1998-03-17 Joanne Ounn
Richard Dinkin ~~ Ellen K. Ftannery
Vice Chairman Salvatore Modugno
William Delaney D. Stephen Papa
Planning Director Barry Sullivan
Tina ~ Cassidy John Thomson
Minutes
March 17, 1998 meeting
Members present: Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice-Chairman Bill Delaney, Ellen Flannery,
Batty Sullivan, John Thomson, Peter Thomas, Sal Modugno, Joanne Dunn.
Also present: City Planner Tina Cassidy
Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Delaney: motion to recess for public hearing, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor,
motion carries.
Public Hearing: Special Permit application ~)9-98 for conversion of building at 10-16
Bow Street to 100% residential / Richard Goldberg
Cassidy reads legal notice. Mr. Richard Goldberg addresses the Board and states that he has
owned this property for twenty-eight years. There are nine units in the building, eight of which
are currently residential. The single commercial unit on the ground floor houses a hairdressing
salon, and he is seeking permission to convert it to a residential unit. He believes that a
residential unit here will create less of a parking demand and generate less traffic than the
existing commercial activity. He explains the nature of the abutting properties for members'
information.
Cassidy reads letters from various City departments (see file). Dinkin asks if any members of
the audience have questions or comments on the petition. There are none. Dinkin asks if any
members of the audience wish to speak in favor of or in opposition to the application. Heating
none. Dinkin closes the public heating and declares the Board back in regular session.
1. Discussion/decision on special permit request #99-98 to convert existing commercial
unit to residential creating 100% residential floor use of a "CC" zoned building.
Dinkin asks the Board members if they have any questions or comments. Dclaney asks Goldberg
to explain the parking situation. Goldberg explains that there are no off-street parking spaces on
this lot. However, some parking is available on street and there is a municipal off-street parking
lot within 500' of the entrance to this building which will satisfy the City's off-street parking
requirements. Cassidy states that she has confirmed this with the Building Inspector. Delaney
says that hc concurs with the conclusion that a residential use should require less parking than
City Hall 191 Cabot Street Beverly, Massachusetts 01915 (978) 921-6000 Fax (978) 922-0285
Planning Board minutes
March 17, 1998 meeting
page two
a commercial enterprise. Dinkin expresses a general concern with the erosion of the commercial
space in the downtown area. Goldberg states that this end of Bow Street, while it has several
commercial tenants, is relatively weak with tenants often staying less than one year. Thomson
points out that if the market for commercial space becomes such that renting this unit
commercially makes more sense, the owner can convert the unit back to commercial by right
without further Board action being necessary. Sullivan states that while there is a lack of quality
commercial space in downtown Beverly, there isn't a lack of commercial space generally. He
does not foresee a shortage of commercial space happening in the near future.
Dinkin asks if there are any additional comments. There are none.
Delaney: motion to grant a special permit to allow the floor area of the structure at 10-16
Bow Street to be used 100% residentially, seconded by Flannery. All. members
in favor, motion carries.
2. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR's)
a. Red Rock Lane / Estate of Hermann Kirschner
Cassidy presents this ANR to the Board. The plan shows the division of a vacant lot on Red
Rock Lane into two. Both lots would meet the minimum frontage requirements of zoning, and
the plan meets the Board's requirements for ANR plans.
Delaney: motion to endorse the plan of land on Red Rock Lane as one not requiring
approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Thomson. All members
in favor, motion carries.
b. Red Rock Lane / Estate of Hermann Kirschner
Cassidy presents this ANR to the Board and explains that an existing lot with a single-family
home is being subdivided into two lots. Both would meet the minimum frontage requirements
of zoning, and the plan meets the Board's regulations for ANR plans.
Delaney: motion to endorse the plan of land on Red Rock Lane as one not requiring
approval under the Subdivision Control Law. seconded by Flannery. All members
in favor, motion carries.
3. Request for finding of specific and material change and permission to reapply to the
Board of Appeals within two years of a variance denial in accordance with M.G.L.
Chapter 40A, Section 16 / 19 Bates Park Avenue
Dinkin asks Cassidy to update the Board. Cassidy explains that the owners of property at 19
Bates Park Avenue applied to the Board of Appeals for a setback variance last fall so that they
Planning Board minutes
March 17, 1998 meeting
page three
could construct a three-season room addition to the existing home. Their contractor was
supposed to appear at the meeting on their behalf, and failed to attend the meeting. In the
absence of representation before the Appeals Board, members denied the variance. The
homeowner, Joan Driscoll, has modified the plan by enlarging the addition and relocating the
stairs and door. The Planning Board must f'md that a specific and material change has been made
to the original application and all but one member must consent to permit the owner to reapply
to the Board of Appeals within two (2) years.
Dinkin asks Ms. Driscoll to explain the change to the Board. The Board must have sufficient
information to find that the new plan reflects a specific and material change to the original
application. She explains that the original proposal was for a 10' x 12' addition with no deck
and one set of stairs. The new application shows a 12' wide and 14' long addition with two sets
of stairs and a ten foot deck. The roof line of the existing building would also change.
Thomson asks Driscoll if she will be using a different contractor. She states yes. Modugno asks
Cassidy why the Board of Appeals did not continue the hearing to the following month's
meeting, instead of denying the application outright. Cassidy answers that she does not know
exactly why the Board took that action; perhaps the mandatory deadline for action by the Board
was running out. Thomson asks that a copy of the Board of Appeals' decision on this application
be forwarded to him.
Dinkin asks if there are any other questions or comments from the members. There are none.
Delaney: motion that the Planning Board find that a specific and material change has been
made to the proposed application for a setback variance for property at 19 Bates
Park Avenue, and that the Board consent to the applicant's request for permission
to reapply to the Board of Appeals within two (2) years of a variance denial in
accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 16. Motion is seconded by
Flannery; Delaney, Flannery, Dinkin, Modugno, Sullivan, Thomson, Duma, and
Thomas in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries 8 - 0.
4. Maplewood Subdivision: Request for reduction in bond posted as surety., extension
of construction completion date, recommendation to Cih., Council on acceptance
plans / AI Symes, Maplewood Village Partnership
Cassidy explains that the developers have requested a reduction to the Tri-Partite Agreement
posted as surety to guarantee completion of this project and have also submitted acceptance plans
to the City. She states that although most of the work has been completed, the Board must retain
some money for the required tree and grass plot guarantee which will in turn necessitate an
extension of the construction completion date for this project. She reads a letter from City
Engineer Frank Killilea recommending that the Board carry $4,480.00 in surety for this purpose.
Delaney: motion to extend the construction completion date for the Maplewood subdivision
to March 1, 1999, to recommend to the City Council that that body accept the
Planning Board minutes
March 17, 1998 meeting
page four
acceptance plans for this subdivision, and to reduce the amount of the Tri-Partite
Agreement to $4,480.00. Motion seconded by Thomas, all members in favor. Motion
carries.
5. Approval of Minutes of January 22, 1998 and February 23, 1998 meetings
Dinkin asks if there are any questions or amendments that should be made to these sets of
minutes. Sullivan asks fellow members to explain the February 23rd Loeb Estate preliminary
subdivision vote with respect to the waivers the developer had requested. The minutes do not
show that any votes were taken on the waivers. Delaney explains that instead of voting on any
of the requested waivers at that point, the Board chose to broadly indicate that several were
unlikely to be granted and several were worthy of potential consideration at the definitive plan
stage.
Delaney: motion to accept the January 22, 1998 and February 23, 1998 minutes as drafted,
seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion carries.
Thomas: motion to adjourn, seconded by Flannery. all members in favor, motion carries.
The meeting is adjourned at 8:16 p.m.