By Carol Britton Meyer

A Hull Redevelopment Authority board member prefaced this week’s continuing discussion of “Option 3” of the draft Urban Renewal Plan by reading a lengthy statement centering on the oft-repeated word “compromise” with regard to the board’s varying opinions on the best uses for the property and also on the importance of engaging all stakeholders in the process.

“Before we even talk about buildings or parks, this board needs to step way back,” member Dan Kernan said. “For 60 years we have been trying to make something without talking to all the stakeholders, without talking to all the neighbors, and without talking to all the citizens. Before we make something, let’s gather all the requirements and the constraints from all of these parties.”

Kernan, whose remarks are published as a letter to the editor in this edition of the Times, said his goal is to arrive at an “overarching vision” for the land.

“We often talk about compromise, but that raises some critical questions: With whom are we compromising and just as importantly – who is being asked to compromise?” he asked.

Other questions he asked were who the real benefactors of this development are; who the stakeholders are; and who the HRA is accountable to?

The redevelopment authority was formed in the 1960s under a federal program to revitalize urban and suburban neighborhoods. The HRA’s original footprint – designated Town Center No. 1 – encompasses the land between the beach and bay from Water Street to Phipps Street; at one time, the authority planned to expand its territory into three additional districts that stretched south toward Atlantic Hill.

Much of the HRA land has been vacant since the 1970s, when homes and businesses were taken by eminent domain by the authority and bulldozed, burned, or relocated in anticipation of development proposals that never materialized. The HRA has been working for the past several years to create a set of guidelines for future development.

A 2023 version of the URP envisioned several uses for the property, including a boutique hotel and buildings with ground-floor retail and residential units on the upper floors. For the property north of the DCR parking lot near Monument Square, options included affordable housing or beach parking and event space. The HRA stepped back from that plan and has embarked on the current process to rework the URP, which the authority is calling “Option 3.”

Creating ‘a truly integrated vision’

One of Kernan’s main points is the importance of collaborating with the Department of Conservation & Recreation, which controls Nantasket Beach and the adjacent Reservation land and roads, “to create a truly integrated vision for this land.”

He also expressed concern about the fact that “hundreds of beach parking spots are at stake,” depending on the final use of the property.

Kernan encouraged listening to the thoughts and ideas of abutters, local businesses, and the families of those who were displaced from the HRA property more than 50 years ago.

Another suggestion is to collaborate with other nonprofits or funders to help bring about a vision for the HRA property.

“We should not be compromising among the five of us,” Kernan said. “This land is the crown jewel of Hull – and we are at a crossroads. We have a choice whether to rush into a decision that does not fully reflect community needs or to take the time to build something truly special, shaped by the voices of the people who live, work, and visit here. Let’s choose wisely.”

HRA member Adrienne Paquin again brought up the idea of the HRA doing a survey, and the thought of a nonbinding referendum ballot question was also floated.

Member Bartley Kelly noted that there has already been a “ton” of public input and a “ton” of public process so far.

The conversation circled around to a brief discussion about the select board’s role in the URP process, the need to keep the lines of communication open, and that the select board’s approval of the HRA’s final plan is required before submitting it to the state.

HRA members also provided feedback to Kernan’s comments.

“That was a great summary,” member Joan Senatore told Kernan. “You’ve given everyone a lot to think about.”

She suggested that the HRA make arrangements with representatives of the DCR and the Wildlands Trust – which showed an interest in the property – to share their ideas at an upcoming meeting, and agreed to explore that possibility.

She said she would like to see “a little affordable housing, which the town really needs, but not high-rise condos – very small ones that are well done and fit into the neighborhood,” she said.

Resident Susan Mann said that “the only way a vision is going to work is through a private/public/municipal partnership. You have all the pieces; you just need to put them together. Even if you suggest a beachfront park on a portion of the land and see how that idea develops, that would be a big plus. It’s a huge job you have to come up with a vision for the whole town.”

After listening to thoughts about his proposal expressed by fellow HRA members – in part embracing the idea of reaching out to stakeholders – Kernan said he was grateful “for all the feedback” and that he believes “we kind of know what the majority of the town is looking for in a general sense,” including an interest in maintaining all or at least part of the property as open space.

In other business…

• HRA Technical Operations Manager Mark Hamin provided members with guidelines, but not legal advice, for when a member should recuse himself or herself from an agenda item. Chair Dennis Zaia had asked Hamin for the information, which included links to guidance on the state’s website, mass.gov.

“Recusal is the best way to avoid potential or apparent conflict of interest; disclosure is another way,” the information says in part, citing examples of such conflicts.

“Redevelopment authorities are distinctive public entities and not the same as state and municipal employees,” Hamin said. “The umbrella is very broad regarding conflicts of interest.”

• Zaia reported that a scope of services has been developed for a property management company “to help care for the HRA property,” with more discussion to come.

Upcoming meetings include: March 31, in-person at Memorial School, seventh-grade large meeting room, to review vendor concessions bids; April 7, in-person at Memorial School, seventh-grade large meeting room, to review parking lot bids; as well as April 14, April 28, and May 12.

A replay of the meeting is available at Hull Community Television’s website, 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.