After 6-years in the making, the proposed new zoning code, which would address issues ranging from home-based businesses to conversion of old mills, was sent back to committee for further review.
SPRINGFIELD – Residents and business representatives urged the City Council this week to approve a new, revamped city zoning ordinance after six years of review and revisions, saying that continuing concerns raised by a development group should not cause further delay.
James FerreraThe council, however, after hearing from proponents and opponents at a public hearing Tuesday, referred the matter back to its Planning and Economic Development Committee for further review.
“Its been a long and difficult process,” council President James J. Ferrera III said after the vote. There are pros and cons to either side, and we are hopeful the committee can review it, have further discussion on it, and we can bring the matter back before the City Council in due time.”
The 287-page document, that is intended to provide a clearer guide for new development ranging from home-based businesses to the conversion of old mills, was sent back to committee two years ago. Since then, it has been debated at multiple meetings involving city planners, a citizens advisory committee, and the development group and died in committee, officials said.
Several residents said the revised ordinance will help bring Springfield into the 21st century, including the introduction of a site plan review process for developments and land uses beyond existing special permit cases, Deputy Planning Director Philip Dromey said.
In addition, it would create a “tiered review system,” with the level of review matching the scope of the project, Dromey said. It would range from staff review to Planning Board review, to Planning Board-approved special permit, to City Council-approved special permit.
The advisory board recommended passage of the revised ordinance while developers represented by lawyer A. Craig Brown, stated the ordinance grants too much power to the city Planning Board, would be too subjective, and would discourage development.
Katie Stebbins, a resident and chairman of the Planning Board, said the City Council would retain all its current powers on special permits and gain additional authority on development and land use, while her board would also gain powers.
“You should trust us to do that,” Stebbins said. “This actually creates a better system. This is a good investment and a long time coming.”
Mary Dionne, vice president of the Outer Belt Civic Association, was among representatives of several neighborhood groups speaking in favor of the ordinance.
The zoning ordinance, which has not been amended since approved in 1971, is not intended to give the businesses an upper hand or the residents an upper hand, she said.
“I’m tired of feeling like a dinosaur,” Dionne said of the current zoning ordinance. “We need to all work together. They work with us and we work with them.
Steven F. Bradley, a vice president at Baystate Health in Springfield, joined in praising the new ordinance on behalf of Baystate. Baystate’s new, $350 million “Hospital of the Future” project “is a better project today because of the site plan review process,” he said.
Ferrera said one key issue deserving additional study is the potential that the code needs to be revised further for the potential that Springfield could have a new casino development worth $500 million to $1 billion. There is a proposal to create a special casino district in Springfield, not in the existing zoning code or the new proposed zone, he said.