Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
2012-06-04 (2)CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Planning Board
SUBCOMMITTEE: -
DATE: Monday, June 4, 2012
LOCATION: Conference Room B, 3 rd Floor, City Hall, Beverly
PLANNING BOARD
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard Dinkin, Vice Chairman John Thomson,
Michael O'Brien, Ellen Flannery, Ellen Hutchinson, James
Matz, John Mullady, Charles Harris
MEMBERS ABSENT: David Mack
OTHERS PRESENT: Planning Director Tina Cassidy, Assistant Planning
Director, Leah Zambernardi
RECORDER: Diana Ribreau
Dinkin called the Special Meeting of Beverly Planning Board to order at 8:30 p.m. Dinkin
informed those present that the meeting is not a Public Hearing and therefore will not be open for
discussion or questions by members of the public.
Harris suggested rescheduling the special meeting to another date in order to give adequate room
for the many members of the public to sit and the fact that people are standing in the outside
hallway.
Thomson suggested discussion be held. Thomson asked Cassidy if there is any other space
available within City Hall that could accommodate those present. Cassidy responded that the
Council Room will be available when City Council adjourns their meeting but is uncertain as to
how much longer the meeting would run.
Harris made a motion to reschedule the meeting to a date and time certain. Motion
seconded by O'Brien. Motion failed 1.0.6 (Harris in favor. Thomson, Flannery,
Hutchinson, Matz, Mullady opposed).
Cassidy discussed in brief, the state law relating to Chapter 40R in the Beverly Zoning
Ordinance. Cassidy stated that this meeting is informative only. A public meeting has been
scheduled that is designed for public comment and participation next week.
Beverly Planning Board, Special Meeting
June 4, 2012
Page 2 of 5
Attorney Thomas Alexander, 1 School Street, Beverly, was present representing OMNI
Development. Alexander added to Cassidy's comments giving further overview of the 40R
process (Smart Growth Development), which is new to the City of Beverly. Alexander informed
the Board that neighbors are holding a public forum at the Beverly Public Library on
Wednesday, June 6, 2012 at 7:30 p.m. in which he and his client will be present.
Alexander stated the client is not looking for action and has not filed anything formal at this
point. The plans are in the preliminary stages and the intent for the meeting this evening with the
Planning Board is for informational purposes only intended to give the Planning Board the
opportunity to understand the 40R process, what it is all about, and what his client is proposing
for a project that they believe falls under the 40R (Smart Growth Program). Alexander explained
the 40R process and how it is similar to the zoning process. A Public Hearing will be held and
the City would then file a 40R Application to the Department of Housing and Development
(DHD) to review and determine if the site is in a 40R District. Ultimate approval would be with
the City Council before the rezoning process.
Cassidy added that a more formal meeting would be held with the Mayor as well.
Alexander informed the Board that there are 33 districts that fall under 40R approved in
Massachusetts, 2 of which are in Marblehead.
Alexander introduced Bill Rayhault from HCD and David Hale of Omni Development and
explained that Hale will make a brief presentation on the project.
Hale introduced his colleagues.
Hale reviewed the slide show presentation (hard copy submitted to Planning Board members) as
follows:
40R OVERLAY ZONING PRESENTATION — covered the following topics:
Purpose; Criteria; Benefits; Location Fit; 40R approval process; Financial Benefits; School -
traffic- visual impacts; Development Design; About Omni Properties.
Hale explained that 40R was passes by the State of Massachusetts in 2004 in efforts to create
more housing choices in support of mixed use allowing development in high density areas that
have a smaller footprint which provide walking distance to transit.
Alexander stated that if accepted by the State, the time frame is similar to the zoning process.
Harris questioned where there has been notice in the local newspaper, informational meetings
with Mayor and City Staff if it qualifies under the Open Meeting Law.
Beverly Planning Board, Special Meeting
June 4, 2012
Page 3 of 5
Mullady asked who identified the proposed site as falling under the 40R Ordinance.
Alexander stated that it would pass through Site Plan Review. The process is subject to all
regular ordinances within the Overlay Zoning District.
Dinkin asked for an explanation on the incremental fee. Alexander answered.
Hutchinson asked if there is criteria that defines public transportation. Alexander responded it is
defined in the regulations however he would need to review the regulations for specific details.
Harris requested that Alexander explain the approval process step by step. Alexander discussed
the following steps:
• City requests a Public Hearing to discuss the 40R Overlay District
• City submits 40R Application to the State
• HCD reviews if passed by the City then goes back to the City
• Petition filed and sent to City Council and public hearing scheduled.
• Planning Board deliberates and makes recommendation to City Council
• City council takes the process up with Legal Affairs. Legal Affairs would make a
recommendation to the full Council
• Full Council votes. If all steps are completed it goes back to the Planning Board
• Planning Board will begin the Site Plan Review process and final approval process.
Alexander noted that the process does not involve the Zoning Board of Appeals
Flannery asked for clarification as to who will host the Public Hearing. Alexander responded
that under the discretion of the Mayor, the Mayor would designate the host.
Thomson questioned if the 40R rezoning is only for the specific proposed site and not the
surrounding properties. Alexander concurred.
Thomson requested clarification that an approval would not be a generic approval to the number
of units or mixed -use. Hale and Alexander concurred that if the 40R Zoning District is approved
and adopted by City Council, it is specific to the proposal being submitted and cannot later be
changed to mixed use.
Dinkin called a five minute recess and to reconvene the meeting in City Council Chambers at
9:06 p.m.
Beverly Planning Board, Special Meeting
June 4, 2012
Page 4 of 5
Dinkin reconvened the meeting at 9:06 p.m.
Matz expressed concerns over the parents of students at the Next Generation School and asked if
Omni Properties owns the school property next to the proposed site. Alexander responded that
the owner of the proposed site is the owner of the school. Hale added that Omni Properties will
hold a meeting that will be open to those families of students to attend.
Hale reviewed and discussed the fiscal benefits of the project emphasizing the ongoing revenue
to the City. Hale stated that if approved, the project would be the 12 largest real estate tax
payout in the City of Beverly. Hale discussed the traffic study completed and reviewed the
traffic data and costs associated with it.
Harris asked if the traffic count mentioned includes what you anticipate once the project is
completed. Hale responded yes.
Harris asked who owns the Next Generation School. Hale responded. Both the land and the
school are leased.
Hutchinson asked if the stated estimate of real estate tax is based on $135k/unit. Hale concurred.
Hale added that the estimated percentage of 15% of residents using public transportation is a
calculation determined by the State. Hutchinson asked if there are any statistics to back up that
estimate in relation to other 40R Zoning Districts in place. Hale stated he does not have that
information.
Thomson asked if numbers can be pulled from other approved 40R Overlay Districts to family
configurations, number of units, children, etc. Hale suggested that he could get data that shows
multi - families in general. Thomson stated that he would like data from 40R Districts
specifically.
Bill Rayhault stated that they do not have exact numbers for Thomson's request but explained
that there is a 40S Companion Statute that provides school cost reimbursement and can maybe
get information from that. Rayhault stated that thus far only 2 communities have applied for and
received approval for funding in Massachusetts. Thomson was firm on the data requested and
asked for more information be sent to the Planning Office for the Planning Board to review.
City Council Order #72 — Zoning Amendments relative to Accessory Apartments (Section
29 -2.B.1 and Section 29- 24.C.)
After questions and discussion, Thomson made a motion to recommend that the City Council
adopt the amendment with the following changes:
Beverly Planning Board, Special Meeting
June 4, 2012
Page 5 of 5
1. Amend the first sentence of proposed Section 29- 24.C.7 by adding the words, "vertical
and /or horizontal' between the words "common" and "wall ".
2. Amend the first sentence of proposed Section 29- 24.C.8 by adding the word "principal"
before the word "dwelling ".
Flannery seconded the motion and it carried 7.0.0.
City Council Order #102 — Zoning Amendments relative to Floodplain Overlay District
Ordinance and Adoption of FEMA maps.
After questions and discussion, Thomson made a motion to recommend that the City Council
adopt the amendment. Flannery seconded the motion and it carried 7.0.0.
City Council Order #100 — Amendment to Zoning Ordinance — Re- designation and
renumbering of Zoning Ordinance Chapter
After questions and discussion, Thomson made a motion to recommend that the City Council
adopt the amendment. Flannery seconded the motion and it carried 7.0.0.
.There being no further business to discuss, Thomson made a motion to adjourn the
meeting at 9:20 p.m. Motion seconded by Flannery. Motion carried 7.0.0.