ORDER-2023-59 : Per Council vote to divide this order, this original order has been duplicated into ten other orders reflecting each Zoning Amendment: Amending Melrose Revised Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 235, Corner Lot Setbacks

Transcript (~13 min @ 1:06:00)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 1:05:56 Denise Gaffey: So we're happy to be here tonight to follow up on the the zoning initiative that the planning board sent down a couple of months ago. Just to refresh everyone's memory. There was a public Hearing in front of the Council on the Sony amendment in early March and then there was a second public Hearing in front of the at a planning board meeting in in bin March and at that time the planning board reviewed the zoning Amendment proposal again, and neither case for there any was there any participation from members of the public? I just want to mention that but we did have an opportunity at the public Hearing in front of the planning board to also talk about some of the comments that were raised by the counselors at the early March public hearing and so as a result of that we put together a report we talked about the comments. We kind of talked through them. We put together a report and then we put we brought the report back to the planning board at their last meeting at the end of March was March 27th, and they voted. To send it to the council. So that's why we're here today is to talk about the report that the planning board has issued and essentially again there was not as I mentioned there weren't any public comments per se so we didn't we didn't have any comments from the public to to report on but there were several items that the councilors had raised at the public hearing. So we just we did a little bit of research. To respond to some questions that were asked and also just summarized or some of the issues that were raised just to to document the documents of comments. Essentially. We don't recommend any changes from what was originally presented. We didn't see any need to make any changes to the to the link to the Amendments that were sent down based on either one of the public hearings, but I can kind of quickly go through with some of the things we did talk about in the report if that's helpful. It was we were asked to To find out exactly how many in-law apartment applications were received over the past 10 years or so because one of the Amendments is to to modify the language for in-law apartments slightly. And so we determined that there were 14 applications for in-law apartments since 2010. So not that many we maybe get one application for in law apartment per year and of those eight of them requested variences, so they needed variances from the more restrictive language that we're asking to this counsel to consider modifying so all in all of those I think all but one of the eight were approved by the zoning border of appeals. So so again it we don't get many applications. We don't think the proposal is the amendments are going to change that all that much but it would still be helpful for the for the handful of owners who have had to come in front of the board for variances to not have to meet that standard again. They still have to still require a special permit in any district for an in-law apartment and they still have to meet all the other standards that are that are outlined in the in the zoning. We talked about we we just some a member of the council had asked about deed restrictions. So we just reiterated that Decisions by the zba on offer in law apartment approvals are filed with the registry of deeds. So there's a record that is tied to the property at the registry.

▶ 1:09:56 Denise Gaffey: We also there was a comment at the public hearing about whether we should not include the suggested map change that the Zone the planning board was recommended was recommending and we basically just reiterated we thought that it was important to keep that that request in this package of zoning amendments. It is the only it is the only amendment of this whole package that deals with the map. That is true. But it's still it's still we think a very useful change to make it this time because we recognize that it's not good practice to have the boundary line for the zoning District dissect the property and that would be this particular parcel would be better student in the ba2 zoning District. So we would recommend keeping that in the amendments. There was a question about corner lot setbacks and sorry some a member of the council had asked us to review with the police chief and the fire chief whether they had any concerns about the modifications that we were suggesting for Corner lots. And so I had conversations with both Chiefs and so that they fully understand the intent and neither one of them were concerned about any hazards or or any other concerns related to that change. We just there was a question about a discussion at the first public hearing about lodging homes lodging units versus dwelling units. And so we attempt to clarify in this report the distinction in the fact that they are distinct uses in our zoning ordinance ordinance and that also that if lodging homes and lodging units require permits by the city council In addition to special permits. I think it is and only certain zoning districts. So we just clarified that let's see in terms of fences. We had a discussion last time about How the Building Commissioner might interpret this new language vis-a-vis and property owners who have a pre-existing non-conforming fences. So we did have a conversation with the Building Commissioner about that and you know, he did. You know, he acknowledged that there are some people there are some property owners who have probably installed illegal offenses our fences that are currently not you know, when they installed them were not done according to the code so that they

▶ 1:12:40 Speaker 10: if they were modifications

▶ 1:12:42 Denise Gaffey: to those fences. He would not necessarily uphold that you know, the fact that it was done illegally, so they might be asked to bring it into conformance if however it is just pre-existing non-conforming once the zoning changes. Once we make these changes to the zoning then they could they could make they could do they could do maintenance on the fence and they wouldn't have to bring it up to the current standards. It was only if they were just completely replacing the fence. So I know there was some current concern about that mentioned for somebody who might be doing a property owner who might be just doing a small maintenance project and he also confirmed that Compliance with the fence regulations is is mainly driven by complaints. He does not drive around the community looking for. people who may have installed fences out of compliance with the zoning, but it also that we don't actually get a lot of complaints about that. So but we're hopeful with these changes that we've recommended and some Outreach that we can do to the community that that'll be very clear in the future what the requirements are. Let's see. I think the other issue was about the special permit timeline. There was some discussion about whether whether it's advisable for this for us to opt into that extra year if you recall the amendment is suggesting that we extend the deadline for Permitting approvals from two years to three years the when the state state legislature made a change to allow for that and it's something we could opt into and we were recommending making that change to allow for the extra year just because we understand we hear it all the time in the planning office because we we are you know coordinating with with property owners frequently, especially for the bigger developments that they they oftentimes it takes a long time to get projects off the ground. So we think by adding that extra year actually might might facilitate projects getting done instead of having to come back at two years and get redo their permitting. So we would recommend keeping that in at three years. Those were the primary. discussion points and again just to summarize we don't recommend any modifications Beyond. The original amendment that we sent down.

▶ 1:15:26 Speaker 6: Anything to add or you could cover everything. All right. Well, happy answering questions. Yes.

▶ 1:15:29 Speaker 4: Thank you. Any questions from the council?

▶ 1:15:37 Shawn M. MacMaster: Councilor McMaster, I don't have a question Madam chair, but at this time I'd make a motion to divide the order so that we can vote on each part of it separately.

▶ 1:15:45 Leila Migliorelli: Second motion to divide the order so we can vote on each part separately made by counselor McMaster second of my counselor garapay just to clarify counselor to clarify your motion all of the in the package everything that is defined with a bold title to to defy divide that correct amount of

▶ 1:16:07 Shawn M. MacMaster: chair. There's 11 parks to the order.

▶ 1:16:13 Speaker 4: on discussion

▶ 1:16:18 Leila Migliorelli: Motion to divide the order by 11 parts.

▶ 1:16:24 Speaker 1: Vice chair gemology

▶ 1:16:34 Speaker 4: Yes.

▶ 1:16:36 Speaker 1: Counselor McMaster. Yes counselor. Sonella. Yes counselor Eccles. Yes counselor garepe. Yes. Counselor Stewart. Yes Council crime Shetty. Yes. Counselor bremski. Yes counselor Williams. No

▶ 1:16:53 Speaker 1: President your greatest. Yes. And chair Migliorelli. Yes, that's 10. Yes one opposed.

▶ 1:17:01 Speaker 4: Okay. so the passes

▶ 1:17:06 Leila Migliorelli: I'm speaking then we move forward with the first order divided part of the order which is corner lot setbacks.

▶ 1:17:16 Speaker 4: questions on that order Or I will. See, none of counselor eckels. I was gonna

▶ 1:17:23 Jack Eccles: make a motion to recommend. 2023-21 is a dash one or just first part of that divider order.

▶ 1:17:32 Leila Migliorelli: I mean 23 - 59 -- one a okay motion made for passage for just say Corner a lot setbacks.

▶ 1:17:46 Speaker 4: Push Me by counselor Eccles second second by President Grigoraitis on discussion

▶ 1:17:52 Leila Migliorelli: all in favor or sorry well

▶ 1:17:56 Speaker 1: vice-chromaldine

▶ 1:18:01 Maya Jamaleddine: yes, and I'm sorry. I just want I had a question on discussion. Yes. I'm not sure question. Can I ask it now? Yes.

▶ 1:18:11 Speaker 4: Okay, so I would I just for clarification purposes. How many order are we spreading? There'll be 11 total now.

▶ 1:18:22 Leila Migliorelli: one order split 11 ways for each of the sections within the order So we're going to vote on 11 order, correct? So that's what that was the vote that we just took and now we're voting on part one. the corner lot setbacks

▶ 1:18:44 Leila Migliorelli: and the motion on the table is to recommend made by counselor Eccles second and by president Grigoraitis.

▶ 1:18:56 Speaker 1: Councilor McMaster. Yes. Counselor sonella. Yes counselor Eccles. I'm sorry.