1996-03-19 irman
James A. Manzi
Vice Chairman
Richard Dinkin
Planning Director
Tina P, Cassidy
William Delaney
Ellen K. Flannery
Salvatore Modugno
D. Stephen Papa
Barry Sullivan
John Thomson
Minutes
Beverly Planning Board
Tuesday, March 19, 1996
Members present:
Chairman James Manzi, Vice-Chairman Richard
Dinkin, Sal Modugno, John Thomson, Ellen
Flannery, Joanne Dunn, Steve Papa, Barry
Sullivan; also present: City Planner Tina
Cassidy
Manzi call the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Dinkin:
motion to recess for public hearings and reconvene,
seconded by Papa; all members in favor, motion carries.
Public Hearing (continued): Aileen's Way Definitive Sub-
division off Meadow Road / Richard and Aileen L'Abbe
Cassidy rereads the legal notice and explains that legal counsel
for the property owners and developers has requested that the Board
accept an extension of time for final action by the Board, and
continue the public hearing on this application to April 1st. She
explains that the property owner would like an opportunity to meet
with abutters about an existing woods road over the property. The
deadline for action on this subdivision plan is March 28th, which
is prior to the next meeting of the Board. An extension 'of time
will be necessary in order for the Board to defer taking action on
this this evening.
Dinkin:
motion to accept the applicants' request for an extension
of time for final action by the Board from March 28, 1996
to April 2, 1996. Motion seconded by Thomson, all
members in favor. Motion carries.
Dinkin:
motion to recess the public hearing on the Aileen's Way
Definitive subdivision plan to April 1, 1996 at 7:30 p.m.
Motion seconded by Thomson, all members in favor. Motion
carries.
Hail 7~Q? Cabot Street Beverly, Massac,;usetts 01975 (508) 921-6000 Fax (508) 922-0285
Planning Board Minutes
March 19, 1996 Meeting
page two
Public Hearing: Chapel Hill Definitive Subdivision Plan
Grover Street / Tim Ford
Cassidy rereads the legal notice for this filing and reminds the
Board that it conducted a site visit to this property several weeks
ago, and that abutters' concerns centered around the issue of
drainage from the site onto adjacent property and the issue of
clearcutting of mature trees during construction.
Thomas Alexander, attorney representing Mr. Ford, states that the
developer will preserve, to the greatest extent possible, mature
trees and shrubs on the site. He states that George Zambouras,
Commissioner of Public Works, has reviewed and approved the
drainage calculations for this project. He also states that both
he and Tim Ford are present to answer any questions the Board may
have.
Manzi asks if any members of the public or Planning Board have
questions or comments on the proposal. Dinkin asks Cassidy to read
Zambouras' letter, which she does.
Margaret Desjardins, who owns property across the road from the
site, asks the Board if it would consider granting whatever waivers
are necessary to allow a narrower roadway and a landscaped island
in the center of the cul-de-sac. She believes that a narrower road
and landscaped island would minimize the number of trees that would
need to be cut and would also lessen the visual impact of the new
roadway on the neighborhood. Cassidy explains that the Board would
need to grant waivers to permit this.
Ward 6 Councilor John Murray asks for clarification on the number
of lots being created. Cassidy explains that there are three (3)
ANR lots with existing frontage on Grover and seven (7) lots to be
created along the new roadway. Murray asks how many lo~ were
included in the drainage calculations submitted to the City. Ford
states all ten (10) lots were included. Murray gives the Board a
brief history of the house on the site and the fact that the
Beverly Historic District Commission recently enacted a six month
delay on the demolition of the house on the site. Since the
Commission's decision, additional information about the home's
historic significance has come to light. Tim LiPorto of Old Rubbly
Road asks where the new hydrant has been located. Ford states at
the center of the cul-de-sac.
Dinkin asks Ford to outline the location of the house on the plans.
Thomson asks Ford if he has considered moving the house to one of
the new lots in this subdivision. Ford states that he has had two
individuals inspect the house, and moving it is too complicated to
accomplish. The house is too big of a structure to make it
feasible to move.
Planning Board minutes
March 19, 1996 meeting
page three
Manzi asks if there are any other questions or
audience or from members. Hearing none, Manzi
hearing.
comments from the
closes the public
Concurrent Public Hearings (continued): Pearson Road
Definitive subdivision plan and special permit for development
in excess of two house lots in the Watershed Protection
Overlay District / off Old Rubbly Road / Gary Palardy and
David Camevale, developers
Cassidy rereads the legal notice and states that the developers'
attorney has requested that the Board recess this public hearing to
the Board's April 1, 1996 meeting.
Dinkin:
Motion to recess the concurrent public hearings on the
Pearson Road definitive subdivision plan to the Board's
April 1, 1996 meeting at 7:45 p.m., seconded by Papa.
All members in favor, motion carries.
Manzi reconvenes regular meeting.
Discussion/decision: Chapel Hill Definitive Subdivision Plan
Tim Ford, developer
Dinkin asks the developer to elaborate on his efforts to preserve
the Minot estate. Alexander states that the possibility of
renovating the house has been studied, and the structure is not
conducive to renovation. Dinkin asks if the developer has
considered rehabilitating the property into condominiums.
Alexander states that the economics of rehabilitation don't make
sense to pursue this. Ford elaborates on the condition of the
house's interior.
Dinkin states that he does not feel entirely comfortable knowing
that the developer intends to demolish this historically-signifi-
cant house; but the plan before the Board seeks no waivers from the
Board's regulations, is without regulatory defect, and has the
approval of all appropriate municipal agencies. He is hopeful that
during the six-month demolition delay period a potential buyer of
the house will come forward. Ford says he would be delighted if
someone would preserve the structure, and adds that he would be
prepared to submit plans on a lot-by-lot basis showing the mature
plantings that would be preserved on each site.
Dinkin:
motion to approve the Chapel Hill definitive subdivision
plan subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner grant an easement for highway purposes
to the City of Beverly for the length of the property's
frontage on Grover Street; the width of said easement
Planning Board minutes
March 19, 1996 meeting
page four
shall be determined by the Commissioner of Public Works,
but shall not be wider than fifty (50) feet; and
2. That the developer shall make every effort to preserve
the maximum number of trees possible on site of 6" in
caliper or greater, and that a plan shall be submitted to
the Planning Board indicating which trees will be
preserved.
Motion seconded by Flannery, all members in favor.
Motion carries.
5. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR's)
USM South parcel / corner of Elliott St. and MacPherson
Drive
Cassidy explains that an ANR has been submitted for this parcel of
land slated for the development of a new Stop & Shop supermarket.
Notes explaining the land transactions, many of which were required
by the City's vote to rezone the land to allow the store, are
included on the plan. Thomson asks if all lots meet the minimum
zoning requirements. Cassidy answers yes, and that Thomas
Alexander is present should members have questions. Alexander
elaborates on the parcels involving Dock Lane and the Bass Haven
Yacht Club's access. Sullivan asks if there are any restrictions
on the use of lot #2 on the plan. Alexander states that the
remediation package includes a restriction that the property be
used by a non-profit boat club.
Dinkin:
motion to endorse the plan as one not requiring approval
under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Flannery.
All members in favor, motion carries.
USM South Parcel / Elliott, Balch, and McKay Streets
Cassidy explains this ANR, and notes that the plan meets the
Board's requirements for endorsement. Thomas Alexander,
representing the applicant, explains the lots being created.
Dinkin:
motion to endorse the plan as one not requiring approval
under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Sullivan.
All members in favor, motion carries.
Dinkin:
motion to recess the meeting for five minutes, seconded
by Sullivan. All members in favor, motion carries.
Planning Board minutes
March 19, 1996 Meeting
page five
6. Nicole Avenue preliminar~ subdivision plan / Tom Camevale
Cassidy updates the Board on this filing and reads a letter to the
Board from Commissioner of Public Works George Zambouras dated
March 19, 1996 (see file). Michael McCarron, attorney representing
Mr. Carnevale, explains that the sewer line for this development
has been relocated entirely within the City limits of Beverly, and
that a sewer extension permit from the City will be necessary. He
reminds the Board that in January, the plan showed the roadway
located partially in the town of Wenham. Last Thursday evening,
the Wenham Planning Board decided that this plan was not subject to
the subdivision control law, and that ANR endorsement should be
given instead. Therefore, he indicates that all Beverly
subdivision design standards will be adhered to.
McCarron states that with respect to the pump station, it is now
proposed to be located on land currently owned by an abutter. He
adds that if the plan is approved, the land under the station could
be divided off and given to the City, or an easement obtained.
John Ricci, engineer for the developer, indicates that two waivers
are being requested. One seeks permission to install a sidewalk on
only one side of the roadway and the second seeks permission to
allow the installation of sloped granite curbing instead of
straight-faced granite curbing.
Dinkin states that the Board has occasionally waived the curbing
requirements when the developer has installed other public
amenities. He is not in favor of waiving the sidewalk requirement.
He questions how the Beverly Planning Board could require a
sidewalk in Wenham.
Thomson asks if the developer would agree to a possible condition
that lot #4, which includes a house site in Beverly and all
remaining land of the applicant in Wenham, would not be further
subdivided in the future. McCarron states that the developer would
not agree to such a restriction, and instead hopes that conditions
might change in the future to make subdivision possible. Thomson
states that the City may expose itself to liability by maintaining
the pump station and road in Wenham. Sullivan asks McCarron to
list the benefits that would accrue to the City if the road
remained privately owned and maintained instead of public.
McCarron states that if the road was a public way, the City would
be able to provide the new residents with the same services as it
does all others on public ways. Cassidy states that developers
usually consider private ways to be less desirable from a marketing
standpoint, in that the homeowners on private ways must pay for
their own snow plowing and other roadway and utility maintenance.
Dunn notes that during the discussion about lot #4, the engineer
Planning Board minutes
March 19, 1996 meeting
page six
stated that the lot would not meet the requirements of Title V, and
asks why it cannot. Ricci responds that the soils are not
providing acceptable percolation rates.
Cassidy adds that the Ward 6 councilor has informed her that the
subject of the Citypossibly installing sidewalks along Hull Street
to the Wenham town line has been discussed.
Thomson: motion to approve the Nicole Avenue preliminary
subdivision plan, subject to the following conditions:
1. That a notation be added to the Plan indicating that
the developers must adhere to the Board of Health's Soil
and Solid Fill Requlations;
2. That any definitive subdivision plan for this property
should be based on actual surveys of the property's
perimeter, not on previous plans; and information
regarding property lines should be with confirmation of
recorded documents and descriptions;
3. That a design of the sewer pump station should be
submitted to the Board and the Commissioner of Public
Works at the same time the definitive subdivision plan is
submitted;
4. That the language of all proposed easements shown on
the definitive subdivision plan shall be drafted and
submitted to the Board with the definitive plan for
review;
5. That the developer communicate with the Beverly City
Solicitor on the legal aspects of the City's potential
ownership and maintenance of the proposed road that is
located in another community and accessible only from
another community, and that at least preliminary
discussions on possible City acceptance of the roadway be
started with the City Council prior to submission of the
definitive subdivision plan;
6. That the developer consider the possibility of
restricting future subdivision of the lot depicted at lot
#4 on the preliminary subdivision plan; and
7. That the requests for waivers from the Board's Rules
and Regulations relative to installation of only one
sidewalk and sloped-faced granite curbing BE DENIED.
Motion seconded by Sullivan. Dinkin states that he is
disinclined to vote in favor of this preliminary plan on the
Planning Board minutes
March 19, 1996 Meeting
page seven
basis that the developer has failed to meet the obligation to
provide adequate municipal services, and that he does not
consider this plan to be ready to proceed at this time. The
Board could decline to act on the plan. Thomson states that
he would like to get the Board's concerns recorded for the
developer to consider.
VOTE ON THE MOTION: Sullivan, Thomson, Modugno, Dunn,
Flannery, Papa in favor, Dinkin against. Motion carries.
Manzi steps down from the role of Chairman and leaves the meeting
on an issue of conflict of interest. Dinkin assumes the
chairmanship.
253 Rantoul Street: Request for extension of expiration date
of special permit / Karen L'Italien, Darren Realty Trust
Cassidy explains that the owners of this property received a
special permit from the Planning Board in 1990 to create an 18-unit
apartment building in the "CC" zoning district. A special permit
was required because the residential use of the building comprised
more than 75% of the total floor area in this commercial district.
The special permit was extended several times since 1990, and the
owners are now requesting an extension of the expiration date for
a period of six months, from March 22, 1996 to September 22, 1996
(see file for letter).
Mark Glovsky, attorney for the owners, explains that the need for
the request is the result of economic and market conditions that
prevented the project from commencing sooner. The developers have
been given verbal confirmation of project financing, and that they
intend to start construction within the six month period.
Flannery asks if the building now rented to Zwicker Press will be
demolished. Glovsky states that it will not be; the new building
will be located to the rear of the existing building on the site
and will have an access to Federal Street as well as Rantoul
Street.
Board members review the 1990 plan, and Dunn asks how big the units
will be. Glovsky answers that they will be one-bedroom units.
Dinkin discloses that Manzi left the meeting because he owns
property on Rantoul Street that abuts the site in question. He
informs members that the vote to grant the special permit required
a vote of six members of the nine-member Board, and asks Cassidy
how many votes would constitute a valid vote on this extension
request. Cassidy answers that this type of a vote requires a
simple majority of Board members in order to pass; this will
require five votes of the nine-member Board.
Planning Board minutes
March 19, 1996 meeting
page eight
Thomson:
motion to grant an extension of the expiration date of
the special permit for the project at 253 Rantoul Street
from March 22, 1996 to September 22, 1996, seconded by
Sullivan. Papa asks Glovsky if six months is a realistic
timetable, since it is unlikely construction will
conclude during that time. Glovsky states that the
developer is convinced he can exercise the permit during
that time. Papa states that it has been the Board's
policy to discourage long extensions, and believes it is
not in the Board's best interest to extend the permit.
He asks Cassidy what would happen if the Board elected
not to extend the permit; Cassidy answers that the owner
would have to refile an application for the special
permit.
VOTE ON THE MOTION: Papa, Thomson, Modugno, Flannery,
Dunn, Sullivan in favor. Motion carries.
Manzi resumes the chair.
Brimbal Hill Drive subdivision: request for extension of
construction completion date referenced in FormS Restrictive
Covenant / Roger Wyner
Cassidy explains that discussion on this request was tabled at the
last Board meeting so that the City Solicitor's input could be
obtained on possible legal ramifications of the Board's action.
Cassidy states that she has discussed the matter with the City
Solicitor and that he has advised the Board to consider the request
on its merits, or lack thereof, without regard to possible future
legal action by the owner.
Thomson states that there appears to be sound reasons why the
developer could not complete work during the initial two-year time
frame. Sullivan adds that initial requests for completion
extensions are not out of the ordinary.
Dinkin:
motion to grant the applicant's request for an extension
of the construction completion date for the Brimbal Hill
Drive subdivision plan from April 28, 1996 to October 28,
1997. Motion seconded by Papa, all in favor. Motion
carries.
9. Moore Circle Subdivision: remand of court case / Paul and
Sheila Moore
Cassidy explains that the Board tabled action at the last Board
meeting pending clarification on formal action needed by the Board.
She states that the subdivision plan has been modified to resolve
a pending court case, and that the court has remanded the plan back
Planning Board Minutes
March 19, 1996 meeting
page nine
to both the Beverly and Danvers Planning Boards for review. She
reads letter from Commissioner of Public Works George Zambouras
(see file) indicating that he has reviewed the plan and found that
none of the plan modifications are in Beverly, and that the
modifications being proposed result in a better drainage plan from
Beverly's perspective. Manzi asks Cassidy to reread the letter,
given the concerns of the city councilor representing the ward in
which the project is located. Dinkin states that the Board should
first consider whether the modifications ate "major" or "minor"
changes, and then consider approving or disapproving them.
Dinkin:
motion to find that the modifications to the approved
Moore Circle subdivision plan are minor in nature,
seconded by Thomson. All in favor, motion carries.
Dinkin:
motion to approve the proposed modifications to the
approved Moore Circle subdivision plan subject to the
following conditions:
1. That all conditions and covenants applicable to the
Board's original approval remain in full force and
effect; and
2. That an "Intermunicipal Agreement" be executed by both
the Beverly City Council and Danvers Board of Selectmen
with respect to the provision of municipal services.
Motion seconded by Thomson, all members in favor. Motion
carries.
10.
Thomas Road: Request to set public hearing date for requested
waiver from M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81--R / Christopher
Velonis
Cassidy explains that the Board has received a request from the
owner of property at the end of Thomas Road for a waiver from the
frontage requirements of the zoning ordinance as permitted by
M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81-R. The Board of Appeals has
previously granted a variance for less frontage than is required by
the zoning ordinance.
Dinkin:
motion to schedule a public hearing on the above-
referenced request for the Board's April 17, 1996 regular
meeting, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor,
motion carries.
11.
City Council Order #74: Amendment to the zoning ordinance to
permit consideration of use variances for structures deemed
historically-significant
Planning Board minutes
March 19, 1996 meeting
page ten
Cassidy explains that the Board has received an Order which would
allow the Zoning Board of Appeals to consider granting use
variances for structures in residential zoning districts if the
structure were deemed historically significant by the Historic
District Commission.
Dinkin:
motion to recommend to the City Council that a Joint
Public Hearing between the two boards be scheduled for
City Council Order #74. Motion seconded by Flannery, all
members in favor. Motion carries.
Approval of Minutes: Januax7 16, 1996 regular meeting;
February 20, 1996 regular meeting; and March 12, 1996 special
meeting
Manzi asks if there are any changes that must be made to the
minutes. There are none.
Dinkin:
motion to approve the minutes of the Board's 1/16/96,
2/20/96, and 3/12/96 meetings a8 drafted, seconded by
Modugno. All members in favor, motion carries.
13. New or Other Business
Cassidy informs the Board that it has received a copy of an amnesty
license application for property at 44 Prince Street. She states
that no formal action is necessary by the Board, but that it is on
file in the Planning Department should members wish to review it.
She also notes that a special meeting of the Board will be held on
April 1, 1996 beginning at 7:00 p.m. with the City Council, and
that the regular April meeting of the Board will be held on the
third Wednesday of the month, on April 17th.
Dinkin:
motion to adjourn, seconded by Sullivan. All members in
favor, motion carries.
Meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.