2007-02-27
CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION:
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE:
LOCATION:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Planning Board - Special Meeting
OTHERS PRESENT:
February 7, 2007
Conference Room, Beverly City Hall
Vice-Chair John Thomson, Ellen Flannery,
Don Walter, Charles Harris, David Mack,
Richard Dinkin, Eve Geller-Duffy, Joanne
Dunn
Assistant Planning Director Leah
Zambernardi; Judith Barrett, COG
Leah Zambernardi
MEMBERS ABSENT:
RECORDER:
Thomson states that there are only four members present at this time. He states that there
is a need to move ahead with review of the Inc1usionary Zoning Ordinance so there will
be an informal meeting. He states that he will hold the meeting as though it's a regular
meeting and not a public hearing although if there is a desire from members of the public
to speak, he will entertain that.
Harris arrives and the meeting is called to order.
Inclusionarv Zonin2 Ordinance (Draft #3)
Judi Barret of Community Opportunities Group states she has edited the draft once more.
She states the edits are shaded and that the sections she edited were: applicability; the
provision for credit units; she changed a mistake in the site plan review reference; she
made sure distribution of affordable units in multi-family districts refers to units and not
dwellings. Other than that, she states that the Ordinance is the same.
Thomson notes that many changes had been made to section RI., "applicability". Barret
states that the standard is measured differently based on the type of project. She stated
that in the previous drafts, applicability was stated in terms of the zoning districts. She
has amended the section to apply to the creation of 5 or more units anywhere. In this
way, the City can catch those zones that allow use variances for residential developments
of 5 units or more. She also did this because there has been discussion of revisiting the
use regulations in the existing industrial districts. This design allows the City not to have
to go back and revisit this Ordinance if a zone change is made. She states that the Master
Plan talks about where you do and don't want development.
Mack notes that if you add one new unit to a development with 4 existing dwellings, you
can opt to pay a fee or to make that unit affordable. Barret states that yes, you can pay
the fee by right.
Planning Board Minutes
February 7, 2007
Page 2 of5
Zambernardi asks Barret to talk about density bonus part. Barret states that what this
Ordinance does in encourage the inclusion of affordable units to the extent possible. She
states that if you include units in the project, you're eligible for additional units by right
and there's an adjustment for lot area to make that possible. She states that if you pay a
fee or do otherwise, you don't get density. She states that in the single-family zoning
districts, you get one additional market rate unit for each affordable unit created on-site.
She states that in the multi-family or commercial zoning districts, you get 2 market rate
units for each affordable unit provided. She stated the reason for this is to guide the
affordable units to areas that have more capacity to absorb them.
Harris asks whether a developer can build more units than what is allowed by zoning in a
residential area, where a person has a lot next to a lot with 3-acres. Barret states that a
developer can do this only if they include the affordable units in the development. Harris
asks, if I live next to someone with 2 acres, and the owner wants to put affordable units
in, he could come in and put affordable units next door where there are residential areas
with homes on either side? Barret states that the developer could do this. Harris asks
why the City would allow someone to come in and build affordable housing in between 2
homes that may be worth $8000,000 to $I,OOO,OOO. He states that if this were the case,
this would take the value of the neighboring homes down. Barret states that there is no
evidence of that. Harris states that he does not believe that. He states that he lives on the
water and that he has a very protective attitude of that. He does not want to open a
window and let somebody come in and build affordable d housing between him and his
neighbor. Barret states that if you go back to the beginning of her assignment, she raised
the question of whether to do this in all zoning districts - meaning where do we want to
be able to offer affordable housing. She asked the question of whether the City should let
some areas off the hook, where others have to carry the entire burden. If she were
advised to do otherwise, she would have written this it only for the multi-family zoning
districts. Harris asks who advised her to do this. Zambernardi states that the
subcommittee, which included herself and the Planning Board Chairman, as well as input
from the public and the developers was taken into account during this process. Thomson
states that the Planning Board was involved and may have provided advice before Harris
was ever a member. Barret states that is why this is what it is. She states that this
Ordinance tries to disperse the affordable units equally across city. She states that in
portions of city with single-family and one-acre lot zoning districts, there is an underlying
policy statement that you don't want a lot of density in those parts of the City. She stated
that her challenge as a planner was to write an ordinance that does not encourage that, but
gets the message to the developers that if they are developing properties of a certain size;
they have to fulfill an affordable housing requirement. She doesn't know of any
developers who would choose to build affordable units in an environment like the one
Harris described if they have an option to write a check. Harris states that it is a leap of
faith. Barret states that it is, but the direction she received was that everybody has a
responsibility and the challenge became how do I design the ordinance in a way that is
consist with the Master Plan.
Planning Board Minutes
February 7, 2007
Page 3 of5
Thomson states that the assumption with Charlie's scenario is that one lot such as the one
he described can only take one or 2 units. Barret states that it wouldn't trigger the
Ordinance because the trigger is 5 or more units.
Walter asks about the density provision. Barret states that if there are 5 single-family
homes, you get one mark-rate unit for I affordable unit; therefore you would get 6 units.
Walter states he is concerned about doubling the density. Barret states the affordable
homes would sell at $I80,000 to $I85,000 each. She states that if the Ordinance allows a
developer to write do a check, why would a developer building near Harris opt to build
the affordable units on-site? They would be able to build the market rate units anyway.
Walter stated that there are groups such as non-profits and churches that are building
developments like that. They are providing nice housing for certain people in an area
where other people might not want that type of housing.
Barret states that an alternative to this would be to say that in the single-family zones,
access to the density bonus is through the special permit process. She states that this
would force the developer to write a check. She is not advocating that. Thomson states
that this could be done in certain districts and not others.
Barret states it is very important to note that there is a built-in cap with the density bonus
provision. She states that the minimum lot area can only drop by 85% of the zoning
district's lot area. She stated that there is no way somebody could put in that many units -
like a development with 5affordable units and 5 market rate units as a bonus, as Walter
described above.
Mack asks how this would play out with OSRD. Thomson states that a plan would come
in under Inclusionary Zoning first and you would determine how many units you're
allowed. This would determine your yield plan. You then use OSRD to determine where
the lots should be sited.
Barret states that the City has policy decisions. She asks if the City wants to encourage
affordable housing citywide? She states that if you don't, as a technical advisor, the City
could: I. make the density bonus no longer applicable to the single-family zoning
districts (which is contrary to what she was told at the outset); 2. place a cap on how
many additional market rate units are allowed (in essence putting a cap on the number of
affordable units there can be); 3. require a special permit to obtain extra density in the
single-family zones. She states that she thinks you should also recognize that somebody
couldn't plan double the amount of units than is allowed the way this Ordinance is
designed.
Thomson states we should note how this would work in reality. He notes that with the
85% lot area provision, the scenario we talked about before could never happen.
Planning Board Minutes
February 7, 2007
Page 4 of5
Barret states she did spreadsheets on this to construct how much of a waiver she needs to
grant to make this realistic. She states it's disingenuous to say you can have an extra unit
without any lot area relief.
Thomson states he thinks that if Chairman Dinkin were here, he would speak about the
social issue of deciding where to limit affordable housing. He states that people envision
horror stories when they think of affordable housing, but these developments usually turn
out to be fine. He states that in Beverly Farms there are houses cheek to jowl with
mansions and those smaller houses were living quarters for servants that are now maybe
thought of as low-income housing. He states there has always been a mixture in Beverly,
particularly for quite a while. He states that if you look at Harris' scenario, most people
would probably not want to see a tiny new house sandwiched in between larger more
expensive homes. Zambernardi states that this Ordinance, through its rules and
regulations incorporates design standards so the affordable house would be
indistinguishable from the market rate units.
Thomson asks for a motion to suspend the rules to allow public comment III this
discussion.
Walter: Motion to allow the public to comment. Seconded by Mack. All members are
in favor.
Rosemary Maglio, 30 Pleasant Street, asks for copies of drafts and who Judi Barret is.
Don Preston, member of the subcommittee states the Ordinance has the ability to protect
the neighborhoods. He supports the notion that affordable housing should be distributed
through City. He states that the Ordinance requires that affordable housing can't be
discernible from market rate units on the exterior. Thomson states it isn't likely that a
developer would build such a house. He notes however that nothing is keeping someone
from putting a low income housing unit on a lot such a neighborhood now whether we
have this zoning or not. Barret confirms this Ordinance does not create use rights that
don't already exist. Harris states his concern that if a developer puts in a house for
$250,000, he wouldn't do just that. He'll put 2 or 3 market rate units in with affordable
housing and then get the density bonus. He states that if I understand this correctly, he
thinks this is an inequity to people who have property values in proximity. He states
there is some ambiguity here that leaves developers the right to challenge or do
something that I think is equitable to homeowners in residential areas. He thinks this is a
little socialistic, because it tries to make everywhere homogeneous. It makes everybody
of all income brackets equal on a level playing field. He states this could become
somewhat of a problem and people's property values could depreciate in those residential
areas. He states this just troubles him. He does think there are some good things in here.
He appreciates that it is not a black and white issue; he is just uncomfortable with it.
Planning Board Minutes
February 7, 2007
Page 5 of5
Barret states that if new homes sell at a value equal to the existing homes, that tells you
the value doesn't go down. If there needs to be more protection, you might want to
consider access to the density by special permit. She's also trying to think of enemy
management here and passing the ordinance. Mack states he doesn't think this will
incentivize what's allowed now. He states that people who want to build affordable units
will do it now anyway. Harris asks if this is better practiced in Manchester and Beverly
Farms? He states he wants to protect what he has. He wants the same protection for him
that is afforded to other people in other areas.
Barret states there is an MIT School of Research study on this but it may not persuade
you. She stated she was concerned about increasing density in areas where the Master
Plan says you don't want it. That's why there's an 85% cap.
Thomson states he would like to address what happens next. He states the Board could
vote tonight. He states he feels that the Board owes it to the Chairman to allow him to
speak before the Board votes. However, he feels bad that because of a lack of numbers
the City couldn't move forward. He asks for a straw of impressions. He states that
Charlie's issue is an issue that needs to be discussed at a public hearing. He asks Harris
and Walter their thoughts. Walter states he would not vote to stop it from going to the
Council. Harris states that if he had to vote tonight, he would vote no.
Mack: Motion to submit the Ordinance to the City Council. Second by Flannery. The
motion carries 5-0.
New/Other Business
a. City Council Order #35: Recommendation to City Council to set a joint public
hearing date with the City Council.
Zambernardi explains the proposal.
Mack: Motion to recommend to the City Council that a joint public hearing be held.
Seconded by Walter. All members are in favor and it passes unanimously.
b. ECDC
Zambernardi states that there is an opening on the ECDC for a Planning Board member.
If anyone is interested, please contact the Planning Department.
Harris: Motion to adjourn. Seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor and it
passes unanimously.