Loading...
1996-06-17.,nairman James A. Manzi Vice Chairman Richard Dinkin Planning Director Tina P. Cassidy Wil~am Delaney Joanne Dunn Ellen K, Flannery Salvatore Modugno D, Stephen Papa Batty Sullivan John Thomson MINUTES Beverly Planning Board Special Meeting June 17, 1996 Members Present: Chairman James Manzi, Vice-Chairman Richard Dinkin, Salvatore Modugno, Bill Delaney, John Thomson and Ellen Flannery. Also present: Building Inspector Tim Brennan, Planning Director Tina Cassidy and Assistant Planning Director Debbie Hurlbutt. Manzi calls the special meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Cassidy states that from the close of the Joint Public Heating earlier this evening, the Planning Board has 21 days to make a recommendation to the City Council for City Council Order #169 regarding several proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance. The members stated that since there were several amendments, they preferred to discuss them one at a time. Dinkin: motion to discuss each amendment individually, seconded by Thomson. All members in favor. Motion carries. Cassidy states that the first amendment for discussion is the definition of height. Thomson asks whether the eftsting Ordinance defined grade. Cassidy states that it does not. Thomson asks if the grade should be averaged at the highest point of mean grade at the front and rear gables. Dinkin states that he believes that it should be the average grade of the footprint of the structure. Delaney states that if it is defmed that way a building could be constructed higher than 35 feet. Dinkin states yes, particularly if the front of the house is at the low grade. Thomson suggests the following language: "the vertical distance from the lower of either A) the average grade of the footprint of the building or B) the average grade at the front of the building, to the top of the highest roof beams of a flat or a pitched roof." City Hall 191 Cabot Street Beverly, Massachusetts 01915 (508) 921-6000 Fax (508) 922-0285 Minutes of the Planning Board June 17, 1996 Special Meeting Page two Dinkin: motion to recommend to the Council Order that the following definition of Height be adopted: "The vertical distance from the lower of a) the average grade of the footprint of the building, or b) the average grade at the front of the building, to the top of the highest roof beams of a flat or pitched roof." Seconded by Thomson. All members in favor. Motion carries. Cassidy states that the next amendment to be discussed are the provisions regarding accessory buildings. Delaney asks where the interpretation of accessory buildings not exceeding 15 feet in height comes from. Brennan states that it is found on page 24 of the Zoning Ordinance under Section 29-6.B.2. which reads that "Such accessory buildings shall be set back from side and/or rear lot lines by a distance not less than five feet, and no such building shall exceed fifteen (15) feet in height... ". Thomson states that he can see this being an issue in a tightly packed area; however, accessory buildings on five acre parcels would have much less impact on abutting properties, and he would prefer not to restrict all accessory structures to a height of 15'. Cassidy states that the theory behind the amendment is to insure there is only one main structure and a lot, with all others structures being smaller, incidental, and accessory in nature. Thomson states that he would be in favor of a more flexible height requirement as long as there is a certain minimum set back related to the size of the lot. Brennan states that slractures taller than 15' invite conversions into dwelling units. Dinkin believes that this proposed ordinance would regulate one aspect of zoning to address the issue of enforcement. Delaney states that he agrees with Thomson. Thomson: motion to amend the Section 29-6.1. to read "Accessory Buildings, including detached garages, greenhouses, and tool sheds shall be permitted anywhere on the lot in a residential district if they conform to the required front, rear and side yard requirements, and do not exceed the greater of a) 15' in height or b) a height equal to one-half the distance to the nearest lot line, to a maximum of twenty-two (22) feet, seconded by Dinkin. All members in favor. Motion carries. Dinkin asks what changes have been made to Section 29-6.2 language. Brennan states that he took out the words "side and rear yard" Thomson: motion to recommend to the City Council that the proposed wording in Section 29-6.2 be adopted, seconded by Dinkin. All members in favor. Motion cardes. Minutes of the Planning Board June 17, 1996 Special Meeting Page three Cassidy states that the next amendment to discuss is the proposed change to the definition of "lot" for building purposes by limiting the amount of wetlands area that can be included in the calculation of a lot area. Dinkin states that he fully supports this proposal and would like to see it even more restrictive. Dinkin adds that he thinks that the Board should not delay its recommendation on this provision. Thomson states that it seemed questionable whether the City Council would accept this amendment because of the issue of possible takings, but feels confident that that concern is addressed by the fact that the amendment would be applied prospectively, and not retroactively and that is the key. Dinkin agrees that this amendment would apply to lots created in the future, not existing ones, and that it would not constitute a taking. Delaney questions where the 20% in the proposed definition comes from. Cassidy states that it was a number that seemed reasonable given the purpose of the amendment. Dinkin: motion to recommend approval of that portion of Council Order #169 amending Section 29-6.B.31 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding the calculation of the lot area as drafted, seconded by Thomson. All members in favor. Motion carries. Cassidy states that the next amendment to be discussed is off-street parking calculation changes. Dinkin comments that the principal effects of these amendments are to make Beverly more competitive in the market place and to minimize the environmental and aesthetic impact of parking areas. Dinkin: motion to recornrnend to the City Council that the proposed amendments to Section 29-24.A of the Zoning Ordinance relative to parking and loading requirements be adopted, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor. Motion carries. Cassidy states that the next amendment to be discussed is the definitions of commercial and private passenger motor vehicles. Thomson: motion to recommend to the City Council that the proposed amendment to include the definitions contained in 540 CMR 2.05 for Commercial Vehicle and Private Passenger Motor Vehicles be adopted, seconded by Dinkin. All members in favor. Motion carries. Dinkin: motion to adjourn, seconded by Delaney. All members in favor. Motion carries.