2011-02-15CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE:
LOCATION:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
RECORDER:
Planning Board, Regular Meeting
February 15, 2011
City Council Chambers, Beverly City Hall, 3rd
Floor
Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice Chairperson
John Thomson, Ellen Hutchinson, James Matz &
Michael O'Brien
Ellen Flannery, Charles Harris & David Mack
Assistant Planning Director Leah Zambernardi
Leah Zambernardi
Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order.
1. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR's)
Zambernardi states that there are no SANR's for the Board's consideration this month.
2. Request for Minor Modifications: Site Plan Review #102 -10 and Special Permit
#126 -10 — 363 -393 Rantoul Street — Burnham Apartments — Windover Properties,
LLC
Miranda Gooding from Glovsky & Glovsky speaks on behalf of Windover Development.
She states that they received approval from the Planning Board last month with the
understanding that approvals from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) were necessary.
She states they went to the ZBA and did end up making some changes to the plan. They
increased parking from what was initially approved. She refers to her letter of request
and the amended site plan, which outlines the proposal. They increased the parking
spaces by 7, which is a net total of 5 more spaces from what the Board originally
approved. The Board's approval was made subject to the condition that 2 spaces be
available on the neighboring Weaver Glass site. Windover later concluded after speaking
to abutters and the ZBA, that it would be better to situate 7 spaces on -site for the
exclusive use by this property. That was the only major change. The other items were
already discussed before the Board and were conditions noted in the comment letters to
the Planning Board. These entailed a modification of the turning radius at the
entrance /exit to conform with the turning performance analysis provided by the Beverly
Fire Prevention Office; making a note that all curb on City of Beverly property will be
vertical granite curb, which was recommended by the Engineering Department. She
states that during the Planning Board's hearing, it was recommended that wheelchair
ramps be redesigned at the driveways to conform with what is at Weaver Glass and that
has been reflected on the revised plans. Finally, just confirming as was discussed at the
Planning Board
February 15, 2011
Page 2 of 5
hearing, that the fence at the rear of the property would be uniformly 6 -feet tall. She
states that we had initially had varying heights with areas of 4 -feet and areas of 6 -feet.
Dinkin asks how much green area is being reduced on the lot percentage -wise. Gooding
states she has not done that analysis. There are no other questions from Board Members.
Dinkin states this is a two -step process. The Board must first find that the proposed
modification is minor. If the Board finds it is not minor, a public hearing would be
required to approve the changes. If the Board finds the changes are minor, the Board
then needs to vote on the substance of the matter.
Matz makes a motion to find that the changes are minor. Hutchinson seconds the motion
and it carries 5 -0 -0.
Matz makes a motion that the Board approve the changes in substance and that the Board
remove the condition in the decision that 2 parking spaces be provided on the Weaver
Glass site. Thomson seconds the motion and it carries 5 -0 -0.
3. City Council Legal Affairs Committee Request for Planning Board Comments —
Proposed Changes to the Watershed Protection Overlay District by the Beverly Safe
Drinking Water Alliance
Dinkin notes that the comments are due on April 1. He asks if it is possible to get a
redlined version of the proposal. Zambernardi states that Planning Staff has looked at
this and determined that the new ordinance is completely different from the existing
ordinance. Thomson asks if this proposal is patterned after an agency that is promoting
this in all jurisdictions. Zambernardi states that she believes it has been patterned after
DEP's Safe Drinking Water Act and regulations and that needs to be confirmed.
Thomson states he thinks this is a good thing overall but that we need to think it through
in terms of what areas should be covered by it. He states that it sounds like it pretty much
just allows 2 house lots as of right and everything else is a special permit other than
conservation. He states that we need to think that through. He states that if it is part of a
uniform program by the state that communities adopt this, then we may need to think
about this a little more regionally than perhaps just our own community. He suggests
getting a presentation. He thinks that just analyzing this in comparison to our existing
ordinance is useful but isn't necessarily for him the determining factor. That is unless
something concerning turns up during the process. He mentions he is not available to
attend the regular March meeting. He also notes that the Board could have another "bite"
at this if the proposal becomes a zoning amendment. He states that he doesn't feel as
though he has enough information at this point to make a recommendation.
Thomson notes that this request is a request for comments. He states that in the event the
Board isn't ready with comments by April 1, then the Council could decide to wait for
the Board's comments or it could suggest that the Board wait to comment later.
Planning Board
February 15, 2011
Page 3 of 5
O'Brien asks if anything has jumped out as a problem with the proposal during Planning
Staff's review. Zambernardi states that the Planning Director has been asked to comment
on the proposal as well. She states that staff has noted the proposal is very different from
what is existing therefore it will take some time to go through it. She states that we
would consult with the City officials who are experts in the watershed and our drinking
water supply such as the Salem Beverly Water Supply Board and the City Engineering
staff to see if they're on board with this as a regulation and if this is the best model to use.
She notes that new overly district is proposed which generally includes our current area
but also includes an aquifer area.
Matz refers to the aquifer and states that he thinks it makes sense to include it in the
overlay district. He states that the new overlay district will cover the entire drainage
basins. He states that this would be not only where the reservoirs are located but also the
basins that contribute to the reservoirs, whereas before that wasn't done. He states that
hydrogeologically that makes sense to him. He states that entire drainage basin being
part of the overlay district makes sense to him. He states that he believes this language
comes from recently proposed amendments by DEP to the Safe Drinking Water Act and
it is trying to standardize the regulations that govern and protect water overlay districts in
all communities across the Commonwealth. He notes that DEP is trying to upgrade the
database for the GIS mapping because it seems that many of the overlay districts are not
shown on the MassGIS mapping system. He states that updating this database would be
done in conjunction with this. Thomson asks if the regulations are proposed. Matz states
that they have been previously enacted. He is not sure whether they are statutory or
regulatory.
Thomson states that protecting drinking water is vital but the question is what is
reasonable. He would like to focus in on that. Matz agrees.
Zambernardi states this proposal includes a new citizen's committee and she asks the
Board if it is something it would like to weigh in on. Matz mentions an existing group
and Members note the Beverly Safe Drinking Water Alliance.
Thomson asks that a member of the Beverly Safe Drinking Water Alliance come in and
give a dispassionate presentation. Hutchinson agrees.
Thomson makes a motion to have a presentation on this at the regular March meeting,
which will be March 29, 2011. Matz seconds the motion and it carries 5 -0 -0.
Matz asks Zambernardi for color versions of the MassGIS maps and Dinkin asks for
copies of the existing Watershed Protection Overlay District Ordinance by email.
4. New /Other Business
a. Inclusionary Housing "Fee in Lieu of Affordable Units"
Planning Board
February 15, 2011
Page 4 of 5
Hutchinson reminds members that 2 months ago the Board had talked about a sliding
scale moving down from 60% at the low end of the range to 25% at the high end of
the range. There was requests to re -run #'s using a flat rate. She distributes a
spreadsheet and presents options for flat rates using 40 %, 35% or 30 %. She states
that she thought there was a growing consensus on having a flat fee, but there didn't
seem to be a consensus on what the percentage should be. She ran a series of
different percentages for the Board to look at. She states that she looked at this 2
ways, the first being all sales per neighborhood within the 3 year period and the
second being as applied to the lowest 50% of sales per neighborhood within the 3
year period.
Dinkin states he likes 35% based on the lowest 50% of sales. Zambernardi asks the
Board's thoughts on having a cap of $400,000 or $500,000. Dinkin states he doesn't
like the idea of capping the fee because he wants to send the message that we want
affordable housing in every area of the City. Thomson states that then it would have
to be a large enough number to discourage people from buying out but not so big that
it is punitive. Thomson states that the cap would have to change over time based on
what is happening in the market.
Hutchinson refers to the spreadsheet and notes that at the 35% flat rate at the lowest
50% of sales, the highest end neighborhoods are at the cap (i.e. subject to it). She
states that the business cycle would suggest that these numbers will start turning up
and then you will start benefiting the high -end developer by placing a cap on the
numbers. Dinkin states that every time we go through this exercise the Board could
have a discussion on what the cap should be — but he doesn't feel that it is a
discussion they need to have. Thomson thinks that without the cap, it is an across the
Board fee where everyone gets the same treatment and he would go along with that.
Matz asks the difference between using 30% and 35 %. Dinkin states there is an
arbitrariness about it. Dinkin states that the 35% set of figures looked to him as
though it might encourage a developer to locate affordable units within a project
while not appearing very punitive to anyone. He states he was also looking for the
point at which on the low end, people aren't punished for providing housing that is
inherently affordable (affordable to begin with).
Thomson states that the data will always be based on the 3 most recent fiscal years.
Thomson makes a motion that the 35% schedule on the lowest 50% of sales be used.
Matz seconds the motion and it carries 5 -0 -0.
Dinkin instructs Zambernardi to draft a regulation and then states the Board will set a
public hearing accordingly. Zambernardi states she has a few more proposed
Planning Board
February 15, 2011
Page 5 of 5
amendments to other Board regulations that she would like to propose and she will
run them by the Chair.
b. Retirement of City Engineer
Zambernardi informs the Board that City Engineer Frank Killilea has recently retired.
c. Update on Beverly Main Streets Zoning Task Force
Thomson states that he was invited in his capacity as being on the Planning Board,
but not as a representative of the Board to sit on the Beverly Main Streets Task Force
on improving the permitting process in Beverly. He describes some of the items
being considered including increasing the number of things allowed by special
permits as opposed to by variance, the possibility of pre - development meetings with
City Departments, parking ratios for multi - families in the downtown, that the
downtown be a 43D District (streamlined /expedited permitting). He states there has
been complaints that the City of Beverly permitting process is more complex and
slow than others and the Main Streets committee is responding to that complaint and
trying to address it. He states that there are several local attorneys on the Task Force,
Steve Frederickson, the ZBA Chair, Mike Cahill from the City Council and himself
as well.
5. Approval of Minutes: January 18, 2011
Matz makes suggestions for corrections.
Matz makes a motion to approve the minutes with recommended amendments. Thomson
seconds the motion and it passes 4 -0 -1 with Hutchinson abstaining.
6. Adiournment
Hutchinson makes a motion to adjourn. Thomson seconds the motion and it carries 5 -0-
0.
The meeting is adjourned at 8:20 pm.