2006-03-06
CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Council/Planning Board
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: March 6, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice-Chairman John
Thomson, Ellen Flannery, Joanne Dunn, Eve Geller-
Duffy, Charlie Harris
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jason Silva, Don Walter
OTHERS PRESENT: Beverly City Council, City Planner Tina Cassidy
RECORDER: Maryann DiPalma
The regular meeting of the City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. City Council
President Paul Guanci announces that the Council and Planning Board will convene a Joint
Meeting to conduct public hearings on three proposed zoning amendments.
1. City Council Order #10—Proposed amendment to definition of SETBACK.
City Clerk Frances Macdonald reads the legal notice, and Guanci asks Cassidy to explain the
proposed amendment. She states that this Order is sponsored by Ward 6 Councilor Grimes,
although she drafted the proposal. It proposes to amend Section 29-2.42B to read as
follows:
“Setback—A line beyond which the foundation wall and/or any enclosed covered
porch or other enclosed portion of a building shall not project. In the case of
private easements that serve as legal frontage for, or provide vehicular access to
any lot, minimum yard setbacks required by this Ordinance shall be measured
from the side line of the private easement or the property line, whichever is closest
to the location of the building.”
In the vast majority of cases, new building lots front on a public way. In those cases, the
current way of measuring setbacks does not pose a problem. In some cases however, where
the streets are not public ways, property lines often fall not on the edge of the right of way
but rather down the centerline of the way. When that happens, the current definition of
setback can pose a problem, resulting in a house sited closer to the traveled way than
intended. This happens because the setback is measured from the property line, not the
edge of the traveled way. Councilor Flaherty asks if the issue arises only with private
easements. Cassidy says the proposed amendment would require a property owner to
measure from the edge of the private easement or from the property line, whichever of the
two was closest to the location of the building. Councilor Coughlin asks if the amendment
would affect the recently-adopted OSRD ordinance. Cassidy states that it has no meaningful
impact on the OSRD ordinance.
Burt Hutchins, 60 Paine Avenue, brought this to the attention of Councilor Grimes initially.
He states that it has been a long process to get this issue before the City Council and says it
Draft Planning Board minutes Joint Public Hearing on Orders #10, 30, & 31
March 6, 2006 meeting Page 1 of 8
could greatly affect future development in his neighborhood. He supports the proposed
amendment and urges the Council to adopt it. Under present zoning laws, he states you
could literally build a house in the middle of the road.
Guanci asks if there are any other public comments or questions on the proposal. There are
none, so he declares the public hearing closed and refers the proposal back to the Planning
Board for its recommendation.
2. City Council Order #30—Proposed Amendment to the definition of
“Subsidized Elderly Housing”
Guanci asks Cassidy to explain the proposed amendment. Cassidy explains that the
amendment would modify Section 29-2.B of the Zoning Ordinance by increasing the
minimum age requirement from 55 to 62.
She recaps the City’s earlier deliberations on the definition. During the fall and early winter
of 2005, the Council and Planning Board discussed adoption of the new definition. The
original proposal called for the minimum age to be 55. Following the public hearing and
subsequent deliberations, the Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend adoption of
the proposed definition, but to increase the minimum age to 62. The Council subsequently
adopted the proposed definition but opted to leave the minimum age at 55. Following that
vote, the Planning Board decided to propose this zoning amendment to the City Council for
consideration. The amendment would increase the minimum age threshold for “Subsidized
Elderly Housing” uses from 55 to 62. She suggests that Planning Board Chairperson
Richard Dinkin can explain the Planning Board’s perspective on the issue.
Dinkin states this amendment was proposed to correct what the Board believes is a flaw in
the current definition. Subsidized elderly housing uses are broadly permitted across the City
in most zoning districts, and without an age limit of 62, these projects would be simply
multi-family developments in single-family zoning districts. He suggests that the very term
“subsidized elderly housing” explicitly implies a largely “elderly” project. If one takes the
position that the City elected to allow such projects across the City, it was intending to meet
a social need – and perhaps address a social issue – relative to senior housing. The best way
to ensure that is to have the age of 62 as a baseline for occupancy, instead of 55 where
children, rather than the elderly, are more likely to be occupants.
The best argument for age sixty-two (62) was that there would be no children. The purpose
of “Subsidized Elderly Housing” is to provide low cost housing to people who are unable to
afford market-rate housing.
Councilor Coughlin asks where in the City subsidized elderly housing could be built. Cassidy
answers that the use is not permitted in the WD (Waterfront Development) District. The
use is allowed by special permit in the R-90, R-45, R-22, R-15, R-10, R-6, CN, CG, IR, and
IG zoning districts, and is allowed by right in the RMD, RHD, RSD, and CC zoning
districts.
Draft Planning Board minutes Joint Public Hearing on Orders #10, 30, & 31
March 6, 2006 meeting Page 2 of 8
The question was asked what the “typical” age requirement would be for this type of use.
Dinkin states he is not sure, but suggests the City wants to remove any incentive for a
developer to build multi-unit buildings in single-family zoning districts.
Flaherty asks Cassidy about the similarity between subsidized elderly housing and congregate
elderly housing. Cassidy states that the City’s congregate elderly housing provision requires
at least 20 acres of land. The provision also requires dedicated shared spaces within the
building and implies the provision of some form of on-site medical services. In contrast,
“one person over 55” projects do not typically have this amenity.
The age of sixty-two (62) would be more appropriate for the definition of Elderly Housing
because with an age requirement of only 55, many tenants could have young children.
Children would be disruptive in a place where people want peace and quiet. Many people
are having children at a later point in life, and someone could have a child that is 12 years old
so 62 would be a better age for subsidized elderly housing.
In the proposed zoning amendment, “Subsidized Elderly Housing” would mean that eighty
percent (80%) of units would have to be occupied by someone 62 years of age or older, and
20% could be occupied by persons less than 62 years old.
Guanci asks if anyone present wishes to speak in favor or against the proposal. There are
none. Guanci closes the public hearing and refers the proposed amendment back to the
Planning Board for a recommendation.
(3) City Council Order #31—Proposed Zoning Amendment—Building and
Dimensional Requirements of the CC Zoning District
Guanci asks Cassidy to explain the proposed amendment. Cassidy explains that the
proposed amendment would do two things. It would close a loophole in the existing
language of the ordinance, and allow the Planning Board to grant special permits to allow
taller buildings in the district. The current height limit is 55 feet, and the amendment would,
in part, allow the Board to authorize buildings up to 75 in height, as long as the lot was not
adjacent to a residential zoning district.
The new provision to “close the loophole” involves adopting building and area requirements
for commercial uses, residential uses, and combined commercial/residential uses on lots
with side and/or rear yards which do not abut a commercial or residential zoning district.
The requirements would be as follows:
a. Minimum lot area – none
b. Minimum lot frontage – 50 feet
c. Minimum front yard setback – none
d. Minimum side yard setback – none
e. Minimum rear yard setback – none
f. Maximum building height – 55 feet/75 feet*
Draft Planning Board minutes Joint Public Hearing on Orders #10, 30, & 31
March 6, 2006 meeting Page 3 of 8
* The Planning Board may authorize, by special permit, an increase
in building height over 55 feet, to a maximum of 75 feet for uses
under subsection 29-17.D.2., 3., and 5. only.
Cassidy explains that the second part of the amendment would allow the Planning Board to
grant special permits to allow buildings up to 75’ in height to be built. In summary, the
proposed amendments to Section 29-17.D. would read as follows (new text in italics):
“D Building and Area Requirements
1.. Commercial uses, residential uses or combined
commercial/residential uses on “CC”- zoned lots with side and/or
rear yards abutting a residential zoning district:
a. Minimum lot area – none for 100% commercial use; 1,000 sq. ft. of
total lot area per dwelling unit for residential use
b. Minimum lot frontage – none for 100% commercial use; 50 feet for
residential use
c. Minimum front yard setback – none
d. Minimum side yard setback- 10 feet, 15 feet if building is over 3
stories for that side yard which abuts the side or rear yard of a
residentially zones lot
e. Minimum rear yard setback – 20 feet – if the rear yard
abuts a side or rear yard of a residentially zoned lot
f. Maximum building height – 55 feet when “RHD” is the abutting
residential district, 35 feet when “RMD” or “R6” is the abutting
residential district
Commercial uses, residential uses or combined
commercial/residential uses which abut a residential zoning district
by a public way with an average width of a least 25 feet or a
railroad right of way of at least 25 feet, there shall be no setback
requirement.
2. Residential uses which do not abut a residential zoning district:
a.
Minimum lot area – 1,000 sq. ft. of total lot area per dwelling unit
b.
Minimum lot frontage – 50 feet
c.
Minimum front yard setback – 15 feet
d.
Minimum side yard setback – 10 feet, 15 feet if over 3 stories
e.
Minimum rear yard – setback – 20 feet
f.
Maximum height – 55 feet/75 feet*
* The Planning Board may authorize, by special permit, an increase in building
height over 55 feet, to a maximum of 75 feet, for uses under subsection 29-17.D., 3., and
5. only.
Draft Planning Board minutes Joint Public Hearing on Orders #10, 30, & 31
March 6, 2006 meeting Page 4 of 8
3. Commercial uses which do not abut a residential district:
a.
Minimum lot area – none
b.
Minimum lot frontage – none
c.
Minimum front yard setback – none
d.
Minimum side yard setback – none
e.
Minimum rear yard setback – none
f.
Maximum height – 55 feet/75 feet
* The Planning Board may authorize, by special permit, an increase in building
height over 55 feet, to a maximum of 75 feet, for uses under subsections 29-17.D. 2., 3.,
and 5. only.
4. Commercial or residential uses within structures existing at the time of the
adoption of the Zoning Ordinance:
a.
Minimum lot area – none for commercial use; 1,000 sq. ft. total lot
area per dwelling unit for residential use
b.
Minimum lot frontage – none
c.
Minimum front yard setback – none
d.
Minimum side yard setback – none
e.
Minimum rear yard setback – none
f.
Maximum height – 55 feet
5. Combined commercial/residential uses on lots with side and/or rear yards which do
not abut a residential zoning district:
a. Minimum lot area – none
b. Minimum lot frontage – 50 feet
c. Minimum front yard setback – none
d. Minimum side yard setback – none
e. Minimum rear yard setback – none
f. Maximum building height -55 feet / 75 feet*
* The Planning Board may authorize, by special permits, an increase in building
height over 55 feet, to a maximum of 75 feet, for uses under subsections 29-17.D.2., 3.,
and 5. only.
Cassidy then summarizes a variety of conclusions and recommendations from the Master
Plan that support this proposal:
??
Housing – In the downtown area, the commercial building values are much
lower than in other parts of the city, and much lower than one would expect
to see. In the past, residential development has been mainly single-family
homes. The residential areas surrounding downtown consist largely of multi-
family dwellings.
Draft Planning Board minutes Joint Public Hearing on Orders #10, 30, & 31
March 6, 2006 meeting Page 5 of 8
??
Reuse and reinvestment in the downtown and its outskirts is a goal.
Councilor Burke asked how tall the ladder truck was in the fire department. Cassidy replies
that she is aware of the issue of the ladder trucks. Burke says that the ladder truck now in
service has a reach of 75 feet but the one taken out of service could extend 110 feet. If a
building is over 75 feet tall, the ladder truck would not be able to accommodate it. He states
that protection of the citizens is a priority.
Cassidy elaborates on the special permit public hearing process, explaining that when such
an application is presented to the Planning Board, many City departments, boards and
commissions, and the public are asked to review the proposal and make comments for
consideration. This would include the Fire Department.
Gooding asks for an explanation of the area of the downtown encompassed by the “CC”
zoning district. Cassidy answers that the district runs along both Rantoul Street and Cabot
Street, from where they intersect at the Beverly/Salem Bridge to where they intersect again
at Gloucester Crossing. There are several places where the district “expands” to include
more than the general strip of lots along the two streets.
A councilor asks about the 75 ft. height that is being proposed - how was that number
selected? Is 75 feet similar to what other communities are doing? Cassidy answers that the
number is sufficient to accommodate a seven story building or a six story building with a
peaked roof. She states that while she hasn’t conducted a survey of other similar
communities and their height limits, 75’ is consistent with a number of other buildings in the
downtown (particularly along Rantoul Street) and not inconsistent with development that is
occurring in places like Salem.
Councilor Burke states that the City needs to set a policy that is consistent, and no project
should be approved if it cannot be protected in terms of fire safety.
Cassidy reiterates that in order to achieve the goals of the master plan, to encourage “smart
growth” by focusing new development in the downtown area, to stimulate affordable
housing production and to provide the necessary zoning flexibility to encourage developers
to reinvest in the downtown, additional height is essential.
Thomson asks how “deep” the “CC” zoning district is. He was told that the zone along
Cabot Street is only one or two lots deep and that it directly abuts residential areas. He
believes one side of Rantoul Street abuts residential districts and the Bass River side of
Rantoul Street abuts an industrial zoning district. He was also told that fewer lots could
benefit from the height increase than couldn’t and that there are several dozen lots in the city
that could use this increase.
Dinkin states that small but important first steps must be taken in thinking about how we
use our open spaces. Beverly is unique in that some parts of the City look very much like
the communities of Manchester and Essex but other areas, like the downtown, look more
like Salem and Peabody because we are a city. The increase in the height limitation would
Draft Planning Board minutes Joint Public Hearing on Orders #10, 30, & 31
March 6, 2006 meeting Page 6 of 8
provide a better mix of housing. He states that the downtown area needs regulatory
structure.
Renee Mary, 274 Hale Street, asks if the City can afford 75 ft. buildings. This would mean
there would be a need for more fire and police protection, as well as more roads, etc. She
states that we need to think about the people who have to pay the bills.
Rosemary Maglio, Pleasant Street gives a lengthy discourse on the reasons why not to
increase the height. She stated that 75 feet is not needed. The effects of the current projects
have yet to be completed. It already allows for 55 ft. where most of the city is 35 ft. The
current “CC” zoning district is not build out. The variance route gives the public and
abutters more leeway. An increase in height would mean an increase in density.
She states that in June, 2001, the City increased the height limit in the IG zone from 35 to 70
ft if buildings are set back 1,000 ft. from all abutters. A 70 ft. building would expand
commercial into residential. We now have a lot of unused lots and she considers the City
Council and the Planning Board as inconsistent. She states that there are enough unused
lots so it is not necessary to go up to 75 feet. This would mean that the 75 ft. would be at
the plot line.
Maglio states that she felt that the Planning Board has too much power. This height increase
will cause increased traffic, loss of light, etc. and some land would become more valuable.
She stated that special permits are easy enough to obtain and the density downtown is high
enough.
Guanci asks if any other comments at this time. There are none. Guanci declares the public
hearings closed and refers the matter back to the Planning Board for a recommendation.
4. Discussion/recommendation to City Council: City Council Orders #10, 30,
and 31
Cassidy explains that the Board now has 21 days to make a recommendation to the Council.
The Board begins discussion on the definition of “setback”. Thomson has several questions
about the proposed definition. He suggested revised wording and review the language on
City Council Order #10. Some of the questions he had were “What if the private easement
abuts the lot”, “What if the easement cuts right through a lot”, “Does this require a setback
from all Rights of Way”. The Board elects to table discussion of this issue until the next
Board meeting.
Next, the members discuss the proposed change to the definition of “Subsidized Elderly
Housing”. Thomson reiterates his desire to research other communities’ ordinances before
voting. The other members feel comfortable making a recommendation this evening.
Harris: motion to recommend to the City Council that Order #30 be adopted,
seconded by Flannery. Flannery, Harris, Dinkin, Dunn, Geller-Duffy in
favor, Thomson opposed. Motion carries 5-1.
Draft Planning Board minutes Joint Public Hearing on Orders #10, 30, & 31
March 6, 2006 meeting Page 7 of 8
The Board decides to postpone discussion on the remaining two orders until the Board’s
next meeting on March 21, 2006.
Flannery: motion to adjourn, seconded by Dunn. All members in favor, none in
opposition. Motion carries.
Draft Planning Board minutes Joint Public Hearing on Orders #10, 30, & 31
March 6, 2006 meeting Page 8 of 8