Beverly New Building Height Restrictions Recommended To City Council

BEVERLY, MA — The Beverly City Council Committee on Legal Affairs voted to recommend to the full City Council adoption of zoning changes that would limit the height of new construction downtown and change affordability requirements for new housing developments of a certain size in the city.

The Committee recommended most changes proposed by the city's planning and development office in Order 279, aimed at pulling back on what some consider overdevelopment of the Rantoul Street area and the potential for the same on Cabot Street under current zoning standards.

The Legal Affairs Committee recommended removing the "tall building overlay" district in the city that allowed for buildings up to seven stories on Rantoul Street — effectively limiting new construction to five stories — as well as a four-story new construction limit for Cabot Street and surrounding neighborhoods.

The Committee also recommended the part of the order that would require a percentage of "affordable housing" in new developments to be offered at 60 percent of the current market rate — a change from the current 80 percent requirement.

One provision the Committee did not recommend was the lowering of the size threshold that would trigger the affordable housing requirement from six to four units. Committee Chair Estelle Rand and Councilors Todd Rotondo and Brendan Sweeney said they were swayed against the change by those who said it would deter small developments, which could result in having the reverse effect of lowering the potential housing inventory in the city.

The recommendations, as well as those on the order from the Planning Board, now go to the City Council for discussion and a vote. Further amendments can still be proposed to the order provisions at that time.

The Legal Affairs Committee did not on Wednesday take up a discussion of Councilor Matt St. Hilaire's proposal for a blanket three-story limit for all new construction in Beverly, Councilor Hannah Bowen's proposal to allow accessory-dwelling units — or so-called "in-law apartments" — in the city, or Councilor Scott Houseman's amendments to Order 279, which Rand said could be proposed and debated in front of the full City Council when it takes up the order at a future meeting.

While many residents have spoken in favor of the new restrictions to curb a perceived overdevelopment, housing advocates have raised concerns that limiting the size of buildings could shrink new affordable housing development in the city by taking away the means to make those buildings financially feasible for the developers.

"I think, generally, (the tall building overlay) gave both the actual ability to build new housing units and the perception that the city was open to creating those housing units there," Beverly Director of Planning and Development Darlene Wynne said of the 15-year-old zoning allowance. "The tall building overlay district has met the goals (of its intentions). There is some argument to be made whether there are additional goals to be made. That's a decision point. Do we think we've satisfied that or not?"

Rand said she has received "lots of demand" to get rid of the overlay district and, despite the counterarguments, was comfortable with removing it "for the time being and upcoming future."

The change to the Cabot Street area would effectively limit new building heights from five to four stories but remain higher than St. Hilaire's proposed three stories.

"That we felt like was a reasonable expectation for Cabot Street in differentiation between Rantoul Street and Cabot Street based on the existing buildings," Wynne said. "Having a 45-foot maximum would allow some level of development, potentially on existing buildings, but wouldn't be as high as the 55-foot (height)."

On the affordability changes, Rotondo said he was persuaded that having too many restrictions on small developers would either make them abandon or further reduce the size of projects that could benefit the city's housing stock.

"It makes it a less affordable project to do," Rotondo said. "The reality is that we're really starting to pull a lot of those tools away in that aspect."

While there were similar concerns that dropping the rates for "affordable" units from 80 percent to 60 percent of market value may have the same reverse effect — and simply force developers to charge more for the "market" rate units to make up the difference — the three councilors agreed the need for more lower-cost units in any new development of six or more units was worth that tradeoff.

"It won't necessarily stop development," Wynne said. "It may make the numbers harder to crunch. Most likely, in order to meet the prescribed percentages they need for investors or their balance sheets, developers will pass that cost on.

"But they will still develop and they will still provide those units at a (better) level of affordability that helps our community in reaching a need. The 60 percent is really more useful for us than the 80 percent."

Wynne previously told the City Council that at 60 percent of market value, a one-bedroom unit in the city would be between $1,473 and $1,683 and a two-bedroom unit between $1,683 and $2,103.

"That 60 percent of market value is the target demographic of folks who would need those units the most and the idea behind the inclusionary zoning ordinance is to provide those units," Sweeney said in supporting the change.

(Scott Souza is a Patch field editor covering Beverly, Danvers, Marblehead, Peabody, Salem and Swampscott. He can be reached at Scott.Souza@Patch.com. Twitter: @Scott_Souza.)