1997-09-22 Chairman
James A. Manzi
Vice Chairman
Richard Dinkin
Planning Director
Tina P. Cassidy
William Delaney
Joanne Dunn
Ellen K. Flannery
Salvatore Modugno
D. Stephen Papa
Barry Sullivan
John Thomson
Minutes
Beverly Planning Board
September 22, 1997 Special Meeting
Members present: Richard Dinkin, Bill Delaney, John Thomson, Barry
Sullivan, Joanne Dunn, and Ellen Flannery; also present: Planning
Director Tina Cassidy, Assistant Planning Director Debbie Hurlburt
and Susan Akerman, Secretary to the Board.
Acting Chairman Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Delaney: Motion to recess for public hearings, seconded by
Flannery.
Delaney, Flannery, Thomson, Sullivan, and Dunn in favor, no one opposed.
Motion carries.
Public Hearing
Public Hearing: Tall Tree Drive Extension Definitive
Subdivision Plan / Suzanne Sullivan - Silva & Gladys Dailey
Cassidy reads legal notice.
Paul Marchionda of Marchionda & Associates addresses the Board and
gives the history of the lot.
Thomson asks what is the purpose of this subdivision plan. Mr.
Marchionda states that his clients are seeking approval to extend
the roadway known as Tall Tree Drive to create three building lots.
Thomson asks if this proposal will be subject to further
subdivision plans. Mr. Marchionda responds no.
Thomson asks if the owners are proposing a restriction that there
will be no further subdivision to create more building lots in the
future. Mr. Marchionda responds that they are not precluding
future subdivision.
Thomson asks what waivers are being requested. Mr. Marchionda
states that the Planning Director has informed him that a waiver
for the maximum dead-end roadway length of 500' will be needed, but
that this ruling is subject to interpretation.
Cassidy reads language of the Board's Rules and Regulations
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 1997 Meeting
Page Two
Mr. Marchionda interprets dead end streets, and says that he
believes Robin Road is a through street.
Delaney asks Mr. Marchionda if it is his intention to connect the
two cul-de-sacs between Robin Road and Brookhead Avenue. Mr.
Marchionda states not at this time.
Delaney asks what the distance is from Boyles Street to the end of
the cul-de-sac. Mr. Marchionda states approximately 900'.
Sullivan asks why stop with three lots. Mr. Marchionda states it
is exactly 500' from Robin Road to the three lots and that the
proposal is for exactly 500' of roadway length, as measured from
Robin Road.
Delaney asks as the plan is presented, are there any other
necessary waivers needed? Cassidy responds not in terms of the
roadway.
Cassidy reads the following letters:
- Letter from the Fire Department dated 9/16/97. (On File)
- Letter from the Board of Health dated 9/8/97. (On File)
- Letter from the Police Department dated 8/5/97. (On File)
- Letter from the Conservation Commission dated 9/9/97.
(On File)
Dinkin asks if anyone from the public has a clarifying question and
wishes to speak.
Attorney William DiMento addresses the Board and asks for a
clarification with respect to timing requirements. Cassidy states
that the subdivision was filed on July 1, 1997; that action must be
taken within 90 days; with final action by the Board by September
29, 1997.
Peter Tarr of 3 Brooks Circle asks what legal right/source the
applicants have to remove land and connect Robin Road and Brookhead
Avenue. Attorney Philip Moran, Attorney representing the
petitioners, explains that according to the City Accessors's map
the layout of the two roads are shown as touching.
Mr. Tarr states that they will have to take someone's property in
order to connect the two roads.
Joanne Avallon of 17 Boyles Street asks if Brookhead is a public or
private road. Cassidy responds that it is a private way.
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 1997 Meeting
Page Three
Dinkin asks if anyone wishes to speak in support of this proposal.
There are none.
Dinkin asks if anyone wishes to comment in opposition to this
proposal.
Attorney William DiMento, Attorney representing Peter Tarr states
that they are in opposition to this subdivision because it does not
meet the Rules and Regulations of the Board and because of safety
issues outlined by the various municipal departments.
Jean Cahill of 7 Robin Road asks that if they are allowed to pursue
plan are there any intentions to break through from Robin Road to
Brookhead Avenue. Mr. Marchionda states that they have no desire,
but if necessary then we have no choice and will open the road.
Councilor Virginia McGlynn states that she is opposed to this plan.
Peter Tarr states that there is correspondence from the Police and
Fire Departments that express that they are in opposition to the
subdivision for public safety reasons.
Renee Mary of 274 Hale Street states that she is concerned with
flooding that would occur down-stream and that she is opposed to
this plan.
Joanne Avallon states that the plan should not be approved until
the right to connect two streets has been clarified and she also
states that she is in opposition to this plan.
Delaney asks if the Board can view the plans referred to by
Attorney Moran in support of the applicant's claim that Robin Road
is a through street. Attorney Moran gave plans to members.
Dunn asks what the size of Lot #3 is. Mr. Marchionda states 27
acres.
There being no further questions or comments, Dinkin states that
this Public Hearing is closed.
Public Hearing: 176 Bridge Street - Request for Waiver from
Frontage Requirements of Zoning in Accordance with M.G.L.
Chapter 41, Section 81-R and Definitive Plan Approval /
Carroll & Christine MacDougall
Cassidy reads legal notice.
Mark Glovsky, attorney representing the petitioners, addresses the
Board and reviews the history of the property stating that there is
100' of frontage; 3,000 square feet of land; that a single family
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 1997 Meeting
Page Four
dwelling with a garage exists on the property and that the property
is located within an R10 zone and that his clients are seeking a
waiver from the frontage requirement of zoning for this property.
Attorney Glovsky states that they are proposing to divide the land
into three lots and explains that Lot A includes the existing
house, that it exceeds the zoning requirements and that there is
80' of frontage; Lot B will be the new building lot with 16,000
square feet of land and 20' of frontage; and Lot C will be an
unbuildable lot, and would be deeded to an abutting property owner
to make that lot more conforming.
Attorney Glovsky explains that the Board of Appeals granted the
necessary variances to divide the land as shown on the plan and
that the conditions imposed by the Zoning Board of Appeals were as
follows: (1) that there will be no fence within 50' of Bridge
Street along Lots A & B and B & C; (2) that the existing driveway
must serve as access to Lots A & B; (3) that the house on the new
building lot be set back on the Sunnycrest Avenue side, by at least
30'; and (4) that a buffer of evergreens be planted along the
Sunnycrest Avenue's boundary line.
Cassidy reads the following letters:
- Letter from the Police Department dated 9/2/97. (On File)
- Letter from the Fire Department dated 9/4/97. (On File)
- Letter from the Board of Health dated 8/28/97. (On File)
- Letter from the Engineering Department dated 9/16/97.
(On File)
Dinkin asks if any members of the Board have a clarifying question.
Thomson asks Attorney Glovsky if there was 100' of frontage at the
time his clients bought the property. Attorney Glovsky states that
there were pork-chop lot provisions.
Delaney asks for clarification with respect to the first condition
imposed by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Attorney Glovsky explains
that his clients are prohibited from erecting a fence to Bridge
Street.
Delaney asks if there is an existing fence along the property line.
Attorney Glovsky responds no.
Thomson asks if anyone was in opposition at the Zoning Board.
Attorney Glovsky explainsthat one person spoke, was not in
opposition but had concerns,and that no one was really opposed.
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 1997 Meeting
Page Five
Dinkin asks if anyone wishes to speak in support of this proposal.
There are none.
Dinkin asks if anyone wishes to comment in opposition to this
proposal. There are none.
Delaney states that he had an opportunity to speak with Mr. Patrick
Vitale and that the concerns relayed to him seem to address the
set-back and tree buffer and fence buffer and asks if any problem
came up at the Board of Appeals meeting. Attorney Glovsky responds
no.
Delaney asks would the applicant be opposed in addition to the
evergreens, to erecting a fence along the property line of Lot B
without conflicting with the Zoning Board of Appeals' decision.
Attorney Glovsky states that a number of things have been done to
provide privacy by requiring a greater side setback for the house
plus planting the evergreens. They thought that would be
sufficient.
Dinkin asks if there are any members of the public who wish to
speak on the matter.
Hearing none, Dinkin declares the Public Hearing closed.
Discussion/Decision: Tall Tree Drive Extension Definitive
Subdivision Plan / Suzanne Sullivan-Silva and Gladys Dailey.
Thomson asks Cassidy if there is anything in the Board's files as
to whether Robin Road is a through street. Cassidy states that if
one visited the site today, Robin Road and Brookhead Avenue do not
connect and are dead end roadways.
Thomson asks if the burden of proof is on the applicant to supply
the Board with this information. Cassidy responds yes.
Thomson states that it is his opinion that a dead end road is a
dead end road, and until the petitioners prove a right to construct
a through street, the Board should assume the ways will continue to
exist as dead-end roads. He is not prepared to support this waiver
for this plan.
Dinkin states that no plan has been submitted showing the
connection of these two roads.
Delaney states that he agrees with Thomson's opinion and that he is
not prepared to act upon this tonight. Delaney further states that
if the applicant is willing to submit documentation to the City
Solicitor for his review, the Board is willing to ask for his legal
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 1997 Meeting
Page Six
Opinion on that matter. If the applicant wants to do this, it will
be necessary to request an extension of time for Board action on
this matter.
Dinkin asks Mr. Marchionda if his clients wish to request an
extension of the deadline in order to determine the status of these
two deadend roads. Mr. Marchionda responds they will extend.
Sullivan states that he is willing to grant an extension.
Delaney states that the City Solicitor should only review the
information that was presented to the Board during the course of
the public hearing because the public hearing was closed earlier
this evening. No additional information beyond that presented to
the Board should be forwarded to Mr. Handly.
Dinkin asks if there is a request for an extension. Mr. Marchionda
responds there may be.
Dinkin recesses the Board for five minutes to enable the project's
representatives to discuss the matter.
Dinkin calls the Planning Board back in session.
Mr. Marchionda submits letter of request for an extension of time
signed by Suzanne Sullivan-Silva.
Cassidy asks Mr. Marchionda if he or the one owner present, Suzanne
Sullivan-Silva, has the legal authority to represent the other
property owner Gladys Dailey. Mr. Marchionda and Ms. Sullivan-
Silva respond no. Cassidy asks if Attorney Moran has the legal
authority to act on Ms. Dailey's behalf. Ms. Sullivan-Silva states
that Attorney Moran has left City Hall. Cassidy asks if she would
like the Board to table discussion on the matter until later in the
meeting so that Ms. Sullivan-Silva can attempt to reach him. Ms.
Sullivan-Silva responds that she does not know where he went and
would not know how to reach him.
Delaney states that he is concerned that only one owner/applicant
of the property is present to sign the extension, and says he does
not believe an extension signed only by one owner would be
effective.
Thomson states that he agrees with Delaney's concerns.
Thomson:
Motion to deny request for an extension of time for final
Planning Board action filed by Ms. Sullivan-Silva,
seconded by Delaney. Dinkin, Thomson, Delaney, Sullivan,
Flannery and Dunn in favor, no one opposed. Motion
carries 6-0.
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 1997 Meeting
Page Seven
Thomson: Motion to deny request for a waiver of the maximum length
of a deadend street.
Thomson: withdraws his motion.
Delaney: Motion to deny the Definitive Subdivision Plan for Tall
Tree Drive Extension as presented for the following
reasons: the plan fails to meet Section IV.A.5 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision
of Land which sets the maximum length of a dead-end road
at five hundred (500) feet (the roadway proposed with
this definitive subdivision plan would have been
approximately 875' in length from its intersection with
the nearest through street to the center of the cul-de-sac);
and that the proposed subdivision project would
negatively contribute to the on-going vehicular,
pedestrian, and fire safety concerns raised by the
various municipal departments in numerous letters to the
Board, seconded by Thomson.
Dinkin, Thomson, Delaney, Sullivan, Flannery and Dunn in favor, no one opposed.
Motion carries 6-0.
Discussion/Decision: 176 Bridge Street Definitive Plan - Approval
& Request for Frontage Waiver in Accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 41,
Section 81-R / Carroll & Christine MacDouqall
Delaney states that he is concerned with the buffering that is to
occur and that the distance between the plantings to insure the
creation of an effective screen between this property and Mr.
Vitale's.
Attorney Glovsky states that the types of evergreens and the
spacing, within time, of the evergreens has been considered and
states that they could specify that the evergreens be planted so
that in a three year span they provide a proper buffer.
Delaney states that he is inclined to support the plan, using at
least the same conditions that were imposed by the Board of
Appeals. He states that he would like to see the arborvitae
evergreen trees be at least 6' in height and planted 4' on center.
Delaney: Motion to approve the 176 Bridge Street Subdivision Plan
of land and grant a waiver of the Board's Rules and
Regulations in accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section
81-R conditioned upon that the side yard set back for Lot
"B" on the east side of the lot which borders property
now or formerly owned by Patrick Vitale will be
a minimum of thirty (30) feet rather than fifteen (15)
feet; and that a buffer zone be created along that
portion of the property line of Lot "B" which borders
Planning Board Minutes
Sept-mher 22, 1997 Meeting
Page Eight
property at 5 Sunnycrest Avenue; this buffer zone shall
consist of arborvitae evergreens of at least six (6) feet
in height at the time of planting planted at a distance
of four (4) feet on center, seconded by Sullivan.
Dinkin, Thomson, Delaney, Sullivan, Flannery and Dunn in
favor, no one opposed. Motion carries 6-0.
Thomson adds that he would not have supported this petition if a
single person had been in opposition. He is not in favor of such
extraordinary variances from the City's zoning requirements.
The Planters Subdivision: Expiration of Construction Completion
Date and Discussion on Completion of Subdivision / O.H.C. Trust
/ John Keilty, Peter Oqren
Cassidy updates the Board and gives three areas for discussion:
1. the extent of work remaining to be completed and a
timetable for completion;
2. the progress made on the design and construction of the
tot lot; and
3. declining health of detention ponds.
Albert Ellis addresses the Board.
Thomson asks when the project will be finished. Ellis states the
road work will be done by the beginning of December; the tot lot
completion may not happen until spring.
Delaney asks what needs to be done chronologically. Ellis States
that they have requested a guard rail for the detention basin; that
they have raised all structures in the street except the water
structures and that paving is to be done as soon as possible,
within the next couple of days; that they have to ask the City to
permit the applicant to put in a new sewer tap; and with respect to
the detention basins, planting is to be done in the Spring and
states that the Army Corps. has requested that they put in
additional wetland species; some of the plantings were installed so
high on the pond banks they died from lack of water.
Delaney questions the planting sequence/particular species. Ellis
explains that they received a planting schedule from the Army
Corps. that they have to adhere to.
Delaney asks Ellis to address the tot lot. Ellis states that he
spoke with Joan Fairbank and that they are going to schedule a
meeting with a couple of vendors of playground equipment, decide,
order and get much of the lot completed prior to winter.
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 1997 Meeting
Page Nine
Delaney asks what is the bulk of what needs to be done. Ellis
explains that they will have to replace some trees; do some grass
plots; and that the sidewalks will be done by the middle of next
week.
Delaney asks if any fill needs to be removed. Ellis states that
the site is pretty clean and that no fill is to be removed.
Sullivan asks if there are any unsold lots. Ellis responds no.
Delaney: Motion to accept the extension of the Tri-Partie
Agreement to serve as surety to December 31, 1997,
seconded by Sullivan.
Dinkin, Thomson, Delaney, Sullivan, Flannery and Dunn in favor, no one opposed.
Motion carries 6-0.
Delaney: Motion to extend the construction,completion date for the
Planters Subdivision to October 21, 1997 upon the
condition that the Board receive a progress report at the
October meeting and have Mr. Ellis attend, seconded by
Sullivan.
Dinkin, Thomson, Delaney, Sullivan, Flannery
and Dunn in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries 6-0.
New/Other Business
Cassidy states that she has one ANR for frontage on two roads, Hale
and Prince Streets that is being redivided, the Board endorsed a
similar ANR for this property earlier in the spirng.
Thomson asks if the plan meets the Board's Rules and Regulations
for ANR's. Cassidy responds yes.
Thomson: Motion to approve the ANR as one not requiring approval
under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Flannery.
Dinkin, Thomson, Delaney, Sullivan, Flannery and Dunn in
favor, no one opposed. Motion carries 6-0.
Sunday Drive Subdivision
Cassidy explains that a request from the developers of Sunday Drive
to install used straight faced curbing has been submitted. Cassidy
states that typically the Board requires new curbing in new
subdivisions.
Mr. Gary Palardy addresses the Board and presents pictures of the
curbing and explains that the curbing is long, good looking
curbing, that the dirt will be power blasted off, and that all the
curves and radii are to be new.
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 1997 Meeting
Page Ten
Dinkin asks Cassidy to pull from the files the current amount of
surety that the Board holds to guarantee completion of this
project.
Thomson asks if this curbing is installed and it is unsatisfactory,
is there sufficient surety to purchase additional new granite. Mr.
Palardy states that after the curbing is installed the Board could
review and see if it is satisfactory. If not, the cost of
purchasing and installing new curbing is included in the bond.
Thomson asks Cassidy if the Board's Rules and Regulations require
curbing to be freshly quarried. Cassidy responds no.
The general consensus of the Board is that used curbing could be
installed if City inspectional staff finds it acceptable.
Flannery: Motion to make a donation to the,Vittori-Rocci Italian-American War Veterans
fund in memory of James Manzi,seconded by Sullivan.
Dinkin, Thomson, Delaney,
Sullivan, Flannery and Dunn in favor, no one opposed.
Motion carries 6-0.
Thomson:
Motion to adjourn, seconded by Flannery.
Sullivan, Flannery and Dunn in favor, no one opposed. Motion
carries.
Meeting is adjourned at 9:15.