1999-10-19City of Beverly, Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
BOARD:
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE:
PLACE:
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
RECORDER:
Planning Board
October 19, 1999
Beverly City Hall
Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice Chairperson Bill
Delaney, John Thomson, Barry Sullivan, Ellen
Flannery, Joanne Dunn, Peter Thomas, Robert Rink
Salvatore Modugno
City Planner Tina Cassidy
Jeannine Dion
Chairperson Dinkin called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
495R Cabot Street: Withdrawal of Site Plan Review and definitive
plan approval applications without prejudice / Walter Ewaschuk,
Thomas DiPaolo
Cassidy reads a letter from Waiter Ewaschuk to request withdrawal of site plan review,
M.G.L. Chapter 4 I, Section 81-R and definitive plan approval applications without
prejudice.
Flannery:
Motion to permit applicant to withdraw site plan review, 81-R waiver, and
definitive plan approval applications without prejudice, seconded by
Sullivan. All members in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries.
Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR's)
a. 218 Brimbal Avenue / Warren Mayne
Cassidy states there are two existing lots, both of which have homes on therr~ Cassidy
states the ANR plan was filed to recon~gure the lots prior to a transfer of ownership of
one of them.
Dinkin asks if there are any questions fi'om members of the board. Delaney asks if there
are any utilities on the lot. Cassidy responds that there is an existing corrugated metal
pipe that runs through the property. Cassidy states it is not a city pipe and the city is not
responsible for it.
Delaney:
Motion to endorse the plan for 218 Brimbal Avenue as one not requiring
approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Flannery. All
members in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries.
Planning Board Minutes
October 19, 1999
Page 2
b. Dodge Street
Cassidy states Beverly National Bank, on behalf of the owners, is seeking to create one
building lot on the Johnson Tree Farm property. Dinkin asks Cassidy if it meets the
Board's requirements for ANR plans, and Cassidy answers that it does.
Dinkin asks if there are any questions from members of the board. There are none.
Delaney:
Motion to endorse the plan as one not requiring approval under the
Subdivision Control Laws, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor,
no one opposed. Motion carries.
c. Porter Street and Linden Avenue
Cassidy states the applicant is seeking to recon~gure lot lines. Attorney Thomas
Alexander appears on behalf of the applicant, David Camevale. Delaney asks Cassidy if
the board has already endorsed a three lot ANR on this matter. Cassidy responds that the
board approved the ANR in the spring. Delaney asks how the plan is different.
Alexander states the plan straightens out the lines between two of the lots to make the lots
more square. Thomson asks if the lots are under one ownership. Alexander responds the
lots are under single ownership at present.
Dinkin states the plan has already been approved and explains that the applicant is only
applying to reconfigure the lot lines.
Dinkin calls a recess until 7:59 park, at which time the meeting is mconvened. Member
Joanne Dunn arrives.
Delaney:
Motion to recess for public hearings, seconded by Thomson. All members
in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries.
Public Hearing: Meeting Place Circle Definitive Subdivision Plan
Lisa McKenna for the estate of Janet Appleton
Cassidy reads legal notice.
Cassidy introduces Thomas Neve, land surveyor and structural engineer representing the
applicant, Basil Constantine. Neve states the subject property is located off of Meadow
Road and is referred to as Appleton Estates, formerly owned by Janet Appleton. Neve
states the total area of the parcel is 6.329 acres including a small pond and Mrs.
Appleton's home is on what is represented as lot #9. Neve states the proposal is to build
a 500' dead-end road from Meadow Road and develop the property into 9 lots, one of
which will house Appleton's home and 8 additional house lots. Neve states each lot x~ill
have the proper area required by zoning (15,000 to 60,000 square feet) and at least 125
t~et of frontage.
Planning Board Minutes
October 19, 1999
Page 3
Neve presents the fully developed site plan. Neve states the area now is completely
wooded with a small section of field used for a garden area. Neve states the wooded area
would be cleared. However, they will try to save as many trees as possible during
construction. Neve states the property is very flat and deep test pits were dug and tests
conducted on the property to determine the subsurface conditions. Neve states the land is
an outwash plain consisting of deep sands and gravels, is well drained and there were no
observations of high water tables. Neve states he perceives construction to be easy with
no limitations with respect to sub-surface conditions or water table.
Neve states there are wetlands surrounding the property including Willow Pond and a
bordering vegetated wetland associated with it. Neve states the Conservation
Commission has elected to hire an outside consultant who is meeting with the applicant's
botanist to further review the wetlands. Neve states there is an intermittent stream that
flows along the northerly boundary of the property and eventually exits onto abutting
property and flows through the hack yards of the neighbor' s properties along Old Essex
Road. Neve states the proposal is to drain land conventionally with catch basins and
curbing to a detention pond. Neve states he submitted calculations to the City Engineer.
Delaney requests that a copy of the calculations ha sent to him.
Neve describes the construction details associated with this proposal. Neve states the
road has a 1% grade and as a result the topography will be changing very little. In
response to a question from Delaney, Neve concedes that there will be slightly more
significant regrading on the individual lots to create the proposed drainage scheme.
Neve states he has been before the Conservation Commission which has conducted one
site visit. The Conservation Commission b_as hired a consuhant regarding the wetland
line. Neve states he anticipates the Conservation Commission will close the public
hearing at the next meeting and states that another site visit is scheduled for this Saturday.
Dinkin asks if there are any questions from board members.
Thomson asks if there have been any comments from city departments.
Cassidy responds by reading the following:
Letter from Engineering Department dated October 19th - needs more time to review
the information. Recommends documenting drainage improvements which were
discussed with the engineer.
Letter from Police Department dated October lgth -- no traffic and safety issues.
Letter from Fire Department dated October 1 gth _ all homes beyond 500 feet from
Essex Street must conform to the rules and regulations of the Beverly Fire
Department: all homes shall be equipped with residential sprinkler systems.
Planning Board Minutes
October 19, 1999
Page 4
Letter from Board of Health dated October 6~h -- applicant shall, prior to site work,
employ pest control firm for site evaluation; comply with soil and solid fill
regulations; employ effective method for dust control and street cleaning during site
construction; final surface graded so as not to create any run-off; and appropriate
storage and remova[ of waste materials.
Thomson asks if the plan meets all requirements of the subdivision control laws. Cassidy
responds that it does not in at least two respects. First, the plan does not show the
location of trees six inches in caliper or greater. Secondly, although the length of the new
roadway is approximately 500', the board's regulations require a dead end road to be
measured from the nearest intersecting through street (in this case, Essex Street). Cassidy
states the measurement ~'om Essex Street to the centerline of the proposed cul-de-sac is
870 feet, which will also require a waiver.
Thomson asks what the frontage is for lot 8 in its present configuration. Neve responds
that it has 304.11 feet of frontage (some along Old Essex Road and some along Essex
Street). Neve states it also has 30 feet of frontage on the new road.
Delaney asks if studies have been conducted to determine how the madway contour will
affect drainage and Willow Pond. Neve explains the methodology of the drainage
system. Delaney asks if the drainage calculations are pro-development or post-
development. Neve responds he studied pre-development and post-development
hydrology and the differences, if any were taken into account and mitigated with the
proposed design.
Dinkin states that he is not convinced lot 8 is a buildable lot because he does not believe
it has sufficient legal frontage on any street due to the existence of the pond. Dinkin
states while it may be possible to physically construct a driveway into the lot from Essex
Street, it is considerably less clear you could do so absent permitting fi'om the
Conservation Commission to do so. Neve asks ifDinkin is suggesting to go before the
Conservation Commission with an application on this issue. Dinkin states he is
suggesting that. Dinkin further states that he is not the voice of the board but his concern
is that the applicant does not have legal frontage for all lots. Neve states he feels
confident that he would get a permit to build a driveway because them is plenty of room
and the lot line could be moved over. Neve states he would file a Notice of Intent if that
is the wish of the board. Dinkin states it is his desire for the applicant to file a Notice of
Intent with Conservation Commission.
Neve states the neighbors have expressed concem about drainage. Neve states the
proposed development site is presently about ten feet higher than abutting land and that
the neighbors have made attempts to keep the channel of the stream open and flowing.
but it is not working very well. Neve states he has examined the problem and although it
is an oft~ite issue, he would like to help recommend a solution. He states that there is
delta of soil in front of the pond which is causing a dam and causing the water to back up
Planning Board Minutes
October 19, 1999
Page 5
onto abutting property. Neve states he would be willing, with the permission of the
Conservation Commission. to remove the material and the dam and work with the
neighbors on a pro bono basis to help them put together some sort of management plan
that could be presented to the Conservation Commission. Neve states he believes there is
an.issue of getting equipment in there and actually contouring the intermittent stream to a
point where it will flow efficiently through their properties.
Dinkin asks if there are more questions fi'om board members. There are none.
Dinkin asks if there are any questions from the public.
Dean Rubin, 9 Meadow Road, asks about 100 foot buffer zone. Another member of the
public adds that there is a 100 foot wetland buffer and alleges five of the eight new
homes are within that buffer zone.
Dinkin states the lot size requirement does not speak to where you may site a building in
the lot or how that building may be configured. Dinkin states it might be possible that
when the applicant receives an Order of Conditions, they will need to revisit the
architectural plan. Dinkin states that is not the subject of this hearing. The subject of this
hearing deals much more closely with the development plan's conformance to the
subdivision control law.
John Scheid, President of the Willow Pond Homeowners' Association and a resident of
11 Meadow Road reads a letter on behalf of the Homeowners' Association expressing
concern about increased flooding. Neve responds that he thinks he will be able to meet
with the neighbors and help them, perhaps by modifying the outlet at Willow Pond to
make it flow more efficiently.
Janet Pollock, 346 Old Essex Road states she has lived in her home for 25 years. Pollock
states she has had serious erosion, lost trees and has large sink holes develop as a result of
the flooding in the area. She states and this was the first year the brook has been dry.
Neve responds that he has been studying the area for the past two years and according to
the wetland regulations this past year and last year were not considered extended
droughts and provided pictures of the area. Neve states there are two culverts that come
from the road unmitigated and are directed right into the brook, and he believes the
solution is to try to work together to get the channel moving efficiently. Neve reiterates
that he will work with the neighbors.
Dinkin states the applicant is required to leave drainage conditions no worse than pre-
construction.
Dean Rubin. 9 Meadow Road asks for clarifications on the two waivers. Dinkin responds
that the first waiver is a technical waiver from the requirement that the plan show all trees
6 inches in caliper or greater in size, and the second waiver is for the length of a dead-end
Planning Board Minutes
October 19, 1999
Page 6
in excess of 500 feet (the applicant is requesting to exceed that distance by about 350
ti~et). Dinkin states the 500 foot limit is a safety requirement to ensure that a public
safety vehicle not be required to travel more than 500 feet from the nearest cross street.
With respect to the length of road waiver, Neve states the measurement for the road
comes from Essex Street, not the edge of the right-of-way so now the measurement is 350
feet longer. Neve states he could technically comply if he built two roads, which would
cost considerably more and add 300 feet of road to maintain. Neve states the Public
Safety Commissioner's position is that the maximum road length regulation is specific to
f'tre safety and their issue is that any home built further than 500 feet shall be sprinklered.
Neve states he has been putting sprinkler systems in homes for many years, they are very
inexpensive and he will probably put sprinkler systems in all homes anyway.
Thomson asks if the City Engineer has had an opportunity to look at the dual access road.
City Engineer, Frank Killilea responds that he has not seen such a plan. Neve states he
would be happy to produce an alternative plan if the board believes it is necessary.
Thomson states he would like to see it and would recommend the City Engineer review it
before the next meeting.
Janet Pollock, 346 Old Essex Road expresses concern about traffic problems in the area.
A member of the public states he has net been able to walk in his backyard for the past
month because there is about four inches of standing water. Dinkin responds that the
applicant is not required to fix existing drainage problems, but that he cannot make the
problem worse.
Tom Stevens, resident of 6 Meadow Road expresses his concern about drainage.
A resident of 342 Old Essex Road expresses concern about drainage and too many trees
being cut down.
A resident of 26 Meadow Road states Janet Appleton said she would never sell her
property to a developer.
Lisa McKenna, executrix ofthe_estate responds the reason why Ms. Appleton did not
want to sell was because so many developers approached her and she eventually decided
to sell the property because she was terminally ill. McKenna states she did everything
she needed to do to be sure the developer would be reputable.
A real estate ageat states she met Ms. Appleton towards the end of her life but she knows
she was concerned about the quality of building and the effect development would have
on the neighbors. She states Ms. Appleton did a lot of research.
Dinkin asks if there are additional comments from the public. There are none.
Planning Board Minutes
October 19, 1999
Page 7
The Board agrees to schedule a site visit for November 6, 1999 at 9:00 a.m. Members of
the public are invited to attend.
Dean Rubin, 9 Meadow Road states if all the necessary requirements are met, the
developer has done a marvelous job in the way he laid out the property. Rubin states that
in a "worse case scenario" it should be a lovely neighborhood.
Flannery:
motion to cominue the public hearing umil November 6, 1999 at 9:00 a.m.
to reconvene at the site, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor.
Motion carries.
Dinkin calls the regular meeting of the Board back to order.
Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans
a. Linden Avenue & Porter Street
Cassidy reads letter from Ron Cosha dated October 19, 1999 regarding this plan.
Dinkin states that during the recess, members of the public asked several questions
related to the scope of this board's authority. For those who were not part of that
conversation Dinkin summarizes the remarks that he made during that recess.
Dinkin states this is not a subdivision approval - it is a process which is called an
"Approval Not Required" which means the only role that the board has is to make a
dete.rmination whether or not the plan is in compliance with the City's frontage
reqmrements of zoning. Dinkin states the board needs to determine if public street has
been in existence since 1954 (when the subdivision comrol law came into effect). Dinkin
states he recalls playing on both streets prior to that date.
Dinkin states the second requirement is if the lots are in conformance to the letter of
zoning for the subject zone (R6) - are these lots at least 6,000 square feet and do they
have at least 65 feet of fi'omage? Dinkin states he had a conversation with a member of
the audience about the configuration by which some of the lots achieved the sum total of
area requirement. Dinkin states there are no requirements regarding how you achieve the
total square footage.
Dinkin states this is not a public hearing, no testimony is being taken and the only
amhority the Board can exercise is to determine if the plan is emitled to endorsement
under the subdivision control law. Dinkin states he thinks the plan is entitled to
endorsement.
Thomson asks Attorney Alexander if there are any physical barriers between the lots.
Alexander responds that there are not.
Planning Board Minutes
October 19, 1999
Page 8
Thomson:
motion to endorse the plan for Linden Avenue and Porter Street as one
not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by
Flannery. Flannery, Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson, Sullivan, Rink, Thomas
in favor, Dunn abstains. Motion carries.
Worthington Green Subdivision: expiration of construction
completion date and Tri-partite Agreement posted as surety
Cassidy states the applicant requests an extension of the construction completion date for
one month to November 30, 1999 and an extension of the Tri-Partite Agreement posted
as surety to November 30, 1999.
Delaney:
motion to accept extension of Tri-Partite Agreement to November 30,
1999 and to extend the construction completion date to November 30,
1999, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion carries.
Access Road Extension Subdivision: expiration of construction
completion date / David Carnevale
Cassidy reads a letter from Attomey Thomas Alexander requesting that the Planning
Board approve modification of the street tree requirement. Alexander contends that some
owners have signed off that they do not want street trees. Cassidy states she has a letter
from the City Engineer, Frank Killilea which confirms that.
Alexander states that existing owners approached Mr. Camevale regarding this topic.
Alexander states this is the old part of the road and the people do not want street trees.
Dinkin states that any change to a subdivision plan requires a public hearing. Cassidy
states that the tree planting requirement for the existing portion of Access Road was a
condition of the Planning Board's approval and was not actually shown on the approved
plan. Dinkin asks if there is a plan filed that states two trees should be on lot #3.
Cassidy states it was a condition of approval, but is not on the plan itself.
Delaney: motion to 1 ) modify the conditions of approval regarding the Access Road
subdivision so as not to require the planting of trees in front of the existing houses on
Access Road prior to this subdivision, except that one tree shall be planted in front of #3
Access Road, and 2) release all lots in this subdivision from the Form G Restrictive
Covenant, 3) recommend to the City Council that the City accept the new portion of
Access Road, and 4) accept the as-built plans, seconded by Thomas. All members in
favor, motion carries.
Planning Board Minutes
October 19, 1999
Page 9
Brimball Hill Drive Extension Subdivision: Expiration ofconstruetion
completion date / Holly Lockwood trustee, K & L Realty Trust
Cassidy reads letter from Nell Douglas seeking a six month extension of construction
completion date from October 28, 1999 to April 30, 2000.
Thomson:
motion to approve request for six month extension of construction
completion date from October 28, 1999 to April 30, 2000, seconded by
Delaney. All members in favor. Motion carries.
Sunday Drive Subdivision: Expiration of construction completion
date / David Carnevalc & Gary Palardy
Cassidy reads a letter from Thomas Alexander stating that the drainage work has been
completed and inspected and requesting a reduction of surety from $4,000 to $1,000.
Cassidy reads a letter fi'om Frank Killilea recommending the release of $3,000 and
retention of $1,000 to ensure the integrity of the trench.
Thomson:
motion to recommend release of $3,000 surety and retention of $1,000 in
bond money and to extend the construction completion date for this
project to May 31, 2000, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor.
Motion carries.
Hannah Lane Subdivision: acceptance of Form G Restrictive
Covenant as surety to guarantee project completion, sign plan
Cassidy explains that the owners of this two-lot subdivision have submitted a Form G
Restrictive Covenant as surety for this project.
Delaney:
motion to accept Form G Restrictive Covenant as surety to guarantee
completion of the Hannah Lane subdivision. seconded by Thomas. All
members in favor, motion carries.
Airport Mini Storage
Cassidy reads a letter dated September 28, 1999 from Attorney Thomas Alexander
requesting an extension of the special permit granted by the Planning Board for
construction of a mini-warehouse storage facility on L.P. Henderson Road.
Alexander explains that the City has retained the services of an environmental consulting
firm to test this land for potential environmental problems needing remediation, and that
study is not yet completed. Until it is, the City is understandably unable to allow Mr.
Ford to begin construction on this site.
Planning Board Minutes
October 19, 1999
Page 10
Thomson: motion to find that there has been good cause for Mr. Ford's inability to
exercise the special permit granted to him within the statutory two-year period
due to the incompleteness of the on-going environmental assessment,
seconded by Thomas. All members in favor, motion carries.
Delaney:
motion to extend the Special Permit for the construction of a mini-storage
warehouse facility for one year. All members in favor, motion carries.
10 Margin Street: Discussion on modifications to approved site plan
for car wash and garage / Jeff Bunk
Cassidy reads a letter of request from Attomey Thomas Alexander regarding revised site
plan.
Alexander shows the Board photgraphs of the site before and after construction.
Alexander states the final footprint of the building is slightly smaller than that which was
originally presented to the board. Alexander states the building was moved further away
from the water after receiving input from the Beverly Harbor Management Authority and
other permitting agencies. Alexander states the parking configuration-has changed
somewhat, and a retaining wall was built along the property line, rather than on the
opposite side of the public walkway as originally proposed.
Alexander states the applicant has had a meeting with George Whitney and Don Neuman
of the Harbor Management Authority. Alexander states there were two concerns raised.
First, they wanted to be sure the public was aware that public parking is available on the
site during off-business hours. The applicant has agreed to post a sign to that effect.
Second, the harbor authority raised a concern about a lack of permanent demarcation of
the walkway now that the owner has installed a retaining wall on the wrong side of the
walkway. Although it is striped with paint and the applicant has suggested adding
whiskey barrel planters instead, the authority was concerned about the lack of
permanency of both of those items. As an alternative, the developer has agreed to install
a row of bricks set end-to-end to mark the walkway on the walkway's southern boundary
line.
Thomson states the changes seem to be minor, but asks the Planning Director how these
evident changes to the site plan were allowed during construction without the building
inspector noticing them. The process should require the applicant to halt construction
activities until a revised site plan approving the changes was submitted and voted on.
Thomson:
motion to approve the revised site plan, seconded by Thomas. All
members in favor, motion carries.
Flannery:
motion to reconsider the previous motion, seconded by Delaney. All
members in favor, motion carries.
Planning Board Minutes
October 19, 1999
Page 11
Thomson: motion to approve the revised site plan on the condition that a) a notation be
added to the plan indicating that the signs for the public walkway include text
indicating that public parking is available during off-business hours, and b)
that a row of bricks be installed end-to-end along the southern boundary of the
public walkway to provide a more permanent demarcation. Motion seconded
by Thomas, all in favor. Motion carries.
The Board instructs Cassidy to author a letter to the Building Inspector regarding
enforcement of site plans during construction.
10.
Chapel Hill subdivision: recommendation to City Council on
acceptance of road, acceptance of as-bufit plans
Cassidy states she has a letter from Frank Killilea dated September 18, 1999
recommending the Planning Board recommend acceptance of this roadway and the
attendant acceptance plans to the City Cotmcil, and recommends the Planning Board
approve the as-built plans that have been submitted.
Thomson:
motion to recommend to the City Council that the acceptance plans for the
Chapel Hill subdivision be accepted, that the road be accepted as a public
way, and to approve the as-built plans for this project. Motion seconded
by Delaney, all members in favor. Motion carries.
11.
Nicole Avenue subdivision: request to modify curbing requirement or
extension of construction completion date/Tom Ca rnevale
Cassidy states the subdivision is not complete. The applicant written to the Board that he
is having difficulty finding vertical granite curbing. Cassidy states the beard has received
a letter from Attorney Thomas Alexander stating the applicant will not be able to finish
the project on time because of the unavailability of the vertical granite curbing. Cassidy
states the applicant is requesting a change from vertical curbing to sloped-faced granite
curbing or, in the alternate, an extension of construction completion date to June 1, 2000.
After some discussion, Alexander decides to retract his request for waiver for sloped
granite curbing.
Thomson:
motion to extend construction completion date to June 1, 2000, seconded
by Sullivan. All members in favor, motion carries.
12.
Thackerey Way Subdivision and Nicole Avenue Subdivisions:
Discussion/acceptance of conveyance of easements and utilities
Planning Board Minutes
October 19, 1999
Page 12
Cassidy states the applicants for both subdivision have submitted utility easements for
the Planning Board's consideration. Cassidy states that both City Engineer Frank Killilea
and City Solicitor Marshall Handly have reviewed and approved them.
Dehney:
motion to accept the utility and drainage easements for these subdivisions
and recommend acceptance of same to the City Council, seconded by
Thomson. All members in favor. Motion carries.
13.
City Council Order #43
Cassidy states the Planning Board has made many recommendations to the City Council
on this subject however, the timeline for action by the City Council has expired without
timely Council action. Cassidy states she has written a draft letter to the City Council on
this topic for the Board's consideration.
Thomson:
motion to send draft letter to the City Council, seconded by Delaney. All
members in favor, motion carries.
City Council Order #240 - Great Estate By-Law
Cassidy states the City Council has referred this subject to the Planning Board for review.
Thomson asks Cassidy to clarify a process by which the Planning Board will offer
recommendations. Cassidy responds that she envisions the board drafting an ordinance
and the draft would be the subject of public hearing with the City Council.
Cassidy asks if the members have any thoughts.
Thomson states he has one concern. Thomson states he thinks generally it is not a bad
idea to try to preserve large estates. Thomson states non-residential use variances are
used as an incentive and he would have a problem with that because they allow
commercial development in residential areas. Thomson states perhaps condominium
development could be encouraged instead- it is better than commercial enterprises.
Dinkin offers his opinion that the board ought not dismiss non-residential uses when
looking at this topic.
Cassidy recommends trying to obtain some information from the Assessor's records.
Thomas states the Ipswich by-law was written by a developer. Thomas states if the City
adopts a similar ordinance, in five or ten years the board might be going back and
changing it.
Dinkin thinks it is worth taking a look at the subject.
Planning Board Minutes
October 19, 1999
Page 13
Cassidy asks if it makes sense to investigate with the assessor's office and get a sense of
the number of possible sites of 10 or 25 acres or more.
Rink asks if the Master Plan consultam would have this information. Cassidy responds
that they do not at this moment. Cassidy states she could get some information and
recommends having a special meeting on this topic only in two to three weeks.
Delaney states he thinks the value of a property is the issue, not so much acreage of a
property.
15.
Dunkin Donuts: 112-114 Elliott Street - Revised Site Plan
Cassidy explains that a revised site plan has been submitted to the Board for a public
hearing to consider the amendments.
Delaney:
motion to approve request for public hearing for a revised site plan for the
above-referenced property, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor,
motion carries.
16.
Approval of Minutes
Sullivan:
motion to approve minutes of April 12, 1999 and September 14, 1999
meetings, seconded by Thomson. All members in favor, motion carries.
Thomas:
motion to adjourn, seconded by Dunn. All members in favor, motion
carries.
The meeting is adjourned at 11:05 p.m.