because there may not be sufficient public benefit. She asked what the Town would be losing in terms of public benefit if 7+1 was used rather than 7+3. Ms. Harbottle replied, “I don’t think there is a real definite answer to that because all the benefits will be subject to negotiation with developers. I think it will depend upon a case by case basis. There is probably an argument to be made that the public benefit won’t be as much as if there were three extra units.” Ms. McDonald questioned how all the new additional people coming in to the area would be able to access the area of Humarock e.g. get to the beach given the existing traffic and access problems. Mr. Walter replied, “Good question. I would think that it would be just like people access the area now. If they live that close they would be walking to the beach.” Ms. McDonald described the existing parking and traffic problems and questioned where the guests of people living in the new condos would park. Mr. Walter said, “Just as like anyone else living in that area they could have numerous guests visiting. They will either park on the property or in a public lot. I understand that there is only one public lot. Are you suggesting that this will overwhelm the neighborhood?” Ms. McDonald said that it would in the summer. The Mad Fish Restaurant as it is right now overwhelms the neighborhood.” Mr. Walter said, “Keep in mind that the Mad Fish would not be there any more. It would just be residential.” Ms. McDonald again expressed concerns that especially on weekend days the neighborhood is over run with foot traffic and vehicular traffic, and she thought the proposed condominium development would add to that existing problem. Mr. Walter said, “I can’t speak to that because that proposed project is not before us. I know you are trying to speculate ‘what if’. Would you try and answer that, Mr. Solomando?”

Mr. Solimando replied, “Currently we have 96 parking spaces. In the summer we do have some outside seating. There are a number of turn-overs during the course of Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. What we have come down to now is that each unit will have a two-car garage and two parking spaces and we have 12 overflow parking spaces. We more than meet the requirements of the and of the marina. We fit the criteria. We have 4 parking spaces per unit plus we have the additional 12 which is more than enough for the 18 slips that we currently have. We won’t have the dining room any more. We won’t have the transient traffic. We do have enough space for each unit. We only have 18 slips and we will have some of those slips open to the public. A lot of the homeowners will have slips there too. That was an important part of our development and negotiations. We had to make sure that we had ample parking. I made sure that we had more than what was needed.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “The bylaw, regardless of whether it is version 5, 4, or 3, makes reference to the required parking requirements that are currently in place. That has not been changed with the Overlay. The parking requirement will have to be provided for any use.”

Mr. Richard Tornsey, Humarock Beach, 10 Marshfield Avenue and also on the Ad Hoc Committee said, “First of I am very happy that Mike Solimando and the neighbors of Mad Fish worked something out. That was touch and go. That’s fantastic. I am sorry that I can’t speak to the newest draft very well because it just came out and the Committee has not had a chance to digest it. I just saw it today for the first time. That leaves us, for the most part, with the Davis property. As John has mentioned you could combine a few properties and still get not a very big development but you could get something with the Humming Rock Gift Shop, the Clark property. That is not the highest likelihood. [He passed around a photo of the Davis property.] This will give you a graphic example of how bad the Davis property is. That was taken this afternoon. My fear is that the Davis property will not be financially feasible for a developer to come in and better the property. The difference in the value of property changes lot by lot. The Solimando property has waterfront lots. There will still be a slip available to you or to walk to it. There is a much higher value on the Mad Fish property than there is on the Davis property. Because of that compromise, which is terrific - those are the closer parties involved but there is a greater Humarock involved also – we will lose certain public benefits. As Kate had asked - what sort of public benefits might we lose? We have been given a list of certain public benefits that would be available e.g. a public walkway along the Mad Fish property, like doing some sidewalks in town, permanent restroom structures by the Davis property. John came up with a spectacular concept of redesigning and redeveloping the entrance to the public beach. If the public beach was a more enticing place the people would be more apt to stay on the public beach. So those are some of the public benefits. Mike is a dear friend of mine and I pressured him to bury all the power lines in town. [Mr. Solimando said the cost would be $380,000 per pole.] I told Mike that if he was going to fight for increased density that I wanted to see increased mitigation. Mike has cut down significantly from what he started with. So now we have the Davis property. It is closer to downtown. By the way I got a call from Keith Jansen who is usually our spokesman, (and a much better spokesman than I am) – he encouraged me to say that he agreed with my concept on density and height. I believe that a density with mitigation up to 40’ in the Business District (of which I am an abutter at 10 Marshfield Avenue so I am impacted directly). I believe that without this we will not get a developer to come and invest money into developing it. Certainly if someone did come in they would not invest extra money in mitigation such as a new redesigned beach entrance or to put in public restrooms if they couldn’t get a density. So those are my fears. I don’t have the knowledge to speak specifically to setbacks. I did have long conversations with Mike Solimando and I see some of these in the new compromise – 25’ setbacks; floor area ratio (FAR) is a complicated process – those were very restricted and I now see some relief on those restrictions in the new compromise. But the new compromise even with those very minimal relief on those restrictions – but with 7+1 is absolutely untenable for right downtown. I believe that some folks had fears that what was being proposed by the Committee was similar to Scituate Harbor and that is absolutely not so at all. Even with a density of 12 per acre it just isn’t in comparison to Scituate Harbor. This is a much scaled back design. I passed that picture around to show that that property may very well stay looking like that if we don’t give some incentive to a developer to come in and risk putting money in a very difficult market to do something with that property.”

A gentleman in the audience said, “Rich – you are trying to justify Davis’ price. If he cut the price in half then a developer would go in. You are asking the residents and the Board to expand the density to justify Davis’ price. Davis right now is sitting tight waiting to see what happens at these meetings. Let’s stay with a reasonable density.” Mr. Tornsey and this gentlemen continued their discussion about the Davis property. Mr. Tornsey said, “What I am suggesting is something that is very much in keeping in Humarock and will encourage someone to come in. You don’t have to agree with me. I understand what you are saying. I originally came in at 12 per acre and I compromised down to 10 per acre. I believe that that the 40’ height is absolutely keeping with that center of town. Someone else may have a legitimate disagreement with that.” Mr. Walter asked Mr. Tornsey, “Do you want 7+3 or do you have some other number in your mind?” Mr. Tornsey replied, “I had compromised on the Ad Hoc Comm. to the 7+3 because the Mad Fish development is in a residential area and it abuts more residential houses than the downtown. The difference between one lot makes a difference. The difference between a block makes a big difference.”

Mr. Don Hourihan, 284 Central Avenue, asked about the number of slips that would be at the Mad Fish property and he discussed the parking requirements for slips. Mr. Walter said, “I really do not want this discussion to go to a discussion about the Mad Fish property. I know they have something before the ZBA. We do not want to get into discussions about that specific property because we are here to talk about the bylaw in general. So I don’t want to answer that particular question. If you have a question about the bylaw that would be fine. Let’s not get hung up on the Mad Fish.”

Ms. Nancy Doyle, 29 Oliver Street, asked about sidewalks. She understood that sidewalks should be a responsibility of the town so she did not think they should be considered a perk. Mr. Walter replied, “Yes, we should absolutely have sidewalks throughout town where they are appropriate and I think that this Board, in general, agrees with that. What we have found over the years there has not been the capital to actually install sidewalks. There has been a plan that has been developed and the intent is to implement that over time, but without money there is no way to put the sidewalks in. So having sidewalks as potential mitigation with sidewalks here or with any project that comes before our Board or the ZBA is a way to get something built even if they are in short sections. That is the reality that we have to live with. The Town does not have the money to put in sidewalks, unfortunately.”

Mr. Steve Irish, 22 Marshfield Ave, said he thought that it was the abutters who paid the price to have higher density. Benefits for the town should be paid for by the town and not by the abutters who have to live with bigger properties next to their properties. Mr. Irish thought the character between the downtown and the residential area was not that dramatically different so he thought the 35’ building height is more appropriate even for the downtown area of Humarock.

Mr. F. McDonnell, 37 Revere St., said he was a fireman and mentioned the height of buildings. Mr. Walter said, “The height will be no higher than what is allowed currently. Any application that comes before us is actually passed out to the Police and Fire Departments and other departments. They review the projects and send their response back to us. We make sure that any development will have the proper turning radius, access for safety.” Mr. McDonnell questioned whether there would be a need for a bigger firehouse in Humarock or more staffing to service the new development.

Mr. S. Kohlmeier, Newell Street, questioned whether anyone had asked if there were builders interested in doing townhouses versus condos in that area. He described the marketing of both townhouses and condos. He said that the whole town is trying to upgrade itself. Mr. Walter asked, “Are you suggesting that you prefer the townhouses to condos?” Mr. Kohlmeier said townhouses made more sense because townhouses could be sold individually and they can be pre-sold. When you build condos you have a structure and all of the units need to be sold. At the end of the day the last four or five condo units could be going for a very low price and that could bring in undesirable people. Mr. Kohlmeier referred to the earlier discussion about sidewalks and he said it was a travesty about what has not been done in Humarock on the sidewalks and the roads. He emphasized the need for decent sidewalks and roadways so people can walk, run, bicycle, and drive safely. Mr. Kohlmeier said that Humarock was not prepared to handle the extra people that come in Humarock in the summer now let alone the increase of people from any new development.

Mr. Paul Armstrong, Marshfield, wanted to make sure that the Town of Scituate was working with the Town of Marshfield on the support structure e.g. police, fire, water. Mr. Armstrong said there was plenty of parking available in the Humarock parking lot as the area is not being used as it once was some 25 years ago.

Atty. W. Sullivan, attorney for Michael Solimando, said, “I sent an e-mail to Laura. I thought there was going to be a decision about affordable units and I didn’t see that in this draft.” Ms. Harbottle replied, “There is language in S570.8 the second paragraph on page 6 in the handout that talks about an alternate method of providing the required affordable housing which is to make a financial contribution to the Housing Authority or an organization like Habitat in the amount of the affordable unit.” Atty. Sullivan said, “I thought that when we were first talking about it - I thought a person could purchase a building some place else in Scituate as one affordable unit as opposed to just making a contribution.” Ms. Harbottle reviewed various drafts of the bylaw, “I think we have not had that for quite awhile. In the third draft – it is exactly the same as in the fifth draft. We can look and see what the language was if there is any other language.”

Mr. Fenton asked Atty. Sullivan, “Are you recommending that the Board restore that language? Just help me understand the rationale of that versus the financial contribution.” Atty. Sullivan replied, “It is possible that a developer may have another building that could be used.” Mr. Fenton added, “So that may be a better financial path for a developer.” A gentleman asked, “The abutters to that other unit somewhere else – do they have any say?” Mr. Walter replied, “That would all be taken into consideration.”

Ms. Harbottle said, “Additional affordable units - that would be if someone wanted to give an extra one. The thing about the financial contribution is that you would not have to decide then and there whether it was in a good location or a bad location. You would not have to go through all that.”

Mr. Walter asked the Board for their views on the discuss the density issue (7+1 or 7+3). Mr. Limbacher said, “I think that 7+3 is a higher density that I would prefer to see out there. I think that Kate McDonnell made a valid point and that is if what we are looking for – for an incremental increase in density is there a benefit to be gained. I think that is worth an additional unit. What I would suggest is clearly not 7+3 but I am thinking of 7+2. One of the things that I am looking to do is to offer up that density and come back up and get a benefit. We look to generally improve the area. I think this is an opportunity to do it.”

Mr. Tornsey said, “I think the David property and the Mad Fish property were approximately the size. I had a conversation with Mike Solimando and he said he would not go with the 7+2 because it would push him into a new affordable range. He said that hurts me more than helps me. That is why I was looking at 7+3.” Ms. Harbottle offered some figures about the square footage and the affordable requirements.

Mr. Fenton said, “To be clear – it is 7 units as a base and if one wants the additional unit it opens up the door to a discussion on bonus density with the Board. Everyone seems to agree with the base density of 7. The question is – do you allow the developer to negotiate for 1, 2, or 3 additional units. The lower that number is it lessens what the Board can ask for. As the gentleman said, it also increases the burden on the abutter. The direct abutters are the ones who get the negative impact of any increase in units. It is all a balancing act. As you remember at the last meeting we talked about that this is a bylaw that people want to use in lieu of doing something like a 40B. That is the balance that I am trying to find – enticing enough to get developers to use this bylaw. Remember that the Mad Fish property will have to go through the Special Permit process with the Planning Board and we will have all those detailed questions e.g. parking spaces, marina slips, what do we get for the bonus units. All of that stuff will be on the table but it will be specifically to that application. That is why we hesitate to have that discussion now. The question we really want to ask is are we creating a tool that is enticing enough to bring the developer to this table to have that dialogue and yet protect the neighborhood. We want it to be able to give this Board the leverage to get what the community wants out of it. That is the question you all should be asking yourselves and that is what I am asking myself.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “My thinking is – if 7+2 does not work economically then you could do 7+1. If 7+1 is your only choice then you can never get to 7+2 . If 7+2 does not work for Mike that does not mean it would not work for the Davis property.”

Mr. Cronin said, “The bonus discussion is interesting. It is a new concept for planning. The Planning Board has that concept in place for the harbor and North Scituate. I question the ethics of it. The goal was to get density because of the railroad, but that is not a goal for Humarock.”

A gentleman in the audience said, “I have two concerns. One is with the extension of the footprint for this area here. The other concern is the possible change in the boundary of the public beach. I am concerned that the next step will be to move the boundary over here which could effect the property rights of the people along here.” [This gentleman went to the map and showed the Board the areas he was speaking about.] Mr. Walter said, “I understand your concern but this Board cannot speak for future boards. This is certainly not something that we have talked about. In fact we have worked to consolidate the Overlay District into something smaller than it was originally.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “This is a zoning change that must be done by Town Meeting and requires a two-thirds vote. The process for any change to this would be the same process that we are doing now. To change the Overlay there would have to be a public hearing and a vote at Town Meeting. The encroachment that you referred to can’t be done automatically. The change would have to be done by the voters of the town at Town Meeting.

Mr. Arthur Brown, 31 Marshfield Avenue, said, “I am definitely in favor of the fifth draft and the Overlay District changes.” [Mr. Brown went to the map and described the beach area in Humarock.]

Mr. Jack Dacey, 8 Marshfield Avenue, spoke about the Davis property and he said that the photo submitted earlier shows why something really needs to be done. Mr. Dacey went to the map and showed the Board the areas he was speaking about. He suggested that a public benefit could be the creation of an elevated sand dune. Mr. Dacey explained where the sand dune could be placed and how it could be constructed and accessed. He said his suggestion was for an elevated sand dune built on top of the septic system area and within the setbacks.

Mr. Paul Armstrong spoke about the requirements of the Flood Plain Bylaw e.g. the Conservation Commission requirements re elevation of buildings and how those requirements effect the height of buildings.
Mr. Fenton said, “Density – I think the trick is to find the one where we can get the most support from the community. From the beginning we wanted to get a bylaw that you guys would show up at Town Meeting and support. It sounds like the 7+1 number would get that. I would go there but with the understanding that that might not do anything. The problem is that you are all focusing on the one property where there is an application. The real question is what about the other properties. I understand your point, Mr. Cronin. You know that I am receptive. I supported the creation of the Ad Hoc Committee. What might happen is that we will have a learning curve with that 7+1 density. I think we can have a parallel conversation about the 35’ height versus 35’ with the opportunity to go to 40’. By the way the underlying zoning still allows 40’ and the houses next door can go to 40’. You could end up with a house redeveloped next to this (Mad Fish) which would be 5’ taller than what you would get in the zone. Having said that, to get your support I would be glad to say yes to both of them. I can live with everything on the matrix but the two big questions are the height and the density. If the existing applicant (but I don’t want this to be about that) can get through the process with those kinds of numbers and we get large uniform support from this group I would be prepared to go with both of those numbers.”

Mr. Fenton continued, “My only concern and Mr. Cronin pointed it out is with 570.7A and that is the one that says that all units shall consist of townhouses accessed from the ground. I have voiced this concern before. I would suggest that we put some language in there that allows for, at least facing Marshfield and Central Avenues, first floor business use. I think that is entirely appropriate, particularly when we are coming towards $8.00/gal. gas and the bridge being closed. You may want to see a little shop open in some of those first floor establishments (facing the street in the appropriate zone). I think that language that captures a non-residential use on the first floor encourages business. We had language that, I think, intended to do that previously. See that deleted language off to the side. I would hope that we could move back to something that would give the Board some flexibility around those kind of uses facing Central and Marshfield Avenues.”

Mrs. Chisholm said, “Density – I agree with Bill that it should be 7+2 with the understanding that they could do 7+1 and not do 7+2. I also think that the height should be the 35’ plus the 5’ bonus. Why deny a developer 40’ when anyone can do 40’?”

Mr. Walter said, “That is actually what I want to talk about. I tend to agree with that especially when they will get an added benefit for the 5’. I think the 35’ is because it is a larger structure so I think the idea was, because of the mass, to keep it to the 35’.”

Ms. Harbottle said, “In general looking around Humarock most of the houses and buildings are not 40’. Most of them are 20’, 25’, 30’, 35’. There are hardly anything that are 40’. There are a couple that are 40’ that really stick out. I think the feeling is that people don’t want that.”

Mr. Walter said, “It is kind of what happened at Sand Hills where the houses were going up to 40’. We tried to bring that back and we were told that the neighborhood did not want that. Here we have a situation where the majority wants 35’.”

Mr. Fenton said, “This may be a situation where we may want to make a change later and do it not all over town but for a barrier beach. I could doing this next year – bring the maximum height to the ridge to 35’ – all over the whole residential district in Humarock. This would be justifiable because from a zoning standpoint it is a unique area.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “I think the point is that with the Mad Fish we would be looking at a potentially larger structure. We are looking at a larger structure right on the water. From that standpoint the 35’ + 5’ makes sense.” Mr. Walter said, “The way I look at it is that I am looking to extend the benefit. If we are going to get benefits our only mechanism is the 35+5 and the 7 + whatever the number is.” Mr. Fenton said, “This is what is happening all over the country and it is the way towns are getting infrastructure built.”

The Board reviewed some of the items in the matrix. The Chair asked the members for their opinions on the following:

1. Front Setback 25’ Board agreed

2. Floor Area Ratio .425 Board agreed

3. Driveway Can be reduced to 16’ Board agreed

4. Setback from 25’ Board agreed

5. Building Length 135’ Board agreed

Mr. Walter said, “So really what we are talking about here is the density (7+1 versus 7+2) and the height (35’ max versus 35’ to the ridge with 5’ extra with public benefit).”

A gentleman in the audience from Newell Street explained that when he rebuilt his home after the 1991 Storm there was a maximum of 29’ for the building height. He said he thought that 35’ height should be the max. He said he thought the idea was to develop Humarock with a bigger view and just not develop condominiums in the business district. Mr. Limbacher questioned how the 29’ was measured and the gentleman explained. Mr. Limbacher thought the actual measurement of his house was likely 35’.

Mrs. Rosemary Dobie asked how the height was measured and Mr. Walter said it was from the ground up. Mr. Brown also asked about the height and Mr. Walter said, “You don’t have to go to the maximum amount. If you go with the Overlay the height would be fixed.”

Mrs. Chris Brown, 11 Marshfield Avenue, a member of the Ad Hoc Committee, and a representative of the retail aspect of Humarock said, “If we limit it to townhouses only we will eventually lose all of the business district over time. I think that part of the language has to be changed to allow retail.” Mr. Fenton asked, “Do you agree with my idea of protecting the Marshfield Ave. and Central Ave. portion?” Mrs. Brown replied, “Absolutely.” Mr. Walter said, “We can modify it to make it specific to the Business District.” Ms. Harbottle asked, “Do you want to say that there has to be a business use there?” Mrs. Brennan said, “It should be ‘may’.” Mr. Walter said, “If you want retail on the first floor then it won’t be a townhouse.” Ms. Harbottle said, “If you say it has to be above retail then you will get a big building with a lot of apartments in it which you may not want .” Mr. Walter said, “If there is retail on the ground floor then you can do condos above. If no retail then it can be townhouses.” Mr. Limbacher agreed.
A gentleman asked if this would be restricted to the Business Zone and Mr. Walter said that was correct.

Mr. Limbacher said, “Density – I had suggested 7+2 but I have no problem going back to 7+1. If we find out that 7+1 does not generate the interest and the expectations then we can revise it.” Mr. Walter added, “I like your thinking that it does not have to be 7+2 and they could do 7+1. If we find that the wish of the community is 7+1 then I can live with that.” Mrs. Chisholm asked, “Don’t you think that most developers will just go 7 and not want to spend the money to do anything in Humarock? That is my impression.” Mr. Cronin said, “The affordability kicks in at 7+2.” Mr. Fenton read aloud the section on affordability and explained how the numbers work. He said, “We need to clarify that.” Ms. Harbottle said, “That is the same way you did it in Greenbush and North Scituate except that there was a minimum which it did not apply below which I think is eight units. That would be good to have here too because for five units it would be asking a lot. I can add something to that effect.” Mr. Fenton and Ms. Harbottle continued to talk about the numbers involved with the affordability aspect. Mr. Fenton said, “We could make it kick in at ten or something like that. With ten or more units you would do the affordability.” Mr. Limbacher said, “So with ten there would be one affordable unit.” Mr. Fenton said, “We are doing the math on the affordable units. We recognize that the way the language works right now (read it) e.g. if someone built just five units they would have to make one of those affordable. That would be pretty challenging in a five unit development. We are proposing that we set as a minimum that the affordability unit only kicks in if your total development is ten residential units or more. So we are setting a floor there. The last thing we want to do is to create a dis-incentive and have the developer stop always at seven units and not go to the additional one and not get any public good.”

Mr. Tornsey said, “This is our only shot to get mitigation. I keep seeing in my mind John Cronin’s description of the beach entrance and redesigning that beach entrance. By no means am I encouraging someone to bypass this and go to the ZBA but if there is not enough in it for anyone to do anything (e.g. with the Davis property). If someone goes to the ZBA and bypasses all of this is there still an opportunity to encourage them to do mitigation, or is it that we don’t get mitigation if they go to the ZBA?” Ms. Harbottle replied, “With any big project with the town these days, either with the Planning Board or the ZBA, mitigation is common. It is not that unusual. This just makes it a little more organized. It is commonly done for any large project. For a Special Permit it could be upgrading a water main, a sidewalk, or any of these things.” Mr. Tornsey said, “So there will still be mitigation.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “Let me give you an example. I was on the ZBA when the 40B for Strockbridge Road was approved. Part of the mitigation is a sidewalk that brings it down towards Jenkins School down to Vinal Avenue. So we got mitigation for that. There was mitigation proposed in Oceanside Village. So the fact that they go to the ZBA does not preclude that. You would have to work it out and it would have to be a Condition of Approval. The key is the Special Permit. It is not a matter of right. It is part of the approval process. Mr. Fenton added, “From five years on this Board and watching the ZBA work I think that the more that it is the code the more you will get. The more it is just left to a Board the more you are challenged to get it. Example: the sidewalk they got was $25,000 of in-kind work. Maybe it will get there and maybe it won’t. Anything you can do to give the town leverage is critically important. I have many developers tell me that it is better for them if they know what the expectations look like.”

Mrs. Rosemary Dobie, Central Avenue, asked the Board to summarize their collective thinking on allowing retail. Mr. Walter said, “The way version #5 is written right now is that everything that goes through this bylaw has to be a townhouse. If it is a townhouse in the Business District you can’t have a business on the ground floor. So what we are suggesting is that if you want to do a business on the ground floor we would encourage that in the Business District that is within this Overlay District you could do condos as opposed to limiting it to townhouses. So it is an either/or.”

A lady from Central Avenue talked about sidewalks that she would like to see in Humarock. Mr. Fenton said, “This is exactly the kind of stuff that we can have a dialogue about when someone comes in for his Special Permit. We have to have the leverage to ask for it.”

Mr. Fenton said, “I am curious – I hear some Board members who want to go with a density of 7+2 and not 7+1. There is a large group that is involved in this dialogue who say that 7+1 is the number. If this Board goes with 7+2 are you not going to be able to support it on Town Meeting floor? The voice of Humarock residents will make the difference on the floor of Town Meeting. So I would like to know if you could support the 7+2.” It was pointed out by a member of the audience that the Overlay zoning is for all of Humarock and not just for the Mad Fish.] Mr. Fenton continued, “I would urge you to think about this. Do you trust this Board? You already know the direction that the Mad Fish is going. They said they were going to do 7+1. The question is – do you want to give the Board the flexibility to have negotiation e.g. for concrete versus asphalt sidewalks? Additional bonus units will help to do that. I think that is a reasonable question to ask you.”

Mr. Walter said, “Mark makes a great point. If the people of Humarock do not support whatever is brought to Town Meeting it will never fly. We don’t want to impose our will on Humarock either. I know that this is not everyone from Humarock, but I think there is a pretty decent cross section here. Could we have a hand show on the 7+1?”

A man said, “There are two issues and I think you should separate them. The 35’ versus the 40’ structure is going to have much more of an imposing impact than one additional unit. I would go for one additional unit if it was 35’.”

Mr. F. Voutselas, 22 Palfrey Street, asked, “I would like to know who is able to vote. You want a show of hands. A lot of these people may not come from Humarock. I don’t think they have the right to vote. So what happens there?” Mr. Walter said, “This is very unofficial. We are just trying to get a sense of the room, knowing that not everyone is a Scituate voter.”

Mr. Hourihan said, “A lady over here said that the town is responsible for the sidewalks. The Town of Scituate clears over two million dollars from Humarock because there are so few kids in school. Now are the abutters to the development going to have to suffer by having an extra unit put in there because of mitigation which the town should be taking care of?”

Mr. A. Brown called for a show of hands to indicate the number of people that were from Humarock and he said that 99% are from Humarock.

The Chair called for a show of hands regarding 7+1 and 7+2 for the density. The result was that 31 people wanted 7+1 and 11 wanted 7+2. The Board agreed to use 7+1 because that was the number the residents preferred and the support of the residents of Humarock will be needed to get the bylaw passed at Town Meeting.

The discussion centered on the height of the buildings and whether it should be 35’ with no bonus density or 35’ + 5’ with a bonus density. Mr. Cronin said that the existing Mad Fish building is 36’ to the ridge. Ms. Julie Johnson said that most of the newer homes or reconstructed homes with 2 floors and an attic story are usually 39’ or 40’. Mr. Paul Armstrong also described the average height of homes in the Flood Plain. Ms. Johnson said, “I think the change of the zoning is to the absolute ridge. There are homes that are newer developed that will be two, three, four feet higher than anything that will be build in the overlay. I don’t want people to be afraid of it because it is not that much off the norm of what you have seen.” Mr. Fenton said, “If you go with the 35’ (you have already gone with the 7+1) so you will have no bonus negotiation so you can write off sidewalks and other stuff that you can imagine. If you give the guy a one unit bonus there is not a lot of room for negotiation. We will try to get stuff from him but that negotiation with be a different negotiation if you can’t give him 5’ extra height and another bonus unit. You know where I am. I will do what the community is ready to do. Just don’t yell at me when I am not able to get a developer to give you 5,000 feet of sidewalk. You need to know that reality.” Ms. Harbottle added, “Some of that will depend on the size of the project.” Mr. Cronin said, “When you are talking about bonus units you are talking about someone else’s capital. You are talking about taking value away from the abutters. So that is why we came up with the 35’. I would hope that you would endorse the 35’ and not the 40’.”

Mr. Walter said, “I tend to agree with that given that these developments will be larger in density. That is a compromise – the 7+1 and the 35’.” Mr. Limbacher explained how the height measurement would be done. Mr. Limbacher and Mrs. Brennan indicated that they could agree with the 35’. Mrs. Chisholm preferred 35’ + 5’ because if it was just 35’ there will be no bonus.

Mr. Walter said, “As I see it we are pretty much in agreement with the 7+1; the 35’ to the ridge with nothing extra; front yard setback of 25’; floor area ratio of .425; driveway can be reduced to 16’; setback from the South River 25’; building length can be up to 135’; and the language that Laura has taken down regarding retail on the ground floor in the Business District which can actually become a single floor condo or in the double level above the retail space. Is there anything else?”

Mrs. Brennan asked, “The word ‘can’ – should it be ‘will’ regarding the size of the driveway. Ms. Harbottle replied, “This allows you an option.” Mr. Walter said, “We would look at the size of the development. You might want a larger size depending on the size of the development.” Mr. Fenton added, “We would see what the Fire Chief recommends.”

Ms. Harbottle asked, “Can I just ask about the businesses on the first floor on Central Avenue and Marshfield Avenue? Do you want to allow less of a front setback there as you did in Greenbush?” Mrs. Brennan said, “Only if the building has the commercial.” Mr. Limbacher said, “I think that makes sense.” Mr. Walter said, “We can talk about it – only in keeping with the existing businesses.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “On version #5 section 570.6 it says that we will meet all of the minimum parking requirements in 760.6 except that the Planning Board may reduced the parking requirements for a slip or mooring to one space. Given the sensitivity of parking I think the requirement should be 1.5.” Mr. Walter said, “So we should strike out the language that would allow less than 1.5 so it would be consistent with the rest of the town.” Mr. Limbacher explained, “Parking is a very sensitive issue and I would not want to do anything to allow it to be reduced based on an expectation. So I would suggest that we strike the language that would allow us to do anything except what is written in the Table of Minimum Parking Requirements (S760.6).” Ms. Harbottle said, “It is consistent but you are actually just talking about a couple of properties here. The Mad Fish property does have a marina in the proposal. For them to do that marina and provide that amount of parking it will be extremely difficult. I am not saying that is why we should change it but when we were looking at parking numbers in connection with the Scituate Marine Park where they also had some issues with providing all the parking, it turned out that Scituate has just about the highest parking requirement for marina slips of just about anywhere on the east coast.” Mr. Limbacher said, “I would agree if I am looking at Cole Parkway that 1.5 is an overkill. If 80% of boats are used in a small marina then the parking requirements would have a greater impact than I would have at Cole Parkway.” Mrs. Brennan asked, “Can we presume that most of the slips would be used by the residents?” Mr. Fenton said, “Can I ask Laura – we have been operating in good faith negotiation earlier with the Mad Fish. Would that change the math on that dramatically?” Ms. Harbottle said, “Yes, I think it does. Just to get back to what Pat was just asking about – it is hard to follow all these different strands of the arguments. Actually the one parking space is over and above the residential parking spaces. That would mean that if someone was living in the condo and had a boat they would have to provide parking for themselves and also provide for the boat as if the slip was for someone outside. Actually most of the time they will be using their own boat. That is a justification for the one space.” Mr. Limbacher said, “That is fine as long as the boat owner is a resident, but if that linkage breaks I have to make sure I have parking for the marina and for the residences. I understand the logic that I am a resident and I have a slip in the marina and that will be forever. In my mind the reality is that that might not be forever.” Ms. Harbottle said, “These units will be so much more valuable because of the marina being right there. There is a launching area near by but it is a small area.” Mrs. Chisholm said, “It does say that we may reduce it. It does not say that we have to reduce it. It does not say we are going to make it one space. It says we may reduce it. That leaves it open to us to decide.” Mr. Fenton added, “Laura and I went to a parking seminar at the South Shore Coalition last week. There are many demand management techniques e.g. attach marina units to housing units; make people buy stickers to use the marina space. There are many demand management techniques all of which I think we should be using much more effectively as a town. I would leave the language in here so it leaves us flexibility just as we allowed for transient oriented development in Greenbush and North Scituate. I am suggesting that the latest stuff I am learning on this is flexibility in the language is a good thing.” The consensus of the Board (except for Mr. Limbacher) was to leave the flexible language in the bylaw.

Mr. Limbacher said, “The affordable unit should be included. I don’t understand why I would take the affordable unit and put it someplace else.” Mrs. Brennan said, “The units will be two-bedroom units so for that amount of money he could build a three-bedroom home for Habitat for Humanity.” Mr. Fenton said, “The affordable units will help get the Ch. 40B monkey off our backs. Does the state look positively or negatively on having the affordable unit off-site? What does the state think of this type of mitigation?” Ms. Harbottle replied, “I don’t think they care as long as it works. I would say that a lot of towns are doing this now, but to actually do it is really difficult for the reasons that you guys have brought up e.g. nobody wants it in their neighborhood.” Mrs. Brennan asked, “If there is an affordable unit in the Mad Fish will it effect the price or the salability of the other units?” A lady in the audience said, “No it wouldn’t. If you look at the demographics there are a lot of seniors in Humarock who can no longer afford our houses so to have affordable condo unit in Humarock would be great.” Mr. Limbacher said, “At an absolute minimum if I was to buy into this the language should be at the discretion of the Board. I think that if it is created in Humarock then it should remain in Humarock. It has been suggested that in S570.8 (read it aloud) – I am saying that if you don’t agree to change it then I would argue that at a minimum it should say that that decision should be a Planning Board decision and not a developer’s decision.” Mr. Fenton said, “The developer has just been assuming that they are going to build the one or two affordable units. They worked it into their plans. I can see striking the whole second paragraph.”

Ms. Linda Brian of 28 Concord Street asked if the Board would be doing a show of hands on the height restrictions. Mr. Walter said the Board had already decided to use the 35’ maximum height. There will be no bonus for an additional 5’. Ms. Brian asked if everyone in the room was in agreement with that and Mr. Walter said, “Probably not.” Ms. Brian explained that in the last two years two homes had been built in her neighborhood with one house having a height of 45’ and the other having a height of 42’ and she thought these houses were fine and they are beautiful. Mr. Walter said, “We are not talking about the residential. We are talking about the Overlay District.”

A gentleman thought it would be beneficial for a developer to have the alternative of putting the affordable unit off site. A lady from Lexington said that in her town a developer can put the affordable unit anywhere in the town. Mr. Walter said that each town is different.

Mr. Fenton said, “I am receptive to Bill’s language that it should be at the discretion of the Planning Board. A developer may be able to provide two affordable units in another part of town rather than paying $185,000.” Mrs. Chisholm said, “Do you know what is sad about that? You are limiting people from living in a waterfront community because they can’t afford it and we won’t provide it at that site because it is not beneficial to the developer. So we will be doing the same thing that most people think about affordable housing.” Mr. Limbacher said, “The town needs to make a commitment to affordable housing.

Mr. Armstrong asked if the person in the affordable unit would be able to afford the cost of flood insurance.

Atty. Sullivan said, “It was not Mike’s idea to come up with putting the affordable unit on an alternative site. Michael was only following the lead in the second paragraph which indicated he could pay a sum of money and he said he could almost buy a house for that amount. It was not his idea to deprive anyone of the opportunity of living on the River. This language invited it and I think this language is what you used in the other Overlay District. I think another option was discussed in another one of the drafts. Michael does not think for a moment that an affordable unit owner would be inappropriate for his site. He is just following the lead of that paragraph.” Mr. Limbacher said, “I don’t think that is being suggested. I also think that that language does not exist anywhere else.”

Mr. Fenton said, “Did we say to strike that paragraph?” The members agreed to strike the second paragraph in S570.8.”

Mr. Hourihan asked to revisit the parking problem. He said, “If the slips go with the units at the Mad Fish there may be people who do not have boats and they would rent out the slips because it would be a good income. So what are you going to do about the parking places for that? They had to have 1 ½ parking spaces at Marina Park. That is the bylaw.” Mr. Fenton said, “At the Marina Park the answer was that they did not have to build out all the parking spaces, but they have the space available if needed. I hold to the fact that we will have flexible language. There is no ‘must’ in here. We will answer the question at a public hearing on a particular application. We are not trying to determine the Mad Fish application tonight. Our job is to create a bylaw that will give us the tool. The tool here is to give the Board some flexibility. Some of this parking has vast environmental impacts.” Mr. Hourihan spoke about boating and parking problems particularly on the weekends where there could be two or three cars for each boat. Mrs. Chisholm replied, “We did not make it 1. We are saying that we may make it 1 space depending on the situation. We are starting with the 1.5.” Mr. Walter said, “We are starting with the 1.5 and if a developer can make an argument for just 1 space then the Board can decide if that is okay.”

Mr. Arthur Brown said, “I would like to thank the Planning Board, the Ad Hoc Committee, everybody in this room, especially John Cronin, for all the work that went into making zoning proposal.” Mr. Fenton thanked Mr. Brown.

MOTIONS: Mr. Limbacher Moved to Close the two Public Hearings regarding proposed zoning for Humarock:
1. Public Hearing on proposed zoning re Humarock which opened on November 20, 2007.
2. Public Hearing on proposed zoning re Humarock which opened on January 10, 2008.
Motion Seconded by Mr. Fenton and the vote was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion. Mr. Walter, Mr. Limbacher, Mr. Fenton, Mrs. Brennan, and Mrs. Chisholm voted in favor of the Motion.

1. [Humarock Village Residential Overlay District Bylaw Change to establish an overlay district to allow multi-family development by Special Permit to parts of Humarock.] MOTION: Mr. Limbacher Moved to bring the three proposed zoning articles to Town Meeting with the changes as discussed at this meeting. The changes discussed are: density, height, front setback, floor area ratio, driveway, setback from South River, building length, the affordability, first floor retail. The Town Planner will craft the language for all these items. Mr. Fenton Seconded the Motion.
Discussion: Ms. Harbottle said, “We need to tweak a little bit the setback for buildings with retail use on the first floor. I think we need to make a 5’ adjustment in that. It has to reflect that.” Mr. Fenton and Mr. Limbacher both agreed. Mr. Limbacher said, “Also included is the discussion we had about reducing the front setback in the Business District.” Mr. Fenton said, “That is implied in that language.” Ms. Harbottle said, “Like a 10’ setback? Should it be just like what was done in Greenbush? “ Mr. Walter said, “That is the easiest way.”
The Vote on this Motion was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion.

2. [Humarock Village Residential Overlay District Map Change. This article will establish the location of the Humarock Village Residential Overlay District on the Zoning Map.] MOTION: Mr. Limbacher Moved to approve the map change for the Humarock Village Residential Overlay District dated 1/10/08. {Map attached to these Minutes.} Mr. Fenton Seconded the Motion and the vote was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion.
3.[Rezoning Oceanfront Business Lots in Humarock to Residential A-3. This
article will amend the Zoning Map to change the zoning from Business to Residential A-3 for certain parcels which currently lie within the Business Zoning District.] MOTION: Mr. Limbacher Moved to rezone the oceanfront business lots in Humarock from Business to Residential A-3. Mr. Fenton Seconded the Motion.
Discussion: Ms. Harbottle asked, “Is it just the residential and the next block of property?” Mr. Limbacher replied, “As presented on the map.” Ms. Harbottle said, “So it is both.” The vote on the Motion was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion.

[Note: Mr. Walter, Mr. Limbacher, Mr. Fenton, Mrs. Brennan, and Mrs. Chisholm voted in support of all three of the above noted Motions. Mr. Duncan, the associate member was absent at this meeting.]

Mr. Walter said, “On behalf of the Board I want to thank everyone who has come out to these meetings (just not tonight but to all the other meetings), the Ad Hoc Committee, and everyone else who has worked behind the scenes to get this to where it is today. There has been great participation from the people in Humarock. I have never seen anything like it with any other project I have seen during by four years on the Board. Before we leave – Town Meeting is March 29th beginning at 9:00 A.M. Please come and participate and speak in favor of the proposed zoning.”

ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES: Motion duly Moved by Mrs. Brennan, Seconded by Mr. Fenton, and voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of October 25 and November 20, 2007.

MOTION: Mr. Limbacher Moved to not go forward with the Stormwater Bylaw at the Annual Town Meeting. Mr. Fenton Seconded the Motion for discussion purposes.

Discussion: Mr. Limbacher said, “There are a lot of areas that the Conservation Commission had issues with and I don’t believe we have had the opportunity to come back up and resolve those issues before Town Meeting. I think it is too important to lose and I think it is too important to come back up with something that is less than a full review. That is where I am coming from.”

Mr. Fenton said, “I would hate to not do it. I think that every year we don’t do it we continue to get Best Management Practices which means giant detention basins.” Mr. Walter said, “They are meeting our regulations.” Mr. Fenton said, “Our local bylaw does not encourage anything better. The nights that we had the workshops with Reardon all the comments came from one person, a developer. I did not feel it was the Conservation Commission saying they had a real problem with it. It was a voice of a developer. That voice should be in the mix but it was a dominant voice. I would not characterize it as a bylaw with huge gaping holes. Our timing is when to get the language ready? We have totally focused on the Humarock thing.”

Ms. Harbottle said, “It is just very hard to do this and the Humarock zoning. There is nothing really extreme in here and it allows the Planning Board to develop regulations for how this is going to be enforced and defined. It is a general bylaw. If I can just say a couple of things. Right now we have no mechanism to prevent clear cutting and that is one of the problems that we see (Vinnie, I, and Neil Duggan). We have people coming in and saying – ‘how come they clear cut right next to me. I have a huge drainage problem that I never had before. Now my basement floods.’ We hear that every week. We get phone calls and people walking in and being upset. We have to have some kind of oversight over clearing.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “Tell me the logistics of getting it done before Town Meeting.”
Ms. Harbottle said, “We have seen it. All it says is with the 15,000 sq. ft. area or an increase in 25% of impervious surface there has to be a review by the Planning Board. If you don’t want to ever implement it with regulations then you just leave it on the books. There is actually a clearing bylaw now on the books that is just sitting there because it is not implemented. So if you don’t want to implement it then it will just hang out there with all those other bylaws. This would put it on the Planning Board but I think you could take your time about figuring out how to do it. This would be a good opportunity to move forward.”

Ms. Samantha Woods said, “The Watershed Association is obviously in favor of adopting stormwater bylaws to comply with the Clean Water Act. That is what I said in my letter. It would provide enabling language so you could promulgate the regulations. I would love to be part of that discussion. I would encourage you to put this forward. I would ask you to consider 5,000 sq. ft. as your minimum threshold. Other communities are doing that. Cohasset is looking at the 5,000 sq. ft. minimum threshold.” Ms. Harbottle said, “Cohasset already has one. You can start out high because you can always go down. One other thing that may make it more palatable to the Planning Board – if you go forward with it now you can always pull it on Town Meeting floor or a week before Town Meeting. You can always change your minds and vote the other way. I am not advocating that but it is possible.”

Note: Mr. Limbacher withdrew his Motion and Mr. Fenton withdrew his second. See Page 19.

Mr. Walter said, “So what are we voting for?” Ms. Harbottle replied, “It is the 12/14/07 draft.” Mr. Limbacher said, “Then I would have to have a scheduled public hearing.” Ms. Harbottle said, “No, because it is not a zoning bylaw.” Mr. Limbacher said, “I would be remiss if I did not schedule a public hearing.” Ms. Harbottle said, “We could certainly still do that. You can still change the language. Something has to be published in the Warrant but you can always make changes on Town Meeting floor. If you have a public hearing and something terrible comes out about this bylaw you can always vote to indefinitely postpone it or make changes to it.”

Mr. Fenton said, “I don’t feel that we are that far off. Most of the concerns that I have heard – what about the person who wants to put in a pool or just fix their septic systems. They kept talking about the septic systems, which I thought was just a red herring from the developers. I sincerely believe that. I find myself very receptive to proposing to go forward with this language. I will vow to read it again in detail. I am happy to have a public discussion or a public hearing whatever we want to do. I am happy to call people on the red herrings versus the real issues here. Most of the time when we do subdivision hearings we hear from all the abutters about how the water ends up in their backyards, e.g. Rte. 3A (Harrington), Pheasant Hill. If someone comes in to just do a septic system it does not mean that everything has to turn into a four day hearing. There is really creative stuff going on around the country e.g. rain gardens, swales. We need to open the door so our community can start looking at those tools. It certainly helps with our surface water supply.

Mr. Walter said, “I agree with Bill that we shouldn’t bring something forward without having some sort of public hearing, whether we can it a public hearing or not.” Ms. Harbottle said, “It should be called a public discussion because there may be questions if it is called a public hearing with no legal advertisement.”

MOTION: Mr. Fenton Moved to bring the 12/14/07 version of the Stormwater Bylaw to the March 2008 Annual Town Meeting with the support of the Planning Board. Mrs. Chisholm Seconded the Motion and the vote was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion.

Ms. Woods asked if it would be helpful to have Tim Reardon come to the public discussion since he helped develop the bylaw. Mr. Walter said it would be helpful.
The Board decided to hold the public discussion on the Stormwater Bylaw on March 13th at 7:00 P.M.

Ms. Harbottle explained the plan to the Board noting that it was just a switch of pieces of property between the two property owners.

MOTION TO ADJOURN: Motion duly Moved, Seconded, and voted unanimously to adjourn at 10:00 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Merrilyn O’Brien, Secretary

Mary Patricia Brennan, Clerk

Date Approved