1998-12-15City of Bevedy, Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board: Planning Board
Subeommlttee:
Date: Dec~tber 15, 1998
Hace: Beverly Senior Center, 90 Colon Stx~ct.
Board members present: Richard Dinkin~ William Delaney, John Thomson, Joanne
Dunn~ Peter Thomas, Ellen FJnnnery, Robert Rink.
Board members absent: Barry Sullivan, Salvatore Modugno
Others present: Frank Killilea, Direaor of Engineering, Tina Cassidy, Planning
Director
Recorder: Carol/L Pearce
Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.IVL by Chairman Dinkin.
Mr. Dinkin indicates he will entertain a motion to recess for continued public hearings.
Motion made by Mr. Delaney, seconded by Ms Flannery. No discussion among Board
members, all in favor, motion el-ties. Thomson recuses him~lf~om this hearing.
Estates at Prides Crossinl~ Definitive Subdivision Plan. Public Hearim~ (continued~
Chairmall Dinkln asks the planning Director to read the legal Notice.
lVls. Cassidy reads the legal Notice.
Mr. Dinkin asks for an update for the Board, and Ms. Cassidy indicates the meeting was
continued from the Public Hearing last month until today with the idea that the Board
would discuss with the applicant waivers that are being requested ~om the Planning
Board Regulations relative to subdivisions. She also states that the Planning Board asked
the applicant to provide the Board with a complete list of waivers and an explanation as
to how the granting of those waivers would be in the public interest and be consistent
with the Subdivision Control Law. She further states it was decided that at thi~ meeting
the Board would discuss the waivers being requested with the assistance of the developer
and get a sense of the Board's opinion on whether any or all of those waivers might be
granted.
Chahman Dinkln asks the applicant if they have any additional information to add to
their formnl presentation.
Attorney Thomas Alexander confirms that all Board members received copies of the
waiver justification se~t out previously, and states that in addition he would also present
some work done on the fiscal impact of the projea based on figures provided by the City
of Beverly. (Copies distn'buted to Board members- see file).
Plannln~ Board Meeting Minutes
December 15, 1998
Page 2.
Mr. Alexander states that consideration was given to 58 lots w~th an average value of
$650,000, based on City of Beverly fiscal year 1998 tax rate of $16.39 per thousand, and
assumed excise taxes at the State rate of $25 per thousand, it would result in a total gross
revenue stream forthe City of Beverly in the amount of $690,000, which would be new
money. Deducted from that would be revenue presently generated from the site as
presently taxed, and according to the City records that is a total of $88,581 so there would
be a net to the City ofbetweem $601,000 and $602,000.
He further cites education costs according to City of Beverly figures for the 1999 fiscal
year budget of $29,158,000 and state aid of $5,571,000 which leaves the taxpayers a cost
of $23,587,000. Based on 4893 students, the cost per student would be $4,820.
Mr. Alexander continues, stating dedu~fiug figures for other City services in the amount
of $40,912,000, outside income including State reimbursement and revenues for water
and sewer fees, results in a $17,250 cost of property taxes for other services, and
assuming 95% of those services are going for residentis1 purposes, it results in a cost of
$1,496 per residence. ffyou take education and other services costs, the cost per
residence is $3,906. Using those figures and deducting from the gross revenue, it leaves
a net revenue for the City in the amount of $375,000. Mr. Alexander states that in the
material he provided to the Board members earlier, he has included the source of figures
used in his calculation~
Mr. Alexander indicates he was also asked to prepare as much further drainage analysis
information as possible, and since Peter Ogren has undertaken that, he will defer to Mr.
Ogre~
Ogren addresses the Board end states they continued to investigate the drain and have
additional information to provide to the Plannln~ Board thi~ evening on that subject. He
states that at the last meeting they said they were going in with a jet track and clean out
the drainage system, prove its continuity, and report back to the Board. He states
estimates were also done with regard to capacity and are contained in his report. (Copies
of his report are distributed to Board members - see file).
Ogren states the Hale Street pit, which is a fairly large brick chamber, was jetted out and
has provided photos to the Board, some showing sediment which was removed. After the
process he says you can see the clean bricks in the chamber. He indicates he has a
videotape which can be shown. They found a manhole 20 feet down, but couldn't cross
the manhole. They panned inside with the camera and he says you can see it's a manhole
on a property, but they could not fmd the cover. About 126 feet up is another manhole on
the paved portion of Paine Avenue. He says they could see the water did in fact flow
through, so they did in effect prove the continuity of the pipe.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
December 15, 1998
Page 3.
Mr. Ogrea states a deeded easement was discovered which is important in that it
supported the contention that there was an historic, natural water course, but also there
was actually a deeded easement when the drain went in. The language contained in that
deed says "Also such right if any as the Town of Beverly or any individuals may have to
maintain drain pipes or other drainageway along the course of the old water course
through the level field consisting of the northwesterly portion of the granted premises".
That deed is in the chain of the land marked 'Hardy", which he referenced in his first
report and said there was a natural water course and that it would be subject to the
general rights of the public. The date of that deed is April 17~ 1891, just about a hundred
years ago. So that drainage system was built at that time.
Mr. Ogren states the last thing the Board inquired about was the hydraulic capacity which
he can't answer fully at this time because h e doesu 't know the rate of grade between each
manhole, but assuming the grade is linear, you'd find a 24 inch drain, like the condition
on Hale Street, would be 24 cubic feet per second, with a theoretical barrel capacity of
15.4 cubic feet per seconcL Mr. Ogrcn maintains that the drainage pipe f~om Hale Street
goes in there. He says it would be possible to check a thirty inch pipe which would be
about 50 cubic feet per second with a theoretical barrel capacity of 27.9 cubic feet per
second.
Mr. Ogren said his conclusions are that the drainage system has been cleaned f~om Hale
Street down to the manhole at Paine Avenue, that they have proved the continuity of the
drainage system, that they have confirmed it was constructed in a historic water course
and proved there is sufficient hydraulic capacity in the downhill drainage system, all of
which was stated in his original ~ort. Mr. Ogren indicates that's the extent to which
they have proceeded at thia time.
Mr. Alexander indicates he would like to get a sense of the Board on the waivers that
have been requested in fight of the information provided, and states it would be helprid to
get a sease of why certain waivers would or would not be accepted.
Chairman Dinkin states that prior to the issue of waivers, he feels that the fiscal impact
statement may have generated some question and indicates that the floor will be open
specifically to Mr. Alexander's fiscal impact statement and Mr. Ogren's remarks relative
to drainage.
Chairman Dinkin states he has a question for Mr. Alexander and then will open the floor
to the Board and members of the public. Chairman Dinkin wants to know what if
anything it does to the numbers if rather than including in the analysis every residential
unk in the City to include only owner-occupied single family residences. Mr. Alexander
replies he doem't believe it would make a large difference, and that the biggest source of
Plsnning Board Meeting Minutes
December 15, 1998
Page 4.
cost is the educational component, and states that from what he' s seen, there would not
be a sjEni~cantly greater number, more than one half child or less per residence across
the entire city.
Chairman Dinkin asks for any other questions from the Board, and Mr. Thomas wants to
know how they arrived at the enrollment number of 4,893 students. Mr. Alexander states
he obtained that information from the Business Manager of the public school system
There being no additional questions from the Board, the Chairman opens the floor to
questions from the public.
Attorney Thomas Ha,i~gton addresses the Board and states he represents Groundsweli
and several members of the Loring f~mily, and wants to address Mr. Ogren's points
regarding use ofthe drainage pipe that runs out to the ocealL He states he is confused
why this would affect property at 531,569, 573 and 581 Hale Street. Mr. Ogren asks Mr.
Jonathan Loring to show the location of the propeay in question, and then states the
Hardy title is not upstream from the Loring property.
F.~mmon Fennessy of 11 Paine Avenue questions water coming in 126 feet and wants to
know how the rest of the area would be affected. Mr. Ogren states the drainage area
drains the whole area. Mr. Fennessy indicates that in a serious rainstorm, the water
collects at 5 Paine Avenue and goes under #7 where the condos are, and wonders what
additional drainage will do to that property. Mr. Ogren replies the drain is quite clear and
flows freely, indicating that that is the natural drainage course.
ChairmE Dinkln indicates this matter will be recessed until 8:30 PM.
Birch Woods Definitive Han: Public Hearin¢, on Recluest to Modlfv ADoroved
Sewer Deslin
Thomson rejoins the meeting. Chairman Dinkin opens thi~ continued Public Hearing and
instructs the Planning Director to read the legal notice. (Ms. Cassidy reads legal Notice).
Attorney Stephen Guschov, from Grenier and McCarron, states he is present to give the
consent of Joseph A. Dandreo, trustee and owner of the Birch Woods Subdivision, to
tonight' s presentation to be made by Mr. Jack Rivers with respect to the change in the
design of the sewer. Mr. Dandreo has given his full consent to allow Mr. Rivers and his
associate Mr. DeSanti to give thi~ presentation. They will be selling the land to Mr.
Rivers and Mr. DeSanti on Monday, December 21, and they have requested to be allowed
to make the presentation on their own thi.~ evening. Mr. Guschov states he will not be
participating in the presentation but would be happy to answer to any questions with
respect to his client.
phmning Board Meeting Minutes
December 15, 1998
Page 5.
Jack Rivers addresses the Board as agent forthe applicant and soon-to-be new owner of
the property. He indicates initial approval showed a pumping station forthe site and a
force-main sewer but then he later learned there was a modification by a prior prospective
buyer converting the proposed sewer design to a gravity sewer line and he wanted that
modification to be reverted back to the original approval He indicates he had a meeting
with the City Engineer and Planner and the City Engineer stated that circum.qances had
changed since it was originally approved and that the standards were somewhat different,
and also stated the requirement for a back-up gas generator as a back-up electric power
source. He indicates they will be meeting the new design standards for that p.mping
Cassidy states she mat with Marshall Handiy who indicated the opinion was that the
planning Board acted in good faith in approving the modification in 1996 and stated there
is an issue that the owner may knew about the modification, but did not provide written
consent, and there was an isaac with respe~ to notification. The developer has asked for
a modification to revert back to the original design and Mr. Randiy felt comfortable that
the Board could take action on that request and decide the matter without regard to what
happened previously. The developer is not a~ldng for a legal opinion, just reversion back
to the original design. Mr. Rivers reiterates that they are a~klng that the modification
reinstate the pumping station force -main design, meeting the necessary new standards
with the backup generator.
Mr. DinIda asks the planning Director to read any correspondence t~om City
depmiments.
Cassidy reads a letter dated Decmnber 18, 1998 fxom City Engineer Frank Killilea.
Mr. Dinkin asks for comments or questions t~om the Board. Hearing none, he asks for
comments or questions ~om the public.
In response to a cencern by Debbie Heslop, a member of the public, Cassidy states it is
her understanding that the request now before the Board is proper for the Board to
consider irrespective of any previous vote of the planning Board to modify that
mxbdivision plan.
Mr. Delaney wants to know if the City Engineering DepaRment has a preference in te~iiis
of whether the system would be built in a gravity design, and Mr. Killilea responds he
would prefer to see a gravity system, and if the owner wants to pursue a pu.~f. ing station
aiternative he would want to see a modification in the forc~ main design. Residents
across Cross Lane could come in by gravity if the sewer design were changed to a gravity
fine.
planning Board Meeting Minutes
December 15, 1998
Page 6.
Mr. Dehney asks if it will affect the ability ofhomeownen on Cross Lane to tie in, and
Mr. Killilea states it would have to be designed so that the majority ofhomeowners on
Cross Lane could tie in to the gravity systenL
Mr. DeLsney states it is his understanding that the City Engineering Department does not
recommend an entirely force- main system, and Mr. Killilea responds he would not
recommend making the entire length a force- main system end making the existing
homeowners install grinder pump. s in order to access the forced main.
Mr. Delaney inquires if the Engheering Depa~hne~t would prefer a total gravity system,
noting there seems to be an intermediate design. Mr. Killilea states if the developer
wanted to put in the pump station he could come up with basically a third design that
would show where he could raise the depth of gravity sewer that's nmning down Cross
Lane from the way that it is shown on the 1997 plans, so there is a third alternative that
could be designed.
Mr. Rivers states his decision to modify was basically economically motivated, and states
he would be happy to work with the City Engineering Department to accomplish this to
the greatest possible end.
Chairman Dinkin states he feels this requires a new plan, and that the Board will not be
able to resolve the issue this month, and questions Mr. Cmshov about granting the Board
an extension of the dine to allow for continued considention of this plan. Mr. Gushov
indicates that Mr. Dandren will consent to the extension.
Chairman Dinl6. a,~lc~ if there are individuals present who wish to be heard on this
matter. He indicates thi.~ matter will be continued to the next regular Board meeting, but
if there are people who came to be heard tonight, this is the time to address the Board.
David Heslop, 111 Cross Lane, asks for chrification of the alternative to take the forced
main to the top of the hill and gravity feed down toward Lake Shore Avenue and Lothrop
Street, and asks if that is colfeet. Mr. Killilea responds that it is correct.
Gary Ciavoh, Cross Lane, wants to how what the expected cost per homeowner will be.
Mr. Rivers states that it is his understanding that the homeowner would only be required
to pay from the home to the main line. Mr. Killilea indicates it would be a gravity
system, and Mr. Rivers states that it would, to the extent that gravity can be fed to that.
He indicates there is a pumping station at the entrance of the new street that would carry
the sewerage up to a nnlt that converses with the gravity line, but forthe bulk ofthe
homes, he believes it would eliminate the necessity for a pump.
plsnnlng Board Meeting Minutes
December 15, 1998
Page 7.
Bill Bruce, 81 Cross Lane, questions easements and the phcement of the pump. ing
station, and Mr. Rivers indicates that he anticipates granting an easement from the
p~rnping station to fac'ditate those homes immediately adjacent.
Chairman Dinloin states he is going to place this public hearing in recess until 7:30 P.M.
on January 19, 1999, location to be nnnounced.
Chairman Dinkin calls the re~n~lAr meeting of the Planning Board back in session and
asks the Plsnning Director to read a document in her possession.
Cassidy reads request from Mr. Gushov for an extension of time for final action by the
Board on the Birchwoods Modification from December 30, 1998 to January 31, 1999.
Delaney: motion to accept the request for extension, seconded by Flaonery, all members
in favor, motion passes.
Chal, i-an Dinkin annoonces he will entertain a motion to recess and reconvene for public
hearings.
Delaney: motion to recess and reconvene for public hearings, seconded by Flannery, all
members in favor, motion passes.
Chairman Dinkin states the reg~lAr meeting of the Beverly planning Board is recessed.
Estates at Prides Crossine Definitive Subdivision Han Public Hearing,
Thomson recuses himself and Dinkin reopens the hearing and recalls the Board was in
the process of taking specific questions on the presentation made by Alexander on cross
imp. act and by Ogren on drainage. He asks if there are additional specific questions on
those areas of concern.
A resident of 11 Greenwood Avenue asks regarding the cost savings and the tax coming
to the City, he wants to know if the rate of inflation was taken into consideration and if it
is known what those rates were overthe last ten or twenty years. Alexander replies that
they did not take inflation into account, they just did a snapshot in time.
The resident also asks if the need for building more schools was taken into consideration,
and Alexander responds it probably would not be necessary to build more schools, based
on an average of.5 child per house, 58 new houses, means 29 children over 12 grades.
planning Board Meeting Minutes
December 15, 1998
Page 8.
Dinkin interjects that the Planning Board is equally able to consider the statistical validity
of Alexander's projections and also the relevance of the projections will be taken into
consideration.
John Murray, 14 Greenwood Avenue, asks when did the Planning Board receive the
information contained in the cost imps act, and Chairman Dinkin replies it just arrived this
evening. Mr. Murray says perhaps some of the audience would like to respond, and
presumes this hearing will be kept open forthe next meeting so that those who may want
to make a detailed response may do so.
Chah ii.an Dinkin says that this is a presnmp~tion and he is not sure that he is going to
validate that presnmp~tion. Mr. Murray indicates that they c~ challenge that decision if
the Board doesn't want to debate the issue tonight, but think.~ a detailed response should
be taken into consideration because otherwise the Board is aSSuming that the facts
presented by Alexander are validated. Chairman Dinkin states that ' s an assumption
and asks for any other qualifying questions from the audience.
Kesident Andten Fish questions the $650,000 value per year and wants to know if the
figure is based on the sale price or assessed valuation. Alexander states it's the assessed
valuation.
A resident f~om 629 Hale Street questions drainage with regard to maintenance and
cleaning of the drainage which apparently has not bee~ done for some time, and Ogren
responds the si~ definitely came from upstream~ and they haven't been cleaned for a
while.
Another resident of Hale Street wants to know if they have looked into what happens
under above normal flow conditions and wants to know if they are expecting the Board as
well as the public to believe the same sewer system and drainage system developed in
1891 is going to be ~t~cient enough to take care of 58 new houses, thousands of trees
taken down, and all the exploding dynamite. Ogren says he believes that water course is
the one that ac~pts the drainage f~om thi~ property, and believes that means and
technology was available back in 1891 to build a proper drainage system He says he
made no mention of sewers, and did not say the sewer system was constructed one
hundred years ago. The sewer system was definitely constructed subsequent to the
drainage systen~
A member of the audience wants to know whose responsibility it will be to make sure the
drainage system is cleaned out, whether it will be the property owner or the City. Dinkin
states the responsibility for maintenance of the drainage system would fall upon the
property owners through whose property it traverses, and that the particular combination
of property owners may be modified by the existence of ensements if any and asks for
Phnning Board Meeting Minutes
December 15, 1998
Page 9.
clarification on that f~om Attorney Alexander. Alexander says he agrees this is a correct
state~nent.
Resident Jay Wallace wants to know if an inquiry was made to the schools as to whether
or not they will accept additional students, or is it anticipated that some children would be
going to private schools? Alexander indicates his study did not anticipate any students
would be going to private schools. He states they did look at a comparable subdivision in
Canton where there are 23 new homes and there are two school age children in the
subdivision. Alexander further explains that he does not feel additional schools need to be
built at thi.q time to facilitate the 58 new homes proposed.
A resident of Avalon Avenue wants to know how much water fxom Avalon Avenue goes
into the same drainage system, and Alexander replies an analysis was not done with
regard to the capacity of those pipes. He states also below that is a dam, and they have
not done an analysis of that akhough it may be restricting the flow in the pipes. Mr.
Alexander advises the resident that the dam should be licensed in the Commonwealth,
and that perhaps he could look at the dam license to see what it is designed for.
Steve Cormors, 514 Hale Street, wants to know what percentage of the runoff will be
corrected by the drainage system being proposed. Ogren states he does not have an
act figure, but estimates it would be ninny to ninety-five percent. He further indicates
that there are catch basins every 250 feet for the proposed new roads.
Stella Mae Searoans, 840 Hale Strea, questions Alexander regarding his statement that
there would be a profit to the City in the range of $300,000 plus or minus, and then it
would be necessary to build an addition to the school or additional classrooms to himdie
the new childre~ Alexander indicates again that the need for an addition to the school or
even additional classrooms is not indicated by this report.
A Common Lane resident wants to know if the water tables have been measured, and if
the water table rises and there is damage, can those property owners hold liable the City
and this Board as developers? Mr. Dinkin advises that she would have to seek her own
legal coonsel, and that he does not intend to answer that question on behalf of the City or
the Board The resident further asks if the City makes a decision that damages property
of the people who already own that property, is the City liable? She thlnics this is a fair
question. Mr. Dinkln statOs that if she has a general or specific interest and has legal
counsel, she should consult with that counsel Mr. Dinkin further states he would suggest
that Alexander not offer an opinion on that question in this forum~
Dinkln states he would like to move on to the waiver portion of the discussion, and would
like to deal with this portion of the meeting by a.qlcing the plnnning Director to read each
planning Board Meeting Minutes
December 15, 1998
Page 10.
waiver and then a~king Alexander to briefly summarize his teams' reasons for s~king for
the waiver, and then there will be brief comments on each individual waiver if necessary.
Cassidy reads waiver request 3.C.2.d. Alexander states he would not add anything to
what they had previously written as justification.
Mff. Dinkin asks for public comment on this Waiver, and Richard Baker, 643 Hale St.,
notes there are very sj~ni~cant trees in that area and thinks the standards require due
regard for forests and trees, and states the City has not even inventoried what is out there
and would sites open so that homes are not protected.
Murray says thi~ and the other waivers are not in the public interest and should be denied.
ARer brief comment from the public, Dinkin requests the Planning Director to read the
next waiver request.
Cassidy reads waiver request 3.C.2.p. Alexander states he would be willing to provide
numbers if requested but would wait until the Spring season.
Cassidy reads waiver request 3.C.2. s and Alexander states they will pot in whatever trees
the City desires. Murray states it' s not in the public interest if you have a beautiful beech
tree that if it i~n 't shown, they could chop it down and replace it with a two foot twig, and
that' s basically what the Board is allowing them to do if it approves the waiver. Ogren
indicates it's not a matter of trading one tree for another. It's also not a matter of locating
every sillgle tree, bttt he thinks they have located every impommt tree and states that in
the past they have had great luck with getting trees to survive.
Cassidy reads waiver request 3.C.2.u and Alexander states it is the applic~ut's intent to
show all the requirements in t~:~s of street lights, underground electric and fire alarm
systems. He states they are just looking for a waiver as a matter of timing because they
are desi~nning utilities around a street, rather than desi~rning a street to a hypothetical
situation.
Cassidy reads waiver request 4.A~2.c. Alexander responds that a fair amount of time was
spent on this in the last meeting with the traffic expert, and they are seeking the waiver
order to work with the hind a little better than what the regulation calls for. The developer
believes this waiver is in the public interest in that it would result in less disruption to the
area than the regulations require, and make for a more aesthetic appearance of the site.
Paul Hayes, Jr., 375 palmer Street, Lawrence, Ma, makes a brief comment that vehicular
operations in the area would be threatened if this is denied.
planning Board Meeting Minutes
December 15, 1998
Page 11.
Cassidy reads waiver request 4.k3. Alexander states the applicant started out with a 69-
lot waiverless plan, and reduced the number of lots to 58 feeling there would be less
disruption to the land and it also makes sense that with fewer lots there would be less
income to offset the cost of the project. He also states that testimony from their trnfi~c
expert using the ASHTO standards indicates that the roadway width proposed meets
safety standards and would be more than adequate. The 20-foot waiver coming into
Greenwood Avenue was done to reduce the width of that roadway in the area of the
vernal pool to lessen any work that had to be done there. Charles D~mn~ 16 G-ree~wood
Avenue, reminds the Board that a letter was read from the public safety officer that they
would accept nothing less than 28 feet width for a two-way street.
Murray eaHs attention to a letter dated December 7, 1998 from the Trnffie Safety Officer
and quotes "no pavement width should be reduced to 20 feet. It is not safe for motorists
to drive, vehicfes to park or unload, or children and others to pass by".
Cassidy reads waiver request 4.A. 4.b. Alexander says the final design was done through a
several month process of preliminary proposals made to the Planning Board - the
applicant reduced the roadway grade to 8.99 or effectively 9%. A grade of 6% results in
more cuts and fills and greater destruction to the land. Murray points out again that the
Board has on file letters from the Police and Fire dep:ulments stating it should be kept at
6 percent.
Resident John Fisk states he feels that the planning Board is slnart enough to see through
the statement that the waiver will reduce the amount of destruction to the property. He
says the property is going to be destroyed, and that they just want more money.
Cassidy reads waiver request 5.E. Alexander states that permitting sloped-faced granite
curbing would not be inconsistent with the Subdivision Control Law. Alexander also
points out that eventually the streets will be owned by the City and the slope curb is
easier to maintain, so there would be benefit to having the sloped granite. Murray states
the traffic sergeant said before that the vertical granite is a safety factor, and he feels that
the Board should heed this advice.
Cassidy reads waiver request 5.B.4. Alexander says the two-foot horizontal to one foot
vertical cut waiver will allow for less horizontal impact on the site thereby reducing the
amount of tree cutting and excavation that will be required. The second part is not
actually a waiver. Murray states again it will save money for the developer, but where is
the public interest?
Tins Cassidy reads waiver request 5. C.3. Ogren states basically they have provided
drainage analysis. He states it is not in the public interest to have any more catch basins
than are required as they will have to be maintained at some point down the road, so you
Phnning Board Meeting Minutes
December 15, 1998
Page 12.
only want to have the number of catch basins that are justified by the design which is
what they provide~L Steve Cohen, 514 Hale St., says he can't understand the location of
the catch basins Ogren replies it would be approximately every 250 feet. In some cases
they're closer, and in some cases they're farther apart. There is no hard and fast rule.
Peter Shanahan, working with Groundswell, says that in a prior le~x, Mr. Ogr~n
indicated the applicant was willing to perform certain detailed analyses, and he does not
feel that this has been done. Ogree says we are willing to do it to show that we have the
capacity, but if the Board doesn't vote it, then there' s no need to perform the work.
Cassidy rends the request for Typical Cross Section waiver. Alexander states with regard
to the six foot cover forthe sewer line, the applicant has agreed to provide that except in
the area where the sewer line was connecting to the existing sewer line in Rez-~ Road,
and the reason is that the existing sewer pipe is less than six feet down. The other part of
this request is to provide a three-foot cover for all drainpipes.
Dinkin reads the next request which is quoted "Reduction of the side-line radius at the
intersection of Greenwood and Estate Drive to 15 feet, and allowing the curve PC to be
non-tangent at Greenwood Avenue". Ogrea says they asked forthe
sideline radius and then to have a non-tangent curve in that location to give them the
opportunity to have a single point, the reason being to minimiv~ the effect on the verllal
pool He states this is simp. ly an attempt to go along with State Law and says it will be
the minimum that could be approved by the Planning Board. The public interest is served
by the protection of the vernal pool by whichever way the State wants it protected.
In response to a question f~om a resident, Ogren states that the major access to the
subdivision is offof Hale Street.
Dinkin states he is not interested in creating an enforcement problem for the police
depa~'taient. He says speaking for hlm~elfrather than the Board as a whole, he is not
interested in putting in a road for emergency use or limited use or whatever, knowing full
well that it will be used for whatever purpose the folks who buy property in that
subdivision det,~,~.ine they will use it for. He says again, speslcin~ as an individual and
not attiring to represent the sense of the Board, he is not interested in creating any
type of problem.
Dinkin then moves to the next waiver item which is the elimination of the sidewalk on
the northeasterly side of the roadway in the area of the vernal pool Alexander says this
would limit the amount of work to be done in the pro~mity of the vernal pool and the
roadway.
planning Board Meeting Minutes
December 15, 1998
Page 13.
Murray again cites the traffic sergeant's letter of December 7, 1998 and quotes one
paragraph: "The elimination of a sidewalk is totally unacceptable given the scope of this
whole project. A sidewalk on both sides of the street is a serious safety issue for children
and others to move about inside and outside of the subdivision" and he concludes the
letter saying that he feels that these are serious safety concerns with all three of these
additional waiver requests and hopes that the Planning Board will also reco~iTe the
safety violations if these waivers are granted.
DinKin places this hearing in recess until 10:35 P.M. thi~ evening at which time the
regular Board meeting will reconvene and the Board will discuss the requested
waivers and the Chair will accept motions on the sense of the Board on each individual
waiver. The Board is in recess for ten minutes.
Dinkin calls the meeting back into session and states he will be accepting motions and
would like to have the motions phrased 'It is so ruled that the sense of the Beverly
Planning Board is - - so on the first waiver request, from Section 3.C.2.d, he calls for any
djsctlssion.
Dehmey states he thinks it's fairly clear that the standards have not been met, and he has
a problem with both of those issues. Dinkin says he would like to see cited each tree over
6 inches in callper which is intended to be taken out.
Ddany: motion that it is the sense of thi.~ Board that waiver requested from 3.C.2.d be
denied, seconded by Ms. Flaxmen]. No further discussion, all members in favor,
motion passes.
Dinkln moves to waiver request 3.C.2.p and asks for discussion. Delaney states he feels
some of these waivers are more important than others, and indicates he thinks Mr.
Shanahan articulated a reason why information could be beneficial. He states it's his
personal sense that this waiver should be denied.
Ddaney: motion that it is the sense ofthe Board that waiver requested from 3.C.2.p
should be denied, seconded by Fiannery, aH members in favor, motion passes.
Dinkin moves to waiver 3.C.2.s and cells for discussion. Delaney says he views this as a
timing request and thinks that's what it is intended to be. They don't want to show
proposed street trees at thi~ point in time, however, they will be shown before a definitive
plan would be signed. He states thi~ has been done in the past, there is logic to it, and
there is some public benefit to it as well.
Ddaney: motion that the sense of the Board is to grant the waiver from 3.C.2.s, seconded
by Flannery. All members in favor, motion passe~
planning Board Meeting Minutes
December 15, 1998
Page 14.
Dinkin calls for comment on waiver request 3.C.2.u. Dehney feels the same about this
request.
l)elaney: motion it is the sense of the Board that the waiver requested from 3.C.2.u be
granted, seconded by F!annery. All members in favor, motion passes.
Dinkin states the next waiver is 4.A.2.c, and Delaney responds that many of the next
waivers have to do with roadway design and layout and slopes and tangents, interrelated
to each other. While voted separateby and in isolation, he states he may not have a
problem with soma of these waivers.
l)elaney: motion to propose the Board vote on the reverse ~rve, 32 foot pavement, and
grade deviation and hopes to join those questions, seconded by Flannery. All
members in favor, motion to enjoin passes.
Delaney says it's his personal opinion that when those issues are looked at together with
some of the later slope requests, which he doesn't want to join, he can't find it' s in the
public interest, doesn't think the standard has been met.
l)elaney: motion that it' s the sense of the Board that those three requested waivers which
have been joined for the purposes of this motion are denied, seconded by
F3nnne~. All members in favor, motion passes.
Dinkin indicates next is waiver request 5.E - curbing. Delaney states this is a requested
waiver that he would not be opposed to entertain, but under the circum~amces presented
before the Board, he would request that it be denied.
l)daney: motion to deny waiver request, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor,
motion passes.
DinIcY notes the next waiver request is 5.B.4, request for waiver on vertical slope.
Delaney states he does not feel it is in the public interest forthis to be granted. He feels
there are serious public safety concerns and it doesn't make a lot of sense. He feels the
Board should stick to the three to one vertical slope requirement and states he would be
looking to the Engineering Depsulment at some point in time for a sensible ledge cut.
Deianey: motion that it is the sense of the Board that this be denied, seconded by
Flannery. All members in favor, motion passes.
Dinkin notes the next article which is 5.C. 3, request for waiver that the catch basins be
spaced 250 feet apart.
pI;nning Board Meeting Minutes
December 15, 1998
Page 15.
Ddaney: motion that it is the sense ofthe Board that this waiver be granted, seconded
by Flannery. All members in favor, motion passes.
Dinkin notes the next is the waiver request from their Typical Cross Section. Delaney
states they have had some information from the Engineering Department that there would
not be any interest to the City to deviate from this standard.
Ddsney: motion that it is the senso of the Board that this waiver request be denied.
seconded by Flannery. M members in favor, motion passes.
On additional wai~ers, #1, Delaney states he does not have a complete understanding of
thli waiver, and depended on input from the Engineering Department
Ddaney: motion that it is the sense of the Board that tl~ig waiver request by denied,
Seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion passes.
On Request for additional waivers, #2, minimum paved width of the roadway, Dehmey
feels it' s definitely a safety concern where you have a two-way roadway 20 feet wide.
l)daney: motion to deny this requested waiver, seconded by F~snnery. A]I members
in favor, motion passes.
Dinkin states that the final waiver is the elimination of the sidewalk on the northeasterly
side of the roadway in the area of the vernal pool Delaney says he feels this waiver
request presents a serious safety issue.
Ddaney: motion that it is the senso of the Board that the waiver be denied, seconded by
Flannery. M members in favor, motion passes.
Dinkln notes that we have five minutes to deal with other issues, and wants to know if
there is an issue we can deal with in five miraires.
4. Subdivision Aporoval Not ReQuired Hans ("SANR's")
Cassidy states there are several ANR plans for the Board to consider, the first being 486
Essex Street, proposing that an existing lot be divided into two building lots. She also
notes that the plan depicts wetlands run along the front of the property along Essex Street,
ra'~ng a question as to whether this lot can be accessed from Essex Street.
Ddaney: motion to deny endorsement ofthi~ plan as not requiring approval under the
Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Thomas. All in favor, motion passes.
Endorsement is withh elcL
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
December 15, 1998
Page 16.
5. Estates at Prides Crossing Subdivision Plan: Public HearinpJJames Marten, Toll
Brothers Construction
Dinkin calls the Prides Crossing Estates hearing back in session, and wants to know if the
applicant has anything to add based on the sense of the Board votes? Alexander states
they do not have anything to add in light of that, and that they do have some information
that they are working on and would hope to present at the next meeting of the planning
Board in response to a letter sent to them by Cassidy in November.
Cassidy reads into the record a letter dated December 15, 1998 from the Beverly Fire
Depat ttaent, a letter dated December 7, 1998 from the Beverly Police Department, a
letter dated November 23, 1998 from Peter & Elizabeth Loring of 573 Hale Street, a
letter dated December 7, 1998 from Attorney Ha~,hgton, and a letter dated November
30, 1998 from residents of the Carriage House, 7 Avalon Avenue. Cassidy states that
these and other letters are on file for review by the public. Joan Johnson of Groundswell
indicates she has petitions from 600 residents in Beverly who request the planning Board
to ~ject the development. Alexander states they would like the opportunity to complete
their presentation in January at the next meeting.
1)daney: Motion to accept the request for an extension of time for final action on this
filing from 12/30/98 to 1/31/99, seconded by Thomas. All members in favor,
motion passes.
Dinkin pla~s this public hearing in recess until January 19, 1999 at 8:00 P.M.
6. KeHv Nissan: Set date for site elan review oublic hearin~
Cassidy notes there is a request for public hearing on a set of plans fo~ a 6050 square foot
addition to a building in Beverly.
Ddaney: motion to set a public hearing on the site plan for the Board's January 19, 1998
meeting, seconded by Thomas. All members in favor, motion passes.
7. Subdivision Anoroval Not Recluire Plan (SAN'R)
a. Beaver Pond Road/Carmen & Elizabeth Frattaroli
Attorney Carmen Frattaroli explains this plan for his property to the Board. One new
building lot would be created on this private way.
Ddaney: motion to endorse thi.~ plan as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision
Control Law, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion passes.
phmnlng Board Meeting Minutes
December 15, 1998
Page 17.
8. Access Road Subdivision: Exoiration of Construction Comnlete Date/David
Carnevale
Cassidy notes the work remaining to be completed in the Access road subdivision and
states the applicant requests an extension of the construction of this project.
Ale~mder requests a six-month extension, to plant street trees and finish the area,
probably to be completed in the spring. He states they would look for an additional six
months to plant the trees and do additional lawn and reseeding.
Ddaney: motion to grant the six month extension to June 30, 1999, seconded by
Flannery. All members in favor, motion passes.
Cassidy notes that on the Sunday Drive subdivision there is a six month extension
requested from December 1998 to June 1999 on the construction completion, and an
accompanying letter f~om Frank Killilea, Director of Engineering, outlining work to be
Ddaney: motion to grant the requested extension of the construction complete date to
June 30, 1999, seconded by Flannery. ALl members in favor, motion passes.
Cnmeral discussion regarding plans for Christmas party dinner.
Ddaney: motion to adjourn, seconded by Thomas. All in favor, motion passes.
Meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M.