Loading...
4-23-18 BPB and Joint CC Minutes (2)CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Board: Planning Board Meeting Date: April 23, 2018 Location: Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers Members Present Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Vice Chair Ned Barrett Ellen Flannery, Allison Kilcoyne, Wayne Miller Members Absent: Zane Craft, David Mack, James Matz Others Present: Planning Director Aaron Clausen Recorder: Samantha Johanson, Recording Secretary Chair Ellen Hutchinson calls the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans None. Approval of Minutes (as available): February 27 Ellen Hutchinson asks the Board if they have any changes to be made to the minutes for the February 27 meeting. Ellen Flannery proposes a clarification for page 5, first paragraph, first sentence - asks if the funeral home be changed to either the former funeral home or the current tenants at 9 Dane Street. Hutchinson suggests they use former funeral home every time it is mentioned in the minutes. Flannery: Motion to approve minutes for February 27 as amended. Miller seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (5 -0). Request for Construction Completion and Release of Surety, Request for Approval of As- Built Plans — Nelson Avenue Extension — Le2acy Development LLC Aaron Clausen lets the Board know they received the As -Built plans, which were shared with the Engineering Department. He notes Lisa Chandler, Staff Engineer, recommends that the surety be released with 20% retained for 18 months. He tells the Board that there are some notes in the staff report regarding corrections in the Form H, which have been incorporated, addressed, and revised. Wayne Miller comments about the installation of the 5 bounds that did not happen because the ground was frozen which was referenced on the Hancock Associates letter. Clausen tells the Board that they can allow the order of conditions to control the matter or make it a condition of the release and within 30 days the bounds need to be installed. Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 23, 2018 Ned Barrett recommends they add a condition that the bounds need to be put in to get the 20% released. Barrett: Motion to approve As -Built plans and release surety, with 20% of the surety held for 18 months with a condition that, pursuant to the letter from Hancock Associates, the 5 bounds shall be installed before the 20% surety is released. Miller seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (5 -0). George Belleau of Legacy Development was present after the vote was made. Request for Minor Modifications to Site Plan #127 -17 —105 Sam Fonzo Drive — Miranda P. Gooding on behalf of Beverly Airport Self Storage, LLC Miranda Gooding, Glovsky & Glovsky LLC, 8 Washington Street in Beverly, tells the Board the applicant is looking to make minor modifications to the site plan for two self- storage buildings and one office building. The changes are only to the roof line, window locations, and colors and materials to the building fagade. She tells them there are no changes to the site plan. Hutchinson asks the Board if there are any questions for Gooding. Hutchinson tells the Board they need to determine if the changes are minor or major, if they are major they need to schedule a public hearing, and if they deem them minor they can move to vote to accept them or reject them. Barrett: Motion to deem modifications as minor. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (5 -0). Barrett asks if the airport needs to have any say about this project. Gooding tells him that they have filed with the FAA and they are outside of that zone. Barrett: Motion to approve the minor modifications. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (5 -0). Flannery: Motion to recess for public hearing. N. Barrett seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (5 -0). [Break far Joint Public Hearing with City Council.] 2 CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Board: Joint Public Hearing of the Planning Board and the Beverly City Council Date: April 23, 2018 Location: Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers Members Present Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Vice Chair Ned Barrett Ellen Flannery, Allison Kilcoyne, Wayne Miller Members Absent: Zane Craft, David Mack, James Matz Councilors Present: Council President Paul Guanci, Vice President John Frates, Timothy Flaherty, Julie Flowers, Scott Houseman, Donald Martin, Estelle Rand Councilors Absent: David Lang, James Latter Others Present: Planning Director Aaron Clausen, Associate Planner Emily Hutchings Recorder: Samantha Johanson, Recording Secretary *BevCam videotaped the meeting. Council President Paul Guanci calls to order the Public Hearing at 7:15 p.m. Public Hearing: City Council Order #067 — Proposed Amendment to Beverly Zoning Ordinance #300 — Establish Land Use Categories & Regulations for Solar Ener2y Svstems Slate reads the Order. Chairperson Hutchinson joins Guanci at the dais. Aaron Clausen presents to the City Council the proposed amendment to the Beverly Zoning Ordinance 9300 to establish land use categories & regulations for solar energy systems. Emily Hutchings assisted with this amendment. Some of the objectives and reasoning for this amendment include the following: • Increases popularity of ground - mounted solar energy systems • Regulations ensure: • Appropriate development and management of large - scale, ground- mounted solar energy systems • Appropriate placement of small - scale, ground- mounted solar energy systems as accessory structures • Limiting negative impacts on adjacent properties, particularly residential • Ensuring safety and welfare of residents and visitors Clausen introduces the new definitions to the ordinance, which include: solar access, solar energy system: ground - mounted, large- scale, roof - mounted, small scale. He notes that while adding a definition for Solar Access, the section [300 -20] is proposed to be stricken from the Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 23, 2018 ordinance and explains that this was a provision that granted an automatic solar access right on an adjacent property to a solar facility and it prevented residents from installing landscape screening, trees, that would block the solar facility. Clausen walks through all the changes made since the public hearing in November. The Planning Department has been doing research and comparing what other towns and cities have done. He adds, they may introduce at some point a special permit process that would allow for solar access rights. He tells them that ground- mounted facilities will need a special permit which needs to be obtained from the Planning Board. Clausen explains that originally certain districts were allowing large -scale ground- mounted systems by- right, but the amendment creates ground- mounted facilities as primary use requiring a special permit use from the Planning Board. He says they removed the section regarding neighborhood covenants, noting it's not necessary in the zoning. There will also be a special permit process for parking canopies for dimensional relief He explains for the small -scale ground- mounted systems that they have removed the neighborhood covenants in the amendment as well. They are however proposing increasing setbacks for the front yard, side yard, and rear yard for the small -scale ground- mounted systems in residential districts. For roof - mounted systems he says that they are adding a height restriction up to 5 feet which can go higher with a special permit. Clausen comments that large -scale ground- mounted solar energy systems can occupy more than 1,000 square feet of surface area. It is a separate use and is allowed by -right as an accessory use in industrial (IR and IG), CG, and HD districts. He notes it is not allowed by -right in the MOSR district but is allowed as a principal use by special permit in all districts. Clausen shows them a map of Beverly to identify those districts and what's allowed. Clausen then shows them in the presentation some sub - sections for the large -scale ground - mounted solar energy systems including applicability which defines review process, general requirements, site plan review, and some dimensions and height requirements that include the setbacks by right: requirements of underlying zoning apply, where a lot abuts residential districts, setbacks from lot lines adjacent to residential parcels are 50 feet. If a special permit is required, setback requirements will be: for the front yard not less than 75 feet, side yard depth not less than 50 feet, rear yard depth not less than 50 feet, and the height limit of 20 feet. Clausen says that if a special permit is required, there is a process to seek relief if the applicant doesn't meet the current setback and height requirements. But he notes they wanted to create a substantial buffer to residential areas under the special permit process. Clausen explains that the applicant will have to have some landscape plan and buffering, and that there are design and performance standards such as noise, hazardous materials, lighting, visual impacts, utility connections, roads, that will serve as guidance for applicants. There will also be safety and environmental standards, monitoring, maintenance, and annual reporting. Clausen explains that the small -scale ground- mounted solar energy systems include 1,000 square feet or less of surface area, and that they are accessory areas allowed by right in side and rear 4 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 23, 2018 yards, subject to setback and height requirements. These require rear yard setbacks of at least 10 feet and side yard setbacks to conform to underlying zoning for principal uses. These are not allowed in the front yard. However, an applicant could get a special permit, but it would go through a process where abutters are notified and special criteria needs to be met. The height restriction is 10 feet or a height equal to half the distance to the nearest lot line, to a maximum of 20 feet. He reminds them that a special permit is required to construct this system in an area of a lot not specifically approved. He also tells them that there will be design and performance standards such as lighting, visual impacts, utility connections, and noise. In his presentation, Clausen shows that the roof - mounted solar energy systems include accessory uses and are allowed by right in all districts, but systems are not to extend more than 5 feet above the highest point on a roof. A special permit is required to construct the system that reaches higher than permitted by- right. Clausen mentions that solar access language (shown in the graphic), regarding any obstruction blocking the solar rays, currently in the ordinance will be removed and the section reserved for future language. Guanci announces at the conclusion of Clausen's presentation that they will have the members of the public speak first. Bill Soares of 26 Putnam Street asks how they came to the point of 1,000 square feet for the large scale to the small scale. Clausen explains that they are trying to be more consistent with commercial use and it's based on the State's solar access model. Emily Hutchings, Associate Planner, tells him that the State used to have three different sizes small, medium, and large whereby medium and large are commercial in scale and small is a residential scale. She adds they have separated those two out and have established that the medium and large do have differences; however, the main difference is you have the commercial versus the residential or small project. Soares then comments that his biggest concern is the pole mounted solar panels and the size that is allowed. He passes photos around to the Council and Planning Board for review. Clausen responds that the requirements of the setback address these issues. Soares mentions there is going to be more that size than are currently up in Beverly. His concern in the current proposal is that it suggests a 6 -ft high barrier and that kind of barrier doesn't give you a lot of protection. He thinks the barriers and buffers need to be considered very carefully. He is happy with the small scale size, however, he thinks they are still too big. Soares asks Clausen if the side setback has increased or still 5 feet. Clausen tells him they changed the side setback requirement to the underlying zoning district so it is more than 5 feet, but most side setbacks that are in residential districts are 15 feet. Soares asks if the existing solar energy systems are not part of the current amendment. Clausen tells him that is correct. Soares then asks if someone takes one down (that has been grandfathered in), will they be able to put it back up. Clausen explains that if someone eliminates that use they would have to seek a special permit to reconstruct or relocate it, otherwise they would not be able to do so. Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 23, 2018 Soares suggests that if the two owners of the solar panels on Putnam Street would be willing to do a visual mitigation at this point would the City assist if the owners are open to it. He does not need personal assistance, but other neighbors may seek some support to block seeing that solar panel that may be bothersome to them. Mary Downing of 40 Putnam Street comments that the 1,000 sq. feet is an issue and the current solar panel on Putnam Street is 350 square feet. She thinks that 1,000 square feet for residential is excessive and is concerned that it will overtake Beverly. She thinks that the panels should be much smaller. Pete Johnson of 677 Hale Street asks if the pole mounted panels are allowed in residential districts. Hutchings tells him that you can go up to 20 feet but it would have to be 40 feet back from the property line. Clausen tells him it would not be allowed in the front yard no matter how tall it is. Councilor Donald Martin comments that the solar panels on Putnam Street aren't appropriate. He asks Clausen what the ordinance does for the residents of Putnam Street. Clausen tells him the removal of the solar access rights is helpful, but any abutter can provide any screening necessary. He tells him nothing can be done prior to the amendment and it is grandfathered_ Councilor Timothy Flaherty asks if the City is exempt from its own rules. Clausen tells him the City is exempt from the zoning rules. Councilor John Frates comments that the enforcement of the regulation has been problematic and what will they do in the future. Clausen tells him it establishes the guidelines so when a project comes to the Building Department it will be reviewed to see if it meets the zoning requirements and guidelines by -right and make sure it is installed correctly and will refer them to get a special permit if needed. Councilor Julie Flowers asks about the solar access section that is being removed from the ordinance and what are the protections for those already putting in the solar panels. Clausen tells her that anyone investing in solar panels will be protected. He explains that they did a lot of research and the current scenario that they have doesn't affect that. This has been in place for many years, but has never been invoked. He then says that they are reserving the space in the zoning ordinance to establish a process for creating solar access rights in the future in case things change, and objectives change down the road. He notes that if a property owner wants to install a solar energy system they need to seek a special permit to gain those kinds of access rights. They were pursuing the special permit process but decided not to include in the proposed change because solar access rights didn't appear to be a barrier for new solar projects. He adds if they find that in the future this becomes an issue they will revisit the issue and seek approval from the City Council. Councilor Scott Houseman asks about the existing structures and the monitoring, maintenance, and annual reporting, are the existing structures grandfathered out of those requirements. Clausen confirms that is correct. Houseman then asks if that is because it is being enacted after the fact of their construction and installation, but that section doesn't seem to relate to construction or 11 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 23, 2018 permit and he wonders why it is not retroactive. Clausen tells him that any change in regulation can't be retroactive. Houseman then asks about the delineations between the small and large structures and that the smaller installations would be in residential areas and what was the consideration given between the division of labor between the Planning and Zoning boards. Clausen explains that the special permit granting authority is the Planning Board across the board. Houseman then asks why the Zoning Board is not being tasked with this since they normally deal with residential zoning issues. Clausen explains that they chose the Planning Board as the single point of authority because the performance standards and the criteria that needs to be reviewed to grant special permits whether it is a small scale, which may be more consistent with residential installations, or larger scale, are similar. He then tells him that if it's a site plan review project which also requires a special permit then there are some efficiencies. Hutchings explains that if one applies for one of the small scale uses that will require a special permit, the Planning Board has the right to tell the applicant they will need additional buffers or landscaping so it has minimal impact on the neighbors. Houseman then suggests some changes in language in the ordinance on page 10, Section V. regarding the removal of healthy trees and being replaced. He thinks it should clarify where, such as on -site, off -site, etc. to be more specific. His other suggestion for language change on page 10, G.(1)b refers to applicant providing a description of the solar energy location and design; he thinks it should be more specific and not generalized. Councilor Estelle Rand comments about the rear yard setback, side yard setbacks, and height requirements for the small scale takes care of the height and size issues. Rand thinks that few homes would even have the space even for the smaller solar panel systems in some of the districts in the City. Clausen tells her that the setbacks will be the primary restriction in the districts with the smaller properties, but the height restrictions and no front yard installation are the most critical for the locations they are allowed in. He thinks these regulations will address the single mounted pole solar panels greatly. Councilor Martin comments that it is not allowed in the front yard and will hopefully avoid similar situation to the Putnam Street issue and Clausen confirms that. Hutchinson asks if there are any questions from the Planning Board. Miller comments that the City has committed to renewable energy and reduction of greenhouse gas and tells them that the solar system on his house has lowered the cost of the energy he uses. He also tells them that the Clean Energy Advisory Committee has expressed no issues with the ordinance. Hutchinson comments that she has concerns about the small-scale ground- mounted panels and wants to make sure that they find a balance especially with the abutting homeowners' rights. She thinks that 1,000 square feet may be excessive on some smaller sized properties and asks if there is a sliding scale for smaller districts. Clausen tells her that the height restriction will help address that issue, so the sliding scale is based on the size of the lot and where they put the 7 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 23, 2018 facility and the size of it. Hutchinson then asks if in the design and performance standards with all the standards listed a building permit will be required and if the Building Inspector will be reviewing the plans. Clausen tells her that a building permit will be required and that a Building Inspector could address some of those things. He then tells her that it would go to the Planning Board if it needed relief on certain issues. Hutchinson asks if there will be a notification process to notify abutters before the building permit is issued. Clausen comments that they don't recommend it because if an abutter is notified that a building permit application has been submitted and it meets the zoning requirements by right, there is no discretionary proof to deny it so it would make an abutter believe there is something that could be done to change what has been submitted under the zoning ordinance. Councilor Martin thinks that abutter should be notified regardless of what they can do or not. The installation on Putnam Street was just installed and the residents had no idea that this was happening. Council Flowers thinks that even though it would be good to notify the abutters, with this ordinance there would be no use for it as there is nothing they can do either way. Councilor Flaherty likes the idea of the abutters being notified if possible but at the same time thinks that neighbors talking to each other in general might find a way to work something out that works for everyone. Mary Downing of 40 Putnam Street comments about the notifications and feels that it would be a good idea; it would be nice to let neighbors know about it so they can look into the information about the installation. Pete Johnson of 677 Hale Street asks about the existing situation on Putnam Street and if the resident wanted to do something further on that site would they be bound by these new rules. Clausen tells him if it was an existing structure and if the resident added an additional pole, they would have to use the new requirements. Johnson asks where the solar array could be put up and could he put up a solar array that met the criteria but was in a lot facing somewhere else with nothing around it. Clausen tells him that if an owner has two separate parcels that it adjoins as one that it would be considered as the primary parcel and would need to meet the height and setback requirements. Councilor Flowers comments that the Council may not be able to monitor the neighbors being notified but thinks it is important thing to do if possible. Miller comments that he thinks that legislating notification should not be required. Clausen comments that the setback requirements are more stringent than other accessory structures like sheds, parking garages, etc. He then comments that they don't require notifications to be sent out for those kinds of structures and notifying abutters for projects by right only introduces confusion when there is already discretion over the permit. E3 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 23, 2018 Hutchinson asks how these standards are going to be implemented and enforced. Clausen tells her that if a by -right project is meeting all of the requirements and if it's within the setbacks and height requirements, then it's meeting the location standards that have been set. Issues like noise and light can be enforced by the Building Commissioner if the applicant is seeking a special permit for relief of the setback requirements and gives guidance to the Planning Board when reviewing the special permit application. It doesn't give the Building Commissioner discretion to determine where the siting should be if it meets the setback requirements. Guanci closes the City Council portion of the public hearing. Barrett: Motion to close the public hearing. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (5 -0). [Planning Board reconvenes for regular meeting; minutes continued on next page] E] Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 23, 2018 Continued Public Hearin: Second Request for Minor Modifications to Site Plan Review #93 -08 — 95 Sam Fonzo Drive — Mark Glovsky on behalf of The Coastal Group LLC Mark Glovsky, Glovsky & Glovsky LLC, 8 Washington Street, provides the Planning Board updated drawings for this plan. He comments that at the last Planning Board meeting they were trying to prove that the project met the zoning requirements of Section 300 -13 of the zoning ordinance and evidence of submission of the FAA Form 7460. Both of those items have been addressed and the evidence of submission has been submitted to the Planning Department. Kirk Benson of American Land Survey of Gloucester, a registered land surveyor introduces himself to the Board. Hutchinson asks him to walk them through the diagram. Benson explains the cross section of the runway end and the angle to the roof of the building and the slope as well as the angle of that slope. Hutchinson asks if the angle is the 66:1 slope as the proposed building now stands and Benson tells her that is correct. Hutchinson then asks what the FAA regulations of that slope are. Benson could not answer Miller comments that a runway glide slope measures at an inclination of 3 degrees which would be a high point of 5.29% slope, 18:1 rise over run (ratio), and he adds this project he believes is at 1.74 degrees angle inclination, 3% slope and 34:1 ratio, which is one -half of the glide slope. Miller explains that it is well below the glide slope. Barrett asks Glovsky since they have submitted the 7460 to the FAA what is the expectation of when they should hear back from them. Glovsky tells him there is a 45 day period in which a building permit is not available. They do however have a foundation permit for the site, and the building permit will follow after the FAA decision. Barrett asks him if the 7460 deals with issues such as the slope. Glovsky explains that the project was approved at a 26 foot height in 2008 and if the applicant hadn't come before the Board several months ago the project would've already been underway. But the applicant at the time wanted better interior space, a mezzanine so they wanted to move the height of the building to 30 feet. But when the Planning Board wanted to add on additional conditions, the applicant decided that they wanted to go back to 26 feet. He reminds the Planning Board that they are there this evening to return to the decision and approval that the Planning Board made in 2008. Barrett asks if they can't go forward until they hear back from the FAA. Glovsky tells him the Conservation Commission and other City departments are involved, but all they want to do is have the Board determine if changing from 30 feet back to 26 is deemed a minor modification. He says if they believe it is more than that they would need a public hearing. Glovsky explains he believes they have met the two requirements made by the Board, that the project meets the 34:1 slope and has filed with the FAA and that it would be unreasonable to not approve the modification. He clarifies to Barrett that they can't proceed with the building permit until 45 days have gone by. He then explains that the applicant doesn't necessarily need to abide by what the FAA suggests because it is advisory and it goes to the Airport Commission and the City and will be up to others to make that determination. Clausen tells him that the FAA does not regulate the height or location of a building on this property. He tells them that the FAA in 2008 had recommended a much shorter building than what was approved through site plan review. He clarifies that without control through site plan 10 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 23, 2018 review, the City has no authority to say a building should be lowered. The FAA's recommendation would affect the flight path and that there's no ability from the City's perspective to ensure it meets FAA recommendations. Barrett confirms that they still could have moved forward with the 26 foot building. Miller ask again about FAA not regulating the height of the building. Glovsky tells him that the City had signed over the title of the property in 2007 and was given recommendations at the time as far as conditions to impose with respect to the transfer which they chose not to. He tells him that the applicant who acquired the property from the original purchaser with permits for a project has the ability to go forward without any limitations other than in the City ordinance which states they can't exceed 34:1. He states that the building is at 66:1, well above the requirement. Barrett asks when the FAA came back in 2008 if they wanted something lower. Glovsky tells him that they recommended 14 -foot height for the building, in addition to other recommendations to the City. He emphasizes to the Board that they are there tonight asking to go back to the approved project. Barrett comments that by them coming before the Board again that it is giving them a second chance to take a bite of the apple. Glovsky explains that he doesn't believe that to be the case and that the applicant might believe it to be a taking because the applicant purchased this property with the understanding of the prior approval and is simply trying to return it back to its original height from back in 2008. Glovsky explains that the first time the applicant asked for a modification that conditions were not discussed during meeting but were later added to the decision. Clausen tells him that is not what happened. Barrett asks if the FAA could force the airport to change the runway configuration. Clausen says yes they could. Glovsky comments that what they are here for is straightforward and that the other issues are something for the airport to address. He notes one of the recommendations from 2008 was for the City to reserve a navigation easement over the property for the benefit of the airport, which gives control over 250 feet above the property within an easement the airport would have. He tells them that when the City transferred the title they didn't do that for whatever reason. He explains the applicant bought it as is with no limitations on the title and with the decision from the Planning Board that was in effect. Barrett asks that as permitted now, could they put a 30 foot building. Glovsky says no, they would have to abide by conditions of the modification decision. Barrett asks if those conditions would carry forward if this request was approved tonight. Clausen says, not unless you add them as a condition of this approval; they are seeking to have them removed. Glovsky states that the two conditions are proof of meeting the 34:1 slope and submission to the FAA. Miller comments that he is not sure we understand what the FAA may say and that the application has opened a can of worms and is concerned about moving forward with this. Clausen comments to correct the record, that the conditions that were placed on the modification approved by the Board in February were approval by the FAA and /or compliance with any condition imposed in their review and number 2, subject to any conditions made by Beverly Airport Commission during their review. He confirms it was the February modification and conditions were tied to the taller building height. Glovsky comments that the modifications 11 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 23, 2018 include using different materials and they wanted a taller building but then decided to go back to the height approved in 2008. Clausen confirms to Barrett the conditions were placed on the site plan approval, not the special permit. Barrett asks that the applicant believes they have met those two conditions. Glovsky tells him that the conditions were imposed for a taller building and since the applicant is no longer making the building taller, he thinks there is no legitimate reasons to add conditions to a building that was already approved in 2008 for 26 feet. He alleges if conditions are added that would remove value, there is a potential conflict. Barrett tells him that the FAA came out after that approval and said the appropriate building height should be 14 feet and that information came to the Board after the 2008 approval, and the applicant would have known that. Glovsky tells him that when the applicant purchased the property they had the copy of the permit that the Planning Board issued and any conditions included and the deed; he did not get any information behind the permit issued. Barrett explains he is uncomfortable, given the potential ramifications outside of this decision. He thinks they should get input from the City Solicitor of what impact they would have on approving this application and relative to a potential taking. Glovsky asks that if the Board does that to ask for a quick response because the applicant already has a foundation permit and has ordered steel for the project. Clausen comments that his understanding is that a building this far away from the runway needs to be a 1:50 slope and this meets a 1:66 slope. He suggests that they discuss a condition that the applicant work with the City and Beverly Regional Airport to meet to the best of their ability the requirements of the FAA recommendations following a 7460. He references possible new information around the datum and the real height of the building related to the runway and meeting that requirement really solves the problem. Glovsky tells them they anticipate they may have to install lights to the top of the building and the applicant is not averse to doing what is appropriate and reasonable to ensure safe flights. But if they have to build a 14 foot building that will be an issue for the applicant. Glovsky adds that another standard used by the FAA could be a building in the airport approach zone isn't used for a congregation of people. He tells him that the building isn't proposed for that use and it will mostly be industrial. But to say that the applicant will have to meet anything that the Airport and FAA will suggest will be a non - starter. Glovsky shows the Board where the property is on the plan and the small corner of the building that would be in the Airport Approach Zone. Clausen comments that the City Solicitor would probably say it's not in the jurisdiction of the City to comment on what the FAA would require, nor is it their expertise. He explains that the Planning Board has the authority to approve with conditions a project that would meet the objectives of the zoning code which includes meeting the health and welfare of the public. If the Board thinks this would require a safe flight path for the runway for the minor modification request, the Board could consider this. Glovsky comments that as the building is going to be 26 feet in height, they could agree to a condition that the applicant would abide by any reasonable recommendation by the FAA. Miller requests counsel of the City Solicitor for the reason that the applicant is alleging a potential taking case, rather than the question with the FAA. Glovsky is open to having the 12 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 23, 2018 opinion of the City Solicitor so long as they are not waiting too long. Barrett comments if the 26 foot building was approved on the condition that the applicant comply with reasonable recommendations by the FAA and Beverly Airport for safe flight path with the exclusion of reducing the height of the building, would the applicant be willing to comply with those conditions. Glovsky comments that the reasonable conditions could include lighting, gathering of people, and storage of hazardous materials. DJ Simonelli of the Coastal Group comments that there have been some changes with the datum heights since 10 years ago. He notes they have sunk the building down into the ground. He notes that the 26 -foot building which is technically 23 feet inside and is the minimum they could really do. He comments they bought the building based on a decision that was made in 2008. He tells them he is fine with all the possible conditions related to lighting and usage that may be proposed. He adds they have started ground work and putting in a foundation. Barrett comments that his biggest concern is the potential impact on the function of the airport runway. He notes that they want more time to review this and to discuss with the City Solicitor and would like for the applicant to come to the next meeting on May 15. Glovsky comments that what they are asking for is the building to go back to the 26 -foot height, which was already approved. Barrett comments that they could vote this evening but they may vote that the modification is not minor and then they would have to return for a public hearing but if they give the Board more time to discuss with the City Solicitor they can take a vote on it on May 15. Glovsky explains the process to his client. Clausen comments that the minor modifications to go to 30 feet from February 2018 had two conditions on it, which required compliance with recommendation from the FAA, advisory or not, which had to do with use and height and how it affects the flight path. This condition was made to help ensure that they protect the City and the Airport and they do not affect the runway. He comments that earlier in April the applicant submitted an email and tracking receipt suggesting that the application was submitted to the FAA. He noted they have not seen the number assigned to the FAA confirming that the 7460 was received by their office. Simonelli confirms that they called and confirmed they received it. Clausen comments that it is important to understand that it is received because it provides a timeline of 45 days before they hear about what the FAA will require. Miller asks if the former conditions apply to the prior request for modification to make the building taller. Glovsky confirms that they are looking to not have those conditions attached since they don't need the additional height. Barrett: Motion to continue the discussion and decision to the May 15 meeting to continue to review this application and make a formal request that the City Solicitor review it for legal ramifications, and to the event that the applicant receive any further communication from the FAA that the Planning Department be made aware. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved (5 -0). 13 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 23, 2018 Clausen asks for clarification on the legal request. Barrett comments that Glovsky commented that if it doesn't get approved that the property would be deemed unusable by the applicant and that it constitutes a taking. Barrett indicates he wants to know their opinion on that issue. Clausen comments that they won't know anything until they see what the FAA says. Barrett comments that FAA issued a letter after 2008 decision saying the building should be 14 feet tall, and he comments that if the FAA does do that again, does that constitute a taking because the applicant can no longer build the size building they wanted to. Miller comments that there would be no option to change runway configuration and they'd have to shorten the runway to make the glide slope above that and that the runway is already short. Barrett comments that if it makes the runway unusable, he would like to see if the City Solicitor can find out if constructing the building at 26 feet would have such ramifications. Flannery asks if they can go back to the 30 feet. Barrett confirms they can, but would still have the conditions. Barrett says that in 2008 that they didn't' have the letter from the FAA recommending the building not be more than 14 feet. Knowing it after the fact, caused the conditions in February. Clausen comments that they probably shouldn't deliberate any further without the applicant present and he will make the request to the City Solicitor. Recess for Public Hearings Miller: Motion to recess to public hearing. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved (5 -0). Continued Public Hearing: Site Plan Review Application #133 -17 — 40 & 100 Sam Fonzo Drive — Construct a commercial office and warehouse on existing lot — Fonzo Realty LLC (further continuation requested by applicant) Hutchinson comments that they are requesting a continuance of the Public Hearing. Barrett: Motion to continue public hearing to May 15 meeting. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved (5 -0). Public Hearing: Special Permit Application #166 -18 — 461 Rantoul Street — Request for 6 units to be counted as "credit units" as part of a new Inclusionary Housing Permit application to be heard concurrently — 461 Rantoul Realty LLC Miranda Gooding, Glovsky & Glovsky LLC, 8 Washington Street, representing the applicant tells the Board that they are affiliated with Beverly Crossing and they have identified property to purchase and acquire and are looking for units to be approved as "credit units" to be used for a project in the future. She tells them there are 4 units that would be 60% AMI and 2 units would be restricted at 80% AMI. She tells them that the inclusionary housing application and special permit awaits approval by the Planning Board. Gooding demonstrates on the site plan where the project is located in Beverly noting it is close to transit and then shows them an existing street view. She explains that the plan is to restrict the units to affordable use, and the application outlines what they will do to improve existing units. 14 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 23, 2018 There will be some cosmetic improvements to the exterior such as landscaping. She shows them the existing interior units, which will be 3 bedroom units, about 900 sq. ft., and tells them that the kitchens will have new appliances, new cabinetry, washers and dryers will be in all units, and the bathrooms will be updated. The building overall is in good condition so most of the systems will stay in place. Gooding shows them the site plan and the existing conditions. She notes the front will have some new landscaping, but not much more will be done; however, the driveway is shared by a next door neighbor so they will make changes to that. Gooding tells them that the applicant has submitted a draft regulatory agreement that is specific to the property and they have also submitted a sample marketing plan which outlines the application process and tenant selection. If the application is approved, the applicant will be submitting a local housing application through the City that would include the final regulatory agreement as well as the final marketing plan which would be reviewed by the Planning Department and forwarded to DHCD for approval. All of that would have to happen before a building permit was granted for this project. She tells them that the draft they submitted does not have the prospective rents because it depends on the fact that it is a credit unit and when the renovations are done so that won't happen until they have a timeline for when the renovations will be done. Gooding tells them currently for families earning 60% AMI, the maximum rent would be $1,407 and for the 80% AMI it would be about $1,876. She thinks it will be an improvement to the neighborhood, and the care and attention to the property will help increase property values of abutters. Miller asks about the note in the staff report stating a modification to the elevation drawings or floor plans in order to further the objectives of Chapter 300, § 300 -107, location and comparability of affordable units. Gooding states that the staff report does a good job of summarizing for the Board some of the different language. She tells him that the Inclusionary Ordinance contemplates many ways to include the inclusionary requirements and in the regulations for onsite inclusionary housing or offsite when you are creating new units, that the Board can request additional floor plans and elevations to confirm the comparability. But with this project they have provided the Board with the existing floor plans and existing conditions photos but they don't have that new project with which to assess comparability. She tells him that not all the provisions match up with the credit units and vice versa. She explains that they have fulfilled that requirement with what they have submitted. Miller comments that this project will benefit and is consistent with the City's goals and community housing plan and asks if there is any reason that this project is not consistent with that statement. Clausen comments that the provision of more mid -range affordability from 80% AMI and particularly lower than 60% AMI is consistent with the City's goals. He explains that they are seeking lower rents due to the delta between the market rents in Beverly and how they compare to the metro region and how the affordability is determined. So they are finding that the 80% affordable units are actually allowed to be rented at a higher rate than what the market rents are downtown currently. One of the recommendations is to find more opportunity to create 60% AMI units and that was done by creating three options for onsite units, the 12% at 80, 50% at 60 and 80, and 8% at 60% AML So they are looking to create a broader set of housing units to create more affordability. He explains that 6 units in one building is a good way to disperse affordable housing. 15 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 23, 2018 Miller then asks about what they are doing with the trash and recycling and will energy procurement requirements be met. Gooding shows them where it is located on the property which is hidden on the side of the building, but accessible. Miller asks if energy procurement will be met. Gooding tells him that the energy systems will be maintained as they already are because it is an existing building, and each unit has their own utilities and their own hot water tanks. Barrett asks if Beverly Crossing will be acquiring the "credit units." Glovsky tells him that there is a new entity formed for every program and they are all part of the same entity, and the underlying entity is still Windover Development, who is the primary owner of the various entities. Barrett says that whoever is getting the credit that it needs to be clearly stated and made known if it gets transferred outside of Windover. He adds the Board would be more comfortable if it stayed within the company. Gooding confirms that is not the intention of the credit units and the applicant would have to file an Inclusionary Housing Application to transfer or use these credits, so the Board will have an opportunity to revisit this and say how they are used. Barrett asks if the project is subject to Design Review Board and Clausen tells him that it isn't because it is an existing building. Flannery asks about the materials that will be used and if it will be consistent to other properties. Gooding tells her that they aren't changing the exterior and that they are cleaning and painting and making some small changes in the entry. Hutchinson asks how old the building is. Gooding tells her that it was built in 1920. Hutchinson asks if they have updated the electrical services and the applicant tells her what they currently have is relatively new. Hutchinson comments that her concern is comparability; she asks how comparable are the materials and the facelift, upgrades, windows, and insulation to a new facility. Kristin Poulin, for the applicant, comments the market rate units the applicant has been building contain a standard package, not high -end appliances. Hutchinson asks if the packages in this building would be comparable to a new building. Poulin answers they will be similar but layouts will be different. Gooding comments that even if they were building affordable units in a new building the ordinance and regulations don't require the same fixtures to be put in the affordable units, and that there can be some differentiation, but it can't be visible and it can't be apparent. Clausen comments that the comparability requirements for onsite units is more clear and that there can't be a differentiation between the affordable and market rate unit, but they are essentially getting the same product. Gooding comments that the point is to not make it apparent that these are affordable units, and that there is nothing to make one feel they are being treated differently. She notes that this existing building is consistent with other smaller scale buildings in the neighborhood. Barrett comments that the credit units were discussed as not necessarily being unit for unit credits. Gooding tells him that she believes that the time the credit units are applied that the Board has the discretion and second look at it. M., Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 23, 2018 Miller asks if the appliances will be comparable in regards to energy efficiency. Gooding tells him that the appliances will be similar in energy efficiency but they are not contemplating reinsulating the building. Hutchinson asks about the age of the windows. Poulin comments that they have all been installed at various times, so the age is unknown for each. Miller notes that in rental units, the tenants are responsible for energy costs and thus have greater concern than the developer. Miller asks if there is a possibility to extend the 10 year limits on the credit units. Gooding answers that it is limited to 10 years and they would have to return to get the Board's approval. Gooding reads for the record Section 2.6 of the Inclusionary Housing Regulations for onsite units in a new project. Inclusion ( onsite units) must be comparable to market rate units in exterior building materials and finishes, construction quality and energy efficiency, including mechanical equipment and plumbing, insulation, windows, heating and cooling systems. However, inclusion units may have different interior finishes and features provided such finishes and features are durable and good quality and consistent with contemporary standards for new housing. She notes that they believe they meet those requirements. She notes that without gutting the building there is no way they can meet the same energy efficiency standards as a new building and keep the renovation affordable. Clausen clarifies that this is a special permit for the "credit units," which requires super majority vote of the Board and they only have 5 members present tonight. He states that a Planning Board member can review the Board Meeting Minutes under the Mullen rule and be caught up and then they can vote at the next meeting once reviewed. He suggests that if there are additional questions they may be addressed in the next meeting. Barrett: Motion to recess the public hearing and reconvene on May 15 for absent board members to review the application and pose questions. Miller seconds the motion. The motion is approved (5 -0). Flannery: Motion to reconvene meeting. Miller seconds the motion. The motion is approved (5 -0). Request for Waiver of Frontage and Subdivision Approval Not Required Plan — 38 and 40 Trask Street — Thomas Vasile, Jr. and Judith A. Vasile, Trustees Michael Dissette of Glovsky & Glovsky, 8 Washington Street, requests to continue the ANR application and granting the time extension and ask that a public hearing be set on the waiver of frontage plan for the May 15 meeting. Clausen asks about retaining the right to review an ANR. Clausen notes that an abridged Definitive Plan is required that looks like an ANR plan. Dissette then requests withdrawal of the ANR plan instead. Flannery: Motion to set a public hearing for May 15. Kilcoyne seconds the motion. The motion is approved (5 -0). 17 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 23, 2018 Barrett: Motion to accept withdrawal of the ANR plan. Kilcoyne seconds the motion. The motion is approved (5 -0). Planning Board Recommendation to City Council: City Council Order #067 — Proposed Amendment to Beverly Zoning Ordinance #300 — Establish Land Use Categories & Regulations for Solar Energy Systems Barrett: Motion to continue discussion to the May 15 meeting for absent members to have time to review. Miller seconds the motion. The motion is approved (5 -0). New /Other Business a. None. Adjournment Flannery: Motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:10 pm. Barrett seconds the motion. The motion passes (5 -0). 18