Minutes of Joint Public Hearing of the City Council and
Planning Board 5/3/12
A joint hearing of the City Council and Planning Board was held on Thursday, May 3, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. in City Hall Chambers, Second Floor, at 93 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts, to discuss a proposed amendment to Section 8.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to comply with requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), including adoption of new Federal Insurance Rate Maps. Proposed amendment also includes deletion of the requirement for a Planning Board Special Permit in wetland and wetland buffer areas.
City Council members present: Councillor Joan Lovely, President, Councillor Thomas Furey, Councillor Robert McCarthy, Councillor Michael Sosnowski, Councillor Todd Siegel, Councillor Jerry Ryan, Councillor Josh Turiel, and Councillor Paul Prevey.
Planning Board members present: Chuck Puleo, Chair, George McCabe, Tim Ready, Mark George, Lewis Beilman, Tim Kavanagh, John Moustakis, Vice Chair and Helen Sides. Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk. Absent: Randy Clarke.
City Council President Joan Lovely opened the meeting at 6:06 pm.
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Ordinance to amend the Ordinance relative to Zoning (changes to Wetland & Flood Hazard District Overlay District)
- Strikethrough copy of proposed ordinance
- Essex County Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) issued by FEMA for the administration of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), as shown on map panels 25009: 0414F, 0416F, 0417F, 0418F, 0419F, 0436F, 0437F, 0438F, 0439F, 0441F, 0442F, 0443F, 0527F, 0531F, 0532F, and 0552F, dated July 3, 2012 (on file in the Department of Planning & Community Development)
Councillor Lovely asked Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, to review the proposed amendment with members of the City Council and the Planning Board.
Ms. Duncan gave an overview to the City Council of the issue before the Planning Board and the City Council. She explained that the purpose of the zoning amendment is to update regulations for Salem’s 100-year floodplain, and to adopt new Flood Insurance Rate Maps – “FIRMs.” This is very important, because it will allow homeowners in Salem to continue to purchase flood insurance. She notes that Danielle McKnight has worked with the Department of Conservation and Recreation on the wording of the proposed ordinance. Inaccurate or outdated language has been updated. She notes that both the old and the new maps are available in the Planning Department. In addition to making the required changes, the Planning Department took the opportunity address some housekeeping issues, and
proposes deleting the special permit requirement for a wetlands special permit, which is repetitive with Conservation Commission requirements because of the state Wetland Protection Act and Salem’s local wetland ordinance. She then presented the wording that she hoped the Council would adopt, as well as a strikethrough copy of the proposed ordinance.
Ms. Duncan stated most changes to the FIRMs are in coastal areas. There are properties that did not require flood insurance before that will now, and those who will now no longer need it, based on the new information. She said people will need to work with their insurance companies to add flood insurance where needed. The Planning Board has a regularly scheduled meeting this evening, which will provide the opportunity for the Planning Board to give a recommendation to Council regarding the passage. Then, the amendment will require first and second passage, and a certified copy of the new zoning sent to DCR. All this must be in place when the new flood maps go into effect on July 3, 2012.
Councilor Todd Siegel asked if the city would notify homeowners if they do or do not need insurance. Ms. Duncan stated that this would be done through their insurance companies. Councilor McCarthy asked for further clarification on notifying the insurance companies. Ms. Duncan said she could not speak for the insurance companies but stated that the city does not have a list of properties affected. Councilor McCarthy asked for clarification on the number of the flood maps the City has received. Ms. Duncan stated that the City has only received one set, which is available in the Planning office.
Councilor Ryan then explained further how this has typically worked in the past through insurance companies, noting that these homeowners are usually notified through by mortgage companies.
Council President Lovely asked if they knew how many homeowners this will affect. Ms. Duncan stated that she does not and referred it to Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, who stated that they don’t know how many homeowners would be affected; the Department of Conservation and Recreation does not have a list available. She stated that she was told by DCR that it is the responsibility of the mortgage company and the insurers to notify the homeowners of changes to their new insurance requirements.
Councilor Turiel asked if a side-by-side comparison of the old flood zone map and the new flood zone map has been done. Ms. Duncan said this would be very difficult to do, since parcels are not shown on the maps. The City would need to be careful because of liability not to tell homeowners whether they are in a flood zone, but if the homeowner is in a coastal area then they should review the new maps. Councilor Turiel expressed concern that all of Salem is coastal except Ward 4.
Councilor Furey asked if surrounding communities were also adopting new maps; Ms. Duncan confirmed that they were.
Council President Lovely asked what must be done by July 3, 2012. Ms. Duncan explained that this is the date that the new flood insurance maps go into effect and she noted that prior to that date the City must send a certified copy of the vote to the Division of Conservation and Recreation.
Chuck Puleo asked whether this was happening nationally; Ms. Duncan said yes – through FEMA.
Lewis Beilman noted that when he lived in Florida, there were public meetings held about the issue. He asked if there have been any public meetings about this. Ms. Duncan stated that the City has not been informed of any meetings.
Councilor McCarthy asked about the procedure in terms of what within the ordinance the Planning Board will be reviewing – will they be looking at the content? Ms. Duncan responded that Ms. McKnight has been working on the content with the Division of Conservation and Recreation, and the Planning Department has received DCR’s approval. She noted that the changes in wording also meet FEMA requirements. The only piece is of the ordinance change not related to the FEMA requirements is the special permit for the wetlands, which is specific to the Planning Board. She then reviewed the proposed changes to the ordinances. Councilor McCarthy asked if the recommendation to delete the requirement to remove the special permit came from the Planning Department and Planning Board. Ms. Duncan stated that
she didn’t know the history of the original adoption of the special permit, but the recommendation to delete it came from the Planning Department. Councilor McCarthy asked Chairman Puleo if this makes sense for the Planning Board. Mr. Puleo stated that in his experience, there have been very few issues on wetlands that come before the Planning Board as the Conservation Committee is the one that adjudicates on those issues.
Councilor Prevey asked if these changes limit the authority of the Conservation Commission. Ms. Duncan stated that this does not change what the Conservation Commission does, but having the special permit is confusing in terms of how the boards post their notices and how applicants have to apply. She noted that deleting this will not affect Conservation Commission’s role. Councilor Prevey then commented that this is what his question was getting at.
Councilor Sosnowski asked about a specific section of the ordinance requiring base flood elevation data, and feels that the 5 acre or 50 lots requirement is too high, and the ordinance should apply to anything built in the flood zone. Ms. Duncan stated that DCR strongly recommended this wording. She reminded the Council the strong action they took in adopting the stormwater ordinance, which applies to everything as small as an acre. She clarified that this threshold applies only to the requirement to submit base flood elevation data. Councilor Sosnowski asked why this shouldn’t apply if someone wants to build a single unit in a flood zone. Ms. Duncan said she would look into this.
Councilor Sargent reminded the council and the Planning Board of site plan review requirements which states that if a site is too small then the Planning Board cannot weigh in on it, and he wants them to be able to. Ms. Duncan responded that this is a balancing act between monitoring large developers and not overburdening small homeowners. She asked Ms. McKnight about the 5 acre recommendation and Ms. McKnight responded that she has not spoken with DCR about this issue specifically, but said the recommendation came from DCR that projects of this size should be required to submit base flood elevation data, and this is not a threshold for review. Ms. Duncan said the Planning Department would ask DCR about this. Councilor Sargent stated that small projects should also be within the Planning Board’s purview for
site plan review. Ms. Duncan noted that this is not related to site plan review thresholds. The threshold for stormwater ordinance review is 1 acre. She stated that she will speak with the City Engineer to see if they are missing any significant projects with the requirements for the stormwater ordinance, and also confer with DCR about their rationale for the size threshold for submitting the data.
Councilor McCarthy asked what base flood elevation data is. Planning Board member Lewis Beilman thought that it determined the flood rate insurance rate. Under a certain elevation data, a property owner isn’t eligible for flood insurance under the Federal program.
Council President Lovely asked for clarification on A Zones. Ms. McKnight said there A zones that are numbered and unnumbered. She does not know if they are coastal. Mr. Puleo noted that Canal Street and Jefferson Avenue are not designated as A zones.
Mark George stated that base flood elevations exist; FEMA has them on their website and they are not that difficult to find.
Councilor Sosnowski stated that the Planning Board shouldn’t give up the authority to review anything within a flood plain. Ms. Duncan clarified and reviewed the ordinance, specific to Councilor Sosnowski’s concern and noted that all construction in flood zones must go through the Planning Board for a special permit. Councilor Sosnowski asked if any section of the ordinance can be removed, and Ms. Duncan responded that no sections can be removed as they are required by FEMA. Councilor Sosnowski stated that his concern is that the big builder’s lawyers will come and say that the ordinance doesn’t require it. Ms. Duncan said that they will provide a clean copy of the revised ordinance them which should help to clarify the issue.
Council President Lovely opened the topic up to members of the audience. She asked for members of the audience in favor of the ordinance to raise their hand and come to the podium to speak. No one raised their hands or spoke in favor of the ordinance.
She then asked for members in the audience who were opposed to the ordinance to raise their hand and come to the podium to speak.
Teasie Riley-Goggin, 9 Wisteria Street, is not sure that she is in favor or against it. She thinks that all of the tools the Planning Board can use should be available to members and is not sure if they should give that up.
Councilor McCarthy moved to close hearing and moved that hearing be adjourned. All approved.
Joint hearing adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 6/7/12
| 
