CITY
OF
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MONDAY,
NOVEMBER 27, 2006 at 7:00 PM
Kyrouz Auditorium, City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT
Paul Lundberg, Chair
Gregg Cademartori, Planning Dir.
Jeneth Fahey, Vice
Chair
Ellen Preston, Assistant Planner
Mary R. Black
Lisa English, Recording Clerk
Marvin Kushner
Henry McCarl
Michael Rubin
I. BUSINESS
A. Call to order
with Quorum of Planning Board.
B. Introduction of Planning Board Members and Staff.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A.
Meeting of November 13, 2006
Motion: Mr.
Kushner moved to accept the minutes of Monday, November 13, 2006 as
amended.
Second: Mr. McCarl
Vote: 6-0; Motion carried.
III. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was none.
IV. CONSENT AGENDA
A. New
Form A Applications: There were
none.
B. Chapter
91 Recommendations: There were none.
V. CONTINUED PUBLIC
HEARING
A.
An application from Carrigan
Enterprises, Inc., for a Cluster Development Special
Permit entitled “Annisquam
Woods” at 7 &
units (Assessors Map 125, Lots
71 & 22; and Map 115,
prepared by Hayes Engineering; dated June 26, 2006.
Mr. Lundberg stated that the Planning Board was in receipt of a
letter from the Applicant’s
attorney, dated November 20, 2006, asking
for a continuance until Monday, January 10,
2007.
Motion: Mr.
McCarl moved to extend the time period for a decision on an application from Carrigan
Enterprises, Inc., for a Cluster Development Special Permit entitled “Annisquam Woods” at
7 & 11 Hutchins Court and 14 Tufts
Lane for 30 unit (Assessors
Map 125, Lots 71 & 22; and Map 115, Lot 30) until Monday, January 10, 2007 and
to continue the public hearing until Monday, December 11, 2006.
Second: Ms. Fahey
Vote: 6-0; Motion carried.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
A.
Review of Demolition Delay
Mr. McCarl stated that this Ordinance had been through a review of the Planning
Staff and the Legal Department, as well as the Historic Commission. He was seeking the approval of the Planning
Board before it was presented to the City Council. Initially when the Ordinance was created there
was a six month delay, and that has not changed. One thing that did change was compliance to a
specific age of a structure. Mr. McCarl
stated that instead the Ordinance would rely on information found in the
Gloucester Street Index which can be found on the Massachusetts Historical
Commission web site. If a building is
found to be on the list, it can then move into a discussion period and the
decision can be made whether or not to keep the structure. Mr. McCarl also noted that sometimes there
are clusters of buildings on the list and occasionally it is a fairly new
address. It could be an adjoining
property to an older structure. Mr.
McCarl then stated that the Historic District is not covered by this Ordinance;
they have their own legislation. He also
stated that there would not be a delay if there are issues of safety. This Ordinance does not interfere with the
general procedure if something needs to come down. The Building Inspector can still make that
decision. Mr. McCarl then thanked the many
people who helped make this come together.
Mr. Lundberg stated for clarification that this is an amendment to the general Ordinance
and not the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. McCarl stated that he was hoping to get the Planning Board’s concurrence on
it. Mr. McCarl then stated that one
potential problem with relying on the Street Index is that the house numbers
are not always correct. There are
however some pictures that could make the identification easier.
Ms. Fahey, referring to page three, asked about the decision behind the 6 month
waiting period.
Mr. McCarl stated that the Ordinance is relying on a six month waiting period for
now but can review it after time if there are no problems.
Mr. Lundberg stated that extending it to 12 months might raise some unnecessary
objections.
Mr. Rubin wished to put in a word of support.
He feels that six months is a reasonable timeframe and that it also may
provide a bit of relief to people looking to restore older homes.
Motion: Mr.
Rubin moved to recommend to the City Council the adoption of the Demolition
Delay
Ordinance.
Second:
Ms. Fahey
Vote: 6-0;
Motion carried.
B. Discuss
request for developers to inform Homeowners Association of any reduction of
performance
guarantees.
Mr. Lundberg stated that this change would amend Section 3.8.5 and that Mr.
Cademartori had put a copy of the proposed changes in the Planning Board
member’s packets. He then asked about
the specifics of the amendment language.
Mr. Cademartori stated that he would add the information to the proposed changes.
Mr. Lundberg asked if it would have to be noticed.
Ms. Preston replied that it would have to be noticed twice as a public hearing.
Mr. Rubin asked if the term subdivision included all projects that involve land
use.
Mr. Cademartori stated that it applied only to what is included in the subdivision
regulations.
Mr. Rubin asked if it wouldn’t be a good idea to apply it to all projects.
Ms. Preston suggested that instead of this language just referring to Cluster and
OSRD; perhaps they should be made part of the conditions.
Mr. Lundberg stated that it is very positive and a good move. The decision was then made for it to be put
on the docket for January 8, 2007.
C. Planner's Report
Mr. Cademartori stated that there was a meeting tonight to discuss a Lighting
Ordinance. He stated that he had met
with Mr. Cleaves at O & A on November 20, 2006 and presented a Wind Turbine
Ordinance. Mr. Cademartori stated that
the Planning Staff wanted to encourage their use both residentially and
commercially.
Mr. Lundberg asked if the Wind Turbine Ordinance would follow the Cell Tower Ordinance.
Mr. Cademartori stated that it would be similar.
Mr. Rubin asked about the wording of the proposed ordinance. Is it married to the Windmill Ordinance? He wonders if there is some way we can
encourage folks to look at compact structures.
Mr. Cademartori stated that he believes such smaller technologies can be accommodated
under the current ordinance.
Mr. Rubin stated that he wanted to make sure that it is not just tailored to one
specific mechanism; so that as other technology comes along it can be adopted.
Mr. Cademartori stated that he feels that this is only written for one specific
technology.
Mr. Rubin asked if the City Council has considered the safety issues.
Mr. McCarl stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals has also looked at the issue
of safety and found the technology to be safe for the current application.
Mr. Cademartori stated that he believes it was addressed in the recent review.
D. Chairman's
Report
·
Mr. Lundberg asked Mr. Rubin and Ms.
Fahey to review the minutes and transcripts from any meetings they may have
missed concerning Annisquam Woods. He
stated he would like that to be done by Monday, December 11, 2006.
·
Mr. Lundberg stated that he had received
a handwritten document from a citizen named Megan as well as a document from
Joie Busby regarding the
·
Mr. Lundberg stated that he has received
a letter from Mr. Groves acting as a citizen, concerned with the procedure for
the timely submission of documents.
Ms. Black stated that she does not
feel that the Planning Board can set a standard for
document submission. She did not want to see a different timeline
for each Board. Also
she stated that something very material could happen at
the last minute and might need to
be presented.
Mr. Lundberg agrees that there is still
plenty of time to review a Public Hearing that is
ongoing.
Mr. McCarl stated that he felt that
that is what happened to the rezoning project.
In his
opinion, the public did not
hear what was being discussed. It was a re-zoning
issue and
not a project. Mr.
McCarl suggested that the Planning Board should have had a board
posted with the permitted uses under GI and EB.
Mr. Lundberg will put the discussion of
a timeline for document submission to a
January meeting. He also stated that the Boards, Committees
and Commissions met last
Saturday and had a discussion on how to hold an effective
meeting.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Lundberg adjourned the meeting at 8:00 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lisa English