2005-10-19
CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Economic and Community Development
Council
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: October 19, 2005
LOCATION: Beverly Public Library
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Carla Cox, Vice-Chairman Pat
Grimes, Don Stacey, Joyce McMahon, Neil
Douglas
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jason Silva (Planning Board), Conservation
Commission (vacant), Bill O’Hare (ex-
officio)
OTHERS PRESENT: Tina Cassidy (ex-officio)
RECORDER: Tina Cassidy
The meeting is called to order at 7:00 p.m. Cox states that the owners of the former
Ventron property have been invited to address the committee this evening, and asks that
those in attendance introduce themselves. Present this evening are Dennis Pantano of
Beverly Office Development LLC, Tim Alcott of Acorn Management, Steve and Quentin
Ricciardi (Acorn Management and Beverly Office Development LLC), attorney Tom
Alexander and Deb Lawler.
Pantano informs members that the property was acquired from the prior owners in 2003.
The owners want to redevelop the property by working with the City. In 2004, a public
information meeting was held to unveil the concept of a build-to-suit office building with
structured parking. The owners are not interested in building an office complex on
“spec”, but rather for an identified user.
The ownership is interested in exploring the possibility of building a residential
complex; they have received a number of unsolicited purchase offers, all proposing
residential development. The master plan noted the possibility of constructing 75-90
units of housing on this roughly 4 acre site.
The owners are interested in working with the City, and know that the community is
analyzing the current zoning along the waterfront for possible rezoning action in the near
future. The owners are willing to work with the City to develop the property in a
mutually agreeable way. However, they have owned the land for some time and will
need to move on some development plan by next spring even if it means utilizing the
current zoning designation of IG (General Industrial).
Cassidy shows a map of the area around the Ventron site, and asks for an explanation of
the Activities and Use Limitation (AUL) that was on the property at one time. Pantano
answers that the property had an AUL on it when it was purchased. The terms of the
Draft ECDC meeting minutes October 19, 2005 meeting
Page 1 of 5
AUL prohibited residential development. The AUL was removed for financing reasons.
Ricciardi explains that over $11 million was spent by the government to clean up the site
as a former testing location for the Manhattan Project. The AUL represented an extra
layer of protection for the former owners. An engineer was hired to study the terms of
the AUL, and upon application to the Department of Environmental Protection, the AUL
was lifted.
He notes that now is not the right time for construction of office space, and the site may
be better suited to residential than office development. The owners would like to do a
residential project that complements the surrounding neighborhood – they are sensitive to
issues of building height and view obstructions. In terms of density, the owners are
thinking about a density similar to that mentioned in the master plan – 75 to 95 units.
Construction of a public walkway is part of the current thinking as is covered parking on
site.
Pantano points out that current zoning requirements call for minimal/no setbacks. He
adds that height studies and architectural renderings would be done if development heads
in a residential direction.
Cassidy explains the status of the waterfront study, which would involve different build-
out scenarios for four waterfront lots – two along the Bass River and two along the
“working” portion of the waterfront.
Douglas asks if there is any contamination on the former Ventron site now. Pantano
answers no, there is none. The AUL was put in place simply for legal protection.
Cox asks to see a copy of the AUL release. Cassidy states that she can provide members
with a copy.
Stacey asks who requested release of the AUL. Alexander states that only the current
owner of a site can request that an AUL be lifted. Pantano adds that lifting the AUL was
a risk/return type decision.
Douglas asks how many property owners there are between the former Ventron site and
Beverly Port Marine. Cassidy answers four: Beverly Office Development LLC
(Ventron), the Lewis family (Rowan’s), the City of Beverly (Harbormaster’s property
and former McDonald’s), and Frank and Sue Kinzie (Beverly Port Marine). Douglas
states that one of the ECDC’s priorities is the redevelopment of the waterfront. He sees
great promise in a coordinated redevelopment of the area and would like to see residential
uses along the entire waterfront under study. To develop the area soundly, creative
planning initiatives may be needed.
Pantano states that they are interested in what happens on the former McDonald’s
property and in possibly developing that site as part of a comprehensive package.
Alexander adds that parcel assembly is difficult to do without eminent domain action.
Draft ECDC meeting minutes October 19, 2005 meeting
Page 2 of 5
Ricciardi notes that the existence of the intervening MBTA tracks has a formidable
impact on a developer’s ability to develop the area comprehensively.
Pantano asks when the City will be issuing the RFP for the former McDonald’s site.
Cassidy answers roughly one month.
Cox expresses concern about parking needs and traffic impacts from development of the
site and asks Pantano what their infrastructure needs might be. Ricciardi answers that
with an office use, traffic is a negative even with the existence of the two-way roadway
known as Goat Hill Lane. Residential development should have less impact on the
neighborhood and traffic would not go through the Goat Hill neighborhood. Cassidy
states that there could be traffic impacts on the adjacent neighborhood, if cars used
Wellman Street instead of the bridge to exit the area.
Cox asks if they have explored the possibility of underground parking. Ricciardi answers
no, they are expecting to provide under-unit, but not underground, parking with a
residential use. Pantano states that underground parking was considered but deemed cost
prohibitive. Cox asks if they would consider structured parking with a residential use.
Pantano answers yes, but Ricciardi says that on-grade parking makes more economic
sense. Pantano states that the owners would be happy to construct structured parking on
the site if it were consistent with the City’s overall development plans for the area.
McMahon asks if mixed use (residential/commercial) was considered. Pantano answers
they investigated the possibility but site access makes commercial very unlikely. Real
estate agents have suggested office or residential, but not retail because businesses need
more visibility than what would be possible on this site. Ricciardi notes that offices are a
more likely complement to residential, but they demand more parking facilities. There
are building code and fire protection issues that arise with mixed use.
McMahon asks what the owners intend to do if the property is not rezoned, or not
rezoned by a certain time. Pantano answers that the owners will wait for the office
market to “turn around”, and will do something like rack boat storage as an interim use.
She asks what the owners’ time line demands for a decision – Pantano answers the spring
of 2006. The property is currently valued at $1.4 million; rack storage would require an
investment of about $1 million, whereas residential development would represent an
investment of $40 million or so.
Cox asks if the residential development would be rental units or condominiums. Pantano
says condominiums.
Grimes views this property as being a cornerstone of redevelopment of the waterfront if
done right. Pantano agrees.
Douglas says that he understands the concerns associated with a comprehensive approach
to waterfront redevelopment. To date, a piecemeal approach hasn’t created the
Draft ECDC meeting minutes October 19, 2005 meeting
Page 3 of 5
excitement necessary to successful redevelopment. The waterfront isn’t a jewel yet, and
urges the City to create a more exciting development situation along the waterfront.
Cox asks if there are any questions from members of the audience. There are none.
Pantano asks what the owners can do to assist the ECDC. He states that development
must be a “win-win” for the owners and the City – they are not interested in fighting with
the City to see a new use allowed.
Alcott asks if the ECDC is the best gateway to rezoning, or whether the comprehensive
rezoning committee is the best vehicle. Cox states that community consensus is critical,
and the ECDC’s mandate is to prioritize development and redevelopment options, and
recommend policies to realize those options. Alcott suggests that the owners return to a
subsequent ECDC meeting for further discussion, and Pantano promises a shorter
presentation next time.
The committee thanks the owners’ representatives for attending this evening.
Next, Cox asks if members have reviewed the draft minutes of the committee’s last
meeting, and whether there are any changes that need to be made.
Stacey
: motion to approve the draft minutes of the September 21, 2005 meeting,
seconded by McMahon. All members in favor, motion carries.
Next, Cassidy asks if there are any comments on the mission statement and goals and
objectives developed at the September meeting. There are none.
Next, Cassidy provides a brief update on the Route 128/Brimbal Avenue overpass
project. She states that the State has approved nearly $1 million to conduct an
Environmental Impact Report and to analyze alternative conceptual designs. They are in
the process of entering contracts with the State and a private consultant. The work is
expected to start later this fall and take about 18 months to complete.
Next, members discuss a short term work plan. Douglas states that the ECDC could play
an important role in the redevelopment of the former Ventron site and the waterfront as a
whole. Cox suggests discussing tonight’s presentation at the next meeting, after members
have an opportunity to consider what was presented.
Douglas asks if the committee should invite the owners of Beverly Port Marine to the
next meeting to discuss their potential redevelopment plans. After a brief discussion,
members decide to have Douglas talk to the Kinzies and report back to the entire group.
Members discuss the upcoming meeting schedule and elect to have meetings on
ththth
November 16, December 7, and January 11. The next meeting will be devoted to
discussion of the former Ventron site.
Draft ECDC meeting minutes October 19, 2005 meeting
Page 4 of 5
Cox brings up the issue of relocating the offices of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) from Gloucester to Cummings Center. Cummings
Properties has bid to provide office space, and the government is currently considering its
options with respect to the move. Cox asks if the ECDC should write a letter supporting
NOAA’s move to Beverly. The committee’s consensus is that a letter should be written.
Cox will draft a letter before the next meeting.
McMahon
: motion to write a letter from the ECDC to the decision-making agency
expressing support for the relocation of NOAA’s offices from Gloucester
to Cummings Center, seconded by Grimes. All members in favor, motion
carries.
Cox asks if there is any other business. There is none.
The meeting is adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Draft ECDC meeting minutes October 19, 2005 meeting
Page 5 of 5