2006-10-16
CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Planning Board – Joint Public Hearing
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: October 16, 2006
LOCATION: City Council Chambers, Beverly City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice-Chair
John Thomson, Ellen Flannery, Don Walter,
Charles Harris, David Mack, Peter Thomas,
Joanne Dunn
MEMBERS ABSENT: Eve Geller-Duffy
CITY COUNCILORS PRESENT: Patricia Grimes, Donald Martin, Kevin
Hobin, Tim Flaherty, Paul Guanci, Bill
Coughlin, Miranda Gooding, Maureen
Troubetaris
COUNCILORS ABSENT: John Burke
OTHERS PRESENT: Planning Director Tina Cassidy, Assistant
Planning Director Leah Zambernardi, City
Engineer Frank Killilea, City Clerk Frances
Macdonald
RECORDER: Andrea Bray
Concurrent Public Hearings: City council order #109 – Proposed Zoning
Amendment and Map Change from “IG” (Genderal Industrial) to new “WDR”
(Waterfront Development Residential District) – 10-12 Congress Street (former
Ventron Site)
Guanci opens the public hearing of the City Council.
Dinkin opens the public hearing of the Planning Board
Macdonald reads the public hearing notice.
Attorney Tom Alexander who represents the owner of the site speaks on the proposed
zoning change. He notes that in previous discussions two issues were of concern to the
public and the Council; the parking requirements and the building height. As to the
parking concern, Alexander distributes an historic study of the parking space installations
for several large residential developments in Beverly. The study covers the last 25 years,
and includes the Tuck Point Condos, the Gateway, Montserrat, Edwards School Condos,
Depot Square, and the newly proposed Ventron Site. The document compares the
number of parking spaces per unit installed for the previously approved projects and
notes that the Ventron Site applicant has proposed 2.17 parkingspaces per unit which is
the highest of any development in the last 25 years.
Planning Board Minutes
October 16, 2006
Page 2 of 13
Concerning the height of the new development, Architect Thaddeus Siemasko presents
some photographs of the site taken from the Beverly-Salem Bridge. The proposed
development has been inserted into the photographs to provide a visual image of the
buildings. One of the photographs depicts the development with buildings at a maximum
height of 35 feet. The other photograph contains buildings with a 40 foot total height.
The public, the Council and the Planning Board examine each photograph.
Dinkin states that the photographs’ matte finish makes the buildings fade into the
background, and that the development would appear more prominent if a high gloss
photo paper had been used.
Siemasko then presents a large-scale drawing of one end of the building. He describes
the illustration.
Coughlin asks if every unit would have 2 parking spaces.
Tom Alexander states that each unit would have 1 space and the other spaces would be
turned over to the City to designate at its discretion.
Troubetaris asks how one determines the number of parking spaces needed for each unit.
Tom Alexander cites the findings from the historical study.
Troubetaris asks a clarifying question. How do you determine that each unit would have
only one car?
Dinkin clarifies the question by asking for the statistical basis used to derive the need for
parking spaces for each unit. He adds that these zoning requirements were written by
Alexander based on the developer’s plan.
Alexander states that this is incorrect, and these ordinance requirements were in the City
Master Plan.
Flannery asks if a potential owner can purchase an additional parking space.
Alexander: No.
Rosemary Maglio compares the current district with the newly proposed WDR district.
She read excerpts of the ordinances for the WDR and the WD zones. She states that the
new district being created does not improve the area, because the current zone already
allows for residential structures. She reads the new zoning ordinance and compares it to
the existing district. Maglio asks how this new zone is an improvement for the citizens of
Beverly. She adds that the increase in the height restrictions does not improve the area.
Planning Board Minutes
October 16, 2006
Page 3 of 13
She notes that with the new zone, every 224 feet must have a viewing corridor. This
differs from the current zone which mandates viewing corridors every 150 feet.
Maglio cites the OSRD ordinance’s floor area ratio.
Tina Cassidy clarifies that the OSRD ordinance does not apply to the industrial zone.
She reads a paragraph of the ordinance which lists the exact zones affected by the OSRD
ordinance.
Pat Grimes states the caveat to the OSRD ordinance is that a property must be over two
acres in size.
Thomson, the writer of the OSRD ordinance, clarifies that no districts other than those
specifically listed are included in the OSRD ordinance, so it will not apply to the WDR
district.
Rosemary Maglio states that the OSRD was poorly written. She notes that the existing
zone provides for viewing corridors every 150 feet and the new zoning proposal has
expanded that number to every 224 feet. She adds that the developer measured the height
from the street level which is considerably higher than the location of the buildings, so
the buildings would actually be taller than the 35 or 40 feet proposed. She then requests
an explanation for the request for an additional 5 feet in height.
Alexander states that property owners have planned for 100% residential use. He adds
that this approval process will include the creation of special zoning as well as requests
for variances and a special permit; therefore the public will have at least three
opportunities to voice their opinion about this proposed development. He also notes that
the developer has requested an extra 5 feet in height in order to provide for extra open
public space. He adds that the new zoning ordinance contains a density restriction of 25
units per acre, and the developer plans to have a total of 84 units on the site, about 20-25
units per acre.
Siemasko addresses the 224-foot separation of viewing corridors. He notes that the plan
provides an open view for cars coming down Porter Street. Regarding the height
measurement from the paved road, Siemasko notes that the ordinance requires that the
height be measured from the street, and further down the street, beyond the property, the
street turns to muck. He adds that the height was measured from the upper part of the
street adjacent to the site, not from the mucky part. Siemasko reiterates Alexander’s
statement that the additional 5 feet was requested in order to attain more open public
space.
Dinkin asks Siemasko how many current residences would lose their water views if this
project is completed.
Planning Board Minutes
October 16, 2006
Page 4 of 13
Siemasko guesses that within 1 or 2, about 4 would lose their views.
Dinkin asks if there is any plan to compensate these current view holders for their loss of
views.
Alexander states that no plan to compensate view holders has been discussed.
Colleen Bruce, 13 Cliff Street disputes Siemasko’s statement, noting that there are more
than 4 houses losing the views.
Rosemary Maglio disagrees with Alexander’s statement that the Master Plan specified
that density. She notes that it was never voted on by the Planning Board or the City
Council, and the WD district ordinance does not specify 25 units per acre. She adds that
the developer doesn’t have a right to put 25 dwelling units per acre on this property.
Maglio then asks Alexander to repeat his prior statement regarding the WD district
ordinance.
Alexander asserts that he didn’t state that it was voted on by the Planning Board or the
City Council, but noted that a special permit would be requested to attain that area ratio.
He added that an applicant who wishes to exceed the floor area ratio of .25 must have a
commercial component, but can be changed by approval of a special permit if the
property is composed of 100% residential use.
Gooding asks the Planning Director how much thought went into the calculations in the
Master Plan
Cassidy states that the Master Plan was not based on an exhaustive study of the Ventron
Site or any other waterfront areas, but on general recommendations for the OSRD and
waterfront development ordinances. She adds that the general recommendations for
waterfront areas suggested 20-25 units per acre.
Maglio speaks about the character of the area noting that it is in an R6 Zoning District
and this development will not preserve the character of the area.
Bill Finch of 50 Front Street states the WD district includes the Bass River area, not just
the Ventron Site. Both of these areas are contiguous to other residential areas and
therefore should allow for the characters of the surrounding areas to be maintained.
Nathan Zoll of 4 Orchard Street, Ward 4, urges the Council and the Board to expedite his
request for the sound equipment for the hearing impaired. He notes that he is confident
that the Council and Board will come up with a good plan. Zoll reminds the group of the
Tucks Point Condominium site which contains petrochemical solvents in the land. He
recalls his memory of the residents’ dismay at hearing the news that they would be
responsible for clean up costs associated with the removal of chemical wastes from the
Planning Board Minutes
October 16, 2006
Page 5 of 13
condominium complex grounds. He asks the Board and the Council to mandate that the
developers of the Ventron Site provide a disclosure of the history of the Ventron Site to
each prospective unit buyer. He adds that such disclosure should explain Municipal,
Federal and State clearance issues regarding the previous existence of radioactive
contaminated soil on the property. Zoll then thanks the members of Council and the
Board for their time.
A resident of 141 McKay Street states that the Gateway Condominiums are in IG zoning
but those developers went through the process fairly. He notes that by coming to the
Council for a zoning change first, the developers are undermining the whole plan of a fair
process. He adds that the City Council has a goal of providing revenue to the City, and
may therefore look favorably on this zoning change as a possible tax revenue provider,
even though this developer is circumventing the normal rules. The 141 Mckay Street
resident states that Depot Square development went through the process fairly. He notes
that he disagrees with the City’s plan for increasing the height restriction to 75 feet in
many CC Zoning District areas. He then asks what the main structural support for the
building will be as he is concerned about storms or flood damage, which, if occurs would
be a burden for the City’s tax payers.
Siemasko states that a licensed structural engineer will make a building design for this
site. He adds that the base of the building will be concrete and the frame will be of steel.
He also notes that the foundation will probably sit on some piles.
The 141 Mckay Street resident states that passing trains may compromise the structure.
He asks if there is a plan for evacuation of this site in the case of a storm or a flood. He
also recommends that the development provide two parking spaces for each unit owner.
Mary Roderick of 14 Peabody Avenue expresses confusion in rewriting a zoning
ordinance and applying for a variance at the same time. She states that there is a conflict
with this. She adds that a zoning ordinance was supposed to be revised to go along with
the Master Plan, but this was never done.
Pat Grimes comments on the process stating that the Council wishes to change the zoning
for this particular site so that certain types of developments can go on this site. She adds
that there just happens to be current owners that have a vision for this lot, but these
owners will need to go through the approval process anyway.
Dinkin states that this proposed ordinance was written such that the owner’s project will
have an extremely low bar to cross. He objects to the project proposal and the zoning
proposal having been developed in such tight symmetry.
Alexander notes that any time a zoning change is developed people want to know what it
will look like; so this team is presenting a vision for the site. He adds that the plan will
still need to be reviewed by the Planning Board.
Planning Board Minutes
October 16, 2006
Page 6 of 13
Maureen Troubetaris expresses her displeasure with the City’s previous lack of initiative
for rezoning for the waterfront district. She commends the developers for jumpstarting
this long-overdue rezoning process which has been put off by the City. She states that
there is nothing wrong with anyone presenting a zoning change.
Harris asks if there is a cost estimate for the project.
Alexander states that no detailed cost estimate exists yet, but the developers are
estimating about $20-25 million for this project.
Bill Finch of 50 Front Street urges the Council to use caution in passing something for
this site, warning that it not be precedent-setting to other areas of the City. He adds that
all of these waterfront areas are vastly different, and therefore need to be considered
separately.
Coughlin states that he would like the developer to provide two parking spaces for each
unit owner. He adds that he doesn’t want to see Congress Street ruined. He requests
clarification of the street improvements.
Rene Marie 274 Hale Street agrees with Finch about making this zoning site specific.
She adds that the Council should not create a loophole for other developments around the
City.
Mary Roderick of 14 Peabody Avenue comments on the photo taken from the bridge,
stating that she would like to see what the new view toward the river would look like
from the existing homes in the area.
Maglio states that the WD district allows by right that they can put a restaurant there as
well as many other types of structures, noting that for the WD on Water Street no special
permit was needed for the red barn (Boat Storage Building). She warns that this could
be done again in the new WDR district with no special permits. She adds that the plan’s
building B would be much shorter if the 120 foot view corridor ordinance is enforced.
She asks why the developer didn’t apply for a use variance but leave the zoning as it now
is, noting that Gateway was approved through that process.
Alexander states that the owners are seeking rezoning because the Master Plan calls for
this for this site. He adds that the standard for the variance is very high, as the applicant
must prove a hardship that would result without the variance.
Duane Anderson of 41 Front Street states that he is with the Ward 2 Civic Association,
and that its members are disappointed with the little or no dialogue with the developer.
He adds that he is concerned with the height and density of this project, noting that this
project is precedent-setting. He asks why this would not be considered spot zoning.
Planning Board Minutes
October 16, 2006
Page 7 of 13
Alexander states that this is not considered spot zoning because it is already a spot, as
opposed to creating a spot. He notes that the developers are taking one full zone and
making it another zone. He adds that spot zoning involves parcels which are much
smaller than this.
Gooding asks about the procedure going forward.
Dinkin states that from the time that the public hearing is closed, the Planning Board has
21 days to make a recommendation to the City Council; if Board fails to make the
recommendation the Council may make a decision.
Gooding asks if the Council may continue the public hearing pending the Planning
Board’s recommendation.
Dinkin states that the Board can’t take action until its hearing is closed.
Guanci asks if the Board would take this up at the next meeting if the Council closes this
public hearing.
Dinkin states that the Board would take this issue up about five minutes after the Council
closes this public hearing, as there is a scheduled Special Board meeting immediately
following this hearing.
Guanci closes the Council’s public hearing.
Dinkin asks the Planning Board for a motion.
Thomson: Motion to close the Planning Board’s public hearing, seconded by
Flannery. All members are in favor, none in opposition. The Chair is in favor. The
motion passes 8-0.
The Board moves into Conference Room A to conduct a special meeting.
Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order.
Flannery: Motion to recess for public hearing, seconded by Thomas. All members
are in favor, none in opposition. The Chair is in favor. The motion passes 8-0.
Foster Lane Cluster & Definitive Subdivision Plans
Flannery: Motion to continue the public hearing through November, seconded by
Mack.
Planning Board Minutes
October 16, 2006
Page 8 of 13
Zambernardi recommends scheduling this meeting for November 21, at 8:00 p.m.
Walter: Motion to schedule this public hearing for November 21, at 8:00 p.m.,
seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor, none in opposition. The Chair is in
favor. The motion passes 8-0.
Dinkin reopens the regular meeting.
OSRD Ordinance, Rules and Regulations: Recommendations by Ken Buckland of
the Cecil Group
Mr. Buckland presents his study of the OSRD Ordinance. He uses two existing
subdivisions and provides illustrations of how they would look if built today using the
OSRD Ordinance guidelines. The subdivisions that he uses for illustration purposes are
Hawk Hill and Boxwood Lane. He states that with the buffer restrictions there would be
very little space left to place the homes on the property, and the developer would need to
build outside of the designated buildable area in order to have room for all of the houses
that are currently allowed. He notes that if multi-family homes are built instead of single
family homes, more units would fit into the designated buildable area.
Dinkin asks Buckland if he is recommending that the Board amend the OSRD ordinances
to allow multi-family dwellings.
Buckland says that he is, in fact, recommending that the Board amend the OSRD to allow
multi-family units.
Thomson states that a multi-family unit development would be tough to sell.
Dunn asks if the topography of the land would affect this plan.
Buckland: Yes, the grade of the road would be affected. With buffer areas you would
take out these steep slopes. He recommends reevaluating grade requirements within a
subdivision.
Buckland’s memo sites several points. Of note he suggests bypassing the sidewalk
requirements in favor of pathways. He states that the 100’ buffer requirement around the
perimeter and around the wetlands may be too restrictive and greatly reduce the buildable
area allowed. In some cases a parcel would have no buildable area once the 100’ buffers
are considered.
Buckland recommends laying out the units where they make the most sense based on the
topography and then figure out the easements.
Planning Board Minutes
October 16, 2006
Page 9 of 13
Walter asks if a study can include estimates of costs and profits and compare the two
scenarios. He states that the OSRD ordinances must be sold to developers, to let them
see that they save on infrastructure costs.
Much discussion ensues regarding the viability of selling this plan to good developers.
Thomson states that we could compare infrastructure costs and sales prices at Hawk Hill
and estimate home prices for the OSRD plan on Hawk Hill.
More discussion ensues.
Thomson states that he wishes to amend the OSRD Ordinance based on Buckland’s
recommendations.
Dinkin states that he is unhappy with the lack of clarity in the OSRD Ordinance.
Thomson: Motion for the Planning Department to draft amendments consistent with
the recommendations of Mr. Buckland, seconded by Mack. All members are in favor.
Motion passes 8-0.
Flannery: Motion to recess for the public hearing, seconded by Thomson. All
members are in favor, none in opposition. The Chair is in favor. The motion passes 8-0.
Continued Public Hearing: Modification of Site Plan #52-99, Dunkin Donuts
Zambernardi names members who are eligible to vote on this petition. Thomson recuses
himself.
Flannery: Motion to waive the reading of the public hearing notice, seconded by
Thomas. All members are in favor, none in opposition. The motion passes 8-0.
Attorney Mark Glovsky reviews the Dunkin Donuts issue, stating that two issues needed
to be addressed; 1. The width of the driveway entrance, and 2. Handicapped parking
access. Glovsky addresses both of these issues, and concludes that the final approvals
regarding plans for both of these items have been granted by the appropriate City
department.
Mack asks if one of the Board’s options is to keep the site as it is. He feels as though the
applicant is going beyond what is necessary to prevent cars from lining up on the train
tracks.
Dinkin states that the Board must assume that the applicant is in favor of his own plan.
Mack states that the new plan has resulted from a request of the City.
Planning Board Minutes
October 16, 2006
Page 10 of 13
Glovsky states the Mr. Serpa wishes to cooperate with the City, and then asks his client if
he would like to comment.
Mr. Serpa states that he would like to move ahead with the new plan.
Killilea states the existing condition creates a liability for the City.
Thomas states that he disagrees with this plan. He states he will go along with it if the
City's experts recommend these changes.
Dinkin asks if there are members of the public who would like to ask a question or
comment on this petition. There are none.
Flannery: Motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Dunn. All members are in
favor, none in opposition. The motion passes 8-0.
Discussion/Decision: Modification to Special Permit #52-99 - Dunkin Donuts - 112-
114 Elliott Street
Zambernardi makes suggestions for conditions to the site plan if the Board chooses to
approve it based on the comments received from City Boards and Commissions and
Department Heads.
Mr. Serpa states he agrees to the conditions.
Flannery: Motion to approve the site plan with conditions stated by Zambernardi,
seconded by Harris. The motion passes 5-2-1. (Dinkin, Dunn, Flannery, Walter and
Thomas in opposition?
Harris in favor - Thomson and Mack in abstention - )
City Council Order #109: Proposed Zoning Amendment and Map Change from
“IG” to “WDR” – 10-12 Congress Street (former Ventron Site)
Dinkin asks the Board if anyone would like to open this discussion or comment on this
proposed amendment. There is no response.
Dinkin cites the areas of this amendment where he is in agreement, stating it should be
residential zoning but the ordinance is wrong-headed. He adds that the density of
development should be stated specifically, not by floor area ratio. He states that there is
too much density in this development for the surrounding area. Dinkin says that the
character of that neighborhood is essentially a New England fishing village. He claims
that many of the existing homes will lose there water views, and that it bothers him that
the Board is being asked to transfer wealth from a group of residents in this area to
developers. He suggests that a water view in that area is worth $30,000 per unit. He
Planning Board Minutes
October 16, 2006
Page 11 of 13
finds it wrong to transfer wealth in that area. He agrees that multi-family use is
appropriate, but not with this much density.
Thomson asks what the difference is between the density for this site and for density for
mixed-use areas. He disagrees with the notion of a transfer of wealth, stating that those
views are not bankable.
Mack agrees with Thomson.
Thomson states that he is not completely in favor of the current plan, but he is in favor of
a new zoning design.
Walter states that he believes that residential use would be the best use for the area. He
prefers residential zoning over having an office park in that area.
Harris speaks of the current character of that neighborhood, stating that there are single
family and multi-family homes there.
Dinkin says he would like to see the density defined in terms of units per acre, and that
the surrounding neighborhood has about 14-15 units per acre.
Thomas asks Dinkin if the current zone is written in a way that it gives up too much
control.
Dinkin states that the way the zone is written it would allow for some thing that he would
not like.
Thomson states that the Board can approve the zone for the density that is being
proposed.
Dinkin believes that 50-55 units for that site would be appropriate, and that contiguous
area has about 60% single family units.
Thomas asks if the Board can cap the number of units allowed on the site.
Thomson states that special permits are the vehicle for imposing restrictions, such as the
density.
Harris states that the City does get something out of this because without a new zone this
area would never get developed and would never produce tax revenue.
Thomas states that the goal is not to rezone the City parcel by parcel, but with this
property there is a need to rezone it.
Planning Board Minutes
October 16, 2006
Page 12 of 13
Walter states that the residential zoning would be an improvement over another red barn
full of boats.
Dinkin states that this is the opportunity to set the maximum height and maximum
density because the developers will go to the maximum allowed.
Thomson states that we still have the opportunity with the special permit.
Dinkin states that we must first determine what can be built as of right.
Thomson: Motion to recommend to the City Council that the proposed zoning
change be approved subject to the owner being bound by a contract/restriction that runs
with the land, subject to review and approval by the Beverly City Solicitor, to create a
project that shall have a height and density which is no larger than the buildings shown
on the conceptual plans submitted with the application.
Dinkin asks for discussion on the motion, and then asks that Thomson take the chair.
Thomson takes the Chair and Dinkin steps down.
Dinkin makes a motion to amend Thomson's motion, that the words “such restriction to
include no more than 58 units” be inserted after the word “restriction”.
Dunn asks if the Board is actually approving the zoning.
Dinkin states that the substance of the motion is to assume the Board recommends that
the City Council binds themselves to not acting on this until a contract is drafted and
agreed upon by the City Solicitor.
Dinkin: Motion to suspend the rules to allow the City Councilor from Ward 2 to speak,
seconded by Flannery. The motion does not pass (3-5). (Dinkin, Thomson and Flannery
in favor) (Harris, Walter, Mack, Dunn and Thomas in oppostion)
Dinkin asks if he can take the chair back. Thomson steps down and Dinkin takes the
chair back. The members vote on Thomson's motion to approve the zoning amendment.
The motion passes 7-1. (Thomson, Flannery, Dunn, Mack, Walter, Harris and Thomas in
favor) (Dinkin in opposition).
Dinkin states that he is extremely disappointed that the Board would not allow the Ward
2 City Councilor to speak, and then resigns.
Thomson states that as Chair Pro Tem he would like a motion to adjourn.
Planning Board Minutes
October 16, 2006
Page 13 of 13
Flannery: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Harris. All members are in favor, none in
opposition. The motion passes 7-0.
The meeting is adjourned at 10:20 p.m.