City of New Bedford Meetings
Search and subscribe to city meeting topics that impact you
Newsletters
Subscribe
← Back to video
Ordinance Committee — March 10, 2026
−
Fit
+
IN
0:00
OUT
0:00
Length
0:00
▶ Play selection
Export clip
Keyboard:
I
set in,
O
set out,
←
/
→
nudge playhead 5s.
0:52
I have not.
In
Out
0:54
You know why?
In
Out
0:55
I would love to hear it because he saw me literally drive, walking in on the same phone call that I took from Dana all the way here.
In
Out
1:05
So, um, so how are we looking?
In
Out
1:07
Almost okay.
In
Out
1:10
We're live.
In
Out
1:15
It is 7:01 PM on March 10th.
In
Out
1:20
In the year of 2026.
In
Out
1:24
Note this meeting is being live streamed and recorded.
In
Out
1:26
City Council and committee meetings can be viewed on the City of New Bedford's homepage under Quick Links, then Meetings.
In
Out
1:33
I am joined in the chamber tonight by my colleagues in government: Ward 2 Councilor Scott Pepperton, Ward 1 Councilor Leo Choquette, Ward 5 Councilor Joseph Lopes, Councilor at Large James Roy, Councilor at Large and Second Vice President Naomi Carney, and I am your chairman, Shane A. Burgo.
In
Out
1:51
I'll ask the clerk if there's anything to be read into the record.
In
Out
1:55
Mr.
In
Out
1:55
Chair, we do have one communication from Councilor Abreu writing to inform you that he is unable to attend tonight's committee meeting due to a prior commitment.
In
Out
2:02
He asked that the letter be read into the record to make his colleagues and the public aware of the reason for his absence.
In
Out
2:09
Motion to receive and place on file made by Councilor Lopes.
In
Out
2:11
Seconded by Councilor Pemberton.
In
Out
2:14
Anyone on the question?
In
Out
2:16
Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.
In
Out
2:19
Any opposed?
In
Out
2:20
The ayes have it.
In
Out
2:22
All right.
In
Out
2:23
Item— I'll ask the clerk to read item 1, 1A, and 1B into the record.
In
Out
2:31
Oh, actually, that is a lie.
In
Out
2:34
I'm going to ask— sorry.
In
Out
2:37
Due to the length of these presentations for items 1 and 2, without objection, I would ask to take item 3 out of order.
In
Out
2:46
Seeing no objections, I'll ask the clerk to read item 3.
In
Out
2:48
Thank you for that.
In
Out
2:49
Sorry, Mr.
In
Out
2:51
Chair.
In
Out
2:51
Item 3 is a communication.
In
Out
2:52
Mayor Mitchell to City Council submitting an ordinance amending Chapter 2, Article 6, Section 2-105 of the City of New Bedford's Code of Ordinances to conform with Chapter 140 of the Acts of 2024 signed into law by Governor Healey regarding payment agreements for delinquent taxes, referred to committee on June 12th, 2025.
In
Out
3:11
3A is the ordinance.
In
Out
3:15
Motion to receive and place on file.
In
Out
3:17
Motion received, placed on file, made by Councilor Loeb, seconded by Councilor Carney.
In
Out
3:20
Anyone on the question?
In
Out
3:21
Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.
In
Out
3:23
Any opposed?
In
Out
3:24
The ayes have it.
In
Out
3:25
Treasurer Taxiarcos, the floor is yours.
In
Out
3:31
Thank you, Chairman Burgoyne, honorable councilors.
In
Out
3:34
I am submitting for your approval an amendment to the ordinance, Chapter 2, Article 6, Section 2-105 of the City of Bedford Code of Ordinances.
In
Out
3:44
And essentially what this is, is when someone goes into tax title and they're delinquent on their taxes, this gives them the ability to enter into a payment agreement to pay those delinquent taxes before— or the current ordinance requires them to put 25% down as a down payment towards that payment agreement, and the maximum term is only 5 years.
In
Out
4:11
With the new law that was passed and the amendment of this ordinance, it would allow us to take 10% down and extend the term to 10 years.
In
Out
4:20
So that's what this is for.
In
Out
4:24
Any questions from the body?
In
Out
4:27
Chair recognizes Councilor Choquette on his first.
In
Out
4:30
All right, good evening, sir.
In
Out
4:31
Uh, just a quick question.
In
Out
4:33
Will there be any interest on that account?
In
Out
4:36
Um, there is interest.
In
Out
4:38
Extend it out 10 years.
In
Out
4:40
We can— there is interest, but we can waive that interest up to the 50% that we have now, uh, in order to— if they pay on the agreement according to the schedule with no other default, then, then we can waive that interest at the end.
In
Out
4:58
Okay, thank you.
In
Out
4:59
Thank you, Mr.
In
Out
5:01
Chair.
In
Out
5:01
Recognizes Councilor Lopes on his first Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In
Out
5:05
So, John, I'm looking more at how many people right now would this benefit.
In
Out
5:10
Do you have that number in your, like, in your office?
In
Out
5:12
How many people are currently— I believe we have, uh, possibly 60 or so.
In
Out
5:19
Okay.
In
Out
5:19
Yeah, that are on a payment agreement.
In
Out
5:22
I really think we would have more, but because of the constraint of the 25% down, it's blocking or preventing them from doing it.
In
Out
5:30
Now, does this have to be owner-occupied, or can it be an investment property as well?
In
Out
5:34
Uh, it, it does apply to commercial as well, I believe.
In
Out
5:37
Okay, thank you for the additional information, John.
In
Out
5:41
Thank you, Mr.
In
Out
5:41
Chair.
In
Out
5:42
Chair recognizes Councilor Carney on her first.
In
Out
5:45
Yes, thank you.
In
Out
5:46
Hi, John, how are you tonight?
In
Out
5:47
Um, so this, this will ultimately avoid going into tax title for a lot of the properties, so it gives them a longer period of time to pay those taxes back, right?
In
Out
5:58
So, um, with the 10%, is that great?
In
Out
6:02
What is kind of the amount of the 10% that you see, like, overall with what we've got outstanding?
In
Out
6:10
Well, maybe the highest one.
In
Out
6:12
It's difficult.
In
Out
6:12
I mean, it could be, you know, $10,000 to $50,000 or more.
In
Out
6:18
Some people have owed $100,000 before, so this gives them an opportunity to really put something down where they wouldn't be able to otherwise.
In
Out
6:28
So like on a $10,000 delinquency, and, you know, if you can put $2,500— put $1,000 down instead of $2,500, that really helps them out.
In
Out
6:38
Okay, so that would— that— so that would bring us closer to not taking people's properties and send to tax title.
In
Out
6:43
And yeah, and that— and again, this is for the delinquent portion of taxes.
In
Out
6:47
They do need to stay current.
In
Out
6:50
Okay, so they have to stay— they have to pay their current taxes plus the past-due amount that you make a scheduled payment plan for, right?
In
Out
6:58
And the payment plan, who decides on their payment plan?
In
Out
7:01
Is it a certain amount that they have to come up with, or can you say, okay, um, you put— gave me your 10% down, we're giving you X amount of time, and who decides their, their portion?
In
Out
7:15
Is that We kind of work with the taxpayer on that.
In
Out
7:18
Oh, okay.
In
Out
7:18
So it's on an amortization schedule.
In
Out
7:20
It really depends on what they can afford as well.
In
Out
7:23
We don't want to get into a payment agreement that they aren't going to be able to— Right.
In
Out
7:27
So you're going to pay off— So you will decide the payment plan with the individual to make sure that it's not strapping them.
In
Out
7:35
They'll be able to stay in the house and— It needs to be affordable.
In
Out
7:38
Affordable.
In
Out
7:39
Excellent.
In
Out
7:40
Thank you.
In
Out
7:41
Thank you.
In
Out
7:41
Thank you.
In
Out
7:42
I want to acknowledge that Councilor-at-Large Brian Gomes has joined us as well.
In
Out
7:46
Any other questions from the body for Treasurer Taxiarcos?
In
Out
7:50
Chair recognizes Councilor— excuse me, Councilor Roy on this first.
In
Out
7:53
Uh, you mentioned that interest can be waived at the end of, um, this new 10-year period.
In
Out
8:00
How does one go about doing that, and, and when wouldn't it be waived?
In
Out
8:04
Uh, at the end of the agreement.
In
Out
8:06
Okay, so if they've paid on time, they haven't defaulted, they've stayed current on their current taxes as well, and then finished the payment agreement, then we would waive the taxes.
In
Out
8:17
And if they missed a payment over the 10 years, would the interest be waived?
In
Out
8:21
If they missed a payment, then we would have to talk to them about where they are in that situation.
In
Out
8:28
Okay, thank you.
In
Out
8:32
Anyone else on there first?
In
Out
8:35
Chairman, can I ask Councilor Carney on her second?
In
Out
8:36
Yeah, I just want to follow up on my good councilor to the left on that interest.
In
Out
8:41
Is the interest on the payments that they're paying monthly, or whatever the case may be, is that incorporated in their payment?
In
Out
8:50
They would be paying on that too, but I believe it's principal first.
In
Out
8:54
So it'll be principal and there'd be an interest payment on the monthly payment that you'll be asking them.
In
Out
9:00
So the interest will be in there.
In
Out
9:02
Of what was incurred.
In
Out
9:03
Yeah, right.
In
Out
9:03
And so at the end, that interest that they paid would be given back to them in a check?
In
Out
9:10
How does that work when you pay— if they, they were on time for the 10 years?
In
Out
9:14
Um, I believe what we do is we forgive the interest as we're creating the payment agreement, and then if they default, the interest goes back on.
In
Out
9:31
Okay, so when you're paying your payments, when you come up with a payment plan with the individual, that interest is automatically not on there?
In
Out
9:40
Yeah, I believe we forgive that, the interest, up to a percentage, um, on that payment agreement.
In
Out
9:47
We calculate the payments that they need to make, and then if they default, it would, it would go back on.
In
Out
9:53
Okay, so, so I'm just getting confused.
In
Out
9:55
So they are not paying a monthly interest charge when they're doing it, unless they default in that 10 years, then the interest would go back on.
In
Out
10:05
I believe that's right, but let me get back to you on that.
In
Out
10:07
Yeah, could you?
In
Out
10:08
Yeah, 'cause I mean, it's— I'm just wondering, if you're adding the interest on there, and they're paying a portion, a small portion of interest, whether it's $25, $50, $100 on their payment, and that's part of the interest, at the end of the 10 years, I'm just curious how that comes back, or how you work on that interest.
In
Out
10:27
So if you get back to us, get to board and give it to the the chairman, that'd be great.
In
Out
10:31
I will do that.
In
Out
10:32
Thank you, Council President.
In
Out
10:34
I'm President Vice President Chairman.
In
Out
10:36
You got it.
In
Out
10:37
Vice Vice President.
In
Out
10:38
Anyone else on there first?
In
Out
10:40
Council Burgum.
In
Out
10:41
Anyone on there second?
In
Out
10:45
Seeing none, motion to refer out to the full city council for approval would be appropriate.
In
Out
10:51
So moved.
In
Out
10:52
Second.
In
Out
10:52
Made by Councilor Lope, seconded by Councilor Carney.
In
Out
10:55
Anyone on the question?
In
Out
10:57
Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.
In
Out
10:59
Aye.
In
Out
11:00
Any opposed?
In
Out
11:00
The ayes have it.
In
Out
11:02
Thank you, Treasurer Texi Arcos.
In
Out
11:03
Thank you.
In
Out
11:04
I'll ask the clerk to read item 1, 1A, and 1B.
In
Out
11:11
Mr.
In
Out
11:12
Chair, item 1 is public hearing continued on a communication, Mayor Mitchell to City Council, submitting an ordinance amending Chapter 9, Comprehensive Zoning, relative to dimensional requirements, Appendix B, Table of Dimensional Regulations.
In
Out
11:24
Residential infill development and multiple buildings per lot, referred to committee on October 9th, 2025, duly advertised in the Standard Times on November 6th and 13th, 2025.
In
Out
11:35
November 20th and December 15th, 2025, the public hearing was continued.
In
Out
11:39
On January 26th, 2026, the public hearing was canceled due to a snowstorm.
In
Out
11:44
It was duly readvertised in the Standard Times on February 24th and March 3rd, 2026.
In
Out
11:50
1A is the ordinance, and 1B is a communication from Anne Lauro, Acting Director of the Planning Department, to Council Ryan J. Pereira, Chairman of the Committee on Ordinances, advising that the Planning Board held a public hearing on Wednesday, November 12th, 2025, to discuss a request made by the City Council for the Planning Board to review and make a recommendation relative to amending Chapter 9, Comprehensive Zoning, relative to dimensional requirements, Appendix B, Table of Dimensional Regulations, Residential Infill Development, and Multiple Buildings per Lot.
In
Out
12:21
The planning board voted to send a favorable recommendation for the ordinance amendment.
In
Out
12:25
It was received by the committee on November 14th, 2025.
In
Out
12:30
This is a continued public hearing, and with that, I'll ask Mr. McCarthy and Ms. Laurel to take it from there.
In
Out
12:39
Good evening, everyone.
In
Out
12:41
Oh, actually, um, this presentation that they're presenting to us, we have never had the opportunity to receive and place it on file.
In
Out
12:49
Oh, uh, motion to receive and place on file this presentation that we're about to see, made by Councilor Lopes, seconded by Councilor Roy.
In
Out
12:57
Anyone on the question?
In
Out
13:00
Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.
In
Out
13:02
Any opposed?
In
Out
13:02
The ayes have it.
In
Out
13:05
Okay.
In
Out
13:07
We'll get rolling.
In
Out
13:07
So this is our sort of our final zoning update on the traditional zoning in New Bedford that we've been working on for the past year and a half, 2 years.
In
Out
13:18
This is updating our dimensional requirements and adding an infill development requirement.
In
Out
13:23
And a lot of the work that came out of our comprehensive plan process fed into this.
In
Out
13:28
And it was also a known item that we had been working on for a few years prior to that.
In
Out
13:35
So go to the next slide.
In
Out
13:38
So really, we'll start here.
In
Out
13:39
Why are we changing the dimensional requirement?
In
Out
13:42
I think if you look at our dimensional table, it has a lot more in common with what a suburban development dimensional table would have in a modern urban developed dimensional table.
In
Out
13:55
Those standards are much more conducive to what you see in the built environment in New Bedford.
In
Out
14:01
Smaller lot sizes, smaller frontage requirements, not giant front yards in the denser residential districts.
In
Out
14:10
We're trying to encourage sensitive development, supporting small infill to fill gaps in that existing urban— that existing urban pattern.
In
Out
14:18
I think we're all familiar with that missing teeth effect on Cushionet Avenue, County Street, those big corridors where a building burned down many years ago, no one rebuilt it, and now the lot has fallen out of its nonconforming status.
In
Out
14:31
And to do development on it, you'd really be stuck with like a matchbook-sized area.
In
Out
14:37
And we want to make sure that we have dimensional requirements that drive reinvestment and renewal in our neighborhoods.
In
Out
14:43
And again, that's getting at those, those blighted vacant lots that just become weed-filled and eyesores.
In
Out
14:51
So in this update, what are we proposing?
In
Out
14:53
We're looking at our dimensional regulations.
In
Out
14:56
We're going to reduce We're proposing to reduce our minimum lot sizes for our multifamily zoning districts.
In
Out
15:01
That's RB, RC, and MUB to match basically the existing pattern in the neighborhood of the built environment.
In
Out
15:10
We're looking to reset our front setbacks right now in our mixed-use business district, our densest district.
In
Out
15:16
The front yard setback for that is about 20 feet.
In
Out
15:19
So you're, you're really thinking about like if you We're going to build something on a cushioned avenue on a vacant lot.
In
Out
15:26
Everyone else has a zero front setback.
In
Out
15:28
They're right up against the sidewalk.
In
Out
15:30
And then without coming to the zoning board for a variance, you've got to already start 20 feet back from the, from the property line.
In
Out
15:36
So we want to make it so there's that continuity along our commercial corridors and we want to clarify our residential density.
In
Out
15:45
There is some incongruity between what's in the table and what we see in the built environment and even within the districts.
In
Out
15:54
There's some things like the minimum lot size you would need just keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger as you add more units at a scale that seems out of proportion.
In
Out
16:04
We want to activate residential infill development.
In
Out
16:07
So the dimensional regulations we'll see as we go through the presentation, they bring a lot of lots into conformity.
In
Out
16:14
They will reduce the need for variances on a lot of development.
In
Out
16:17
But we recognize that There's really no way to get it at 100% without completely eliminating dimensional requirements, which we do not want to do.
In
Out
16:25
But in special circumstances, we're proposing an infill development section to the ordinance where the planning board would be a special permit granting authority that would review these on a case-by-case basis to allow for an exception, as long as there is not anything that's more dense than the abutting properties.
In
Out
16:44
So I'll get into that as we go into the presentation a little bit more.
In
Out
16:47
And we currently have a prohibition on multiple buildings per lot.
In
Out
16:51
In talking with the building and zoning commissioner, there doesn't seem to be any building code specific reason here.
In
Out
16:57
There are instances where the building code would cover these sort of multiple buildings per lot, but there is no particular reason why this prohibition exists.
In
Out
17:07
And in talking with our zoning consultant, the trend in a lot of gateway cities is to eliminate this provision.
In
Out
17:13
So we're proposing to do that here.
In
Out
17:17
So what informed the new dimensional standards?
In
Out
17:19
We did an analysis of our districts, and as you can see from the table here, particularly in our multifamily districts, lot size is a huge problem where we have about 87 to 94% of our multifamily lots are below the lot size minimum for what's built on— for what is built on the lot or what could be built on the lot.
In
Out
17:40
These noncompliant lots, you can see in MUB, you have built lots that don't meet the front setback almost 80%.
In
Out
17:50
In order to do this kind of construction, you need multiple variances, multiple special permits.
In
Out
17:55
And we're talking about building a simple triple-decker in most cases wouldn't— would not be allowed today without going to the zoning board and the planning board.
In
Out
18:05
And that's a major investment for a small developer in New Bedford.
In
Out
18:09
So I'll just— I think it's really helpful to have some case study examples.
In
Out
18:14
I know I talked a lot about Accushnet Avenue.
In
Out
18:15
We're going to look at 1283, 1289 Accushnet Avenue.
In
Out
18:19
I think everyone's familiar with this lot.
In
Out
18:21
It was lost to a fire over 5 years ago.
In
Out
18:23
It's no longer eligible for the disaster rebuild.
In
Out
18:27
There's a 1-year limit on that.
In
Out
18:29
It's a 5,195-square-foot lot, so it meets the standard currently only for— it doesn't even meet the standard for single-family.
In
Out
18:39
I'm sorry.
In
Out
18:40
But the buildable area of the lot to meet all the setbacks is about 17,000 square feet.
In
Out
18:45
And it's also below the frontage requirement for a multi-unit.
In
Out
18:49
An MUB, you would need 150 feet of frontage on the street.
In
Out
18:53
Typically in our lots in the MUB district, they're between 50 and 80 feet of frontage.
In
Out
19:01
And this is an example of what zoning compliant development looks like.
In
Out
19:05
You can see on the top there, that's from the old fire maps from 1911.
In
Out
19:11
You know, there's that continuity along a cushion and avenue along Sawyer Street and along Ashley Boulevard.
In
Out
19:16
And when we got new development on those sites, the 2 pharmacies that are there met the zoning requirements, they met the setback requirements.
In
Out
19:25
And when you come down those streets, all of a sudden there's this break in the commercial corridor right around late on the sidewalk, and it's set back from with a parking lot.
In
Out
19:37
Everything complies, but you get this complete different development pattern on these infill developments.
In
Out
19:45
And we hear a lot in the news and in planning circles about the need to allow for this missing middle housing.
In
Out
19:54
We call it missing because modern zoning has pretty much made it illegal to do this.
In
Out
20:00
This is the traditional type of housing you see around New Bedford.
In
Out
20:03
It's 3 families up to 8 families, everything above a single-family home and below a giant apartment building.
In
Out
20:12
This is New Bedford's housing stock, and you cannot build it today.
In
Out
20:16
This is an example that Cruz Development was approved for a few years ago for this vacant lot on Jenny Street right near the plumbing supply building that's over there.
In
Out
20:27
This required multiple variances, a special permit from the planning board.
In
Out
20:31
We're proposing some changes to the dimensional table that would eliminate the need for those variances, eliminate the need for those special permits.
In
Out
20:38
But at this scale, you're still going to undergo site plan review from the planning board.
In
Out
20:42
So it would— you'd still retain that public input process for this type of development.
In
Out
20:49
So I think in the past when we've worked through this, uh, here with you all, uh, we've gone through the changes slide by slide and we've taken questions.
In
Out
20:56
If that's acceptable to the chair, we can do that here.
In
Out
20:59
Everyone okay?
In
Out
21:01
So these are our minimum lot size changes.
In
Out
21:03
You can see there's no change to our single-family, our RA district.
In
Out
21:06
We're keeping that at 8,000 square foot minimum, and then we're dropping down our— the— this sort of tiered lot size that we had on all the multifamily districts.
In
Out
21:16
All the uses now, all the residential uses, um, are lumped into the same categories.
In
Out
21:22
Uh, in RB, which is our 2 to 3 family district essentially, uh, that'll be 4,000, 4,000, 4,500 square feet.
In
Out
21:32
Um, RC, which is our densest, uh, residential only district, will go down to 3,000 square feet for a lot size minimum.
In
Out
21:40
That same number will carry over for our mixed-use business district as long as you're doing residential-only development.
In
Out
21:46
And then we'll— we're putting it at 4,000 for mixed-use under the assumption that you'd probably need to provide some sort of parking when you're doing a mixed-use development, and we want to make sure there's room on site for that.
In
Out
21:56
Any questions on this slide from you all?
In
Out
22:03
Oh, do you want to— do you want to Okay, all right, I'm ready whenever you're ready, so it's— that's fine.
In
Out
22:10
Do you want to— yeah, yeah, Chair recognizes Councilor Lopes.
In
Out
22:15
Sure.
In
Out
22:16
Oh, okay, all right, yeah, we'll go through the whole thing.
In
Out
22:18
Fine.
In
Out
22:19
Our, uh, our dwelling units per lot, um, so this is the only change that we're making to our Residence A, our single-family district.
In
Out
22:29
Uh, currently the minimum lot size for Residence A is 8,000 square feet.
In
Out
22:33
But you're only allowed to build on a lot in Residence A if you have 1 dwelling unit per 10,000 square feet.
In
Out
22:41
So that sort of artificially inflates that minimum lot size without actually changing it.
In
Out
22:46
So what we're proposing is just to bring that down into alignment with what the minimum lot size is.
In
Out
22:51
And then across the board, you can see that it kind of steps up based on the number of units and the minimum lot size.
In
Out
22:58
And in MUB, where we really have a lot of those smaller lots, where we're thinking there's going to be a lot more vertical development.
In
Out
23:06
We're keeping— we're not imposing a dwelling unit per lot area minimum there.
In
Out
23:16
Minimum lot frontage, no change for RA, keeping that at 75 feet for the minimum frontage.
In
Out
23:22
And I will say we do have an RAA district, which is some of the subdivisions in the far north end are in this district.
In
Out
23:29
That's completely untouched.
In
Out
23:31
Those are our largest dimensional requirements.
In
Out
23:36
RB is going from— RB, RC, and MUB are all being compressed to 45 feet for all allowed uses.
In
Out
23:45
This is pretty much the lowest frontage we saw for a lot that would be considered buildable in most circumstances.
In
Out
23:55
Our maximum height, you can see from the table there was a lot of tiering here, a lot of exceptions for religious, educational, institutional.
In
Out
24:04
We're again retaining those for RA, but then in our other districts we're eliminating those separate distinctions and just capping the height for all uses across the board.
In
Out
24:13
It's 60 for RB, 60 for RC, and 75 for MUB.
In
Out
24:18
So that would definitely allow for that traditional commercial corridor you see on County Street or Cushing Avenue, where it's a business on the first floor and usually up to 4 stories built above that.
In
Out
24:31
Our maximum building height and stories— again, we're, we're keeping that the same for the residential uses in RA, and we are going to 3 stories for RB, 4 stories for RC, which is the same, and 5 stories for MUB.
In
Out
24:46
There had been a 7-story allowed use there, but We find it unusual that somebody would come for that, and in those cases we would likely see a variance for other for other dimensional requirements no matter what.
In
Out
24:58
Our minimum front yard setback—it's 20 across the board in all the districts.
In
Out
25:03
We're keeping it 20 in RA.
In
Out
25:05
You get that lawn in front of your house and on your single family home.
In
Out
25:08
RB and RC, a five foot front back setback, and then in MUB, there's a minimum of zero.
In
Out
25:14
And you can't go further back than 20.
In
Out
25:16
We're setting a maximum on that where none existed before.
In
Out
25:21
Our side yard setbacks, traditionally 10 and 12 on either side, keeping that for our single-family district and going to 8 feet on both sides for all our multifamily districts.
In
Out
25:34
And maximum lot coverage, and this recognizes sort of that need for green space.
In
Out
25:39
We want to increase it to allow a little bit more buildable area, but we don't want people to be without a backyard, um, in even in the multifamily district.
In
Out
25:48
So they've all ticked up a little bit, but, uh, not anything where you would not get a, uh, a considerable amount of green space.
In
Out
25:57
So we'll switch over to talking about the infill development, and unless it makes sense for you all to pause here and focus on the dimensional changes.
In
Out
26:04
Yeah, okay, pause here because I know Councilor Lopes has questions.
In
Out
26:07
Yeah, I don't want to veer off too far.
In
Out
26:09
So Councilor Lopes.
In
Out
26:11
So, Mike, thank you.
In
Out
26:13
So how many properties do you think we'll be able to bring back online by doing this?
In
Out
26:19
It's very difficult to sort of get at that number based on the data we have.
In
Out
26:23
I mean, we're relying on sort of a GIS analysis of the— what's available in the assessor's data.
In
Out
26:32
Figuring out whether something has enough frontage and all of the variables that go into that are There isn't really a clear-cut way to do it.
In
Out
26:41
I mean, you can look at the numbers, but then the— our consultant, the modeling that they use doesn't know if it even has frontage on a street.
In
Out
26:48
You know, there's, there's sort of all this fine— you'd have to go through and clean a lot of it.
In
Out
26:52
But I would say it's probably more than 500 lots.
In
Out
26:57
Generously, it would probably be more than 1,000.
In
Out
26:59
But I can't say off the top of my head.
In
Out
27:01
I'd just be making up a number.
In
Out
27:03
Listen, I appreciate the honesty.
In
Out
27:04
I figured it'd be a couple hundred when you said 1,000.
In
Out
27:08
I was honestly surprised, you know, that it could be that high.
In
Out
27:12
Yeah.
In
Out
27:12
So this helps alleviate that jack-o'-lantern that we've talked about for years, especially across neighborhoods.
In
Out
27:19
And then second, when you were talking about the multiple buildings per lot, now I may be— I'm confusing it with Fall River, which allows 2, 3 families on the same plot and lot.
In
Out
27:29
Yeah.
In
Out
27:30
Would this allow similar construction?
In
Out
27:32
Yes.
In
Out
27:32
Fall River has eliminated that.
In
Out
27:34
Aspect of their zoning ordinance, um, where you could do, um, you know, sort of like clustered residential development is what I'm thinking.
In
Out
27:40
Like, um, we've got a courtyard, like a garden complex sort of, uh, development.
In
Out
27:47
Um, so right now if you wanted to do that, you'd have to go in and subdivide the lot, which is another permitting hurdle for, for a developer to go through.
In
Out
27:55
We've seen a few people come forward, um, with proposals like that, and honestly the comp— the complexity of doing that without proposing a formal subdivision has sort of turned them away from the process.
In
Out
28:06
And actually, one person told me that he had done it before in Fall River, and he was confused as to why it wasn't allowed in New Bedford.
In
Out
28:13
And I had to point him towards this section of the ordinance.
In
Out
28:15
So I know it's been allowed in Fall River for, for as long as I can— yeah.
In
Out
28:20
And in talking with the zoning commissioner, zoning building commissioner Danny, I mean, he didn't have a memory of why that was on the books, and it predated him.
In
Out
28:30
And from talking with our zoning consultant, It seems to be around the same time a lot of cities in Massachusetts adopted that provision, possibly for fire prevention, prevention before the building code caught up to it.
In
Out
28:42
But I think we've come a long way with the building code since then.
In
Out
28:45
Well, that got me to my next question.
In
Out
28:47
Yeah.
In
Out
28:47
Is the fire department okay with, with that piece of the language where you potentially have 2, 3 families on, you know, the same plot and lot?
In
Out
28:55
I have not discussed it specifically with the fire department.
In
Out
28:58
But they'd be a reviewer on the building permit and they'd be consulted during site plan review like they always are.
In
Out
29:04
Yeah.
In
Out
29:05
You have to have firewalls and certain feet of separation.
In
Out
29:08
So that would just fall through the administrative review system internally from all the departments.
In
Out
29:15
Okay.
In
Out
29:16
Thank you both.
In
Out
29:17
Thank you, Chairman.
In
Out
29:18
Thank you.
In
Out
29:19
I want to acknowledge that Ward 3 Councilor Sean Oliver has joined us as well.
In
Out
29:22
Thank you, Mr.
In
Out
29:23
Chair.
In
Out
29:24
Any other questions for this portion of, uh, the presentation?
In
Out
29:29
Okay, Chair again.
In
Out
29:30
Councilor Ryan is first.
In
Out
29:33
You mentioned earlier on that this ordinance— right into the mic, Councilor, please, so you can hear yourself.
In
Out
29:38
Yeah, I got it.
In
Out
29:39
Thanks, thanks, uh, Chair.
In
Out
29:40
Uh, you mentioned earlier that, um, this ordinance would give the planning board special permit authority.
In
Out
29:47
How is this changing what currently exists?
In
Out
29:50
So that actually was what we were going to get into next in the infill development ordinance we're proposing.
In
Out
29:57
So that'll cover lots that still, even if we adopted all these dimensional changes, would still be missing a few things.
In
Out
30:05
But you could imagine I have an example in here of a lot on either side.
In
Out
30:10
The lots are the same size as this vacant lot.
In
Out
30:12
They both have buildings on them.
In
Out
30:15
You could build the building that's on either side of that lot on that lot, but it doesn't meet the minimum lot size that we're proposing.
In
Out
30:22
And in those cases, that's why we're saying that you could go to the planning board for a special permit to build even lower on the minimum lot size, as long as you can demonstrate that you're going to do something that doesn't outscale your neighbor.
In
Out
30:36
Thanks.
In
Out
30:39
Anyone else?
In
Out
30:41
All right, all right.
In
Out
30:42
And here's the example I was referencing.
In
Out
30:44
Uh, this is, uh, Westside County Street, um, like a couple blocks up from, uh, Linden Square.
In
Out
30:52
Um, this is a building that was demolished sometime around the 1970s.
In
Out
30:56
It's, um, under 3,000 square feet for the lot, so it would be under our— the new minimum lot size we're proposing for, um, the MUB district.
In
Out
31:05
And the abutting lot is a multi-family.
In
Out
31:09
It's a similar size lot with 40 feet of frontage, just like this one.
In
Out
31:14
You could in theory build the same building on that lot.
In
Out
31:18
And we're saying that under the— if you want to go to the next slide, and thank you.
In
Out
31:23
This is the criteria for infill development on parcels under 3,000 square feet.
In
Out
31:28
Prohibited in RA, you're not allowed to go below that.
In
Out
31:31
But in RB, RC, and MUB, you apply for a special permit for the planning board.
In
Out
31:36
If you have a parcel that's over that, in RA, it's a special permit from the planning board.
In
Out
31:41
In RB, MUC, and MUB, it's an administrative site plan review that's done by staff.
In
Out
31:47
And then there's a maximum on, on the— in our multi-family districts, you can only build a triple deck, a 3-family, or a traditional triple-decker.
In
Out
31:56
In RA, you can only build a single family there, and you cannot exceed the density of your densest abutter.
In
Out
32:04
So if you're next— if you have a multi-family lot that's next to a duplex and a single family, you can only build a single family.
In
Out
32:11
You can't build a— you can only build a duplex.
In
Out
32:13
You can't build a single family, and you can't go to a 3-unit.
In
Out
32:18
Your frontage must be enough to allow for off-street parking, so you have to provide a driveway.
In
Out
32:22
The height is capped at 45 feet, which would allow for a traditional 3-family.
In
Out
32:29
2.5 stories in RA.
In
Out
32:31
And then the setbacks, you have the front setback that's in the dimensional table, or you can match the average of your abutting properties.
In
Out
32:40
So if everyone else has a 0 and they're right up against their property line, you can do that as well.
In
Out
32:45
And then your parking must follow the standard off-street parking requirements that exist.
In
Out
32:50
And that is the end of the presentation, and I'm happy to take more questions from you all.
In
Out
32:56
And, uh, Chair recognizes Councilor Choquette on his first.
In
Out
32:59
Hey, sir.
In
Out
33:00
Uh, thank you, Mr.
In
Out
33:01
Chair.
In
Out
33:02
Uh, piggybacking on, uh, Councilor Roy's question, um, so is this removing power from the zoning board and granting this to the planning board to grant special permits?
In
Out
33:16
And if so, is the zoning board then able to appeal that?
In
Out
33:21
And overturn it after the fact?
In
Out
33:23
Like, what— why are we condensing the power of the zoning board and transferring it to the planning board?
In
Out
33:29
This is just a scheme that we've seen based on our— the feedback we had from our zoning consultant work well in other communities that have adopted an infill ordinance.
In
Out
33:40
It sort of almost works as a mini site plan review for these properties, but lumping those in with the site plan review ordinance would have created sort of an administrative complication.
In
Out
33:51
So rather than go to the zoning board for multiple variances and then probably also go to the planning board for relief, we're saying that all relief is handled in a special permit from the planning board, which is deniable.
In
Out
34:02
We wanted to make sure that that was, that was key for those really small lots.
In
Out
34:05
Deniable by the planning board.
In
Out
34:06
Yeah.
In
Out
34:06
Deniable by the zoning board after the fact.
In
Out
34:08
A special permit is deniable by the planning board.
In
Out
34:10
If someone wanted to appeal, they would appeal to the zoning board on that, on an approval from the planning board.
In
Out
34:17
Okay, so you're not removing the zoning board as the final arbiter?
In
Out
34:21
Nope, nope, they would still be the final arbiter.
In
Out
34:22
They would be who someone would appeal to if they, uh, if they felt that they were an aggrieved party for that, uh, for an approval from the planning board.
In
Out
34:29
Okay, all right, thank you.
In
Out
34:31
Thank you, Mr.
In
Out
34:32
Chair.
In
Out
34:34
Anyone else?
In
Out
34:36
Chair Grant, Councillor Lopes.
In
Out
34:37
I just have one last question.
In
Out
34:40
This isn't for new development.
In
Out
34:41
What if somebody's got a single-family house and they want to put an addition on?
In
Out
34:46
Where would we— where would that work within the confines of these 2 proposed proposals?
In
Out
34:51
Sure.
In
Out
34:51
So I think a lot of people who have single-family homes, I think probably most of the people in this room, your home does not— is an existing nonconforming house.
In
Out
35:00
You have either a minimum lot size problem, you have a front setback problem, you have a side setback problem.
In
Out
35:08
It's, as you saw from the table, more than half the single-family homes in New Bedford.
In
Out
35:12
So in those circumstances, since we're not really touching RA, if you wanted to make a change to your home in a way that encroached on your already existing nonconformity.
In
Out
35:23
So if you didn't meet your rear setback and you wanted to build a rear addition on your house, you'd have to go to the zoning board for a variance.
In
Out
35:30
Because in those cases, it's their determination on whether your increasing of your nonconformity is more or less detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood.
In
Out
35:41
And we felt that's, that's like the basis of the zoning board to hear those types of cases.
In
Out
35:47
We didn't want to go so far as to remove that power from them.
In
Out
35:51
I was making that assumption, but I didn't want to assume.
In
Out
35:53
So yeah, thank you.
In
Out
35:54
Appreciate it.
In
Out
35:54
Thank you.
In
Out
35:55
Thank you, Chair.
In
Out
35:58
Any other questions?
In
Out
36:02
All right.
In
Out
36:03
Seeing none, this is a public hearing.
In
Out
36:06
Anyone here wish to speak?
In
Out
36:09
In favor.
In
Out
36:19
Armando Pereira, Comprehensive Design Build Services.
In
Out
36:23
Good evening, Chair Burgo and members of the Ordinance Committee.
In
Out
36:28
Um, I know he's not here, but I do have to put this disclaimer.
In
Out
36:31
I just want anybody to be aware of that I am not related to Council President Ryan Pereira.
In
Out
36:38
We're just lucky to have the same last name, right?
In
Out
36:40
So I just needed to get that cleared up.
In
Out
36:43
I'm going to give you a couple of definitions, um, that are, are part of our, our codes and whatnot.
In
Out
36:52
Um, I'm all in favor of everything that's going on here.
In
Out
36:55
I just want to clear up a couple of things of my opinion on the multi, uh, use business.
In
Out
37:05
So a story is that portion of a building that includes the upper surface of the area that you're standing on until the upper surface of the level up above.
In
Out
37:22
A basement obviously is a story that's below grade.
In
Out
37:27
Then we also have stories above grade, and the story above grade is basically a space that is classified that's more than 6 feet out of the ground.
In
Out
37:39
So as we're trying to increase this, as we need for the residential in the city, one of the things that I caution people is that we have to look at what was defined here, and I'm okay with this But there's only one thing that I think that needs to be really changed, and that is when we define story, it's got to be defined as habitable story.
In
Out
38:06
In the example that I have, and I have a project right now that we go down 2 feet and we are hitting ledge, it gets very expensive to hit, to, to get rid of ledge, but we can use it as a portion of our foundation by attaching to it, and it gives us a real good base.
In
Out
38:25
So if I'm going down 2 feet and I'm putting in a 10-foot-high garage or a 9-foot-high garage, I'm above 6 feet.
In
Out
38:36
So therefore, we're already going to be hindered by one fact, and that is that that's going to be classified as a story.
In
Out
38:45
When you look at The interpretation of Section 1009.2.1 of the building code, which is elevators, it basically talks about 4 or more stories above or below the level of exit discharge.
In
Out
39:01
That is, an exit discharge is your horizontal plane that you are leaving.
In
Out
39:07
I happen to be part of SABOA, Southeastern Building Officials Organization, and I was at one of their meetings and it was brought up and I needed to get a clarification of how that level— the levels are being determined, and it is basically based on the European method.
In
Out
39:24
So Europe, ground zero is zero, your first floor starts above.
In
Out
39:30
So if we look at it and we have 5 habitable stories above a parking garage, we're going to be required an elevator.
In
Out
39:41
It's just a given.
In
Out
39:43
Um, the other thing too is that it's going to allow us in this area— and I've got quite a few buildings that I'm designing where we're restricted to the lot size, but we have to comply with the parking.
In
Out
39:56
So therefore, we've got to use the lower level or ground or go subterranean to provide the parking.
In
Out
40:04
So I'm looking at it, and I caution that Just that little word, I think it's going to make a big difference when it goes to in front of the building commissioner to help clarify and simplify approvals.
In
Out
40:19
So again, it goes back to the same thing.
In
Out
40:20
So we're not going in front of all these boards because of all these requests.
In
Out
40:27
Um, the other thing that's not being discussed, I haven't heard discussed anyway here, is we're going through all these changes, which is great.
In
Out
40:34
But I think when we look at multi-use business, if we are going to be going and putting parking underneath the building, I think one of the things that we also should take into consideration is probably the rear yard should probably be considered to be reduced as well.
In
Out
40:48
I'm thinking maybe a 50% of the 30 feet that's required right now.
In
Out
40:53
Um, this is very important because of one thing.
In
Out
40:59
When we discuss the need for residential, and pretty much all the people that I'm working on, it's all— there's no money coming in from the state, and you're going to see a lot of developers that come in.
In
Out
41:15
So when you start looking at that, these developers are going to be charging market rate.
In
Out
41:23
So right now I got maybe about 100 apartments that I'm working on in the city.
In
Out
41:28
They'll be new in the next couple of months.
In
Out
41:31
If you put 100 apartments out there that are market rate, you've got people that are residing in multifamilies that can afford that and probably want to get away from that type of neighborhood, the multifamily neighborhood, and they'd rather live in a bigger building that they could actually be part of a community, because that's what you're doing.
In
Out
41:52
You're creating a micro-community, a micro-city.
In
Out
41:55
Inside of that.
In
Out
41:57
And when we look at that, you're gonna open up those 100 apartments of these people that are going in there.
In
Out
42:06
You're opening up 100 apartments in these multifamilies.
In
Out
42:11
So what's gonna happen is people are gonna be fighting for people to be in their apartments because they need to keep them rented.
In
Out
42:18
I got lucky.
In
Out
42:19
I invested when the market was really, really low.
In
Out
42:22
25 years ago, so I don't have this huge mortgage.
In
Out
42:26
I can afford to have 1 or 2 apartments that are empty for a year if I need to.
In
Out
42:31
But you got people that have these homes that have to have them rented.
In
Out
42:35
And again, supply and demand.
In
Out
42:37
Well, if there's a lot of supply and there's a demand to rent them, people are going to have to fight for those people and they're going to adjust their rates.
In
Out
42:44
So I think it's a good thing.
In
Out
42:48
Again, I go back to just that little word, habitable story.
In
Out
42:53
I think that's a key thing that we've got to take into consideration, and if we define it that way, I think it's going to help out.
In
Out
43:03
I can design a 6-story building and be under 75 feet.
In
Out
43:09
It's just a given.
In
Out
43:10
So the 75 feet doesn't bother me.
In
Out
43:12
Again, I'm just looking at Let's get habitable story instead of just a regular story.
In
Out
43:19
I think it would help out everybody and every developer that's coming into the city.
In
Out
43:24
And, uh, we're looking to keep plugging away and providing these buildings.
In
Out
43:30
But again, it goes back to what was brought up, to also prevent and try to expedite our permitting, prevent hurdles.
In
Out
43:38
And God knows I think there's only one councillor in here that's heard me complain about some of the hurdles.
In
Out
43:44
I'm not going to bring it up to him.
In
Out
43:45
But anyways, um, good evening and thank you for letting me speak.
In
Out
43:51
Thank you, Mr. Pereira.
In
Out
43:54
Anyone else wish to speak in favor?
In
Out
43:56
Be recorded in favor.
In
Out
43:59
Speak in favor.
In
Out
44:00
Recorded in favor.
In
Out
44:02
Anyone wish to speak in opposition?
In
Out
44:04
Speak in opposition.
In
Out
44:07
Be recorded in opposition.
In
Out
44:09
Be recorded in opposition.
In
Out
44:12
All right, seeing none, um, anything else from the body?
In
Out
44:23
Any other questions?
In
Out
44:24
Any other changes, suggestions?
In
Out
44:29
No?
In
Out
44:29
Okay, so I guess at this point we would close the public hearing.
In
Out
44:32
Motion made by— so moved— Councilor Carney, seconded by Councilor Pemberton.
In
Out
44:39
Anyone on the question of closing the public hearing?
In
Out
44:42
Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.
In
Out
44:45
Any opposed?
In
Out
44:45
The ayes have it.
In
Out
44:49
All right, what is your— the will of the body for this item?
In
Out
45:00
Make a motion that we refer 1, 1A, 1B, 2, and 2A to the full city council with a positive recommendation.
In
Out
45:06
Oh, we're just on 1, 1A, 1B right now.
In
Out
45:09
Oh, okay.
In
Out
45:09
I thought we did infill the same.
In
Out
45:10
Oh, did we do 2?
In
Out
45:12
No, just 1, 1A, 1B.
In
Out
45:14
1, 1, 1, 1A, and 1B that we refer to the full city council with a positive recommendation.
In
Out
45:20
Motion made by Councilor Lopes.
In
Out
45:24
Second by Councilor Pemberton.
In
Out
45:26
Anyone on the question?
In
Out
45:32
Chair recognizes Councilor Trickett on the question.
In
Out
45:34
On this first.
In
Out
45:35
Yes, thank you, Mr.
In
Out
45:36
Chair.
In
Out
45:38
Again, maybe it's because I served on the zoning board for several years before I became a city councilor, but I was curious.
In
Out
45:45
I mean, can we get more information on this consultant report?
In
Out
45:49
That Mr. McCarthy had spoke of?
In
Out
45:52
How would we do that?
In
Out
45:53
Is there any way?
In
Out
45:53
Because I'd like to see what the, you know, the rationale was behind doing that.
In
Out
45:59
There is— it's my understanding there is no report.
In
Out
46:01
I don't know if Assistant Director McCarthy wants to speak to that.
In
Out
46:06
Yeah, I'm sorry.
In
Out
46:09
So we, we worked with, um, our, our land use consultant, and, and as, uh, Land Strategies Group, who has worked on this whole zoning package.
In
Out
46:19
Their role was really doing some research on what other cities have for their standards, comparing them to ours, and then making the ordinance language recommendations and doing that, that sort of GIS analysis, which is essentially that table and a few other smaller tables that we bounce back and forth with them to reach the numbers that we're at here.
In
Out
46:45
There's no like a— I don't have like a, like a desktop published report for this.
In
Out
46:50
It's more of a collection of memos between, between us and them.
In
Out
46:55
Okay.
In
Out
47:01
I mean, my, my recommendation would be— this is just mine— I'd like to table this until we can see some of that information.
In
Out
47:10
Again, I'm not saying I'm necessarily against this, but I, you know, before we vote for anything that, you know, removes even some power from the Zoning Board of Appeals and gives it to the planning board, I mean, I would definitely want to be able to say that I at least saw the justification and the data behind that.
In
Out
47:30
So, Council President, if you'd allow me to respond to that.
In
Out
47:35
So we're going to be going through the table of uses because they're coming up next, because you had asked for some changes.
In
Out
47:43
And when we went through the table of uses, we changed a lot of the special permit authority, um, in that update from the zoning board to the planning board.
In
Out
47:54
And I do want to enforce that in this particular case for the dimensional The reason that I understand your and recognize your concern that this was this, you know, when it comes to dimensional regulations, it was usually in the past reviewed by the zoning board.
In
Out
48:15
But one of the things that we've been doing through the zoning reform is to facilitate permitting and take away some of the barriers of permitting.
In
Out
48:25
So if we were didn't change it.
In
Out
48:28
To the special permit going to the planning board, we'd be back to where we are now, where a development has to go to the zoning board for a variance and then to the planning board for a site plan review.
In
Out
48:40
So consolidating it under the planning board, which is a special permitting authority under 40A, just as the city council is and the zoning board, it just facilitates development and takes away a step and a cost and a time lined for potential development.
In
Out
48:59
Um, I would, I would do an analogy that we're going to be talking about in the next few minutes, that you've requested taking things from the zoning board and bringing it to the city council as the special permit authority.
In
Out
49:13
So we're doing it here, but we're doing it for the reason to expedite permitting under one authority, and so somebody doesn't have to go to 2 boards.
In
Out
49:24
And it's really simple.
In
Out
49:25
We're talking setbacks that, you know, I think the planning board has the same expertise and authority as the zoning board when it comes to dimensional regulations.
In
Out
49:38
So really, that's— that was really the thought process between— behind that.
In
Out
49:42
But I do recognize you're pointing that out and recognizing the change.
In
Out
49:48
Yeah, I just, you know, before I put my stamp on something personally, you know, I always want to make sure I have the data and I've read everything.
In
Out
49:56
And, and as you noted, if there is an appeal at the planning board, it can be appealed to the zoning board.
In
Out
50:04
To the zone board.
In
Out
50:05
Okay.
In
Out
50:07
All right.
In
Out
50:07
Thank you.
In
Out
50:09
All right.
In
Out
50:10
So I've allowed some leeway there, obviously, since, um, the, the motion at hand is on referral out of committee with a favorable recommendation.
In
Out
50:19
Anyone on the question of that motion?
In
Out
50:22
Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.
In
Out
50:24
Roll call.
In
Out
50:25
Oh, can we do that?
In
Out
50:27
Well, you can, but you usually do it beforehand.
In
Out
50:30
Sorry, but since everyone's learning today, we will do a roll call.
In
Out
50:34
Um, no, um, I'll ask the clerk to call the roll on the motion to refer to the full city council for a favorable recommendation.
In
Out
50:42
Okay, Councilor Virgo?
In
Out
50:46
Uh, yes.
In
Out
50:47
Yes.
In
Out
50:48
Councilor Carney?
In
Out
50:49
Yes.
In
Out
50:50
Yes.
In
Out
50:51
Councilor Choquette?
In
Out
50:53
Yes.
In
Out
50:54
Yes.
In
Out
50:56
Councilor Gomes?
In
Out
50:57
Yes.
In
Out
50:58
Yes.
In
Out
50:59
Councilor Oliver— I'm sorry, Councilor Lopes?
In
Out
51:03
I'm still here.
In
Out
51:05
Yes.
In
Out
51:06
Yes.
In
Out
51:07
Now Councilor Oliver.
In
Out
51:08
Yes.
In
Out
51:09
Yes.
In
Out
51:10
Councillor Pemberton?
In
Out
51:11
Yes.
In
Out
51:12
Yes.
In
Out
51:12
And Councillor Roy?
In
Out
51:13
Yes.
In
Out
51:14
Yes.
In
Out
51:15
Passes 8 to 0.
In
Out
51:18
8 passes 8 to 0.
In
Out
51:19
I'll ask the clerk to read item 2 and 2A into the record.
In
Out
51:25
Mr.
In
Out
51:26
Chair, item number 2 is a public hearing continued on an ordinance amending Chapter 9 Appendix A Table of Principal Use Regulations referred to committee on October 9th, 2025.
In
Out
51:35
It was duly advertised in the Standard Times on November 6th and 13th of 2025.
In
Out
51:40
On November 20th and December 15th of 2025, the public hearing was continued.
In
Out
51:45
On January 26th of 2026, the public hearing was canceled due to a snowstorm, and it was duly readvertised in the Standard Times on February 24th and March 3rd of 2026.
In
Out
51:55
2A is a communication.
In
Out
51:56
Anne Laurel, Acting Director of the Planning Department, to Councilor Ryan J. Pereira.
In
Out
52:00
Chairman of the Committee on Ordinances, advising that the Planning Board held a public hearing on Wednesday, November 12th, 2025, to discuss a request made by the City Council for the Planning Board to review and make a recommendation relative to amending Chapter 9, Appendix A, Table of Principal Use Regulations, Sections 4800, 4900, and 4300 regarding the special permit granting authority for specific uses.
In
Out
52:24
The Planning Board voted to send a favorable recommendation for the ordinance amendment ordinance amendment, with the exception of the changes proposed to batch asphalt and concrete plants and contractors' yards based on the comments received during their public hearing.
In
Out
52:38
That communication was received by the committee on November 14th, 2025.
In
Out
52:44
So this is a continued public hearing.
In
Out
52:46
Again, Assistant Directors McCarthy and Lauro are here to present.
In
Out
52:54
Hello again.
In
Out
52:55
I don't have a presentation on this.
In
Out
52:58
It was a pretty simple referral from you all to the planning board.
In
Out
53:02
I can summarize the memo that we provided.
In
Out
53:05
I think it said it in the— in their summarized recommendation.
In
Out
53:13
They heard from a few people at the, at the meeting that the outright prohibition of a contractor's yard would be— would create complications for people trying to run that type of business out of the city.
In
Out
53:27
So that's the genesis for that recommendation.
In
Out
53:30
I think generally what the board thought and what we thought afterwards was this is a good use of the special permit system for a contractor's yard, preferably in an industrially zoned district.
In
Out
53:45
I think a lot of the examples where we've seen this be a complication are— I note these in the staff report to the planning board, which came with our, uh, with our referring letter.
In
Out
53:57
In 2021, um, the— there was a motion from the council for a rezoning request, um, on Southside Howard Street, which is, uh, on the corner of Howard and Belleville Avenue, to rezone that to allow for a contractor's yard.
In
Out
54:13
The planning board sent an unfavorable recommendation, and I believe this body denied the rezoning request.
In
Out
54:21
On, on the grounds that it directly abuts residential uses.
In
Out
54:26
And then in 2024, we saw a zoning board case.
In
Out
54:30
The zoning and building commissioner denied someone's application to use a Residence B zoned lot for a contractor's yard.
In
Out
54:38
They made an appeal to the zoning board on that denial, and the zoning board denied that again.
In
Out
54:45
And recently, the planning board approved contractor storage spaces at the old Sunbeam factory, but put some pretty heavy— that's an industrially zoned property, and they put some heavy, some pretty heavy restrictions on the time of business usage of that property.
In
Out
55:01
So we've seen, um, uh, in the intervening months I've done a little bit of research on what a performance criteria would be for a special permit.
In
Out
55:09
I think generally it's, um, making— I, I would say we need to propose a specific ordinance change for that, but It would be allowing for some kind of hazardous material control, make sure there's not big piles of gravel and mulch hanging around, make sure even if it is industrially zoned like Sunbeam, like a lot of our places in the Near North End, industrial lots abut residential lots, making sure there isn't an additional buffer requirement there so that these contractors' yards— where I recognize people have to get up early and get started and get on a job site.
In
Out
55:43
We want to make sure that kind of activity isn't interfering with the, uh, the residential abutters.
In
Out
55:47
I think that that was also the source of the concern, uh, when we presented, uh, last year on this.
In
Out
55:53
Um, but I'll, I'll let you all discuss that.
In
Out
55:55
And then the other, uh, concern that the planning board had was, was the outright prohibition of, uh, the asphalt and concrete plant.
In
Out
56:01
And I believe that came from some discussion back and forth here between Councilor Pereira and Attorney Garatowski over whether or not that was a— prohibiting that use was allowed under state law.
In
Out
56:13
And I, I think that's been worked out.
In
Out
56:14
I'm not, I'm not quite sure, but they were, uh, hesitant to prohibit it throughout the city.
In
Out
56:19
It wouldn't eliminate the only batch concrete plant we have.
In
Out
56:22
That would still just continue as an existing non-conforming use.
In
Out
56:25
And that is the summary of the discussion.
In
Out
56:29
They were in favor of all the other, uh, special permit changes that you all wanted to make.
In
Out
56:35
Thank you.
In
Out
56:36
Any questions from the body?
In
Out
56:41
Seeing none, what's your pleasure?
In
Out
56:45
Motion to refer out to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation would be appropriate.
In
Out
56:50
Thank you.
In
Out
56:51
Motion made by Councilor Gomes, seconded by Councilor Carney.
In
Out
56:53
Anyone on the question?
In
Out
56:56
Seeing none, I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.
In
Out
57:04
Councillor Burgo?
In
Out
57:05
Yes.
In
Out
57:05
Yes.
In
Out
57:06
Councillor Carney?
In
Out
57:07
Yes.
In
Out
57:07
Yes.
In
Out
57:08
Councillor Chouquette?
In
Out
57:09
Yes.
In
Out
57:10
Yes.
In
Out
57:11
Councillor Gomes?
In
Out
57:12
Yes.
In
Out
57:12
Yes.
In
Out
57:13
Councillor Lopes?
In
Out
57:14
Yes.
In
Out
57:14
Yes.
In
Out
57:15
Councillor Oliver?
In
Out
57:16
Yes.
In
Out
57:16
Yes.
In
Out
57:16
Councillor Pemberton?
In
Out
57:18
Yes.
In
Out
57:19
Yes.
In
Out
57:19
Councillor Roy?
In
Out
57:21
Yes.
In
Out
57:22
Yes.
In
Out
57:24
8 to 0 passes.
In
Out
57:25
8 to 0.
In
Out
57:27
That is our agenda for the night.
In
Out
57:28
A motion to adjourn made by Councilor Oliver, seconded by Councilor Pemberton.
In
Out
57:34
Anyone on the question of adjournment?
In
Out
57:37
Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.
In
Out
57:39
Aye.
In
Out
57:39
Any opposed?
In
Out
57:40
The ayes have it.
In
Out
57:41
We are adjourned at 7:57 PM.
In
Out