1998-07-14 Minutes
Beverly Planning Board
July 14, 1998 Meeting
Members present: Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice-Chairman Bill
Delaney, Salvetore Modugno, Ellen Flannery, Joanne Dunn, John
Thomson, Peter Thomas and Robert Rink. Also present: Planning
Director Tina Cassidy, Director of Engineering Frank Killilea, ar.,
and Susan Akerman, Secretary to the Board.
Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Delaney:
Motion to recess for public hearings, seconded by
Thomson. Dinkin, Deleney, Thomson, Modugno, Dunn,
Flannery, Thomas and Rink in favor, no one opposed.
Motion carries.
Public Hearings:
Site Plan Review Application #38-98 / new McDonald's
Restaurant at 224 Elliott Street (Stop & Shop site) / The
McDonald's CorPoration
Cassidy reads legal notice.
Attorney Thomas Alexender addresses the Board ~nd reviews the site
plan proposal for a new McDonald's Restaurant at 224 Elliott
Street. Attorney Alexander explains that the proposal has beem.
reviewed by the Design Review Board and notes that their
suggestions/recommendations of that Board has been incorporated
into the plan, and that the proposal has been reviewed as well by
the Traffic & Parking Commission and the Conservation Commission.
Attorney Alexander states that a number of questions have been
raised regarding the amount of parking spaces on site, and explains
that the impervious area is actually smaller than that which was
previously approved by the Planning Board and Conservation
Commission during the Stop & Shop site plan review in 1995.
Attorney Alexander states that the impervious area has beenreduced
from 76% to 64%.
Attorney Alexander states that the as-built plans for the Stop &
Shop project, and plans indicating how they intend to connect the
sewer system for this particular project have been submitted tothe
Director of Engineering for review, and have been approved.
Beverly Planning Board
July 14, 1998 Meeting
Page Two
Dinkin states that at the last meeting McDonald's agreed to assume
responsibility for cleaning up the trash around the building, the
parking lot and the adjacent public park twice a day.
Cassidy reads the following letter received since the June meeting.
- Letter from the Engineering Department dated 7/14/98.
(On File)
Dinkin asks the Board if they have any clarifying questions.
Thomas asks if McDonald's would be willing to expand their area of
trash pick-up a little more, to include the sidewalks, and the area
along the Bass River. Attorney Alexander states that it wouldn't
be a problem, that McDonald's want to keep the area clean, and that
the concerned parties can come to an agreement.
Thomson states that at the last meeting he asked whether or not
there was any other development planned for this site and, the
answer was no. He states that he knows there is another proposal
for that site. A proposal for a gas station has been filed with
the Board of Appeals for the opposit corner of the Stop & Shop
parcel. Attorney Alexander states that he doesn't believe that was
his answer, because obviously there is a proposal out there.
Thomson asks Attorney Alexander if he considers this to be a
different site than the one for the gas station. Attorney
Alexander responds yes, because it is at the farther end of the
area.
Thomson asks if the parcels are under the same ownership. Attorney
Alexander responds yes, the McDonald's site will be a lease
arrangement with Stop & Shop.
Dinkin explains that McDonald's will be a lease holder, and that in
the Board's discussion of re-zoning the area, it was made clear to
the Board that a second retail use would exist on the single site.
A 9,600 square foot footprint was shown on that site plan.
Thomson asks if the Board should consider a site plan approval
application when the Board knows that there is another development
being proposed to the site, because members of the Board might have
an objection to another use. Attorney Alexander states that at the
time another proposal goes forward the Board could reject the other
use, or the Board would have to pick one if the Board thought two
site proposals were too much for this property.
Thomson states that the Board has a proposal in front of them and
questions how the Board can adequately and properly deal with this
site proposal without knowing all the facts.
Beverly Pla-~ing Board
July 14, 1998 Meeting
Page Three
Delaney states that he feels the same way as Mr. Thomson, and that
he thinks this matter is directly linked to the whole traffic
issue, that there are two particular proposed uses that will impact
on Elliott Street, and feels that the Board can't make an informed
decision without all the information being considered. Delaney
further states that if the Board didntt know about the second
proposal, no problem, but the Board does. Delaney also suggests
that the Board request more information with respect to a traffic
analysis for both uses.
Dinkin states that he does not agree entirely with Mr. Thomson or
Mr. Delaney, but does concur that issues related to site plan
approval are different from those surrounding variance and special
permit requests (the gas station would need a special permit from
the Board of Appeals). While the Planning Board could defer its
decision on the McDonald's site plan until the special permit
application is decided on by the Board of Appeals, he personally
feels comfortabel considering and voting on the site plan
separately. Dinkin observes that if the Board follows Mr. Thomson
and Mr. Delaney's suggestion, the applicant would not be able to
develop any segment of this large parcel until the owner had
development plans for the entire site, but that he is not sure how
reasonable that demand would be given the way retail business is
done.
Thomson states that it is the Board's option whether to consider
this proposal independently or as part of the same proposal,
because the property is under the same ownership and the two
additional businesses will share the same entrance to the same main
street.
Delaney states that traffic is the key concern with this project,
and asks Attorney Alexander if the applicant has access to
information that would give the Board a sense of how much traffic
will be generated with a fast-food use. Attorney Alexander states
that he believes that he can access that information, but he does
not have that information with him this evening.
Attorney Alexander addresses the Board and explains that there will
be two separate sites on one parcel, that the owner has the ability
to control what else goes on the site, and that he has never seen
the Board take this precedent before.
Thomson states that this is a unique proposal that involves an
intersection of several major roads, including one that is under
on-going traffic monitoring, and he feels that site plan review
requires a case by case judgment by the Board.
Beverly Planning Board
July 14, 1998 Meeting
Page Four
Flannery asks if there is a reason why McDonald's won't consider
reducing the nua~er of parking spaces proposed for the McDonald's.
Attorney Alexander states that McDonald's does a lot of market
research, and that the number of parking spaces proposed makes
sense to them for business reasons.
Joyce McMahon, Councilor-at-large addresses the Board and suggests
that the Board delay their decision until this issue of a possible
gas station proposal goes before the Zoning Board of Appeals, that
their decision might change the way the Board reacts if one
proposal is preferred over the other. McMahon further states that
trash is a major issue, and that she would like McDonald's to
consider a once a day clean up in the areas that include Elliott
Street & the Bass River, McKay & Elliott Streets, and the fence
along McPhearson Drive where a lot of trash might collect. These
three locations are the areas she would like McDonald's to agree
upon for a once a day clean up to make sure the area is kept clean.
Ward 1 Councilor Maureen Troubetaris addresses the Board and states
that she was in favor of the Stop & Shop site and the site
development shown on this site plan but that she is dead set
against the other proposal for a gas station. She agrees with Mr.
Thomson and Mr. Delaney that this will have an even greater impact
on traffic. Troubetaris further states that she does not want to
see the old traffic study used because the area has changed so
much, that she would like to see this public hearing delayed as
long as possible, and recommends that the Board use up the
statutory 65 days for review to see what the Zoning Board of
Appeals decision will be. These two site proposals go hand-in-hand
and will have a great impact on her neighborhood.
RoseMary Maglio of Pleasant Street states that she is opposed to
two commercial uses on the property, and considers that there are
already two commercial uses, Stop & Shop and BankBoston, and how
another possible proposal can even happen doesn't make sense. She
further states that she went to the Design Review Board meeting,
and notes that only one free standing sign appears to be allowed on
the entire site, and notes that one already exists for Stop & Shop,
that another one for McDonald's is not needed and is probably not
allowed under zoning.
City Council President Peter Gilmore addresses the Board and states
that he agrees with the suggestions made by Mr. Thomson and Mr.
Delaney, and beyond that he encourages the Board to delay any
consideration until one knows what will be going on with the entire
site. Mr. Gilmore further states that this site has become a
critical one in the City, it involves a major entrance, and maybe
even the primary entrance into Beverly. He says that Beverly
doesn't need another typical McDonald's, and urges the Board to not
permit development to construct a building on this site that looks
Planning Board
July 14, 1998 Meeting
Page Five
like a typical McDonald's, since the usual corporate design would
not do justice to the improvements already made to this area.
Renee Mary of 264 Hale Street states that she agrees with previous
speakers that there should be only two proposed businesses not
three, and asks if the Board closes the hearing will the public be
able to speak again. Dinkin explains that when everyone who has
come to speak has had the opportunity to do so, he intend to put
this hearing in recess to the call of the chair, then the Board
will enter into a discussion, and if the hearing is kept open the
public will have more opportunity to speak, if the Board closes the
hearing, the matter is closed to public comment.
Attorney William DiMento of 990 Paradise Road, Swampscott addresses
the Board and states that he is here representing two local
business owners who are against this proposal, and who are
concerned about the future of the area especially with respect to
traffic issues. Attorney DiMento states that the Planning Board
didn't contemplate a gas station on this site and the fact that the
public will be fighting gas customers and tanker trucks is
unreasonable. He notes that the Parking & Traffic Commission
didn't know a major gas station was going to be proposed when it
made its recommendations and feels that the Planning Board doesn't
have enough information to go forward with a decision this evening.
Attorney DiMento further states that there should be a joint site
plan review for both proposals.
John Fitzgerald, a former resident of E11iott Street addresses the
Board and states that it is unbelievable to live in the area where
the Stop & Shop is located, that someone needs to monitor the area,
and he questions what will happen in an emergency (is: railroad
tracks). Mr. Fitzgerald further states that this area is a horror
show, that the City has made it a dangerous area to even cross the
street and to raise children, and states that he doesn't think
anything else should go in there, that there is no way to keep
shoving stuff in a small area without consequences.
RoseMary Maglio of Pleasant Street states that she has issues
concerning the free standing sign; the number of parking spaces,
that she would like to see a compromise because she doesn't feel
that there should be 61-64 parking spaces, it's too much, all that
is required is 26-27, and she notes that they have already covered
65% of their lot. She suggests that the Board require the
applicant to reduce the number of proposed parking spaces. She
further states that she is also concerned with trash, and comments
that she see a lot of trash on Cabot Street when McDonald's was
located there, and states that the City should try to support
clean-up.
Planning Board
July 14, 1998 Meeting
Page Six
A resident of 38 Bates Park Avenue states that the police should do
a traffic study to see how dangerous the area is especially when
the kids go to school, and then asks how the City is planning to
divert traffic.
George Souris of Dodge Street explains that he goes to the
McPherson Center and how dangerous it is for the kids to walk in
this area. Kids are going to die just trying to get to the
McPherson Center if traffic gets any worse.
Don Preston of Pickett Street states that he is involved with the
City's Masterplan study and that the whole idea is to try to reduce
on the visual clutter and enhance the City.
Mr. Lester of 110 Dodge Street states that he agrees with the
comments made earlier regarding the railroad tracks and the
traffic, that there is no way to get in and out of there easily.
He states that he owns a couple of businesses in Beverly and notes
that he reports an accident at least three times a week. He says
that the area is a mess, and asks who watches this area, that there
is a lot of traffic and it is getting worse.
Mary Normand of 12 Washington Street states that she is retired and
travels down Rt. 62 everyday and has no problem. She states that
McDonald's willbe taking advantage of the traffic already going
through the area, and notes that they do a good job cleaning up
their property.
A resident of Beverly states that he agrees with the comments made
by a lot of the people here tonight, that traffic should be
addressed, and notes that he gets a lot of towing jobs from that
area, and states that the whole area should be looked at in a
comprehensive fashion.
A resident of Beverly asks if the applicant can estimate the number
of cars that McDonald's will generate. Attorney Alexander states
that the Traffic & Parking Commission did not ask the applicant to
submit information regarding that type of a study.
John Murray Ward 6 Councilor addresses the Board and states that
McDonald's has a traffic study, that McDonald's relied on a traffic
study during the rezoning process of the Stop & Shop review, and
doesn't believe that McDonald's doesn't know how many cars the
restaurant will generate.
Dinkin suggests to Attorney Alexander that McDonald's must have
traffic generation estimates from other McDonald's, and asks if
there are marketing projections that would indicate how much
traffic could be expected. Attorney Alexander states that
Planning Board
July 14, 1998 Meeting
Page Seven
McDonald's relies on the Institute of Transportation Engineers'
standards for traffic generation estimates.
RoseMary Maglio asks what the hours of operation will be. Attorney
Alexander states that from Sunday to Thursday the hours will be
6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.; on Friday & Saturday the hours of
operation will be 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight. She further asks if
the Board can condition hours of operation.
Delaney asks if McDonald's keep information regarding marketing for
particular sites. Attorney Alexander responds yes, but that
information is proprietary.
Don Preston of 3 Pickett Street says that the traffic study
conducted for the Stop & Shop development has been discredited by
the City's own engineer for the Route 62 project.
Mr. John Fitzgerald agrees that the traffic is too much for the
area, that the City is congesting the whole area.
McMahon addresses the Board again and states that with respect to
the sign issue, that only one free standing sign was to be allowed
and one more sign below the Stop & Shop sign, that she is not in
favor of a McDonald's sign being displayed, but does respect their
right to place a restaurant in that area.
Gilmore states that if the applicant previously agree to limit
development to two buildings, the applicant should be held to those
facts.
Troubetaris asks if everyone on the Planning Board had an
opportunity to read the original study/plan and traffic study for
that area, and states that she would like all the Board members to
take a couple of hours to review these two pieces of information
because the traffic is changing on a daily basis.
Virginia McGlynn, Ward 4 Councilor, states that she is not for or
against McDonald's having a restaurant in this area, but feels that
the City should conscientiously review this new plan.
RoseMary Maglio states that the windows in the front of the
building have 66 panes of glass, 30% of those 66 pains of glass are
intended to have signs in them, and states that she would like to
see less, and asks if the Board can limit the amount of signage in
the windows. Dinkin states that he thinks that it is possible if
the amount of window area is reduced during the site plan review
process.
William Demento of Paradise Road, Swampscott reads a section of
M.G.L. Chapter 4DA and questions what the statutory review periods
Planning Board
July 14, 1998 Meeting
Page Eight
are for site plan. Cassidy states that the Planning Board has 65
days from the close of the public hearing to make a decision.
Dinkin places the public hearing in recess to the call of the
chair.
Delaney:
motion to recess for five minutes, seconded by Flannery.
Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson, Modugno, Dunn, Flannery, Thomas
and Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries.
Dinkin calls the Board back to order, and calls the site plan
public hearing back into session.
Dinkin states that the Board will continue with discussions until
everyone has had an opportunity to speak, that he believes that the
sense of the Board is to continue this hearing.
Thomson states that he would like the additional information (full
traffic study, ITE's information regarding trips per day, and what
the restaurant is expecting to generate) submitted before the
hearing is closed.
Delaney states that he would like the same information submitted as
Mr. Thomson, that he is concerned with McDonald's projection on
trip generation, because the whole area will be changed and has
been changed since the last traffic study. He would like traffic
information on the proposed gas station as well, and states that he
is also interested in alternative building designs. He would like
feedback from appropriate City Commissions on signage and more
information in general before the Board votes.
Thomas states that he feels that the Board needs feedback from the
Parking & Traffic Commission, (ie: if there are enough handicapped
spaces); site specific (ie: architectural design for water sites),
that he can't see a traditional McDonald's fitting into this site,
it would change the aesthetics of the area.
Cassidy states that she can ask the Building Inspector to review
the City's zoning requirements for handicapped spaces and the
signage.
Thomson states that he would like to postpone a decision until the
Zoning Board of Appeals has acted on the other proposal, that their
decision could generate more questions, this is not the right time
to close the hearing on the McDonald's.
Delaney states that architectural renderings showing more
appropriate designs of a building in a waterfront location will be
helpful in making a decision, if they are available.
Planning Board
July 14, 1998 Meeting
Page Nine
Thomas states that he would like a plan in writing from McDonald's
indicating the terms for trash clean up in the areas mentioned
earlier.
Dunn states that a police traffic accident report along with a
traffic study would be helpful, because more pedestrian traffic is
a concern, kids are a concern since Elliott Street generates a lot
of traffic.
Dinkin states that the Board's preference seems to be to leave this
public hearing open, and recesses the hearing again to the call of
the Chair.
2. Subdivision APProval Not Reauired Plans [SANR's)
Wavland Road/Brimbal Avenue / DiSessa
Cassidy updates the members and explains that the plan shows the
division of one lot into two lots, that one lot has an existing
house with frontage on Brimbal Avenue and that the second lot will
be created to have adequate frontage on Wayland Road. Cassidy
explains that the applicant submitted testimony from a postal
carrier and a member of the public that state that they use the
roadway on a regular basis, that it is very much used by the public
although it is a private way.
Thomas asks what the current condition of Wayland Road is. Cassidy
states that Whalan Road is a dirt road, with two houses facing it,
one on each side of the road, and states that it is plowed by the
City of Beverly.
Delaney asks if the dirt road runs adjacent to the playing field.
The applicant responds yes.
Cassidy reads a letter from a postal carrier and Mr. Leonard Colton
of 24 Brimbal Avenue. (On File)
Delaney:
Motion to endorse the plan of land for Wayland Road as
one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control
Law, seconded by Flannery. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson,
Modugno, Dunn, Flannery, Thomas and Rink in favor, no one
opposed. Motion carries.
Thomas:
Motion to recess for the purpose of holding public
hearing, seconded by Thomson. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson,
Modugno, Dunn, Flannery, Thomas and Rink in favor, no one
opposed. Motion carries.
Dinkin states that the public hearing on McDonald's Corporation is
called to order.
Planning Board
July 14, 1998 Meeting
Page Ten
Public Hearinas:
Site Plan Review Application #38-98 / new McDonald's
Restaurant at 224 E11iott Street (Stop & Shop site) / The
McDonald's CorPoration
Dinkin asks Attorney Alexander if he has anything further to add to
tonight's discussion. Attorney Alexander responds no, not at this
time. Dinkin suggests that the applicant return to the next
meeting with the additional information requested by the members on
this application.
Dinkin asks if there are any additional comments from members of
the public. There are none.
Thomson:
Motion to continue the public hearing on Site Plan Review
Application #38-98/new McDonald's Restaurant to the
Board's next regular meeting scheduled for September 22,
1998, seconded by Flannery. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson,
Modugno, Dunn, Flannery, Thomas and Rink in favor, no one
opposed. Motion carries.
Dinkin returns the Board back to regular session.
3. SANR'S
Hale Street / ~mmere
Cassidy updates the members and explains that this parcel of land
has frontage on Hale Street with two existing homes and that a
private way cutting through the property services both this land
and that of one other resident. This way would be used to provide
legal frontage for one of the existing houses with the Hale Street
frontage servicing the other home. Cassidy states that she asked
Fire Captain Bruce Palmer to review this plan, and notes that
Captain Palmer indicated that the plan is acceptable, that there
are no issues from the Fire Department with respect to access
issues, since the private way already provides adequate access to
the homes.
Thomson states that he is concerned that there is not enough facts
to endorse this plan this evening~ as the lot lines are drawn on
this plan, the second lot does not have at least 175' of frontage
on the private way.
Dinkin states that in his opinion the plan in front of the Board
doesn't show adequate frontage on a way, that a driveway is not a
street.
Planning Board
July 14, 1998 Meeting
Page Eleven
Delaney states that he agrees with Dinkin, that the driveway is not
located entirely within the way which is problematic.
The applicant Mr. John Gummere states that the way exists on paper
and in the deed to the property, and that the driveway has been in
existence since the early 1900's.
Cassidy asks the applicant if he would agree to withdraw the plan
without prejudice so that it can be reviewed and possibly revised
to address the Board's concerns. The applicant responds yes, and
writes a request to this effect.
Thomson:
Motion to accept applicant's request to withdraw without
prejudice, seconded by Thomas. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson,
Modugno, Dunn, Flannery, Thomas and Rink in favor, no one
opposed. Motion carries.
Virginia Avenue Extension: Request for reduction of
performance bondend acceptance of utility easement/Curtis
Jones
Cassidy updates the members and explains that the applicant is
seeking a reduction in the performance bond from $59,225.00 to
$47,662.50, and that the applicant is also seeking acceptance of
the utility easement grant. The easement is acceptable to City
Engineer Frank Killilea, who has also approved the bond reduction
request. The easement document is also in a format previously
approved by the Board.
Deleney:
Motion to reduce the performance bond for Virginia Avenue
Extension from $59,225.00 to $47,662.50, and to formally
accept the utility easement that has been submitted to
the Board, seconded by Thomas. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson,
Modugno, Dunn, Flannery, Thomas and Rink in favor, no one
opposed. Motion carries.
5. Morgen's Island Subdivision: Request for bond reduction /
Karen & Dennis L'Italien
Cassidy informs members that the L'Italiens have requested a bond
reduction for this project, and that the Engineering Department has
reviewed and recommends that the reduction requested be granted.
Thomson:
Motion to reduce the performance bond for the Morgan's
Island Subdivision from $39,675.00 to $32,175.00,
seconded by Modugno. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson, Modugno,
Dunn, Flannery, Thomas and Rink in favor, no one opposed.
Motion carries.
Planning Board
July 14, 1998 Meeting
Page Twelve
Winthrop's Grant Subdivision: expiration of performance bond
and construction completion date, discussion on waiver issue
for street trees / Ron Trentini
Cassidy updates the members and explains that the applicants are
seeking an extension of the construction completion date to October
30, 1998 because they have not yet submitted "As-Built Plans".
Cassidy further explains that the applicant's landscaper
inadvertently planted the wrong size trees (less expensive ones),
and that the applicant is requesting permission to leave these
planted trees in place in order not to cause problems with the
finish curb and sidewalk. Cassidy notes that the applicant
is willing to donate the difference in price to the Ryal Side Civic
Association or to purchase trees to make up the difference and
deliver them to the public services department for planting
elsewhere in the ward.
Dinkin asks if the survival rate of the different sized trees
differs, and if the applicant gave an 18 month guarantee. Cassidy
explains that if the survival rate differs, a portion of that money
could be held in escrow for the possibility of some trees dying.
Delaney asks if this subdivision has been before the Board within
the last year for an extension of the construction completion date.
Cassidy states that the applicants requested and were granted an
extension back on July 31, 1997 for one year.
Thomson:
Motion to extend the construction completion date for
this project for an additional three months, provided
that an extension of the surety be in place before July
24, 1998 and to further move that the City Planner work
with the City's arborist and developer to arrange for the
purchase of trees valued at at least $553.00 for
installation elsewhere in Ward 1. Motion seconded by
Flannery; Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson, Modugno, Dunn,
Flannery, Thomas and Rink in favor, no one opposed.
Motion carries.
Chanticleer Drive Subdivision: Acceptance of as-built plans,
release of remaining bond money / DanFinn, Carriage Hill
Realty TruSt
Cassidy updates the members and states that
seeking a release of all remaining bond money,
as-built plans for this project.
the applicant is
and acceptance of
Cassidy reads a letter from the Engineering Department dated
7/14/98. (On File)
Planning Board
July 14, 1998 Meeting
Page Thirteen
Cassidy hands out a letter from an abutter raising some issues with
respect to wetlands and Army Corps. issues.
Dan Finn addresses the Board and states that he has made numerous
efforts with this resident with respect to the letter, he states
that the resident is not an abutter, that all work has been
performed in accordance to Beverly's requirements, and that this
resident only wants to complain.
Mr. Finn explains that they invested ways to pipe the swale, but
could not get consensus from the abutting neighborhood.
Mr. Finn then reads a letter sent to one of the direct abutter
dated 1/6/98. (See file for copy).
Thomson asks if the swale was part of the official definitive
subdivision plan. Mr. Finn states that it was not, that it was
part of a settlement agreement with the abutters during DEP's
review.
Thomson states that enforcement of any problems with the settlement
agreement appears to be out of the realm of the Planning Board's
jurisdiction.
Thomson:
Motion to release the remaining bond money posted to
guarantee completion of the Chanticleer Drive Subdivision
and to accept the as-built plans as submitted, seconded
by Delaney. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson, Modugno, Dunn,
Flannery, Thomas and Rink in favor, no one opposed.
Motion carries.
The Plenters Subdivision: Request for bond reduction / Jack
Keiltv end Albert Ellis, O,H.C. Realty Trust
Cassidy updates the members and explains that the applicants are
seeking a reduction in the bond to $44,512.00.
Cassidy states that a letter from Frank Killilea dated 6/16/98 has
been received, recommending that the bond be reduced to $44,512.00.
Delaney:
Motion to approve a bond reduction for The Planters
Subdivision to $44,512.00, seconded by Flannery. Dinkin,
Delaney, Thomson, Modugno, Dunn, Flannery, Thomas and
Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries.
Boxwood Lane Subdivision: Recommendation to City Council on
resident petition to accept the roadway as a City Street
Cassidy updates members and states that she has researched previous
approvals of minor subdivisions by the Beverly Planning Board.
Planning Board
July 14, 1998 Meeting
Page Fourteen
Over the past 10-15 years, five roads have been approved as minor
subdivisions and none have been subsequently accepted as City
streets. One roadway, which was voluntarily designated a private
street by the original developer, was eventually accepted by the
City. However, that roadway was not subject to the Planning
Board's requirements for minor streets.
Cassidy also reviews the regulations for minor ways and reminds
members that private ownership and maintenance responsibilities are
conditions of approval for minor roads. Both the Board's vote of
approval and the recorded plan contain notations to this effect.
She informs members that she requested and received comments from
the Fire, Engineering, and Public Services departments on the
road's condition (see file). She also notes that residents place
their trash at the end of the road on Essex Street where it is
picked up by the City's trash contractor. The residents are
responsible for all other maintenance, including snow plowing.
Thomson states that the private roadway status was duly noted in
both the City's records and the Registry of Deeds~ he also states
that the Board's regulations clearly state that minor subdivision
roads will remain in private ownership "unless and until they are
redesigned and improved in accordance with the minimum standards
for streets." The owners have not done this in this instance. He
also notes that this requirement has been in place for many years,
and does not see anyunique circumstance with this development that
would persuade him to accept the road as a City street. The road
and associated systems are also in need of maintenance and repair;
letters from the Engineering and Public Services departments are on
file to this effect.
Flannery states that she supports Mr. Thomson's thoughts, that a
clear process has been established for the potential acceptance of
minor roads and sees no evidence or facts here to suggest that
special treatment be granted to this development. The rationale
behind the Board's rules is logical and fair to all concerned.
Delaney:
Motion that the Planning Board recommend to the City
Council that Boxwood Lane not be accepted as a City
street, and that the Planning Director author a letter to
the Council informing them of this recommendation and the
reasons stated by the Board for such a recommendation,
seconded by Flannery. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson, Modugno,
Dunn, Flannery, Thomas and Rink in favor, no one opposed.
Motion carries.
Planning Board
July 14, 1998 Meeting
Page Fifteen
Approval of Minutes: April 21,
28, 1998 special meeting, April
May 19. 1998 reaular meetin~
1998 regular meeting, April
28, 1998 executive session,
Thomas:
Motion to accept the minutes of the April 21, 1998
regular meeting, the April 28, 1998 special meeting, the
April 28, 1998 executive session, and the May 19, 1998
regular meeting, seconded by Flannery. Dinkin, Delaney,
Thomson, Modugno, Dunn, Flannery, Thomas and Rink in
favor, no one opposed. Motion carries.
11. New or Other Business
a. Reminder of August 8, 1998 site visit to Mullen/Loeb Estate and
September 8, 1998 Special Meetinq on Mullen/Loeb Estate
Cassidy states that she will send a reminder to the members of
these two dates, in advance of the meetings.
b. Proposed amendments to Subdivision Rules and Requlations
Cassidy tells the members that she has drafted some proposed
amendments to subdivision rules and regulations. She asks that
members review the proposals with a goal of scheduling the required
public hearing for October.
c. Designation of Planning Board representative to the Design
Review Board
Peter Thomas volunteers to be the Planning Board's representative
to the Design Review Board.
Adt ournment
Thomas:
Motion to adjourn, seconded by Flannery. Dinkin,
Delaney, Thomson, Modugno, Dunn, Flannery, Thomas and
Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries.
Meeting is adjourned at 11:00 p.m.