Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waterfront Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission continues review of controversial waterfront concept citing height, view‑corridor and scale concerns
Summary
The HDC continued a major conceptual waterfront proposal at 0 Front Street after lengthy debate over height above base‑flood elevation, mechanical screening that extends across much of the roof, and encroachment of gangways into 15‑foot view corridors. The applicant was directed to return with reduced roof massing and clearer screening justification.
The commission voted to continue review of a large conceptual waterfront development at 0 Front Street after extensive questioning about project scale, view corridors, and how much of the roofline would exceed the CRA's allowable height above base‑flood elevation to screen mechanical equipment.
Agent Ron Flick presented the concept as a mixed waterfront campus — a 'general store' anchor, multiple small retail units, two restaurants (including an upper‑deck dining space), public restrooms, and an observation cupola. He described a perimeter resiliency wall and flood gates intended to reduce the need for dry floodproofing of many small buildings. The project team also described plans for hidden trash/dumpster access below flood elevation, elevators, and a wide public boardwalk connection to adjacent properties.
Board members and staff pressed the applicant on several technical items. Commissioners highlighted that the CRA measures height from base‑flood elevation and that the proposal features long roof elements, dormers and gables that rise roughly six feet above the 30‑foot CRA benchmark across much of the primary building — a scale the board found concerning. Members also noted the project's north‑end gangway and ramps currently intrude into the required 15‑foot view corridors that must remain "open to the sky." Staff and the board asked the applicant either to relocate or redesign those access elements so they do not penetrate the view corridors.
The board asked the applicant to return with more precise documentation showing which roof elements are solely mechanical screening, the exact equipment footprint and heights, and a revised plan that reduces the continuous extent of roof elements above the CRA height limit. The commission set a date to continue the conceptual review at the August meeting (submission deadline July 9).
