Loading...
2008-03-03 CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: Planning Board, Joint Public Hearing and Special Meeting SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: LOCATION: March 3,2008 City Council Chambers, Beverly City Hall, 3rd Floor; Committee Room, 3rd FIr. City Hall Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice Chairperson John Thomson, Joanne Dunn, Ellen Flannery, Ellen Hutchinson, Stephanie Williams Charles Harris, David Mack, Leo Panunzio Planning Director Tina Cassidy, Assistant Planning Director Leah Zambernardi Andrea Bray MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: RECORDER: 1. Joint Public Hearin2 - City Council Order #49 - Proposed Zonin2 Amendment relative to Site Plan Review Ordinance (Section 29-29.C) Chair Dinkin steps up to take a seat with the City Council. Planning Director Tina Cassidy reads the legal public hearing notice. She states that these same changes were discussed and voted on a few months ago but one of the public notices omitted a section that made the changes effective. To remedy this, she suggests that the Council and the Planning Board vote on and pass this amendment again. Cassidy states that these amendments address three issues: (1) the total number of sets of plans submitted with each site plan review application, (2) the increase in the filing fees, and (3) a clause which allows for "minor" modifications following site plan approval. Councilor Troubetaris questions the change to the paragraph that specified the number of copies and Cassidy states that it was increased from 5 to 10 copies because there are many departments examining these site plans. Mary Roderick of 14 Peabody Avenue asks if there are criteria for what modifications would be considered "major" vs. "minor" as stated in the ordinance. Dinkin states that there are not specific criteria but one of the projects that stimulated a discussion was the moving of a loading dock only three feet. He adds that a public hearing for a minor modification would cause unnecessary expense for the city. He cited an example of a "major" modification to be the removal of a landscape area to gain additional parking. He then cited an example of a "minor" modification as substituting one variety of evergreen for another. Planning Board Joint Public Hearing March 3, 2008 Page 2 of6 Councilor Troubetaris suggests the planning board form written criteria for determining the distinction between major and minor modifications. Dinkin states that the board could attempt this in the form of regulation. He then cautions that envisioning, listing, and planning for an entire universe of potential cases would be impossible. Joan Murphy of 36 Longmeadow Road asks if some other board could help the Planning Board determine the distinction between major or minor. Dinkin agrees to let other boards weigh in on each modification as it comes in. Dinkin closes the Planning Board section of the public hearing. 2. Joint Public Hearin2 - City Council Order #24 - Proposed Zonin2 Amendment relative to Open Space Residential Desi2n (OSRD) Site Plan Ordinance (Section 29- 24.B) Cassidy reads the legal public hearing notice. Councilor Burke expresses concern about three amendments that he recommended for the OSRD that were not included in the last update. Cassidy says that these changes have not become a part of the amendments for this ordinance, and she doesn't know if there is anything they can do to incorporate them now. Councilor Burke states that these amendments were not friendly to the planning department. He clarifies that he is not saying this to create conflict but because he suspects there might have been confusion on which draft was to be used. Dinkin suggests that an opinion be sought from the City Solicitor's office as to whether to incorporate Burke's suggested amendments into the ordinance. Councilor Burkes agrees with Dinkin. Council President Flaherty says that they should go to the City Solicitor. Councilor Grimes suggests reviewing the amendments. Cassidy reviews all of the 16 amendments to the OSRD ordinance: The first four amendments clarify or redefine the applicability section. Planning Board Joint Public Hearing March 3, 2008 Page 3 of6 The next amendment clarifies the calculation of the area of a "tract" to be consistent with "lot". The next amendment lists conditions for a waiver for certain ANR plans only through findings by the PB. The next amendment provides for a public hearing during the yield plan approval process. Dinkin states that this amendment is designed to do two things; (1) establish a level of certainty for the number of units the developer can have before he invests a great deal of money; and (2) allow for public comment, because originally this step had no provision to allow for public comment. Cassidy continues to review the amendments: The next amendment clarifies the "Rules and Regulations" portion by including regulations for "Conceptual Plans" and "OSRD Site Plan" submissions. The next amendment allows the Planning Board to approve additional dimensional reductions. The next three amendments clarify the steps for the General Design Process. The next amendment clarifies the Site Plan Approval process as it pertains to the OSRD Site Plan. The next amendment reduces the 100-foot or 50 foot buffer to 25 feet for perimeters and primary conservation areas and eliminates buffers around the secondary resource areas. The next amendment allows for a zero foot side yard setback for any lot created by OSRD. The final amendment creates new requirements for roadways and sidewalks created within an OSRD development. Pam Kampersal of 241 Dodge Street, member OSRC, asks why the City will allow 20% of the wetland area be used while calculating the total maximum number of lots. She expresses concern about the depletion of wetlands and the drinking water supply. Cassidy clarifies that this will not take way 20% of the wetlands on any property, but rather this area will be used in the calculation of the lot's total square footage. Rosemary Maglio of 30 Pleasant Street expresses concern about large parcels being broken up. Mary Roderick of 14 Peabody Avenue says that the definitions for "Buildable Areas" and "Potentially Developable Areas" are unclear. She objects to the clause specifying that the Planning Board is entitled to waive subdivision requirements if they determine that that such an application frustrates the purposes of this ordinance. She disputes the applicability definition, and suggests they just define what a "tract" is. Planning Board Joint Public Hearing March 3, 2008 Page 4 of6 Dinkin says that he understands the skepticism in having discretion invested in any governing body, but cautions against the pitfalls of attempting to create a rigid regulatory environment that will cover every possible case. Scott Houseman of 27 Appleton Ave says that Beverly's OSRD ordinance is the most progressive conservation subdivision ordinance in the Commonwealth. He adds that these changes are designed to make sure that the ordinance strikes the proper balance, being inclusive but not too inclusive, being strict but not too strict. He speaks in favor of the amendments. Emily Cadamartori of 10 Hillside Avenue, who worked with Scott Houseman on the development of this OSRD, suggests that the public hearing remain open so that she can present a comment letter at a later date. Marilyn McCrory of 2 Lovett Court asks about subdivision requirements for the roadways (24 feet). Cassidy states that 24 feet comes from the mInor subdivision provIsIon and it IS consistent with the fire department standard. McCrory says that the purpose of this ordinance is to reduce land disturbance and there have been 18-foot roadways in other developments in other cities that have worked fine. Councilor Cronin expresses concern about potential ambiguity in the ordinance regarding the side setback waiver. She asks if something could be added that would prevent a developer from placing a home on the lot line of an abutter to the OSRD tract. Much discussion ensues about this language. Rosemary Maglio of 30 Pleasant Street says that waivers for the basic maximum number shouldn't be allowed. Maglio agrees that the public hearing should remain open. She says that they should keep the larger buffer around conservation areas. Renee Mary of274 Hale Street says that there are many contradictions in this ordinance. Mary Roderick of 14 Peabody Avenue objects to the reduction in the wetlands buffer to 25 feet. Pam Kampersal of 241 Dodge Street states that the OSRC will write comments to this on Wednesday so she requests that the public hearing be left open. She objects to the reduction of the wetlands buffer to 25 feet. Planning Board Joint Public Hearing March 3, 2008 Page 5 of6 Scott Houseman requests that the public hearing remain open. A new discussion begins regarding the zero foot side setback allowance. Dinkin clarifies by stating that the home within an OSRD project cannot have side setbacks waived against a non-OSRD abutting lot. Regarding the closing of the public hearing, Dinkin states that the group tonight is in a quasi-judicious process and the Planning Board can continue to take written comment up to 21 days from the closing of the public hearing. Councilor Pat Grimes says that they should leave the public hearing open. She says that the O-side setbacks paragraph should be further discussed, as well as the reduction of the buffer. Joe Boccia of 36 Foster Street asks about the 25-foot wetlands buffer and then speaks in favor of these amendments. Councilor Slate suggests using the term townhouse in the ordinance, as well as some diagrams. He asks about covered projects. Councilor Troubetaris asks whether OSRD roadways will be public or private roads. Councilor Burke questions the ambiguity of the applicability section. Council President Flaherty says he would like to close the City Council portion of this public hearing. Thomson says he wishes to keep the Planning Board portion of the public hearing open until March 24. Thomson: Motion to continue the OSRD public hearing until March 24 at 8:30 PM, seconded by Flannery. Passes 6-0. The Councilors discuss the possibility of keeping the hearing open and decide continue until their first meeting in April. Planning Board Chairperson Dinkin announces a special meeting, which will be held in the adjacent conference room. Special Meeting Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order. Planning Board Joint Public Hearing March 3, 2008 Page 6 of6 1. Recommendation to City Council - Council Order #49 - Zonin2 Amendment - Site Plan Review Ordinance Thomson: Motion to recommend approval of this amendment by the City Council, seconded by Williams. Passes 5-0. 2. Approval of Minutes: February 19. 2008 Meetin2 The Chair lays this item on the table until the next regular meeting. New/Other Business Thomson suggests a further amendment to the OSRD as it pertains to the roadways. He clarifies that there is a conflict in that ANR lots with frontage on existing roadways do not have the benefit of requesting waivers for reduced areas or frontage. He says that this new amendment can be included in the current round of amendments because it would not be more restrictive. Zambernardi advises the members that a workshop will be held on Advanced Tools and Techniques for Planning and Zoning in Worcester on Saturday. She says that all members are welcome and she would like to have a completed list of the attendees by tomorrow so she can register everyone. Flannery: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Hutchinson. All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 6-0. The meeting is adjourned at 9:30 PM.