ESSEX — Despite repeated calls from residents of all stripes for increased zoning controls in Essex, Town Meeting defeated an article to prevent new commercial development on John Wise Avenue.
Proponents failed to secure a two-thirds majority Tuesday night for the article, brought to voters by citizen petition. It would have created an overlay zoning district allowing only agricultural and residential development along John Wise Avenue, a swath of Route 133, from Western Avenue to the Ipswich line.
Because the article would have changed a town bylaw, 169 of 252 people voting would have needed to approve it to achieve a two-thirds majority and pass, but it received only 153 favorable votes. Town Meeting decided to conduct the vote by secret paper ballot instead of a public hand or voice vote.
Supporters of the article billed it as crucial to protecting the scenic and rural character of the Route 133 corridor, a signature gateway to the town they say is vulnerable and could be marred by gas stations, shops and boat storage facilities.
Opponents of the article, led by property owners who would have been subject to the new district's rules, argued that it was unfair for restrictions to be placed on their land, while the rest of Essex remained unzoned. Many said they were open to new zoning restrictions, but thought they should be created by planners with the future needs of the whole town in mind and not by petition of several residents.
"I believe the town needs zoning," Belcher Street resident John Guerin said. "But I am concerned about the way this was done. The process did not include a chance for public input and debate."
Despite the seeming agreement of both sides that zoning is needed, questions about how a townwide land use plan might be created, given the town's limited planning resources and historic resistance to property restrictions, rose to the forefront.
Planning Board Chairwoman Susan "Scottie" Robinson said at the meeting that, without money to hire professional planning help, her all-volunteer board did not have the technical know-how to create a townwide zoning plan on its own.
Robinson supported passage of the overlay district and, after its defeat, said yesterday she did not have any answers as to how a townwide zoning plan might be shaped. She said any attempt would require collaborations between a number of groups, including selectmen, as well as the Open Space and Long Term Planning committees.
"It would certainly have to be a collaborative effort," Robinson said. "It would involve a lot of listening and discussion."
Planning Board member William Holton, who also supported the overlay district, said Essex, one of only 13 Massachusetts towns without zoning, could not afford to ignore the possibility that the pace of development in the town might accelerate.
"We hear two words on the Planning Board: change and growth," Holton said. "The question is do you want us to ignore it or manage it?"
Responding to residents' questions about whether the fear of commercial development on John Wise Avenue was being overblown, Planning Board members said they had received informal queries from several parties looking at commercial projects on the road that they expected to become official now that the overlay district had been defeated.
The lead sponsor of the overlay district article, John Wise Avenue landowner Peter Kellerman, said yesterday that although he was disappointed the article did not pass, he was encouraged that it had drawn support from a majority of Town Meeting voters.
"I think it was encouraging that the vote was so close," Kellerman said. "It showed the feasibility of a zoning bylaw passing in Essex. We laid the framework to be able to do this. It would be nice not to lose that momentum."
Kellerman said the way to move forward on a future zoning measure would involve more direct Planning Board involvement, but he had only had preliminary discussions with officials about it at this point.
The agricultural residential overlay district article was one of several measures dealing with potential bylaw changes addressed Tuesday night.
Earlier in the night, Town Meeting approved a new bylaw governing the installation of wind power units. The bylaw was amended at the meeting to allow noise from turbines at the nearest lot line as long as abutters gave permission and changed the way the maximum height of building mounted units would be measured.
The changes to height requirements for building-mounted units, which allow a turbine to increase the height of a building by only 20 percent, was amended to take into account peaked or gabled roofs by measuring the 20 percent from the highest point of the structure.
Town Meeting did not approve two articles that would have excluded Planning Board decisions from the list of rulings that aggrieved parties can challenge using the Essex Board of Appeals.
The Planning Board, which had proposed the changes to align Essex with state statutes and make it more like other cities and towns in Massachusetts, recommended not passing the article after residents and members of the Board of Appeals had expressed opposition to it, Robinson said.
The change would have required aggrieved parties in Essex to appeal Planning Board decisions to state courts.
On Tuesday night, Town Meeting also voted to:
r Base the number of Finance Committee members needed to establish a quorum at any meeting on the number of members serving, not the seven available seats.
r Allow the harbormaster to issue temporary and transient mooring permits for town moorings.
r Allow the harbormaster to issue fines for boats lingering at the town dock.
r Change the town's Flood Plain District bylaw to bring it in line with state guidelines.
r Increase restrictions in town bylaw allowing more than one structure on one lot to prevent dense commercial developments.
r Increase fees for electrical, plumbing and gas permits.
r Not purchase a "skid steer" front loader.
r Not purchase a new computer server.
r Not purchase greenhead fly traps.
r Not transfer any money to the town's Stabilization Fund.
Patrick Anderson may be contacted at panderson@gloucestertimes.com.
