Loading...
2002-03-18 with City CouncilCity of Beverly, Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Joint Public Hearing & Special Meeting BOARD: City Council/Planning Board SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: March 18, 2002 PLACE: Beverly City Hall BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin; Joanne Dunn, John Thomson, Ellen Flannery, Peter Thomas, Barry Sullivan, Elizabeth McGlynn, Pat Grimes ABSENT: Robert Rink OTHERS PRESENT: Debra Hurlburt, City Planner RECORDER: Jeannine Dion City Councilor President P. Guanci calls the City Council meeting to order and reads the legal notice. He invites Attorney Mark Glovsky to the floor to discuss the proposal. Glovsky states he represents the owners of Lots 12, 13 and 14 on the City of Beverly’s Assessor’s Map 90, Cailin LLC and Cabot Beverly LLC, who own approximately 60 acres of land on the westerly side of Cabot Street near the Beverly/Wenham line, adjacent to the Beverly Airport. The owners of the property have agreed to sell the property to C. P. Berry Construction Company. He introduces Alan Berry, from C. P. Berry Construction Company. The hearing is not site specific with respect to a project, however, Mr. Berry would be happy to answer any questions. C. P. Berry would like to have an opportunity to convince the Planning Board that it would be appropriate to improve the property by the construction of townhouse style congregate housing for the elderly, similar concept to what has been done at Great Hill in Topsfield or The Maples in Wenham. The property is located almost entirely in an IR Industrial Zoning District and pursuant to the IR rules, the description of the district is that it is established to provide principally for office complexes, light industrial parks and necessary support facilities, including ancillaries, storage, service and retail use. By right in the IR zoning district, there could be office buildings, manufacturing facilities and contractor shops. By Special Permit, one could permit subsidized elderly housing, restaurants, vehicle repair facilities and warehouses. The IR zoning district requires the following: · A minimum of 2-acre lot size. · It permits up to 60% lot coverage including parking. · It provides for setbacks of 30 feet in the front, 25 feet in the rear, 20 feet on the side. Joint Public Hearing & Special Meeting Minutes March 18, 2002 Page 2 · Maximum building height of 60 feet. The project would be congregate elderly housing and there would be approximately 10% lot coverage and maximum building height of 35 feet. The Zoning Ordinance Section 29-23-D.1 and Section 29-23-D.2c gives the Planning Board authority, if the Planning Board determines that the circumstances are right and there won’t be adverse affects on abutting properties, to allow congregate elderly housing in any IR district, as long as the property has at least 20 acres of land and currently meeting setbacks of 125 feet and with buildings not higher than 35 feet. 10% of the units in such a project would have to be set aside as affordable housing and a maximum density of 4 units per acre. Not only would the proposed zoning ordinance enable the Planning Board, if it thought the circumstances were appropriate, to issue a special permit for encumbering congregate elderly housing project in an IR zoning district, but it would enable setbacks for such a project to be 20 feet, instead of the customary 125 feet. There are three IR zoning districts in the City of Beverly. 1. Beverly Airport area - Sam Fonzo Drive, Cherry Hill Industrial Park. 2. Center of Beverly – portions of Tozer Road, Sohier Road, upper Brimball Avenue and North Shore Music Theater site and part of the Beverly landfill location. 3. Frangos family property located on Route 128 at the Wenham line – near Gordon College. There are only 2 pieces of property in industrial zoning districts that have at least 20 acres and that are currently undeveloped, the Frangos parcel and the Cailin Road property. Glovsky states what is being proposed is consistent with the direction that the City of Beverly will be going in. The proposal, if enacted, would not authorize the project. It would authorize the Planning Board to consider the project. In addition to Planning Board review, there would also be significant review of the Conservation Commission and the Design Review Board. Guanci asks if members of the City Council and the Planning Board have clarifying questions. Dinkin asks Glovsky if his client feels that this parcel is most appropriate for residential use, then why ask for a zoning amendment that is a more general look at districts, rather than rezoning this property to be consistent with the abutting residential property. Joint Public Hearing & Special Meeting Minutes March 18, 2002 Page 3 Glovsky responds that there is no abutting residential in the City of Beverly. There is in the Town of Wenham. His concern is that it would constitute spot zoning and this approach is the appropriate way to respond to the issue. Councilor Costa asks Attorney Glovsky to provide an overview of the proximity of the site to the runway at Beverly Airport. Glovsky complies. Costa asks what the cost of the units would be. Glovsky responds that the units would probably be in the $500,000 range and 7 units would be affordable - $200,000 range. Grimes asks a clarifying question regarding the potential development in the rear of the property. Glovsky responds that it will never be built on. Grimes states she is concerned about the setback change from 125 feet to 40 feet. Glovsky responds that the 125 feet applies to these kinds of projects in residential areas. In this case the property is abutting industrial properties. Dinkin asks for a calculation of the acreage for developable upland property. Glovsky responds that the entire site is 60 acres. There are approximately 25 acres of wetland in the back of the property, which leaves 35 acres. Councilor asks Glovsky if he is aware of discussion regarding developing playing fields on Henderson Road. Glovsky responds that he is not aware, but he does not think that would be inappropriate for the area. Morency expresses concern regarding traffic. Glovsky responds that a traffic study would be conducted. Councilor McGlynn asks if a study has been conducted on the noise in the area. Berry responds that a study has not been conducted. Councilor Coughlin asks if the proposed development is similar to Brooksby Village on Route 114. Berry responds that it is not like Brooksby Village, which is an extended care facility. This would be more like The Maples in Wenham or Great Hill in Topsfield. Coughlin states the current owners have agreed to clean up fly ash in the area. He asks how that would impact this property. Berry responds that there is some fly ash in the wetlands that has eroded over the years. There has been some discussion with N.E. Power, who has agreed to remove the fly ash. Dinkin states that his understanding of congregate elderly housing project is that it is a project in which what used to be called level 3 services (low level of nursing services and commonly used facilities), essentially housing for the frail elderly who can not live entirely independently. He states the proposed development sounds more like “age restricted housing.” Joint Public Hearing & Special Meeting Minutes March 18, 2002 Page 4 Glovsky reads the definition from the City of Beverly’s Zoning Ordinance under Congregate Elderly Housing. Councilor Flaherty expresses concern regarding the proposed cost of the units. Councilor Troubetaris states that she is a member of the Master Plan Steering Committee and the Master Plan does not recommend giving up industrial land, except on River Street. She expresses concern about $500,000 homes near a runway, demand on the water system and warns that whoever buys the property owns the fly ash. Glovsky responds that these are valid concerns for the Planning Board to consider. Councilor Murray states that he believes this is consistent with the Master Plan. It is the “best use” for the property and sometimes a plan like this makes better sense than an industrial project. He recommends that the Planning Board consider this proposal. Councilor Guanci asks if members of the public have clarifying questions. Rosemary Maglio, 30 Pleasant Street expresses concern regarding the change from the 150 front yard set-back to 40-foot setback. Renee Mary, 274 Hale Street expresses concern that the site is not clear of contamination. Guanci asks if members of the public have comments in opposition of the proposal. Paul Vitale, Chairman of the Beverly Airport Commission states that the Beverly Airport Commission is opposed to residential development due to its close proximity to the runway. There are approximately 275 takeoffs and landings 365 days a year and there are a lot of noise complaints. Another member of the Beverly Airport Commission expresses concern regarding safety and noise. Guanci asks if members of the public have comments in support of the proposal. Attorney Thomas Alexander appears on behalf of the Frangos family, who owns a 65-acre parcel of land off Grapevine Road, which would be eligible under this proposal for development of Senior Housing. The project would provide all of its access along Boulder Lane and Grapevine Road in Wenham. The project would be approximately 70 units and the bulk of the property would not be used. It would be clustered in such a way to preserve a large amount of open space. Alexander states the rezoning would satisfy many objectives of the City of Beverly: Joint Public Hearing & Special Meeting Minutes March 18, 2002 Page 5 · Revenue – This project would generate taxes and fees in the range of $500,000 a year. · Demographic – Continued growth of baby boomers. · Affordable Housing – 10% of the units would be set aside for affordable housing. · Preservation of Open Space. · Traffic – Less traffic than an industrial/commercial project. Rosemary Maglio states that the public hearing was not advertised correctly. Guanci closes the City Council public hearing and sends the proposal to the Planning Board. Dinkin calls the Special Meeting of the Planning Board to order. Discussion on City Council Order #29 Proposed Zoning Amendment Section 29-23- D.1 & Section 29-23-D-2.c (1, 2, 3 Cailin Road) Cailin LLC and Cabot Beverly LLC Dinkin asks if members of the Planning Board have any questions. Sullivan asks if it could be explained more clearly what is being gained and should the project not happen, what other new things could be done that cannot be done there now. Glovsky responds “nothing.” The zoning change would only allow the congregate elderly projects to be considered as Special Permit use in the IR zoning district. Sullivan expresses concern that if this type of project did not happen, this change in zoning would not open up the doors to other types of uses not currently allowed or permitted on this particular piece of property. Glovsky responds that is correct. Grimes asks if this is going to be the only building on that property. Glovsky responds that there would be no other development proposed on the Cailin Road and the Frangos properties. Glovsky and Alexander respond that is correct. Dunn asks what shared facilities the congregate elderly housing would have. Glovsky responds that there would be a common community house facility and community activities but it won’t have much more than that. Sullivan states it is compliant with the current definition. Dinkin states there is a flaw in the definition of congregate elderly housing and perhaps it should be corrected. Joint Public Hearing & Special Meeting Minutes March 18, 2002 Page 6 Sullivan states that he believes The Maples and Great Hill are very good projects. He is concerned about the close proximity to the airport and other potentially developable industrial property. Dinkin recommends focusing the discussion on whether this is an appropriate use in the proposed zone. Thomas states the proposed site does abut an airport and it was never intended for the airport to be developed in this fashion. It was always intended to have a low use type of industrial/commercial neighborhood, not residential housing. When there is a mix of an industrial/residential formula, we see mistakes. Thomson states he has general reservations regarding a zone change now. The Master Plan is about to come out the door and some people are going to start taking a local look at zoning in Beverly. He questions if it is a good idea to do this in one district without looking at the whole picture. Dinkin concurs with Thomson’s opinion that this might not be the right moment to look at individual zoning amendment when we may be looking at more global kinds of changes to the zoning map. David Gardner, Chair of the Open Space and Recreation Committee informs the Planning Board that Open Space Committee has been eyeing the site, which is just to the south of this parcel (the former Vitale site), for an active recreation area. N.E. Power has agreed to clean up the site. The site is owned by the Conservation Commission and one of the objectives is having it active open space. It would preclude pressure on some of the natural areas for use as active playing fields. If we can relieve the pressure by developing this previously developed area into a nice plateaued, well-graded playing field, it would be very attractive to the Open Space Committee. Sullivan states the board should not rush to judgment when there is an opportunity to look at the whole Master Plan. Grimes: motion to table this topic until the March 19, 2002 Planning Board meeting, seconded by Flannery. Sullivan, Thomas and Dinkin opposed. Grimes, Dunn, McGlynn, Flannery and Thomson in favor. Motion carries. Thomas: motion to adjourn, seconded by Flannery, all members in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. The meeting is adjourned at 9:00 p.m.