2007-03-05
CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION:
Planning Board, Joint Public Hearing and
Special Meeting
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE:
LOCATION:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
March 5,2007
City Council Chambers, City Hall, 3rd floor
Chairperson Richard Dinkin, John Thomson,
Joanne Dunn, Ellen Flannery, Don Walter
Eve Geller-Duffy, Charles Harris, David
Mack
Assistant Planning Director Leah
Zambernardi
Andrea Bray
MEMBERS ABSENT:
RECORDER:
Councilor Paul Guanci calls the meeting to order.
The City Clerk calls the roll.
All stand for the pledge of allegiance.
1. Joint Public Hearim!:: City Council Order #1: Proposed Zonim!: Amendment:
Residential Reuse of Existin2 Public Buildin2s
City Clerk Frances Macdonald reads the public hearing notice.
City Planning Director, Tina Cassidy introduces the Zoning Amendment stating that it
has been designed to update the ordinance and is related to the redevelopment of the
McKay School. She lists the following amendments:
. City Council remains the SPGA.
. Reduces the number of required affordable housing units from 25% of the total
units to 10%.
. SPGA can allow a greater number of residential units than is permitted by zoning
through the special permit process.
. Updated requirements for the affordable housing units.
. Revised definition of "public building" as being one currently or formerly owned
and/or occupied by the City of Beverly. State and federal properties have been
excluded.
. Requirement for traffic study deleted. This requirement is actually covered in the
site plan review process, which is included elsewhere in this zoning provision.
Planning Board Minutes
March 5,2007
Page 2 of6
. Requirement for determination by the SPGA of adequate public services deleted.
This requirement is actually covered by the requirement that the SPGA has to
make special permit findings in accordance with Section 29-27.C.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
. Revised procedure for review and approval
She describes the approval procedure beginning with the City Council and then moving
to the Planning Board or any other applicable board.
Councilor Martin asks if any other buildings might be affected by this amendment.
Cassidy states that it would apply to any public building.
Councilor Troubetaris asks if there would still be a site plan review and any other board's
comments as necessary.
Cassidy states that the Council would need to write in a requirement for the applicant to
go to the other boards such as the DRB. The Council does have the option to submit the
plans form comments by other boards or city departments. She adds that there are other
cities where the Council approves special permits.
Councilor Burke adds that this would apply to all buildings formerly owned by the City
such as the Ocean View.
Councilor Grimes agrees with Burke and adds that the original intent was to have the
City Council make the final decision after consulting with the Planning Board.
Mary Roderick of 14 Peabody Avenue comments on the amendment. She states that she
doesn't understand how the City can sell a building formerly, but not currently, owned by
the City. She expresses concern with the reduction in the maximum affordable housing
requirement from 25% down to 10%. She questions the definition of a public building.
She believes that the amendment should state "owned and occupied". She questions the
removal of the traffic study requirement, and the removal of the Design Review Board
from the process. Roderick points out 2 typos in the document.
Councilor Martin comments on Roderick's point and suggests that the language state that
it applies to any building "currently owned by the City of Beverly".
Cassidy agrees that it would be good to modify that section.
Councilor Burke states that the "formerly owned" buildings would include any
development to a recently sold building in order to apply this to the developer.
Planning Board Minutes
March 5,2007
Page 3 of6
Cassidy states that in most cases, the sale would probably not be completed until all of
the permits could be attained by the developer.
Councilor Guanci asks if the Ocean View would apply to this ordinance if "formerly
owned" exists in the language.
Cassidy states that it would apply with the current language and that is why she is in
favor of changing it.
Dinkin states that it would be typically true however should a developer choose to buy a
piece of property and chose not to go through the permitting process prior to the closing
the property would no longer be subject to this ordinance if the "formerly owned"
language is removed. He suggests inserting the words, "as of the date of the adoption of
this ordinance".
Thomson states that this is a permissive change and he doesn't want to limit the number
of buildings that are subject to it, so he is in favor of the more expansive definition.
Councilor Grimes asks if this ensures that the property would be kept in residential use.
Cassidy states that it will not necessarily do that.
Rich Marciano of McKay Street states that if the City wants to buy this property back
some day it should have the first right of refusal. He adds that the ordinance should
require sub-water meters and sprinkler systems be installed into these buildings. He says
that these properties could be used for police stations n the future. He notes that the
McKay school was once owned by the Shoe. He expresses concern for these buildings
being resold out of the tax base, i.e. from the City to a developer and then to a school. He
states that the GAR should be given a chance to go back to the public or given a first
option. He expresses concern about a property that was once donated to the City and
then sold off.
Rene Mary of 274 Hale Street asks where these buildings are and if she could get a list.
Cassidy says that the assessor's office could provide her with a list.
Mary asks if the percentage of density should be increased by steps such as in OSRD.
She asks where she can get information about properties that fall subject to this
amendment.
Cassidy states that Ms. Mary can get information from her.
Mary expresses concern with the increased density portion of this amendment.
Planning Board Minutes
March 5,2007
Page 4 of6
Joan Murphy of 36 Longmeadow Avenue expresses concern about the portion of the
language, which includes buildings that have had space rented by the City. She is in
favor of using language that includes only buildings owned by the City.
Councilor Troubetaris asks if it applies only to buildings or to land.
Cassidy states that it applies only to buildings.
Councilor Guanci asks Cassidy if the City looked into building a new police station on
the site of the McKay School.
Cassidy states that a study was conducted and ruled out because of the high cost.
Councilor Martin states that he believes that the McKay School would have been a
wonderful place for a police station.
Councilor Burke asks if Cassidy has that study.
Cassidy states that it was reviewed and a cost of 11.5 Million was estimated for a
combined public safety building.
Councilor Martin states that he has that 2.5 page letter which states that there was a 1
hour tour of the McKay School. He expresses dissatisfaction with the short tour.
Councilor Coughlin states that the idea for using the McKay School as a police station
was examined very carefully.
Rosemary Maglio of 30 Pleasant Street points out the language that requires a special
permit, which puts the burden of proof on the neighbors. She expresses concern about
the density increase and the inability of the neighbors to fight the special permit. She
feels that this reduces the power of the citizens in the neighborhood. She would prefer to
see a requirement for a dimensional variance instead of a special permit.
Councilor Burke agrees with her in principal but states that the McKay School and the
Briscoe Middle School have had meetings with the neighbors, many of which expressed
an interest in bringing the buildings back on the tax roles.
Councilor Guanci closes the public hearing.
Thomson: Motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Dunn. All members vote
in favor. The chair votes in favor. The motion passes 5-0.
Dinkin closes the public hearing.
Planning Board Minutes
March 5,2007
Page 5 of6
The Board members move into Conference Room A for a special meeting.
Dinkin calls the special meeting to order.
1. Discussion/Decision: City Council Order #1: Proposed Zonin2 Amendment:
Residential Reuse of Existin2 Public Buildin2s
Dinkin asks Cassidy about the 10% affordable housing requirement and compares it to
the inclusionary zoning which has a 12% requirement. He asks why there is a difference.
Cassidy states that Beverly has improved greatly over the past years and now has 11.5
percent affordable housing. She used this number to be consistent with other projects in
the City and to control the saleable value of the property.
Thomson asks if there was any consideration on capping the density.
Cassidy states that it was considered but that the application was so broad that it was
difficult to pick an appropriate number, so she is counting on the elected City Council
members to keep the density within reasonable limits.
Thomson asks how this will work in a non-residential zone.
Cassidy states that she does not know how it will work.
Thomson suggests altering the language to deal with that possibility.
Dinkin states that "a greater number" would be at least one.
Thomson states that the phrase "formerly owned" should be kept in so that a special
permit process will apply to buildings such as the Ocean View.
The members discuss the requirements of the variance vs. the special permit.
Dinkin expresses his preference for the special permit and not the variance in this case,
stating that even though a variance sets a higher bar, it also sets an entirely different bar.
Thomson states that this ordinance amendment does not allow the City Council to alter
the setback requirements without a variance.
Dunn asks about the "formerly owned" language with a case where the developer goes
bankrupt and the bank takes the property.
Planning Board Minutes
March 5,2007
Page 6 of6
Thomson: motion to accept the language of the proposed zoning amendment minus
the words "and/or occupied" seconded by Walter. All members vote in favor, none in
opposition. The Chair votes in favor. The motion passes 5-0.
2. Approval of Minutes: February 7. 2007 and February 20. 2007
Dinkin states that he would like to table the approval until the next regular meeting.
Dunn: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Walter. All members vote in favor. The
chair votes in favor. The motion passes 5-0.
The meeting is adjourned at 8:20 p.m.