Loading...
2011-05-16CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: Planning Board SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: Monday, May 16, 2011 LOCATION: Beverly City Hall, Conference Room B, 3 rd Floor PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard Dinkin, Vice Chairman John Thomson, Michael O'Brien, Charles Harris, Ellen Hutchinson, Ellen Flannery, David Mack, James Matz MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Planning Director, Leah Zambernardi RECORDER: Diana Ribreau Dinkin called the Special Meeting of Beverly Planning Board to order at 9 p.m. Planning Board Recommendations to City Council: City Council Order #57 — Zoning Amendments relative to Non - conforming uses and structures (Section 29 -27) and IR -IR Overlay District relative to Green Communities (Section 29 -19) Amendments related to Non - conforming Uses and Structures Steve Frederickson, Building Commissioner, reviewed non - conforming situations relative to the proposed amendments in Section 29 -27. Hutchinson asked questions about additions to conforming houses on nonconforming lots and how the ordinance addresses them. Fredrickson gave a few examples to help clarify the Ordinance and said that it is the intent of the proposed Ordinance to allow for by -right additions to a conforming house on a lot that is nonconforming (undersized), if the house as changed meets the required zoning setbacks and the house does not increase in size by more than 25 percent. Thomson recommended that the Board report out a general recommendation that language be added to the proposed Ordinance clarifying this intent. Mack asked for clarification on the meaning of the phrase "take action" under Section H (Discontinuance or abandonment), Subsection 3. Frederickson responded. Beverly Planning Board May 16, 2011 Special Meeting Page 2 of 3 Mack questioned the intent behind the term "public acquisition" as used in Part F of the proposed Ordinance. It was determined that it is the intent of the proposed Ordinance that public acquisition should relate to a "taking" but that it should not relate to the sale of property to a public entity. The Board recommended that the proposed Ordinance be amended to reflect this. Matz asked Frederickson to explain how the changes, specifically allowing more projects "By Right ", would benefit the City. Frederickson responded that this would streamline the process and lessen the ZBA workload. The changes make it easier for the owner with respect to costs and time. Matz asked if there is no longer a variance required for some projects, could there be any way that it would become a detriment to an abutter of a property. Frederickson responded that there would not be a notice of something happening in many cases, however the abutter has the right to appeal the building permit. Frederickson referred back to Section K stating that the original Zoning Ordinance did not have a limit with respect to enlarging or extending the building volume, footprint or area. The abutter would have the right to file an appeal to a decision. Thomson: Motion to recommend a favorable vote by the City Council but asked that the City Council make changes related to the suggested amendments made during the Planning Board's consideration. Motion seconded by Mack. Motion passes 7 -0 -1 with the Chair abstaining. Amendments proposed by Main Streets (various to parking, signage, CC Zoning District) Dinkin stated that creating an Overlay District may be solution to questions raised regarding uniformity with the application through the CC Zoning District otherwise the easy way is to include the entire CC Zone. Thomson stated that the Task Force did not want to include Cabot Street and areas beyond a reasonable walking distance from the commuter rail. Thomson stated that if there is a flaw in the design, an Overlay District needs to be created. Mack mentioned Cassidy's remark at the Joint Public Hearing that there is a possibility to define the district by distance to a transit point. Thomson stated that Cabot Street is more of a sensitive area for development and a different situation than Rantoul Street. Dinkin agreed. He stated they should deal with areas only within walking distance of public transit. Matz asked in a general sense what is the vision of Main Streets for Rantoul Street and if it would be mixed use. Gooding responded that the vision is that mixed use would be wonderful but that they need a residential base before mixed would be viable. Dinkin added that consumers would stimulate business growth. Dinkin referred to a citizen's comment at the Joint Public Hearing regarding the standing issue. Gooding responded that the proposed ordinance could get to Council by Statute, Beverly Planning Board May 16, 2011 Special Meeting Page 3 of 3 which allows 10 registered voters or at least one citizen owning property that is affected by the zoning change. She stated that there are 10 registered voters on Beverly Main Streets and that there is more than one person theoretically affected by zoning changes if passed. Cassidy added that the Beverly Main Streets submitted a letter to City Council and that City Council on its own initiative held a public hearing on the matter. Dinkin asked the Planning Board if there are any issues with the proposal that are of nontechnical substance. None Thomson: Made a motion relative to the proposed change to the parking requirement for lots in the CC Zoning District on Rantoul Street south of Roundy Street, from 2 spaces per unit for residential uses of more than one - bedroom to 1 space per residential unit. The Board was concerned that this provision conflicts with the Zoning Act, Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 40A Section 4 which requires that "any zoning ordinance or by -law which divides cities and towns into districts shall be uniform within the district for each class or kind of structures or uses permitted." In particular, the Board voted to recommend to the City Council that the proposal be recast in an appropriately legal form to ensure that the CC Zoning District remains a uniform district as required by the above - referenced statute. An option would be the formation of an overlay district. Motion seconded by Harris. Motion passes 8 -0 -0. Amendment to IR -IR Overlay District relative to Green Communities (29 -19) Thomson asked for clarification on the uses allowed by right. Cassidy responded. Thomson asked that language be made clearer to give more control over what can be done outside with respect to processing, packaging, research and testing. He suggested that language be added allowing the uses only in an enclosed structure except for those that require access to light and air and only if they do not create a nuisance to abutting property owners. Cassidy agreed to draft proposed language to satisfy the Planning Board. Dinkin tabled the discussion until tomorrow night until the next regular meeting of the Planning Board on May 17, 2011. Matz made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by Flannery. Motion passes 8 -0 -0. Meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.