Loading...
01.18.23 BPB Minutes Final DRAFT CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES COMMISSION: Planning Board DATE: January 18, 2023 LOCATION: Beverly City Hall Council Chambers Social Media Platform: BevCam (live stream on YouTube): https://bevcam.org/video/live-stream/ MEMBERS PRESENT: Ellen Hutchinson (Chair), Derek Beckwith (Vice-Chair) Ellen Flannery, Rodney Sinclair, Andrea Toulouse, George Gomes, Sarah Bartley, Wayne Miller MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Darlene Wynne, Director of Planning and Community Development OTHERS PRESENT: Caroline Baird Mason, Andrew DeFranza RECORDER: Sharlyne Woodbury Call to Order Chair Hutchinson calls the meeting to order at 7:03 pm. 1. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans—N/A Motion: Flannery moves to recess for the Public Hearing. Beckwith seconds. Motion carries 6-0. 2. Public Hearing a. Waiver of Frontage and Definitive Subdivision Plan—8 and 10 Dolloff Avenue— Andrew Rapisardo and Alison F. Rapisardo Wynne reads the public notice. Attorney Tom Alexander represents the applicants. According to the original subdivision plans from the 1920s this property was originally two lots, but by way of the doctrine of merger have become one lot. In 1924 a barn was built with a residence at 8 Dolloff. There was no setback requirements or zoning in that time. Later in 1945 a single-family residence was constructed on 10 Dolloff.They are two separate lots with two separate tax bills.The applicant requests to maintain separate lots. The current barn structure is 1.5 feet from the abutter while the proposed new house will be 23 feet away. 30 neighbors signed a petition in favor of the project. Number 10 Dolloff will be 6,920 sq. ft. with 45 feet of frontage and Number 8 Dolloff will be 5,010 sq. ft. with 81.92 feet of frontage. 44 lots on the assessor's maps are the same size or smaller than these two proposed lots in the same area. Beckwith asks if he has a copy of the petition signed by the neighbors and Mr.Alexander replies in the affirmative and provides a map of the location of the neighbors that signed. Chair Hutchinson asks if the lot lines are being redrawn to give additional area to Lot A and the reason for this. Attorney Alexander replies that it was done for setback purposes that this configuration works better. Hutchinson asks if the applicant has relief from the setback requirements for the proposed house and Mr. Alexander replies that relief was granted by the ZBA. Mr. Alexander states that the Planning Board January 18, 2023 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 15 applicant has received a minor modification from the ZBA for additional setback relief after the original approval. There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter: Motion: Sinclair moves to close the public hearing. Miller seconds. Motion carries 6-0. Motion: Flannery moves grant the Waiver of Frontage for 8 and 10 Dolloff Avenue. Beckwith seconds. Motion carries 6-0. Motion: Flannery moves to approve the Definitive Subdivision Plan for 8 and 10 Dolloff Avenue. Sinclair seconds. Motion carries 6-0. 3. Public Hearing a. Special Permit#183-22 and Site Plan Review#159-22—128 Boulder Lane—Oak Forest Farm LLC Wynne reads the public notice. Attorney Tom Alexander represents the applicant. This is a 28.72-acre lot located in the IR Zone accessed from Boulder Lane in Wenham off of Grapevine Road. The land would be turned into a 15,000 s.f. contractor storage facility with 15 units. There would be no offices, kitchens, bathrooms, etc. as it is purely a dry storage facility. Each bay will have a drain that will feed into an underground "tight tank". The tank will have a gauge to monitor water levels.This is a precautionary measure for rain or other liquids. The property will also have a sprinkler system as it is a little bit far removed from the closest City of Beverly Fire Department. Parking &Traffic Commission reviewed the project 1/10/23. Part of the PTC's conditions requires that the Massachusetts Department of Transportation Highway Division issue a permit if one is required, or state that a permit is not required. Bob Griffin presents plans to the Board that show the neighboring properties and their proximity to the site as well as the existing cell tower on the site. He also reviews the topography, vernal pools, and wetlands. Mr. Griffin then presents the proposed Site Plan and the Grading and Drainage Plan to the Board. Sarah Bartley joins the meeting. Beckwith asks about the fire truck turning radius and the gate at the beginning of Boulder Lane in Wenham. Mr. Griffin assures the Board there is sufficient turning radius since the same concern was expressed by the Fire Department at the PTC (Parking&Traffic Commission) meeting. Alexander confirmed he emailed Captain Kreyling who is satisfied with the turning radius. Alexander outlines the property issues and acknowledges it is a matter between two private property owners. Alexander assures the Board that the fire department will have appropriate access to the property and will be able to remove the gate if necessary through legal action if necessary. Beckwith asks about the adequacy of the underground storage tank that will be used to supply the fire sprinkler system. Alexander confirms the units will be adequate and to code with a sufficient sprinkler system. Beckwith asks about the height of the building and its visibility from Route 128. Mr. Griffin reviews the architectural elevation drawings. Alexander confirms that the plans have not yet been before the Design Review Board. Miller would like confirmation in writing that the fire department concerns have been addressed. Griffin confirms that an email from Captain Kreyling approved the turn movements of fire apparatus but not the other concerns of the Fire Department. Miller raises the concern that there does not appear to be Planning Board January 18, 2023 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 15 adequate water supply. Alexander states that issue will be addressed by the next Planning Board meeting. Wynne states that she has not yet received comments from the Salem Beverly Water Supply Board and that the PTC approved the plans with the following conditions: (1)The applicant demonstrate adequate parking; (2)The fire department safety concerns and access have been addressed; (3) The applicant confirm an indirect permit is not required by MassDOT or confirm they have applied for the permit from MassDOT. Hutchinson asks about the size of individual bays and the overall height of the building. Hutchinson then asks about the Special Permit for the Water Supply Overlay District and what will be stored in the individual storage bays. Griffin assures members there will be no hazardous materials stored at this facility. Sinclair asks about the potential for gasoline to enter the underground storage tanks. Griffin explains the tanks are concrete, pressure sealed, and tested before being set in the ground. Sinclair asks about potential issues that the Board of Health may have with the plans. Wynne provides additional comments on the specific requirements in the Water Supply Overlay District that have to be met before issuing a Special Permit. Miller asks if the proposed structure will be able to have solar panels installed on the roof. Griffin states that he is not sure if that consideration has been made in the design of this building. Alexander continues by stating that there is not going to be a great demand for electricity as the bays are only for dry storage with no heating or cooling systems. Sinclair asks about the size of the trucks that go to the site. Griffin states that nothing larger than a small box truck and the majority would be tradesman type vehicles. Hutchinson asks for clarification as to what dry storage means. Alexander explains that there would be liquid tanks of oil,food products, etc. stored in the bays. Hutchinson asks about daily truck trips to the site. Greg Corsetti,the applicant, explains about the types of interested parties he has in leasing the bays. Hutchinson asks about Question 10 on the application which asks: Is the subject of this application contiguous to other land held in common ownership? The applicant answered no to that question. Alexander states that there is contiguous land held in common ownership and indicates that it is just open land. Chair Hutchinson opens the floor for public comment. James Doody,4 Fieldstone Lane, Abutter Introduces himself to the board and explains the history of the property. He details the owner's work completed clear cutting the site to date without permits. He describes activities and shirked responsibilities with the owner's failures to comply with City requirements for responsibly developing the site. Mr. Doody also feels that is optimistic that larger amounts of gasoline and other fuels for landscaping equipment won't be used or stored on site which is in a watershed area. Doody further Planning Board January 18, 2023 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 15 outlines his concerns with this being the only development on a large site,trash, lighting, screenings, water pollution, forest fires from dead wood in the conservation area, and potential downhill flooding. Doody discusses the 2005 flood which damaged the neighborhood. Hutchinson asks how the owner of the building will monitor what the lessees are storing in the bays. Alexander states that there will be a lease that outlines what can be stored on site and the owner will be regularly monitoring the site. Alexander admits that the clearing of the site was done in error and says that the project will go forward in good faith for future permitting. Alexander continues and says that there is no future development planned and that any future development would have to be approved by the Planning Board. He also states that the stormwater management system has been designed so as not increase runoff from the site and that access through to the abutting neighborhood will not happen. Chair Hutchinson closes the floor to public comment. Members final discussion includes how ownership will monitor the area, addressing the tree cutting, further development of the property, water runoff, drainage, property permitting for future activities, and access to the neighborhood. Alexander assures board members that for any further development, the owner will have to return to the board for permits because the property is in the water supply district. Alexander briefly discusses the abandoned permitting to bring utilities to the area. There were two main issues, (1) there was no road connection and (2) in 2008 the developer succumbed to the economic crash. Therefore,the process was abandoned. There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter: Motion: Beckwith moves to continue the hearing to February 13, 2023. Flannery seconds.The motion carries 7-0. Motion: Flannery moves to reconvene meeting. Beckwith seconds. Motion carries 7-0. 4. Discussion on close Public Hearings—N/A S. Preliminary Subdivision Plan a. GFP-1 Real Estate, LLC—filed 11/29/22 i. 240&246 Cabot Street Miranda Siemasko represents the applicant.This is an application for a zoning freeze for the Preliminary Subdivision Plan. The applicant is an affiliate of the Goldberg Brothers Real Estate LLC. The property is the old Beverly National Bank building. The proposal is a 3-lot subdivision and designed not to require any waivers. This plan presupposes the existing buildings be demolished in whole or in part. The applicant has no intention to build the road demonstrated on the plan. Sinclair asks for clarification about the Preliminary Subdivision intent and how it freezes the zoning. Siemasko explains how the applicant can freeze the zoning if there is Preliminary Plan filed. So long as a Definitive Subdivision Plan is filed within 7 months of the Preliminary Subdivision Plan, the applicant is entitled to the zoning of the land at the time of the Preliminary Subdivision filing. Siemasko clarifies there is no plan to demolish these buildings or construct the road. Planning Board January 18, 2023 Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 15 Hutchinson asks Wynne if the Planning Department has been over the plan and that it meets all of the requirements.The Planning Department has reviewed the basic elements and confirmed the applicant meets those requirements. Beckwith asks how long the applicant has to file a Definitive Subdivision Plan. Wynne states that the applicant has 7 months and that the Definitive Plan does not have to be a plan that will be built. Beckwith confirms that the Preliminary Plan is a placeholder in order to secure the current zoning and that a new plan would be filed at a later date showing the actual potential development. Sinclair asks if there is another mechanism for a developer to have their project reviewed under the old zoning without creating a Preliminary Subdivision Plan for the sole purpose of achieving a zoning freeze. Wynne replies that there is not. Sinclair asks if there is anything that the Board can do about the amount of zoning freeze plans coming before the Board in anticipation of the zoning changes. Wynne explains that in public meetings that this was possible, is allowable under state statute, and was expected. There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter: Motion: Gomes moves to approve the Preliminary Subdivision Plan for 240 & 246 Cabot Street. Flannery seconds. Motion carries 7-0. b. Goldberg Brothers Real Estate LLC and William H. Goldberg,Trustee of Rear 28 Cabot Street Trust—filed 11/30/22 i. 4-6,7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20& 29 Rantoul Street ii. 26, 28, 28R,42 &44 Cabot Street iii. 8 School Street iv. 7 &9 Cox Court Miranda Siemasko represents the applicant.There are 18 parcels that will be aggregated into six new lots on the proposed plan. This is an application for a zoning freeze for the Preliminary Subdivision Plan. The parcels on the west side of the plan are part of the recently approved Southwest Rantoul Gateway Project plus some other parcels that the Goldbergs currently own. The additional parcels are not part of any pending development plan, the Goldbergs just want to freeze the zoning for those parcels. The parcels on the east side of the plan are also not part of any pending development plan and the Goldbergs also want to freeze the zoning for these parcels. Beckwith asks about the historic row houses along Cabot Street and the preservation of them for the Gateway project. Siemasko states that there is no plan to demolish any of those row houses and to redevelop them. There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter: Motion: Flannery moves to approve the Preliminary Subdivision Plan for (a)4-6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20 & 29 Rantoul Street; (b) 26, 28, 28R, 42 &44 Cabot Street; (c) 8 School Street; (d) 7 & 9 Cox Court. Miller seconds. Motion carries 7-0. Planning Board January 18, 2023 Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 15 c. Griffin Engineering Group—filed 12/5/22 i. 119 & 119R Rantoul Street&44,46 Rantoul Street Attorney Tom Alexander represents the applicant Chris Crowley. This is an application for a zoning freeze for the Preliminary Subdivision plan. The plans are waiverless. Alexander gives his opinion as to why there are so many and the reasons for zoning freeze plans and the reasons that this particular plan is being filed for a zoning freeze. Beckwith confirms that the Board has recently approved a project on this site. Alexander states that Site Plan Review does not freeze zoning and that the approved project would not comply with the proposed zoning. Sinclair asks if a future project would have to be approved for Site Plan Review even though there is a zoning freeze plan. Alexander confirms that any new Site Plan Review would have to be approved by the Board. There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter: Motion: Flannery moves to approve the Preliminary Subdivision Plan for 119 & 119R Rantoul Street &44, 46 Rantoul Street. Gomes seconds. Motion carries 7-0. d. 182-186 Hart Street Realty Trust—filed 12/16/22 i. 184 Hart Street Miranda Siemasko represents the applicant. This is an application for a zoning freeze for the Preliminary Subdivision Plan.The property owners would like to either sell and/or develop it. Any subdivision would be subject to OSRD. The owners were contemplating a project that would be no more than 5 single family homes.The Zoning Ordinance would affect the Definitive Subdivision Plan if the Inclusionary Housing mandates 1 of the 5 units be affordable. The Preliminary Subdivision Plan shows a two lot subdivision with a conforming subdivision road off of Hart Street. This is a waiverless plan with the intent to file a Definitive Subdivision Plan within 7 months. There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter: Motion: Flannery moves to approve the Preliminary Subdivision Plan for 184 Hart Street. Sinclair seconds. Motion carries 7-0. 6. Request for extension of Letter of Credit a. Hickory Hill LLC—Extend from December 7, 2022 to February 7, 2023 i. OSRD Site Plan#10-17—Hickory Hill Way(f/k/a 20,30,40 Webster Avenue) The applicant is not present. There is no representation for the applicant. Wynne offers comments and confirms as long as the bank is supportive of the letter of credit the Board is ok to grant the extension. Sinclair asks Wynne since the letter of credit is expired can the Board still extend the letter of credit. Wynne states that the Board can extend the letter of credit or call it in. Planning Board January 18, 2023 Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 15 Beckwith asks about the language in the letter asking about a reduction. Flannery asks about the amount of money in the letter and if that amount is a reduction. Wynne states that the amount is the same as originally approved. Andrea Toulouse arrives at the meeting. There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter: Motion: Beckwith moves to approve the extension of the letter of credit, but not a reduction, for OSRD Site Plan #10-17—Hickory Hill Way(f/k/a 20, 30, 40 Webster Avenue). Gomes seconds. Motion carries 7-0. 7. Discussion: Recommendation to City Council on Proposed Amendments to Beverly Zoning Ordinance a. Various articles related to building heights& inclusionary housing—submitted by Planning Director Wynne guides the Board on the formal part of the process. The Board is asked to make a recommendation and a report to the City Council. Members agree to review the proposed changes in 4 segments centering on height (3 parts) and inclusionary housing (1 part). Hutchinson agrees to the discussion format outlined. i. Creation of a CC2 District Hutchinson opens the discussion about the creation of a subdistrict downtown which will be known as "CC2". Beckwith comments about the concerns residents expressed with preserving downtown Cabot Street for its history and character. Beckwith also comments about height restrictions and cites concerns that he has heard from citizens that Cabot Street should have a different look and feel. Gomes offers a different perspective in that citizens like walking down Cabot Street and seeing a wall of buildings with businesses and activities and that those activities are not restricted by how high the building is. He expresses concerns that citizens have had about the character of the street, but adds that there a lot of one story buildings that could still be torn down and replaced with three story buildings under the current proposal. Gomes adds that limiting the height of buildings limits the amount of needed housing that could be built in a region that is in a housing crisis. Gomes feels that passing strong design standards can create the type of development and character that citizens want for the downtown. Gomes says he doesn't look at the height of the roof but instead looks at the street feel. Beckwith states that he is not anti-development, but is concerned about parking downtown. Beckwith states that he is against by-right development that is too big for the area and that there is a compromise in between. Bartley adds to Gomes' comments and states that some of the infill projects on top of Cabot Street buildings are some of the projects that she is excited about. She states that by limiting building height, Planning Board January 18, 2023 Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 15 what is given up is the ability to add affordability. She is concerned that the proposal is reactionary to a project that what was not well received. Flannery asks Wynne if she has an example of a building that is 45 feet high in the Cabot Street area. Wynne states that she does not. Flannery states that the creation of the CC2 with the 45 foot height and the 4t"floor creates an avenue for Cabot Street. Flannery feels that Cabot Street and Rantoul Street are different types of streets. Flannery does not support limiting building height to three stories, but does support the creation of the CC2. Sinclair is not sure if limiting building height is the way to go about achieving the goals mentioned by other members. Sinclair would like to look at what the proposal is trying to accomplish more in that limiting building height would reduce the overall potential number of affordable housing units and at the same time the proposal is also increasing the number of potential affordable housing units. Sinclair feels that there is not enough analysis for him to make the smartest decision possible. Hutchinson states that she feels that the proposal does not scale back development on Cabot Street and asks about the master plan and how it states that Cabot Street should be distinct in what it looks like and its character from Rantoul Street. Hutchinson is concerned that if some type of boundary isn't created then Cabot Street will start to look like Rantoul Street. Wynne states that reducing the building height does not solve the problem of creating distinct districts, but the design standards will. Wynne feels, in her professional opinion, that reducing height too much does put character at risk because the City will get less quality or nothing. Wynne's professional opinion is that she does not support reducing the building height on Cabot Street to 35 feet. Miller states that the City is fast approaching the reality that the highest priority must be infrastructure that supports sustainability and reduces carbon footprint and greenhouse gas emissions. Higher density is in line with greater sustainability. Miller states that the character of the City that he has lived in for seven decades is important to him, but the quality of life for his grandchildren is more important. Bartley states that affordability was at the top of everyone's list during the creation of the master plan. Bartley feels that there is a perception that a lot of people have asked for reduced building height and recalls that during past public hearings more people spoke to affordability concerns than they did about building heights. Hutchinson states that she feels that the causal relationship between increased building heights and housing affordability exists. Bartley states that she doesn't think that anyone is trying to make a causal relationship that if we build as many housing units as possible that housing prices will decrease across the greater Boston region, but that by limiting ability to layer in affordability into projects that this proposal is not helping. Beckwith talks about the rates for rental units and that they are market rate but actually higher and that developers aren't building for the people that live in the neighborhoods now but for the people that are moving into town and paying more. Sinclair states that with more supply, costs go down and that economies of scale allow for decreased construction costs with the more units that are built per building. Sinclair reiterates his point that more study should be done. Gomes states that there is economic research, not in Beverly, but in existence that shows that increased supply reduces costs. Gomes states that doing nothing will eventually price out people who would like to move in to Beverly. Miller talks about if there is a causal relationship between more housing and reduced costs. Wynne states that she can point the Board to studies in Massachusetts that the relationship does exist and that a specific study for Beverly is not necessary. Planning Board January 18, 2023 Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 15 Beckwith states he does believe that the relationship does exist, but not on a micro scale like Beverly. Beckwith is also concerned about how the proposal will affect the historic properties on Cabot Street. Sinclair talks about the subjective nature of the character of Cabot Street. Sinclair is not sure of what effect the proposed changes will have on Cabot Street. Hutchinson worries that if no changes are made that the City will run the risk of receiving the types of projects that were received earlier in the meeting. Flannery asks what the City Council can do with the Board's recommendation and asks about Councilor St. Helaire's proposal. Wynne replies that Councilor St. Helaire's proposal is not officially in front of the City Council and that the full Council would have to submit an ordinance amendment. Hutchinson states that the action by the Board is just a recommendation and that the ultimate action will be up to the City Council. Hutchinson then reviews the proposal in front of the Board. Hutchinson then asks for a straw poll of the Board about the creation of the CC2 district. Miller asks about how much potential housing would be lost if the building height is reduced from 55 feet. Wynne states that a portion of the CC2 is already at a height of 35 feet because the properties abut an R district. Hutchinson refers back to the master plan and the idea that Rantoul and Cabot streets should have different characteristics and that the proposal reflects what the current master plan goals state. Wynne answers Miller's previous question about the potential housing loss if the building height is reduced. Miller then states he is pondering how much housing stock and economic growth will be lost if the building height is reduced. Hutchinson states that she is unsure if there will be any loss if economic growth if Beverly still has an attractive downtown and that is what is drawing in businesses and visitors. Wynne states that the growth in the Cabot street downtown area is not independent of the downtown housing that has been built over the past decade. Toulouse states that in her opinion as a real estate professional,that a community wide limitation on building height is short-sighted. There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter: Motion: Gomes makes a motion that the City Council vote to adopt the proposed amendments reducing the maximum allowable height of buildings in the Cabot Street area by 1) adding the section 300-6a designation CC2 and Central Business Cabot 2) adding a new section 300-6c creating a new CC2 district shown on map 22-056 zoning proposal overlay 3) updating the official City zoning map accordingly changing CC to CC2 throughout the ordinance when it refers to both districts together and amending the maximum building heights in section 300-40d building and area requirements to read as follows: 1) Commercial uses, residential uses or, combined residential uses on CC zoned lots with side and or rear yards abutting a residential zoning district F) Maximum Building Height: in CC district 55 feet when RHD is the abutting residential district and CC2 sub-district 45 feet with no more than four stories. In both CC and CC2: 35 feet when RMD or R6 is the abutting residential district. 2) Residential uses which do not abut a residential zoning district F) Maximum height in CC district 55 feet. In CC2 sub- district 45 feet with no more than four stories. 3) Commercial uses which do not abut a Planning Board January 18, 2023 Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 15 residential district F) Maximum height in CC district 55 feet. In CC2 sub-district 45 feet with no more than four stories. 4) Commercial or residential uses within structures existing at the time of the adoption of this chapter F) Maximum height in CC district 55 feet. In CC2 sub-district 45 feet with no more than four stories. 5) Combined commercial residential uses with side and/or rear yards which do not abut a residential zoning district F) Maximum height in CC district 55 feet. In CC2 sub-district 45 feet with no more than four stories. Seconded by Beckwith. Discussion on the motion: It is clarified for the members that all of the height proposed amendments are combined into one recommendation based on what the uses of the CC2 district are and what is adjacent to it. No additional amendments to the vote are proposed. The elimination of the tall building overlay district will be addressed in a separate vote. Beckwith states that he will be voting in favor of the motion, but he is not happy about it. He also states that the Board should vote on what they do recommend, not just what they don't. Bartley states that she doesn't have anything further to add that she hasn't already said. She will be voting against the motion. She worries about reducing height. Beckwith, Hutchinson, and Flannery vote in favor of the motion. Toulouse, Gomes, Miller, Bartley, and Sinclair vote against. The motion fails 3-5. After the motion fails, Wynne states that she can prepare a report or direct the Council to watch the video of the discussion. Beckwith states that he feels that his fellow members of the Board with their votes have states that they want 55 feet for building heights. Bartley responds by saying that there were other matters discussed such as design standards and further planning efforts. ii. Review of Tall Building Overlay District Miller begins the discussion by stating he doesn't know what purpose the district serves anymore. Beckwith states that a developer could build a building up to 70 feet tall with a Special Permit, which reminds him of the Depot 2 situation. Wynne states that a new state law makes any Special Permit involving housing a simple majority rather than a supermajority. Hutchinson states that she feels that there is not a lot of discretion when it comes to granting Special Permits. It is not like granting variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Special Permits should be granted when the criteria are met. Sinclair states that there is a procedure for granting Special Permits in place and does not see the need to change it, but feels that a discussion could be had if members of the Board feel that the requirements for granting a Special Permit aren't strong enough. Wynne reminds the Board of the six requirements for granting a Special Permit. Sinclair points out that there a few requirements that are open to personal interpretation. Hutchinson states that Special Permits require factual findings. Miller asks if the Planning Department and the administration are recommending elimination of the Tall Building Overlay Zone and why. Wynne states that it was included in the Master Plan and a promise that the Mayor has made with the understanding that the Mayor would be seeking more density at Bass Planning Board January 18, 2023 Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 15 River. Wynne states that that is her understanding of how that flushed out during the master planning process. Wynne shows the Board an informational map of the Tall Building Overlay District. 36 parcels, either fully or partially in the "Height Overlay". 10 parcels redeveloped in recent years, or recently permitted, 3 projects used "Height Overlay". 5 existing buildings likely already at or near height/capacity limits. Remaining parcels may not have the site capacity to build to 75 feet, unless combined. Many are small. Miller asks what the downside would be about eliminating the Tall Building Overlay District. Wynne states that only one of the buildings went to the full seven stories and the others went to six because of the floor to floor ceiling height requirements of the first floor commercial. Sinclair states that the Special Permit creates a public process where the community can voice its opposition or support of project that would want to build higher than 55 feet. Hutchinson states that it is her understanding that this is a process that the City is trying to make more predictable. Having a public meeting that depends on who shows up is not a predictable process. Bartley discusses the Depot 2 project in the context of the Special Permit in that she feels it is the only project since she has been on the Board that changed for the better from its application to its approval because of the public process. Wynne states that the Special Permit comes into play when something needs extra scrutiny. Gomes states that a way to distinguish the Rantoul Street corridor from the Cabot Street corridor is to have 70 foot tall buildings on Rantoul Street. Beckwith asks again about how many parcels the Tall Building Overlay District applies to. Wynne again shows the informational map of the Tall Building Overlay District and further explains what parcels have been developed and what parcels could still be developed. Sinclair asks about parking and Wynne states that the parcels are in the Parking Overlay District so it is one per unit. Miller asks how Rantoul Street came out with the Tall Building District and he feels that it came outjust fine. Sinclair agrees. Miller asks why the Board would take away the tool that has allowed the development of Rantoul Street to come out so well. Hutchison states that some people wouldn't consider it successful. There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter: Motion: Sinclair makes a motion the recommend that the City Council vote to adopt the proposed amendments that would effectuate the elimination of the Tall Building Overlay District in Sections 300-40 D 2F, 300-40 D 3F, and 300-40 D 5F, which allows a building height of up to 70 feet by Special Permit in a defined area of the CC district. Delete Section 300-40 G 2 and hold as reserved and eliminate reference in Section 300- 22 A 2 and Section 300-40 1 to the associated tall building guidelines. Seconded by Flannery. Beckwith and Hutchinson vote in favor of the motion. Toulouse, Gomes, Miller, Flannery, Bartley, and Sinclair vote against. The motion fails 2-6. Planning Board January 18, 2023 Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 15 iii. RHD Amendment to reduce the height between residential neighborhood of Cabot and Rantoul Street from 55 feet to 40 feet. Gomes asks for clarification as to why the number is 40 instead of 45 like in other districts discussed. Wynne clarifies the 40 feet and 3 or 4 story height frameworks for the district and how it is consistent with what is in the district. Beckwith asks if the height change for this district is an independent step or if it was considered as a step-down from the proposed 45 foot height on Cabot Street. Wynne states that it was independent and is another area talked about in the master planning process to preserve the housing stock that is there and that 55 feet feels wrong for this area. Beckwith states that he supports the proposal based on anecdotal stories he has heard about people that live in the area and their concerns. Miller states that this type of housing is infamously inefficient from an energy conservation point of view. Hutchinson states that she understands but the Board would be preserving neighborhoods that have historical significance and affordability. Sinclair states that a challenge in Beverly from a real estate point of view is not just affordable rentals but affordable home ownership and that this area represents a section of the city that could part of the solution to this issue. In order to facilitate the potential for condo conversion or other home ownership opportunity, Sinclair likes the idea of keeping the height at 55 feet. Miller feels that 40 feet is too restrictive for developing a loft or a third story for housing and likes the idea of 45 or 50 feet more. Sinclair voices his concern of the types of projects along Rantoul Street encroaching further into the RHD neighborhood. Gomes asks if there has been any types of these projects proposed in this area. Wynne states that there is the Housing Authority building behind the Dollar Tree project. Bartley asks if the Board should be controlling the way people have the ability to make investments in their properties by controlling heights. Motion: Sinclair moves to recommend the City Council vote to adopt the proposed amendment to section 300-37 D 9 reducing the maximum allowable height of buildings in the residential district RHD between Cabot Street and Rantoul Street from 55 feet to 40 feet. Seconded by Toulouse. Discussion on the motion: Hutchinson states that there was a discussion about not keeping the building height at 40 feet. Sinclair amends his motion to recommend the City Council vote to adopt the proposed amendment to section 300-37 D 9 reducing the maximum allowable height of buildings in the residential district RHD between Cabot Street and Rantoul Street from 55 feet to 50 feet with no more than 4 stories. Seconded by Miller. Planning Board January 18, 2023 Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 15 Beckwith proposes an amendment to the amendment utilizing the same language with a 45-foot height maximum and no more than 4 stories. Flannery seconds. Motion to amend the amendment made by Sinclair carries 7-1. Gomes dissents. After the vote to amend Sinclair's amendment, Sinclair's motion carries 8-0. iv. Inclusionary housing Sinclair states that a small project developer will not qualify for a residential loan for 4 units if one of the units has to be an affordable housing unit. They will decide not build 4 units and they will just build 3 units. Miller and Beckwith agree. Bartley states that that was the consensus of the speakers at public hearings as well. Motion: Flannery moves to recommend that the City Council vote to adopt the proposed amendment to amend Article 15 Affordable Housing Inclusionary Ordinance as follows: In Section 300-103 A, 300-103 A(1), 300-103 A(2), 300-103 A(3), 300-103 C, and 300-104 (C). Seconded by Gomes. Motion fails 0-8. v. From 80%-60%changing the affordability threshold Wynne clarifies that the proposal would be city-wide for all projects. It would be 12%of units at 60% AMI. Sinclair asks about any potential impacts of this proposal. Wynne reminds the Board of a developer who spoke at a meeting who said the cost of the additional affordable unit would be passed on to the market rate units. Bartley talks about the method that Area Median Income is calculated and that lowering the requirement to 60% may help qualify the people that the original formula was supposed to help. Gomes raises a concern he has about projects not being viable because of the deeper affordability requirements proposed. Wynne clarifies for members that the lottery preference is for Beverly, Salem, and Peabody. Motion: Sinclair moves to recommend that the City Council vote to adopt the proposed amendment to amend Section 300-104 A and Section 300-104 C changing 80 percent to 60 percent and delete Section 300-104 A 2 and 300-104 A 3 holding both as reserved. Seconded by Beckwith Discussion on the motion: Gomes provides additional comments about finding the right balance of the affordability threshold so that development is not frozen out by increasing the threshold too much, or if development is still continuing then to possibly reexamine the affordability requirements and revising them for even deeper affordability. Motion carries 8-0 Planning Board January 18, 2023 Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 15 vi. Offsite units Wynne clarifies that the developer has the ability to provide their required affordable units in another building, not the new building they're building. Wynne clarifies that this has only happened once, for Depot 2. Wynne states that the current Board had a difficult time with the off-site credit units for Depot 2. Since the units were not in the Depot 2 building, it felt exclusionary. Wynne also clarifies the difference between the fee-in-lieu and the ability to place units off-site. Miller states that there has been success with the status quo and would like to leave it. Bartley states that the Hardy Street project was a successful project and asks if it wouldn't as good of an outcome as a few more 80 percent units in the original project building. Beckwith raises the concern that allowing units to be built offsite feels like it excludes persons who are using the affordable housing from certain neighborhoods in the City. Sinclair states that the fee-in-lieu still exists which also feels exclusionary. Sinclair states that since the fee-in-lieu still exists, he doesn't see the point of getting rid of the offsite units. Bartley states that she would rather eliminate the fee-in-lieu because a developerjust has to pay into that once rather than provide an affordable unit. Wynne clarifies that there is no policy that states that an offsite unit is to be managed by a CDC and that the fee-in-lieu only applies to ownership units, not rentals. Motion: Gomes moves to recommend City Council vote to adopt the proposed amendment to amend Article 15 Affordable Housing Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as follows: Delete Section 300108 A 1 and hold as reserved and in 300-114 C delete or off-site. Seconded by Miller. Toulouse, Beckwith, Hutchinson, and Flannery are in favor. Gomes, Miller, Bartley, and Sinclair are against. Motion fails 4-4. Motion: Gomes moves to recommend the City Council vote adopt the proposed amendments to amend Article 15 Affordable Housing Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as follows: In Sections 300-114 C 1 and C2 and Section 300-114 E replace Essex County Registry of Deeds with Essex County Southern District Registry of Deeds. Seconded by Toulouse. Motion passes 8-0. 8. Set Public Hearings—N/A 9. Adopt FY23 Year 2023 Fee in Lieu of Affordable Housing Units a. Update of Table 1 per Chapter 315 Inclusionary Housing Regulations To be reviewed at the next meeting. 10. Approval of minutes a. October 25, 2022 b. November 15, 2022 c. December 13, 2022 Planning Board January 18, 2023 Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 15 To be reviewed at the next meeting. 11. New/Other Business Election of officers at the next meeting. This is also Toulouse's last meeting as a member of the Planning Board. 12. Adjournment Motion: Toulouse moves to adjourn. Gomes seconds. The motion carries 8-0. Meeting adjourned 11:30 pm. Next meeting scheduled 02/13/23.