Loading...
2011-05-16 (2)CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: Planning Board & City Council DATE: Monday, May 16, 2011 LOCATION: Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice Chairperson John Thomson, Michael O'Brien, Charles Harris, Ellen Hutchinson, Ellen Flannery, David Mack, James Matz CITY COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chairperson Michael Cahill, Judith Cronin, Patricia Grimes, Paul Guanci, Kevin Hobin, James Latter, Donald Martin, Wesley Slate, Maureen Troubetaris MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Planning Director, Tina Cassidy & Assistant Planning Director, Leah Zambernardi RECORDER: Diana Ribreau Dinkin called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m. Flannery made a motion to recess and convene the joint public hearing at 7:20 p.m. but to hold off on beginning the joint public hearing until 7:30 p.m. Motion seconded by O'Brien. Motion carried 7 -0 -1 with the Chair abstaining. Cahill and Dinkin called the joint public hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. Public Hearing: City Council Order #57 — Zoning Amendments relative to: a. Non- conforming uses and structures (Section 29 -27), and b. IR -IR Overlay District relative to Green Communities (Section 29 -19) Public Hearing: City Council Order #61 — Zoning Amendments proposed by Main Streets (various to Parking, Signage, CC Zoning District) Dinkin read the legal notice aloud for the record. Cahill stated that there are 3 members of the public scheduled to testify this evening. Beverly Planning Board May 16, 2011 Joint Public Hearing with City Council Page 2 of 7 a. Non - conforming uses and structures (Section 29 -27) Cassidy informed those present about the proposal to rewrite Section 29 -27, Non- conforming Uses and Structures, of the Zoning Ordinance. Cassidy stated that over the years staff has worked to revise this section of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the process and approvals given to properties or uses that don't conform to the Ordinance. The City previously amended this ordinance as a result of a court case. The City made modifications to address the judge's concerns as a placeholder but recognized that this part of the Zoning Ordinance needed an entire overhaul. Cassidy said that many people in the community worked on the proposed amendments over several years. The amendments have the full support of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Planning Department, and the Municipal Inspections Department. Cassidy mentioned that the proposed amendments were also shared in advance with the Planning Board. Cassidy summarized the amendments broken down by sections. Cassidy said that the Ordinance is structured logically into sections, which makes it much easier for the Zoning Board of Appeals and the average person to use. The amendments address more sections than just buildings and uses. She stated that the Ordinance adopted 5 or so years ago tripled the number of people that needed to go to the ZBA for relief. The proposal would allow extensions of certain situations by right. She stated there are also provisions that limit the extent to which a nonconforming situation can be enlarged or altered by right. Cassidy concluded that the amendments are a great improvement from what is there now and asked that the Planning Board and City Council favorably consider the changes to the Zoning Ordinance. Cassidy also referred City Councilors and Planning Board Members to Steve Frederickson, Building Commissioner, for specific questions. Cahill opened the meeting to questions from City Councilors Martin asked Cassidy to explain the Ordinance in general terms. Cassidy stated that the amendments would modernize and update the non - conforming section of the Zoning Ordinance. She stated the current Ordinance is onerous on the ZBA. She stated that the proposal would make it much easier for the Zoning Board of Appeals and constituents. Troubetaris asked a question relative to special permits and variances. Cassidy responded. Dinkin opened the meeting to questions from members of the Planning Board. Hutchinson asked for clarification related to the enlargement of a 1- or 2- family home that is nonconforming due to street frontage or lot size. Steve Frederickson, Building Commissioner, responded. Cahill called for a brief recess of the Public Hearing. Beverly Planning Board May 16, 2011 Joint Public Hearing with City Council Page 3 of 7 Troubetaris made a motion to recess the Joint Public Hearing in order to continue a scheduled public hearing from 7:45 p.m. to 8:25 p.m. Motion seconded by Slate. Motion passed 9 -0 -0. Thomson made a motion to briefly recess the Joint Public Hearing of the Planning Board coinciding with the City Council's vote. Motion seconded by Hutchinson. Motion passed 7 -0 -1 with the Chair abstaining. Cahill and Dinkin then called the joint public hearing back to order. b. IR -IR Overlay District relative to Green Communities (Section 29 -19) Cassidy described the proposed amendment to the IR/IR Overlay District relative to Green Communities (Section 29 -19). Cassidy stated that the City of Beverly has been working toward Green Communities Status. Achieving this designation would allow the City to apply for and if qualified receive grants of some substance towards a number of initiatives related to Green Communities. Cassidy described the five criteria that the City must meet in order to qualify. Cassidy stated that the City Council recently voted on language for the Stretch Energy Code, which addresses one of the criteria. A new section to the IR/IR overlay district has been added as part of this proposed Zoning Amendment, which clarifies that renewable or alternative energy research and development would be allowed in the IR District. Cassidy stated that the existing language fell short and needs to be updated and made specific to alternative and renewable energy. Cassidy went over the other criteria and the City's plans to meet the criteria. Slate said he is pleased to see progress and noted it is not so easy a task and he commended those involved in moving the City of Beverly towards a Green Communities designation. Troubetaris concurred Matz referred to Section D (Building and Area Requirements) of the Ordinance that pertains to the minimum lot size of 2 acres in the IR/IR Zoning District and asked where there may be such properties within the City of Beverly. Cassidy responded mentioning a handful of areas that the Ordinance would apply to including Beverly Airport /Cherry Hill Drive, Brimbal Ave /Sohier & Tozer Roads and 20 -30 acres that are IR -zoned off Boulder Lane. Cassidy then referred to Patricia Murphy with respect to the amendment proposed by Beverly Main Streets. Beverly Planning Board May 16, 2011 Joint Public Hearing with City Council Page 4 of 7 City Council Order #61 — Zoning Amendments proposed by Main Streets (various to Parking, Signage, CC Zoning District) Patricia Murphy, 34 Appleton Avenue, representative for Beverly Main Streets Task Force discussed the following proposed zoning amendments with respect to Parking, Signage, CC Zoning District 1. Signage; Murphy stated that currently a variance is needed in order to place or change certain signs. She stated that the proposal would allow this by special permit from the ZBA. She gave the definition of a variance and stated that in her opinion, signage is not likely to show a hardship. 2. Parking Requirements - Section 29 -25A; Murphy stated that there are 2 proposed changes to this section. One would allow the Planning Board to grant relief from the parking requirements by special permit. Currently a variance is needed from the ZBA for parking relief. The second proposal allows that the parking requirement for residential units in the CC District in a designated commercial zone on Rantoul Street of more than 1 bedroom be 1 parking space per residential unit. Currently 2 spaces are required. Murphy referred to a map showing the area of Rantoul Street that would have the reduced parking allotment. She stated that this part of the CC District is "transit- oriented" being so close to the train station. Murphy stated that Beverly Main Streets is proposing to reduce the number of parking spaces required in this part of the CC District. The expectation is that people use the train and other mass transit means in this part of the CC District, which would be South of Roundy Street to the end of Rantoul Street. Troubetaris asked if the district would include the old Infinity Building. Murphy responded yes. Troubetaris stated that she is concerned about the cost of living and gasoline prices are high on that list. She believes that the proposed amendments to the Ordinance are a great example of efforts towards the Green Communities initiative. Latter asked if the amendments would affect the IG Zoning District. Murphy responded. Murphy gave an example of how the proposed Ordinance would apply to parking. She stated that the Ordinance is not relinquishing any power or authority and that the applicant would still need to go through City channels to get approved. Murphy added that the proposed amendments are the product of work from members of the community who wanted things done to enhance the downtown and encourage development. Murphy stated that the Zoning Ordinance should be flexible and updated to the City's needs. She noted that due to time constraints and lack of funds to hire a consultant, it simply could not all get done. She stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals is strictly volunteer and the Beverly Planning Board May 16, 2011 Joint Public Hearing with City Council Page 5 of 7 City Council or other Boards do not have time to work on updates and rewrite the Zoning Ordinance so Beverly Main Streets has begun the process. Slate noted that the Ordinance Review Committee has been working on Ordinance amendments but they have not worked on the Zoning Ordinance. Slate asked for clarification on the map presented to get a better understanding by all that the matter in discussion is only regarding a part of the CC District. Mark Glovsky, member of the Beverly Main Streets Permitting Task Force added further comments to Murphy's presentation. Glovsky stated that constituencies worked for over 6 months analyzing the Ordinance. He referred to Section 29 -25 — Parking Requirements. He stated that at the moment, a 2- bedroom unit or greater in the CC Zoning District requires more than one parking space. They are suggesting that the Ordinance be amended to allow 1 parking space in certain areas of the downtown CC District because of the reasons Murphy explained, which would make parking in this situation "As of Right ". Glovsky added that the other proposed amendment is not to change the requirements but to enable projects by Special Permit that at the moment require a Variance. With respect to signage, Glovsky stated that they tried to identify issues in the existing Zoning Ordinance and eliminate unnecessary hurdles that required extra time and expenses that may discourage development. The amendments would open the doors to proposed signs that do not comply with the existing Zoning Ordinance - allowing the applicant to apply for a Special Permit in that case rather than a Variance. Glovsky referred to another proposed amendment in Section 29 -17H regarding setbacks, antennas, recreational facilities, and other such things. He stated that they have eliminated some of the requirements. At the moment, projects not wishing to comply with these requirements need a variance. Slate stated that there are other factors that would influence a developer such as amenities. It is to the developer's advantage to come up with a project that fits criteria of the City. Murphy agreed but added that the market will dictate development as well and the City should offer some flexibility to development in the aforementioned area. Troubetaris suggested that the amendment have wordage added to put a limit to the number of bedrooms allowed. Grimes stated that she is in favor of the changes because it streamlines the process and offers flexibility where a Variance can be onerous and difficult to sometimes get voted through. Latter agreed and added that it supports the smart growth model the City is striving for. Beverly Planning Board May 16, 2011 Joint Public Hearing with City Council Page 6 of 7 Cahill stated that the goal is to ensure any future development in the CC District be of high quality and fits into the neighborhood in a positive way. Cahill stated that local attorneys, downtown business owners, staff, members of the Planning Board, and the Ward 2 and Ward 3 Councilors all worked together to make this happen and asked Murphy if she could state the names of the people who worked on the amendments for the record. Murphy added that it was a collaboration from all those involved to review, evaluate, and decide. Murphy stated those involved for the record: Thomas Alexander, Steve Frederickson, Michael Cahill, Mark Glovsky, Miranda Gooding, Kenneth Hanover, Day Ann Kelly, James Latter, Patricia Murphy, Thad Siemasko, John Thomson, Gin Wallace and Jason Silva. Dinkin asked if there are questions from the Planning Board. None. Cahill called to recess the meeting to further continue the second Public Hearing scheduled for 7:25 to 8:55 p.m. Slate made a motion to continue the Public Hearing to 8:55 p.m. Motion seconded by Guanci. Motion passes 9 -0 -0. Thomson made a motion to briefly recess the Joint Public Hearing of the Planning Board coinciding with the City Council's vote. Motion seconded by Hutchinson. Motion passed 7 -0 -1 with the Chair abstaining. Cahill and Dinkin then called the joint public hearing back to order. Miranda Gooding - 10 Hopkins Avenue, also representing the Beverly Main Streets Permitting Task Force was present to discuss the progress made by the Task Force. She reminded members of City Council and informed the Planning Board that Beverly Main Streets presented their Downtown 20/20 initiative in December. The Permitting Task Force was the principal focus and for the record she thanked co- chairs Michael Cahill and Patricia Murphy for all of their work. She stated that the Planning Department has also done a significant amount of work and provided a useful parking survey of past projects in the downtown area. Gooding added that building the character of downtown and making it a vibrant place to reside will help downtown thrive. Gooding then asked that the City Council and Planning Board take their recommendations to heart. Rosemary Maglio — 30 Pleasant Street made comments pertaining to the proposal. She commented on the nonconforming section. She stated she is against waivers of the parking requirements. Cahill pointed out there is concern over use of public parking lots to meet the parking requirement and this is a matter that can be looked into. Beverly Planning Board May 16, 2011 Joint Public Hearing with City Council Page 7 of 7 Maglio reiterated she is against parking waivers. She addressed the change to the IR/IR Overlay District Ordinance and noted that the alternative and renewable energy facilities would be uses allowed by right. She stated that this could be interpreted to be wind turbines. She then questioned if the Main Streets Permitting Task Force proposal was properly submitted to the Council as a Zoning Amendment. She also commented on the reduction in parking requirements in part of the downtown CC District and stated that this is not allowed because the District must be uniform. Cahill asked if members of City Council have any questions. None Dinkin asked if members of the Planning Board have any questions. None Cahill closed the Joint Public Hearing with respect to City Council and referred the matter to the subcommittee on legal affairs. Dinkin closed the Joint Public Hearing with the Planning Board and stated that the Planning Board will reconvene in Conference Room B for a Special Meeting of the Planning Board. The Joint Public Hearing adjourned at 8:55 p.m.