 |
Minutes of Joint Public Hearing with the City Council and Planning Board
September 3, 2008
A Joint Public Hearing of the City Council and Planning Board was held Wednesday, September 4, 2008 at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers, 93 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts to discuss an amendment to Section 7-15 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendment is to allow the Planning Board to grant a special permit for a planned unit development for any parcel of land in the Business Park Development Zone (BPD) subject to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. One requirement of Sec. 7-15 is that a parcel must contain a minimum of the lesser of sixty thousand (60,000) square feet or five (5) times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. The minimum lot size of the zoning district is 40,000 square feet; therefore, the parcel must contain a minimum o f 60,000 square feet. Notice of this meeting was posted on May 30, 2008 and advertised in the Salem news by the City Clerk on August 21 & August 28, 2008.
In attendance: |
Planning Board Members: |
|
Chuck Puleo, Chairman |
Mayor Kimberley Driscoll |
John Moustakis |
|
Tim Ready |
City Council Members: |
Tim Kavanaugh |
President Mike Sosnowski, Ward 2 |
Christine Sullivan |
Steven Pinto, Councillor at Large |
Pam Lombardini |
Thomas Furey, Councillor at Large |
|
Arthur Sargent III, Councillor at Large |
City Staff |
Robert McCarthy, Ward 1 |
Lynn Duncan, Planning Director |
Jean Pelletier, Ward 3 |
Amy Lash, Staff Planner |
Jerry Ryan, Ward 4 |
Stacey Dupuis, Clerk |
Matthew Veno, Ward 5 |
|
Paul Prevey, Ward 6 |
Planning Board Members Absent: |
Joan B. Lovely, Councillor at Large |
Gene Collins |
Joseph O’Keefe, Ward 7 |
Nadine Hanscom |
|
|
The meeting began with the introduction of the Chairman of the Planning Board Chuck Puleo, who proceeded to introduce members of the Planning Board.
Lynn Duncan began by explaining that the purpose of the joint public hearing is a zoning amendment to allow Planned Unit Development within the Business Park Development zone. The BPD areas highlighted on the map were presented. Lynn Duncan said based on research, PUD was established in 1977 and the BPD began in 1985. When reviewed, 45 individual parcels are zoned for business. In accordance with PUD, you have to have minimum of 60,000 sq ft. and only 25 of the 45 contain enough area that could be used. Of that 25, most are already developed and they believe nine have potential. The PUD gives the city more possibilities. The list of potential parcels was reviewed. Clr Pelletier asked about the wetlands and Commercial St. Commercial St. is owned by the State; Lynn explained that
they are not changing any existing requirements. Mixture of uses would have to be determined; some would require permit. In accordance with the law, if you allow PUD in one area, you have to have in another. Lynn said there was a catalyst- potential redevelopment of Camp Lions parcel. This decision would be important regardless of potential development.
Clr. Prevey asked for clarification of PUD. Lynn Duncan explained that with PUD business development would allow mixed use, PUD gives Planning Board more flexibility with potential but still needs to meet height requirements. The Planning Board would need to look at impacts i.e. runoff, traffic, density, drainage.
Clr. Ryan asked what the area near Wal-Mart was originally zoned for and Mayor Driscoll explained they were zoned newer, progressive zoning like Technology way in Peabody. She reiterated that its very preliminary, that they have been approached by Lowe’s, but that’s not why they’re here. PUD allows development in every other district, thinks it was oversight; it will keep what’s allowed. She commended the Planning Board in terms of reviewing projects and said PUD would allow the Planning Board more flexibility with their decisions, gives them a tool and makes it more manageable. She added that they’re not rezoning, it’s a text amendment.
Clr. O’Keefe asked about some parcels on the list and asked for clarification of some areas on the map. Lynn Duncan said any parcel not believed to be developable is not on the list. She also mentioned that every parcel is zoned whether owned by city or state. Clr Sargeant is concerned about Swampscott Rd and rear Pequot Highlands becoming industrial. He also suggested that if we’re doing this for one developer, then years down the road we may have to do it for another. Parker Brothers area was mentioned regarding their change of zoning.
Clr. Pelletier asked with PUD if housing will be allowed without special permit and if R3 will be allowed. Lynn explained yes, with special permit. Also, the Planning Board can be flexible with everything but the height. Clr Pelletier feels that if anyone comes in for PUD, councilors would be all for it because we need more businesses. He’d like to see more. Clr O’Keefe recognized Lynn’s work and Amy’s work. He asked who owns between storage building and health club. Lynn said that area is not zoned BPD so it wasn’t included on the list.
Opened to Public
Beverly McSwiggin, 30 Japonica St, asked if nothing changes, what would (potentially) Lowe’s and Wal-Mart have to do to build there? Lynn Duncan felt she wasn’t fully prepared to answer the question except to say that BPD allows commercial retail use and they may have to request a variance.
Teacie Goggin, 9 Wisteria St, felt like they were taking one step away from the Planning Board. Clr Pelletier explained that it gives them more flexibility with setback, width, footage, etc. We’ve lost industrial base and we’re trying to establish and get more business in to Salem. Teacie Goggin asked why they’re taking zoning from parcels. Mayor Driscoll explained that they’re not rezoning. It’s a text amendment to allow PUD in BPD. They’re taking language and changing it similar to other Business Districts; in exchange it allows some flexibility. Clr. Sosnowski further explained that for example if Lowe’s wants to build, if we put in PUD, we can increase residents and there will be more flexibility with the project. Lynn
Duncan said if left just as BPD, currently allowed is office building, wholesale, manufacturing, lab and research- which are limited usage for BPD. Clr Furey pointed out a section (17) that mentions all uses would be permitted and Lynn Duncan confirmed that, if PUD is allowed.
Scott Weinberg, 12 Tanglewood, asked Lynn to clarify the zoning shown on map, as some is noted in purple, pink, solid lines, dotted lines. Lynn Duncan explained the legends, for example, purple currently BPD, solid line because it’s completely developed, etc.
Pat Liberti, 3 Lions Lane, she understood her parcel to be R3. This upsets her because she’s paying taxes as residents, and the map doesn’t reflect that, it should show how it’s used now. Clr. Sosnowski said that area might be non-conforming. Mayor Driscoll said it may be nonconforming and if she wants she can get a petition to change the zoning. Gentleman in back of room, did not state name, said there is documentation for that area, it’s residential.
Clr. Sargeant is surprised that with PUD in existence, that this never came up in BPD before. Clr. Sosnowski asked if Lowe’s could petition for PUD eligibility without the other parcels, Lynn said that would not be able to do that. Clr. O’Keefe wondered why Old Village Drive (daycare center) is on there and Lynn suggested that it might be under 60,000 sq ft. Parcels shown are only those that are equal to or greater then 60,000 sq ft and zoned BPD, owned by one entity. Gentleman in back of room, did not state name, believes that the area in question was originally three parcels of land (prior to daycare).
Lynn reiterated to Ms Holyoke PUD is allowed in certain districts now and they just want to include it in BPD. There is no re-zoning being done.
Joe Correnti, Federal St, thanked Lynn Duncan for extensive look at parcels. He wondered how are property owners affected and if they were notified. Lynn Duncan explained that since they are not re-zoning, just changing text, they didn’t need to be notified. Lowe’s or any other retail would not be allowed if PUD weren’t in place in BPD. This would allow developers to come in with mixed-use plan. Attorney Joe Sano, for Camp Lions, mentioned that Camp Lions has been there since 1945. They want to be good neighbor of Salem and would like to see this approved.
Clr. Veno followed up with that they’re not being asked to amend. It’s technically true but the amendment that’s being sought would allow broader range of uses. Joe Correnti added that it would allow developers to bring in more different uses. Clr. Pelletier used NRCC restriction as an example- had that had PUD years ago, they may have had more development by now.
Clr. Sargeant feels property owners should be notified. He feels it should be the owner’s decision. Clr. Pelletier wondered if the Planning Board would have the option to hear the owners. Lynn Duncan said it’s not up to individual property owners; all parcels have to be the same across the board. If someone doesn’t want to use the provisions of BPD, they don’t have to. Also, everyone has been notified because this was advertised. Clr. McCarthy said we’re changing text. If it does pass and a developer comes in, then abutters will be notified and Planning Board would have to be more diligent. He feels the Planning Board will have more responsibility. The definition of PUD was read.
Clr. Furey discussed having confidence in the Planning Board and stated that PUD change may be to our advantage; this could be a catalyst for something creative. We need to meet challenges in a creative way. Clr. Lovely noted that Mayor Driscoll said earlier this PUD gives us a comprehensive look at roadway infrastructure as well. Lynn Duncan clarified that if this goes to the Planning Board, they would deliberate at an open meeting, not a public hearing.
Clr O’Keefe moved that the Public Hearing be closed, all were in favor. Clr. O’Keefe moved that this be moved to the Economic Committee that includes 3 ward councilors. Mayor Driscoll said this needs to be referred to the Planning Board under the statute, and then maybe it could go to a committee. The ordinance states it has to go to the Planning Board, they make recommendation and then send it back to City Councillors. Lynn Duncan said the Planning Board has 21 days to make recommendation. Clr O’Keefe amended his motion to refer this issue to the Planning Board, all in favor.
There being no further business to come before the City Councillors and Planning Board this evening, a motion was made by Councillor O’Keefe to refer this issue to the Planning Board, all were in favor (10-0).
Clr. Veno moved that the Planning Board notify all owners and abutters about possible PUD. Clr. Lovely and others weren’t sure they could require that.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the City Councillors and Planning Board this evening, a motion was made by Councillor Veno to adjourn the meeting seconded and all in favor (10-0).
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
Stacey Dupuis, Clerk
Salem Planning Board
| |
