Loading...
05 15 18 BPB MinutesCITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Board: Planning Board Meeting Date: May 15, 2018 Location: Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers Members Present Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Zane Craft, Ellen Flannery, Allison Kilcoyne, David Mack, James Matz, Wayne Miller Members Absent: Vice Chair Ned Barrett Others Present: Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne Recorder: Samantha Johanson, Recording Secretary Chair Ellen Hutchinson calls the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Approval of Minutes: March 20 and April 23 The Board reviewed the minutes for March 20 and April 23r Flannery: Motion to approve minutes for March 20, as amended. Mack seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (7 -0). Flannery: Motion to approve minutes for April 23 as amended. Kilcoyne seconds the motion. The motion is approved (4 -0 -3, Mack, Matz, Craft abstaining). Continue: Second Request for Minor Modification to Site Plan Review #93 -08 Sam Fonzo Drive — Mark Glovsky on behalf of The Coastal Group LLC Mark Glovsky, Glovsky & Glovsky, 8 Washington Street, Beverly on behalf of The Coastal Group, LLC reminds the Board they are here for the 3r time regarding the second request for minor modifications to their site plan review. The Board had asked the applicant to provide evidence that they are complying with the 34:1 glide slope required by Section 300 -13 of the Beverly Zoning Ordinance and evidence that they filed Form 7460 to the FAA. He tells them, both items have been completed. He recalls that the last time they were in front of the Board there was still some concern regarding the runway with respect to safety and the Board was going to request the opinion of the City Solicitor. He notes the City Solicitor responded in writing, saying the Board has the ability to do what is necessary to make sure that they are protecting and promoting public safety and they can speak to the airport traffic consultant if they deem it necessary if they have safety concerns. Glovsky lets the Board know that they have brought an expert, Armand Dufresnse from Gale Associates, Director of Aviation Services, who specializes in airport building and planning. He has analyzed the building being proposed for Sam Fonzo and he will be able to explain how the building relates to safety issues. Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 15, 2018 Dufresne tells the Board he had the opportunity to review the plans. He advised the Coastal group to file the Form 7460 to the FAA and about the issue if their building would encroach upon the runway. He shows the Board some drawings - where the building is and where the surfaces that would affect. He points out the departure surface, a surface that is required to be clear for an LPV approach, which that runway does have, and the threshold, which is a spot where an airplane can first touch land. Ellen Hutchinson asks Dufresne to simplify his presentation so that they can better understand. Wayne Miller asks Dufresne what an LPV is and he tells him it stands for localizer performance with vertical guidance; this is GPS a pilot would use which tells him the vertical and horizontal alignment as he approaches the runway. He tells them that there is a special surface that goes with that approach and it has to be clear of obstructions. He then explains that with the three approaches he shows on the chart they are all clear of that building. Miller asks him what the clear path is from the threshold of the runway extended up and he explains that the approach is 3.22 degrees which is steeper than usual, but the FAA will allow up to 3.5 degrees, but not higher than that. David Mack asks Dufresne to show on the chart which direction the plane is coming from. He tells him it is going from the right to the left. Dufresne then explains that a PAPI [precision approach path indicator] is a light box with four lights in it and that the pilot would get warning lights if he is too high, low, or right on target. James Matz asks Dufresne that if the elevation of the building is 98 feet, is there a concern that the clearance of the building is only 3 feet. Dufrense answers he believes the FAA should answer that question, but he thinks if it clears the surface it is adequate. Wayne Miller asks him that if it is a 3.22 glide slope, how does the new building extend into that glide path at 3.22 degrees, and what is the clearance between the 3.22 line and the top of the proposed building? Dufresne explains he wasn't asked to study that 3.22 line. He tells him that it is at least 16 feet. He tells him that the threshold of the runway has been moved 250 feet up because he believes there must be an obstruction. PAPI's are not set at the threshold or where the airplane is going to land, they are set further down the runway. He explains there is no interference with the PAPL Miller states that nobody knows if a clearance exists of the 3.22 line and the top of the building and Dufresne confirms that. Dufresne explains that the lines shown on his plan are design surfaces, not glide paths; they are the operational surfaces above which a pilot flies. Miller asks where the proposed building is crossed, how many feet would an aircraft be in the air at 3.22 degree glide slope. Dufrense tells him he is landing at the threshold, the plane must be about 20 feet above the blue line shown on the chart. David Mack ask about the submittal with the FAA, and what Dufresne thinks they will recommend to the client regarding this building. Dufresne answers that the FAA would likely recommend lighting for the building on the top of the roof. Mack asks if they usually make recommendations about the height of the building. Dufresne answers more than likely they would make those recommendations. 2 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 15, 2018 Ellen Flannery asks what kind of lights the FAA would usually recommend for a building like that. Dufresne answers usually just red lights. Mack asks if there is anything else besides height or lights that they will likely recommend. Dufrense is not sure about any other recommendations. He said the FAA will probably send it to a few other branches to review. Hutchinson comments that it seems they have two choices: wait for the FAA recommendations or vote to approve with a condition that the applicant will comply with all of FAA recommendations. Glovsky comments that this plan was approved for 26 feet in 2008 and reiterates the process in which this project has already gone through this past year with the Planning Board including that the applicant at one point wanted to move the building up to 30 feet, but then decided to go back to the 26 feet with this request. He tells the Board that they have met the requirements the Board had asked of them to ensure that the project was safe. He explains that in 2008 the FAA had recommended the City get a navigation easement over the property so that there would be no issues in the future, but no easement was made when the property was bought by the previous owner Mr. Vitale. He adds, the applicant bought the property from Vitale and relied on existing site plan approval. He comments that they have provided the City a proposed navigation easement which the applicant would like to grant to the City above the 34:1 slope of the approved building plans and the site plan. Glovsky suggests that the applicant is willing to grant that easement and would accept conditions on an approval as follows: (1) that the applicant would grant the navigation easement to the City substantially in the form that has been submitted to the Planning Department and (2) that the applicant will install lights on the building after it has been constructed in accordance with FAA requirements. Miller asks about the departure surface. Dufresne points to it on his chart and tells him that would be for an aircraft departing on runway 27 and notes that the surface from runway 9 heading towards runway 27 is the surface that needs to be clear for that design of that runway. Miller asks for the height as it crossed the building at that point in the departure. Dufrense tells him it is at 101 feet and the building is at 98 feet so the answer is at 3 feet. He adds that a pilot wouldn't actually fly that surface and that it is a protection surface. Miller is concerned there may be usability and functionality issues with the airport. Hutchinson asks Glovsky if this is the extent on which the applicant will do by granting the easement and submit it to Planning and would agree to the lighting on the building expected to be recommended by the FAA. Glovsky agrees and tells her those were conditions that were not applied in 2008. Hutchinson explains that if a mistake was made in the past, the Board does not want to make it again. She notes the Board has a responsibility to protect the airport and the citizens of Beverly. She asks Glovsky if they condition the approval, is the applicant willing to accept all of the recommendations of the FAA. Glovsky answers he doesn't think so. He says that in 2007 the FAA commented they should make the building 17 feet and he is concerned they may do something like that again. He reiterates that the project meets the City's dimensional requirements in the zoning ordinance. He notes in 2007 the FAA was asking for something significantly lower than that requirement. He comments that the FAA only advises the local airports and at that time the airport did not adhere to those recommendations. Hutchinson tells him that both the applicant's expert and Miller aren't sure what the FAA will determine. Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 15, 2018 Mack comments that the recommendations from the FAA may be that the building shouldn't be a particular height, and that the applicant may perceive it as not being a safety issue. So if the Board conditions their decision on any recommendations except for the height, and the FAA recommends a height lower than 26 feet, then the applicant would have to come back to the Board and explain why that is, and then explain why the recommendation won't cause a safety issue, to give the Board an opportunity to review why the FAA has recommended a different height for the building. Glovsky comments that if the FAA suggested they have a building shorter than 26 feet in height that they have already explained this evening there is no safety issue. Their conclusion is that it is safe. Mack asks does the Beverly Airport Commission need to accept all recommendations from the FAA and decide whether to implement it. Glovsky tells him that the Airport Commission can do whatever they want and the FAA recommendations in response to the Form 7460 don't necessarily have any teeth. Miller comments that the FAA doesn't have jurisdiction to regulate against this project or any other building; however, once the building is in place they can put restrictions on the airport based on the new situation. Dufresne verifies that the FAA can put restrictions on operation of the runway after new buildings are built. Miller asks if they are maintaining that this building will not impact the runway operation. Daniel Simonelli, 365 Grapevine Road, Wenham and of the Coastal Group, explains to the Board that there are other higher obstructions, such as trees, than the building they are proposing to build. He looked at records on the City of Beverly airport website which show some other obstructions 396 feet from the runway and 22 feet high above the runway and a glide slope of 50:1. Matz asks about the height of the other obstructions. Simonelli explains that their building would be significantly lower than some of the other current obstructions near the runway, at elevation 115. Simonelli says what Dufresne was trying to explain is that if he was designing an airport, that this proposed project would not impact the airport design. Matz comments that if the Board is concerned about a plane hitting this building then more than likely it would hit the other structures first. Zane Craft mentions the City Solicitor's letter recommended that the Board could contact the airports technical consultant regarding this airport and the conditions surrounding it. Simonelli tells him they have worked with their own airport consultant and determined there is no impact on the runway. Simonelli comments that the delay on this project has caused undue stress on his company and clients. He reminds the Board that they are offering an avigation easement that would protect the runway, and that their project would not affect the operational conditions of the airport. He is asking them to approve this with the conditions that Glovsky presented earlier. Miller asks about the other obstructions that are higher than their proposed building, noting Simonelli said it is 396 feet from the threshold at 22 feet. Simonelli tells him correct and that their building is 500 feet from the edge of pavement and 750 feet from the threshold for runway 27. Hutchinson asks him when they submitted the Form 7460. Simonelli answers about three weeks ago. He comments that because the building is lower, they meet a 50:1 glide slope which is what 4 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 15, 2018 the FAA requires, they are a 66:1 glide slope actually and that is double the City Ordinance at 34:1. Hutchinson asks when he expects to hear back from the FAA. Simonelli is not sure. Miller asks if he knows what the angle is at a 66:1. Simonelli tells him he believes it is a one degree angle, but does not provide a concrete answer. Mack asks the Board when the City last made a change to this Ordinance. Wynne tells him it was amended in 1997 and then 2006. Mack feels that the City has already established a safety standard in the ordinance and the applicant has satisfied the standard that the City has adopted. Simonelli says that they spoke with someone at the FAA and the told him they don't get involved with real estate development and local airports and it is up to the local airports to make their own decisions. Simonelli comments that they have proved this evening that their building would not affect the design of the airport. Miller asks why the applicant would have any objections if the FAA makes recommendations. Simonelli comments that it is costing them money and he thinks the FAA will come back with different recommendations, noting they have already lowered the building. Allison Kilcoyne asks about the easement and does that protect the safety of the project. Wynne explains it is an easement above that line for future growth. Hutchinson comments that they don't know what the FAA will come back with for recommendations for safety purposes. She then asks if the applicant would agree to have the airport commission review the safety of the project. Glovsky comments that the FAA letter regarding the 7460 in 2007 recommended the site be sold at fair market value, the City retain a navigation easement, and the building height not exceed 17 feet. He notes these conditions were circulated and the project was approved, though not all conditions were met. He believes at this point to abide by conditions that the airport may have decided to propose from the FAA is beyond what the applicant could be reasonably expected to do and accept. He reiterates his comments regarding the project meeting the City's requirements and the conditions that the Planning Board has already put on this project including the safety of the airport and filing with the FAA. Hutchinson tells the Board their options are to determine it as a minor modification and approve or continue the matter until the FAA makes their recommendations. She notes they could also deny that it is a minor modification and determine it is a major modification and have to hold a Public Hearing. Miller asks if they deem it a minor modification, then could they pass it with some conditions. Hutchinson says they could. Miller read the Board a potential condition he would like seen put on this project: He proposes the project in all respects comply with all FAA best practice safety recommendations in connection with the obstruction review Form 7460 in order to maintain safe flight path corridors for take -off, departure, and approach and landing runways 27 and 9 under existing airport operating conditions at Beverly Regional Airport. Glovsky comments that he is concerned the FAA may come back with a conservative recommendation because this is an undeveloped site. Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 15, 2018 Mack comments that since they are reducing the height again they should be deeming this project as minor. Miller comments that he understands the applicant will not be happy if they have to return if the FAA comes back with the expected recommendations. Glovsky says that if the FAA told the City to close the runway on the basis of the 26 foot building, he would say the Board's concern is understandable. But, he says, that is not what they are anticipating and he anticipates they will make recommendations that are a wish list that could include almost anything. Miller comments that if the information is accurate then there is likely a low risk. Mack comments that the City has established the safety regulations and the FAA is only able to recommend suggestions and after a building goes up the FAA can do what they want. He feels if they condition it with everything the FAA recommends they are affecting an ordinance already in place. Flannery comments that the zoning has established the standard to meet. Matz comments that it is their job to enforce the ordinance but thinks it is outside their jurisdiction to say otherwise. Hutchinson comments that federal agency recommendations warrant consideration. Aaron Clausen, Director of Planning and Development for the City of Beverly, comments that he believes going from 34 to 26 feet is a minor modification. He clarifies, at the time of the prior decision on this proposal the Board made two conditions placed on that height, that they meet the fight path requirement in the ordinance and file a Form 7460. He notes these conditions protect the airport flight path and protect the airport in order to operate under the existing operating conditions. So even though the applicant is reducing the height by 4 feet, they had conditions on that approval placed on this development that protected both public safety and welfare of the general public and the operations of the airport. He notes just the reduction of the building height doesn't cover that issue. He then explains that the City Solicitor's letter states that the Board does have the authority to make conditions that affect public safety and welfare of the general public beyond what was set up as a design requirement. He tells them the FAA may make the recommendation that is over and beyond what is necessary for the airport to operate under stated conditions that are in place. Hutchinson asks him if he is adding language to what Miller has suggested. Clausen said he was just trying to explain it. He tells her that if they used the condition that Miller suggested it would protect the public safety and welfare of the public and the airport. Miller asks if the applicant can come back and ask for relief from compliance. Clausen answers that they could. Kilcoyne comments that if the language is such that they are preserving the safety and the current operational conditions of the airport and if the FAA comes back with unrealistic recommendations, then they could say it's not realistic and it wouldn't change the operations and conditions. She comments that this recommendation helps to ensure the safety at the airport. She said the experts made great points, however they have to protect the Beverly Airport as well. Miller says that the reduction in height means the prior restrictions no longer apply. Wynne tells him that was at the 30 feet. 11 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 15, 2018 Glovsky comments that the conditions were only added to the minor modification request for a change in height to 30 feet. He adds they are eliminating the request for that modification and there were no similar conditions on the previously approved 26 foot building, so they are going back to the building height originally approved. Mack: Motion to deem the project a minor modification. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved (5 -2, Miller and Hutchinson opposed). Hutchinson asks the Board if they want to wait for the FAA recommendations or do they want to approve it, with or without the conditions that Miller has suggested. Miller comments that he would like to wait for the FAA to weigh in on this matter, if not he would like it conditioned as he stated earlier. Mack asks the Board if they have a time limit in which they have to act on this decision. Wynne tells him without a Public Hearing they don't have a timeline on modifications. Mack asks when they expect to hear back from the FAA. Wynne answers that the Form 7460 is to be submitted 45 days before the building permit application is made, but she doesn't believe the FAA is obligated to respond in 45 days. Flannery asks, if the FAA comes back with recommendations for the building to be less than the requested height then would the applicant have to come back to the Board to discuss whether they can proceed or not. She asks how binding is the recommendations from the FAA. Miller tells her it is not binding. Mack tells her they would have to condition it so that the applicant would have to follow the recommendations of the FAA. Kilcoyne comments that they have used the language of current safety and best practices and current operations. Flannery comments that if the FAA comes back and requests a height of 18 feet, do they still consider the 26 as amenable since the FAA response is only a recommendation, not a necessity. Kilcoyne asks Clausen to clarify what he said earlier. Clausen repeats what he understands Miller's condition to be: that the project comply to the FAA best practices for safety and the recommendations in connection with the obstruction review as filed in Form 7460 in order to maintain a safe flight path corridor for entering and exiting runway 9 and 27 flight path under existing airport operating conditions on the approach to that runway located at Beverly Airport. He says there are two steps: the first is deeming the safe flight path. The second pieces, which gives guidance on how that building will be built, is whether or not the building will obstruct the runway as it currently operates. The language will restrict and prevent the FAA from asking for a list of conditions or recommendations especially if the runway continues to operate as it currently has. Kilcoyne comments that they won't be required to meet all of the recommendations as long as they are maintaining safety and the current operations. Glovsky asks if the applicant can proceed at his own risk. The applicant would like to get the foundation permit and foundation done. Simonelli comments that they brought Dufresne there this evening to determine there is no safety risk. Hutchinson comments that they have given the applicant a good amount of time this evening to speak on the matter and they need to move forward. 7 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 15, 2018 Miller asks for a comment from the Planning Department regarding the Coastal Group taking their own risk to start the project before they hear back from the FAA. Clausen comments that the Planning Board doesn't issue a building permit for foundation only, but what the applicant is requesting is that the foundation permit be issued, at their own risk, even though the FAA has not responded. Hutchinson asks if they are setting a bad precedent. Clausen comments that the Board can consider this on a case -by -case basis. Flannery asks if the FAA does site visits. Dufresne tells her they would. Miller: Motion to accept the minor modification changing the proposed height from 30 feet to 26 feet, subject to the following conditions: (1) That the applicant shall grant to the City of Beverly an avigation easement substantially in the form prepared by the Coastal Group LLC by Daniel J. Simonelli, dated May 20, 2018, submitted as part of this record and attached herein; (2) That the project shall comply with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recommendations made in connection with the obstruction review from the 7460 filing, as may be reasonably necessary, in order to maintain safe flight path corridors for take -off, departure, approach, and landing on Runways 27 and 9 under existing airport operating conditions, located at Beverly Regional Airport; and (3) That the foundation permit may be issued at the sole risk of the applicant, Coastal Group LLC. Craft seconds the motion. The motion is approved (6 -1, Mack opposed). Recess for Public Hearings Miller: Motion to recess to Public Hearing. Craft seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (7 -0). Hutchinson reads for the record that Matz, Mack, Craft have signed a certification of evidence review in accordance with Massachusetts General Law Chapter 39 Section 23D that they have reviewed all evidence from the last Public Hearing for the Special Permit application for 461 Rantoul Street and that Matz and Craft have signed a certification of evidence review in accordance with Massachusetts General Law Chapter 39 Section 23D that they have reviewed all evidence from the last Public Hearing for the Solar Energy Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Continued Public Hearing: Special Permit Application #166 -18 — 461 Rantoul Street — Request for 6 units to be counted as "credit units" as part of new Inclusionary Housing Permit Application #16 -18 to be heard concurrently — 461 Rantoul Realty LLC Matz: Motion to waive the reading of the Public Notice. Mack seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (7 -0). Miranda Gooding, Glovksy & Glovkky, 8 Washington Street, reminds the Board they did a presentation at the last meeting. Gooding gives them a summary of the project which is a 6 unit building to be counted as "credit units" as part of a new inclusionary housing permit application. They are going to do some light refacing on the exterior, and in the interior they will do updates E3 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 15, 2018 of the apartments with affordable housing of 4 units at 60% AMI, and 2 units at 80 %, All the units will be brought into compliance with the building code, so there will be significant interior improvements. They are request the credits to Beverly Crossing and if they desire to transfer to another entity, the applicant would have to return to the Board for approval and transfer of credits. Miller asks Gooding if the applicant would be willing to do an energy audit which is currently being offered at a 75% discount. Chris Koeplin of Beverly Crossing, the applicant, tells him they will look into it but the walls are in good shape. He notes they may consider blowing in the insulation with Mass Save. Hutchinson asks about the age of the windows to make sure they are energy efficient, adding that the person at the last meeting told them they were relatively new. Koeplin tells her they are Harvey windows and are rather new. Matz asks about the special permit requesting the 6 units be accepted as "credit units" and what that would that go towards. Koeplin tells him the credits would go towards future transit - oriented development. Gooding comments that they are applying voluntarily to restrict more units than what was required on -site and on this site there are no affordability requirements. They are doing it with the intention of exceeding what would otherwise be required. Hutchinson asks if there are any questions from the public. Rick Marciano, 141 McKay Street, comments regarding other units and he would like to see some more affordability for senior citizens of Beverly. He notes seniors should have opportunities to live by the water, etc. not just in a certain area in the City. Hutchinson explains to him there is no future project planned under these credits yet. Mack: Motion to close the Public Hearing. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (7 -0). Hutchinson explains that there are three requests to be considered and the first is for an Inclusionary Housing Application for 6 affordable units with 4 units being for households at 60% of area median income (AMI) and 2 units for households at 80% AML The second matter is a special permit requesting that the 6 units be adopted as credit units to the applicant to fulfill housing requirements for a future project. The third matter is site plan approval. Wynne comments that they can consider one and three together, as the site plan review is an administrative function of the Inclusionary Housing Permit. Miller: Motion to approve the Inclusionary Housing Permit application. Flannery seconds the motion. Hutchinson asks Miller whether he is including the conditions. Wynne explains the suggested conditions. Gooding comments that the Board has approved Inclusionary Housing Applications previously with the same information as provided. With respect to suggested conditions 1 and 2, she notes the fact that this is an existing building that these are not applicable. If more detail is E] Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 15, 2018 needed, they would need more direction so not surprised at a later date. With respect to suggested condition 3 regarding construction schedule, affordable unit prices, and other elements, it is standard practice to submit a local action unit application to the Planning Department for review that incorporates final drafts of the regulatory agreement and marketing plan, and unit purchase rents. Wynne clarifies that items 1 through 3 are the things the ordinance allows the Board to consider. Miller withdraws his motion. Flannery: Motion to approve the Inclusionary Housing Permit application, and therein approve the site plan, to create 6 permanently restricted affordable housing units at 461 Rantoul Street, with 4 units for occupancy by households with income at or below 60% of the area median income (AMI) and 2 units for occupancy by households with income at or below 80% of the AMI, with conditions (4) and (5) as suggested in the staff report from the City Planning Department. These conditions are: (1) That existing Draft Regulatory Agreement, Affordable Housing Deed Rider and Affirmative Marketing Plan, as applicable, shall be updated as necessary, and drafts shall be reviewed by Planning Department staff prior to submission of the Building Permit; and (2) That in lieu of recording a Regulatory Agreement and Affordable Housing Restriction, prior to the building permit being issued, the applicant will record a Planning Board Covenant. Mack seconds the motion. The motion passes (7 -0). Flannery then made the following specific findings related to consideration of the special permit request: a. That the specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use, and that the character of adjoining uses will not be adversely affected. b. That no factual evidence is found that property values in the district will be adversely affected by such use. c. That no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result. d. That adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation and maintenance of the proposed use. e. That there are no valid objections from abutting property owners based on demonstrable fact. f. That adequate and appropriate City services are or will be available for the proposed use. Flannery: Motion to grant the special permit request that these 6 units be accepted as "credit units" to the applicant, which may be used to fulfill housing requirements for a future project, subject to the following conditions: (1) That the regulations pertaining to credit units require that the project must be constructed to completion in order to receive the benefit of the credit units and the credit units must be used within 10 years; and (2) That an energy audit be conducted by an authorized agent of Mass Save and any specific improvements would be mandated or implied by conduct of this audit. Mack seconds the motion. The motion passes (7 -0). 10 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 15, 2018 Public Hearing: Request for Waiver of Frontage and Definitive Subdivision Plan Approval — 38 and 40 Trask Street — Thomas Vasile, Jr. and Judith A. Vasile, Trustees Wynne reads the Public Notice. Michael Dissette, Glovsky and Glovsky, 8 Washington Street, Beverly, for the applicant explains the applicant is asking for a waiver of frontage. The applicant is seeking to move a lot line separating the two parcels to make both lots more regularly- shaped. Both parcels are non- conforming in regards to lot area and lot frontage. However, because the frontage of one lot will be getting smaller, a waiver of frontage is required (in addition to a Variance from the ZBA). Matz asks how the Planning Department views this as it seems a straight - forward line and not a huge change. Wynne comments it is a straight - forward request, but it requires a waiver. Miller asks if the change is just to make the property look better. Dissette tells him that yes, partially, but also to create a deeper driveway for one of the properties. Wynne comments that the asterisk should be removed from the plan. Mack: Motion to grant the waiver of frontage. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (7 -0). Mack: Motion to approve the Definitive Subdivision Plan with the condition to remove the asterisk footnote on the plan to be endorsed. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (7 -0). Continued Public Hearing: Site Plan Review Application #133 -17 — 40 & 100 Sam Fonzo Drive — Construct a commercial office and warehouse on existing vacant lot — Fonzo Realtv LLC Wynne tells the Board the applicant is requesting a continuance as they don't have their final plan yet due to still being in land court. Flannery: Motion to continue the Public Hearing to the next regular meeting on May 30, 2018. Craft seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (7 -0). Continued Public Hearing: 20, 30 & 40 Webster Avenue Definitive Plan Approval — creation of 1 lot — Benco LLC Wynne tells them they have submitted a request for this plan to be withdrawn. Mack: Motion to grant request for withdrawal of application, without prejudice. Miller seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (7 -0). OSRD Site Plan #10 -17 & Definitive Subdivision Plan — 20,30 & 40 Webster Avenue 11 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 15, 2018 (Hickory Hill Way) — Plan Endorsement — Benco LLC Wynne explains that she received a Form G Covenant, the Developer's Disclosure Agreement, and notes there was a change to the standard Form G Covenant that would allow the applicant to sell the entire property but not the individual lots. She explains that the City's standard Form G Covenant language usually restricts the sale of any lot in the subdivision. She explains that as changed, the covenant meets the standards of the Planning Department, as does the Developer's Disclosure Agreement. She adds the submitted plan matches the plans approved by the Board on March 20, 2018, noting the Board can endorse the plan as not having been appealed. Flannery: Motion to endorse the Definitive Subdivision Plan as not having been appealed. Miller seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (7 -0). Flannery: Motion to accept the Developer's Disclosure Agreement and Form G Covenant. Craft seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (7 -0). Set Public Hearing: Livingstone Avenue Definitive Subdivision Plan (7 Porter Terrace) — Create 3 New Lots — 7 Porter Terrace, LLC Wynne comments that Hutchinson as Chair has already set this Public Hearing for the Board to get the notice in before the deadline for May 30, 2018. No other action is required. Set Public Hearing: Site Plan Review Application #135 -18 and Special Permit Application #167 -18 — Convert and expand existing building into office and mini - storage; construct new 12,600 sq. ft. self - storage building and request for deviation from required number of parking spaces — Sohier Road Self Storage, LLC Wynne comments that Hutchinson as Chair has already set this Public Hearing for the Board to get the notice in before the deadline for May 30, 2018. No other action is required. Continued: 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 Clausen tells the Board that the general concerns raised at the Joint Public Hearing regarding this ordinance amendment were location, such as yard set -back requirements, size, visual impact, and neighbor notification. He notes that ground mounted systems are not allowed in the front yard and the proposed ordinance amendment also sets rear yard set -back for ground mounted systems (10 feet), side yard set -back (same for principle use). He compares the proposal for ground mounted systems that are small scale to accessory uses which are currently a 5 -foot setback for side and rear uses, noting it's more restrictive. He adds the height is restricted to 10 feet, which allows opportunity to minimize visual impact. The size limit for small scale systems is 1,000 square feet, which is smaller than the size suggested in the models staff used to develop the ordinance language which had a smallest size at 1,750 square feet. 12 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 15, 2018 Clausen adds that neighbor notifications were suggested during the Public Hearing. He notes that abutter notification is required for any projects subject to a special permit application, no matter the sizes or uses. He cautions that no notice requirements are currently required for any other accessory structures or building permits. He adds that in this case, the property owners told their neighbors they would be installing the solar arrays and the abutters appealed the building permit decision to the Zoning Board. There was an abutter notification and public hearing as a result of that appeal and that the tenor of this process was not positive. The permit issuance was upheld. Requiring notification would not have changed this outcome and he does not believe it would be helpful to do notifications. Clausen notes there were concerns on the language of the ordinance. He notes that in response, some of the design standards requirements have been replaced and they added some clarifying language related to 1:1 tree replacement. Clausen then explains with regards to the special permit requirement for the large ground mounted system there was confusion as to the criteria which sounded cumulative. He notes, they added an "or" so either the ground mounted canopy system or a situation where the applicant can show they are meeting the dimensional requirements. He explains the reason the Planning Board is the special permit granting authority, is because they are typically the granting authority for performance -based permits. The Planning Board can be specific to make sure the design and environmental standards are being met when making the decision. Additionally, every project that is large scale or small scale ground mounted would also require site plan review, so having the Board as reviewer simplifies review for the applicant. Matz asks what the dimensions are of the ground mounted solar panel currently at Putnam Street. Clausen tells him it is under 1,000 sq. feet; he believes it is 400 sq. feet. Matz asks why they made it 1,000 sq. feet. Clausen comments that they didn't bump anything up. They proposed dimensional requirement that don't currently exist and they introduced a dimensional requirement which would prevent a visual impact. He notes that Emily Hutchings did some research and the typical size for a residential structure is 480 sq. feet, and the extra 200 sq. feet for larger residential properties provides a buffer for a single family residence. Miller asks if any communities have a percentage restriction that could be taken into consideration. Hutchings tells him she is not sure, but that other communities have done lot coverage for impervious surface and not on the entire array. Matz asks what the setbacks are for the side yards. Hutchings tells him that it is 15 feet on the side. But the standard setback is the same and you wouldn't have a solar array any closer to you as a house, shed, garage, etc. Hutchinson asks about a solar array on a pole, if the pole has to meet the setbacks and the actual paneling could be within the setback area. Does the proposed ordinance state that it is measured from the outward boundaries of the panels. Clausen tells her that the area is measured around the array itself. They didn't state that the measurement is taken from the edge of the array but the definition of the size of the array is based on the circumference is calculated toward the total area and the setback would be taken to the edge of the array, not the pole. Clausen tells them they can make that clarification in the ordinance. Hutchinson recommends they clarify that language. 13 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 15, 2018 Hutchinson asks Hutchings about SolSmart program and that she stated in the Memorandum that a typical residential system is between 400 and 800 sq. feet and if she has associated house sizes with respect to that. Hutchings said she does not. She notes that SolSmart's main purpose is to help create solar energy and appropriately manage solar arrays in communities. She is confident they have done so. Clausen comments that they reviewed a lot of communities allowing solar arrays and their size and they have determined this was the average electric utilization for families. Hutchinson comments that SolSmart is suggesting that the typical house should use between 400 and 800 sq. feet array, which is a significant range. She wants to know what size houses are being supported by this range. Hutchings tells her that Putnam has about 350 -400 sq. feet array. She read an article that quotes the property owners saying it substantially reduces their energy bill and they live in a moderate size single family home. Hutchinson thinks that 1,000 sq. feet is too big. Miller comments that there may be 20 array panels on the Putnam residence property. He comments he would guess 500 sq. feet is the average. Matz asks about the prohibition of the front yard location, noting some homes in Beverly have no backyard with a big side yard and /or a big front yard. These houses might have to put it in their side yard and he doesn't think it wouldn't look much different. Flannery comments that setbacks help in that sense. Matz comments he thought that going forward that arrays would be prohibited from those particular front yards, but allowing it in the side yard would look the same. Clausen clarifies that the front yard counts as the front of a building to the frontage across the width of the property. For example, in the R -22 District, if the house was 40 feet from the side yard there would be space to put an array in the side yard. He notes you may see it from the street, but it would be less visible from public way. He also comments there may be situations that have no side yard, there is a special permit process and demonstration is the only option. Miller states the Clean Energy Advisory has no objections to this proposal. He believes solar energy works great and if adequate facilities are provided he thinks that solar arrays and other energy efficient facilities are adequate and appropriate. Hutchinson still thinks that public notification should be part of the process. She thinks that it's okay to have notification when the setback requirements are not met and they could monitor this and make sure they are being met. Miller asks if they expect notifications for sheds, etc. and noted that may set a precedent for other projects. Hutchinson responds that they haven't had something of this magnitude to affect abutters and it gives the abutters the ability to know where it should be placed and where it is supposed to be. Miller comments that some solar arrays in the City wouldn't be adequate because of the roof location so they are using ground mounted. He believes the City is looking into community solar, in which you would buy shares in a roof elsewhere, and they can buy into another system and would be a better option. 14 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 15, 2018 Clausen comments that they have two proposed changes to make and address regarding language, and other items. Miller: Motion to recommend to the City Council that Council Order #067 be adopted, with amendments as provided by the Planning Department and referenced above, and with the following recommended clarification: (1) That the proposed ordinance be modified to clarify that the measurement of the setback be based on the closest edge of the solar array to the subject lot line. Flannery seconds. The motion is approved (4 -2 -1, Hutchinson, Matz opposed, Mack abstains). New /Other Business a. Authorization of Chair to sign all plans on behalf of the Board. Mack: Motion to authorize the Chair to sign all plans on behalf of the Board. Craft seconds. The motion passes unanimously (7 -0). Adjournment Mack: Motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 pm. Flannery seconds. The motion passes unanimously (7 -0). 15