2004-04-21CITY OF BEVERLY, MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Comprehensive Rezoning Committee
DATE: April 21, 2004
LOCATION: Third Floor Conference Room City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich Dinkin, Don Neuman, Don Preston, John
Thomson, Bob Nelson, Scott Houseman
MEMBERS ABSENT: Wendy Frontiero, Ron Costa
OTHERS PRESENT: City Planner Tina Cassidy
The meeting is called to order at 7:15 p.m. Cassidy states that the first item on the agenda is
approval of the draft minutes of the last committee meeting on March 29, 2004. She asks if
there are any edits. Preston asks that the minutes be revised to reflect the fact that he
offered, along with Dinkin, to serve on a subcommittee to draft an inclusionary housing
ordinance.
Preston: motion to approve the draft minutes as amended, seconded by Thomson.
All members in favor, motion carries.
The next item on the agenda is discussion of the draft open space residential design
ordinance. Because Houseman is not yet in attendance, Cassidy asks that the discussion be
deferred until later in the meeting.
The next topic for discussion is the need to revise the non-conforming use provision of the
zoning ordinance. Cassidy states that a 3-person committee is already working on the issue
for practical reasons; the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) and the Building Inspector,
who use this provision routinely, need to revise and clarify the provision quickly so that
appropriate direction can be given to applicants appearing before the ZBA. City Solicitor
Roy Gelineau, Building Inspector Bob Nelson, and ZBA Co-chairman Scott Houseman
have been working as a committee to redraft the provision. Cassidy states that she would
like to explain the issues and questions related to this provision to CRC members, since a
draft will eventually be submitted to the committee for discussion.
In summary, the issue is that the current provision is inadequate. It does not address some
sections of State Law (including what is often referred to as Section 6 Findings), the language
is unclear on some points, and is generally not well drafted. Thomson asks if the goal is to
make the provision more rigid or more flexible. Nelson says that both could be true;
Houseman answers that the overarching goal is to make the language clearer, and that
“loosening” or “tightening” the current provision is a matter of opinion best decided by a
broader group of people.
Nelson illustrates what types of additions are allowed by right on non-conforming lots of
record, which are allowed by special permit, and which are allowed only by variance.
Houseman explains the basic premise behind section 6 findings (special permit) and the
current ordinance that requires a special permit. Thomson notes that the ZBA cannot place
conditions on a Section 6 finding and questions if the issue is that the Building Inspector
needs clear, defined lines/limits in the ordinance. Houseman states that the current
Comprehensive Rezoning Committee April 21, 2004 meeting
Page 1 of 3
ordinance is silent on the matter of Section 6 findings, and notes that one of two approaches
can be taken; either specifying strict parameters (i.e. increase in non-conformity by no more
than XX%) or by leaving the language general so that the ZBA has more discretion.
Neuman states his opinion that he has no problem letting the ZBA have discretion in
granting (or not granting) special permits for non-conforming uses and additions. Dinkin
concurs. Thomson says that he would support a provision that allows the building
inspector to make judgment calls for certain situations involving non-conforming lots and
structures. Preston expresses concern that there might be a loss of housing units as a result
of “tear-down and rebuild” scenarios where multi-unit buildings were demolished for non-
residential or single-family purposes.
Cassidy says that once Gelineau, Nelson, and Houseman have drafted a revised ordinance, it
will go to the ZBA for their review and recommendation. A draft will eventually be
presented to this committee once the ZBA has had an opportunity to comment.
Next on the agenda is discussion of the draft open space residential design ordinance that
was distributed at the last meeting.
Thomson summarizes the major policy issues that need to be decided with respect to this
draft:
·
Making the OSRD provision mandatory versus optional
·
Defining the ordinance’s applicability (size of parcel, which zoning districts)
·
Deciding on the maximum number of lots that can share a common drive
·
Deciding what percentage of a development parcel must be left undisturbed
·
Deciding the minimum open space requirement (percentage)
·
Deciding how much of a site’s wetlands resource areas can be counted toward the
minimum open space requirement
Dinkin expresses great concern about making the provision mandatory as opposed to
optional. He would prefer to see the provision as an option, not a requirement. Houseman
strongly disagrees, stating that 90% of the City’s developable residential land has already
been developed using “typical” subdivision standards, and that the real question is whether
the City wants to see the remainder of its undeveloped residential land developed differently
than in the past. He suggests that input during the master plan process clearly showed a
preference toward development that was in keeping with the tenets of open space residential
design/conservation subdivision design approaches.
General discussion takes place on the ordinance. Preston states that he does not have an
issue with making the OSRD provision mandatory. The results of the recent master
planning process should by definition shape future development. He believes the City has
suffered from “mismanaged” development in the past. He has reviewed the draft provision
and the proposed process would take approximately 7 months to unfold before the Planning
Board as currently written. He suggests that the bonus provisions as drafted are not
sufficient, and would like to see flexibility in the types of residential structures allowed (e.g.
not just single family units). He asks whether public amenities such as sidewalks would be
Comprehensive Rezoning Committee April 21, 2004 meeting
Page 2 of 3
required. Houseman answers that it depends on your vision of what a residential subdivision
should look like.
Dinkin reiterates his concern that the draft makes OSRD the only option for new
subdivisions. Cassidy asks if either Thomson or Houseman have concerns about the new
ordinance conflicting with the statutory requirements of Chapter 41 (e.g. this provision
would apply to ANR plans which by State Law must be handled within 21 days of
submission). Thomson states that he has no such concerns.
Thomson and Houseman agree to meet again to refine the draft and develop a “fact sheet”
to explain the new ordinance in general, easily readable terms. A revised draft and new fact
sheet will be discussed at an upcoming committee meeting. Dinkin suggests that the next
step following that might be to distribute the draft to the various land use boards and
appropriate City departments for comment.
Next, Cassidy distributes a draft ordinance entitled “Erosion/Sedimentation Control and
Materials Management”. The draft is one she developed based on a model ordinance
provided by the State’s Department of Environmental Protection. The City is facing a
deadline to develop a series of ordinances and policies to deal with matters related to
managing and minimizing negative environmental impacts associated with land use and
development. This draft ordinance is but one piece of the City’s response. Since the City
st
was under a deadline to develop an ordinance by May 1, Cassidy made this issue a priority
over other ordinances needed to implement the master plan. While no official action is
needed by this committee, Cassidy says she welcomes comments on the draft, if members
have any.
There being no other action, the meeting is adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Comprehensive Rezoning Committee April 21, 2004 meeting
Page 3 of 3