December 11, 2008
To:
Massachusetts Cultural Facilities Fund Grant Program
Massachusetts Cultural Council
10 St. James Avenue, 3rd Floor
Boston, MA 02116-3803
Dear Review Panel and Advisory Committee:
The Board of Directors of the Ward 3 Neighborhood Association wishes to express its support for the Cultural Facilities Fund Grant Application submitted by the Three County Fairgrounds in Northampton.
The Ward 3 Neighborhood Association is a civic group that encourages quality of life efforts on behalf of our residents and businesses. The Fairgrounds and its environs are part of Ward 3 and many of our directors and members have been appointed to committees that have been kept informed about progress and the general direction of the Fairground’s future plans.
The Fairgrounds leadership holds regular meeting with neighbors to discuss issues of mutual concern. As neighbors, we wish to see this facility succeed, as such events as the Morgan Horse Show and the Paradise City Arts Festival, as well as the annual fair itself, are of great importance to our city’s cultural and economic vitality.
At the several meetings held with neighbors over the past three years, there has been strong consensus that the proposed reuse plan for the Fairgrounds is a good plan and one worthy of support.
It is our wish to see the Fairgrounds retain its character, preserve considerable open space, and refurbish its many historic buildings. We also support undertaking traffic studies to find the least intrusive way to direct traffic into and out of the facility without disrupting the surrounding neighborhoods as the number of cultural and economic development-oriented events at the Fairgrounds increases. We are also supportive of efforts to improve drainage that affects both the Fairgrounds and its surrounding neighborhoods.
We hope you will look favorably upon this application and provide assistance that will help chart a future for the Fairgrounds that will be of great benefit to our neighborhoods, community and region.
Sincerely,
For the Ward 3 Neighborhood Association Board of Directors
Gerald S. Budgar
President
Meeting Minutes December 9, 2008
Ward 3 Neighborhood Association
December 9th, 2008
Board Members Present: Gerald Budgar, Owen Freeman-Daniels, Lola Reid, Bob Reckman, Tim Fisher, Gloria Parker, Fredrick Zimnoch, Madeline Blanchette, Joanne Mackiewicz, Jim Nash
Board Members Absent: Phil Sullivan, Marianna McKim, Lisa DePiano
Non-board Attendies: Lucy Hartry, Jesse Adams, Dennis Helmus, Deb Christakos, Ellen Nigrosh, Lisa Maloney, Mandy Gerry,
The board voted in two alternate members, Madeline Blanchette and Joanne Mackiewicz.
Jerry was concerned that it was a foregone conclusion that Bridge St school was closing, with the School Committee talking about it in the past-tense. After mentioning his concern to the Northampton Education Foundation, Lucy Hartry from the School Committee wanted to come into the Ward3NA to give us a presentation.
Lucy Hartry:
Last spring they were in the midst of a budget crisis and they considered closing a school. Most schools in MA have declining school age populations. The few that are growing are mostly in the 495 beltway area. It is largely because of smaller families. 80% of the school's budget goes to personnel. Our highest School Committee priority is keeping class sizes small, because of the value it has for education on the younger ages. Yet 'the pit isn't bottomless' and an investigation began about the potential money savings in closing a school. It was right-away clear that the community was opposed to this and the school dept didn't handle it very well, not being ready for many of the questions that came up, which may have led to more confusion and dismay. The School Committee listened to the community, who thought this was too soon to decide, so the School Committee is looking for other options and longer-term solutions, and looking at other models to manage the budget. The School Committee put a strategic committee together that had as many constituencies as possible, put out a bid for a consulting firm, 2 people from each school council-- we could have opened it up to the entire community but that would have been a difficult process and since the school council is already elected by the community, we went with them-- there were representatives from the City Council, School Committee, business community, Smith College, school department administrators, and Dr. Babcock is a non-voting member.
The strategic committee was charged with looking in a long-range way as open-mindedly as possible to find a way to provide the level of service that we've come to expect and deliver but also take into account the various housing, birthing, and state trends (e.g. regionalization) to make a recommendation. With the hopes that the community has bought into this process, the School Committee is looking for a report in January. There have been focus groups that have been organized. There was one volunteer on the School Committee and Lucy asked another to join this strategic committee (Mike Flynn), who agreed. Her dismay was that this Strategic Committee was considered a sham or merely a way to justify closing Bridge St. This was not how she earnestly considered this process. The state is anticipating 5-10% budget cut to city or towns, and if that's the case, it is likely that Northampton will get a big cut, since many other towns and systems with lower tax bases get more assistance from the state than Northampton does. So the School Committee is trying to do the best they can given a 'pretty bad' situation, and it wasn't true that the School Committee was talking about Bridge St school in the 'past-tense'. Instead, the discussion was focusing on the playground and School Committee members were asking 'if' the school was going to close, why would the community participate and contribute in building a playground? This discussion was couched in that context. Bob pointed out that if MA state aid decreased by 10% the loss would be $5mil, which would make things nasty 'across the board', seeing a reduction in many city services.
Tim was glad that she came and thought her presentation was fair, but also wanted to know when the report was actually going to come out, which Lucy did not exactly know. Tim reviewed the same data that the Strategic Committee has had access to and evaluated some of the trends affecting the city; for instance the 2nd biggest money maker was students coming into the system for school choice, which is down. Yet closing a school would mean even fewer school choice students in, in order to keep class sizes small still. Also, charter schools are drawing on the city about $1.4mil; a mix of losing students and fewer students coming in creates two troublesome trends. Lucy pointed out that the School dep't has chosen to take fewer students from school choice-in. Tim believed that about half of the school population decline was due to charter schools, only 7% to aging population and poor population growth, yet Lucy said that she believed she has seen other studies that show different trends. Tim also talked about the need for the physical space for learning, and also the need to keep IEP kids in the fold and not isolate them; closing a school would cause larger class sizes, less hands-on learning, and reducing the IEP capabilities would also drive more students away into charter schools.
Dennis asked what the capacity of the schools in Northampton was, and Lucy said she didn't know exactly, that Jackson and Leeds were close, and Bridge and Ryan Rd have more capacity. Lola asked what would happen to the buildings if they closed, Lucy said she didn't know. Mandy Gerry: This building is collateralizing a bond, so it might not be able to be used for many other purposes. Lucy ended her report by saying that the strategic committee wanted to take a longer-term approach rather than try to make short-term decisions that had bad long-term consequences. Fred asked if this strategic committee was taking into account that next year's budget was going to be bad, and Lucy said that they weren't specifically taking it into account.
The previous board minutes were approved unanimously.
Treasurers report:
No expenses/dues since last meeting $706.98, listserv increased 1 member to 153. The report was accepted unanimously.
President's report:
Computer donation: Fred secured a donated computer from Forbes library.
There is a hearing on the Kohl proposal to build condos off North St with the conservation commission at 5:30, Thursday Dec 11. Jerry had been approached to speak out as the president of the Ward3NA against the project at the Planning Board's meeting next month; Jerry believed that the appropriate thing to do is to hear the consensus of the board. Bob said that he thought that having the board make a statement was inappropriate, since it was a private dispute between two parties within the ward, which is different from our taking a stance on keeping Bridge St school open. Dennis disputed this since he thought this issue related to many members of the ward, and contained ward-wide issues such as traffic and environmental concerns. Bob believed that it would be appropriate for individuals all over the ward to be able to state their own opinions, but not for the board itself. Tim was concerned with wetlands and environmental issues. Owen said that the board itself was in a tricky situation because they want to accept any new neighbors to the association but also we would like to preserve the quality of our neighborhood. Dennis discussed at length many of the different issues that the project faces, stating that Kohl's plans show that he would build with 12' of the wetlands.
The North St Association is trying to amend the 10' set-back for wetlands ordinance to a 25' set-back. Also, Dennis said that Bruce Young suggested that the presentation to the City Council for the 10' wetlands restriction was that it would be useful for small structures like sheds and garages and such, and now up for consideration is a large condo development within 12' of the wetlands. We discussed what to do next, and Jim pointed out that we have a relationship with the North St Association and we want to be supportive and provide good information. Dennis suggested that there are ways to take positions without being 'for' or 'against', or just to express concern. Jerry suggested a joint committee; there were no volunteers. Bob wanted to express his concern that we tread lightly and not try to become arbiters of approval instead of using our public boards, making us an 'inauthentic voice' for the city. Tim did not believe this would happen. Lola suggested that we table this discussion until the January meeting and if someone wants to write up a proposal, that would be fine. Jim made a motion to refer this issue to the sustainability committee, which Bob seconded; the majority approved of this motion, Owen opposed.
Adam Cohen has invited the entire board to a holiday party on Dec 21 3-5 at his house, 134 North St, with Spouse/Significant Others to join, and please RSVP
There has been no meeting for the project to have a "Candidate Night" for next years' elections. The idea for this night is to put Ward 3 issues on the political agenda.
Sub-committee reports:
Membership sub-committee: Jim, Fred and Owen had written up three amendments to the bylaws that had been circulated prior to the meeting. There were some small adjustments made and Jim suggested that: 'All presidential appointments [of chairs of sub-committees] are subject to approval by the board of directors.' Bob reminded us that formal approval of the bylaws is required by full vote at the annual meeting, but suggested that we act according to the changes suggested.
Secretary update: Jim is trying to get the laptop from Forbes up to speed so that he can offer it to a potential secretary.
Bridge St school sub-committee update: When the strategic committee comes out with its proposal they will analyze it and assign it to various people in the sub-committee to study it and then have an open forum.
Sustainability sub-committee: Jim has applied to be a member of the rezoning committee, and the planning board will be reviewing the applications (and perhaps coming out with new applications) soon, possibly having action by February. Jim was concerned that the zero-lot-line proposed zoning ordinance should go through the Rezoning Committee but now doesn't seem to be going through that process, instead going through the normal process of approving zoning ordinance. Both Jim and Bob suggested we all go to the Notre Dame Design forum presentation this Saturday Dec 13, and that APE will have the drawings there starting on Thursday. Bob wanted to state that it was important to remember this isn't a short-term suggestion, but more of a 20 year suggestion.
Traffic Calming sub-committee: Lola: we are going door-to-door in a signature campaign, going one-on-one fairly slowly and also asking people to sign onto the pace car program, only 5 people are working on the canvassing job right now, with over 300 houses to cover in that area. She also heard from David Narkowitz that there was no great hurry from the city's perspective, since little will be done over the winter, probably.
Exit 19 sub-committee: Bob: nothing significantly new, just that there will be a meeting of the citizens' advisory board in January.
Business Rep report: Owen is planning to use his survey and get support from the business community in January.
Report on ServiceNet purchase of Cherry St property: Lola: After a conversation with individuals at ServiceNet, she found out this is a residential program for 3 individuals per unit that had been previously been renting elsewhere.There was some money left over from the closing of the Northampton and Belchertown state hospitals; ServiceNet applied for it and received some of it to purchase the property. Fred asked if the individuals in the programs were supervised, and Lola affirmed they were, though no ServiceNet employee would be living there.
Legislative update: Bob: First was a discussion of the zero-lot line residential ordinance proposal, where Bob referenced a memo he had sent out earlier clarifying the ordinance. (See Appendix) The new proposal will change 4 things: 1- if you build within 15' of your property boundaries on the side set-back, you no longer have the penalty of having the 'double' back set-back to 30'. 2- The window requirement and the 3- fence requirement would be eliminated. 4- Also, you no longer have to control both lots. So if your neighbor gives you a written easement, then you can build up to your property line on the side. Bob had a conversation with Wayne and asked: How many times has this bylaw come up in the last 8-10 years? Wayne: maybe 8-10 times. Bob: How many lots are there in the city where this might apply to? Wayne: About 5 years ago we did an aerial count and there are maybe only 50 vacant lots. Bob discussed that this zoning proposal was considered 'routine' by the Planning Board and therefore wasn't going to be sent to the Rezoning Committee first. On January 8th there will be a meeting where this issue is on the agenda. Many clarification questions were asked, including those about not having to get any permission from your neighbor to build within 15' of your property line in the back.
Ad-Hoc Committee for Best Practices: Bob: They gave their recommendations to the City Council recently, and there is a public hearing about the recommendations being held on Monday January 5, 7PM. Jerry asked about the proposed audit of the Planning Department, which Bob explained-- there have been independent audits of the Fire Department, the Police Department, the DPW, all to the great benefit of those departments over the years.
Website on City Committees: Owen updated on the meetings held regarding our efforts to give accurate, fair and searchable reporting of the various city committees and board meetings. We are going to try to form a board of directors who would be responsible for the running of the organization, then recruit volunteers to actually cover the meetings. We also might get web-space from another new-oriented group that might be starting up in the city.
Update on the Ward 3 Brochure: Owen has converted the old brochure to an electronic copy and has not yet updated it yet. Jerry mentioned that he wanted our committees included in the brochure.
We adjourned around 9 PM; our next meeting will be the second Tuesday of January at Bridge St school.
Appendix:
MEMO
To: Ward 3 Neighborhood Association Board
From: Bob Reckman
Date: (Revised Jan. 10, 2009)
Re: Proposed change for zero lot line projects.
I have rewritten this memo yet again. I believe is is now correct. The City?s current zoning allows zero lot line projects in Urban Residential B (URB) and Urban Residential C (URC) districts. Most of the residential area of Ward 3 is comprised of these two residential districts. Eligible properties need only 65? of frontage rather than 75? (which is the standard frontage requirement). This provision was added about 8 years ago to try to encourage greater density. There have been about 10 uses of this provision in the last 8 years.
The current zoning allows such projects but requires that:
1) A solid fence be built between the structures and that the windows be located to maximize privacy. These requirements could be waived by the Planning Board.
2) The side setback on the other side of the lot (the non-encroaching side) must be 30? rather than 15?. 15? is the standard side setback in these zones.
3) The applicant must control both properties. It allows such projects on lots that have 65? of frontage rather than the standard 75? There have been about 10 uses of this provision in the last 8 years.
4) The rear setback requirement is the same as for all other residences in these zones.
The proposed change would do several things:
1) It would eliminate the fence and window requirements.
2) It would change the side setback requirement on the non-encroaching side to 15? which matches the standard side setback in this zone.
3) It would allow a new home or addition by right within the standard 15? side setback if the applicant is able to provide an easement from the relevant abutter that has been recorded at the Registry of Deeds and approved by any mortgage holder. It would eliminate the requirement that the applicant control both lots. The applicant would need to acquire a legal easement from the abutter and have it recorded at the registry of deeds. If there is a mortgage on the property, the holder of the mortgage would also have to agree.
4) The rear setback requirement does not change.
Wayne told me that he had done a rough count based on aerial photos (which are less than perfect) of the total number of empty lots in the entire City which would be affected. It is about 50. It is important to remember that this change would also affect additions. If the City Council approves it, people who want to add closer to their side lot line would be able to do so if they get and record the required easement from their abutter.
This proposal was discussed at the joint meeting of the Planning Board and the Ordinance Committee on Jan. 8 at 8 PM in the Council Chambers. At that meeting the Planning Board continued the public hearing until their meeting on March 29 at 7 PM. They did this to allow more time for the public to become aware of the details of the proposal. This will be a public hearing, so I encourage you to come and ask any questions that you have. You are also welcome to call the Office of Planning and Development and ask them any questions you have.
December 9th, 2008
Board Members Present: Gerald Budgar, Owen Freeman-Daniels, Lola Reid, Bob Reckman, Tim Fisher, Gloria Parker, Fredrick Zimnoch, Madeline Blanchette, Joanne Mackiewicz, Jim Nash
Board Members Absent: Phil Sullivan, Marianna McKim, Lisa DePiano
Non-board Attendies: Lucy Hartry, Jesse Adams, Dennis Helmus, Deb Christakos, Ellen Nigrosh, Lisa Maloney, Mandy Gerry,
The board voted in two alternate members, Madeline Blanchette and Joanne Mackiewicz.
Jerry was concerned that it was a foregone conclusion that Bridge St school was closing, with the School Committee talking about it in the past-tense. After mentioning his concern to the Northampton Education Foundation, Lucy Hartry from the School Committee wanted to come into the Ward3NA to give us a presentation.
Lucy Hartry:
Last spring they were in the midst of a budget crisis and they considered closing a school. Most schools in MA have declining school age populations. The few that are growing are mostly in the 495 beltway area. It is largely because of smaller families. 80% of the school's budget goes to personnel. Our highest School Committee priority is keeping class sizes small, because of the value it has for education on the younger ages. Yet 'the pit isn't bottomless' and an investigation began about the potential money savings in closing a school. It was right-away clear that the community was opposed to this and the school dept didn't handle it very well, not being ready for many of the questions that came up, which may have led to more confusion and dismay. The School Committee listened to the community, who thought this was too soon to decide, so the School Committee is looking for other options and longer-term solutions, and looking at other models to manage the budget. The School Committee put a strategic committee together that had as many constituencies as possible, put out a bid for a consulting firm, 2 people from each school council-- we could have opened it up to the entire community but that would have been a difficult process and since the school council is already elected by the community, we went with them-- there were representatives from the City Council, School Committee, business community, Smith College, school department administrators, and Dr. Babcock is a non-voting member.
The strategic committee was charged with looking in a long-range way as open-mindedly as possible to find a way to provide the level of service that we've come to expect and deliver but also take into account the various housing, birthing, and state trends (e.g. regionalization) to make a recommendation. With the hopes that the community has bought into this process, the School Committee is looking for a report in January. There have been focus groups that have been organized. There was one volunteer on the School Committee and Lucy asked another to join this strategic committee (Mike Flynn), who agreed. Her dismay was that this Strategic Committee was considered a sham or merely a way to justify closing Bridge St. This was not how she earnestly considered this process. The state is anticipating 5-10% budget cut to city or towns, and if that's the case, it is likely that Northampton will get a big cut, since many other towns and systems with lower tax bases get more assistance from the state than Northampton does. So the School Committee is trying to do the best they can given a 'pretty bad' situation, and it wasn't true that the School Committee was talking about Bridge St school in the 'past-tense'. Instead, the discussion was focusing on the playground and School Committee members were asking 'if' the school was going to close, why would the community participate and contribute in building a playground? This discussion was couched in that context. Bob pointed out that if MA state aid decreased by 10% the loss would be $5mil, which would make things nasty 'across the board', seeing a reduction in many city services.
Tim was glad that she came and thought her presentation was fair, but also wanted to know when the report was actually going to come out, which Lucy did not exactly know. Tim reviewed the same data that the Strategic Committee has had access to and evaluated some of the trends affecting the city; for instance the 2nd biggest money maker was students coming into the system for school choice, which is down. Yet closing a school would mean even fewer school choice students in, in order to keep class sizes small still. Also, charter schools are drawing on the city about $1.4mil; a mix of losing students and fewer students coming in creates two troublesome trends. Lucy pointed out that the School dep't has chosen to take fewer students from school choice-in. Tim believed that about half of the school population decline was due to charter schools, only 7% to aging population and poor population growth, yet Lucy said that she believed she has seen other studies that show different trends. Tim also talked about the need for the physical space for learning, and also the need to keep IEP kids in the fold and not isolate them; closing a school would cause larger class sizes, less hands-on learning, and reducing the IEP capabilities would also drive more students away into charter schools.
Dennis asked what the capacity of the schools in Northampton was, and Lucy said she didn't know exactly, that Jackson and Leeds were close, and Bridge and Ryan Rd have more capacity. Lola asked what would happen to the buildings if they closed, Lucy said she didn't know. Mandy Gerry: This building is collateralizing a bond, so it might not be able to be used for many other purposes. Lucy ended her report by saying that the strategic committee wanted to take a longer-term approach rather than try to make short-term decisions that had bad long-term consequences. Fred asked if this strategic committee was taking into account that next year's budget was going to be bad, and Lucy said that they weren't specifically taking it into account.
The previous board minutes were approved unanimously.
Treasurers report:
No expenses/dues since last meeting $706.98, listserv increased 1 member to 153. The report was accepted unanimously.
President's report:
Computer donation: Fred secured a donated computer from Forbes library.
There is a hearing on the Kohl proposal to build condos off North St with the conservation commission at 5:30, Thursday Dec 11. Jerry had been approached to speak out as the president of the Ward3NA against the project at the Planning Board's meeting next month; Jerry believed that the appropriate thing to do is to hear the consensus of the board. Bob said that he thought that having the board make a statement was inappropriate, since it was a private dispute between two parties within the ward, which is different from our taking a stance on keeping Bridge St school open. Dennis disputed this since he thought this issue related to many members of the ward, and contained ward-wide issues such as traffic and environmental concerns. Bob believed that it would be appropriate for individuals all over the ward to be able to state their own opinions, but not for the board itself. Tim was concerned with wetlands and environmental issues. Owen said that the board itself was in a tricky situation because they want to accept any new neighbors to the association but also we would like to preserve the quality of our neighborhood. Dennis discussed at length many of the different issues that the project faces, stating that Kohl's plans show that he would build with 12' of the wetlands.
The North St Association is trying to amend the 10' set-back for wetlands ordinance to a 25' set-back. Also, Dennis said that Bruce Young suggested that the presentation to the City Council for the 10' wetlands restriction was that it would be useful for small structures like sheds and garages and such, and now up for consideration is a large condo development within 12' of the wetlands. We discussed what to do next, and Jim pointed out that we have a relationship with the North St Association and we want to be supportive and provide good information. Dennis suggested that there are ways to take positions without being 'for' or 'against', or just to express concern. Jerry suggested a joint committee; there were no volunteers. Bob wanted to express his concern that we tread lightly and not try to become arbiters of approval instead of using our public boards, making us an 'inauthentic voice' for the city. Tim did not believe this would happen. Lola suggested that we table this discussion until the January meeting and if someone wants to write up a proposal, that would be fine. Jim made a motion to refer this issue to the sustainability committee, which Bob seconded; the majority approved of this motion, Owen opposed.
Adam Cohen has invited the entire board to a holiday party on Dec 21 3-5 at his house, 134 North St, with Spouse/Significant Others to join, and please RSVP
There has been no meeting for the project to have a "Candidate Night" for next years' elections. The idea for this night is to put Ward 3 issues on the political agenda.
Sub-committee reports:
Membership sub-committee: Jim, Fred and Owen had written up three amendments to the bylaws that had been circulated prior to the meeting. There were some small adjustments made and Jim suggested that: 'All presidential appointments [of chairs of sub-committees] are subject to approval by the board of directors.' Bob reminded us that formal approval of the bylaws is required by full vote at the annual meeting, but suggested that we act according to the changes suggested.
Secretary update: Jim is trying to get the laptop from Forbes up to speed so that he can offer it to a potential secretary.
Bridge St school sub-committee update: When the strategic committee comes out with its proposal they will analyze it and assign it to various people in the sub-committee to study it and then have an open forum.
Sustainability sub-committee: Jim has applied to be a member of the rezoning committee, and the planning board will be reviewing the applications (and perhaps coming out with new applications) soon, possibly having action by February. Jim was concerned that the zero-lot-line proposed zoning ordinance should go through the Rezoning Committee but now doesn't seem to be going through that process, instead going through the normal process of approving zoning ordinance. Both Jim and Bob suggested we all go to the Notre Dame Design forum presentation this Saturday Dec 13, and that APE will have the drawings there starting on Thursday. Bob wanted to state that it was important to remember this isn't a short-term suggestion, but more of a 20 year suggestion.
Traffic Calming sub-committee: Lola: we are going door-to-door in a signature campaign, going one-on-one fairly slowly and also asking people to sign onto the pace car program, only 5 people are working on the canvassing job right now, with over 300 houses to cover in that area. She also heard from David Narkowitz that there was no great hurry from the city's perspective, since little will be done over the winter, probably.
Exit 19 sub-committee: Bob: nothing significantly new, just that there will be a meeting of the citizens' advisory board in January.
Business Rep report: Owen is planning to use his survey and get support from the business community in January.
Report on ServiceNet purchase of Cherry St property: Lola: After a conversation with individuals at ServiceNet, she found out this is a residential program for 3 individuals per unit that had been previously been renting elsewhere.There was some money left over from the closing of the Northampton and Belchertown state hospitals; ServiceNet applied for it and received some of it to purchase the property. Fred asked if the individuals in the programs were supervised, and Lola affirmed they were, though no ServiceNet employee would be living there.
Legislative update: Bob: First was a discussion of the zero-lot line residential ordinance proposal, where Bob referenced a memo he had sent out earlier clarifying the ordinance. (See Appendix) The new proposal will change 4 things: 1- if you build within 15' of your property boundaries on the side set-back, you no longer have the penalty of having the 'double' back set-back to 30'. 2- The window requirement and the 3- fence requirement would be eliminated. 4- Also, you no longer have to control both lots. So if your neighbor gives you a written easement, then you can build up to your property line on the side. Bob had a conversation with Wayne and asked: How many times has this bylaw come up in the last 8-10 years? Wayne: maybe 8-10 times. Bob: How many lots are there in the city where this might apply to? Wayne: About 5 years ago we did an aerial count and there are maybe only 50 vacant lots. Bob discussed that this zoning proposal was considered 'routine' by the Planning Board and therefore wasn't going to be sent to the Rezoning Committee first. On January 8th there will be a meeting where this issue is on the agenda. Many clarification questions were asked, including those about not having to get any permission from your neighbor to build within 15' of your property line in the back.
Ad-Hoc Committee for Best Practices: Bob: They gave their recommendations to the City Council recently, and there is a public hearing about the recommendations being held on Monday January 5, 7PM. Jerry asked about the proposed audit of the Planning Department, which Bob explained-- there have been independent audits of the Fire Department, the Police Department, the DPW, all to the great benefit of those departments over the years.
Website on City Committees: Owen updated on the meetings held regarding our efforts to give accurate, fair and searchable reporting of the various city committees and board meetings. We are going to try to form a board of directors who would be responsible for the running of the organization, then recruit volunteers to actually cover the meetings. We also might get web-space from another new-oriented group that might be starting up in the city.
Update on the Ward 3 Brochure: Owen has converted the old brochure to an electronic copy and has not yet updated it yet. Jerry mentioned that he wanted our committees included in the brochure.
We adjourned around 9 PM; our next meeting will be the second Tuesday of January at Bridge St school.
Appendix:
MEMO
To: Ward 3 Neighborhood Association Board
From: Bob Reckman
Date: (Revised Jan. 10, 2009)
Re: Proposed change for zero lot line projects.
I have rewritten this memo yet again. I believe is is now correct. The City?s current zoning allows zero lot line projects in Urban Residential B (URB) and Urban Residential C (URC) districts. Most of the residential area of Ward 3 is comprised of these two residential districts. Eligible properties need only 65? of frontage rather than 75? (which is the standard frontage requirement). This provision was added about 8 years ago to try to encourage greater density. There have been about 10 uses of this provision in the last 8 years.
The current zoning allows such projects but requires that:
1) A solid fence be built between the structures and that the windows be located to maximize privacy. These requirements could be waived by the Planning Board.
2) The side setback on the other side of the lot (the non-encroaching side) must be 30? rather than 15?. 15? is the standard side setback in these zones.
3) The applicant must control both properties. It allows such projects on lots that have 65? of frontage rather than the standard 75? There have been about 10 uses of this provision in the last 8 years.
4) The rear setback requirement is the same as for all other residences in these zones.
The proposed change would do several things:
1) It would eliminate the fence and window requirements.
2) It would change the side setback requirement on the non-encroaching side to 15? which matches the standard side setback in this zone.
3) It would allow a new home or addition by right within the standard 15? side setback if the applicant is able to provide an easement from the relevant abutter that has been recorded at the Registry of Deeds and approved by any mortgage holder. It would eliminate the requirement that the applicant control both lots. The applicant would need to acquire a legal easement from the abutter and have it recorded at the registry of deeds. If there is a mortgage on the property, the holder of the mortgage would also have to agree.
4) The rear setback requirement does not change.
Wayne told me that he had done a rough count based on aerial photos (which are less than perfect) of the total number of empty lots in the entire City which would be affected. It is about 50. It is important to remember that this change would also affect additions. If the City Council approves it, people who want to add closer to their side lot line would be able to do so if they get and record the required easement from their abutter.
This proposal was discussed at the joint meeting of the Planning Board and the Ordinance Committee on Jan. 8 at 8 PM in the Council Chambers. At that meeting the Planning Board continued the public hearing until their meeting on March 29 at 7 PM. They did this to allow more time for the public to become aware of the details of the proposal. This will be a public hearing, so I encourage you to come and ask any questions that you have. You are also welcome to call the Office of Planning and Development and ask them any questions you have.
Posts
