Loading...
2005-11-07 CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: Planning Board SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: November 7, 2005 LOCATION: City Council Chambers, City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard Dinkin, Vice-Chairman John Thomson, Donald Walter, Joanne Dunn, Ellen Flannery MEMBERS ABSENT: Eve Geller-Duffy, Jason Silva OTHERS PRESENT: City Councilors Guanci, Flaherty, Coughlin, Troubetaris, Burke, Hobin, Martin, and Grimes, City Planner Tina Cassidy RECORDER: Tina Cassidy Council President Paul Guanci calls the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The purpose of the Joint Hearing is to consider Council Order #206 which proposes a series of amendments to the zoning ordinance. Guanci asks Cassidy to explain the proposals. Cassidy states that the Order contains several distinct proposals and summarizes each: ?? Revisions to Section 29-23.E. entitled “Residential Reuse of Existing Public Buildings”; ?? Adoption of a new definition of “subsidized elderly housing”; ?? Revisions to the existing definition of “lot”; ?? Amendments to Section 29-6 entitled “Common Permitted Uses”; ?? Various amendments to the sign ordinance and the City ordinance relative to signs; and ?? Revisions to Section 29-26 entitled “Non-Conforming Uses and Lots” to insert a provision authorizing certain projects by special permit from the Board of Appeals. Dinkin voices a concern with respect to the proposed changes to Section 29-6 regarding accessory buildings. Dinkin is concerned that the broadness of the proposed language may interfere with the practice of certain religions to construct temporary structures related to religious observation. He is also concerned with the age restriction of 55 proposed for the definition of “subsidized elderly housing”. He believes it should be increased to ensure that projects built under this definition are truly elderly housing developments. A suggestion is made that the proposed definition should be revised to require a certain number of units in a subsidized elderly housing project to be constructed for those with disabilities. A councilor asks what the income guidelines are for those considered to be of “low/moderate” income. Cassidy answers that the answer depends upon household size, and recalls that the income limits for a family of four is approximately $55,000. Draft Planning Board minutes November 7, 2005 Page 1 of 5 Councilor Grimes raises a concern on the proposed changes to Section 29-23.E. for the residential reuse of public buildings. She is not convinced that the authority for granting special permits should be taken away from the Council and given to the Planning Board. Cassidy responds that the suggestion to make the Planning Board the special permit granting authority was based on (a) the Planning Board’s experience reviewing similar site plans versus that of the City Council, and (b) avoiding the difficulties experienced in other communities when land use decisions are left in the hands of an elected political body. Councilor Troubetaris raises concerns about the changes to accessory buildings (Section 29- 6). The proposed definition seems broad enough to apply to sun shelters and screen houses. Cassidy states that that was not the intent of the ordinance, and offers to discuss the issue with the Building Inspector prior to the next discussion on the matter. Next, the proposed changes to the sign ordinance are discussed, particularly the proposal to allow sandwich board signs. The proposal would allow them on public sidewalks under certain conditions and upon the posting of a bond with the City. Councilor Gaunci asks if there are any members of the public who wish to be heard on the Order. Joan Murphy, Longmeadow Road, states that she is opposed to the idea of allowing sandwich board signs on public sidewalks, since they create a hazard to pedestrians. Councilor Martin raises an issue on signs, particularly signs advertising yard sales that are left up well after the sale is over, and signs placed along public ways that advertise sales in stores in other parts of the City or even in other communities. He believes the City should find a way to require that yard sales signs be taken down immediately after a sale is over, and to institute a monetary fine to ensure adherence to the law. Cassidy offers to discuss the issue with the Building Inspector and report back at a subsequent meeting. Martin suggests that the City investigate ways to increase the number of personnel who are authorized to enforce the ordinance. Rose Maglio, Pleasant Street, states that she also objects to sandwich board signs on public sidewalks. Guanci asks if there are any other members of the public, the Council, or the Planning Board who wish to be heard on the matter. There are none. Guanci closes the public hearing and refers the Order to the Planning Board and Legal Affairs’ Committee for discussion and recommendation. (The Board recesses to Conference Room A to conduct a special meeting.) Chairman Dinkin opens the special meeting and asks the Board if they want to divide the Order into separate questions for ease of discussion. Thomson: motion to divide the Order, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion carries 5-0. 1. Discussion: City Council Order #206: Various Zoning Amendments Draft Planning Board minutes November 7, 2005 Page 2 of 5 Cassidy offers suggestions for prioritizing discussion of the proposed amendments. Thomson says the fact that the City is lacking such a provision is troubling. Although this proposal has been characterized as a “temporary” measure that will be replaced in the coming months with a more refined version, he feels the current proposal is adequate to address the issue. Thomson: motion to recommend to the City Council that the proposed amendments to Section 29-26 be adopted as drafted, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion carries 5-0. Next, members discuss the proposed amendments to the definition of “LOT”. Cassidy explains that an earlier revision done in April of 2004 left several provisions out of the definition, and suggests they be reinstated immediately. Thomson: motion to recommend to the City Council that the proposed amendments to the definition of “LOT” be adopted as proposed, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion carries 5-0. Next, members discuss the proposed changes to the section of the zoning ordinance relative to accessory structures (Section 29-6, Common Permitted Uses). Thomson states that most of the discussion centered around the regulation of “temporary tent like structures”. Members suggest that additional research into defining and regulating such structures be done by City staff, addressing the concerns about its application to religious structures and residential sun shelters. Thomson: motion to recommend that the proposed provisions for temporary tent like structures” be stricken from the proposal and submitted at a later date. Motion seconded by Walter. Dinkin states his intention to vote against this recommendation. Cassidy refers to the first paragraph of the proposal, which provides an exemption from the ordinance for uses covered by Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A Section 3. Those exempted uses include those for religious purposes, so she believes the Ordinance will not apply to temporary structures built in connection with religious observation. Thomson notes that the word “structure” is used in subsection B.2., and amends his motion to change the word “structure” to “building” for the sake of consistency in the text. Walter assents to this amendment to the motion. On the motion as amended, all members vote in favor and the motion carries 5-0. Next, the Board discusses the proposed revisions to Section 29-23.E. entitled “Residential Reuse of Existing Public Buildings”. Dinkin states that he is very much in favor of recycling former public buildings into productive use. Thomson expresses his support for the ordinance, and asks Cassidy why the Planning Board was proposed as the special permit granting authority instead of the City Council. Cassidy answers that the Planning Board has the most experience reviewing and approving projects of this type and complexity, and certainly more than the City Council given recent history. Draft Planning Board minutes November 7, 2005 Page 3 of 5 She notes that even the Zoning Board of Appeals has begun the practice of referring large scale building projects to the Planning Board for review and approval/comment prior to taking action on plans before it. She also says that in a number of communities, the city councils are the special permit granting authority and in those cases there are often political difficulties that interfere with sound planning decisions. The Board holds a general discussion about the affordable units that would be created under the Ordinance and the importance of having at least ten percent of the City’s housing stock qualify as “affordable units” under the provisions of M.G.L. Chapter 40B. Thomson: motion to recommend to the City Council that the proposed revisions to Section 29-23.E. entitled “Residential Reuse of Existing Public Buildings” be approved as drafted, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion carries. Next, members discuss the proposed definition of subsidized elderly housing. The proposal calls for at least 80% of the units to be occupied by those 55 and over, and 15% of the units to be “affordable” in perpetuity. Thomson states that in federally-subsidized elderly housing projects the trend is toward providing a minimum percentage of handicapped units. Today, it is not a requirement. He suggests that the minimum age be increased from 55 to 62, and that at least ten percent (10%) of the units be constructed for occupancy by those with disabilities. Thomson: motion to recommend to the City Council that the proposed definition of “subsidized elderly housing” be adopted but that the minimum age criterion be increased from 55 to 62, and a provision be added requiring that at least ten percent (10%) of the units constructed under this Ordinance be equipped for those with disabilities. Motion seconded by Flannery, all members in favor. Motion carries. Members discuss the remaining parts of Order #206 (proposed changes to the sign ordinance) and agree further discussion should be tabled until the next meeting of the Board. Thomson: motion to table further discussion of Order #206 until the next Board meeting, seconded by Walter. All members in favor, motion carries. 2. Elm Top Lane: Request for review of footprint changes Cassidy explains that the Planning Board’s original approval of the pork chop lot special permit contained a condition that no substantial and material changes could be made to the proposed footprints for the proposed buildings unless the Planning Board conducted a public hearing on the matter. The owners of the property, Elm Top Realty Trust, would like to make minor changes to the proposed footprint, and have filed a plan for review with the Board in the hope that members will consider the changes to be minor, insubstantial and immaterial. Attorney Marshall Handly, representing the owners, elaborates on the request and shows the members a plan that depicts the proposed footprint changes. Thomson: motion that the Board determine that the changes shown on the plan are neither material nor substantial, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion carries. Draft Planning Board minutes November 7, 2005 Page 4 of 5 3. New or Other Business Cassidy suggests that the Board consider choosing a date and location for its holiday dinner meeting. After a brief discussion of options and availability, members elect to hold the th meeting at the Depot Restaurant on either Monday December 12 or Tuesday December th 13. Thomson: motion to adjourn, seconded by Dunn. All members in favor, motion carries. The meeting is adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Draft Planning Board minutes November 7, 2005 Page 5 of 5