2005-06-30
CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD: Planning Board
TOPIC: Joint Public Hearing with Legal Affairs Committee
DATE: June 30, 2005
PLACE: Council Chambers, Beverly City Hall
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson, Richard Dinkin, John Thomson, Eve
Geller-Duffy, Jason Silva, Donald Walter, Charles
Harris, Joanne Dunn, Maureen Troubetaris, Patricia
Grimes, John Burke
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Ellen Flannery
OTHERS PRESENT: Leah Zambernardi, Assistant Planning Director
RECORDER: Robin Levesque
Dinkin calls meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
City Council Order #105: Proposed Zoning Amendment – Open Space Residential
Design Ordinance (OSRD)
Dinkin asks the public if they have any questions or comments.
Renee Mary of 274 Hale St. asks how they plan on going through the amendments.
Dinkin states they will go through the order of John Burke's proposed amendments.
Mary asks that the Board allow the public to comment as it discusses each point.
Amendment #1 and Amendment #2
Thomson suggests adding the words "endeavor to ensure" rather than "ensure".
Dinkin asks whether moving this part from the Secondary Purposes section will impact
the process.
Burke and Thomson agree that it will not.
The Board agrees to adopt this amendment with the words "endeavor to" inserted before
the word "ensure".
Amendment #3
Thomson states he approves of this amendment because it is clearer to the reader. He
states an end parenthesis is needed after the word ""building" in II.1.b.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 30, 2005
Page 2
Amendment #4
Dinkin states this section would exempt certain zoning districts, like R6 zones that allow
multiple buildings, from the Ordinance. He states the proposal is to include the R10 and
R15 zones in this exemption.
Troubetaris states that her ward is R-10 zoning, and many of the lots have only 5,000
square feet. She asks how this would affect the smaller lots.
Cassidy comments she thinks the R10 and R15 zoning should be included. She adds that
there is still a lot of property that is vacant in those zones that can be developed. She sees
the rationale for including those zones in the ordinance. She states there is a lot of
potential for those large lots in those zones being developed. She gives the example of
the Folger Avenue subdivision.
Burke states that to shed light on his amendment, there are many nonconforming lots in
the R10 district and he thinks there is a small amount of open space to be gained.
Houseman mentions a lot that is already being developed that would have benefited from
the ordinance.
Troubetaris states that a wooded lot right around the corner from her home could be
developed. She states there are more lots than we know of.
Thomson cautions against taking away flexibility from the planning board. Whatever
open space is found to be worth looking at, the main issue is to capture as many potential
lots as possible, not just the zoning districts. That is why they have worked in thresholds
and built in waivers for the problem lots
Burke asks why the R6 zone was eliminated.
Dinkin states that the original draft included all zoning districts. It was his amendment to
eliminate the multi-family districts because he wanted to increase the opportunities for
development of multi-family projects. He wanted the City to be able to continue to have
the flexibility with multi-family projects without the developer having to squeeze out
open space. He states that for single-family districts, the issue is thresholds.
Thomson states that this ordinance would not allow a 5,000 s.f. lot to cram in units. He
states the ordinance does not change what's required by the underlying zoning.
Geller-Duffy states her desire to keep the R10 and R15 in the ordinance.
Harris asks what consideration is there to the abutters
Dinkin states that the underlying zoning determines how many lots or units are allowed.
There is an extensive public process built into the Ordinance.
2
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 30, 2005
Page 3
Harris states it seems we are determining what a developer can do. He asks how it will
affect the abutter.
Dinkin states that defining what can go on a potential lot is determined by the Zoning. In
the R10 zone, we're probably talking about a maximum of four homes on one acre.
Troubetaris states that many homes have been built according to the cookie cutter
standards. She states that so many problems such as topography were never considered.
The City has spent millions on the drainage problems and she thinks this ordinance is an
avenue that can help address that.
Silva states there are instances where the City could benefit from the Ordinance.
Burke states that the City should not pass an Ordinance that could have a negative benefit
on even a few people. There are small lots in the City. Developers can buy contiguous
lots to meet the s.f. requirements of the zoning districts. He states there are eight new
condos in his back yard. He states that the reason it was allowed is that the developer
bought sliver of land to add to his area and met the zoning requirements.
Ward 4 Councilor Kevin Hobin states that he supports the R10 zone being included in the
Ordinance.
Burke states would like more time to think about this.
Walter states that if someone has two acres, they can’t build more homes than zoning
would allow. He states that the Folger Avenue subdivision is in the R10 zone. They are
building homes and leaving Open Space down near the river, which is saving the
environment.
Joan Murphy of 36 Longmeadow Road states there does not appear to be an open space
benefit for a parcel of 1-acre. She states the thresholds should cover a larger area. There
would be minimal open space provided for a 1-acre lot and it would not be usable. She
thinks the threshold should be 4 units and 2 acres.
Mary Rodrick of 14 Peabody Ave. states little open space would be provided due to that
acreage. She states that the threshold should be at least two acres. She notes that other
cities and towns have minimums of 4 and 5 acres.
Burkes states that he is not as committed to this amendment as he was before. He
initially thought that condos could be allowed in the R10 and the R15. Now that he has
learned that this is not the case, and the underlying zoning only allows single-family
homes, he agrees to withdraw this amendment.
Rodrick questions the adequacy of parking for units in R-10. She notes that people park
in the street.
3
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 30, 2005
Page 4
Geller-Duffy asks for a discussion on the open space and how it will occur in the R10
zone.
Houseman shows a GIS map of Ward 4 with lots in the R10 zone, which shows each lot
by size in color that could be developed under the existing zoning. He explains that
many lots on the waterfront are large and could be developed. He describes how they
could be developed now in comparison to this open space ordinance.
Rodrick states building on the ocean would cause erosion.
Houseman states that the first step in developing an OSRD site plan is to identify the
conservation areas. He notes that the planning board would not allow houses on the
ocean. He states the resource areas would have to be set aside. He adds that through
OSRD, the Planning Board works on each parcel individually.
Amendment # 5
The Planning Board agrees to adopt this amendment.
Amendment #6
The Planning Board agrees to adopt this amendment.
Amendment #7
Cassidy states the wording could be tweaked. She states this amendment suggests
possibly doubling the review time, which might put an increased burden on staff time.
She also states there are deadlines and timelines involved which will have to be closely
watched.
Dinkin states he feels strongly about not having two public hearings for other reasons.
He states his concern is about the approvals after public comments, after the definitive
was approved he states that’s a serious concern with him.
Troubetaris asks if this is at the Applicants expense. Cassidy states yes it would be at the
Applicants expense.
Grimes asks what the concerns are about public speaking.
The Planning Board agrees to adopt this amendment.
Amendment #8
The Planning Board agrees to adopt this amendment.
4
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 30, 2005
Page 5
Amendment #9
Cassidy states she feels this is redundant. Dinkin states the Board's practice is to get
comments on the plans from the Conservation Commission as well as a number of
different City department heads, Boards and Commissions. All this does is incorporate
the Conservation Commission again. Burke states that sending notice is different from
soliciting review. Dinkin agrees with the change but suggests changing "solicit a review"
to "request for comments". Geller-Duffy asks why the other Boards are not included
here.
Grimes states this should be advertised as a public meeting, so that the public has a
chance to speak.
Zambernardi asks if the Conservation Commission is expected to have a public hearing
here.
Cassidy states that we are not calling it a public hearing here to affect the planning board.
She states the Board may need to limit the public comments to 3 to 4 minutes, and watch
the deadlines of approval.
Thomson adds that it's going to take up a lot of the Planning Board's time.
Zambernardi states how the planning board runs now, the process everyone is describing
right now sounds like a Public Hearing and that should be advertised.
Troubetaris states she agrees with Zambernardi and states it’s important that a Public
Hearing be advertised.
Thomson states he’s not for or against this and he suggests sticking to the language that
Counselor Burke proposed.
Burke states that a Public Hearing tells people if I don’t go, I’ll miss out on telling them
what I think.
Geller-Duffy Leaves at 9:05 p.m.
Grimes asks how long is this public comment period, how is this different from a hearing.
Thomson states the Chair can manage the public process.
The members agree to adopt the amendment with some changes. It will read, "Prior to
the initial review meeting, the Planning Board shall request comments from the
Conservation Commission on all ecologically sensitive areas within its jurisdiction,
including, but not limited to, wetlands, water bodies, and their buffer zones"
.
Amendment #10
5
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 30, 2005
Page 6
Board members agree to leave in section "e". They take out section "f". because it has
been moved to "d".
Amendment #11
Members adopt this amendment.
Amendment #12
Dinkin states it may be a subdivision that the Conservation Commission has no interest
in. Burke suggests removing the words "Conservation Commission" the first time it
appears.
Members adopt the amendment as Burke suggests.
Amendment #13
The Planning Board agrees to adopt this amendment.
Amendment #14
The Planning Board agrees to adopt this amendment.
Amendment #15
Thomson states that developers can go to other Boards and Commissions prior to
submitting and obtain variances or waivers. Burke states he has no problem with what
Thomson has said, but it needs rewording. Burke withdraws amendment 15.
Amendment #16
The Board amends the language to read, "open space, roadways, wetlands, water bodies,
and their buffer zones".
Thomson motions to continue the meeting to Thursday July 21, 2005 at 7 p.m. Seconded
by Dunn. All members are in favor. Motion carries
Silva motions to adjourn at 9:30 p.m. Walter seconds the motion. All members are in
favor. Motion carries.
6
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 30, 2005
Page 7
7