Ordinance and Administration Committee

RECEIVED By Ellie at 3:48 pm, 5/20/21 AMESBURY CITY HALL 62 Friend Street Amesbury, MA 01913 City Council Ordinance Committee Meeting Minutes Tuesday, March 16, 2021 Virtual meeting This meeting was conducted under the ‘Executive Order Suspending Certain Provisions of the Open Meeting Law G.L. c.30A, §20’, signed on March 12, 2020. The public can view this meeting on ACTV Channel 12, the ACTV website, or ACTV’s Facebook page. Public comment was made available by email ahead of time. Councilor Mandeville called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM Roll Call was taken and present were: Atty. Johnson, Councilor Lennon, Atty. Raffa, Councilor Rinaldi and Councilor Mandeville. Minutes  Atty. Raffa noted there were grammatical corrections that needed to be made on the minutes. Councilor Rinaldi motioned to approve the minutes as modified. Councilor Lennon seconded this motion. Roll call was taken. 5 out of 5 members voted yes. Motion passed. 2021-042  Councilor Lennon shared her support for this order.  Councilor Mandeville shared he is a co-sponsor as well as his support for this order.  Councilor Wheeler shared he is a co-sponsor and is also in support of this order. He explained how this order would include the Open Space, Natural Resources and Trails Committee in the distribution of referrals so they can provide their advice in regards to the open space and other aspects. Councilor Lennon motioned to send Order 2021-042 back to City Council with a positive recommendation. Councilor Rinaldi seconded this motion. Roll call was taken, 5 out 5 members voted yes. Motion passed. 2021-043  Councilor Rinaldi clarified the order meant that no electronic signs were permitted in the City of Amesbury. He posed the question if it should be prohibited or zoned.  Atty. Raffa commented how she thought the language needed clarification on the types of signs in the order. o Councilor Mandeville asked if she could work on suggested language for the order.  o She said she could.  Councilor Lennon shared she is a co-sponsor as well as in support of this order. She stated she thought of this ordinance as drawing a line in the sand as to what is and is not acceptable in the City. She said she is not opposed to having this order tabled and discussed at the future Ordinance Committee meeting.  Councilor Mandeville stated his support for this order. He went on to explain how the order in place currently limits the types and amounts of signage in the City. He pointed out that the current order holds room for loopholes as it is for business/people to get around the signage restrictions. He thinks most billboards are an eye sore. He stated his motivation for co-sponsoring is to close the loops holes on billboard signage and electronic billboard signage restrictions. He stated he thinks the potential financial benefits that would come with billboard signage are not at a threshold that is worth the disruption to the natural parts of the City.  Councilor Rinaldi requested clarification about how if this order became an ordinance, under no circumstances could someone put up a sign that could be beneficial. o Councilor Mandeville answered by explaining the language in the order describes electronic signs and billboards of various dimensions and uses and that none of them would be allowed. o Councilor Rinaldi stated he believes some businesses could benefits from these types of signs.  Mayor Gove stated she would like to see the order refined. She commented about the current bylaw having a clearer definition of the types of signs and the zoning restrictions than the one being proposed. She said the exemptions were not clear enough, for specific example the electronic trailer signs used by the city for information and events. If this proposal were to be accepted then the trailer sign would have to be replaced by the letter board sign outside of City Hall but give way to new electronic sign, which would not be permitted within this ordinance. She believes the way finding and advertising could be beneficial to small and local businesses in town if regulated properly to keep up with aesthetics. She concluded with her two concerns: o The language is too broad, this is an opportunity to do this and do this well. o To be thoughtful of what the ordinance restricts.  Councilor Einson wanted to clarify a few points: o For an example, if there was a digital sign hanging in a business, say Planet Fitness for the sake of this example, and it was displaying upcoming events and other news and was able to be seen from the parking lot; would that be banned under the proposed ordinance? o Councilor Mandeville responded yes. o He wanted to point out there are no regulations in the bylaws for digital signs but are for electronic signs right now. He stated there is some murkiness about the differentiation between them.  Councilor Mandeville responded to these comments by saying he believes the current language talks about digital signs and rolling sign boards. o Councilor Einson referred to the digital sign near the sports park that displays the time and temperature and asked if that would have to be taken down if the order is passed.  Councilor Mandeville responded that there was a grandfather clause and existing signs would be grandfathered in.  o Councilor Einson asked how would this grandfather clause be codified and enforced. Following up his question he stated there would need to be language in the order that described pre-existing signage exemptions and regulations.  Councilor Mandeville agreed that would be language that would need to be added in and he does not think it is legal or ethical to pass legislation that would remove things that are already in place.  Councilor Mandeville summarized the discussion up to this point by stating the order needs language to provide clarification between digital and electronic signs as well as address the pre-existing signs.  Councilor Wheeler wanted to address his interpretation of the language in the order giving the example of the menu boards outside of Dunkin Donuts and McDonalds that change with the time of day for breakfast and lunch. His interpretation is that those signs would be banned based on the order. o Councilor Mandeville replied saying he does not think it was the intention to eliminate something like a menu board at McDonald’s however as the order stands now this would become a casualty. He stated this would need to be addressed in the review of the order as well. o He remarked on how everywhere he goes there are advertisements all around and it is intrusive. o He said he does appreciate that McDonald’s has the electronic menu sign and the City Hall would like a digital board to display events and messages.  Councilor Einson requested clarification on the rules of returning the order back to City Council with no recommendation at the time if the Council were allowed to vote on it at the City Council meeting without continuing it to the next Ordinance Committee meeting. o Councilor Wheeler responded by saying when there is a proposed zoning amendment the planning board is required to have their own public hearing as a requirement under Chapter 40A, section 5 of Mass General Law. The planning board has up to 65 days in which to hold a public hearing. This being said the City Council cannot approve it before that time expires, they may keep continuing it. After the planning board holds their public hearing they have a further 21 days to issue a report on their findings. He mentioned if the planning board takes the full 65 days to hold the public hearing and the full 21 days afterwards, the City Council would not be able to pass the zoning measure for roughly 3 months and cannot accelerate it beyond the timeline mandated by the state. o Councilor Einson clarified that City Council cannot vote on this matter until they receive the recommendation from the planning board? o Councilor Wheeler responded by saying, not finally. The City Council is allowed to make recommendations, discuss and continue it.  Councilor Stanganelli noted that as a sponsor it is not his intention to be prohibiting the promotion of a product at a local store. The intention is to maintain the open space and limit light pollution. Although the big billboard signs generate income for the City, it would take roughly 6 or 7 to make a financial impact, this does not seem like a good cause to change the character of Amesbury for. Councilor Lennon motioned to continue Order 2021-043 to the next regularly scheduled Ordinance Committee meeting with no recommendation at this time. Attorney Raffa seconded this motion. Roll call was taken, 5 out of 5 members voted yes. Motion passed. 2021-044   Councilor Stanganelli said this order was proposed to help address some of the concerns for people who are on fixed incomes mainly the City’s senior citizens.  Councilor Lennon noted that after referring this order at the first reading during the City Council meeting, the Council requested that at the second reading of order 2021-044 at the City Council meeting that the CFO be able to speak, respond and give an idea as to how this proposal will financially effect the City. o Councilor Mandeville clarified that the CFO was to speak at the Finance Committee meeting. o Councilor Lennon suggested the committee table this order until the Finance Committee where the CFO will be explaining in further detail the benefits and drawbacks of this order.  Councilor Wheeler asked about if this order gets passed where would the by law be placed in the E-Code, would it be under the general legislation or would a new section have to be created? The Ordinance Committee would most likely need to make a recommendation on its placement.  Councilor Stanganelli reiterated that the CFO would be speaking at the Finance Committee meeting as well as the City’s Assessor. He had also sent an invitation out to the Assessors of Salem, Wakefield and North Reading. o He noted that the Ordinance Committee would still have a role to play tonight by reading through the language and identifying anything that needs to be added or subtracted, recommending a place in the E-Code, and any feedback on the ordinance side of things.  Councilor Mandeville stated he believes Councilor Wheeler makes a good point by saying the committee needs to figure out where this ordinance would fit into the bylaws.  Councilor Rinaldi stated that tabling this order and working on the language and logistics would be a good option. He mentioned that he does not believe this type of bylaw is codified on the state level and would have to be filed as a home-rule petition. o Councilor Stanganelli said in the interviews with the other City’s officials, they had to file home-ruled petitions to implement this type of ordinance. Councilor Rinaldi motioned to continue Order 2021-044 to the next regularly scheduled Ordinance Committee meeting with no recommendation at this time pending financial information and bylaw placement revision. Attorney Johnson seconded this motion. Roll call was taken, 5 out of 5 members voted yes. Motion passed. 2021-048  Mayor Gove started off by saying this ordinance was talked about long before she held the title of Mayor and has only gained traction. She said many people have recommended a speed limit shift to the Police Department and the Department of Public Works. She said that because of so many people being home for the past year and walking around their neighborhoods and on their streets, they have become aware of how fast people will drive on their roads.  Councilor Gilday stated that this new provision to the Mass General Law, Chapter 90 section 17c, allows for cities to “opt in” through discussions and votes via the City Council or Selectman, to change the minimum speed in thickly settled residential areas and business districts from 30mph. o She said there has been many requests for changing the speed limit in thickly settled residential areas and business districts to 25mph. o She said this is an option that the state allows cities to enact through their municipalities. o She said she does not believe this bill needs to have the language ripped apart and sifted through very thoroughly because it has already been reviewed.  Deputy Chief Bailey reiterated his support and the support he has heard for this ordinance. He stated that the Police Department would be the one taking the frustration for the people unhappy about the change in the speed limit. He believes that this law is good and for the public’s safety.  DPW Director, Rob Desmarais started off by saying he has been on the Traffic and Transportation Committee for roughly 6 years and involved with the committee for many years before that. In this time there have been many requests of this nature.  Councilor Lennon asked for clarification on the roads considered a state roadway and are not open for the ordinance to effect. o Rob Desmarais replied, the state owns Route 110, Merrill Street, and Route 150 from Route 110 to Beacon Street (not in the other direction). o Councilor Lennon wanted to voice her support for this ordinance.  Attorney Raffa, recommended changing the style of the order. The four paragraphs that start “Whereas” should be moved to above the paragraph “Be it Ordered by the City Council…”  Councilor Wheeler wanted to suggest that as the language is amended, there is a reference to Section 7-21 to the Traffic and Parking Regulations, it is amended correctly, because it says to insert these four lines of text but he wonders if it would be easier to just simply delete the word “thirty” and insert the word “twenty-five” after bullet two on the 6th line that says, “inside a thinly settled or business district at a rate of speed exceeding thirty miles per hour for a distance of one-eighth of a mile…” o He suggested this because it is not clear if this language is being inserted or the actual way the language will be amended to incorporate amendment.  Councilor Mandeville asked about the process for neighborhoods and citizens on streets that do not fall under this bylaw but request that their speed limit get changed. o Rob Desmarais replied by saying although he has not done a complete analysis of every street in town, the only street he could find that did not meet the criteria for thickly settled was Lion’s Mouth Road. There is a section by Cider Hill Farm that is questionable.  Councilor Mandeville addressed Deputy Chief Bailey by asking about if the Police Department has enough capacity to enforce the 25mph switch since he said previously there was trouble enforcing the 30mph laws. o Deputy Chief Bailey stated that it was not so much that there has been trouble enforcing the speeding laws, however over the past year with the pandemic the officers were less likely to pull people over as not to catch or spread the virus.  Mr. Stevenson, a resident of Amesbury, commended the work between the DPW, the City Council, the Police Department, and the Mayor’s office.  Sally Nutt., a resident, thanked Councilor Gilday for being so proactive with this initiative. She is in huge support of this order. Councilor Rinaldi motioned to send Order 2021-048 back to City Council with a positive recommendation. Councilor Lennon seconded this motion. No roll call was taken. Councilor Rinaldi motioned to send Order 2021-048 back to City Council with a positive recommendation pending Attorney Raffa’s suggested amendment of moving the fourth “Whereas” paragraph to above the “Be it Ordered” language for style purposes. Councilor Lennon seconded this motion. Roll call was taken, 5 out of 5 members voted yes. Motion passed. Councilor Lennon motioned to adjourn. Attorney Raffa seconded this motion. Roll call was taken, 4 out of 5 members voted yes (Mandeville no). Motion passed. Meeting adjourned at 8:27 PM.