The Committee on Ordinances of New Bedford City Council continued a public hearing Sept. 29 on proposed changes to the zoning codedefinitions and Appendix A, the table of principal use regulations, and approved a package of amendments and referrals to the city solicitor to be drafted into ordinances.

The hearing focused on correcting inconsistencies between the adopted use table and the zoning ordinance, reallocating special-permit granting authority for certain uses, and narrowing where a number of industrial activities may locate. Planning staff said the changes were largely meant to align the table with existing special regulation language in the zoning ordinance and to clarify where uses are appropriate.

City planner Michael (Mike) McCarthy, assistant city planner, told the committee the primary goal was to “defer to what was written in the zoning ordinance” where the table conflicted with ordinance text. He described examples where the table and ordinance named different permit authorities and said the staff edits move the table back to the authority identified in the ordinance. McCarthy said the planning office also adjusted which districts would allow certain uses, for example narrowing assisted- and independent-living facility locations and removing some uses from industrial districts when they were a poor fit.

Why it matters

Zoning use tables and the special-permit process determine which projects must come before the council, the planning board or the zoning board of appeals. Committee members repeatedly framed the changes as consequential for neighborhood quality of life, waterfront uses and the council’s prerogative to review certain proposals.

Key changes and committee action

- The committee received and placed on file the planning department packet summarizing proposed edits (motion by Councilor Joseph Lopes; second by Councilor Maria Giesta; voice vote approved).

- The committee voted to revert several permit-authority entries so that the City Council (CC) rather than the Zoning Board of Appeals (BA) would be the special-permit granting authority for a set of uses identified by councilors, including material salvage/recycling and related biomass/recycling-collection categories (motion introduced by Councilor Leo Schochet; seconded by Council President Shane Burgo; voice vote approved). Planning staff and some councilors said they also want legal research on whether certain industrial uses can be made outright prohibited ("N") under state law before such a change is finalized.

- Wireless communications facility authority was changed back to the Planning Board (PB), consistent with the ordinance text (motion by Councilor Linda Morad; seconded by Councilor Brian Gomes; voice vote approved).

- Batch asphalt and concrete plants: committee members moved to pursue making these uses not permitted (N) in certain industrial categories; the committee approved an amendment to change the capacity to pursue that outcome, subject to legal review (voice vote approved).

- A roll-call vote changed the status of "Contractor's Yard" from permitted to not permitted (N) in Industrial A and Industrial B zones. The clerk recorded the roll call and the amendment passed 7to2 (roll-call recorded in the minutes).

- Freight terminals and "heavy material sales and distribution" were amended so that the City Council would be the special-permit granting authority in industrial categories rather than the Board of Appeals (voice vote approved).

- After the floor amendments, the committee voted to refer the entire package and the committee''s motions to the city solicitor for ordinance drafting and further legal research, especially on the question whether some industrial uses can be zoned out under state law. The report with drafted ordinance language will be returned to the full City Council and then re-advertised for hearings with the Planning Board and Ordinances Committee.

What councilors said

Councilor Linda Morad pressed planning staff and the city solicitor to restore permit authority to the council for several uses and said she was uncomfortable relinquishing review authority to the Board of Appeals on questions affecting neighborhood quality of life. Councilor Joseph Lopes and others raised concerns about noisy waterfront industrial activities already adjacent to residences and urged tighter controls or prohibitions for specific uses. Councilor Leo Schochet proposed a broad change to move several industrial permit authorities to the council; that motion was adopted as part of the package.

Legal and process points

City Solicitor David Garatowski repeatedly advised the committee that where the use table and the zoning ordinance conflict, the ordinance text controls and staff were right to revert the table to ordinance language. He also said certain changes could be implemented by ordinance but cautioned that state law can limit a municipality's ability to ban longstanding industrial uses; that question will be part of the solicitor's research before final ordinances are filed.

Next steps

The committee directed the solicitor to draft ordinances reflecting the committee's amendments and to research whether particular industrial uses can be changed to "not permitted" under state law. The package will be placed on the full City Council agenda; if the council approves, the specific amendments will be re-advertised and sent to the Planning Board and this committee for formal public hearings (the clerk noted an upcoming full council meeting on Oct. 9 when further actions could be taken).

Ending

Planning staff thanked the committee for its time and the committee closed the public hearing, asked for written amendments to be submitted to the clerk, and referred the matter for ordinance drafting and legal review.