By Carol Britton Meyer
During a circuitous, two-hour discussion of the results of a recent survey about best uses for the Hull Redevelopment Authority property and next steps, members expressed their differing views – often more than once – about their priorities.
There was also some discussion about issuing a request for proposals for the parcel rather than developing a new Urban Renewal Plan after Chair Bartley Kelly noted that a URP is not a requirement.
There was also a conversation about using a consultant to provide different options once the board reaches a consensus on the best uses for the land.
Board member C. Anne Murray said that she believes that if a consultant is hired, it should be “a firm geared more toward developing public spaces rather than a brick-and-mortar architect” and that a new mission statement is needed to help guide whoever is chosen.
While some board members and individuals in the audience called the discussion a good one, with many ideas shared and discussed at length, Kelly called the lengthy and sometimes contentious meeting “kind of painful” as it wrapped up.
Strong desire to keep land open
Survey results showed a strong desire among respondents to keep the land open while preserving natural resources, with strong opposition to building housing.
While the board is in agreement about preserving at least a large portion of the property as open space, HRA member Dan Kernan said he has a strong preference for doing so, while Kelly – who noted that he has been on the board for 34 years – emphasized that as a redevelopment authority, the board’s charge is to build on the property.
“Everyone believes we should preserve a majority of the land as open space, but I think we should be looking at parcels that could be developed, because after we factor in all the expenses, there won’t be much left on bone,” Kelly said. “We have a mission to fulfill – there’s no choice. Residents who had their property taken by eminent domain were under the understanding that the parcel would be redeveloped, and it’s up to the board to do that.”
Member Charles Richardson’s suggestion to build several houses on Lot A at the northern end of the property – which he called “a golden goose” and “an asset” – as part of the funding piece, led to a back and forth about the pros and cons of this concept.
Housing is ‘a terrible idea’
Resident Maggie Merrill called that suggestion “a terrible idea,” noting that there are groups available to help identify funding sources other than from building housing.
Kernan, who acknowledges quite often that he is not on the same page as Kelly, thinks now is not the time to discuss funding.
“We need to start with what the citizens want,” he said.
He also is concerned that the focus of a member or two on generating revenue goes “beyond the scope necessary to preserve the land.”
Kelly contended that when the land was taken by eminent domain, “the intent was to create economic development for the town.”
Another point of agreement is a desire to create a connection from the ocean to the bay on the property.
Parking a consideration
Ensuring there is enough parking for whatever use or uses is ultimately decided upon was another topic of conversation.
During the discussion, Kelly told the board that creating a new version of the draft URP – which had been in the works over a number of years but was set aside some time ago pending receipt of the survey results – is not a requirement, at which time the discussion turned toward the RFP possibility.
“It’s our decision [whether to create one],” he said, adding that it is up to the HRA “to make a decision to move to the next level and go from there.”
‘There’s a path forward’
Despite the differences among board members, Kernan said he believes there’s “a path forward” – including developing a new HRA mission statement, defining what the board wants in an RFP, and “bringing in a design firm specializing in what we think is the general idea for an open community space and that will offer us a number of options.”
Noting that the board is “at a milestone,” Kernan said he doesn’t think the board should move forward “without at least one option that directly reflects what the survey said,” calling the process “a representative democracy.”
Kelly reiterated that as a redevelopment authority, “we have an obligation to redevelop. Doing nothing is not an option. [We] may disagree, but at the end of the day, we well have to take some votes and move forward.”
At the August 10 HRA meeting, Kelly will provide a map of the property for board members to talk about the different parcels “and what we see for each of them and keep hammering away.”
Murray said while some may not agree, “this was a very productive session.”
In other business
• The board approved a request by Hull’s USA 250th Committee for a change of date for the 250th anniversary celebration on the HRA property to August 14, with a rain date of August 15. The event will feature the fireworks that were postponed from July 18 due to inclement weather.
• A parking vendor’s request to extend hours of operation until 10 p.m. for the fireworks on August 14 was approved and applies to both lots A and C. Parking is free at both sites for residents with stickers, space permitting, throughout the season.
Kelly noted that while there have been a lot of social media posts about the middle lot not being open this year for parking, there have only been two or three times this season so far when lots A and C were full.
• It was noted that police details last year amounted to about $30,000, and that this year is expected to be about the same. There was some conversation about why the Department of Conservation and Recreation – which controls the Nantasket Beach Reservation – doesn’t pay part of the detail costs. Kelly said that during the next meeting between town officials and the DCR, which he plans to attend, he will bring up that question.
There also is an HRA meeting scheduled for August 31.
A replay of the July 27 meeting is posted on Hull Community Television’s website at www.HullTV.net.
