Loading...
2015-06-15 (2)Beverly Planning Board /Beverly City Council Joint Public Hearing June 15, 2015 CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Board: Joint Public Hearing of the Planning Board and the Beverly City Council Date: Monday, June 15, 2015 Location: Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers Members Present John Thomson, Ellen Hutchinson, Ellen Flannery, James Matz, Wayne Miller, Catherine Barrett, Ned Barrett, David Mack Members Absent Councilors Present: Council President Paul Guanci, Vice President James Latter, David Lang, Don Martin, Scott Houseman, Jason Silva, Estelle Rand, Mathew St. Hillaire, John Frates Members Absent: None Others Present: City Planner Aaron Clausen Recorder: These proceedings were recorded on Bev Cam and transcribed by Eileen Sacco Guanci calls the public hearing to order at 7:20 p.m.and invites Planning Board Chairman John Thomson to join him at the podium. Thomson joins the Council on the council podium. Recess for Public Hearings Latter moves to recess for public hearings at this time. Silva seconds the motion. The motion carried (9 -0). Thomson asks for a motion to recess for Public Hearings at this time. Flannery moves to recess for public hearings at this time. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0). Public Hearing Council Order #359 — Zoning Amendment Relative to the Beverly Zoning Ordinance Chapter 38 -19 — IR and IR Overlay — Restricted Industrial, Research & Office District Page 1 of 10 Beverly Planning Board /Beverly City Council Joint Public Hearing June 15, 2015 City Clerk Kathleen Connelly reads legal notice. Connelly reads City Council Order #359 ORDERED: That Chapter 38 -19 B Uses by Right of Revised Zoning Ordinances of the City of Beverly, be and the same is hereby amended as follows: ADD: 14. Skilled Nursing Care Facility licensed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Atty. Alexander is here in behalf of the owners of 300 Sohier Road, property currently known as The Roller Palace and Soccer Etc. He explains that the family is looking to sell it to the Lockwood Group and currently have a purchase and sales agreement pending permitting of the site. Alexander explains that the City currently does not have a use for a skilled nursing facility in the IR district and they are proposing to add an additional use by right for a skilled nursing facility licensed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Alexander explains that Skilled nursing is traditionally what we think of as Nursing Home and over the last decade due to changes in health care and demographics health care has changed. He explains that the facility proposed would be for short stays of 25 -30 days and provide rehabilitation in a residential setting. He explains that patients who have spent 2 -3 days in the hospital for knee replacement etc. would stay at the facility for rehab on a short term basis. Alexander explains that the facility will provide 111 full time jobs and have an estimated $6 million dollar payroll. He also explains that it will be open 24 hours a day and will have three shifts of employees. Alexander notes that there is a concern in this area of the city with traffic and states that they have done a quick traffic analysis on the comparison of traffic with the present use and the proposed use. He explains that at the peak hour in the morning this facility would have 14 total trips during the weekday and 18 trips in the evening and 33 on Saturday at mid -day peak hour. He notes that the traffic engineer Mr. Hamm is very conservative and he has projected that this will generated significantly less traffic than the Roller Palace does. Alexander states that there is a need for this kind of zoning change and notes that facilities for this kind of rehab are needed in the area noting that he has personal experience with it. He explains that people need a place that provides for a different experience than one that people would have in a Nursing Home. Alexander explains that Lockwood Investments has invested in hundreds of skilled nursing and transitional care facilities across the United States. He notes that they are an experienced development team and estimates that the cost for the facility would be $18 -$20 million dollars. He notes that 80% of the workers on the site will be local workers. He notes that Chris Chancellor and Kyle Darnell Project Manager for Lockwood are present this evening and are available to answer questions as well. Page 2 of 10 Beverly Planning Board /Beverly City Council Joint Public Hearing June 15, 2015 Alexander states that should the zoning be approved the project will have to go through Site Plan Review with the Planning Board and approval of the zoning change does not approve the project. Guanci clarifies that the sale of the property is contingent on the zoning change. Alexander stated that the sale is contingent on the zoning change. Councilor Martin asked how much traffic that is generated from the Roller Palace now. Alexander states that he does not know the exact figures on that, but notes that they feel that the traffic produced from this use will be less than the traffic from the present use. Councilor Houseman asked if is there a current lack of demand for The Roller Palace and Soccer Etc. Alexander did not know but states that the current owners have put the property up for sale. Councilor Houseman asks if there is any reason why a special permit would not be more appropriate for the city to have greater input into the proposed use. Alexander explains that Site Plan Review does not allow for a denial, just shaping of the application. He further notes that the IR special permit is for intense uses and this is mild use. He states that they felt that SPR would be more than adequate for this type of use. Councilor Houseman states that he is concerned that they are asking the Council to conclude from their assertions that this is a low traffic use and it sounds like it but there has been no analytical review. He notes the sensitivity in the area due to all of the present and pending construction in the area. Councilor Lang would be in favor of use for a skilled Nursing facility by Special Permit. Councilor Latter referred to the Brimbal Avenue projects currently approved and questions if we should be changing one piece of zoning or should it be a larger conversation with the administration to review the Uses By Right in the ordinance. He states that he does not want to change one piece of zoning for a specific project. Alexander states that he thinks that with the changes in the economy we can all agree that having a place where skilled nursing is allowed in the IR district makes a lot of sense. He notes that from a neighborhood perspective it is more low impact than what is currently allowed in the IR district. Councilor St. Hillaire asked if people would be staying overnight. Alexander states that patients would stay at the facility somewhere in the range of 20 -30 days and they would be staying overnight for rehab until they are ready to go home. St. Hillaire asks what the capacity of the facility will be. Alexander states that there will be 82 beds. He also notes that this facility will be a for profit organization and will be paying taxes to the City of Beverly. Councilor St. Hillaire asks if there are any other zoning areas in the City of Beverly where this use is allowed by right. Page 3 of 10 Beverly Planning Board /Beverly City Council Joint Public Hearing June 15, 2015 City Planner Aaron Clausen explains that there are no other districts that allow this category noting it is a new use that we are seeing. He explains that hospitals are moving patients out after surgery and there is a need for this kind of use to provide rehabilitation care. He notes that right now there is no pathway by right or by special permit for this kind of facility. Clausen explains that when this proposal was first reviewed by the City the Mayor asked them to look at IR overlay and see if there are other uses that we should be packaging with this proposed zoning change and determined that at the moment there are no additional uses that should be considered for the IR district. He explains that this is not going to be a residential property explaining that this would be for short term stays, and that is the critical distinction. He notes that they felt that the IR district is a good fit for this and Site Plan Review is good vehicle for it. He notes that the Planning Board can approve the project with mitigation to address issues of concerns to the neighbors as part of the process. Clausen explains that as for other uses that could be considered for inclusion as by right and the kinds of uses they came up with are not really targeted for the IR District and would be more geared to the downtown zoning district. Councilor Silva asked that they outline by right uses allowed in the IR district now. Clausen explains that office space, research and development, bed and breakfast by special permit are some of the uses that are allowed and geared to commercial uses and skilled labor forces. Councilor Silva asked if they have done any neighborhood outreach on this given the activity in the area. Alexander explained that they have not had the opportunity to date but they would look forward to doing that as they get further into the process. Councilor Silva asked if there is any estimate on the number of construction jobs the project will generate and how many jobs the facility will offer when it opens. Alexander reported that there will be 111 FTE jobs when the facility opens and there could be some part time as well. He notes that they will be good paying jobs noting that they will employ professionals such as therapists and nurses etc. He asked Mr. Darnell to address the question regarding the number of construction jobs the project will generate. Kyle Darnell Sr. Project Manager addresses the Board and the City Council and explains that this project is 55,000 s.f and estimates that between 125 -150 construction jobs will be needed and they will be buying all of their materials locally. Councilor Silva asked if the administration has a position on this. Clausen states that focusing on the use category in a larger sense makes sense for the IR district as it is a high job creator and does not introduce a residential use into the district. Councilor Houseman asks Clausen what the detriment to the residents of North Beverly would be to allowing this use by a special permit. Clausen explains that a special permit is a use permit and the Board would approve or deny it and site plan review is a complete project review and the Board would be looking at the project Page 4 of 10 Beverly Planning Board /Beverly City Council Joint Public Hearing June 15, 2015 in terms of scale and impacts such as stormwater quality and traffic issues and there would be opportunities to mitigate those issues. Councilor Houseman states that the site plan review criteria would be encapsulated in the special permit process and would allow for greater input from the residents. Clausen states that they are both public hearing processes and explains that he felt that Site Plan Review is adequate based solely on the fact that the proposed use fits with the district. Martin asks if the project is allowed to build, what the construction timeline would be. Kyle explains that the construction timeline is 11 -12 months. Chris Chancellor explains that a key element of a development of this type is licensure from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and they need a Determination of Need from the State which takes about 4 months to obtain. He notes that if this is passed it will be 4 -5 months before construction starts after they get Determination of Need. Alexander states that they would have to go through the Planning Board process and they would be looking at starting that process in September and when that approval is granted then they would start the 4 month process for the Determination of Need. Martin states that it sounds like they will be building at the same time as Whole Foods. Atty. Alexander explains that Whole Foods still has to wait for the Brimbal Avenue construction project to be completed. Clausen explains that the Brimbal Avenue project has to be substantially complete before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for Whole Foods. Councilor Frates notes that Shaughnessy Rehab in Salem is shutting down and questions what the need is if a large facility is shutting down. Chancellor explains that Range Com did a feasibility study and this model is a pure rehab facility and the Shaughnessy facility was more for long term care and outpatient care. Councilor Rand notes that this is a new land use and questions where around us are we seeing this land use put into place. Clausen explains that the proposed use would be allowed in all of the IR districts. Councilor Rand asks if there are there other communities who have these kinds of facilities. Chancellor explains that Lowell has a short term facility that was attached to an assisted living facility and they are seeing them being proposed in more communities. Clausen explains that the Planning Department staff looked at the existing uses in the IR district by right and are supportive of this is because it is consistent with the kinds of uses already allowed. Councilor Rand notes that if this is a land use by right then we could see another one over by the airport. Clausen explains the areas that are IR noting that the airport and the Dunham Road area Page 5 of 10 Beverly Planning Board /Beverly City Council Joint Public Hearing June 15, 2015 are in the IR district. He explains that there would be no restriction on the number of facilities if there is a need. Councilor Latter questions why this is the only change that is being proposed to the ordinance. Clausen explains that there were not any other uses that they could see at this time to add to the district. He further explains that what is being proposed is a new use. He also notes that the administration realizes that the IR Overlay District needs to be addressed but it is a slightly different amendment rather than adding a new use. Council President Guanci invites Mayor Cahill to address the City Council and Planning Board at this time. Mayor Cahill addressed the Council and explains that they have asked for the opportunity to bring the overlay piece to the Council and notes that they will get that to the Council and notes that they invite discussion on the matter with regard to removing uses. Mayor Cahill states that adding this use category is appropriate for the IR district and appropriate that it be added for use by right. Councilor Latter states that he wants to be sure that this project is not driving the change to the zoning ordinance. Mayor Cahill suggests that the proposed zoning is just to add the use by right and the council should not focus on this particular project as it will go through a thorough review by the Planning Board for Site Plan Review as well as other City Boards and Commissions as appropriate. Councilor Latter asks if there is there a piece of the IR district in the Cummings Center. Clausen states there is no IR zoning in the Cummings Center. Councilor St. Hillaire suggests that he feels that it would be better to see how the Brimbal Ave plaza shakes out rather than adding more to the area at this time. Clausen states that adding the proposed use is consistent with the IR district and uses that are already allowed in it. He also notes that it is beneficial to the community in terms of jobs and tax base and it is not a matter of rushing to add this use for a particular project. He further notes that they feel that this amendment supports their objectives for the district and Site Plan Review will be the proper review process for this use. Councilor Houseman states that it strikes him that if the impacts for this use are negligible it could surely go through a Special Permit process and not be an undue burden for the developer. He states that the Special Permit process would provide additional review for the city. He states that he agrees with Councilor Latter that this is an area that is particularly sensitive at this time and we should be looking at it holistically and with a little extra due diligence that will not derail the project. Councilor Silva states that contemplating this change does not preclude the Council from making the changes to the ordinance that they have discussed. He notes that this request is to add a use Page 6 of 10 Beverly Planning Board /Beverly City Council Joint Public Hearing June 15, 2015 by right to the existing ordinance and notes that if an office development filed tomorrow that would be an allowable use in the IR Overlay district. Councilor Silva states that he has had recent experience in skilled nursing facilities and he knows that there is a real need for this type of facility in this area and with broad strokes it sounds like the impacts are going to be less that what is there and less than what is already allowed. He states that the Council should consider this proposal in this area in those terms. Councilor Rand states that she appreciates that jobs will result from this use but notes that she is concerned about the Determination of Need and she would not want to see five of these pop up in Beverly. Atty. Alexander explains that the Commonwealth groups certain counties together in the state when considering Determination of Need and it is very much analyzed on a project by project basis. He reports that in Massachusetts there is a moratorium on new nursing home beds at this time and explains the process and the information that the State takes into consideration when determining the need for a facility. Councilor Martin states that he thinks that there is merit for this type of project but notes that if it is going to be done he would like to see it done by Special Permit to ensure that it has a less of an impact on the community. Thomson asks if there are any members of the Planning Board who wish to comment at this time. David Mack asks if there is a specific definition of Skilled Nursing Facility and questions if it needs to be inserted elsewhere in the zoning code. Atty. Alexander states that they can give a citation that defines Skilled Nursing Facility. Ellen Hutchinson states that Beverly has Essex Park and Rehabilitation Center, Ledgewood and Blueberry Hill which are long and short term facilities. She asks how those facilities are classified by city. Atty. Alexander explains that those facilities are allowed by variance. He states that it is not a good way to create uses and most projects don't fit the variance criteria explaining that they are seeking to do this by right. He also notes that those facilities are mostly long term care facilities explaining that they do provide some short term rehabilitation but are not geared for short term stays. Clausen explains that a nursing home is a skilled nursing facility that provides a residential setting. Hutchinson states that she agrees that there is a need for more specific language in the definition section of the ordinances. Darnell explains that the focus of this facility will be on on short term rehabilitation and getting the patients ready to go home when they are ready. He states that they could craft language to determine local level but on the state level it has to be classified as skilled nursing facility. Page 7 of 10 Beverly Planning Board /Beverly City Council Joint Public Hearing June 15, 2015 Ned Barrett states that he understands that this is a new category in existing zoning for skilled nursing facilities and while we hear this is a low impact use, it sounds like it is a new use from what is allowed. He also notes that 111 jobs with 3 shift changes, and discharges and intakes and visitors will be coming and going from the site and questions if this is that analogous to any of the current uses allowed by right district. He questions would a 24 hour use be allowed in business with an assembly process. Clausen said this could be compared to light industrial use noting that there are three shifts spreading out the shifts of employees and in terms of the operations of a skilled nursing facility this is going to be more of an office environment. Wayne Miller asks if we can we assume that this facility will have three or four admissions and discharges per day; 25 employees per shift; and 10 -12 visitors per day. Atty. Alexander states that it is a good estimate. Miller questions how many deliveries and other support services will be coming and going from the facility. Darnell states that he is not sure about the deliveries for this facility but notes that other facilities that they have built probably have 2 -3 deliveries per day. Catherine Barrett notes that there is a lot of concern in the City that this area is experiencing dramatic change with the Brimbal Avenue redesign project and the Northshore Crossing project. She states that she is concerned about traffic as her #1 concern noting that on the other side of Sohier Road the residents are already experiencing dramatic change with NS Crossing. She states that she agrees that a special permit might be the appropriate process for this particular parcel, but may not be in other areas where it will be allowed. She also states that she is concerned that NS Crossing and this will be going on simultaneously. Mack states that he feels that this is a prudent amendment and appropriate use. He questions if the proposed use as defined allows rehabilitation on an outpatient basis. Atty. Alexander explains that the State licensure requires overnight stays. Public Comment Rosemary Broadbent 109 Northridge Road addresses the Council and Planning Board and states that she is speaking as an individual but several residents share her concerns. She states she has lived across from the Roller Palace for a long time and explains that the Roller Palace is only open at certain times and they cater to kids and teenagers. She states that the traffic is light. Broadbent stated that her concerns are not about a nursing facility and there is no commitment that this particular project is what is going to happen. She states that she is concerned that a By Right project will have a bigger impact that if the use was allowed by a special permit. Broadbent states that the Board and City Council should postpone the decision until the other projects in the area are completed so that they can get a better idea of what the effects will be. Rick Marciano referred to Mr. Mack's comments about the definition of skilled nursing facility and questions if a drug rehab center could apply to the definition noting that there is a very Page 8 of 10 Beverly Planning Board /Beverly City Council Joint Public Hearing June 15, 2015 serious drug problem in the area today. Alexander states that a drug rehab facility could not be included in this and notes that they have asked for specific language that states a licensed skilled nursing facility as licensed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Marciano asks if there is anything that would prevent a for profit organization from becoming nonprofit. Alexander states that the proposal does not make a distinction between for profit or nonprofit organization. Marciano stated that input from the Planning Board will be taken away and if it is by right the public will lose input. Guanci states that if there are no further comments or questions regarding this matter he would entertain a motion to close the public hearing at this time. Councilor Latter moves to close the public hearing. Councilor Silva seconds the motion. The motion carries (9 -0). Councilor Latter moves to refer the Amendment to the Beverly Zoning Ordinance Chapter 38 -19 — IR and IR Overlay — add language to Uses by Right: Skilled Nursing Care Facility - to the Beverly Planning Board for a recommendation. Councilor Houseman seconds the motion. The motion carried (9 -0). Thomson calls for a motion for the Planning Board to adjourn. Flannery moves that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting. Miller seconds the motion. The motion carries. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. The Planning Board special meeting was called to order by Chairman Thomson at 9:00 p.m. Thomson noted that as a part of the zoning amendment process the Planning Board must provide the City Council with a recommendation relative to the request. It was confirmed that under the Zoning Act, Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A, the Planning Board must provide a recommendation and report to the City Council within 21 days of the date the public hearing was held. The Planning Board discussed testimony made by the applicant as well as comments and questions raised during the public hearing conducted prior to the special meeting. It was determined during discussion that generally a skilled nursing facility providing short term rehabilitation services for post operative procedures is consistent with many of the uses allowed in the IR district, whether by -right or by special permit. The Board agreed that skilled nursing facilities are the type of commercial land use that has the capability to create new, skilled, and high paying employment opportunities for the community and is consistent with the objectives of the IR district Although the Board considered the proposed use consistent with the intent of the Restricted Industrial (IR) zoning district, discussion highlighted a concern that Skilled Nursing Care Page 9 of 10 Beverly Planning Board /Beverly City Council Joint Public Hearing June 15, 2015 Facility as defined by the Commonwealth was broad and in particular did not distinguish between short-term and long -term rehabilitation. Given concerns relative to the proposed definition the Board agreed that the proposed amendment should be revised to allow skilled nursing facilities by special permit and not by- right. By requiring the special permit the Board concluded that requiring a special permit to allow the proposed use will provide the City, by way of the special permit granting authority, the flexibility to control the type of rehabilitation facility that is proposed. In particular the Board distinguished between long -term versus short-term facilities. Mack motioned to recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed zoning amendment (Council Order #359) be adopted with revisions to the definition so that it specifically references 105 CMR 150 and that Skilled Nursing Care Facilities be allowed by special permit. N. Barrett seconded the motion. The Board voted in favor of motion 8 -0. Miller motion to adjourn, Mack seconds, all voting in favor (8 -0). Page 10 of 10