10 3 16 Planning Bd MinutesCITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Planning Board: Joint Public Hearing of the Planning Board and the Beverly
City Council
Date: Monday, October 3, 2016
Location: Beverly City Hall, Council Chambers
Members Present: Vice Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Ellen Flannery, James Matz,
Michael Rotondo, Catherine Barrett, Wayne Miller
Members Absent: Chair John Thomson, Ned Barrett, David Mack
Councilors Present: Council President Paul Guanci, Vice President Scott Houseman,
John Frates, Don Martin, Jason Silva, James Latter, Matthew St.
Hilaire, Estelle Rand, David Lang
Councilors Absent: None
Others Present: City Planner Aaron Clausen, Assistant City Planner Darlene
Wynne, City Clerk Wesley Slate
Recorder: This meeting was recorded on BevCam TV and transcribed by
Mary Alice Cookson
Council President Paul Guanci opens the Joint Public Hearing at 7:32p.m. Wesley Slate reads the
order before the Board/Council, stating that the Beverly City Council and Planning Board are
holding a joint public hearing relative to the following matter:
Order #211 — Proposed Amendment to Beverly Zoning Ordinance 4300 -38 by amending
Chapter 300 — Zoning, Article VI: District Regulations by deleting Section 300 -38 RSD
Special Residential District and to amend the Zoning Map District designated "RSD" by
redesignating as "R -22" and any and all lots therein as "R -22" (Map 40, Lots1A, 45,46, 47,
Map 28, Lot 126, and Map 52, Lot 75).
Guanci invites Vice Chair Ellen Hutchinson to join Council and open the Planning Board's
portion of the meeting.
Recess for Public Hearin
Rotondo: Motion to recess for public hearing. Flannery seconds the motion.Motion carries
(6 -0)
Guanci then invites Planning Director Aaron Clausen to the podium.
Clausen introduces the proposed zoning change noting that the Planning Department submitted
the proposal to eliminate the RSD zoning and replace it with R -22, a suburban single- family
zoning district, because they don't feel the current zoning is consistent with city's objectives. He
Beverly Planning Board / City Council Joint Public Hearing
October 3, 2016
explains that this area is poorly served by the city's transportation structure and has poor access
to surrounding amenities and community services and that the new zoning would better fit the
surrounding neighborhood and be better supported by utilities existent to the area.
He explains that the only access to Trask Lane is off of Route 128 and this is only on the
northbound side of the highway. If you want to head south on 128, you have to proceed north to
the 1 A Exit and then turnaround to head south, thereby impacting multiple exits anytime you try
to leave or access the site. If you are traveling south, you have to get off at Route 62 and
turnaround to go north to the site. Development therefore would have a big impact on area
traffic.
He explains that the R -22 zoning would have less of an impact on the city's services than RSD.
Because of the "disconnect between the city and the site," he says the Department felt that R -22
would better maintain the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. The density requirement
on the 74 -acre lot with RSD zoning allows for 12 units per acre whereas R -22 allows for roughly
2 units per acre. Clausen says the Planning Department is looking to hear from the public on the
matter.
Councilor Estelle Rand asks Clausen how the proposed zoning change fits with the city's
inclusionary housing/affordable housing plan.
Clausen responds that R -22 still provides for affordable housing, but the current RSD allows for
a larger number of units. He says in looking at affordable housing, you need to Iook at the large
cost of transportation and this site is not a place that's close to where people work or to where
they can easily walk or ride a bike to work or to utilize public transportation.
Rand asks how the R -22 zoning fits into creating a plan for providing starter homes /affordable
homes for first -time home buyers and empty - nesters downsizing. She mentions there are 232
units of affordable housing on the site already. She says she hopes that transportation to that area
is a part of the city's plan.
Clausen responds by mentioning that the inclusionary ordinance we currently have does not
specify that it be available to a first -time homebuyer, it introduces a percentage of total units that
must be provided. He mentions that the funds raised from the fee -in -lieu option could be used for
a first -time homebuyer program or otherwise support affordable housing. He say there isn't
anything in the R -22 zoning or inclusionary ordinance that specifically encourages starter homes.
He notes the Massachusetts legislature has recently introduced a program to encourage starter
homes, but regulations have not yet been established.
Councilor David Lang spoke in support of proposed change and that the neighbors who live
there currently have transportation problems. He notes that the current RSD zoning could allow
for 12 units per acre. He believes the R -22 is a good compromise. He mentions the impact on the
existing streets, for example, Raymond Farms roadway network, and the concerns that they will
open up other access points.
Page 2 of 8
Beverly Planning Board / City Council Joint Public Hearing
October 3, 2016
Councilor Matthew St. Hilaire says he was a little surprised when he saw plans for large scale
development in that area. In light of what developers are working on downtown, TOD (transit -
oriented development), he asks if studies are being done about how this zoning proposal affects
things like school enrollment. He said he is supportive of meeting the city's housing needs but
wants to know the impact on the city.
Clausen says in multi- family projects along Rantoul Street, there is less than one car per dwelling
unit on site. He mentions a benefit for residents living in TOD housing is that they can be near
work or walk to the commuter rail station. TOD has a lower impact on the city's parking
situation than housing in the outlying areas does. He indicates they have just started looking at
schools to see the impact of these projects on the City. Very few students come to the schools
from these multi- family projects downtown, which primarily involve empty nesters and young
professionals and those who don't have kids, he says; but a larger analysis is being done.
St. Hilaire recognized Lorinda Visnick (Ward 6 School Committee) for her work to look at this
issue. He reiterates his concern about how this large scale development could impact all these
issues.
Councilor Scott Houseman refers to what he read in the paper and says he was upset that nothing
was given to the Council in writing aside from the one- sentence long order, especially given that
this is a zoning change that is probably of the largest magnitude he has faced on the Council. He
says that given the large acreage of the site, the lack of materials provided was inappropriate and
insufficient for having the discussion.
Clausen responds that the purpose of this public hearing was to get the conversation open and
that there will be opportunity for a more refined analysis upon continuation of the hearing.
Guanci reiterates that the continuation will provide more detail.
Houseman says it would be useful to have a layout of the maps showing the area and a
description from the zoning ordinance of the different sections. He asks what alternatives were
considered concerning whether it would be possible to re -zone only a part of the area. He says
we are seeing a theme of having more housing in general within the state and shares a concern
that it might have a detrimental impact on the school district. He mentions the summary of the
city's housings needs that's coming and wants to know how this fits into the bigger picture.
Councilor Don Martin expresses concern about the impact on the neighborhood if access was
created there by removing the fire gate. Says they worked hard to get that gate there and opening
up the fire road is a non - starter.
Councilor John Frates agrees and notes that after 30 years of dealing with that fire gate, he is
very concerned about what might happen if the emergency access road is opened up. Frates also
agrees that impact on schools is the crux of the issue. Says his concern, though, is about where
the City stands with the developer who has the right to do with that site whatever the current
zoning allows right now.
Page 3 of 8
Beverly Planning Board / City Council Joint Public Hearing
October 3, 2016
Clausen says he can't speak for the developer or property owner but there was a preliminary
subdivision plan that was submitted the prior Friday [September 30] that essentially freezes the
current zoning. A preliminary application gives the applicant an additional seven months to
prepare a definitive subdivision plan that could be submitted and then there is an eight -year
vested right to develop it within the existing plan. This is a property owner's right under Mass.
General Law, he says, but knowing that possibility, the Administration still wanted to move
forward with the zoning proposal.
Guanci asks if he can share what was submitted.
Clausen responds that the plan shows a new cul -de -sac at the end of Trask Lane. There is no
information about the kind of development or the number of units.
James Matz addresses the Council and reiterates the traffic problems that adding new
development will create. He asks what the overall benefit to the city would be by changing the
zoning.
Clausen says the objective in introducing the change is to essentially mitigate the scale to lessen
the impact on the transportation structure and utilities.
Hutchinson asks Clausen to explain why he thinks it should be an R -22 district instead of R -15
or R -10.
Clausen says the adjacent area (golf course) is R -22 and that R -22 allows for a lower density
scale than the other zones. Because the character of that area is suburban and doesn't have the
interconnections to the city, such as access to public transportation, he says the Planning
Department thought that scale would function better.
Guanci asks if there are members of the public who have questions or concerns. He notes he has
only one person on his list, Attorney Mark Glovsky, and invites him to speak.
Attorney Glovsky takes the podium. Says he represents Abbott Reeve and Stanley Reeve of
Folly Hill Associates Trust, the owner of the 76.6 acres being discussed this evening. He says
that the property has been in the Reeve family for more than 50 years. In the 1950's, the two
brothers' father started collecting properties in that part of the city as an opportunity to fulfill a
dream, which was creating a Reston, Virginia -like community. At that point the RSD zoning
evolved. The dream never really came together, he says, and ultimately the family sold the golf
course to the city. The property became three developments: Folly Hill Apartments, Cherry Hill
Beverly Condo and Apple Village. Folly Hill is the only place in the city where the RSD zoning
exists.
The brothers will be significantly impacted by the zoning action, Glovsky states. The property is
valued at $3.5 million. In Fiscal Year 2016, the family paid more than $60,000 in real estate
taxes to the City. Glovsky noted that last spring, knowing that the family wanted to dispose of
the property, they took the initiative to meet with the City in a "mutually advantageous
fashion. "That first meeting was in April with a subsequent meeting in June. Everything was
Page 4 of 8
Beverly Planning Board / City Council Joint Public_ Hearing
October 3, 2016
included in the discussion from a playground to a store where you could buy milk, he said, but
unfortunately, that dialogue went away when the family put the property on the market and the
city realized what the potential for development was.
He said the family was surprised about the rezoning to R -22 and only heard about it from what
they read in the papers.
Glovsky suggests that development of this property for single family purposes would be
extremely difficult and probably economically unfeasible. He notes that approximately 50
percent of the property is wetlands and there is a 200 -foot, no -build buffer zone required by the
RSD zoning. The property has significant value today but after the zoning would have minimal
value and "strikes him as though this might constitute a regulatory taking." He continues that the
family doesn't want to be adversarial with the city but needs to protect its economic investment.
They want to do what's best for the neighborhood that's up there now, he says, and those units
already there don't seem to be causing a traffic problem. He is appreciative of the public hearing
being continued.
Guanci and Hutchinson then ask if anyone from the public would like to speak.
Rick Marciano of 141 McKay St. notes that the city has just spent $5 million dollars catering to a
developer on Brimbal Ave. and just spent $120 million on a new middle school. He suggests the
city work with the property owners to come up with a plan.
Ron Costa of 14 Atlantic Ave., former Ward 2 Councilor from 2002 -05, says he expects there
would be multiple access points to the property, given its size. He also mentions that the city
could look at other zoning plans or compromises that could be made with the developers.
Clausen responds that in addition to the access from Rte. 128 off of Trask Lane, there are places
that could give access but it is not an approach looked on with much favor. The resistance is
primarily from the residents in the area, he says.
Costa asks if the Board is liable to a lawsuit because of a late change of zoning. Clausen says no,
that the City has followed all regulations of Mass General Law.
With input from the Planning Director and the City Solicitor, the date for the continuation of the
public hearing is decided for Monday, Nov. 7 at 7:30 p.m. Hutchinson asks for a motion to
continue the public hearing.
Flannery: Motion to continue the public hearing until Nov. 7, 2016 at 7:30pm. Rotondo
seconds.Motion passes (6 -0).
The Council then votes 9 -0 to recess.
Joint Public Hearing was adjourned at 8:54pm. Planning Board members relocate to Conference
Room B to resume their meeting.
Page 5 of 8
CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Planning Board: Special Meeting of the Planning Board
Date: Monday, October 3, 2016
Location: Beverly City Hall, Conference Room B
Members Present: Vice Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Ellen Flannery, James Matz,
Michael Rotondo, Catherine Barrett, Wayne Miller
Members Absent: Chair John Thomson, Ned Barrett, David Mack
Others Present: Assistant City Planner Darlene Wynne, Mayor Michael Cahill
Recorder: Mary Alice Cookson
Flannery: Motion to call the special meeting to order at 9:00 pm. Rotondo seconds the
motion. Motion passes (6 -0).
Subdivision Approval Not Required Plan - 2 -6 Enon Street — Dodge Realty Trust
Dodge Realty Trust has submitted an application for endorsement of an SANR plan for the
purpose of correcting an error found in the southerly boundary of the property. The plan creates a
"Parcel B ", approximately 987 square feet, which will be conveyed to the owner of the adjacent
property to the south.
Hutchinson asks Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne to show the Board the original
boundary lines of the property and where it's located. She explains that the owners want to sell
the property (re -deed it to the adjacent owners) and need to correct the plot lines. She clarifies to
the Board that the owners aren't creating any new buildable lots, just correcting the lot lines that
are in a wrong location. The building there is non- conforming.
Hutchinson asks how the shifting of the lines affects the property, its size, etc. Wynne says it
really doesn't have an impact. C. Barrett and Flannery discuss a bit about the property's history.
Miller: Motion to endorse the plan as not requiring approval by the Planning Board
(SANR).Flannery seconds the motion. The Board votes (6 -0) to endorse the
SANR.
Discussion: Order #211 — Proposed Amen dment to Beverlv ZoninLy Ordinance #300 -38 b
amending Chapter 300 — Zoning, Article VI: District Regulations by deleting Section 300-
38 RSD S ecial Residential District and to amend the Zonin Ma District designated
"RSD" by redesisnatin as 11 11-22" and any all lots therein as "R -22" (Map 40, Lots1A,
45 46 47 Map 28 Lot 126 and Map 52 Lot 75).
The Board requests clarifications on the proposed R -22 zoning change.
Beverly Planning Board
October 3, 2016
C. Barrett says it would be helpful to get more information about the subdivision plan that was
submitted. Wynne explains that the preliminary plan just involves cutting the parcel in two and
creating a cul -de -sac. It is not required that the plan give much detail.
The owners submitted the plan to "lock in their position," Hutchinson says, adding that when the
Board reconvenes, they'll have more of a sense of the plan, the maps, parcels, etc.
Wynne says the Planning Board will have a chance to discuss the owners' preliminary plan at its
next meeting Oct. 18. She says that the Board will need to give their recommendations at that
time and vote to approve or deny the plan, or to deny it for specific reasons, unless the owners
submit an extension since the 45 -day time limit will be expiring. Wynne explains that the next
step would then be for the applicant to submit a definitive plan.
C. Barrett notes that the owners would then have eight years to build something after submitting
the plan. She asks if the Public Hearing on the zoning is a moot point if a plan is submitted.
Wynne says no because the Administration still believes it should be changed and there are a
number of things that could happen in the real estate market in the meantime.
Hutchinson says that as long as the owners meet the requirements, the Board can apply
conditions, but if the plan is reasonable they have no choice but to approve it.
Rotundo asks if the people of Danvers are being a given a say in the matter.
Wynne says they will be informed as abutters. Renters aren't informed; only owners are. She
says that public notice only comes when a definitive plan is submitted. Wynne says it is her
understanding that the owners intend to sell the land.
Wayne Miller asks if it is accurate that 50 percent of the property is wetlands. Says he went all
through it and wouldn't guess it was near 50 percent. Wynne says the wetlands are indicated on
the plan. C. Barrett notes it has been an unusually dry year so it might not appear to be as wet as
previous years.
Mayor Mike Cahill requests to speak. He says that the City believes that roughly under the
current zone the owners could probably build about 500 units while the owners appear to think
they could build between 600 to 800 units. He explains that the owners have been marketing the
property for several months and the City has been looking for ways to find a mitigation to those
numbers, something that might work for the city. For example, looking at solar or wind there or
perhaps some long -term lease of the property or identifying a subsection of the parcel for open
space. The use of most value to the owners is multi- family housing.
The Mayor notes that the proposed rezoning is one of the tools we have in our tool belt as
community to express our values. The master plan sets a high priority on TOD. For each TOD
unit, you get fewer vehicles, he explains. There is a lesser impact with TOD than with an
outlying development. He notes that the people living there would not be just turning around on
the highway but would be traveling Routes I and 62 to access portions of Beverly. That scale
of development along the highway just doesn't seem to fit with our shared priorities. Board
Page 2of8
Beverly Planning Board
October 3, 2016
members mention that one could theoretically trespass and ride a bike on the fire road but
wouldn't have a right to do so.
Board members discuss some of the history of the parcel and property owned by the Reeve
family. The Mayor says there's a need to "get it all clear and look at that." He says this history of
the area should be presented.
The Board concludes this discussion.
Update of Table 1- Fee in Lieu of Affordable Housing Units Fiscal Year 2017 ner Chapter
315 Inclusionary Housing Regulations.
The City's "Submission Requirements, Procedures & Supplemental Regulations" for
Inclusionary Housing requires the Board to adopt a fee schedule annually for the payment in lieu
option as established in the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
The Board decides not to act on the matter this evening and instead, to discuss it at the next
meeting. Wynne says that because this is not a public hearing, the matter doesn't have to be
voted on to be continued. She says Board members should send corrections to her if they have
any.
Other Business
C. Barrett asks if anyone has had an opportunity to read the housing needs assessment. She says
the data is there, but not the recommendations. Wynne explains the next chapter, containing
proposed housing strategies, is hopefully coming this week. She indicates the next public
meeting is scheduled for Nov. 2 and the Planning Department will make a presentation to City
Council on Oct. 17. She expects a final plan to be available mid- November, depending on
number of comments received, and hopes to see that adopted by year -end.
Other Business
Hutchinson asks the Board for a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Flannery: Motion to adjourn the meeting. C. Barrett seconds the motion. The motion carries
(6 -0).
Meeting adjourned at 9:27 p.m.
Page 3of8