1997-11-18Chairperson
Richard Dinkin
Vice Chairman
William Delaney
Planning Director
Tina P, Cassidy
Joanne Dunn
Ellen K. Flannery
Salvatore Modugno
D Stephen Papa
Barry Sullivan
John Thomson
Minutes
Beverly Planning Board
November 18, 1997 Meeting
Members present: Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice-Chairman Bill
Delaney, John Thomson, Joanne Dunn, Sal Modugno, Barry Sullivan,
Ellen Flannery and Stephen Papa; also present: Planning Director
Tina Cassidy and Susan Akerman, Secretary to the Board.
Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Delaney: Motion to recess for public hearings, seconded by
Thomson. Delaney, Thomson, Dunn, Modugno, Flannery and
Papa in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries.
Public Hearing
Public Hearing: Thackeray Way definitive subdivision plan
(formerly called Traicoff Circle) / O.H.C. Realty Trust
Cassidy reads legal notice.
Peter Ogren of Hayes Engineering, representing the applicant,
addresses the Board and discloses that he has a financial interest
in this project. Mr. Ogren explains that this plan was originally
filed with the Board under the name "Traicoff Circle," but the
owners have decided to rename the project "Thackeray Way." The
approved subdivision plan for "The Planters" included a cul-de-sac
of the same name.
Mr. Ogren states that the plan has the same configurations as the
preliminary plan to create a new street, and explains that it
creates the necessary frontage for three building lots, that there
is access to utilities (ie: existing sewer and water lines), that
this plan has the same cross sections as the preliminary plan, that
they will continue the sloped granite curbing, that the land has a
flat profile and that the subdivision will have the same look and
feel of other cul-de-sac's in the Planters Subdivision and be a
permanent dead-end street.
Beverly Planning Board
November 18, 1997 Meeting
Page Two
Mr. Ogren explains that there is a wetland on the property filled
with thick greens, as well as a bordering vegetated wetland in the
back of the property that has been located and flagged. Mr. Ogren
explains that the drainage will discharge toward the wetland and
that the plan is subject to Conservation Commission approval.
Cassidy reads the following letters:
Letter from the Beverly Fire Department dated 10/21/97.
(On File)
Letter from the Beverly Police Department dated 10/17/97.
(On File)
- Letter from the Beverly Conservation Commission dated
10/21/97. (On File)
- Letter from the Beverly Board of Health dated 10/28/97.
(On File)
- Letter from Frank Killilea, Jr., Director of Engineering
dated 11/18/97. (On File)
Dinkin asks the members if they have any clarifying questions.
Delaney recalls that several waivers were being requested on the
previous preliminary plan and asks if any waivers have been deleted
from the plan and what waivers are being requested for this plan.
Mr. Ogren explains that the original list of waivers was replaced
with a new list of waivers.
Delaney questions the waiver regarding the drainage easement. Mr.
Ogren states that a waiver has been requested for a 20' wide
drainage easement instead of a 30' wide easement so that there is
a possibility for future easements.
Delaney asks Mr. Ogren to explain the drainage scenario. Mr. Ogren
reviews the drainage system, noting that the water will discharge
into a brook that is within the wetland and that catch basins will
be installed at the end of the street to collect surface run-off.
Delaney questions the waiver with respect to minimum outside
roadway diameter of a cul-de-sac and the waiver for minimum
property line diameter. Mr. Ogren explains that a standard cul-de-
sac has 120' of roadway layout and that the applicant is asking for
the cul-de-sac to have a 100' layout. Mr. Ogren states that the
plan shows a consistent cross-section and that the reason for this
requested waiver is to preserve some of the space on the land, and
to minimize the overall impact on the wetlands on this site.
Beverly Planning Board
November 18, 1997 Meeting
Page Three
Delaney questions the grading waiver and asks where this grading
will occur. Mr. Ogren states that this grading will take place
toward the existing wetland outside the roadway right-of-way and
that a total of 6' will be graded and that they will stay with
sloped grading.
Delaney questions the waiver request regarding minimum depth of
coverage over sewerage lines. Mr. Ogren reviews the sewerage
coverage explaining that the pipes will be 6' into the basement.
Delaney asks Frank Killilea if he and the Engineering Department
are satisfied with the technical aspect of the plan. Killilea
states yes.
Dinkin asks if all homes in the subdivision will have sewer
service. Mr. Ogren explains that one house will likely have a
sewerage line entering in the basement, rather than through the
basement floor.
Dinkin asks how the applicant intends to inform a potential buyer
that they could not improve their basement (i.e. additional
bathroom) at an anticipated expense because the structure can't
accommodate it due to the elevated sewer line. Mr. Ogren states
that they could affix a note to the plan or that there could be a
requirement of the developer to put this information into the
purchase and sales agreement.
Dinkin asks if there are any clarifying questions from the public.
Jim Danforth an abutter of Wentworth Drive addresses the Board and
explains that he is a direct abutter and that the water from the
property doesn't flow on applicant's property but that it naturally
flows in another direction, that in the summer this area is all
wetlands and if the water level gets raised that the water will
stay on his property and states that he is concerned with the
impacts of the proposed property elevations on the water flow and
drainage.
Mr. Danforth states that he has woods in back of his property and
that he is also concerned with the visual view he is losing, and
explains that he had a meeting with Mr. Ellis with respect to the
possibility of planting some white pines and states that he wants
some assurance that something will be planted to give him some type
of barrier.
Mr. Ogren explains that whatever was discussed is a private
agreement between Mr. Danforth and Mr. Ellis, and that he is going
to have to work that aspect out with Mr. Ellis. Mr. Ogren states
that the house design is consistent with zoning requirements.
Beverly Planning Board
November 18, 1997 Meeting
Page Four
Barry Sullivan joins the meeting at this time.
Michael Pierce of 17 Pine Knoll Drive addresses the Board and
states that Mr. Danforth should wait for Mr. Ellis to join the
meeting and question him.
Dinkin explains to Mr. Danforth that he may request the Board,
should this subdivision be approved to make a condition with
respect to the visual barrier or to pursue a private agreement with
the developer, obtain the agreement in writing, and have it part of
the record.
Mr. Danforth states that he does want to request that the Board
consider a visual barrier when approving this subdivision plan.
Dinkin states that the Board will take this request into
consideration.
Jim Hallice of 5 Fieldstone Lane states that he is concerned that
if the Planning Board allows this subdivision, will more building
take place as a result of this cul-de-sac? Mr. Ogren explains that
the abutting land is under the control of the Conservation
Commission and the Beverly City Council.
Mr. Hallice also states that the area was once land-locked, but
that he has many neighbors now and that there are a lot of animals
and birds that will get displaced.
Bob Karlyn of 14 Pine Knoll Drive states that he is concerned with
the plans to have the cul-de-sac emptying into the wetland because
there is only natural run-off running into the wetland now, and
that he doesn't want to see the wetlands disturbed/broken down.
Mr. Karlyn asks what provisions are being taken to purify/dewater
the run-off. Mr. Ogren explains that catch basins will be equipped
with gas traps to slow down the velocity and states that the area
is small enough so that it doesn't fall under the State's storm
water management criteria.
Mr. Doherty of 15 Wentworth Drive asks if this proposal for a cul-
de-sac is in place of the proposal named Traicoff Circle. Mr.
Ogren responds yes, that the original cul-de-sac of that name was
abandoned because of the amount of disturbance that would be caused
to the wetlands and explains that the plan can't be resurrected
because there is a Conservation Commission restriction and that
this parcel of land is not part of the previous plan.
Mr. Karlyn asks if the Conservation Commission restriction is shown
on the map. Mr. Ogren states no, and explains where the
restriction is located on the map (outside the scope of the locus).
Beverly Planning Board
Nov-mher 18, 1997 Meeting
Page Five
Mrs. Danforth of Wentworth Drive asks if there is a timetable with
respect to construction of this project and states that she does
not want to live with construction for another two years. Dinkin
explains that there is a two year construction deadline for
completion of a subdivision from the day of approval, and that the
Board typically receives at least one extension request from
developers.
Mr. Pierce asks what happens if the run-off doesn't do what it's
supposed to. Dinkin explains that the Planning Board and the
Conservation Commission seek the best professional advice they can,
based on the information presented, and render a decision based
upon this.
Flannery suggests that the Board consider conducting a site visit
to this project.
Dinkin asks if there are any comments in favor of this subdivision.
Mr. Doherty addresses the Board and states that there have been
legitimate concerns with respect to drainage/water flow and that if
these concerns/questions are addressed, he has no problem with the
development as long as all safeguards have been met.
Dinkin asks if there are any comments in opposition to this
proposal.
Mr. Pierce states that he is opposed to this subdivision.
Delaney: Motion to schedule a site visit to view the property for
the definitive subdivision plan for Thackeray Way on
Saturday, December 6, 1997 at 9:00 a.m., seconded by
Flannery. Delaney, Thomson, Dunn, Flannery, Modugno,
Sullivan and Papa in favor, no one opposed. Motion
carries.
Delaney: Motion that the public hearing be continued in recess
until December 6, 1997, seconded by Flannery. Delaney,
Thomson, Dunn, Flannery, Modugno, Sullivan and Papa in
favor, no one opposed. Motion carries.
Mr. Pierce asks if the public is invited. Mr. Ellis responded yes.
Beverly Planning Board
November 18, 1997 Meeting
Page Six
Concurrent Public Hearings (continued): Special permit request
#98-97 and site plan review application #34-97 for construction of
mini-storage facility on L.P. Henderson Road / Beverly Airport
Mini-Storaqe, Inc. / Tom Ford
Cassidy re-reads legal notice and reviews the letters submitted
from other City departments that were read into the record last
month.
Cassidy reads a letter from the Beverly Fire Department dated
11/18/97. (On File)
Cassidy explains to the members that the City has hired the
consulting firm Ransom Environmental to begin testing the site,
that the application is before the Conservation Commission for
approval and that the preliminary test results are expected to be
submitted to the Conservation Commission by their next meeting
scheduled for November 19, 1997.
Cassidy states that the two outstanding questions pertaining to DEP
issues/concerns with development of this site and the letter from
the Fire Department have been resolved and that the Planning Board
could act on these two requests, but with the condition that the
Board must be satisfied with the test results from the
environmental consultant's work.
Dinkin asks if there are any clarifying questions from members of
the Board.
Thomson asks if any changes must be made to the site plan.
Attorney Alexander responds yes, and explains that at the request
of the Salem/Beverly Water Supply Board, the drainage flow on the
property has been re-routed to flow toward the other side of
Henderson Road instead of the drainage flowing toward the Wenham
Lake Watershed.
Tom Ford explains that the drainage has been redesigned to flow
toward Henderson Road.
Thomson asks if that is the only change that must be made to the
site plan. Mr. Ford responds yes.
Delaney asks if there is a time frame with respect to the
prerequisites referenced in the letter from the Fire Department.
Attorney Alexander states that there will not be much of an impact
on construction timetables, because the plan is for construction to
begin in the Spring and that Sam Fonzo Drive project is expected to
start at the same time.
Beverly Planning Board
November 18, 1997 Meeting
Page Seven
Attorney Alexander states that DEP's questions are not a problem
from their perspective, and would willingly agree to a condition
that that agency approve/accept the Ransom test results prior to
commencement of construction.
Thomson asks for a review of the Salem/Beverly Water Supply Board's
letter and recommendations. Cassidy reviews the letter.
Dinkin asks if there are any questions from the public. There are
none.
Dinkin asks if there are any comments in favor of this project.
Leo White, Vice Chairman of the Airport Commission states that the
Commission is in favor of this project.
Dinkin asks if there are any comments in opposition to this
project. There are none.
Dinkin declares the concurrent public hearings closed.
Dinkin calls the Planning Board to regular session.
Discussion/Decision: Special permit application #98-97 and site
plan review application #34-97 for construction of mini-storage
facility on L.P. Henderson Road / Beverly Airport Mini-Storage,
Inc.
Delaney states that he is personally satisfied that the Board can
move forward on the special permit request and that all comments
from the appropriate departments can be incorporated into a motion.
Delaney:
Motion to grant special permit application #98-97 for
construction of a mini-storage facility on L.P. Henderson
Road within the Watershed Protection Overlay District
upon the condition that the requirements listed in the
letter from the Beverly Fire Department are followed,
that the conditions and requirements of the Salem/Beverly
Water Supply Board are incorporated as a condition of
approval and in addition, no soil is to be excavated, and
no building permits issued by any of the local
departments until such time as the results of the
environmental testing are completed, seconded by Thomson.
Discussion on the Motion.
Thomson asks if the Board has the power to compel City departments,
particularly the Building Inspector, not to issue permits.
Delaney concurs and withdraws his motion.
Beverly Planning Board
November 18, 1997 Meeting
Page Eight
Delaney: Motion to amend the previous motion to keep as spoken but
deleting the last reference concerning the environmental
testing, seconded by Thomson.
Dinkin states that Delaney is out of order.
Thomson: Motion to amend motion that the last phrase be reworded
as a recommendation to the appropriate City Departments
to take in consideration the results of Ransom
Environmental Engineer's test results prior to any soil
excavations or building permits, seconded by Flannery.
Delaney, Thomson, Dunn, Flannery, Modugno, Sullivan and
Papa in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries.
Delaney: Motion to table discussion of site plan review
application #34-97 for construction of mini-storage
facility on L.P. Henderson Road on the table until the
Board's December meeting, seconded by Thomson. Delaney,
Thomson, Dunn, Flannery, Modugno, Sullivan and Papa in
favor, no one opposed. Motion carries.
Discussion/decision: Mullen/Loeb Estate preliminary cluster
subdivision plan / James Mullen, Toll Brothers
Thomson recuses himself from discussion of this matter.
Dinkin asks if the previous requests of the Board have been met as
of today. Cassidy states that some of them have been, but others
remain outstanding.
Dinkin asks if there are any dead-end streets
Mr. Ogren states no.
Peter Ogren of Hayes Engineering addresses the Board and reviews
the sewer/water impact and the drainage flow for the 69 lots;
preliminary information has been submitted on these two areas of
review.
Mr. Ogren states that he is confident that the sewerage system can
service the 69 lots, but that they have monitored the water
pressure and concluded that the water pressure is going to have to
be increased on some of the lots that are at a higher elevation
(central area).
Mr. Ogren states that if the City doesn't want to increase the
pressure in its new water tank, then the applicants will need to
install individual boosters at individual houses on the site.
Beverly Planning Board
November 18, 1997 Meeting
Page Nine
Frank Killilea, Jr., Director of Engineering states that the City
has no desire to increase the water pressure because an increase
will cause multiple leaks in old municipal pipes.
Mr. Ogren states that a plan with no requested waivers has been
submitted for the Board's information.
Mr. Ogren states that the neighbors are not in favor of a cluster
subdivision so they have designed a plan showing a 69 conventional
lot subdivision.
Mr. Ogren explains that Kyle Corkum of Toll Brothers Developers has
an alternative plan and states that they are looking for
encouragement from the Board to explore features of this plan or a
waiverless approach.
Cassidy reads a letter from the Engineering Department dated
11/18/97. (On File).
Dinkin asks Killilea if it is his opinion that the existing
municipal infrastructure could service 69 lots.
Mr. Killilea states that the infrastructure could only service 69
additional lots with major improvements; the information received
is very preliminary, that this is a big project, that no topo map
has been submitted, that there is a lot of material omitted and
that details should be submitted
(ie: sewerage program, water pressure).
Dinkin asks for an explanation of preliminary study results. Mr.
Ogren explains that an analysis of the drainage pipes that service
this area has been done and states that all he can do is assess
what is in existence now; until a final development plan is
selected, it is impossible to propose specific system improvements.
Dinkin states that the preliminary study indicates that the
existing City infrastructure can't support the 69 lots, that he is
satisfied with the scope of the applicant's preliminary report and
with Mr. Killilea's input.
Kyle Corkum of Toll Brothers addresses the Board and states that
they are seeking a signature project, but that he has designed an
alternative approach, which is a conventional plan that shows the
density allowed by current zoning.
Mr. Corkum explains that this plan shows a beautiful enhanced
entrance, a plan that will leave the trees and that will have a 6-
8% roadway grade.
Beverly Planning Board
November 18, 1997 Meeting
Page Ten
Mr. Corkum states that this plan would need a waiver on the length
of a cul-de-sac; the dead-end would be approximately 1,600 feet
long.
Dinkin asks how many lots are proposed in this plan. Mr. Corkum
Kyle states 67.
Dinkin states that two waivers would be requested, a waiver of
maximum roadway grade and a waiver on length of a cul-de-sac.
Dinkin states that it his opinion that the infrastructure will have
significant problems handling the 69 house lots, that the loss of
two lots will not significantly address the problem, that the
waiver with respect to dead end streets would be unacceptable to
him and that the emergency access issue has yet to be resolved.
Sullivan states that he concurs with Dinkin',s comments and explains
that he is unsure which preliminary plan is to be reviewed, that a
complete list of waivers should be submitted for any alternative
plan the developer wants the Board to consider, and states that he
has reservations concerning the fiscal impact analysis on the City
and that he would like to look at the site to get some questions
and comments resolved.
Delaney states that he too shares the view of the Chair with
respect to dead end streets, but disagrees with the Chair regarding
the emergency access, and that he is not persuaded that a couple of
lots taken off will help the infrastructure.
Delaney further states that the applicant did a decent job on
getting the preliminary plans drawnup but that he wouldn't want to
see a traditional waiverless subdivision built and that he would
like to see some of the alternatives explored, including cluster.
Dinkin states that is procedural to vote on a preliminary plan, but
that he shares Mr. Sullivan's confusion on which plan the Board is
to be approving/voting on.
Dinkin asks the applicant which plan he wants the Board to review.
Attorney Alexander states that he thought that the preliminary plan
process is a way to initiate dialogue, to get a feel for what some
of the parameters are, and to ascertain what the Board can and
cannot live with. Attorney Alexander states that they will
continue to discuss the development and see what they can come up
with.
Dinkin asks if there are existing vegetated wetlands on the site
and how much. Mr. Ogren responds yes and states approximately 5%
of the total land area.
Beverly Planning Board
November 18, 1997 Meeting
Page Eleven
Attorney Alexander states that he would like to continue the
dialogue and preliminary process to find a more acceptable plan.
Sullivan asks if applicant is ready to submit those preliminary
plans that are most desirable, with a list of waivers. Attorney
Alexander explains that every plan will have different waivers,
that it seems that the Board is more acceptable to grade waivers,
emergency access, that the applicant will have to go back and
design a subdivision that doesn't have a dead-end exceeding the
Board's maximum.
Sullivan states that the applicant has enough information that one
of their plans should be shaping up.
Mr. Corkum states that he too shares the frustrations of Mr.
Sullivan, that this is a large project and that they will design
something different, go back to the drawing board.
Delaney states that he is not prepared to dismiss the concept of a
cluster subdivision, that there could be potential advantages to
such a development that a conventional subdivision wouldn't have.
Delaney states that he is also concerned with the potential impact
on the public. Attorney Alexander stated that the public process
is the definitive process.
Delaney states that he would like to encourage the applicant to
keep the process going and see where it takes them.
Sullivan states that he has no problem with the cluster idea but
that he is concerned with open space, the impact on water/sewer and
issues concerning schools and public safety.
Dinkin states that with respect to the cluster development the
Board will be looking closely at the idea of a cluster subdivision,
the title, the uses and the access to any open space, that the
Board will probably not consider land being deeded to the City with
no general use available to the public.
Dinkin asks Attorney Alexander if they wish to extend the
preliminary process. Attorney Alexander responds yes.
Attorney Alexander submits a request for an extension of time for
final Board action to January 31, 1998.
Delaney: Motion to accept applicant's request for an extension of
time to January 31, 1998, seconded by Flannery. Delaney,
Dunn, Flannery, Modugno, Sullivan and Papa in favor, no
one opposed. Motion carries.
Beverly Planning Board
November 18, 1997 Meeting
Page Twelve
Dinkin tables the matter to the Board's December meeting for
further discussion.
Thomson rejoins the meeting at this time.
Birch Woods Subdivision: discussion on proposed modifications to
sewer design / Cove Realty Trust, David Walsh
Cassidy updates the members stating that there are two proposed
sewer easements servicing two of the lots on Cross Lane, and that
more time is needed to meet with Mr. Walsh and suggests that the
Board table this matter until the December meeting.
Delaney: Motion to table the discussion regarding Birch Woods
Subdivision proposed modifications to sewer design to the
Board's next meeting scheduled for December 9, 1997,
seconded by Thomson. Delaney, Dunn, Thomson, Flannery,
Modugno, Sullivan and Papa in favor, no one opposed.
Motion carries.
Chanticleer Drive Subdivision: expiration of construction
completion date and Letter of Credit posted as surety / Dan Finn
Dan Finn addresses the Board and states that he is asking for his
last and final construction completion extension until May of 1998,
the next paving season.
Cassidy updates the Board, and states that she has received a
letter of request from the Salem 5 Cents Bank granting an extension
of the surety to May 22, 1998.
Cassidy states that she has received correspondence from the
abutter stating that there are some issues that he contends must be
resolved; she distributes copies of the letter to members of the
Board.
Dinkin asks what the original construction completion date was.
Cassidy states 9/96.
Delaney: Motion to accept an extension of the Letter of Credit
posted as surety to May 22, 1998, seconded by Sullivan.
Delaney, Dunn, Thomson, Flannery, Modugno, Sullivan and
Papa in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries.
Delaney: Motion to extend the construction completion date on
Chanticleer Drive Subdivision to May 21, 1998, seconded
by Flannery. Delaney, Dunn, Thomson, Flannery, Modugno,
Sullivan and Papa in favor, no one opposed. Motion
carries.
Beverly Planning Board
November 18, 1997 Meeting
Page Thirteen
Cassidy states that she will copy and forward to the Members, the
letter from Dan Finn and Salem 5 Cents Bank and that these letters
will be a part of the file record.
Approval of Minutes: September 22, 1997 special meeting and
October 21, 1997 regular meeting.
Sullivan: Motion to approve the minutes of the Board's September
22, 1997 special meeting and the Board's October 21, 1997
regular meeting as drafted, seconded by Flannery.
Delaney, Dunn, Thomson, Flannery, Modugno, Sullivan and
Papa in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries.
New or Other Business
Receipt of waterways amnesty license: 175 West Street /
John Newberry
Cassidy states that a Chapter 91 license for 175 West Street is on
file with the Planning Board as required, and that it is available
for Members to review.
Update on master plan qrant application
Cassidy explains to the Members that the City of Beverly was not
chosen for funding, and that the goals and objectives study will be
included in the larger master plan project.
Adjournment
Sullivan: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Sullivan. Delaney, Dunn,
Thomson, Flannery, Modugno, Sullivan and Papa in favor,
no one opposed. Motion carries.
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.