MINUTES - Joint Public Hearing with Planning Board - 7/1/2009
JULY 1, 2009 189
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING BOARD
A Joint Public Hearing of the City Council and Planning Board was held in the
Council Chamber on Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 6:30 P.M. for the purpose of discussing
a proposed Re-codification of the Zoning Ordinance. Notice of this meeting was posted
on June 26, 2009 at 10:54 A.M. and advertised in the Salem News by the City Clerk on
June 17 & 24, 2009.
Councillors Pinto, Lovely, Furey and Veno were recorded as absent.
Councillor Paul Prevey presided.
President Paul Prevey recognized Planning Board Chairman Charles Puleo who
then introduced the following members of the Planning Board: Pamela J. Lombardini,
John C. Moustakis, Timothy F. Ready, Christine B. Sullivan and David Winer.
Also present was Lynn Duncan the City Planner, City Solicitor Elizabeth
Rennard, Building Inspector Thomas St. Pierre, Danielle McKnight of the Planning
Department, Robin Stein and Beth Debski.
Attorney Mark Bobrowski arrived at 7:27 PM
President Prevey then turned the meeting over to Lynn Duncan the City Planner
for a presentation of the Ordinance before them.
Lynn Duncan stated that Attorney Bobrowski will be late due to flooding on route
128. She is pleased to be here tonight for the re-codification. It has been a long process.
The purpose of the re-codification was for house keeping. A significant change is the
table, currently there is no table. We are not changing the zoning ordinance, just making
it easier to use. This started in November of 2007. We hired Attorney Bobrowski to help
us with the process. In the past we made efforts to do this but it never happened. There
were big controversial issues when we started. There are two documents, one strike
through version and one clean copy. We created a parking lot for issues to get to in the
future:
1. PUD, 2. Clusters, 3. site plan review, 4. Entrance Corridor Designation, 5. A-
Frame signs, 6. Assisted living, 7. Off street parking.
On the strike out version, the text in black is the current ordinance, the red is the new text
and green are changes after December 2, 2008. The clean copy contains the new
ordinances. Uses and terminology that are used today have been added. What would be
ideal is to complete the public hearing tonight. Then, the planning board would have a
th
meeting next week and then the Council can vote for first passage on July 16. Council
has 90 days from the close of the public hearing to adopt.
Councillor Prevey asked how long will it be to go through the strike through
document.
Lynn Duncan responded 15 minutes.
190 JULY 1, 2009
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING BOARD
Councillor Prevey asked what kind of things will we have to do to keep current
with the state statute.
Lynn Duncan stated we pulled anything that would not mirror state statute.
Councillor Prevey asked so the state can make changes and we won’t have to
worry about amending our ordinance.
Councillor Sosnowski asked by not having state statute in our ordinance would
there be a problem.
Lynn Duncan responded people are not just relying on our zoning. The building
inspector works with them and references state statute. Planning also walks through the
process with people.
Councillor Sosnowski asked regarding pools does it mention state statute.
Tom St. Pierre – Building Inspector stated it references building codes.
Councillor Sosnowski stated he just wanted to be clear that when someone wants
to put in a pool people are clear what they have to do. He amended to delete new section
5.1 and replace with 7.3 of current zoning book but number it as 5.1.
Attorney Bobrowski arrived at 7:27 PM
Councillor Pelletier stated this has been worked on and worked on. We don’t need
to go over each page. Attorney Bobrowski is here, let him speak and answer any
questions.
Lynn Duncan introduced Attorney Mark Bobrowski, she stated he has worked
with us for a year on the re-codification of the zoning.
Attorney Bobrowski stated that his travel to Salem via Route 128 was a paking lot
and apologized for his tardiness. We will go over section by section on the strke through
copy.
Section 1. Purpose - change is minor but cleaner.
Section 2. Districts – is what we have today just better organized.
Section 3. Use Regulations – you now have a chart use table which is easier to
follow. Strike through are now in the table.
Section 4. Dimensional Requirements – no changes just table.
Section 5. Off Street Parking – change not reflected in document.
Section 6. Special Regulations
Section 7. Special Residential Regulations – Cluster
JULY 1, 2009 191
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING BOARD
Section 8. Special District Regulations
Section 9. Administration and Procedures
Councillor O’Keefe was concerned with Fire Department point system
elimination (page 97)
Lynn Duncan stated this was not a plan that was ever used.
Attorney Bobrowski stated it only would be used to slow growth.
Section 10. Definition – our intent to accompany everything with a definition.
Tables requiring parking spaces, table of Principle and Accessory use Regulations.
Councillor O’Keefe asked regarding page 110, Rooming House, why is there a
coma after “at least three,”
Councillor Prevey asked if the Council had any questions. There were none. He
asked if there were any questions from the Planning Board.
Christine Sullivan – Planning Board member asked where is demolition.
Lynn Duncan responded that it should be after catastrophy.
The Public Hearing was opened to the Public at 8:00 PM
John Carr – 7 River Street – asked do I take it that voluntary demolition doesn’t
come under 3.3.8 in the event of voluntary would it be by variance.
Robert Leavins – Barker’s Island – stated his concern with the purpose clause to
include language to preserve the cultural heritage. Who decides cultural heritage. At an
informational meeting this was brought up.
Attorney Bobrowski stated it is common in ordinances. He didn’t believe it
belongs there. Another question that had to do with permitted uses in residential
conservation areas by special permit. He understands same as the old document, Baker’s
Island Pier, Childrens Island Pier, Winter Island and Salem Willows.
Councillor O’Keefe stated the structure may not be a building. He asked if the
term Nursing Home and Convalescent Home has been straightened out.
Attorney Bobrowski stated it is now Nursing or Convalescent Home.
Councillor Pelletier asked Mr. Leavins what year was the pier built.
Mr. Leavins responded ten years ago.
192 JULY 1, 2009
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING BOARD
Councillor McCarthy thanked everyone who worked on the re-codification for all
their hard work. He asked assuming we adopt this, is the old different than the new
zoning book. Does this new document give any advantage over the other? Will this give
an attorney a better argument one way or the other? Will this hold up in court?
Attorney Bobrowski responded there are advantages and disadvantages. The
current had no clarification with the definitions and there was 18 years of case law that
changed it.
Councillor Sargent stated that if someone buys a property and goes to this code
they can see what is allowed. The purpose and authority what we had vs what we now
have would it hurt if we kept the old way.
Attorney Bobrowski responded he had no objection but you would need to
indicate or add the home rule amendment “authorize by but not limited to” (page 95)
Councillor Pelletier stated it is cultural in purpose.
Councillor Sosnowski amended to delete 5.1 and replace with new 7.3 from old
and renumber it 5.1 and the table be adjusted in back.
Teasy Riley Goggin questioned tourist name is now Bed and Breakfast but where
does Mission fall under.
Attorney Bobrowski responded it is a non-profit, it is exempt from zoning.
Councillor O’Keefe asked doesn’t it make sense to amend it now.
Lynn Duncan responded that the normal procedure is to close the public hearing
and then the Council can make changes.
Councillor Pelletier moved that the hearing be closed. It was so voted.
Councillor Pelletier moved that the matter be referred to the Planning Board for
their recommendation. It was so voted.
On the motion of Councillor O’Keefe the hearing was adjourned at 8:30 P.M.
ATTEST: CHERYL A. LAPOINTE
CITY CLERK