4-23-18 BPB and Joint CC Minutes (2)CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Board: Planning Board Meeting
Date: April 23, 2018
Location: Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers
Members Present Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Vice Chair Ned Barrett
Ellen Flannery, Allison Kilcoyne, Wayne Miller
Members Absent: Zane Craft, David Mack, James Matz
Others Present: Planning Director Aaron Clausen
Recorder: Samantha Johanson, Recording Secretary
Chair Ellen Hutchinson calls the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans
None.
Approval of Minutes (as available): February 27
Ellen Hutchinson asks the Board if they have any changes to be made to the minutes for the
February 27 meeting. Ellen Flannery proposes a clarification for page 5, first paragraph, first
sentence - asks if the funeral home be changed to either the former funeral home or the current
tenants at 9 Dane Street. Hutchinson suggests they use former funeral home every time it is
mentioned in the minutes.
Flannery: Motion to approve minutes for February 27 as amended. Miller seconds the
motion. The motion is approved unanimously (5 -0).
Request for Construction Completion and Release of Surety, Request for Approval of As-
Built Plans — Nelson Avenue Extension — Le2acy Development LLC
Aaron Clausen lets the Board know they received the As -Built plans, which were shared with the
Engineering Department. He notes Lisa Chandler, Staff Engineer, recommends that the surety be
released with 20% retained for 18 months. He tells the Board that there are some notes in the
staff report regarding corrections in the Form H, which have been incorporated, addressed, and
revised.
Wayne Miller comments about the installation of the 5 bounds that did not happen because the
ground was frozen which was referenced on the Hancock Associates letter. Clausen tells the
Board that they can allow the order of conditions to control the matter or make it a condition of
the release and within 30 days the bounds need to be installed.
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2018
Ned Barrett recommends they add a condition that the bounds need to be put in to get the 20%
released.
Barrett: Motion to approve As -Built plans and release surety, with 20% of the surety held
for 18 months with a condition that, pursuant to the letter from Hancock
Associates, the 5 bounds shall be installed before the 20% surety is released.
Miller seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (5 -0).
George Belleau of Legacy Development was present after the vote was made.
Request for Minor Modifications to Site Plan #127 -17 —105 Sam Fonzo Drive — Miranda P.
Gooding on behalf of Beverly Airport Self Storage, LLC
Miranda Gooding, Glovsky & Glovsky LLC, 8 Washington Street in Beverly, tells the Board the
applicant is looking to make minor modifications to the site plan for two self- storage buildings
and one office building. The changes are only to the roof line, window locations, and colors and
materials to the building fagade. She tells them there are no changes to the site plan.
Hutchinson asks the Board if there are any questions for Gooding. Hutchinson tells the Board
they need to determine if the changes are minor or major, if they are major they need to schedule
a public hearing, and if they deem them minor they can move to vote to accept them or reject
them.
Barrett: Motion to deem modifications as minor. Flannery seconds the motion. The
motion is approved unanimously (5 -0).
Barrett asks if the airport needs to have any say about this project. Gooding tells him that they
have filed with the FAA and they are outside of that zone.
Barrett: Motion to approve the minor modifications. Flannery seconds the motion. The
motion is approved unanimously (5 -0).
Flannery: Motion to recess for public hearing. N. Barrett seconds the motion. The motion is
approved unanimously (5 -0).
[Break far Joint Public Hearing with City Council.]
2
CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Board: Joint Public Hearing of the Planning Board and the Beverly City
Council
Date: April 23, 2018
Location: Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers
Members Present Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Vice Chair Ned Barrett
Ellen Flannery, Allison Kilcoyne, Wayne Miller
Members Absent: Zane Craft, David Mack, James Matz
Councilors Present: Council President Paul Guanci, Vice President John Frates,
Timothy Flaherty, Julie Flowers, Scott Houseman, Donald Martin,
Estelle Rand
Councilors Absent: David Lang, James Latter
Others Present: Planning Director Aaron Clausen, Associate Planner Emily
Hutchings
Recorder: Samantha Johanson, Recording Secretary
*BevCam videotaped the meeting.
Council President Paul Guanci calls to order the Public Hearing at 7:15 p.m.
Public Hearing: City Council Order #067 — Proposed Amendment to Beverly Zoning
Ordinance #300 — Establish Land Use Categories & Regulations for Solar Ener2y Svstems
Slate reads the Order. Chairperson Hutchinson joins Guanci at the dais.
Aaron Clausen presents to the City Council the proposed amendment to the Beverly Zoning
Ordinance 9300 to establish land use categories & regulations for solar energy systems. Emily
Hutchings assisted with this amendment. Some of the objectives and reasoning for this
amendment include the following:
• Increases popularity of ground - mounted solar energy systems
• Regulations ensure:
• Appropriate development and management of large - scale, ground- mounted solar
energy systems
• Appropriate placement of small - scale, ground- mounted solar energy systems as
accessory structures
• Limiting negative impacts on adjacent properties, particularly residential
• Ensuring safety and welfare of residents and visitors
Clausen introduces the new definitions to the ordinance, which include: solar access, solar
energy system: ground - mounted, large- scale, roof - mounted, small scale. He notes that while
adding a definition for Solar Access, the section [300 -20] is proposed to be stricken from the
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2018
ordinance and explains that this was a provision that granted an automatic solar access right on
an adjacent property to a solar facility and it prevented residents from installing landscape
screening, trees, that would block the solar facility.
Clausen walks through all the changes made since the public hearing in November. The Planning
Department has been doing research and comparing what other towns and cities have done. He
adds, they may introduce at some point a special permit process that would allow for solar access
rights. He tells them that ground- mounted facilities will need a special permit which needs to be
obtained from the Planning Board.
Clausen explains that originally certain districts were allowing large -scale ground- mounted
systems by- right, but the amendment creates ground- mounted facilities as primary use requiring
a special permit use from the Planning Board. He says they removed the section regarding
neighborhood covenants, noting it's not necessary in the zoning. There will also be a special
permit process for parking canopies for dimensional relief He explains for the small -scale
ground- mounted systems that they have removed the neighborhood covenants in the amendment
as well. They are however proposing increasing setbacks for the front yard, side yard, and rear
yard for the small -scale ground- mounted systems in residential districts. For roof - mounted
systems he says that they are adding a height restriction up to 5 feet which can go higher with a
special permit.
Clausen comments that large -scale ground- mounted solar energy systems can occupy more than
1,000 square feet of surface area. It is a separate use and is allowed by -right as an accessory use
in industrial (IR and IG), CG, and HD districts. He notes it is not allowed by -right in the MOSR
district but is allowed as a principal use by special permit in all districts. Clausen shows them a
map of Beverly to identify those districts and what's allowed.
Clausen then shows them in the presentation some sub - sections for the large -scale ground -
mounted solar energy systems including applicability which defines review process, general
requirements, site plan review, and some dimensions and height requirements that include the
setbacks by right: requirements of underlying zoning apply, where a lot abuts residential
districts, setbacks from lot lines adjacent to residential parcels are 50 feet. If a special permit is
required, setback requirements will be: for the front yard not less than 75 feet, side yard depth
not less than 50 feet, rear yard depth not less than 50 feet, and the height limit of 20 feet.
Clausen says that if a special permit is required, there is a process to seek relief if the applicant
doesn't meet the current setback and height requirements. But he notes they wanted to create a
substantial buffer to residential areas under the special permit process.
Clausen explains that the applicant will have to have some landscape plan and buffering, and that
there are design and performance standards such as noise, hazardous materials, lighting, visual
impacts, utility connections, roads, that will serve as guidance for applicants. There will also be
safety and environmental standards, monitoring, maintenance, and annual reporting.
Clausen explains that the small -scale ground- mounted solar energy systems include 1,000 square
feet or less of surface area, and that they are accessory areas allowed by right in side and rear
4
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2018
yards, subject to setback and height requirements. These require rear yard setbacks of at least 10
feet and side yard setbacks to conform to underlying zoning for principal uses. These are not
allowed in the front yard. However, an applicant could get a special permit, but it would go
through a process where abutters are notified and special criteria needs to be met. The height
restriction is 10 feet or a height equal to half the distance to the nearest lot line, to a maximum of
20 feet. He reminds them that a special permit is required to construct this system in an area of a
lot not specifically approved. He also tells them that there will be design and performance
standards such as lighting, visual impacts, utility connections, and noise.
In his presentation, Clausen shows that the roof - mounted solar energy systems include accessory
uses and are allowed by right in all districts, but systems are not to extend more than 5 feet above
the highest point on a roof. A special permit is required to construct the system that reaches
higher than permitted by- right.
Clausen mentions that solar access language (shown in the graphic), regarding any obstruction
blocking the solar rays, currently in the ordinance will be removed and the section reserved for
future language.
Guanci announces at the conclusion of Clausen's presentation that they will have the members of
the public speak first.
Bill Soares of 26 Putnam Street asks how they came to the point of 1,000 square feet for the
large scale to the small scale. Clausen explains that they are trying to be more consistent with
commercial use and it's based on the State's solar access model. Emily Hutchings, Associate
Planner, tells him that the State used to have three different sizes small, medium, and large
whereby medium and large are commercial in scale and small is a residential scale. She adds
they have separated those two out and have established that the medium and large do have
differences; however, the main difference is you have the commercial versus the residential or
small project. Soares then comments that his biggest concern is the pole mounted solar panels
and the size that is allowed. He passes photos around to the Council and Planning Board for
review.
Clausen responds that the requirements of the setback address these issues. Soares mentions
there is going to be more that size than are currently up in Beverly. His concern in the current
proposal is that it suggests a 6 -ft high barrier and that kind of barrier doesn't give you a lot of
protection. He thinks the barriers and buffers need to be considered very carefully. He is happy
with the small scale size, however, he thinks they are still too big.
Soares asks Clausen if the side setback has increased or still 5 feet. Clausen tells him they
changed the side setback requirement to the underlying zoning district so it is more than 5 feet,
but most side setbacks that are in residential districts are 15 feet. Soares asks if the existing solar
energy systems are not part of the current amendment. Clausen tells him that is correct. Soares
then asks if someone takes one down (that has been grandfathered in), will they be able to put it
back up. Clausen explains that if someone eliminates that use they would have to seek a special
permit to reconstruct or relocate it, otherwise they would not be able to do so.
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2018
Soares suggests that if the two owners of the solar panels on Putnam Street would be willing to
do a visual mitigation at this point would the City assist if the owners are open to it. He does not
need personal assistance, but other neighbors may seek some support to block seeing that solar
panel that may be bothersome to them.
Mary Downing of 40 Putnam Street comments that the 1,000 sq. feet is an issue and the current
solar panel on Putnam Street is 350 square feet. She thinks that 1,000 square feet for residential
is excessive and is concerned that it will overtake Beverly. She thinks that the panels should be
much smaller.
Pete Johnson of 677 Hale Street asks if the pole mounted panels are allowed in residential
districts. Hutchings tells him that you can go up to 20 feet but it would have to be 40 feet back
from the property line. Clausen tells him it would not be allowed in the front yard no matter how
tall it is.
Councilor Donald Martin comments that the solar panels on Putnam Street aren't appropriate. He
asks Clausen what the ordinance does for the residents of Putnam Street. Clausen tells him the
removal of the solar access rights is helpful, but any abutter can provide any screening necessary.
He tells him nothing can be done prior to the amendment and it is grandfathered_
Councilor Timothy Flaherty asks if the City is exempt from its own rules. Clausen tells him the
City is exempt from the zoning rules.
Councilor John Frates comments that the enforcement of the regulation has been problematic and
what will they do in the future. Clausen tells him it establishes the guidelines so when a project
comes to the Building Department it will be reviewed to see if it meets the zoning requirements
and guidelines by -right and make sure it is installed correctly and will refer them to get a special
permit if needed.
Councilor Julie Flowers asks about the solar access section that is being removed from the
ordinance and what are the protections for those already putting in the solar panels. Clausen tells
her that anyone investing in solar panels will be protected. He explains that they did a lot of
research and the current scenario that they have doesn't affect that. This has been in place for
many years, but has never been invoked. He then says that they are reserving the space in the
zoning ordinance to establish a process for creating solar access rights in the future in case things
change, and objectives change down the road. He notes that if a property owner wants to install a
solar energy system they need to seek a special permit to gain those kinds of access rights. They
were pursuing the special permit process but decided not to include in the proposed change
because solar access rights didn't appear to be a barrier for new solar projects. He adds if they
find that in the future this becomes an issue they will revisit the issue and seek approval from the
City Council.
Councilor Scott Houseman asks about the existing structures and the monitoring, maintenance,
and annual reporting, are the existing structures grandfathered out of those requirements. Clausen
confirms that is correct. Houseman then asks if that is because it is being enacted after the fact of
their construction and installation, but that section doesn't seem to relate to construction or
11
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2018
permit and he wonders why it is not retroactive. Clausen tells him that any change in regulation
can't be retroactive. Houseman then asks about the delineations between the small and large
structures and that the smaller installations would be in residential areas and what was the
consideration given between the division of labor between the Planning and Zoning boards.
Clausen explains that the special permit granting authority is the Planning Board across the
board.
Houseman then asks why the Zoning Board is not being tasked with this since they normally deal
with residential zoning issues. Clausen explains that they chose the Planning Board as the single
point of authority because the performance standards and the criteria that needs to be reviewed to
grant special permits whether it is a small scale, which may be more consistent with residential
installations, or larger scale, are similar. He then tells him that if it's a site plan review project
which also requires a special permit then there are some efficiencies. Hutchings explains that if
one applies for one of the small scale uses that will require a special permit, the Planning Board
has the right to tell the applicant they will need additional buffers or landscaping so it has
minimal impact on the neighbors.
Houseman then suggests some changes in language in the ordinance on page 10, Section V.
regarding the removal of healthy trees and being replaced. He thinks it should clarify where,
such as on -site, off -site, etc. to be more specific. His other suggestion for language change on
page 10, G.(1)b refers to applicant providing a description of the solar energy location and
design; he thinks it should be more specific and not generalized.
Councilor Estelle Rand comments about the rear yard setback, side yard setbacks, and height
requirements for the small scale takes care of the height and size issues. Rand thinks that few
homes would even have the space even for the smaller solar panel systems in some of the
districts in the City. Clausen tells her that the setbacks will be the primary restriction in the
districts with the smaller properties, but the height restrictions and no front yard installation are
the most critical for the locations they are allowed in. He thinks these regulations will address the
single mounted pole solar panels greatly.
Councilor Martin comments that it is not allowed in the front yard and will hopefully avoid
similar situation to the Putnam Street issue and Clausen confirms that.
Hutchinson asks if there are any questions from the Planning Board.
Miller comments that the City has committed to renewable energy and reduction of greenhouse
gas and tells them that the solar system on his house has lowered the cost of the energy he uses.
He also tells them that the Clean Energy Advisory Committee has expressed no issues with the
ordinance.
Hutchinson comments that she has concerns about the small-scale ground- mounted panels and
wants to make sure that they find a balance especially with the abutting homeowners' rights. She
thinks that 1,000 square feet may be excessive on some smaller sized properties and asks if there
is a sliding scale for smaller districts. Clausen tells her that the height restriction will help
address that issue, so the sliding scale is based on the size of the lot and where they put the
7
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2018
facility and the size of it. Hutchinson then asks if in the design and performance standards with
all the standards listed a building permit will be required and if the Building Inspector will be
reviewing the plans. Clausen tells her that a building permit will be required and that a Building
Inspector could address some of those things. He then tells her that it would go to the Planning
Board if it needed relief on certain issues. Hutchinson asks if there will be a notification process
to notify abutters before the building permit is issued. Clausen comments that they don't
recommend it because if an abutter is notified that a building permit application has been
submitted and it meets the zoning requirements by right, there is no discretionary proof to deny it
so it would make an abutter believe there is something that could be done to change what has
been submitted under the zoning ordinance.
Councilor Martin thinks that abutter should be notified regardless of what they can do or not.
The installation on Putnam Street was just installed and the residents had no idea that this was
happening.
Council Flowers thinks that even though it would be good to notify the abutters, with this
ordinance there would be no use for it as there is nothing they can do either way.
Councilor Flaherty likes the idea of the abutters being notified if possible but at the same time
thinks that neighbors talking to each other in general might find a way to work something out
that works for everyone.
Mary Downing of 40 Putnam Street comments about the notifications and feels that it would be a
good idea; it would be nice to let neighbors know about it so they can look into the information
about the installation.
Pete Johnson of 677 Hale Street asks about the existing situation on Putnam Street and if the
resident wanted to do something further on that site would they be bound by these new rules.
Clausen tells him if it was an existing structure and if the resident added an additional pole, they
would have to use the new requirements. Johnson asks where the solar array could be put up and
could he put up a solar array that met the criteria but was in a lot facing somewhere else with
nothing around it. Clausen tells him that if an owner has two separate parcels that it adjoins as
one that it would be considered as the primary parcel and would need to meet the height and
setback requirements.
Councilor Flowers comments that the Council may not be able to monitor the neighbors being
notified but thinks it is important thing to do if possible.
Miller comments that he thinks that legislating notification should not be required.
Clausen comments that the setback requirements are more stringent than other accessory
structures like sheds, parking garages, etc. He then comments that they don't require
notifications to be sent out for those kinds of structures and notifying abutters for projects by
right only introduces confusion when there is already discretion over the permit.
E3
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2018
Hutchinson asks how these standards are going to be implemented and enforced. Clausen tells
her that if a by -right project is meeting all of the requirements and if it's within the setbacks and
height requirements, then it's meeting the location standards that have been set. Issues like noise
and light can be enforced by the Building Commissioner if the applicant is seeking a special
permit for relief of the setback requirements and gives guidance to the Planning Board when
reviewing the special permit application. It doesn't give the Building Commissioner discretion
to determine where the siting should be if it meets the setback requirements.
Guanci closes the City Council portion of the public hearing.
Barrett: Motion to close the public hearing. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is
approved unanimously (5 -0).
[Planning Board reconvenes for regular meeting; minutes continued on next page]
E]
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2018
Continued Public Hearin: Second Request for Minor Modifications to Site Plan Review
#93 -08 — 95 Sam Fonzo Drive — Mark Glovsky on behalf of The Coastal Group LLC
Mark Glovsky, Glovsky & Glovsky LLC, 8 Washington Street, provides the Planning Board
updated drawings for this plan. He comments that at the last Planning Board meeting they were
trying to prove that the project met the zoning requirements of Section 300 -13 of the zoning
ordinance and evidence of submission of the FAA Form 7460. Both of those items have been
addressed and the evidence of submission has been submitted to the Planning Department.
Kirk Benson of American Land Survey of Gloucester, a registered land surveyor introduces
himself to the Board. Hutchinson asks him to walk them through the diagram. Benson explains
the cross section of the runway end and the angle to the roof of the building and the slope as well
as the angle of that slope. Hutchinson asks if the angle is the 66:1 slope as the proposed building
now stands and Benson tells her that is correct. Hutchinson then asks what the FAA regulations
of that slope are. Benson could not answer Miller comments that a runway glide slope measures
at an inclination of 3 degrees which would be a high point of 5.29% slope, 18:1 rise over run
(ratio), and he adds this project he believes is at 1.74 degrees angle inclination, 3% slope and
34:1 ratio, which is one -half of the glide slope. Miller explains that it is well below the glide
slope.
Barrett asks Glovsky since they have submitted the 7460 to the FAA what is the expectation of
when they should hear back from them. Glovsky tells him there is a 45 day period in which a
building permit is not available. They do however have a foundation permit for the site, and the
building permit will follow after the FAA decision. Barrett asks him if the 7460 deals with issues
such as the slope. Glovsky explains that the project was approved at a 26 foot height in 2008 and
if the applicant hadn't come before the Board several months ago the project would've already
been underway. But the applicant at the time wanted better interior space, a mezzanine so they
wanted to move the height of the building to 30 feet. But when the Planning Board wanted to add
on additional conditions, the applicant decided that they wanted to go back to 26 feet. He
reminds the Planning Board that they are there this evening to return to the decision and approval
that the Planning Board made in 2008.
Barrett asks if they can't go forward until they hear back from the FAA. Glovsky tells him the
Conservation Commission and other City departments are involved, but all they want to do is
have the Board determine if changing from 30 feet back to 26 is deemed a minor modification.
He says if they believe it is more than that they would need a public hearing. Glovsky explains
he believes they have met the two requirements made by the Board, that the project meets the
34:1 slope and has filed with the FAA and that it would be unreasonable to not approve the
modification. He clarifies to Barrett that they can't proceed with the building permit until 45
days have gone by. He then explains that the applicant doesn't necessarily need to abide by what
the FAA suggests because it is advisory and it goes to the Airport Commission and the City and
will be up to others to make that determination.
Clausen tells him that the FAA does not regulate the height or location of a building on this
property. He tells them that the FAA in 2008 had recommended a much shorter building than
what was approved through site plan review. He clarifies that without control through site plan
10
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2018
review, the City has no authority to say a building should be lowered. The FAA's
recommendation would affect the flight path and that there's no ability from the City's
perspective to ensure it meets FAA recommendations. Barrett confirms that they still could have
moved forward with the 26 foot building.
Miller ask again about FAA not regulating the height of the building. Glovsky tells him that the
City had signed over the title of the property in 2007 and was given recommendations at the time
as far as conditions to impose with respect to the transfer which they chose not to. He tells him
that the applicant who acquired the property from the original purchaser with permits for a
project has the ability to go forward without any limitations other than in the City ordinance
which states they can't exceed 34:1. He states that the building is at 66:1, well above the
requirement.
Barrett asks when the FAA came back in 2008 if they wanted something lower. Glovsky tells
him that they recommended 14 -foot height for the building, in addition to other
recommendations to the City. He emphasizes to the Board that they are there tonight asking to go
back to the approved project. Barrett comments that by them coming before the Board again that
it is giving them a second chance to take a bite of the apple. Glovsky explains that he doesn't
believe that to be the case and that the applicant might believe it to be a taking because the
applicant purchased this property with the understanding of the prior approval and is simply
trying to return it back to its original height from back in 2008. Glovsky explains that the first
time the applicant asked for a modification that conditions were not discussed during meeting but
were later added to the decision. Clausen tells him that is not what happened.
Barrett asks if the FAA could force the airport to change the runway configuration. Clausen says
yes they could. Glovsky comments that what they are here for is straightforward and that the
other issues are something for the airport to address. He notes one of the recommendations from
2008 was for the City to reserve a navigation easement over the property for the benefit of the
airport, which gives control over 250 feet above the property within an easement the airport
would have. He tells them that when the City transferred the title they didn't do that for whatever
reason. He explains the applicant bought it as is with no limitations on the title and with the
decision from the Planning Board that was in effect.
Barrett asks that as permitted now, could they put a 30 foot building. Glovsky says no, they
would have to abide by conditions of the modification decision. Barrett asks if those conditions
would carry forward if this request was approved tonight. Clausen says, not unless you add them
as a condition of this approval; they are seeking to have them removed. Glovsky states that the
two conditions are proof of meeting the 34:1 slope and submission to the FAA.
Miller comments that he is not sure we understand what the FAA may say and that the
application has opened a can of worms and is concerned about moving forward with this.
Clausen comments to correct the record, that the conditions that were placed on the modification
approved by the Board in February were approval by the FAA and /or compliance with any
condition imposed in their review and number 2, subject to any conditions made by Beverly
Airport Commission during their review. He confirms it was the February modification and
conditions were tied to the taller building height. Glovsky comments that the modifications
11
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2018
include using different materials and they wanted a taller building but then decided to go back to
the height approved in 2008. Clausen confirms to Barrett the conditions were placed on the site
plan approval, not the special permit.
Barrett asks that the applicant believes they have met those two conditions. Glovsky tells him
that the conditions were imposed for a taller building and since the applicant is no longer making
the building taller, he thinks there is no legitimate reasons to add conditions to a building that
was already approved in 2008 for 26 feet. He alleges if conditions are added that would remove
value, there is a potential conflict. Barrett tells him that the FAA came out after that approval and
said the appropriate building height should be 14 feet and that information came to the Board
after the 2008 approval, and the applicant would have known that. Glovsky tells him that when
the applicant purchased the property they had the copy of the permit that the Planning Board
issued and any conditions included and the deed; he did not get any information behind the
permit issued. Barrett explains he is uncomfortable, given the potential ramifications outside of
this decision. He thinks they should get input from the City Solicitor of what impact they would
have on approving this application and relative to a potential taking. Glovsky asks that if the
Board does that to ask for a quick response because the applicant already has a foundation permit
and has ordered steel for the project.
Clausen comments that his understanding is that a building this far away from the runway needs
to be a 1:50 slope and this meets a 1:66 slope. He suggests that they discuss a condition that the
applicant work with the City and Beverly Regional Airport to meet to the best of their ability the
requirements of the FAA recommendations following a 7460. He references possible new
information around the datum and the real height of the building related to the runway and
meeting that requirement really solves the problem. Glovsky tells them they anticipate they may
have to install lights to the top of the building and the applicant is not averse to doing what is
appropriate and reasonable to ensure safe flights. But if they have to build a 14 foot building that
will be an issue for the applicant. Glovsky adds that another standard used by the FAA could be
a building in the airport approach zone isn't used for a congregation of people. He tells him that
the building isn't proposed for that use and it will mostly be industrial. But to say that the
applicant will have to meet anything that the Airport and FAA will suggest will be a non - starter.
Glovsky shows the Board where the property is on the plan and the small corner of the building
that would be in the Airport Approach Zone.
Clausen comments that the City Solicitor would probably say it's not in the jurisdiction of the
City to comment on what the FAA would require, nor is it their expertise. He explains that the
Planning Board has the authority to approve with conditions a project that would meet the
objectives of the zoning code which includes meeting the health and welfare of the public. If the
Board thinks this would require a safe flight path for the runway for the minor modification
request, the Board could consider this. Glovsky comments that as the building is going to be 26
feet in height, they could agree to a condition that the applicant would abide by any reasonable
recommendation by the FAA.
Miller requests counsel of the City Solicitor for the reason that the applicant is alleging a
potential taking case, rather than the question with the FAA. Glovsky is open to having the
12
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2018
opinion of the City Solicitor so long as they are not waiting too long. Barrett comments if the 26
foot building was approved on the condition that the applicant comply with reasonable
recommendations by the FAA and Beverly Airport for safe flight path with the exclusion of
reducing the height of the building, would the applicant be willing to comply with those
conditions. Glovsky comments that the reasonable conditions could include lighting, gathering of
people, and storage of hazardous materials.
DJ Simonelli of the Coastal Group comments that there have been some changes with the datum
heights since 10 years ago. He notes they have sunk the building down into the ground. He notes
that the 26 -foot building which is technically 23 feet inside and is the minimum they could really
do. He comments they bought the building based on a decision that was made in 2008. He tells
them he is fine with all the possible conditions related to lighting and usage that may be
proposed. He adds they have started ground work and putting in a foundation.
Barrett comments that his biggest concern is the potential impact on the function of the airport
runway. He notes that they want more time to review this and to discuss with the City Solicitor
and would like for the applicant to come to the next meeting on May 15.
Glovsky comments that what they are asking for is the building to go back to the 26 -foot height,
which was already approved. Barrett comments that they could vote this evening but they may
vote that the modification is not minor and then they would have to return for a public hearing
but if they give the Board more time to discuss with the City Solicitor they can take a vote on it
on May 15. Glovsky explains the process to his client.
Clausen comments that the minor modifications to go to 30 feet from February 2018 had two
conditions on it, which required compliance with recommendation from the FAA, advisory or
not, which had to do with use and height and how it affects the flight path. This condition was
made to help ensure that they protect the City and the Airport and they do not affect the runway.
He comments that earlier in April the applicant submitted an email and tracking receipt
suggesting that the application was submitted to the FAA. He noted they have not seen the
number assigned to the FAA confirming that the 7460 was received by their office. Simonelli
confirms that they called and confirmed they received it. Clausen comments that it is important
to understand that it is received because it provides a timeline of 45 days before they hear about
what the FAA will require.
Miller asks if the former conditions apply to the prior request for modification to make the
building taller. Glovsky confirms that they are looking to not have those conditions attached
since they don't need the additional height.
Barrett: Motion to continue the discussion and decision to the May 15 meeting to
continue to review this application and make a formal request that the City
Solicitor review it for legal ramifications, and to the event that the applicant
receive any further communication from the FAA that the Planning Department
be made aware. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved (5 -0).
13
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2018
Clausen asks for clarification on the legal request. Barrett comments that Glovsky commented
that if it doesn't get approved that the property would be deemed unusable by the applicant and
that it constitutes a taking. Barrett indicates he wants to know their opinion on that issue. Clausen
comments that they won't know anything until they see what the FAA says. Barrett comments
that FAA issued a letter after 2008 decision saying the building should be 14 feet tall, and he
comments that if the FAA does do that again, does that constitute a taking because the applicant
can no longer build the size building they wanted to.
Miller comments that there would be no option to change runway configuration and they'd have
to shorten the runway to make the glide slope above that and that the runway is already short.
Barrett comments that if it makes the runway unusable, he would like to see if the City Solicitor
can find out if constructing the building at 26 feet would have such ramifications. Flannery asks
if they can go back to the 30 feet. Barrett confirms they can, but would still have the conditions.
Barrett says that in 2008 that they didn't' have the letter from the FAA recommending the
building not be more than 14 feet. Knowing it after the fact, caused the conditions in February.
Clausen comments that they probably shouldn't deliberate any further without the applicant
present and he will make the request to the City Solicitor.
Recess for Public Hearings
Miller: Motion to recess to public hearing. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is
approved (5 -0).
Continued Public Hearing: Site Plan Review Application #133 -17 — 40 & 100 Sam Fonzo
Drive — Construct a commercial office and warehouse on existing lot — Fonzo Realty LLC
(further continuation requested by applicant)
Hutchinson comments that they are requesting a continuance of the Public Hearing.
Barrett: Motion to continue public hearing to May 15 meeting. Flannery seconds the
motion. The motion is approved (5 -0).
Public Hearing: Special Permit Application #166 -18 — 461 Rantoul Street — Request for 6
units to be counted as "credit units" as part of a new Inclusionary Housing Permit
application to be heard concurrently — 461 Rantoul Realty LLC
Miranda Gooding, Glovsky & Glovsky LLC, 8 Washington Street, representing the applicant
tells the Board that they are affiliated with Beverly Crossing and they have identified property to
purchase and acquire and are looking for units to be approved as "credit units" to be used for a
project in the future. She tells them there are 4 units that would be 60% AMI and 2 units would
be restricted at 80% AMI. She tells them that the inclusionary housing application and special
permit awaits approval by the Planning Board.
Gooding demonstrates on the site plan where the project is located in Beverly noting it is close to
transit and then shows them an existing street view. She explains that the plan is to restrict the
units to affordable use, and the application outlines what they will do to improve existing units.
14
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2018
There will be some cosmetic improvements to the exterior such as landscaping. She shows them
the existing interior units, which will be 3 bedroom units, about 900 sq. ft., and tells them that
the kitchens will have new appliances, new cabinetry, washers and dryers will be in all units, and
the bathrooms will be updated. The building overall is in good condition so most of the systems
will stay in place. Gooding shows them the site plan and the existing conditions. She notes the
front will have some new landscaping, but not much more will be done; however, the driveway
is shared by a next door neighbor so they will make changes to that.
Gooding tells them that the applicant has submitted a draft regulatory agreement that is specific
to the property and they have also submitted a sample marketing plan which outlines the
application process and tenant selection. If the application is approved, the applicant will be
submitting a local housing application through the City that would include the final regulatory
agreement as well as the final marketing plan which would be reviewed by the Planning
Department and forwarded to DHCD for approval. All of that would have to happen before a
building permit was granted for this project. She tells them that the draft they submitted does not
have the prospective rents because it depends on the fact that it is a credit unit and when the
renovations are done so that won't happen until they have a timeline for when the renovations
will be done. Gooding tells them currently for families earning 60% AMI, the maximum rent
would be $1,407 and for the 80% AMI it would be about $1,876. She thinks it will be an
improvement to the neighborhood, and the care and attention to the property will help increase
property values of abutters.
Miller asks about the note in the staff report stating a modification to the elevation drawings or
floor plans in order to further the objectives of Chapter 300, § 300 -107, location and
comparability of affordable units. Gooding states that the staff report does a good job of
summarizing for the Board some of the different language. She tells him that the Inclusionary
Ordinance contemplates many ways to include the inclusionary requirements and in the
regulations for onsite inclusionary housing or offsite when you are creating new units, that the
Board can request additional floor plans and elevations to confirm the comparability. But with
this project they have provided the Board with the existing floor plans and existing conditions
photos but they don't have that new project with which to assess comparability. She tells him
that not all the provisions match up with the credit units and vice versa. She explains that they
have fulfilled that requirement with what they have submitted.
Miller comments that this project will benefit and is consistent with the City's goals and
community housing plan and asks if there is any reason that this project is not consistent with
that statement. Clausen comments that the provision of more mid -range affordability from 80%
AMI and particularly lower than 60% AMI is consistent with the City's goals. He explains that
they are seeking lower rents due to the delta between the market rents in Beverly and how they
compare to the metro region and how the affordability is determined. So they are finding that the
80% affordable units are actually allowed to be rented at a higher rate than what the market rents
are downtown currently. One of the recommendations is to find more opportunity to create 60%
AMI units and that was done by creating three options for onsite units, the 12% at 80, 50% at 60
and 80, and 8% at 60% AML So they are looking to create a broader set of housing units to
create more affordability. He explains that 6 units in one building is a good way to disperse
affordable housing.
15
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2018
Miller then asks about what they are doing with the trash and recycling and will energy
procurement requirements be met. Gooding shows them where it is located on the property
which is hidden on the side of the building, but accessible. Miller asks if energy procurement
will be met. Gooding tells him that the energy systems will be maintained as they already are
because it is an existing building, and each unit has their own utilities and their own hot water
tanks.
Barrett asks if Beverly Crossing will be acquiring the "credit units." Glovsky tells him that there
is a new entity formed for every program and they are all part of the same entity, and the
underlying entity is still Windover Development, who is the primary owner of the various
entities. Barrett says that whoever is getting the credit that it needs to be clearly stated and made
known if it gets transferred outside of Windover. He adds the Board would be more comfortable
if it stayed within the company. Gooding confirms that is not the intention of the credit units and
the applicant would have to file an Inclusionary Housing Application to transfer or use these
credits, so the Board will have an opportunity to revisit this and say how they are used.
Barrett asks if the project is subject to Design Review Board and Clausen tells him that it isn't
because it is an existing building.
Flannery asks about the materials that will be used and if it will be consistent to other properties.
Gooding tells her that they aren't changing the exterior and that they are cleaning and painting
and making some small changes in the entry.
Hutchinson asks how old the building is. Gooding tells her that it was built in 1920. Hutchinson
asks if they have updated the electrical services and the applicant tells her what they currently
have is relatively new. Hutchinson comments that her concern is comparability; she asks how
comparable are the materials and the facelift, upgrades, windows, and insulation to a new
facility. Kristin Poulin, for the applicant, comments the market rate units the applicant has been
building contain a standard package, not high -end appliances. Hutchinson asks if the packages in
this building would be comparable to a new building. Poulin answers they will be similar but
layouts will be different.
Gooding comments that even if they were building affordable units in a new building the
ordinance and regulations don't require the same fixtures to be put in the affordable units, and
that there can be some differentiation, but it can't be visible and it can't be apparent. Clausen
comments that the comparability requirements for onsite units is more clear and that there can't
be a differentiation between the affordable and market rate unit, but they are essentially getting
the same product. Gooding comments that the point is to not make it apparent that these are
affordable units, and that there is nothing to make one feel they are being treated differently. She
notes that this existing building is consistent with other smaller scale buildings in the
neighborhood.
Barrett comments that the credit units were discussed as not necessarily being unit for unit
credits. Gooding tells him that she believes that the time the credit units are applied that the
Board has the discretion and second look at it.
M.,
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2018
Miller asks if the appliances will be comparable in regards to energy efficiency. Gooding tells
him that the appliances will be similar in energy efficiency but they are not contemplating
reinsulating the building. Hutchinson asks about the age of the windows. Poulin comments that
they have all been installed at various times, so the age is unknown for each. Miller notes that in
rental units, the tenants are responsible for energy costs and thus have greater concern than the
developer.
Miller asks if there is a possibility to extend the 10 year limits on the credit units. Gooding
answers that it is limited to 10 years and they would have to return to get the Board's approval.
Gooding reads for the record Section 2.6 of the Inclusionary Housing Regulations for onsite
units in a new project. Inclusion ( onsite units) must be comparable to market rate units in
exterior building materials and finishes, construction quality and energy efficiency, including
mechanical equipment and plumbing, insulation, windows, heating and cooling systems.
However, inclusion units may have different interior finishes and features provided such finishes
and features are durable and good quality and consistent with contemporary standards for new
housing. She notes that they believe they meet those requirements. She notes that without gutting
the building there is no way they can meet the same energy efficiency standards as a new
building and keep the renovation affordable.
Clausen clarifies that this is a special permit for the "credit units," which requires super majority
vote of the Board and they only have 5 members present tonight. He states that a Planning Board
member can review the Board Meeting Minutes under the Mullen rule and be caught up and then
they can vote at the next meeting once reviewed. He suggests that if there are additional
questions they may be addressed in the next meeting.
Barrett: Motion to recess the public hearing and reconvene on May 15 for absent board
members to review the application and pose questions. Miller seconds the motion.
The motion is approved (5 -0).
Flannery: Motion to reconvene meeting. Miller seconds the motion. The motion is approved
(5 -0).
Request for Waiver of Frontage and Subdivision Approval Not Required Plan — 38 and 40
Trask Street — Thomas Vasile, Jr. and Judith A. Vasile, Trustees
Michael Dissette of Glovsky & Glovsky, 8 Washington Street, requests to continue the ANR
application and granting the time extension and ask that a public hearing be set on the waiver of
frontage plan for the May 15 meeting. Clausen asks about retaining the right to review an ANR.
Clausen notes that an abridged Definitive Plan is required that looks like an ANR plan. Dissette
then requests withdrawal of the ANR plan instead.
Flannery: Motion to set a public hearing for May 15. Kilcoyne seconds the motion. The
motion is approved (5 -0).
17
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2018
Barrett: Motion to accept withdrawal of the ANR plan. Kilcoyne seconds the motion. The
motion is approved (5 -0).
Planning Board Recommendation to City Council: City Council Order #067 — Proposed
Amendment to Beverly Zoning Ordinance #300 — Establish Land Use Categories &
Regulations for Solar Energy Systems
Barrett: Motion to continue discussion to the May 15 meeting for absent members to have
time to review. Miller seconds the motion. The motion is approved (5 -0).
New /Other Business
a. None.
Adjournment
Flannery: Motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:10 pm. Barrett seconds the motion. The
motion passes (5 -0).
18