Loading...
10 3 16 Planning Bd MinutesCITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Planning Board: Joint Public Hearing of the Planning Board and the Beverly City Council Date: Monday, October 3, 2016 Location: Beverly City Hall, Council Chambers Members Present: Vice Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Ellen Flannery, James Matz, Michael Rotondo, Catherine Barrett, Wayne Miller Members Absent: Chair John Thomson, Ned Barrett, David Mack Councilors Present: Council President Paul Guanci, Vice President Scott Houseman, John Frates, Don Martin, Jason Silva, James Latter, Matthew St. Hilaire, Estelle Rand, David Lang Councilors Absent: None Others Present: City Planner Aaron Clausen, Assistant City Planner Darlene Wynne, City Clerk Wesley Slate Recorder: This meeting was recorded on BevCam TV and transcribed by Mary Alice Cookson Council President Paul Guanci opens the Joint Public Hearing at 7:32p.m. Wesley Slate reads the order before the Board/Council, stating that the Beverly City Council and Planning Board are holding a joint public hearing relative to the following matter: Order #211 — Proposed Amendment to Beverly Zoning Ordinance 4300 -38 by amending Chapter 300 — Zoning, Article VI: District Regulations by deleting Section 300 -38 RSD Special Residential District and to amend the Zoning Map District designated "RSD" by redesignating as "R -22" and any and all lots therein as "R -22" (Map 40, Lots1A, 45,46, 47, Map 28, Lot 126, and Map 52, Lot 75). Guanci invites Vice Chair Ellen Hutchinson to join Council and open the Planning Board's portion of the meeting. Recess for Public Hearin Rotondo: Motion to recess for public hearing. Flannery seconds the motion.Motion carries (6 -0) Guanci then invites Planning Director Aaron Clausen to the podium. Clausen introduces the proposed zoning change noting that the Planning Department submitted the proposal to eliminate the RSD zoning and replace it with R -22, a suburban single- family zoning district, because they don't feel the current zoning is consistent with city's objectives. He Beverly Planning Board / City Council Joint Public Hearing October 3, 2016 explains that this area is poorly served by the city's transportation structure and has poor access to surrounding amenities and community services and that the new zoning would better fit the surrounding neighborhood and be better supported by utilities existent to the area. He explains that the only access to Trask Lane is off of Route 128 and this is only on the northbound side of the highway. If you want to head south on 128, you have to proceed north to the 1 A Exit and then turnaround to head south, thereby impacting multiple exits anytime you try to leave or access the site. If you are traveling south, you have to get off at Route 62 and turnaround to go north to the site. Development therefore would have a big impact on area traffic. He explains that the R -22 zoning would have less of an impact on the city's services than RSD. Because of the "disconnect between the city and the site," he says the Department felt that R -22 would better maintain the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. The density requirement on the 74 -acre lot with RSD zoning allows for 12 units per acre whereas R -22 allows for roughly 2 units per acre. Clausen says the Planning Department is looking to hear from the public on the matter. Councilor Estelle Rand asks Clausen how the proposed zoning change fits with the city's inclusionary housing/affordable housing plan. Clausen responds that R -22 still provides for affordable housing, but the current RSD allows for a larger number of units. He says in looking at affordable housing, you need to Iook at the large cost of transportation and this site is not a place that's close to where people work or to where they can easily walk or ride a bike to work or to utilize public transportation. Rand asks how the R -22 zoning fits into creating a plan for providing starter homes /affordable homes for first -time home buyers and empty - nesters downsizing. She mentions there are 232 units of affordable housing on the site already. She says she hopes that transportation to that area is a part of the city's plan. Clausen responds by mentioning that the inclusionary ordinance we currently have does not specify that it be available to a first -time homebuyer, it introduces a percentage of total units that must be provided. He mentions that the funds raised from the fee -in -lieu option could be used for a first -time homebuyer program or otherwise support affordable housing. He say there isn't anything in the R -22 zoning or inclusionary ordinance that specifically encourages starter homes. He notes the Massachusetts legislature has recently introduced a program to encourage starter homes, but regulations have not yet been established. Councilor David Lang spoke in support of proposed change and that the neighbors who live there currently have transportation problems. He notes that the current RSD zoning could allow for 12 units per acre. He believes the R -22 is a good compromise. He mentions the impact on the existing streets, for example, Raymond Farms roadway network, and the concerns that they will open up other access points. Page 2 of 8 Beverly Planning Board / City Council Joint Public Hearing October 3, 2016 Councilor Matthew St. Hilaire says he was a little surprised when he saw plans for large scale development in that area. In light of what developers are working on downtown, TOD (transit - oriented development), he asks if studies are being done about how this zoning proposal affects things like school enrollment. He said he is supportive of meeting the city's housing needs but wants to know the impact on the city. Clausen says in multi- family projects along Rantoul Street, there is less than one car per dwelling unit on site. He mentions a benefit for residents living in TOD housing is that they can be near work or walk to the commuter rail station. TOD has a lower impact on the city's parking situation than housing in the outlying areas does. He indicates they have just started looking at schools to see the impact of these projects on the City. Very few students come to the schools from these multi- family projects downtown, which primarily involve empty nesters and young professionals and those who don't have kids, he says; but a larger analysis is being done. St. Hilaire recognized Lorinda Visnick (Ward 6 School Committee) for her work to look at this issue. He reiterates his concern about how this large scale development could impact all these issues. Councilor Scott Houseman refers to what he read in the paper and says he was upset that nothing was given to the Council in writing aside from the one- sentence long order, especially given that this is a zoning change that is probably of the largest magnitude he has faced on the Council. He says that given the large acreage of the site, the lack of materials provided was inappropriate and insufficient for having the discussion. Clausen responds that the purpose of this public hearing was to get the conversation open and that there will be opportunity for a more refined analysis upon continuation of the hearing. Guanci reiterates that the continuation will provide more detail. Houseman says it would be useful to have a layout of the maps showing the area and a description from the zoning ordinance of the different sections. He asks what alternatives were considered concerning whether it would be possible to re -zone only a part of the area. He says we are seeing a theme of having more housing in general within the state and shares a concern that it might have a detrimental impact on the school district. He mentions the summary of the city's housings needs that's coming and wants to know how this fits into the bigger picture. Councilor Don Martin expresses concern about the impact on the neighborhood if access was created there by removing the fire gate. Says they worked hard to get that gate there and opening up the fire road is a non - starter. Councilor John Frates agrees and notes that after 30 years of dealing with that fire gate, he is very concerned about what might happen if the emergency access road is opened up. Frates also agrees that impact on schools is the crux of the issue. Says his concern, though, is about where the City stands with the developer who has the right to do with that site whatever the current zoning allows right now. Page 3 of 8 Beverly Planning Board / City Council Joint Public Hearing October 3, 2016 Clausen says he can't speak for the developer or property owner but there was a preliminary subdivision plan that was submitted the prior Friday [September 30] that essentially freezes the current zoning. A preliminary application gives the applicant an additional seven months to prepare a definitive subdivision plan that could be submitted and then there is an eight -year vested right to develop it within the existing plan. This is a property owner's right under Mass. General Law, he says, but knowing that possibility, the Administration still wanted to move forward with the zoning proposal. Guanci asks if he can share what was submitted. Clausen responds that the plan shows a new cul -de -sac at the end of Trask Lane. There is no information about the kind of development or the number of units. James Matz addresses the Council and reiterates the traffic problems that adding new development will create. He asks what the overall benefit to the city would be by changing the zoning. Clausen says the objective in introducing the change is to essentially mitigate the scale to lessen the impact on the transportation structure and utilities. Hutchinson asks Clausen to explain why he thinks it should be an R -22 district instead of R -15 or R -10. Clausen says the adjacent area (golf course) is R -22 and that R -22 allows for a lower density scale than the other zones. Because the character of that area is suburban and doesn't have the interconnections to the city, such as access to public transportation, he says the Planning Department thought that scale would function better. Guanci asks if there are members of the public who have questions or concerns. He notes he has only one person on his list, Attorney Mark Glovsky, and invites him to speak. Attorney Glovsky takes the podium. Says he represents Abbott Reeve and Stanley Reeve of Folly Hill Associates Trust, the owner of the 76.6 acres being discussed this evening. He says that the property has been in the Reeve family for more than 50 years. In the 1950's, the two brothers' father started collecting properties in that part of the city as an opportunity to fulfill a dream, which was creating a Reston, Virginia -like community. At that point the RSD zoning evolved. The dream never really came together, he says, and ultimately the family sold the golf course to the city. The property became three developments: Folly Hill Apartments, Cherry Hill Beverly Condo and Apple Village. Folly Hill is the only place in the city where the RSD zoning exists. The brothers will be significantly impacted by the zoning action, Glovsky states. The property is valued at $3.5 million. In Fiscal Year 2016, the family paid more than $60,000 in real estate taxes to the City. Glovsky noted that last spring, knowing that the family wanted to dispose of the property, they took the initiative to meet with the City in a "mutually advantageous fashion. "That first meeting was in April with a subsequent meeting in June. Everything was Page 4 of 8 Beverly Planning Board / City Council Joint Public_ Hearing October 3, 2016 included in the discussion from a playground to a store where you could buy milk, he said, but unfortunately, that dialogue went away when the family put the property on the market and the city realized what the potential for development was. He said the family was surprised about the rezoning to R -22 and only heard about it from what they read in the papers. Glovsky suggests that development of this property for single family purposes would be extremely difficult and probably economically unfeasible. He notes that approximately 50 percent of the property is wetlands and there is a 200 -foot, no -build buffer zone required by the RSD zoning. The property has significant value today but after the zoning would have minimal value and "strikes him as though this might constitute a regulatory taking." He continues that the family doesn't want to be adversarial with the city but needs to protect its economic investment. They want to do what's best for the neighborhood that's up there now, he says, and those units already there don't seem to be causing a traffic problem. He is appreciative of the public hearing being continued. Guanci and Hutchinson then ask if anyone from the public would like to speak. Rick Marciano of 141 McKay St. notes that the city has just spent $5 million dollars catering to a developer on Brimbal Ave. and just spent $120 million on a new middle school. He suggests the city work with the property owners to come up with a plan. Ron Costa of 14 Atlantic Ave., former Ward 2 Councilor from 2002 -05, says he expects there would be multiple access points to the property, given its size. He also mentions that the city could look at other zoning plans or compromises that could be made with the developers. Clausen responds that in addition to the access from Rte. 128 off of Trask Lane, there are places that could give access but it is not an approach looked on with much favor. The resistance is primarily from the residents in the area, he says. Costa asks if the Board is liable to a lawsuit because of a late change of zoning. Clausen says no, that the City has followed all regulations of Mass General Law. With input from the Planning Director and the City Solicitor, the date for the continuation of the public hearing is decided for Monday, Nov. 7 at 7:30 p.m. Hutchinson asks for a motion to continue the public hearing. Flannery: Motion to continue the public hearing until Nov. 7, 2016 at 7:30pm. Rotondo seconds.Motion passes (6 -0). The Council then votes 9 -0 to recess. Joint Public Hearing was adjourned at 8:54pm. Planning Board members relocate to Conference Room B to resume their meeting. Page 5 of 8 CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Planning Board: Special Meeting of the Planning Board Date: Monday, October 3, 2016 Location: Beverly City Hall, Conference Room B Members Present: Vice Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Ellen Flannery, James Matz, Michael Rotondo, Catherine Barrett, Wayne Miller Members Absent: Chair John Thomson, Ned Barrett, David Mack Others Present: Assistant City Planner Darlene Wynne, Mayor Michael Cahill Recorder: Mary Alice Cookson Flannery: Motion to call the special meeting to order at 9:00 pm. Rotondo seconds the motion. Motion passes (6 -0). Subdivision Approval Not Required Plan - 2 -6 Enon Street — Dodge Realty Trust Dodge Realty Trust has submitted an application for endorsement of an SANR plan for the purpose of correcting an error found in the southerly boundary of the property. The plan creates a "Parcel B ", approximately 987 square feet, which will be conveyed to the owner of the adjacent property to the south. Hutchinson asks Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne to show the Board the original boundary lines of the property and where it's located. She explains that the owners want to sell the property (re -deed it to the adjacent owners) and need to correct the plot lines. She clarifies to the Board that the owners aren't creating any new buildable lots, just correcting the lot lines that are in a wrong location. The building there is non- conforming. Hutchinson asks how the shifting of the lines affects the property, its size, etc. Wynne says it really doesn't have an impact. C. Barrett and Flannery discuss a bit about the property's history. Miller: Motion to endorse the plan as not requiring approval by the Planning Board (SANR).Flannery seconds the motion. The Board votes (6 -0) to endorse the SANR. Discussion: Order #211 — Proposed Amen dment to Beverlv ZoninLy Ordinance #300 -38 b amending Chapter 300 — Zoning, Article VI: District Regulations by deleting Section 300- 38 RSD S ecial Residential District and to amend the Zonin Ma District designated "RSD" by redesisnatin as 11 11-22" and any all lots therein as "R -22" (Map 40, Lots1A, 45 46 47 Map 28 Lot 126 and Map 52 Lot 75). The Board requests clarifications on the proposed R -22 zoning change. Beverly Planning Board October 3, 2016 C. Barrett says it would be helpful to get more information about the subdivision plan that was submitted. Wynne explains that the preliminary plan just involves cutting the parcel in two and creating a cul -de -sac. It is not required that the plan give much detail. The owners submitted the plan to "lock in their position," Hutchinson says, adding that when the Board reconvenes, they'll have more of a sense of the plan, the maps, parcels, etc. Wynne says the Planning Board will have a chance to discuss the owners' preliminary plan at its next meeting Oct. 18. She says that the Board will need to give their recommendations at that time and vote to approve or deny the plan, or to deny it for specific reasons, unless the owners submit an extension since the 45 -day time limit will be expiring. Wynne explains that the next step would then be for the applicant to submit a definitive plan. C. Barrett notes that the owners would then have eight years to build something after submitting the plan. She asks if the Public Hearing on the zoning is a moot point if a plan is submitted. Wynne says no because the Administration still believes it should be changed and there are a number of things that could happen in the real estate market in the meantime. Hutchinson says that as long as the owners meet the requirements, the Board can apply conditions, but if the plan is reasonable they have no choice but to approve it. Rotundo asks if the people of Danvers are being a given a say in the matter. Wynne says they will be informed as abutters. Renters aren't informed; only owners are. She says that public notice only comes when a definitive plan is submitted. Wynne says it is her understanding that the owners intend to sell the land. Wayne Miller asks if it is accurate that 50 percent of the property is wetlands. Says he went all through it and wouldn't guess it was near 50 percent. Wynne says the wetlands are indicated on the plan. C. Barrett notes it has been an unusually dry year so it might not appear to be as wet as previous years. Mayor Mike Cahill requests to speak. He says that the City believes that roughly under the current zone the owners could probably build about 500 units while the owners appear to think they could build between 600 to 800 units. He explains that the owners have been marketing the property for several months and the City has been looking for ways to find a mitigation to those numbers, something that might work for the city. For example, looking at solar or wind there or perhaps some long -term lease of the property or identifying a subsection of the parcel for open space. The use of most value to the owners is multi- family housing. The Mayor notes that the proposed rezoning is one of the tools we have in our tool belt as community to express our values. The master plan sets a high priority on TOD. For each TOD unit, you get fewer vehicles, he explains. There is a lesser impact with TOD than with an outlying development. He notes that the people living there would not be just turning around on the highway but would be traveling Routes I and 62 to access portions of Beverly. That scale of development along the highway just doesn't seem to fit with our shared priorities. Board Page 2of8 Beverly Planning Board October 3, 2016 members mention that one could theoretically trespass and ride a bike on the fire road but wouldn't have a right to do so. Board members discuss some of the history of the parcel and property owned by the Reeve family. The Mayor says there's a need to "get it all clear and look at that." He says this history of the area should be presented. The Board concludes this discussion. Update of Table 1- Fee in Lieu of Affordable Housing Units Fiscal Year 2017 ner Chapter 315 Inclusionary Housing Regulations. The City's "Submission Requirements, Procedures & Supplemental Regulations" for Inclusionary Housing requires the Board to adopt a fee schedule annually for the payment in lieu option as established in the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The Board decides not to act on the matter this evening and instead, to discuss it at the next meeting. Wynne says that because this is not a public hearing, the matter doesn't have to be voted on to be continued. She says Board members should send corrections to her if they have any. Other Business C. Barrett asks if anyone has had an opportunity to read the housing needs assessment. She says the data is there, but not the recommendations. Wynne explains the next chapter, containing proposed housing strategies, is hopefully coming this week. She indicates the next public meeting is scheduled for Nov. 2 and the Planning Department will make a presentation to City Council on Oct. 17. She expects a final plan to be available mid- November, depending on number of comments received, and hopes to see that adopted by year -end. Other Business Hutchinson asks the Board for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Flannery: Motion to adjourn the meeting. C. Barrett seconds the motion. The motion carries (6 -0). Meeting adjourned at 9:27 p.m. Page 3of8