1996-12-17Minutes
Beverly Pla-ning Board
December 17, 1996 Meeting
Members present: Chairman James Manzi, Joanne Dunn, Bill Delaney,
Richard Dinkin, John Thomson, Barry Sullivan, Ellen Flannery; also
present: Planning Director Tina Cassidy, Assistant Planning
Director Debbie Hurlburt and Susan Akerman, Secretary to the Board.
Chairman Manzi calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Sullivan: motion to recess for public hearings, seconded by
Thomson. All in favor, motion carries.
Public Hearing (continued): 22 Paine Avenue: Special Permit
Request for Creation of pork-chop lot / Paul Quinn, First City
Development Cor~.
Cassidyreads the legal notice and states that there are two issues
that were outstanding as of the last meeting. The first related to
fire flow tests to be performed on Paine Avenue. Those results
came back and the Fire Dept., in a letter dated December 12, 1996
stated that the flow is quite sufficient; the second issue was a
request for a legal opinion from the City Solicitor. Cassidy reads
letter from City Solicitor (on file).
Cassidy reads the following letters to the Members:
- Memorandum from City Solicitor Marshall handly dated
December 12, 1996. (On File)
Letter from Mr. Eric Bornhofft of Paine Avenue. (On File)
- Letter dated 12/19/96 written on behalf of Elizabeth Garcia
and signed by Mr. Garcia. (On File)
- Letter dated 12/16/96 from Ronald & Kathleen Jackson.
(On File)
Planning Board Minutes
December 17, 1996 Meeting
Page Two
- Letter dated 12/5/96 from Serafini, Serafini & Darling,
Salem, MA. (On File)
- Letter dated 11/15/96 from Fred Horne. (On File)
Chairman Manzi asks if Counsel would like to make a presentation.
Mark Glovsky, Counsel for Mr. Quinnaddresses the Board and updates
the Members and states that issues have been clouded, and they are
not asking for a variance. Mr. Glovsky adds that the Rg0 zoning
will be adhered to. Mr. Glovsky states that 21 other lots in this
vicinity do not meet the required frontage of the R90 zoning, and
that this lot will meet the requirements of the zoning provision
for pork-chop lots.
Chairman Manzi asks if any members of the public wish to be heard
by the Board.
Richard Thorndike 3rd, 71 Paine Avenue states that he is opposed to
the creation of the pork-chop lot or any other lot that doesn't
meet the requirements of the R90 zoning.
A resident of 38 Paine Avenue states that the other 21 lots are
irrelevant and that he is concerned with the infrastructure, and
additional demands on water pressure.
Harold Pinkham, 35 Thorndike Street addresses the Board and states
that Mr. Quinn has rights to create two houses, that individuals
have rights to prevent the two houses from going up, but he
believes the Historical Commission's input is an important
principal, add believes the historic value should be considered for
restoring the house to its original condition.
Ian Gardiner, Paine Avenue states that he is opposed and that he is
concerned with the infrastructure, density, and the character of
the neighborhood, that the area will be changed.
Conor Fennessy, 11 Paine Avenue states that he is opposed entirely,
that issues have been clouded by the historical group, that there
is no guarantee that Mr. Quinn is going to restore the house and
that the R90 zoning should be maintained.
Anna Haley, 65 Paine Avenue states that the R90 zoning should be
maintained to keep the integrity of the neighborhood.
Elizabeth Riorden, 25 Paine Avenue states that she is opposed and
that laws should not be bent and that there should be a commitment
to those who live there.
Planning Board Minutes
December 17, 1996 Meeting
Page Three
George Gardner, 37 Paine Avenue states that he is concerned with
the density.
Attorney John Serafini of Serafini, Serafini & Darling;
representing the neighbors addresses the Board and states that
there are five other letters from residents of Paine Avenue who are
in opposition and who are concerned with the Petition.
Mr. Serafini submits a letter from Mr. Robert Noone, a Real Estate
appraiser, who researched the adverse effect the lot will have on
the property value and stated in his letter that the creation of
the pork-chop lot would cause a decrease in the value of properties
that abut the new lot because the roadway was designed in such a
way that it curves and the width was kept at a minimum, not an
adequate way and that the view should be preserved. He also stated
in his letter that there is no 75' of required frontage, that it
fails to meet the requirements of this ordinance and that the
petition should be denied.
Joseph Haley, 65 Paine Avenue addresses the Board and states that
the plan is being reviewed by the Planning Board which involves two
lots, the pork-chop lot and the remaining lot but explains that the
zoning law measurement excludes a portion that is in the throat of
the pork-chop lot. Mr. Haley states that it is on the margin to
grant a special permit and states that, in keeping with the intent
of the Ordinance, it should include this area within the portion of
the pork-chop lot that isn't useable.
Chairman Manzi asks if any other members of the public wish to be
heard by the Board. Hearing no response, Manzi closes the public
hearing.
Public Hearing: 30 Rantoul Street: Special Permit Request to
operate take out establishment in the "CC" zoning district as
permitted by the Board of Appeals / Karen & Dennis L'Italien
Cassidy reads the legal notice.
Cassidy reads the following letters to the Members:
- Letter dated 12/12/96 from the Beverly Police Department.
(On File)
- Letter dated 12/12/96 from the Beverly Fire Department.
(On File)
- Letter dated 12/12/96 from the Beverly Board of Health.
(On File)
Planning Board Minutes
December 17, 1996 Meeting
Page Four
Chairman Manzi asks if the applicants are present to make a
presentation.
Richard Gardner addresses the Board and states that he is looking
to open a small take out seafood restaurant on Rantoul Street and
asks if the Members have any questions.
Chairman Manzi asks if it conforms to all the rules and regulations
for special permits. Cassidy states yes, since the Board of
Appeals granted the applicant the right to request a special permit
for this use.
Chairman Manzi asks if any members of the public wish to be heard
by the Board. Hearing no response, Manzi closes the public hearing
and returns the Board to regular session.
Discussion/Decision: 22 Paine Avenue: pork-chop lot special
permit request / Paul Quinn, First City Development
CorOoration.
Cassidy states that the issues that have been raised during the
hearing include the subjects of: legal frontage, preservation of
the building and adequacy of the services.
Delaney: motion to recess for five minutes, seconded by Dinkin.
All in favor, motion carries.
Cassidy distributes copies of letters that have been received on
this filing to the Board members for review.
Delaney: motion to reconvene, seconded by Dinkin. All in favor,
motion carries.
Dinkin asks/states:
- Asks does propose pork-chop lot have adequate frontage;
States that the existence of the road does not hinge upon
the 1977 subdivision plan and that the applicant does in
fact have easements throughout the total area;
Asks is there something about this proposal that is so
different/unique from neighbors that would cause an adverse
affect on the area;
- States that he does not believe that the proposed lots
will be so different in their size or physical access;
Planning Board Minutes
December 17, 1996 Meeting
Page Five
- Asks will there be any impact on value of abutting
properties, he believes there would not be;
- States that applicant will use the proceeds of the lot sale
for the restoration of the Old Fort;
- States that the requirements for a special permit for the
creation of a pork-chop lot are met by this application.
Sullivan asks if there is a mechanism to guarantee that the
applicant will restore the Old Fort and that the new home will be
in keeping with the character of Paine Avenue.
Glovsky addresses the Board and states that he has prepared a
preservation agreement that would take effect upon the issuance of
a building permit for the first lot, but it has not been approved
by the Massachusetts Historic Commission as of yet. Glovsky states
that preliminary plans for a Queen Anne building have been prepared
for the second lot; the plans are shown to the members, as is the
draft presentation agreement.
Delaney asks if water/sewer information is available and if testing
has been done and if what exists is adequate. Glovsky states that
tests have been done and the Fire Department has indicated that the
results have been deemed acceptable for the additional lot.
Delaney asks how the lots are provided with sanitory waste
disposal. Mr. Glovsky states a non-conforming cess-pool which will
need updating to meet current Title V requirements.
Delaney asks if there is an ability to tie in to an existing sewer
line. Mr. Glovsky states he is not aware of any ability to do so
at present.
Delaney states that he is in favor of this proposal, that the
preservation of the existing home is not the main issue but rather
a collateral issue, but that there are reasonable and necessary
issues that necessitate considering the imposition of certain
conditions.
Delaney states that the applicant has met the ten criteria for
special permits outlined in the zoning ordinances.
Delaney also states that: (a) abutting properties won't be
adversely affected; (b) that Noone's letter says very little, that
there is no back up or consideration that renovations and
improvements might have a positive impact on property values; (c)
that no undue traffic will be added; (d) that there is adequate and
appropriate facilities available to service the lots; (e) test
Planning Board Minutes
December 17, 1996 Meeting
Page Six
flows have been done and have been deemed acceptable by the
appropriate City agency; (f) the pork-chop lot meets the zoning
requirements for frontage; and (g) application meets the
requirements of the zoning ordinance.
Dinkin states that he is concerned about the wisdom of placing
conditions on the special permit and asks if the applicant is
willing to accept these conditions.
Thomson states that he understands Dinkin's reservations but feels
because the granting of the special permit is discretionary, the
Board can impose conditions. He would like to place certain
conditions on the special permit because he would like to see the
Old Fort preserved.
Delaney states that he is concerned with timing of the proposed
preservation agreement, and suggests that the agreement be
triggered by the issuance of a building permit for the new lot.
Glovsky responds that a five year period be attached to the
preservation agreement to assure that the property is restored.
Sullivan suggests that the Board consider mandating that the
special permit would lapse if a building permit is not obtained
within 180 days after the appeal period expires or litigation
conducted.
Sullivan states that he also believes the Board should place
conditions on the Special Permit.
Dinkin states that the Board should consider conditioning the
Special Permit by prohibiting the issuance of a building permit for
the second lot until the preservation agreement is accepted by the
Historic District Commission and the City Solicitor.
Dinkin:
motion to approve the special permit for the following
reasons: (1) That the property proposed for division had
frontage on a street in existence at the date of adoption
of the pork-chop lot provision of the zoning ordinance;
(2) That the property at 22 Paine Avenue is an
appropriate location for the creation of a pork chop lot
because the lots meet the requirements of the zoning
ordinance and because the application to create a single-
family house lot is in keeping with the character of
adjoining uses to the property; (3) That no factual
evidence was found during the Board's review of the
application that would indicate that property values in
the district would be adversely affected by the proposed
use; a report submitted by an appraiser retained by a
member of the public alleging a diminution of property
Planning Board Minutes
December 17, 1996 Meeting
Page Seven
value for an abutter was found by the Board to be so
vague, broad, lacking in specifics and incomplete as to
be unreliable and not credible; (4) That no undue
traffic, nuisance, or unreasonable hazard will result
from the granting of this petition to create one
additional single-family home; (5) That adequate and
appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper
operation and maintenance of the proposed use; in
particular, the Board noted approval of fire flow test
results by the Fire Department and State Sanitary Code
Title 5 requirements for subsurface sanitary disposal
systems that will be imposed by the Board of Health;
(6) That there were no valid objections from abutting
property owners based on demonstrable fact; (7) That the
proposed pork-chop lot satisfied the applicable
dimensional requirements for area, width, yard setbacks,
and depth of lot requirements specified in the zoning
ordinance; and (8) That there is not more than one other
pork-chop shaped lot with frontage contiguous to it. The
special permit was granted Subject to the following
conditions: (1) That no building permit will be issued
for the second building lot until such time as a
Preservation Agreement, approved by the Beverly City
Solicitor and Beverly Historic District Commission, is
executed; and (2) That the special permit is valid as
long as the existing historic structure is not
substantially demolished, seconded by Sullivan and
approved unanimously.
Discussion/Decision: 30 Rantoul Street: special permit
request for take-out establishment in the "CC" Zoning District
/ Karen & Dennis L'Italien.
Cassidy updates the Board.
Dinkin asks if there have been any objections from abutters.
Cassidy responds no.
Sullivan questions whether this special permit, if granted, would
apply only to this applicant to operate a take out restaurant or
whether it would allow any type of fast food take out by any
operator.
Thomson states that he is concerned with the time limit on the
permit, and asks if it should be renewable after five years to make
sure that the Board is happy with the circumstances.
Sullivan recommends that the granting of the permit be worded in
such a way as to require a new owner to come in for a renewal and
Planning Board Minutes
December 17, 1996 Meeting
Page Eight
approval of operation in the event a moretraffic intensive use was
proposed for this site in the future.
Sullivan states that he has no problem with a take out facility but
is concerned that there may be a problem if this establishment were
to become one with a delivery service and four or five trucks are
added.
Sullivan: motion to grant special permit to operate a take out
seafood establishment with no sit down dining at 30
Rantoul Street and to incorporate the site plan and floor
plan as presented as part of the approval, seconded by
Dinkin. Motion carries 6-0.
3. Discussion/Decision: Woodland Road definitive subdivision plan
/ S & J Development
Cassidy reads letter dated 12/13/96 from the Commissioner of Public
Works that indicates several unresolved issues and problems with
the drainage calculations that have been submitted by the
development team. (On File)
Thomson states that he can't see how the Board can act on this
without sufficient information.
Cassidy references a letter dated 12/17/96 from Attorney Alexander,
and summarizes its contents for the Board.
Thomson asks if the applicant has investigated an abutter's claim
that the water line existing in Montserrat Road is on private
property. Attorney Tom Alexander, representing the developer
states that the line is in fact in a public utility easement and
that th eproposed water line in this development will be connected
to it.
Delaney states that the Board is waiting for the Public Works'
director's comments on the revised drainage calculations and
informs the audience and the applicant that there will be other
issues/concerns that the Board will need to discussed at the next
meeting, including the waivers being requested by the applicants.
Cassidy states that the developers have requested an extension of
time for Board action to January 22, 1997.
Thomson: motion to accept extension to january 22, 1997, seconded
by Dinkin. All in favor, motion carries.
Planning Board Minutes
December 17, 1996 Meeting
Page Nine
4. Discussion/Decision: Porter Terrace Extension preliminary
subdivision plan / Crosby and Davis
Cassidy updates the Board and states that there are two waivers
being requested; one is a waiver for minimum radius and the second
waiver is for a right of way width design of 40' instead of 50' as
required. Cassidy states that modifications have been made to the
hammerhead design.
Attorney Alexander addresses the concerns of the angle of the
hammerhead and states that it has been extended on one side.
Sullivan asks if City Engineer George Zambouras has reviewed this
new plan. Cassidy states that George has not had a chance to
comment upon it as of yet, since it was not submitted to him prior
to the meeting.
Delaney asks if the square footage of the paved area of the
proposed hammerhead has been increased. Mr. Vernon LeBlanc,
engineer for the project, responds yes and explains that the area
of the road is now 10,000 square feet compared to the first draft
of the preliminary plan on which the road and turnaround covered
8,000 square feet, and that it does add more impervious area to the
parcel.
Delaney asks if the length and width of the road and hammerhead are
different. LeBlanc responds yes and explains that the dimensions
of the hammerhead are now 90 x 36 compared to 73 x 24 previously.
Delaney states that he is not sold on the plan, that it is not an
appropriate use of the property, and that he is not in favor of
granting waivers of the Board's requirements for radius and road
layout.
Thomson states that he is concerned with the overall amount of area
that would become impervious and is not prepared to grant the
waivers requested.
Delaney: motion to deny the requested waiver from the Board's
regulations regarding minimum roadway layout widths,
seconded by Sullivan. Motion carries 5-1.
Delaney:
motion to deny the requested waiver regarding the minimum
radius requirement at the intersection, seconded by
Sullivan. Motion carries 5-1.
Delaney:
motion to deny the preliminary subdivision plan of Porter
Street Extension, seconded by Sullivan. Motion carries
6-0.
Planning Board Minutes
December 17, 1996 Meeting
Page Ten
5. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR'S), if any
a. 280 Rantoul Street / Hilldie
Cassidy addresses the Board and states that the plan meets all the
Board's requirements for ANR plans and should be endorsed as such.
Dinkin:
motion to endorse the plan of land for 280 Rantoul Street
as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision
Control Law, seconded by Delaney. All in favor, motion
carries.
b. Cornell Road Extension
Cassidy addresses the Board and states that the plan meets all the
Board's requirements for ANR plans and should be endorsed as such.
Delaney:
motion to endorse the plan of land for Cornell Road
Extension as one not requiring approval under the
Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Dinkin. All in
favor, motion carries.
Laurel Ridge Subdivision: Request for extension of
construction completion date referenced in Form G Restrictive
Covenant / N.E.H.S., Beverly Hospital
William Tinti of Tinti, Quinn & Savoy, attorney for N.E.H.S. and
Beverly Hospital addresses the Board and explains that he is
seeking an extension of the construction completion date referenced
in the Form G Covenant for an additienal six months.
Dinkin asks if the property is subject to pending litigation. Mr.
Tinti responds yes.
Delaney asks if a six month extension would coincide with the
expiration of any zoning freeze exemption for the Laurel Ridge
Subdivision. Cassidy states yes.
Delaney:
motion to grant applicant's request for an extension of
construction completion date to June 30, 1997, seconded
by Dinkin. All in favor, motion carries.
7. Cherry Hill Industrial Subdivision: Request for extension of
construction completion date / The Flatley Company
Cassidy updates the Board, and informs members that Flatley has
requested a six month extension .of the completion date for this
project.
Planning Board Minutes
DeCember 17, 1996 Meeting
Page Eleven
Delaney:
motion to grant applicant's request for an extension of
construction completion date to June 30, 1997, seconded
by Sullivan. All in favor, motion carries 6-0.
8. Approval of minutes: November 19, 1996 Reqular Meetinq
Manzi asks if there are any correction that need to be made to the
minutes as drafted. There are none.
Delaney:
motion to approve the minutes of the Board's November 19,
1996 meeting as drafted, seconded by Flannery. All in
favor, motion carries 6-0.
9. New or Other Business
a. January 6, 1997 Joint Public Hearing with City Council /
Order #467 regulating towers and antennae
Cassidy updates the Board and states that there will be a Joint
Public Hearing On January 6, 1997 to discuss regulations regarding
radio and telephone transmissions.
b. Signing of plans:
49 Boyles Street definitive plan
(Arthur Sheehan)
Moore Circle Subdivision plan
(Paul & Sheila Moore)
Cassidy updates the Board and states that these plans need to be
signed.
Adjournment
Dinkin: motion to adjourn, seconded by Delaney. All in favor,
motion carries 6-0.
Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.