1997-06-17 Minutes
Beverly Planning Board
June 17, 1997 Meeting
Members present: Chairman James Manzi, Vice-Chairman Richard Dinkin, John Thomson, Steve
Papa, Joanne Dunn, Ellen Flannery, Batty Sullivan and Bill Delaney. Also present: Planning
Director Tina Cassidy and Assistant Planning Director Debbie Hurlburt.
Chairman Manzi calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Consideration of Repetitive Petition in accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section
16 / 321 & 325 Cabot Street / Robert & Cheryl Brilliant, Gall Balboni & Robert
Carrarini
Cassidy reads legal notice. Manzi asks if counsel for the applicants would like to make a
presentation. Attomey Alan Grenier addresses the Board, and introduces himself and applicant
Robert Brilliant.
Grenier presents the proposal to the Board and adds that he has submitted this proposal as a new
filing, not as a repefitive petition.
Delaney asks Grenier if he could describe the difference in this plan as one being a new filing
and not as a repetitive petition. Grenier responds that there are two criteria for this difference,
one being that the addition would comply with the zoning setbacks and therefore doesn't rely on
non-conforming status, and two being that they had added properly to the rear of the tot for
additional parking.
Cassidy states that them are additional units, the initial proposal calls for 22 units and this plan
shows 26.
Delaney asks Grenier to present what changes have been made to the plan that would specifically
and materially affect the conditions on which the original petitions were denied.
Grenier responds that there are two chahges, one being the additional property, and two being
that they no longer require non-conforming status, and those two constitute a specific and
material change.
Planning Board Minutes
June 17, 1997 Meeting
Page Two
Grenier states that he filed this plan as a new special permit application, not as a repetitive
petition. Delaney asks Cassidy to respond to what the Board is to be reviewing at this time.
Cassidy explains MGL Chapter 40A regarding repetitive petitions and states that if a special
permit is denied, then the Board must first find that specific and material changes have occurred
to the conditions on which the initial denial was based, not changes to the plan necessarily.
Second, the Board must consent to rehear the application.
Dinkin asks Grenier if he thinks that this plan should be treated as an entirely different
application, with the time frame starting on the date that you filed this recent plan. Grenier
responds yes.
Thomson asks if there is an addition that no longer extends to the rear lot line, and if it will be
removed. Brilliant responds that the original plan shows an existing building on the revised plan
with an additional story having the same setbacks. Brilliant adds that the existing building stays
but the new addition sits 15' from the property line, to comply with the zoning requirements.
Cassidy adds that zoning issues were not cited by the Board last November when the original
petition was denied.
Thomson asks if the existing building is going to stay on its current footprint. Grenier responds
yes. Cassidy states that she understands that there is a lease or sale option pending on the
additional land that would be added to the project: however. she is not clear on this issue.
Grenier clarifies that his client has contracted to purchase the property.
Dinkin asks about the property that is pertinent to the purchase and sale agreement, and if the
use of that property will be part of this plan. Grenier responds yes for parking and landscaping.
Brilliant states that the Building Inspector wrote a letter to the Planning Board with concerns at
the last minute last year, and he was of the understanding that these issues were all set. Brilliant
adds that he redesigned the nlan to address the setbacks, parking, handicapped ramp and other
code issues that were highlighted in that letter.
Thomson states that them are four reasons cited in the original denial of the Special Permit and
the site plan and that the Board is required to take these reasons in consideration. Thomson
mentions the denial does not mention setbacks or parking inadequacies on site. Grenier responds
that those are ethereal issues, and property changes are quite appropriate. Grenier adds that by
adding the properly there are changes in the setbacks and the addition is no longer non-
conforming.
Dinkin states that he thinks that the question to be resolved is the determination that this filing
is a repetitive petition filing or a new special permit. Dinkin suggests that this is an
administrative decision, in this case, the City, Planner's, although there should be an appeal to
that process, and what venue would be available to the petitioner.
Planning Board Minutes
July 17, 1997 Meeting
Page Three
Grenier states that the relief is the specific and material change to the plan, but not to the
decision itself.
Dinkin asks Grenier if he agrees that the planning director is the entity to make that decision.
Grenier responds that it is a planning board. Dinkin asks Grenier if he then believes that if the
Planning Board determines it to be a repetitive petition, then would the Board's consent to rehear
the repetitive petition within two years be required. Grenier responds that it is up to the Board.
Thomson asks Grenier if he applied for this to be a repetitive petition. Grenier responds no, as
a brand new filing.
Dinkin:
Move to recess for ten minutes, seconded by Delaney. All members in favor,
motion carries.
The Board is back in session.
Delaney states that based on his review of MGL Chapter 40A, Section 16, he doesn't agree with
Attomey Grenier, and that he agrees that this application constitutes a reapplication of a special
permit and site plan review petition. Delaney adds that the criteria is not the plan itself but the
conditions upon which the Board's original decision was based. Delaney states that the decision
did not reference zoning issues and was not cited in the Board's decision. Delaney states that
one of the changes is the physical layout of parking. and the question is whether the building
addition and the additional parking affects the criteria on which the Board based its November
decision. Delaney restates the reasons for the original denial: 1. that factual, credible evidence
was presented at the public hearing which indicated that property values in the area would be
adversely affected; 2. that the project would create nuisance and traffic congestion concerns; 3.
that the character of the adjoining neighborhood and uses would be adversely affected by the
proposed project; and 4. that the site is not an appropriate location for the intensity of-the use
being proposed. Delaney states that the applicants have not submitted any new or additional
information to the Board to counter those findings and if anything, the new plan causes more
concern than the first one did. He believes that the applications now before the Board are indeed
repetitive petitions.
Dinkin states that he believes that during the discussion earlier this evening it was represented
that the configuration of the architecture itself and the rooms within the addition would have less
impact on the neighborhood. Grenier responds that the plan conforms to zoning and that they
are not creating any non-conformities.
Brilliant states that the original plan had exterior porches with lights and the redesign has
eliminated the lights and the porches, that this is now only a colonial building and the layout
includes a common hallway.
Planning Board Minutes
June 17, 1997 Meeting
Page Four
Dinkin asks if the pomhes on the plan were intended to face Cabot Street or the rear of the
building. Brilliant responds they would face the parking lot toward Cabot Street.
Thomson states his belief that such architectural modifications would not material change the
conditions cited by the Board and that he does not believe that the Board should consent to
rehear the reapplications.
Delaney:
motion to find that specific and material changes have not occurred to the
conditions on which the first denial was based, seconded by Sullivan. Dinkin,
Flannety, Sullivan, Delaney, Dunn, Papa, Thomson and Manzi in favor. Motion
carries 8-0.
Dinkin:
motion to recess for public heating, seconded by Delaney. All members in favor,
motion carries.
Public Hearing: 224 Elliott Street / Modification to approved Site Plan /
(proposed Stop & Shop development) National Development of New England
Cassidy reads legal notice. Cassidy updates the Board and indicates that since the site plan was
approved, Mass Highway has plans to do work on the balance of Route 62, and the City wanted
to coordinate the work of Mass Highway with Stop & Shop because there were different roadway
and construction methods being proposed. The site plan amendments would result in uniformity
of design and construction materials.
Cassidy states that she has received a letter for Sherry Clancy from National Development and
also a letter from City Engineer Frank Killilea for Stop and Shop dated June 17, 1997 and reads
the letters to the Board (see file).
Clancy states that this is primarily a house-cleaning item to them and that the changes need to
be made.
Delaney asks if the Engineering Department has reviewed the changes. Cassidy responds yes
and indicated that the letter she read was from the new City Engineer.
Delaney asks if the changes are more costly than before. Cassidy responds yes, in some cases.
Delaney asks if the State and National Development of New England are working together on
these items, and who will be paying for the upgrade. Clancy responds that the project is being
coordinated, and that the State will be paying for the upgrade.
Planning Board Minutes
June 17, 1997 Meeting
Page Five
Manzi asks if there is anyone else who would like to speak on this item. There being none,
Manzi closes the Public Hearing.
Dinkin:
Move to approve the proposed modifications to the previously-approved site plan
for 224 Elliott Street. seconded by Papa. Thomson. Flannery. Dunn. Sullivan,
Delaney. Dinkin and Papa in favor. Motion carries 7-0.
Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR's)
Prince and Hale Street / Dexter Trust
Thomson and Sullivan recused themselves from discussion on this matter.
Cassidy presents the plan to the Board and indicates that there is frontage on Prince Street and
Hale Street. Cassidy also briefly discusses the proposed plan for Ben Eisenstadt property because
both of these plans relate to one another. Cassidy states that for instance. Lot Six on this plan
is to be conveyed to adjacent property which is reflected on the 345 Hale Street ANR plan
(Eisenstadt). This plan reflects six lots; two are not to be considered buildable lots and are to
be conveyed to other adjacent lots, one has an existing house on it, and three are to be buildable
lots.
Cassidy reads letter from the City Clerk dated June 17, 1997 regarding the City maintaining and
using Prince Street as a city street (see file).
Manzi asks if the plan meets the City's Rules and Regulations. Cassidy responds that it does.
Dinkin:
Move to approve plan identified at Prince and Hale Street, for Dexter Trust, as a
plan not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by
Flannery. Dunn, Delaney, Dinkin, Flannery and Papa in thvor. Motion carries 5-0.
345 Hale Street / Eisenstadt
Thomson and Sullivan recuse themselves from discussion on this matter.
Cassidy presents the plan to the Board and indicates that this plan is adjacent to the previous plan
that the Board discussed on Prince and Hale Street. Cassidy states that this plan indicates five
lots; two are not to be considered separate building lots, one has an existing house, and two are
buildable lots.
Planning Board Minutes
June 17, 1997 Meeting
Page Six
Manzi asks if this plan meets the City's Rules and Regulations. Cassidy responds that it does.
Dinkin: move to approve plan identified at 345 Hale Street as a plan not requiring
approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Flannery, Dunn,
Dinkin, Flannery, Delaney and Papa in favor. Motion carries 5-0.
Thomson and Sullivan return to the meeting.
325R Elliort Street / Prince
Cassidy presents the plan to the Board states that there are three lots on the plan: A, B & C, and
indicates that the applicant wants to convey Lot A to Lot C.
Manzi asks if the plan meets the City's Rules and Regulations. Cassidy responds that it does.
Dinkin: move to endorse the plan identified as 325R Elliott Street as one not requiring
approval under the subdivision control law, seconded by Delaney, Dunn, Dinkin,
Delaney, Flannery, Papa, Sullivan and Thomson in favor. Motion carries. 7-0.
Discussion/decision: The Planters Subdivision - Acceptance of Funds for Tot Lot
Improvements and Traffic Improvements mandated by 1992 Subdivision Approval
Recommendation to City Council on Acceptance of Deed to Tot Lot / John Keilty.
Cassidy updates the Board and states that back in 1992, when the Board approved the
subdivision, a number of conditions were placed on the approval. One was for the design and
expenditure of at least $15,000 to improve the upland portion of the tot-lot, with the design to
be approved by the Commissioner of Public Works and the Recreation Department. Cassidy adds
that another condition was that the developer expend $15,000 to fix the intersection of Essex and
Hull Streets.
Cassidy reads letter from Keilty that provides for the $30,000; $15,000 for the tot-lot and $15,000
for the street improvements at Hull and Essex Street. Cassidy states that the letter asks the Board
to accept the money and recommend to the City Council that they accept this money. Cassidy
adds that generally the developer does the improvements; however, that has not been what the
Recreation Department would prefer, they would prefer the money so that they could do the
improvements.
Dinkin states that there is a liability issue, and wonders if the appropriate City agencies have
been contacted and if they are agreeable. Cassidy responds that she is clear that the Recreation
Department would prefer the money and coordinate with the other departments. She has not
spoken with the Engineering Department on the matter.
Planning Board Minutes
June 17, 1997 Meeting
Page Seven
Sullivan asks how did the City arrive at the $15,000 amount and wonders if it is enough to do
the work and what is the timetable to do the work. Cassidy responds that the timetable is driven
by how quickly the Recreation Commission can consider this, and adds that it is advisable that
they handle the design as expeditiously as possible. Cassidy goes on to state that as far as the
amount is concerned the Board referred to the Maplewood subdivision because they did a similar
project a month in advance of this project for $10,000 and that it seemed appropriate at the time
the subdivision was constructed.
Thomson asks what is the condition of the site now. Cassidy responds that she did not know.
Delaney states that there needs to be a plan, and it should be designed by the developer. Delaney
adds that he is not inclined to allow other entities to design something that the developer is
responsible for, and that he is not sure that the City can handle this in a timely fashion and
maybe the developer should build it.
Dinkin states that there are several issues here, and that he concurs with Delaney. Dinkin adds
that others may prefer that the Recreation Department manage this, but it is clear to him that the
requirement is to spend a minimum of $15,000 for tot-lot, and the requirement to create a plan
to develop a tot-lot area is a separate requirement. Dinkin goea on to state that at the minimum,
in addition to giving the money for the development of the lot, either a complete plan needs to
be filed or the Board needs to create a monetary figure for the development of the plan. Dinkin
states that the roadway improvements are specific and are not to exceed $15,000 and that the
Board can accept this item.
Thomson asks if the applicant is willing to separate the two. Dinkin responds that the Board can
deny the request and the Board can refuse accept the check for $30,000. Dinkin adds that the
City should contact the developer to get a figure to develop the plan.
Cassidy states that the Board can table this until July.
Dinkin: move to table discussion of the Planters Subdivision discussion until July,
seconded by Delaney. Dunn, Thomson, Flannery, Papa, Dinkin, Delaney and
Sullivan in favor. Motion carries, 7-0.
Discussion/decision: Cherry Hill Park Subdivision / Expiration of Conslruction Completion Date / The Flatle Comvanv
Cassidy states that the Planning Department has received a letter from the Flatley Company
requesting an extension of the construction completion date, and reads the letter to the members.
Planning Board Minutes
June 17, 1997 Meeting
Page Eight
Dinkin asks if the current surety is adequate to complete the project if necessary. Cassidy
responds that George Zambouras checked the last time an extension was sought, and there has
not been a reduction in surety and that there are enough funds to complete remaining work items.
Dinkin: move that the Board extend the construction completion date for the Flatley
Company to June 30, 1998, seconded by Flannery.
Dunn, Delaney, Papa, Dinkin, Flannery, Sullivan and Thomson in favor. Motion carries, 7-0.
Discussion/decision: Morgan's Island Subdivision / Expiration of Tri-Partite Agreement /
Dennis & Karen L'ltalien
Cassidy state that the Planning Department is in receipt of a letter from Dennis & Karen L'Italien
seeking a one year extension of the Tri-Partite Agreement as surety for the Morgan's Island
subdivision. A letter signed by the Danvers Savings Bank agreeing to the extension has been
submitted (see file).
Dinkin: move to accept the extension of the Tri-Partite Agreement for the Morgan's Island
Subdivision to June 30, 1998, seconded by Sullivan.
Dunn, Flannery, Delaney,Dinkin, Sullivan, Thomson and Papa in favor. Motion carries, 7-0.
Discussion/decision: Conifer Way Subdivision / Expiration of Construction Completion Date / Jeffrey Bunk
Cassidy states that the Planning Department is in receipt of a letter from Jeffrey Bunk seeking
a one year extension of the construction completion dare for this project to June 27, 1998.
Dinkin: move to extend the conslruction completion date for the Conifer Way subdivision
to June 27, 1998. seconded by Flannery.
Dunn, Sullivan, Thomson, Papa, Dinkin,
Flannery and Delaney in favor. Motion carries, 7-0.
Discussion/decision: Birch Woods Subdivision: Expiration of Construction Completion Date / David Walsh
Cassidy states that the Planning Department is in receipt of a letter from David Walsh seeking
an extension of the Form G Covenant and the construction completion date from June 30, 1997
to June 30, 1998. Cassidy adds that the reason for this extension request is due to the appeals
that have been filed with the Conservation Commission for 8 of the 13 lots.
Dinkin: move to grant the extension of the construction completion date of the Birch
Woods Subdivision for one year to June 30, 1998, seconded by Thomson.
Flannery, Dunn, Sullivan, Dinkin, Thomson, Papa and Delaney in favor. Motion carries, 7-0.
Planning Board Minutes
June 17, 1997 Meeting
Page Nine
Discussion/decision: Moore Circle Subdivision
Cassidy states that this item is not on the agenda tonight.
Informal Discussion: 58-62 South Terrace / Jack Heaphy
Cassidy states that Mr. Heaphy is here to discuss the property at 58-62 South Terrace, and that
the property is a division by mediation of a court order. Cassidy adds that she did a site visit
there and the driveway services three lots, and Mr. Heaphy question to the Board is, whether they
would consider the access sufficient to service all three lots.
Cassidy adds that this could technically be an ANR; however, the issue is that the frontage for
Lot 2C has ledge outcroppings and she has a concern with adequate access. Cassidy states that
on the plan there looks like there is access to the lot, but the outcroppings would prohibit any
access to this lot except by the existing drive. Cassidy adds that she does not believe that there
is an adequate way to access this lot as shown and would literally require that he trespass onto
abutting property to place his car in his garage.
Delaney recommends that Heaphy relate the Planning Board's concern with the lack of adequate
access to Lot 2C to the judge in this matter.
Old/New Business - Summer Recess
Cassidy states that the Board generally takes a recess in August. General discussion takes place
regarding the need for a July meeting.
Dinkin: move that the Board recess regular meetings after July 15 to September 16,
seconded by Delaney.
Dunn, Flannery, Papa, Sullivan, Dinkin, Delaney and Thomson in favor. Motion canies, 7-0.
Amnesty License
Cassidy states that the Board has received an Amnesty License for Port Marine at 43-67 Water
Street in the event that members would like to review the License. It is on file with the Planning
Department.
Master Plan Workshop
Cassidy asks the members if they would like to schedule some time to discuss the Master Plan
process. Dinkin states that it may be advisable to wait until the fall to discuss the matter.
Sullivan suggests that the Board wait to see the July agenda before making a decision on this.
Planning Board Minutes
,lune 17, 1997 Meeting
Page Ten
Adjournment
Delaney: move to adjourn, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor. Motion carries.