Loading...
2005-06-20-Draft City of Beverly, Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes BOARD: Planning Board TOPIC: Joint Public Hearing with City Council DATE: June 20, 2005 PLACE: City Council Chambers, third Floor, City Hall BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard Dinkin, Vice-Chairman John Thomson, Eve Geller-Duffy, Charlie Harris, Jason Silva, Ellen Flannery BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: Don Walter, Joanne Dunn OTHERS PRESENT: All members of the Beverly City Council RECORDER: Tina Cassidy City Council Order #103: Joint Public Hearing on proposal to rezone a parcel of land on Brimbal Avenue and Sohier Road from IR (Restricted Industrial) to CG (General Commercial). City Council President Paul Guanci and Planning Board Chairman Dinkin open the Joint Public Hearing on Council Order #103 at 7:05 p.m. Order #103 proposes to rezone a parcel of land on Brimbal Avenue and Sohier Road from IR (Restricted Industrial) to CG (General Commercial). The property is shown on Assessors’ Map #55 as Lot #29. Guanci asks the proponents to address the audience. Attorney Thomas Alexander explains that the CEA Group is proposing to rezone the 6.5 acre site from “IR” (industrial uses and office space) to “CG” (commercial uses). The property is currently owned by the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, and would be developed for retail uses as explained during the first segment of the public hearing. He notes one major difference between the two zoning districts is the maximum building height. Under current zoning, buildings could be 65’ tall, but if zoned CG, the height limit would be 35’. Alexander recaps the major benefits of rezoning from the developers’ perspective, which were presented during the first segment of this public hearing: ?? This site was formerly used as a landfill, and the proposed development would involve capping the site to bring it into conformance with environmental standards ?? Initial traffic analyses show that there would be less traffic generated by the proposed commercial development than there would be with an office use, which is a use allowed by right on the parcel today ?? The property would generate local real estate taxes for the first time in memory Alexander states that CEA Group representatives met with abutters to the site at Northridge and established a good working relationship between them. He introduces Joe Beggin and Rick Moore from Rizzo Associates, who are here to answer any questions that may arise regarding traffic or environmental and geotechnical issues. Alexander then asks Steve Cohen from the CEA Group to update the audience on the neighborhood meeting. Draft Planning Board minutes June 20, 2005 Joint Public Hearing Page 2 of 4 Council Order #103 Cohen begins by explaining that the proposed development would be consistent with the master plan, provide a less intense use of the site and environmental benefits, and put the property back on the tax rolls. He notes that the development would add very few cars to the roadway, especially during rush hour. There would be less cars coming to and from the site with the proposed development than there would be with some of the uses allowed by right now. Cohen adds that rezoning is the first step of the development process. Site plan review by the Planning Board will be needed, and the State’s Department of Environmental Protection will oversee development because of the environmental conditions on site. With respect to the neighborhood meeting, Cohen states that the abutters’ issues are largely site plan issues, and the CEA Group is committed to making a good faith effort to resolve them. Neighbors want to restrict access to Sohier Road as a right turn, exit only access, preserve the existing screening along the common property line, and have a peer review of the developer’s traffic study. He states that a representative of Northridge’s board of directors is here to represent the abutters. George Atkins, Beverly resident and attorney from Salem, states that he is a member of the Northridge Corporation’s Board of Directors. While there may be Northridge residents at the hearing tonight with differing views, he is here to inform the City that the Board of Directors voted to support the requested zoning change. The Board believes the proposed development will have little traffic impact, that the reduced maximum height is positive, and given the vagaries of land use development, the Board decided it should work with this developer. Atkins lists the Board of Directors’ concerns and requests: ?? The rezoning should be conditioned on the applicant obtaining site plan review from the Planning Board, since that review wouldn’t be required if the total lot coverage didn’t exceed 65%. Many of the neighbors’ concerns would be addressed through this process. ?? A left hand turn from the site onto Sohier Road would be very dangerous, and the developer’s traffic data indicates there would be relatively low volume of traffic generated. The neighbors would request that the developer be required to submit a traffic study, and to have that traffic study reviewed by a peer consultant, as a condition of the rezoning. ?? There are existing utility problems in the area, including water pressure and drainage problems. They would like to work with the developer to solve those issues. Guanci asks if there are any questions from members of the Planning Board or City Council. Ward 5 Councilor Don Martin asks if Atkins is suggesting that all traffic from this site should be funneled onto Brimbal Avenue. Atkins reiterates the Directors’ traffic concerns about using Sohier Road. He asks if they have seen detailed plans of the building locations. Atkins answers Draft Planning Board minutes June 20, 2005 Joint Public Hearing Page 3 of 4 Council Order #103 that the Board is concerned with that issue, and he understands the developer is drafting detailed plans presently. Ward 1 Councilor Maureen Troubetaris asks who would be looking at the traffic for a peer review. Ward 3 Councilor John Burke asks whether all tenants of Northridge would suffer equitable loss if the proposed development “hurt” their property. Atkins answers yes. Alexander adds that he and the CEA Group representatives are happy to answer any questions. Guanci asks if there are any members of the public who wish to speak on the proposal. Cathy Burack, 6 Brimbal Hill Drive, thanks the development team for their review of the site and proposed development. She considers three things to be very important for her neighborhood – safety, serenity, and stability. She notes that within a quarter mile of this site there are close knit residential neighborhoods in every direction. Within a mile, there is the commercial Route 1A that has litter, noise, traffic, and gridlock. As a neighbor to this site, she would prefer to see an office use instead of a commercial use. Offices are excellent neighbors in that the traffic generated from them would fit existing patterns instead of merely extending the hours it exists. She hopes that the existing character of the neighborhoods around the site will be continued, by not changing the zoning. Ellen Hutchinson introduces herself as a member of St. Mary’s Finance Council. She states that the zoning change would make the land productive from a tax perspective, maximizing local tax revenue by an estimated $250,000 - $300,000 a year, and that would pay for 5 or 6 teachers. She informs the audience that proceeds from the sale of this property will go not to the Archdiocese of Boston, but directly to St. Mary’s parish. As a result, the proceeds will directly and indirectly benefit Beverly. She lists a number of ways St. Mary’s contributes to the greater community, including food pantry donations, special masses for police and fire personnel, and the St. Vincent de Paul Society. She urges the City to approve the rezoning. Guanci tells the audience that the time allotted for this hearing is over, and the hearing will need to be continued to another evening. He suggests a possible continuance to July 5, 2005. Alexander states that Cohen will not be available that evening, and asks if there is another th potential meeting night between July 5 and the next scheduled Council meeting in September. Cohen states that he regretfully is not available during July. Guanci says that Cohen did a good job representing the firm this evening, and CEA Group could send another representative to the th meeting on July 5. The Council votes to continue the public hearing to Tuesday, July 5, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Dinkin asks the Planning Board members if there is a motion to do likewise from the Board. Thomson : motion to continue the public hearing on Council Order #103 to July 5, 2005 at 7:00 p.m, seconded by Flannery. All in favor, motion carries. Draft Planning Board minutes June 20, 2005 Joint Public Hearing Page 4 of 4 Council Order #103 (Planning Board members assemble in the adjacent conference room). Dinkin calls the special meeting of the Board to order. Since the public hearing was continued, Dinkin asks for a motion to adjourn the special meeting. Geller-Duffy : motion to adjourn, seconded by Thomson. All members in favor, motion carries. The meeting is adjourned at 7:45 p.m.