1998-01-22Chairperson ~~ ~~/)~ Joanne Dunn
Richard Dinkin ~<~,~ Ellen K. Flannery
Vice Chairman Salvatore Modugno
William Delaney D. Stephen Papa
Planning Director Barry Sullivan
Tina P. Cassidy John Thomson
Minutes
Beverly Planning Board
January 22, 1998 Meeting
Members present: Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice-Chairman Bill
Delaney, Barry Sullivan, John Thomson, Salvatore Modugno and Joanne
Dunn; also present: Planning Director Tina Cassidy, Director of
Engineering Frank Killilea, Jr, and Susan Akerman, Secretary to the
Board.
Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Thomson: Motion to recess for public hearings, seconded by
Sullivan. Dinkin, Thomson, Sullivan, Modugno and Dunn in
favor, no one opposed. Motion carries.
· Public Hearing: Site Plan Review application #36-97:
addition to existing office building at 55 - 75 Cherry Hill
Drive / Eaton Corporation
Cassidy reads legal notice.
Chuck Papalardo, Facilities Manager representing Eaton Corporation
addresses the Board and explains a proposal to construct an
addition to the existing facility at 55 - 75 Cherry Hill Drive as
well as an expansion of the parking areas on site. Mr. Papalardo
explains that the new building is being designed as a customer
demonstration facility for semi-conductor equipment and for office
space.
Artis Cooper addresses the Board and reviews a composite photo of
the existing building and explains that the applicant is proposing
to construct the addition with the same material as that of the
existing facility (ie: same tinted glass, same height, continuance
of the same architectural design).
Cassidy reads the following letters:
-Letter from the Beverly Police Department dated 12/8/97.
(On File)
- Letter from the Beverly Board of Health dated 12/16/97.
(On File)
Ci~ Hall 191 CabotStreet Beverl~ Massachusetts01915 (978) 921-6000 Pax(978) 922-0285
Beverly Planning Board
January 22, 1997 Meeting
Page Two
- Letter from the Beverly Parking & Traffic Commission dated
1/21/98. (On File)
- Letter from the Beverly Design & Review Board dated
1/22/98. (On File)
- Letter from the Beverly Conservation Commission dated
1/21/98. (On File)
- Letter from the Engineering Department dated 1/22/98.
(On File)
Bill Delaney joins the meeting at this time.
Chairperson Dinkin asks if any of the Board members have questions.
Sullivan asks if the Design & Review Board's letter in regards to
mounding, is in response to an abutters' request. Cassidy responds
no. Artis Cooper states that the applicant felt that a mound
affect would be an improvement to the site and serve as an
effective parking lot buffer.
Thomson states that the plans do not incorporate the changes made
yet. Cassidy responds right.
Thomson questions the hydrogen gas tanks referred to on the other
lot. Cassidy explains that the tanks will actually be located at
the rear of the building; the existing tanks on the southerly
property line belong to the abutters.
Thomson asks for a review of the drainage/surface drainage scheme.
Charles Wear, Engineer from Meridian Engineering Inc., addresses
the Board and explains that the existing drain line and the
existing drain system are equipped with catch basins, and that
there are two locations where the system ties in; the first being
the parking lot at Cherry Hill Drive, the second will be from the
roof of the new proposed building. Mr. Wear explains that they
investigated the impervious ground cover, and that the calculations
consider these impervious surfaces and states that they made sure
that the pipes would have the capacity needed to handle the
additional flow.
Dinkin asks if anyone from the public wishes to speak.
Dinkin asks if there are any comments in opposition to the plan.
There are none.
Dinkin asks if there are any comment in support of the proposal.
There are none.
Beverly Planning Board
January 22, 1997 Meeting
Page Three
Dinkin declares the public hearing closed.
Dinkin calls the Planning Board to regular session.
Discussion/decision: Site Plan Review application #36-97:
Addition to existing office building at 55 - 75 Cherry Hill Drive
/ Eaton Corporation.
Thomson asks if the plan complies with the Board's Rules and
Regulations. Cassidy states yes.
Thomson: Motion to grant site plan review application #36-97 for
55-75 Cherry Hill Drive / Eaton Corporation, with the
condition that the recommendations from the Design &
Review Board and the Parking & Traffic Commission be
incorporated into the site plan, seconded by Sullivan.
Dinkin, Thomson, Sullivan, Modugno and Dunn in favor, no
one opposed. Motion carries. Delaney abstains from the
vote.
Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR's)
a. 13 Rowell Avenue/Occipinti
Cassidy updates the members and explains that the plan shows the
creation of a small non-buildable lot that would be transferred
from the Occipinti's to the owners of #2 Longfellow Street.
Cassidy states that this plan conforms with all zoning regulations.
Delaney: Motion to endorse the plan of land for 13 Rowell Avenue
as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision
Control Law, seconded by Modugno. Dinkin, Delaney,
Thomson, Sullivan, Modugno and Dunn in favor, no one
opposed. Motion carries.
b. 'Prince Street/David Camevale, Prince St. Realty Trust
David Peterson, Attorney representing Prince Trust addresses the
Board and explains that after prior approval of an ANR, one abutter
appealed. Attorney Peterson states that the land is partially
registered.
'Thomson questions the hammerhead/T-shaped lot. Attorney Peterson
explains that a portion of the lot has been partially conveyed to
the abutters, but that the lower half of the lot is stilled owned
by Prince Street Realty Trust and is to be conveyed to the
abutters.
Beverly Planning Board
January 22, 1997 Meeting
Page Four
Thomson states that his only concern is that (a) the plan doesn't
clearly show the lines for determining the boundaries of Lot #13,
that the plan needs better-defined lines and (b) the areas of the
lots within private easements be added to the plan.
Dinkin states that the prior easement doesn't affect the status of
the line.
Attorney Peterson states that he would like to request that the
Board allow Prince Trust to submit a corrected plan, within three
days, showing common ownership and identification of the driveway
easement.
Thomson: Motion that the Board endorse the plan of land for
Prince Street provided a plan revised to incorporate the
two corrections noted above is submitted within three
days, seconded by Delaney. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson,
Sullivan, Modugno and Dunn in favor, no one opposed.
Motion carries.
Discussion/decision: Loeb/Mullen Estate Preliminary Subdivision
Plan / Toll Brothers ~nd J~mes Mullen
Thomson recused himself from discussion of this matter.
Cassidy updated the members.
Kyle Corkum of Toll Brothers addresses the Board and states that
Peter Ogren has been detained at another meeting.
Dinkin states that this matter will be laid on the table until the
call of the Chair.
Sunday Drive Subdivision: Request for reduction of performance
bond / Gary Palardy and David Camevale
Thomson-rejoins the meeting at this time.
Cassidy updates the members and explains that the applicants have
requested a reduction of the performance bond from $104,075.00 to
$17,587.00.
Cassidy reads a letter from Frank Killilea dated 1/22/98. (On
File)
Delaney: Motion to reduce the amount of the performance bond held
for the Sunday Drive Subdivision from $104,075.00 to
$17,587.00, seconded by Sullivan. Dinkin, Delaney,
Thomson, Sullivan, MQdugno and Dunn in favor, no one
opposed. Motion carries.
Beverly Planning Board
January 22, 1997 Meeting
Page Five
The Planters Subdivision: Request for reduction of performance
bond / O.H.C. Realty Trust
Cassidy updated the members and explains that the applicant has
requested a reduction of the performance bond from $322,300.00 to
$100,000.00.
Cassidy reads a letter from the Engineering Department dated
1/22/98. (On File)
Thomson asks what is left to be done. Cassidy states that
landscaping of the tot lot, two fire alarm call boxes, as-built
plans, street acceptance plan, a guardrail and grass plot and a
tree planting guarantee still need to be completed.
Thomson asks when the construction completion date is. Cassidy
states April 30, 1998.
Delaney expresses concern that the call boxes have not yet been
installed, despite the developers' promise to do so by 12/31/97.
Thomson: Motion to reduce the amount of the performance bond on
The Planters Subdivision from $322,300.00 to $100,000.00,
and that the Planning Director ask the applicants to
attend the Board's next meeting to explain why the call
boxes are not installed yet, seconded by Delaney.
Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson, Sullivan, Modugno and Dunn in
favor, no one opposed. Motion carries.
Birch Woods Subdivision: Update on modification of approved design
of sewer system / David Walsh
Cassidy updates the members and explains that the developer has
been asked to submit additional plans, as the result of a request
by Frank Killilea, that the sewer line profile be shown on a plan
for review.
Cassidy reads a letter from Frank Killilea dated 1/22/98. (On
File).
Cassidy suggests that she meet with the property owners affected to
explain the profile plan to them before the Board formally votes
Thomson: Motion that this matter be tabled to the Board's next
meeting, seconded by Delaney. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson,
Sullivan, Modugno and Dunn in favor, no one opposed.
Motion carries.
Beverly Planning Board
January 22, 1997 Meeting
Page Six
Approval of Minutes: November 18, 1997 regular meeting, December
9, 1997 regular meetinq, December 11, 1997 special meetinq
Delaney: Motion to approve the minutes of the Board's November 18,
1997 regular meeting, the Board's December 9, 1997
regular meeting and the Board's December 11, 1997 special
meeting as drafted, seconded by Sullivan. Dinkin,
Delaney, Thomson, Sullivan, Modugno and Dunn in favor, no
one opposed. Motion carries.
Chairperson Dinkin calls for a two minutes recess.
Chairperson Dinkin states that the Planning Board is back in
session.
New or Other Business
a. Determination of adequacy of parking for car wash establishment
/ Attorney Thomas Alexander
Attorney Thomas Alexander addresses the Board on behalf of property
owner Jeff Bunk and reviews the site plan for the establishment of
a car wash. Attorney Alexander explains that the site location had
a dilapidated wharf on it, and that Mr. Bunk received permission to
tear down the wharf and build rip rap.
Attorney Alexander states that a use variance to allow for a car
wash on this site has been requested from the Board of Appeals and
explains that in the proposal an existing building housing "Wayne's
World", an automotive repair shop, will need to be torn down and a
slightly larger building will be built in its place along with the
car wash and several auto body and auto repair businesses.
Attorney Alexander explains that Wayne's World will be relocated on
the site.
Attorney Alexander reviews the flow of traffic for the car wash and
explains that the car wash would be 360 linear feet long with a
stacking area large enough for 25 cars that are waiting to be
washed. Attorney Alexander explains that there is no parking
requirements in the City zoning ordinance for a car wash facility.
Attorney Alexander explains that only two spaces would be needed
for employee parking, and that the car repair use would be required
to park all cars in the car repair use building area, and that the
remaining 20 spaces would be designated for the car repair use.
Attorney Alexander states that he has met with Building Inspector
Tim Brennan who suggested that the applicant seek the Planning
Board's recommendation regarding the number of off-street parking
Beverly Planning Board
January 22, 1997 Meeting
Page Seven
spaces that should be required for the car wash establishment and
the car repair use.
Modugno asks where the water from the car wash would go. Attorney
Alexander explains that the water will be collected, treated and
recycled.
Delaney asks what the status of the variance application is.
Attorney Alexander explains that they are on the Board of Appeal's
agenda for Tuesday, January 27, 1998 meeting, and hope to get a
determination for the parking spaces in time for that meeting.
Sullivan asks for a clarification on who spaces 1-6 are available
for. Attorney Alexander explains that those spaces are devoted to
general parking, patrons of the car repair shop or employees.
Sullivan questions the parking spaces inside the repair bay.
Attorney Alexander explains that those spaces will be used for
either the cars in the repair shop or for employee parking, if
necessary.
Sullivan asks what the total number of employees on the site will
be. Attorney Alexander states 6 employees or less will be on site
at any one time.
Delaney asks if the parking spaces next to the vacuum area are
general spaces. Attorney Alexander explains that those spaces
could also be used when the car wash and the car repair shop are at
their busiest times, nights and weekends.
Dinkin states that all off-street parking lots on that street is
privately owned, but many allow the public to park in them.
Dinkin asks if there will be products for sale. Attorney Alexander
states that there might be car fresheners/car knickknacks, but that
there will be no separate store.
Dinkin asks if there will be floor space dedicated to a retail
store. Attorney Alexander explains that the items for sale will be
hanging along the walls.
Modugno states that it would only be a little area.
Thomson questions the fact that there will be no need for customer
parking. Attorney Alexander responds right.
Dinkin asks what type of product delivery will there be. Attorney
Alexander states soap.
Beverly Planning Board
January 22, 1997 Meeting
Page Eight
Dinkin asks if a space will be needed for a delivery truck on the
site. Mr. Bunk explains that the delivery truck can park
perpendicular.
Dinkin asks if the terms of the lease for the repair shop will
state that vehicles waiting for repair will be stored inside the
shop. Attorney Alexander responds yes.
Delaney states that the plan seems adequate and that he is prepared
to move on this matter tonight.
Thomson states that there is a short area coming out of the end of
the car wash and questions what will happen if there is a back up
in the street. Attorney Alexander explains that there is pull
system that will stop the cars before they get to the street.
Thomson: Motion that the Board recommends that 22 spaces is
adequate for the car wash establishment as proposed on
the variance plan, seconded by Sullivan. Dinkin,
Delaney, Thomson, Sullivan, Modugno and Dunn in favor, no
one opposed. Motion carries.
b. Receipt of waterways amnesty license / 58-60 South Terrace /
Sally Arsenault
Cassidy states that a Chapter 91 license for 58-60 South Terrace is
on file with the Planning Board as required, and that it is
available for Members to review.
c. Resignation of Steve Papa from Planning Board
Cassidystates that Steve Papa has asked the Mayor not to reappoint
him to another term, but that he will be willing to serve until the
Mayor finds a replacement for him.
d. Sunday Drive subdivision / no-cut zone violations
Cassidy states that there is two parts to this matter, the first
being a letter request dated 1/10/98 from David Carnevale and Gary
Palardy, (On File), that asks for permission to remove two trees
within the established no cut zone on one of the lots that appear
to be dead and/or dying and that the applicants will replace these
trees with four 4½" caliper white pines.
Sullivan asks if the City's arborist has reviewed the site.
Cassidy explains that he was not able to do so before tonight's
meeting.
Beverly Planning Board
January 22, 1997 Meeting
Page Nine
Thomson: Motion to lay this matter on the table until the Board's
next meeting scheduled for Tuesday, February 17, 1998,
seconded by Delaney. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson, Sullivan,
Modugno and Dunn in favor, no one opposed. Motion
passes.
Cassidy explains that the second part to this matter pertains to
several complaints received due to the fact that the property
owners have extensively cut trees in the "no-cut" zone.
Cassidy explains that she did a site visit and that approximately
25-30 feet of trees have been cut within the buffer zone. Cassidy
states that she would like permission from the Board to write a
letter to the property owners, inviting them to the next Board
meeting to guide them and recommend some alternatives. Cassidy
further states that she would recommend to the property owners that
when they do come in for the Board's meeting that they have a
proposal to show the Board members regarding replanting.
Thomson: Motion to grant permission for the Planning Director to
communicate with the property owners with some
recommendations, and to invite them to the Board's next
meeting, seconded by Delaney. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson,
Sullivan, Modugno and Dunn in favor, no one opposed.
Motion passes.
Discussion/decision: Loeb/Mullen Estate Preliminary Subdivision
Plan / Toll Brothers and James Mullen
Thomson recuses himself from discussion of this matter.
Attorney Thomas Alexander addresses the Board on behalf of Toll
Brothers and states that the revised plan show a 58 conventional
lot subdivision.
Attorney Alexander states that two waivers are being requested, the
first being a grade waiver, from the standard 6% to a 9%, which
Alexander states is not unusual, because a 9% grade allows the
applicant to work with the land better than with the 6%; the second
being a roadway width waiver, with respect to the cul-de-sac, the
applicant is seeking a 24' width of pavement; a 50' layout will
still be provided. Attorney Alexander further states that the
applicant will also be looking for some reverse curve waivers.
Attorney Alexander explains that a draft fiscal impact of this
design has been done, but that some figures/assumptions need
correcting before it is ready for a public presentation.
Attorney Alexander states that a traffic impact study has been done
and introduces David Veigh to further explain this study.
Beverly Planning Board
January 22, 1997 Meeting
Page Ten
David Veigh addresses the Board and explains that he drafted a
study assuming 60 single family units and the routes these
individuals would take to and from the development.
Mr. DeBay states that in November he did traffic counts/24 hour
counts during mornings and evenings to identify the number of trips
that this 60 unit subdivision will generate. Mr. Veigh reviews
these figures.
Dinkin asks about income demographic factors. Mr. Veigh explains
criteria and states that all trips were done assuming only a Hale
Street entrance.
Delaney asks if a written report was submitted to the Planning
Board for review. Mr. Veigh explains that the report was just
recently completed and submitted to Toll Brothers; the Planning
Board has not yet received it.
Delaney states that he would like to review the report before
voting.
Delaney states that he is surprised by the amount of additional
traffic volume predicted for Common Lane, and that he felt some
individuals might take an alternative route. Mr. Veigh states that
he did some travel time studies as well, and that there was not a
great difference in which route was taken, so he relied on the
lesser travel time.
Dinkin asks for the number of morning peak hour trips. Mr. Veigh
responds 38 trips leaving the site per hour.
Dinkin asks Mr. Veigh how he came up with that assumption. Mr.
Veigh explains that that number is a standard reference that is
recognized in the Transportation Standard Provider Manual.
Dinkin asks what the Code 210 means. Mr. Veigh explains that it is
a home typically in a suburban area, single family, not a clustered
unit, not a condo, but detached.
Delaney asks for a highlight of the major changes on this plan from
the last plan. Kyle Corkum explains that there are two changes:
the first by Hale Street, it is now considered a waiverless road,
that they will be utilizing the existing driveway; the second
change is that they pulled the subdivision back and graded an area
where there will be no residential roads, it will be considered
open land; this parcel abuts the Rezza Road area.
Delaney asks if the roadway configuration is similar. Mr. Corkum
states that it is.
Beverly Planning Board
January 22, 1997 Meeting
Page Eleven
Delaney recalls that the initial preliminary plan reflected a
concept for a cluster, and asks what the developers' rationale for
abandoning that idea is. Attorney Alexander explains that there
was a fair amount of feed-back that the neighborhood was not happy
with that concept, and that the market is oriented to larger lots.
Attorney Alexander further explains that they did a marketing
research on another cluster development nearby, and found that the
cluster subdivision did not go as well as the developers
anticipated.
Dinkin states that the plan shows several lots that narrow rapidly
and asks if those lots meet the zoning requirements. Mr. Corkum
states that they are workable if they do not, and can easily be
reconfigured if necessary.
Dinkin asks Mr. Corkum if it is their intent to file this similar
plan as their preliminary plan. Mr. Corkum states that they
introduced this concept as an alternative, that they are seeking
feed-back on this plan, and if favorable, will advance with this
being their preliminary plan.
Cassidy states that if the applicant wants to keep the process
going and advance to the next level, that the applicant should
refine their plan to include all preliminary plan requirements, so
that the public can review the plan with this information, and
Cassidy further states that if the applicant does intend to go this
way, then the applicant will need to submit a plan within the next
7-10 days so that it can be redistributed to the various City
departments. Cassidy asks Mr. Corkum if this is a realistic time
table. Mr. Corkum responds yes, and states that they will advance
a plan, revised and edited within 7-10 days.
Cassidy asks if they are going to withdraw their previous plan.
Attorney Alexander states that they would like both plans on the
table, that they are not looking to withdraw, that they would like
the Planning Board to review both plans simultaneously.
Delaney asks Mr. Corkum to discuss the second access point on
Greenwood Avenue further, to explain what they intend to do and
explain the recommendations of the Fire Department. Mr. Corkum
explains that they need to provide a second means of access into
the subdivision, that the City is not comfortable regarding the
emergency access, that it needs to look like a City street to meet
the Fire Department's requirements.
Dinkin states that he does not support the idea of posting a sign
"for emergency vehicles only", that a road posted "for emergency
only" does in fact invite other uses, and that this road would be
used for homes in close proximity. Posting such a sign only
invites disrespect for traffic laws in general.
Beverly Planning Board
January 22, 1997 Meeting
Page Twelve
Delaney asks if the Board did approve a barrier device, would there
be a need for other approvals/issues. Attorney Alexander explains
that the Fire Department dislikes barriers of any sort.
Delaney clarifies that the plan shows the road will be paved 24'
wide and will be open, with signage. Mr. Corkumstates yes, unless
the Board prefers a barrier, then we'd pursue that idea.
Delaney asks if they plan to preserve some foliage. Mr. Corkum
states that they would like to keep as many trees as possible,
utilize as much foliage and try to enhance the property more than
it is right now.
Delaney asks since the subdivision has been pulled back to some
degree, does this in any way affect drainage? Mr. Corkum explains,
and says that the subdivision cannot contribute any additional
water to these watersheds without improvements.
Delaney asks for a review of the drainage scheme and where the bulk
of water will be going. Mr. Corkum describes the water flow,
noting that the water will have four different routes to take, that
with 58 units and narrower roads, there will be less water that
will leave the site.
Dinkin lays this matter on the table subject the call of the chair.
Dinkin asks what the Board would like as an alternative date for
the Board's next meeting.
Sullivan: Motion to schedule the Planning Board's next meeting for
Monday, February 23, 1998, seconded by Modugno. Dinkin,
Delaney, Sullivan, Modugno and Dunn in favor, no one
opposed. Motion passes.
Dinkin states that discussion/decision of the Loeb/Mullen
Subdivision is off the table.
Attorney Alexander submits a request for an extension of time for
preliminary plan approval to February 28, 1998.
Delaney: Motion to accept applicants request for an extension of
time, seconded by Modugno. Dinkin, Delaney, Sullivan,
Modugno and Dunn in favor, no one opposed. Motion
passes.
Adjournment
Delaney: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Sullivan. Dinkin,
Delaney, Sullivan, Modugno and Dunn in favor, no one
opposed. Motion passes.
Meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.