2000-09-25City of Beverly, Mamchusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
BOARD: Planning Board
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: September 25, 2000
PLACE: Beverly City Hall
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice Chairman Bill
Delaney, Joanne Dunn, Robert Rink, John Thomson,
Barry Sullivan, EIlen Flannery, Peter Thomas,
Elizabeth McGlynn
ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT: City Planner Tina Cassidy
RECORDER: Jeannine Dion
Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Delaney:Motion to recess for public hearing, second by Flannery. All members in
favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries.
1. Hawk Hill Estates definitive subdivision plan / Symes Associates
Cassidy states the public hearing was continued to this evening to allow the Planning
Board sufficient time to conduct a site visit, which has taken place. The Planning Board
also asked for a review of the drainage design by Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM), a
consulting firm retained by the city for this purpose. CDM provided a report dated
September 18, 2000, which is read into the record.
Cassidy reads a letter dated September 20, 2000 from Symes Associates in response to a
letter from the City Engineer dated July 10, 2000 into the record, and a letter dated
September 18, 200O from Frank Killilea, City Engineer.
Dinkin asks if members of the board have clarifying questions.
Thomson asks if the applicatant has a response to CDM's letter. Jeff Rhuda from Symes
Associates states the applicant agrees to makeamendments to the details of the
subdivision plan. Thc only item which still needs to be addressed is the outlet structures
and he will rerun the drainage numbers in the next couple of days to insure they can
comply with CDM's recommendation without any difficulty.
Planning Board Minutes
September 25, 2000
Page 2
Delaney asks Killilea if he is satistied with the CDM recommedations. Killilea responds
that he believes CDM did a good job idenfifying issues of real concern.
Cassidy reads a letter from the Police Departnmnt dated September 22, 2000 into the
record expressing concern regarding the width of the street. It states the wider the
pavement width, the faster the travel speed. The Police Department believes the 26 foot
wide street should be considered and by allowing the sidewalk on one side of the street
only and by allowing for a narrower street width, the developer can make larger driveways
to reduce the need for on-street parking.
Kiililea states he recently had an experience on a drain project on Chase Street. He
received a call from a woman complaining that the newly-resurfaced road was too narrow
and she had difficulty getting in and out of her driveway. The street had been paved to its
original 25 foot width. Killilea states he would recommend that the road be at least 28
foot wide with parking on one side of the street for citizens to get in and out of their
driveways.
Cassidy reads a letter dated July 10, 2000 from the Fire Department into the record.
Dinkin asks if any other Board members have questions. Having none, Dinkin asks if
members of the public have clarifying questions.
Marie Pike, 291 Essex Street expresses Concern regarding streets being too narrow and
asks if it is necessary to have sidewalks on both sides of the street. Cassidy states the
sidewalks need to meet the ADA requirements but she believes there is nothing in the
ADA law that requires sidewalks on both sides of the street.
John Murray, 14 Greenwood Avenue recommends that the Planning Board hold the public
hearing open until receiving a report from the Conservation Commission.
Randy Warren, 278 Essex Street asks what a headwall is. Williams responds that a
headwall is something that holds the pipe at the outlet.
Warren asks if there are regulations about how frequently the city is called upon to
maintain detention ponds. Killilea responds that the city does not maintain any detention
ponds and they are maintained by the developments. They are not city property. Cassidy
adds the issue of maintenance of the detention ponds has to be decided as part of the
approval.
Pike asks about a cart path which is now proposed to become a road. Jeff Rhuda from
Symes Associates responds that it is a deeded Right of Way. Dinkin adds that the
Planning Board has a regulation that requires a developer to create a right-of-way to
Planning Board Minutes
September 25, 2000
Page 3
abutting vacant land onto the adjoining property, to enable all property owners to not be
at risk of a "land locked parcel."
Stella Mae Seamans, 840 Hale Street asks what the acreage of the detention ponds is.
Williams responds that it is less than one acre.
Dinkin asks if there are any comments in opposition.
Pike states she is not in opposition to the project, however, she is in opposition to the
smaller streets. She is also concerned about Maestranzi having access to the subdivision.
Warren states he has concern regarding water control and maintenance and would like to
see safeguards prior to approval.
Murray states he believes the City's drainage infrastructure is not capable of handling this
subdivision and again requests the board wait on a decision until it has received a report of
findings from the Conservation Commission.
Joan Johnson, 677 Hale Street states she hopes the Master Plan Committee will look into
cluster zoning so that developments can be done in the most advantageous way to
preserve open space. Dinkin responds that this is a topic of discussion in the Master Plan
Committee.
Larry Ralph 252 Essex Street expresses concern regarding traffic mitigation and safety.
Dinkin states he has some questions for Sergeant Tarsook, who is not in attendance this
eveningo. He states he would entertain a motion to recess the public hearing.
Thomson: motion to recess the public hearing until the next scheduled meeting on
October 17, 2000, seconded by Delaney. All members in favor, no one in
opposition. Motion carries.
Rhuda states he would like to discuss the issues on the waiver requests tonight before
recessing.
Dinkin states the Planning Board is not prone to render decisions on waiver requests
while deliberations are still pending. He states if the applicant wants a discussion, the
alternative is to close the hearing and by closing the hearing this evening, it does a
Phnning Board Minutes
September 25, 2000
Page 4
disservice to the applicant and to the public. Dinkin states he does not believe that he has
adequate information to begin deliberation.
Dinkin asks if the applicant would grant an extension of time for final Planning Board
action on this filing to October 17, 2000. Rhuda responds that he will, and signs a
request.
Thomson: motion to accept the extension of time on the Hawk Hill Estates
subdivision plan to October 18, 2000, seconded by Delaney. All members
in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries.
Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR's)
a. 2 Boyles Street / Bartlett
Cassidy states that this property presently contains two structures, both of
which predate the Subdivision Control Law and zoning. They were built
prior to 1939. The applicant is proposing a lot division to create what is
shown as Lot #1, a 22,000 square foot parcel. The remaining 3 ½ story
stucco dwelling would remain on its own lot with frontage on Boyles
Street.
Cassidy states the board as received letters from three concerned abutters
which will be included in the file.
Dinkin states the board has limited jurisdiction on ANR plans and this is
not a public hearing process. The solicitation of public comments only
occurs should the board determain that the plan fails to meet the narrow
criteria and the owner chooses to pursue a conventional subdivision.
Cassidy states the property is in the R22 zone with a very small portion of
the property in the R10 zone.
Attorney George Andrews, representing the trust, clarifiies frontage for the
parcel.
Sulli;van asks clarifying question regarding a note on the plan indicating that
one property will be deeded to the historical society. Cassidy responds that
is an unsubstantiated rumor and is not sure if that is true. The purpose of
the plan though is to create a separate lot for one of the existing structures
so that ownership of it can be transferred.
Planning Board Mhlutea
September 25, 2000
Page 5
Thomson: motion to endorse the plan of 2 Boyles Street as one not requiring
approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Delaney. All
members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries.
New Salem Road preliminary subdivision plan / Communication &
Power Industries (CPI)
Robert Tuchmann from Hale & Dorr represents the applicant. He states he is before the
board to present a preliminary subdivision plan. CPI no longer has the need for one of the
buildings in the complex and a company called Private Resources, Inc. wants to move into
the building and purchase it. Tuchmann states the applicant is tryying to create frontage for
the property. There is no construction involved in the subdivision and the only reason for
filing the preliminary plan is to conform with state law. A definitive plan has already been
filed. Tuchmann introduces John Dick from Hancock Survey Associates.
Dick states the access to the facility is now off of Sohier Road. There are three industrial
buildings and two residential structures on the property. He states it would be difficult to
create lots that would ANR off of Sohier Road and allow adequate frontage and access
for the buildings. Old Salem Water Works Road has been abandoned and the applicant
proposes to take advantage of the existing layout in Old Salem Water Works Road.
Cassidy reads letters from the Police Department (dated September 20, 2000), Fire
Department (dated September 21, 2000), Board of Health (dated September 25, 2000)
and the Enginering Department (dated September 25, 2OO0) into the record.
The departments express concern regarding the naming of the street and recommend using a
different street name. Tuchmann states the applicant would be willing to change the street
name and welcomes recommendations from the Planning Board.
Dinkin asks if there are questions from members of the Board.
Dinkin asks if there will be additional parking spaces created on site. Dick responds that
the parking spaces on the plan currently exist, and no new ones are being proposed.
Delaney: motion to set a date for the public hearing on the definitive subdivision plan
for October 17, 2000, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, no one
in opposition. Motion carries.
Nicole Avenue Subdivision: bond reduction, expiration of
construction completion date / Tom Carnevale
Attorney Thomas Alexander represents Tom Carnevale owner of the Nicole Avenue
Subdivision. He states he has meet with the Engineering Department to review the status
Planning Board Minutes
September 25, 2000
Page 6
of the subdivision. Almost everything in the subdivision is done, however, it is the city's
practice to hold a sum of money out for 1 - 1 ½ years to ensure the loam and grass strips
grow. The as-Built plans have been submitted to the Engineering Department. Alexander
requests that the bond amount be reduced to $8,737.50. The board is currently holding
$75,962.50.
Dinkin states he received a telephone call from a property owner in the subdivision who
informed him that several contractors have told him due to the relationship of the sidewalk
and his lot, they are unable to install a proper driveway. Dinkin asks Frank Killilea if he is
aware of the situation. Killilea responds that he is aware that there is a resident on that
street that has a concern about his driveway. He is hoping that this can get squared away
with Mr. Carnevale and believes tbe arnount of money that the city is retaining would be
sufficient to make any corrections if` the city had to do the work.
Cassidy asks Killilea if the sidewalks were done according to the plan. Killilea repsonds
that they were done according to the plan layout. The problem is in the elevations, further
down the street.
Alexander states Mr. Bob Cottle of the Engineering Department has been to the site a
number of times to inspect the work and has told him that the bond amount left would be
sufficient to address the problem.
Dinkin asks Killilea if the proposed amount of $8,737.$0 is enough money to do the work.
Killilea responds it is enough money.
Delaney: motion to reduce the form of surety for Nicole Avenue from $75,962.50 to
$8,737.50, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor, no one in
opposition. Motion carries.
Meeting Place Circle subdivision: discussion on release of lots and
update on off-site drainage improvement project/ Tower Homes
Cassidy states at the last meeting the board discussed the release of some lots in the
subdivision and ultimately the board decided to release three more lots, in addition to the
two lots that had already been released for building and sale purposes. The board was
reluctant to do this becasue the off-site drainage improvement project has not been
completed. At the last meeting, the board asked Cassidy to come up with a timeline and a
status report. She states she has only received one release form back from a property
owner. The rest of the property owners are reluctant and others need more information
before they can make a decision. Cassidy and Thomas Neve have agreed to hold one
more site visit on the property with the developer, city engineer and Planning Department
to discuss the specifics of what is going to happen on the property. All affected residents
have been or will be invited.
Planing Board Minutes
September 25, 2000
Page 7
Thomas Neve, the project engineer states the board retianed an independent consultant to
review drainage calculations and they determined the impact to the neighborhood was
negligible. He has met with the City Solicitor, Frank Killilea and neighbors to discuss
concerns. Neve states there is a limited opportunity to do the project and explains the
steps.
Killilea agrees with Neve's assesment of how to do the project (starting at the little pond,
clearing it out and going upstream). He states to do it otherwise could create other
potential problems.
Thomson asks how long the project would take. Killilea responds 1 to 2 weeks (weather
permitting).
Thomson: motion to ask the city to proceed with time schedule and scope of work for
the drainage project, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor, no one
in opposition. Motion carries.
Thomson: motion to release the remaining lots (Lots 6 and 7) in the Meeting Place
Circle subdivision from the language of the Form G Restrictive Covenant,
seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, no one in opposition.
Motion carries.
6. Virginia Avenue Extension: request for bond reduction / Curtis Jones
Cassudy states the completion date and the surety for this subdivision does not expire until
fall of next year. Mr. Jones has requested a reduction in the surety. The board has
received a letter from the City Engineer dated September 25, 2000 recommending that the
Planning Board hold some monies ($7,575) to ensure healthy trees and grass strips.
Delaney: motion to reduce the amount of surety from $11,012 to $7,575 for Virginia
Avenue Extension subdivision, seconded by Flannery. All members in
favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries.
7. 311 Essex Street: set date for public hearing on definitive plan
application and request for frontage waiver in accordance with
M.G.L. Chaptar 41, Section 81-R / Kenneth & Elaine Nelson
Cassidy states the board has received a defnitive plan and request for waiver in
accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81-R for a piece of land at 311 Essex Street.
The plan contemplates the transfer of a small sliver of land from one owner to another.
The owner was required to get a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Staff
recommends scheduling a public hearing for the next regular meeting.
Planning Board Minutes
September 25, 2000
Page 8
Delaney: motion to set the date for the public hearing on the 311 Essex Street
definitive plan application and request for frontage waiver in accordance
with M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81-R for September 17, 2000. Motion
seconded by Flannery, all members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion
carries.
8. Site Plan Review application # 61-00: set date for public hearing on
application to construct one 3-story office / Research & Development /
manufacturing building / Cummings Properties, Inc,
Cassidy states the board received a Site Plan Review application that is complete. Staff
recommends the board schedule a hearing for the next regular meeting.
Delaney: motion to set the date for a public hearing on Site Plan Review application
# 61-00 for the Board's September 17, 2000 meeting. Motion seconded by
Dunn. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries.
9. Approval of Minutes: July 10, 2000 regular meeting
Dehney: motion to approve the minutes of the July 10, 2000 meeting. The motion
is seconded by Flannery, all members in favor, no one in opposition.
Motion carries.
10. New / Other Business
Cassidy reads a letter dated August 14, 2000 from Pam Kampersal regarding the Site Plan
Review for the Commodore site expressing her concern about drinking water, water
water supply, existing aquifer and increased storm water runoff.
Killilea responds that the letter contains generalizations and inaccuracies.
Dinkin asks if the is any other business for the Board to conduct. There is none.
10. Adjournment
Delaney: motion to adjourn, seconded by Thomson, all members in favor, no one in
opposition. Motion carries.
The meering is adjourned at 10:30 p.m.