2005-06-06--Joint meeting
City of Beverly, Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
BOARD: Planning Board
TOPIC: Joint Public Hearing with the City Council
DATE: June 6, 2005
PLACE: Council Chambers, Beverly City Hall
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin; Eve Geller-Duffy;
Ellen Flannery; John Thomson, Donald Walter,
Jason Silva, Charlie Harris
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Joanne Dunn
OTHERS PRESENT: Leah Zambernardi, Assistant Planning Director;
Tina Cassidy, Planning Director; Ward 6 Councilor
Patricia Grimes, Ward 5 Councilor Don Martin,
Ward 4 Councilor Kevin Hobin, Councilor At Large
Tim Flaherty, Council President Paul Guanci,
Councilor At Large Bill Coughlin, Ward 3
Councilor John Burke, Ward 2 Councilor Ron
Costa, Ward 1 Councilor Maureen Troubetaris
RECORDER: Robin Levesque
Council President Paul Guanci calls the meeting to order at 7:00 pm
City Council Order #105: Proposed Zoning Amendment – Open Space Residential
Design Ordinance (OSRD)
Scott Houseman, Chairman of the ZBA and co-drafter of the Ordinance provides an
overview of the proposed zoning amendment. He states that in October 2004 there was a
submission to the Council, which was referred back to Planning and then back to the
Council. The time ran out for the Council to make a decision on the Ordinance and it has
been resubmitted. He states that Beverly can do a better job than in the past. Houseman
states that Councilor John Burke’s amendments total 56 in number, many are clerical
errors, and many are not. He states that he agrees with some, but some he doesn't.
Houseman asks the Councilors how they prefer to review Councilor Burke's ordinance
amendments and move along before they recess for the summer. Houseman asks the
Councilors to continue its public hearing until September so that the 90 days won’t lapse.
Maureen Troubetaris, Ward 1 Councilor, states she sees Houseman's concerns about
continuing the Public hearing. She states that as long as the Ordinance remains unpassed,
there is still the threat of developers coming in with traditional subdivisions. She regrets
that homes are no longer affordable.
Planning Board Minutes June 6 Joint Public Hearing
Page 2 Council Order #103
John Burke, Ward 3 Councilor, states that developers will have the incentive to wait
because the Ordinance as it's currently drafted allows more units and reduced
infrastructure. Because the units can be built closer together, they can save money. He
sees no reason to rush this Ordinance through.
Kevin Hobin, Ward 4 Councilor, states that there are 56 amendments from Councilor
Burke and he asks if half are typos. Houseman states that’s probably about right.
Donald Martin, Ward 5 Councilor, states we should take our time and do it right, he
suggests recessing the public hearing until September.
Pat Grimes, Ward 6 Councilor, states she agrees with Councilor Martin. She states we
should take our time. She doesn't think it should be rushed because of projects. Grimes
states there is no provision for affordable housing in this ordinance and she doesn't know
how this ordinance would promote affordable housing.
Troubetaris states that some of the proposed revisions requested make it more difficult to
build affordable housing. She states it is costing more and more to build homes, and our
children wouldn’t be able to afford a home in Beverly.
Dinkin states that in his experience, developers are far more influenced by market factors,
not City ordinances. He states that whether the ordinance it is passed immediately or
delayed, he doesn't think it will dramatically change the rate of subdivision development.
Thomson states he doesn’t disagree with Dinkin. He states he wants it done right. He
proposes that the Planning Board move on over the summer while the Councilors are at
recess. He states it’s in the public interest to have the Planning Board conduct meetings
and continue the process along and look at the amendments. He suggests that after
tonight, the Council should wait until September. He suggests that Councilors can attend
the Planning Board meetings over the summer.
Tim Purinton of Mass Audubon Society states there is allot of momentum with the
ordinance. He states the time is good for it now. He asks the City to be sensitive to
waiting too long. He states that this ordinance has a tremendous ability to affect the
landscape and it is great that so much attention is being paid to it. He states that the
ordinance is a really good fit for Beverly and he implores the City to move forward with
it.
Houseman states there has been unbelievable attention to the details and it is becoming a
very strong ordinance and he thinks it will become even better with time.
Rosemary Maglio of 30 Pleasant St. states this is the third version, it needs to be re-
advertised and City Solicitor should be present. She states that the Council needs to work
with the Planning Board and make significant changes. She states that significant
changes should not be made while the public tries to evaluate it.
Planning Board Minutes June 6 Joint Public Hearing
Page 3 Council Order #103
Planning Director Tina Cassidy states that we do need to pay attention to the changes
being made. She states that if the changes become more restrictive after the ordinance
has already been advertised, it has to be re-advertised. She states that if the changes
make the ordinance less restrictive, it does not have to be re-advertised.
Dinkin states people will have different perspectives. Some changes are less restrictive
on the property owner. He states that one substantial change would be the exclusion of
R10 and R15 from coverage. He states that would be a less restrictive change that
wouldn't require additional advertising.
Guanci asks if there are any other comments from the members or public.
Renee Mary of 274 Hale St. states that no material changes have been made and the
legislation has the same defects that it had before. She states that first, protecting
Wenham Lake from contamination is a primary purpose, not a secondary purpose.
Second, the number of allowed lots and the density bonus language is confusing. Third,
is it proper to have a purpose of the ordinance be to reduce the applicant's cost? Fourth,
why are the developers encourages to have a meeting with the neighbors and then report
on the neighbors' reactions? Why can't the neighbors speak for themselves? Why are
there so many meetings in front of the Planning Board? Will the Planning Board be able
to process OSRD at its regular meetings? How will the additional steps of OSRD fit
within the Planning Board's regular business?
Cassidy asks if the meetings would be day meetings because it might not be fit into the
night meetings. Dinkin states that during his time on the Planning Board, they have
never been unable to manage the demands on its time. He wants to be consistent in
keeping the meeting in the public view. He would leave the OSRD hearings to the
evenings.
Mary states the neighbors and abutters cannot be left out. The Conservation Commission
cannot be left out. Wetlands scientists should not be left out of the process. Mary states
that the public must be allowed to attend site visits. Mary states that development of
remaining areas must be minimal. She states that as proposed the ordinance is
mandatory. She asks why the developers should be rewarded with density bonuses? She
states that the ordinance in its current form should not be approved. He states that it's
meant for lawyers and not the general public. She also doesn’t think it's a good idea to
continue meetings without the Councilors present.
Marilyn McCrory of Lovett Ct. states she attended the last meeting and that she thinks
there is some misunderstanding about the Ordinance. She states it has momentum in
other towns and approving the ordinance is a long process. She urges Beverly to move
forward and to be a leader.
Emilie Cademartori of 10 Hillside Avenue, states she is a planner and a former member
of the Green Neighborhoods Alliance. She is also a board member of the Beverly
Conservation Land Trust. She notes that the original letter to the Council was written in
Planning Board Minutes June 6 Joint Public Hearing
Page 4 Council Order #103
September last year. She urges the Council to continue to move forward. She states
there is currently a lot of momentum. She states that the longer we wait to adopt this
ordinance, the more potential there is for land to be lost in Beverly. She states that if
there are additional changes to be made, the Boards should work through the summer.
Troubetaris asks the Councilors if the Planning Board and Legal Affairs can work
together through the summer. Dinkin states that at the conclusion of the meeting tonight,
he plans to take a motion on a date to recess the Planning Board public hearing. He states
there is no reason why the Legal Affairs Committee can’t engage in a dialogue together.
Burke states it’s a good idea. Grimes ads she is perfectly happy to work during summer.
Houseman states he would very much like to see the Ordinance continue, if the sub-
committee is willing to meet, and then the Council can be presented with the work at the
end of the summer.
Timothy Flaherty, Councilor At-Large states he would like the momentum to continue.
He states that having a final document in September would be great. He ads that the
ordinance will never be perfect but that the Council has the ability to amend it in the
future.
William Coughlin, Councilor At-large asks Cassidy if she's experiencing increased
development proposals. Cassidy states she hasn't seen a hike in subdivision filings. It
hasn’t caused the developers to come in a rush and file, although she notes allot of them
are keeping an eye on it.
Dinkin urges the Councilors not to close the hearing until Legal Affairs and the Planning
Board can reach consensus.
Grimes states that in terms of momentum, the Council received the Planning Board's
recommendation just barely 2 weeks before the time expired for the Council to make a
decision on the ordinance. That wasn't enough time for Legal Affairs to formulate its
recommendation and that was the reason for delaying the ordinance beforehand. She
agrees with Flaherty that we should get the ordinance done in the fall but states we should
get the best ordinance we can.
Maglio states she has a problem with the density bonus section and she asks for
clarification, because it has multiple interpretations. Thomson agrees and states it is a
change that should be made to say "units or lots" not "units/lots".
Maglio asks what the width of a driveway is. Dinkin states the Zoning Ordinance does
not have a definition of driveway. He states we do not control the width of a driveway or
what is used for driveways. He asks for clarification as to whether there is currently a
limit on how many houses can use one driveway for access.
Ronald Costa, Ward 2 Councilor states all things will be discussed at the meetings, and
he sees no reason to continue.
Planning Board Minutes June 6 Joint Public Hearing
Page 5 Council Order #103
Guanci asks for a motion to continue the public hearing of the Council until September 6,
2005 at 7:00 p.m. Troubetaris motions. Seconded by Burke. All in favor. Motion
carries. 9-0
Thomson motions to continue the public hearing of the Planning Board to a Special
Meeting on June 30, 2005 at 7:00pm. Seconded by Flannery. All in favor. Motion
carries, 7-0. Legal Affairs and Accounts will also convene at this time to participate in
the discussion.
Planning Board Special Meeting immediately Following the Joint Public hearing
Special meeting called to Order.
Dinkin asks if there is any new or other business. There being none, he asks for a motion
to adjourn.
Flannery motions to adjourn. Seconded by Thomson. All in favor. Motion carries.
Meeting Adjourned, at 8:15 pm