Loading...
11-20-17 Joint CC and BPB MinutesCITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Board: Joint Public Hearing of the Planning Board and Beverly City Council Date: November 20, 2017 Location: Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers Members Present Chair John Thomson, Vice -Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Catherine Barrett, Ned Barrett, Zane Craft, Ellen Flannery, David Mack, James Matz, Wayne Miller Councilors Present: Council President Paul Guanci, Vice President Scott Houseman, John Frates, David Lang, James Latter, Don Martin, Estelle Rand, Jason Silva, Matthew St. Hilaire Councilors Absent: None Others Present: Planning Director Aaron Clausen, Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne, City Solicitor Stephanie Williams, City Clerk Wesley Slate Recorder: Samantha Johanson (not present) *BevCam videotaped the meeting. Public Hearing: City Council Order #507 — Proposed Amendment to Beverly Zoning Ordinance #300 — Create Beverly Smart Growth Overlay District (SGOD) located at 108 Sohier Road and amend the City of Beverly Zoning District Map to include the SGOD Overlay Council reconvened at 7:30pm and Guanci asked Slate to read the order. Slate reads City Council Order 9507. Guanci asks John Thompson, Chair of the Planning Board to join the council and call his portion of the meeting to order. Hutchinson: Motion to open Public Hearing. Matz seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (9 -0). Guanci introduces and welcomes Planning Director Aaron Clausen to do his PowerPoint presentation. Materials considered by the Planning Board and City Council include: Letter from Planning Director dated November 15, 2017, Proposed Zoning Amendment, redlined, and dated November 15, 2017, and Smart Growth Overlay District PowerPoint Presentation which is summarized below. The presentation outlines the proposed 40R District at 108 Sohier Road. Clausen pointed out some of the goals and strategy from the Housing Plan which include: allowing and promoting housing opportunity for a range of household types and incomes; preserving a strong housing to jobs balance; helping to create housing to support an economic development strategy; promoting fair and equal access to housing; and encouraging new housing in areas well served by public services. Clausen adds the City hopes to leverage local resources and work with community Beverly Planning Board / Beverly City Council Joint Public Hearing November 20, 2017 partners to create new housing, as well as pursue further opportunities for multi - family housing including mixed -use and transit- oriented development. Clausen pointed out that "little a" affordable housing is generally defined as a household that spends no more than 30% of their income on housing. He added that in order to qualify with the state on the Subsidized Housing Inventory and counts towards the City's minimum affordable housing requirements, affordable housing must be subsidized, deed restricted, affirmatively marketed, and available to households earning at or below 80% AMI. Clausen also discussed some findings of the Housing Plan, such as that 35% of households are spending over 30% of their income on housing, which means they are cost burdened. He noted that 5,751 households in Beverly earn at or below 80% AMI. He also told the Council that there is a need for more affordable rentals as there is not enough right now for people making under a certain salary range. Clausen introduced the 40R Smart Growth Overlay District (SGOD) which was drafted in accordance with MA General Law Chapter 40R: Smart Growth Zoning and Housing Production. He notes there is a need to allay increasing housing costs and development impact of new housing. SGOD elements with state support would include incentive payments for adoption, bonus payment for each unit at the time of a building permit being issued, and a 40S education payment for education costs for new school age children located in the overlay district. He adds, the main goals for the adoption of this amendment would include creating new overlay district, allowing residential multi - family by- right, site/building design requirements, site plan review /design review, support of affordable housing development. Clausen explains that the adoption process would include the following: • Public Hearing and information session • Draft zoning amendment • Application and draft ordinance submission to DHCD • DHCD issues "Letter of Eligibility" • Submit ordinance for amendment by City Council • Joint Public Hearing City Council and Planning Board • Final vote — zoning incentive payment available At 8:OOpm Guanci calls for a motion for a brief recess of the Public Hearing. Hutchinson: Motion to recess Public Hearing on City Council Order #507. Matz seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (9 -0). Slate reads City Council Order #508. Hutchinson: Motion to recess Public Hearing on City Council Order 9508 until 8:50pm. Matz seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (9 -0). 2 Beverly Planning Board / Beverly City Council Joint Public Hearing November 20, 2017 Hutchinson: Motion to return to Public Hearing on City Council Order 9507. Matz seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (9 -0). Guanci calls Andrew DeFranza from Harborlight Community Partners to speak regarding this matter. DeFranza gives the Council and Board a summary about some current projects and past projects they have built in Beverly. He mentions that these units are proposed to be built to appease the affordable housing need in Beverly and to help with the homeless population in the City. Guanci calls Mayor Cahill to speak regarding this matter. Mayor Cahill summarizes what is happening with the Harborlight project and how it benefits the City of Beverly. He also mentions that the Superintendent is in support of this project with regards to new students that will move into this development. Clausen mentioned there was an advisory committee to help with drafting the zoning over the summer. He noted they also discussed the impacts to the City from school aged children. Guanci opens up the room for those to speak on this matter. Sue Gabriel of 26 Dartmouth Street and Director of Beverly Bootstraps says she is in support of this both as a resident and Director of Beverly Bootstraps. Rick Marciano of 141 McKay Street discusses the costs of students and what the State is reimbursing the City. Lorinda Visnick of 39 Middlebury Lane is in support of this project. Russ Queen of 330 Rantoul Street and Family Promise is in support of this project. Guanci opens up questions from the Council and Board. Councilor Houseman is in favor of this project. He asks about the financing aspect of the project with regards to the track record of the Commonwealth for 40S payments, asking does it come from the general state fund and what is the reliability of the funding. Clausen gives a brief explanation of how Chapter 70 funds are processed. Houseman asks if there is financial risk in taking on this funding. Clausen gives him a brief explanation of what each new student into the school system would bring financially based on the net average cost, and notes that they believe the City could come out on top with this funding. Mayor Cahill tells Houseman that Beverly is comfortably above the 40B count and the City is proactively supporting this and trying to bring the 40R development forward. He explains that the Chapter 70 funding is received a year later based on the previous number of students so anything left over may go to the City. Houseman asks DeFranza if there are any housing developments that support homeless families currently. DeFranza tells him that he doesn't believe there is any that support long -term housing Beverly Planning Board / Beverly City Council Joint Public Hearing November 20, 2017 that is geared towards homeless families. Mayor Cahill explains that the state recognizes the effort the City of Beverly is making with the 40S funding. Councilor Silva expresses his gratitude towards the supportive community and leaders helping to promote this project. He believes it is a positive step forward and supports the project. Councilor Frates asks what is in place to make sure that the right families are selected. DeFranza explains the process is usually a lottery with people meeting certain requirements. He explains Harborlight will manage the units long -term and there will be a social worker on site for the families living there. Clausen mentions that Planning Department will monitor the lottery process. At 8:50pm Guanci calls for a motion for a brief recess of the Public Hearing. Hutchinson: Motion to recess Public Hearing on City Council Order #507. Matz seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (9 -0). Hutchinson: Motion to return to Public Hearing on City Council Order 9508. Matz seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (9 -0). Hutchinson: Motion to recess Public Hearing on City Council Order 9508 until 9:30pm. Matz seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (9 -0). Hutchinson: Motion to return to Public Hearing on City Council Order 9507. Matz seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (9 -0). Councilor St. Hilaire expresses that there is a need for this kind of housing in the City. St. Hilare asks if they have an affordability goal of percentage of units, etc. He mentions the City is at 11.8% and given that surrounding communities aren't doing the same, how will the City address those issues. Mayor Cahill tells him that the Town of Wenham has had some issues building some affordable units because the abutters of the property are trying to fight it. They are also trying to get similar projects going in Hamilton. He mentions that Beverly is doing its best with providing services, affordable housing and trying to do their part in the region. He explains that with 40B that if a Town has less than the required percentage of affordable units that a developer can come in and build them without being subject to zoning laws. He tells him that it's hardest to place those who are low income and /or currently homeless who need services. So they are working on that issue in Beverly. St. Hilaire asks him about the $300,000 in revenue and how is that money going to be spent. Cahill explains he doesn't want to speculate on that number currently because it is only a one- time payment. He notes they will find a way to utilize the money to help the people of Beverly. Councilor Lang asks if additional land can or will be added to the general zoning area. Mayor Cahill explains they are not looking to do that but as they see how things develop with this project they may look for other areas in the City. They want to make sure they leave those parcels available and open for possible future use. DeFranza tells Lang that they would pursue 4 Beverly Planning Board / Beverly City Council Joint Public Hearing November 20, 2017 some public funding for this project, noting that this would give the City some control over potential growth. Lang asks if there is surplus funding in the CPA for this type of housing. DeFranza tells him there is. Councilor Rand states she is in support of the project. She asks if since there will be families in the development if they would be willing to build a playground on the property. DeFranza tells her there is a plan to have one, as well as some gardening and open space. She mentions that maybe once the units have been approved that they will have some sort of tiny house zoning Beverly. Councilor Latter asks if there is a possibility for them to set aside some units for Veterans preference. DeFranza tells him it's a possibility but not something they originally decided upon, but it can be done. Guanci turns over the questioning to the Planning Board Chairman Thomson who asks the Planning Board if they have any questions. James Matz comments that he is in support of this project helping families come into the City for support. David Mack asks about the 40S funding if a child moves from that district to another, does the City still receive that funding. Clausen explains that they would. Guanci asks if anyone from the Public has comments or questions. Traci Wood of 25 Middlebury Lane, asks if the services they are looking to integrate into the units include having any academic services such as tutoring, extended day, etc. DeFranza tells her that they were discussing it recently and that it could happen possibly with the school system, the YMCA, etc. They are hoping a variety of partners help out to support that initiative. Thomson mentions that the YMCA has been providing affordable housing in the City and he wanted to recognize them. Mayor Cahill mentions that the YMCA offers extended day to the school children in the City. Guanci thanks the Mayor, Clausen, and DeFranza for getting the City Council involved on the decision making for this project and for all their hard work on this project. He says it is a great project and he is in support of it as well, noting it is hard for his employees to live in Beverly. City Council moves to close the Public Hearing at 9:12pm. Hutchinson: Motion to close the Public Hearing on City Council Order 9507. Matz seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (9 -0). Guanci calls for a 10- minute Recess. Beverly Planning Board / Beverly City Council Joint Public Hearing November 20, 2017 Public Hearing: City Council Order #508 — Proposed Amendment to Beverly Zoning Ordinance #300 — Establish Land Use Categories & Regulations for Solar Enemy Systems City Council returns to Public Hearing for order #508 at 9:30pm. Hutchinson: Motion to return to Public Hearing on City Council Order #508. Matz seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (9 -0). Materials considered by the Planning Board and City Council include: Letter and Memorandum from Planning Director dated September 28, 2017, Proposed Zoning Amendment, redlined, and dated September 28, 2017 Clausen introduces Emily Hutchings who is the new Associate Planner in the Planning Department and has been working with the Solicitor's office on this ordinance amendment. Hutchings presents to the City Council and Planning Board, as summarized below. The Department of Planning and Development, with support from the Solicitor's Office and the Municipal Inspections /Building Department, has proposed Amendments to the City of Beverly Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 300) designed to respond to the growing use and technological advances of solar energy systems, in support of the City's clean energy goals. The Zoning Ordinance Amendments addresses the use of ground- mounted solar energy systems throughout the City of Beverly, and introduces the following uses: Large- Scale, Ground - Mounted Solar Energy System; and Small - Scale, Ground - Mounted Solar Energy System as an accessory use. Solar energy systems refer to structures or devices that are used to collect, store, and distribute solar energy. Typically discussed as solar panels, these systems may be placed on the roofs of buildings or on the ground. The proposed zoning amendments include the addition of solar related definitions within Section 300 -5, and two new sections within a single new article, titled Article XVIII Solar Energy Systems. The proposed sections include Section 300 -135 Large -Scale Ground - Mounted Solar Energy Systems; and Section 300 -136 Small -Scale Ground - Mounted Solar Energy Systems. Councilor Martin asks Hutchings about the solar installation on Putnam Street if it would be considered a small -scale ground- mounted and she tells him it is. He asks with what she has presented tonight if that would've been allowed. Clausen explains that it would not be unless they had a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals because the solar array on that property is in the front yard. Martin asks how flexible it is if someone got a special permit on these installations. Clausen tells him there isn't flexibility in terms of whether it's in the front yard or side yard. He tells them the Zoning Board has the discretion to look at each situation and determine if it makes sense or not on a case by case basis. Martin tells him about the project on Putnam Street, that the abutters didn't find out about it ahead of time or as it was being installed. Clausen tells him if it a by -right installation that it would be a building permit application so the abutters would not be notified. But a special permit would require a special notification. If it's a by -right installation there are no notification requirements for building permits. 11 Beverly Planning Board / Beverly City Council Joint Public Hearing November 20, 2017 Councilor Houseman asks if existing solar installations are grandfathered in. Clausen tells him yes. Councilor Silva asks if regarding Putnam, that it wouldn't be allowed by right but if they apply for a special permit it could still happen through the special permit process. Hutchings tells him yes, but that the intent is to allow the Planning Board to consider the property and would allow it in the front yard only if there was no viable use in the back or side yard, so they want to make sure it is placed in an appropriate area. Councilor St. Hilaire asks if there was any research done on how this may evolve in the future and how the industry may change. Hutchings tells him she did research on environmental standards and that there are certain types that are not approved due to some environmental impacts. Clausen states that the technology is becoming more efficient and cost effective. He believes it will become a more prevalent technology. Councilor Lang asks if they have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, why not a variance if they are going to put something unusual in the neighborhood. Hutchings tells him even with a special permit there would have to be a buffering requirements used to mitigate impacts on other properties, including visual impacts. One in the backyard would be an accessory use, so it would be a certain height and smaller, etc. Lang asks why a variance isn't required instead of a special permit. Clausen tells him that they wanted to set regulations that would facilitate construction of solar energy for some of the efforts made to sustainability. He explains they don't see many accessory structures go in the front yard. Lang asks how the size of array is calculated. Clausen tells him if you have a certain size of an array panel then it would be based on the service area of the array itself. But if they have multiple free standing arrays it would be cumulative. Councilor Latter asks if what they are presenting is more restrictive than what is in use now. Clausen explains yes and it gives them more control. Thomson asks if members of the Planning Board have any questions. Mack asks if they have a system already installed in the lot it prohibits an abutter can't build an accessory structure that would block that solar system. Hutchings explains that the intent is to not have neighbors fighting over solar accessories /trees and block each other's panels. She adds the solar access, which is an existing regulation, ensures a solar array is not shaded during the hours of gam and 3pm by a structure located on the lot line. Hutchinson asks whether the space between panels are counted as the total area. Clausen explains that most ground mounted arrays there won't be any space between them because they are trying to maximize the area but that it would be the line around the exterior of the box that they put around the panels. Clausen tells them that if there were multiple poles with multiple arrays on them that it would be the aggregate of the area around that array. Matz asks about the model of this plan and he asks if they use a 5 -foot setback as well. Clausen explains that a few towns have used this model. Hutchings explains for accessory structures that it is different and it's mainly to address the large scale ones. Clausen tells him there is a 10 -foot height limit, so a little bit taller than a fence. 7 Beverly Planning Board / Beverly City Council Joint Public Hearing November 20, 2017 Hutchinson asks if the maximum height is 20 feet. Hutchings tells her it is. She tells Hutchinson there are a lot of options to create a buffer between properties. Clausen tells her they will look into making sure people's air rights are not taken away. Hutchinson notes she has some concerns about the visual impact and possibility of property wars that need to be addressed. Thomson asks which authority gives the special permit for this. Hutchings explains the Planning Board would do the site review and that the Zoning Board would do the special permit. Guanci asks if any members of the Public Hearing wish to speak. Peter Johnson of 670 Hale Street asks when they are considering special permits that if you have a house facing South the front lawn may be the ideal location for solar and he asks that they consider to take in account as a hardship that the rear of the house doesn't face the sun because it's blocked by the house itself would it be a justifiable reason to have it in the front of the house for a special permit and something for them to consider. Rick Marciano of 141 McKay Street asks what the definition of a front yard is. Clausen explains it is the yard from the front facing of the structure to the frontage of the lot. Mary Downing of 40 Putnam Street explains that she is concerned about the lack of notification to the abutters and the neighborhood because of the restrictions now imposed on her property and others now. She is not happy with the solar access protections that now affect her property. Bill Soares of 26 Putnam Street comments about the square footage being considered for the solar panels. He believes it is too big and thinks it will impact property values. He provides a comment letter to Council and Planning Board for the record. Hutchings explains that they do need to look into more things such as the solar access air rights. She brings up a part of the special permit application that when the Zoning Board of Appeals is considering a special permit for a small scale system and it doesn't meet the standards that the Zoning Board can consider the performance standards of a large scale ground mounted system so that could include buffers, landscaping, etc. to mitigate the impacts of the abutting properties. Councilor Houseman asks if there is a clear delineation if everything else goes to the ZBA but it's not clear to him how its spelled out if it is supposed to just go to the ZBA. He hopes they can clarify that. Thomson asks if the plan regulates rooftop units in anyways. Hutchings tells him it does not. She tells him the Building Department does review those and any issues for them have been addressed up to this point. Clausen states that Mass General 40A examines rooftop solar arrays from zoning and the City can't regulate them. Councilor Martin asks Clausen if they are going to have time to review thoroughly and make recommended changes before the end of the session, because he doesn't want them to rush through it and leave some things unaddressed. Clausen tells him they will have to discuss again E3 Beverly Planning Board / Beverly City Council Joint Public Hearing November 20, 2017 at the beginning of the New Year. So in the meantime he will get some clarification about their issues. City Council votes to close their portion of the Public Hearing at 10: l Opm. Hutchinson: Motion to close Public Hearing on City Council Order 9508. Matz seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (9 -0). Planning Board adjourns to Conference Room B to continue their meeting. E] CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Board: Special Meeting of the Planning Board Date: November 20, 2017 Location: Beverly City Hall, Conference Room B Members Present Chair John Thomson, Vice -Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Ellen Flannery, Ned Barrett, Catherine Barrett, Alexander Craft, David Mack, James Matz, Wayne Miller Members Absent: None Others Present: Planning Director Aaron Clausen, Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne Recorder: Samantha Johanson (not present) Chairperson John Thomson brings meeting to order at 10:15pm Mack: Motion to call special Planning Board meeting to order. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (9 -0). Thomson mentions that they have to discuss the amendments of the 40R District and asks whether they'd like to discuss tonight or postpone to the next evening during their regular Planning Board meeting. Board opts to discuss now. Thomson reads a statement he sent to the State Ethics Commission. He discloses that he is a Board Member for Harborlight Community Partners and has known about the project for a long time. He has gone to the Ethics Commission and was instructed that as long as he can act fairly and impartially, he can act with the approval of the Mayor. He notes the Mayor has given him that approval. He wanted to go further and suggests that if anyone is uncomfortable with him participating in this that he would honor that. Mack tells him it doesn't bother him but suggests that they will probably have a strong recommendation to adopt it and that he may want to recuse himself. Thomson explains that the Ethics Commission told him that because he went through those steps he is fine to be involved in the discussion. N. Barrett asks about circulation of the application to other Boards and he noticed that the Design Review Board and Parking and Traffic Commission were not on that list. He thinks that they should add those two Boards. Clausen explains that the intention was to give the other Boards the ability to refer that to those Boards only if it makes sense. He said they could include that requirement for their recommendation to City Council. Mack asks if they leave the ordinance as drafted and didn't adopt the regulations would the Design Review Board and Parking and Traffic Commission still have the ability to review it. Clausen tells him it would be similar to a Site Plan application, they would receive an application and then set a Public Hearing and they could then refer it to the Design Review Board or Parking and Traffic Commission. He also tells them that DHCD approved the language but any changes Beverly Planning Board Special Meeting November 20, 2017 would have to go back to them for approval, but he doesn't see it being problematic. Mack confirms that the Zoning Ordinance amendment has already been vetted by DHCD. Clausen answers yes. Hutchinson asks about plan approval decisions and wording that says should be approved by the PAA. Clausen tells her that the Planning Board is unable to condition approval to adequately mitigate adverse project impacts. He tells her they will work to clarify it. Matz asks about Section F under Housing and Housing Affordability where it states "For purposes of calculating the number of units of Affordable Housing required within a Project, any fractional unit shall be deemed to constitute a whole unit," and asks if they are rounding up. Clausen confirms that is correct. Matz also asks about statement on page 10, reduction of parking requirements, and that he doesn't expect low income families to own a lot of cars, so speculates parking may not be a significant issue. Clausen tells him that this site is eligible for 40R Overlay District because it's in a previously developed area and he notes that there may be facilities nearby that may support a legitimate argument for the reduction of parking in this case. He adds this section provides the Board flexibility to consider a waiver. N. Barrett asks if on page 5, if they are afforded some discretion between 20% and 25% and if that is what it was intended to say. Clausen explains that it's been discussed if they should require a higher percentage and they researched it, but DHCD told them their perspective of the objective is how it matches housing, not just affordable housing. So you can't create an ordinance that is likely to prevent the actual construction of that project. And they viewed anything above 25% for rentals and anything above 20% for ownership is the limit that they would accept. And these are minimum requirements. Wynne clarifies the difference between rentals and ownership. Clausen explains that the minimum is inclusive for both rentals and home ownership and he will speak with DHCD to clarify it. Miller asks where the Beverly Smart Growth Overlay design standards came from. Clausen tells him they are the Planning Board design guidelines and not part of the ordinance and they can adopt once the ordinance is approved. He clarifies that the Planning Board would have to vote once they are adopted and that any changes made to it would need to be reviewed by DHCD because they believe that design guidelines should not be made to prevent projects from being built. Hutchinson asks if on page 7 on affordable housing restrictions if there is a restriction on housing must it have a deed restriction within a deed. Clausen tells her yes. Mack: Motion to continue discussion on City Council Order #507 until the next regular meeting on Tuesday, November 21, 2017. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (9 -0). Hutchinson: Motion to continue discussion on City Council Order 9508 until the next regular meeting on Tuesday, November 21, 2017. Mack seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (9 -0). 11 Beverly Planning Board Special Meeting November 20, 2017 Hutchinson: Motion to adjourn. Mack seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (9 -0). Meeting adjourns at 10:36pm. 12