Loading...
2004-05-04CITY OF BEVERLY, MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: Comprehensive Rezoning Committee DATE: May 4, 2004 LOCATION: Third Floor Conference Room City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich Dinkin, Don Neuman, Don Preston, John Thomson, Bob Nelson, Scott Houseman, John Colucci, Carla Cox, Wendy Frontiero, Ron Costa MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Ralph Willmer (consultant), City Planner Tina Cassidy The meeting is called to order at 7:15 p.m. Members note that there are several important documents that all members should have access to, including the master plan, the harbor plan, and the open space and recreation plan. Cassidy promises to forward any missing documents to each member by the following week. Discussion at this evening’s meeting centers on needed zoning changes for the waterfront district and the downtown. The first topic centers on changing the zoning along the waterfront. Willmer summarizes the master plan findings on this subject: mixed use zoning along the Bass River, protecting and expanding public access to the waterfront, encouraging tourism-related economy at the harbor, and allowing residential units. The area known as Goat Hill is largely developed, although the age of the building stock may encourage redevelopment in the foreseeable future. With redevelopment, public access to the shoreline can be expanded. Houseman raises a concern about the possibility/likelihood that some of the larger homes near Lynch Park may be torn down and the land resubdivded. He notes that the City has already seen at least one recent example of this phenomenon, and it is a concern to at least some residents already. He suggests that the City may want to consider “downzoning” the area (e.g. increasing the minimum lot size requirement to discourage owners from tearing down existing homes and subdividing their land). Costa expresses concern about the need to preserve the housing stock in the Goat Hill neighborhood and the character of each neighborhood in Ward 2. Thomson notes that downzoning tends to preserve the character of existing residential neighborhoods. Cassidy suggests that the issue be tabled until the committee’s next meeting. In the meantime she will ask the Engineering Department to map out the lot sizes in the area of Lynch Park so that members can get a sense of the degree to which this may or may not be an issue. Dinkin expresses concern about downzoning along the waterfront, since increased density is often a good exchange for obtaining public access to the water. Costa expresses concern about tear downs. Frontiero asks if there are any alternatives to downzoning, such as establishing floor area ratios for single family homes. Willmer states that he will research options to downzoning and will report back at the next meeting. Comprehensive Rezoning Committee Meeting Minutes May 4, 2004 Page 1 of 2 Houseman asks if State Chapter 91 regulations apply to residential development. Neuman states that it depends on whether the site has historically filled tidelands. If yes, then Chapter 91 regulations apply. Willmer underscores the necessity of drafting zoning changes that comply with those regulations. Discussion turns to the subject of Beverly being a Designated Port Area (“DPA”). This designation mandates water dependent uses along the waterfront, which is not in keeping with some of the recommendations of the recently-adopted master plan. Neuman states that while the Harbor Management Authority supports the idea of eliminating the DPA for Beverly, it should not be done until the zoning for the area is changed. He adds that the only parcel in compliance with the DPA regulations is the so-called Birelli property on Water Street. Costa urges the City to adopt new zoning that accommodates the future plans of one of the major waterfront property owners, the Kinzies, who own Port Marina. Willmer says that he has reviewed the current zoning for the area (waterfront development district) and notes that the allowable floor area ratio is very low, and may be responsible for the lack of reinvestment and redevelopment in that area since it was created in the late 1980’s. Neuman states that one major impediment to future redevelopment is the lack of parking, which must be addressed. Cox says that she very much wants to see the waterfront district be more productive in every sense of the word. Next, general discussion takes place about the Bass River area. Houseman corrects a misimpression that the waterway is largely non-navigable. He notes that there is navigable water all the way to Innocenti Park, and beyond that at high tide. Cox suggests that rezoning the area might provide the incentive needed for dredging the river. Costa expresses his concern about the future of the Ventron site and the need to rezone it. One use may be to provide transient slips for boaters. Colucci notes that although there is an Activity and Use Limitation (“AUL”) on the site, it is fairly clean and the AUL provisions could be modified to allow residential or other uses in the future. Willmer urges members not to let the AUL or questions about its past use limit discussion of how the site should be used in the future. Willmer notes that tonight’s discussion has been broadly on topic. He suggests that he can facilitate the committee’s work at the next meeting by revising the use and dimensional table as a starting point for discussion on specific uses and dimensional requirements the committee might want to see for both the waterfront and downtown. Thomson asks for Willmer’s reaction to the idea of having several overlay districts for the waterfront parcels. Willmer says that he can create conceptual drafts, but the committee will need to define the boundaries. He will also look at some ways to address the “lack of parking” issue, including shared parking arrangements. Members ask that they be provided with an updated list of current members and contact information. There being no other business for the evening, the meeting adjourns at 9:00 p.m. Comprehensive Rezoning Committee Meeting Minutes May 4, 2004 Page 2 of 2