By Carol Britton Meyer

This week was supposed to be the start of another Urban Renewal Plan revision process for the Hull Redevelopment Authority parcel, but the intended discussion was sidetracked when the controversial subject of the proposed two-way road plan was brought up for a second time during Monday’s meeting.

The board decided recently to dedicate one meeting a month toward reviewing the draft URP.

**GETTING THERE FROM HERE.** This rendering of the traffic modifications within the two-way road plan shows how traffic might be different in the Surfside and Hull Redevelopment Authority areas. The top image is the current street grid, while the bottom map shows fewer lanes north-south lanes in the HRA property, with several east-west streets added. The other major change is the intersection of Hull Shore Drive, Nantasket Avenue, and George Washington Boulevard, which would be straightened. Both Nantasket Avenue and Hull Shore Drive would be changed from one-way traffic to two-directional flow. For more information, click here.

The second discussion occurred despite Chair Dennis Zaia’s statement at the beginning of the meeting that there would be no further conversations to allow the board to focus on the draft URP and other relevant topics.

Click here for the related story from this week’s edition.

The second two-way road discussion followed Zaia’s comments during an agenda item during which he suggested trying to arrange a joint meeting between the HRA and the select board, in part to provide an update on the draft URP.

In response, HRA member Dan Kernan said he doesn’t think the HRA overall, except for Bartley Kelly, who has been involved with the two-way road plan for a long time, is knowledgeable enough to have an opinion about the plan. It was noted during the meeting that the two-way plan outlined in the draft URP is different from the latest version.

“All I’m trying to do is remove this topic from HRA meetings so it doesn’t consume so much time,” Zaia said, referring to repeated discussions in the past.

Then Kelly said he had a statement to make. At that time, Zaia asked him not to bring up the two-way road plan “that Dan just brought up until we get some kind of request from the town manager or the town of Hull about that,” he said.

HRA is a stakeholder

Kelly said the HRA is a stakeholder in the plan and will be impacted by the outcome, “so we do have something to do with it. Moving forward with the URP, it makes a difference.”

Kernan, however, said he feels that the HRA can be a stakeholder in the two-way road plan without having an opinion.

Then Zaia proposed a motion that the HRA “take our direction with regard to the two-way road conversion project from the town of Hull.” The motion wasn’t seconded.

Kelly then made a motion, seconded by Zaia, that the HRA “endorse the two-way road plan moving forward.” The rest of the board did not support that motion.

The reason he made the motion, Kelly said, was in part because the two-way road plan has been a topic of discussion for a number of years and “would benefit the town in terms of resiliency, safety measures, sidewalks, and other improvements and that the HRA would gain some land.”

For more information on the two-way road redesign plan, click here

“If we are supposed to make a motion now without really understanding what we’re making a motion for, I don’t believe we’re being responsible stewards,” Kernan said.

‘I’ve been demonized’

Kelly stated that his support for the two-way plan has been “mischaracterized” and that he has “been demonized on social media, in the paper, and during HRA meetings when I’m trying to do right by the town.”

“Pushing back is not demonizing,” Kernan replied. “If [it] the right thing to do [the plan will move forward]; if not, we should stop spending more [good] money after bad.”

Kernan said that while he may change his mind, his current thought is that a two-way road “would be a terrible inconvenience. There’s one way onto this island and one way off. A two-way road would change the dynamic of getting off and on our island. It’s not a simple thing, and we shouldn’t make this decision lightly.”

Ultimately, Zaia asked Kelly if he would like to withdraw his motion, and he did. Kelly also noted that the 25% design plan is available for those who wish to review it.

“I don’t want to worry about this now but [rather] to worry about what to do with our property,” Kernan said.

URP discussion delayed

Following a lengthy and sometimes contentious back-and-forth, a frustrated Zaia said that while he had hoped to start the new review of the draft URP that night, it wouldn’t happen due to the prolonged two-way road discussion and the lateness of the hour.

“I would like to suggest that we consider, with every idea we come up with for the property, how it would fit in with the two-way road plan and how it would look on the existing plan,” Zaia said. “…We can’t continue to not move [on this]. We have to think – and articulate – what this property could be … We can’t stop dead in our tracks. There are too many intriguing, boring, and exciting ideas to consider,” including ideas for the property proposed by community members.

“I don’t think the two-way road should have any bearing on our decisions,” Kernan said. “We are one small stakeholder with a little influence, and we should base our decisions on our own understanding but not derail anything we are doing.” He said he doesn’t want the HRA to be considered “champions of the two-way road plan.”

At the end of the meeting, Zaia remarked that he thought it was good news when he read a statement at the beginning of the meeting by Town Manager Jennifer Constable, which he asked her to issue, regarding the two-way road plan.

However, “it didn’t turn out that way for me,” he said. “It led to a convoluted [discussion]. I was saying let the town take the lead, and when they call us we will be ready to get engaged. Yet this turned into this big production. We have so much to do, and continuing to use our meeting time on this topic is just a sinkhole.”

The meeting was adjourned following his remarks.

A replay of the full meeting will be available on Hull Community Television’s broadcast channels and on demand at www.hulltv.net.

Like what you’re reading? Stay informed and support our work with a Hull Times subscription by clicking here.

Do you have an opinion to share? Click here to write a Letter to the Editor.