2011-05-16CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS
MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Planning Board
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: Monday, May 16, 2011
LOCATION: Beverly City Hall, Conference Room B, 3 rd Floor
PLANNING BOARD
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard Dinkin, Vice Chairman John
Thomson, Michael O'Brien, Charles Harris, Ellen
Hutchinson, Ellen Flannery, David Mack, James
Matz
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Planning Director, Leah Zambernardi
RECORDER: Diana Ribreau
Dinkin called the Special Meeting of Beverly Planning Board to order at 9 p.m.
Planning Board Recommendations to City Council: City Council Order #57 —
Zoning Amendments relative to Non - conforming uses and structures (Section 29 -27)
and IR -IR Overlay District relative to Green Communities (Section 29 -19)
Amendments related to Non - conforming Uses and Structures
Steve Frederickson, Building Commissioner, reviewed non - conforming situations
relative to the proposed amendments in Section 29 -27.
Hutchinson asked questions about additions to conforming houses on nonconforming lots
and how the ordinance addresses them. Fredrickson gave a few examples to help clarify
the Ordinance and said that it is the intent of the proposed Ordinance to allow for by -right
additions to a conforming house on a lot that is nonconforming (undersized), if the house
as changed meets the required zoning setbacks and the house does not increase in size by
more than 25 percent. Thomson recommended that the Board report out a general
recommendation that language be added to the proposed Ordinance clarifying this intent.
Mack asked for clarification on the meaning of the phrase "take action" under Section H
(Discontinuance or abandonment), Subsection 3. Frederickson responded.
Beverly Planning Board
May 16, 2011 Special Meeting
Page 2 of 3
Mack questioned the intent behind the term "public acquisition" as used in Part F of the
proposed Ordinance. It was determined that it is the intent of the proposed Ordinance that
public acquisition should relate to a "taking" but that it should not relate to the sale of
property to a public entity. The Board recommended that the proposed Ordinance be
amended to reflect this.
Matz asked Frederickson to explain how the changes, specifically allowing more projects
"By Right ", would benefit the City. Frederickson responded that this would streamline
the process and lessen the ZBA workload. The changes make it easier for the owner
with respect to costs and time.
Matz asked if there is no longer a variance required for some projects, could there be any
way that it would become a detriment to an abutter of a property. Frederickson
responded that there would not be a notice of something happening in many cases,
however the abutter has the right to appeal the building permit. Frederickson referred
back to Section K stating that the original Zoning Ordinance did not have a limit with
respect to enlarging or extending the building volume, footprint or area. The abutter
would have the right to file an appeal to a decision.
Thomson: Motion to recommend a favorable vote by the City Council but asked
that the City Council make changes related to the suggested amendments made
during the Planning Board's consideration. Motion seconded by Mack. Motion
passes 7 -0 -1 with the Chair abstaining.
Amendments proposed by Main Streets (various to parking, signage, CC Zoning District)
Dinkin stated that creating an Overlay District may be solution to questions raised
regarding uniformity with the application through the CC Zoning District otherwise the
easy way is to include the entire CC Zone.
Thomson stated that the Task Force did not want to include Cabot Street and areas
beyond a reasonable walking distance from the commuter rail. Thomson stated that if
there is a flaw in the design, an Overlay District needs to be created.
Mack mentioned Cassidy's remark at the Joint Public Hearing that there is a possibility to
define the district by distance to a transit point.
Thomson stated that Cabot Street is more of a sensitive area for development and a
different situation than Rantoul Street. Dinkin agreed. He stated they should deal with
areas only within walking distance of public transit.
Matz asked in a general sense what is the vision of Main Streets for Rantoul Street and if
it would be mixed use. Gooding responded that the vision is that mixed use would be
wonderful but that they need a residential base before mixed would be viable. Dinkin
added that consumers would stimulate business growth.
Dinkin referred to a citizen's comment at the Joint Public Hearing regarding the standing
issue. Gooding responded that the proposed ordinance could get to Council by Statute,
Beverly Planning Board
May 16, 2011 Special Meeting
Page 3 of 3
which allows 10 registered voters or at least one citizen owning property that is affected
by the zoning change. She stated that there are 10 registered voters on Beverly Main
Streets and that there is more than one person theoretically affected by zoning changes if
passed. Cassidy added that the Beverly Main Streets submitted a letter to City Council
and that City Council on its own initiative held a public hearing on the matter.
Dinkin asked the Planning Board if there are any issues with the proposal that are of
nontechnical substance. None
Thomson: Made a motion relative to the proposed change to the parking
requirement for lots in the CC Zoning District on Rantoul Street south of Roundy
Street, from 2 spaces per unit for residential uses of more than one - bedroom to 1
space per residential unit. The Board was concerned that this provision conflicts
with the Zoning Act, Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 40A Section 4 which
requires that "any zoning ordinance or by -law which divides cities and towns into
districts shall be uniform within the district for each class or kind of structures or
uses permitted." In particular, the Board voted to recommend to the City Council
that the proposal be recast in an appropriately legal form to ensure that the CC
Zoning District remains a uniform district as required by the above - referenced
statute. An option would be the formation of an overlay district. Motion seconded
by Harris. Motion passes 8 -0 -0.
Amendment to IR -IR Overlay District relative to Green Communities (29 -19)
Thomson asked for clarification on the uses allowed by right. Cassidy responded.
Thomson asked that language be made clearer to give more control over what can be
done outside with respect to processing, packaging, research and testing. He suggested
that language be added allowing the uses only in an enclosed structure except for those
that require access to light and air and only if they do not create a nuisance to abutting
property owners. Cassidy agreed to draft proposed language to satisfy the Planning
Board.
Dinkin tabled the discussion until tomorrow night until the next regular meeting of the
Planning Board on May 17, 2011.
Matz made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by Flannery.
Motion passes 8 -0 -0. Meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.