2000-06-20 CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION:
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE:
LOCATION:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
RECORDER:
Planning Board
Jnne 20, 2000
Beverly City Hall
Chairman Rich Dinkin, Vice-Chairman Bill
Delaney, Robert Rink, Elizabeth McGlynn, Ellen
Flannery, Barry Sullivan, John Thomson
Joanne Dunn, Peter Thomas
City Planner Tina Cassidy, City Engineer Frank Killilea
Tina Cassidy
Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Delaney: motion to recess for public hearing, seconded by Sullivan. All members in
favor, motion carries.
Public Heating: Application for pork chop lot special permit / Hale and
Prince Streets / David Carnevale and Bradford Paul
Cassidy reads the legal notice. Attorney Tom Alexander, representing the applicants,
explains that the Board approved a five lot ANR for Carnevale's property in 1998. That
approval was appealed by a group of abutters. The abutting land formerly owned by
Eisenstadt was purchased by Mr. Paul, and the appeal has been dismissed without
prejudice. The owners have developed this plan with input from those abutters to create a
plan that is acceptable to all parties.
Alexander explains that the Paul property will not be subdivided into building lots at this
time. A pork chop lot would be created on Prince Street and the Paul property wilt: be
accessed via one of the hammerheads on Prince Street. He provides two letters of
support from neighbors to the Board.
Dinkin explains the manner in which the hearing will be conducted, and then asks Board
members if they have any questions. Thomson asks Alexander if he is submitting an
ANR plan for endorsement this evening. Alexander answers no. that if the approval is
granted and the appeal period expires without appeal, he will file an ANR at that tinge.
Delaney asks if the two lots to the north of the hammerhead are owned by Carnevale or
by other private owners. Alexander answers that they are now privately owned by others.
Dinkin asks if the size of the Paul lot would allow for further subdivision. Alexander
states that while they are not proposing a division now, division of the lot would be
possible in the future.
Planning Board minutes
June 20, 2000 meeting
Page two
Thomson ash Cassidy to explain the requirements for pork chop lots. Cassidy states that
the zoning ordinance allows for the creation of a pork chop lot with a minimum of 75' of
frontage on a road that existed prior to December of 1984. Delaney lists the findings that
the Board must make in order to grant special permits:
· That the specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use, and that the
character of adjoining uses will not be adversely affected;
· That no factual evidence is found that property values in the district will be adversely
affected by such use;
· That no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result;
· That adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation and
maintenance of the proposed use;
· That there are no valid objections from abutting property owners based on
demonstrable fact;
· That adequate and appropriate City services are or will be available for the proposed
use.
Dinkin asks Cassidy to read any comment letters received on this filing. She reads letters
from the Police Department, Fire Department, Conservation Commission, and two
abutters.
Dinkin asks if there are any questions from members of the audience. There are none.
Dinkin asks if there is anyone who wishes to be recorded as being in favor of the
application. George Balich, 28 Prince Street, states that he supports the application. Jack
Oliver, 2 Prince Street, also supports the request.
Delaney asks if water and sewer services will be provided to this lot. Alexander answers
yes. Thomson asks if the access for the pork chop lot will come from the shared
driveway proposed on lot #18, or whether the developer intends to provide another
driveway off Prince Street for this lot. Alexander answers that they intend to use a shared
driveway over lot #18. Thomson asks the developer if he would be willing to accept a
condition that access to the pork chop lot must be via a shared driveway. Carnevale
states that he would be willing to accept this condition.
Dinkin asks if there is any additional comment in favor or against the application.
Hearing none, he closes the public hearing.
Thomson states that there appears to be no harm in approving the application, and in fact
there would be a benefit to the neighborhood in doing so in that there would be one less
driveway onto Prince Street if this plan is approved.
Planning Board minutes
Jane 20, 2000 meeting
Page three
Delaney:motion to approve the application for a pork chop lot on Prince Street
based on the following findings:
a.That the site is an appropriate location for the proposed use, and that the
character of the adjoining uses will not be adversely affected;
b.That no factual evidence was found to indicate that property values in the
area would he adversely affected by the use;
c.That no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result;
d.That adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper
operation and maintenance of the use;
e.That there were no valid objections raised by abutting property owners
based on demonstrable fact; and
f. That adequate and appropriate City services will he available for the
proposed use
SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION that the pork chop lot shall not have
its own driveway access onto Prince Street, and, that instead access to the
pork chop lot shall he provided via a shared,"common driveway over lot
#18 on the plan.
Motion is seconded by Thomson, all members in favor. Motion carries.
2. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plan / Everett Street
Cassidy introduces Attorney Steve Maia, representing the applicants Robert Evans and
Mary Scofield. Maia explains that the owners of #32 and #38 Everett Street want to
swap pieces of property between the lots. Each lot will have at least the same area and
frontage on Everett Street after the land swap as they do today.
Thomson: motion to endorse the plan as one not requiring approval under the
Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor,
motion carries.
Meeting Place Circle: set bond amount, accept surety, release lots from
language of Form G Restrictive Covenant, bond reduction /Tower Homes
Cassidy explains that the Engineering Department is recommending a bond amount of
$356,625.00 he established to guarantee completion of this subdivision. Thomson states
that before setting the bond amount, he would like clarification on the progress toward
making the off-site drainage improvements that were required as a condition of
subdivision approval.
Planning Board minutes
Jane 20, 2000 meeting
Page four
Cassidy states that the developer has provided a separate bond in the form of a $25,000
cashier's check to cover that work. Developer Dana Tower states that the project
engineer, Tom Neve, has spoken to the roadway contractor about doing the work, and he
is ready to do it. They expect the work to take about two days to complete, but it is up to
the City to secure the necessary permission and approvals for the work.
Cassidy asks Killilea to update the Board on progress. Killilea states that he must meet
with Neve and City Solicitor Marshall Handly regarding the specifics of the design and
the most appropriate legal mechanism to acquire residents' permission to do the work on
their property. The Board holds a general discussion on the need to complete these
improvements and the timing of the work.
Thomson expresses his concern about releasing all of the lots for building purposes
before knowing when the off-site drainage improvements can be completed. Cassidy
suggests that City staff can meet with both Neve and Handly prior to the July Board
meeting, and provide the Board with an update on progress at that time. Thomson asks
Tower which lots be anticipates beginning construction off between now and the July
meeting. Tower answers that he wants to start building on lots #3 and #5.
Thomson: motion to set the bond amount for the Meeting Place Circle subdivision at
$356,625.00, seconded by Flannery, All members in favor, motion carries.
Thomson: motion to accept the Tri-Partite Agreement as surety for this subdivision,
seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor, motion carries.
Thomson: motion to release lot #3 and lot #5 from the language of the Form G
Restrictive Covenant previously posted for this subdivision, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor, motion carries.
Thomson: motion to accept the $25,000 cashier's check and the executed Bi-Partite
Agreement as surety to guarantee completion of the off-site drainage work.
Motion seconded by Sullivan, all members in favor. Motion carries.
Cassidy notes that the Engineering Department is also recommending a reduction in the
bond amount to reflect the fact that much of the construction work in this subdivision has
already been completed.
Thomson: motion to reduce the bond from $356.625.00 to $118,125.00. Motion
seconded by Sullivan. all members in favor. Motion carries.
Planning Board minutes
June 20, 2000 meeting
Page five
Virginia Avenue Extension: request for bond reduction and expiration of
construction completlon date / Curtis Jones
Cassidy explains that Mr. Jones has completed much of the outstanding work in this
subdivision. Work remaining to be completed includes the preparation of as-built,
easement, and acceptance plans. The Engineering Department is recommending that the
Board continue to hold money for the final roadway and sidewalk paving; although the
paving was done today, it was not possible for Engineering to review and approve of the
work before the meeting. Money should also be held to guarantee the tree and grass plot
installation, which has also been completed.
Sullivan: motion to extend the construction completion date for the Virginia Avenue
subdivision to July 9, 2000. Motion seconded by Thomson, all in favor.
Motion carries.
Sullivan: motion to reduce the bond for the Virginia Ayenue Extension subdivision
to $18,012.00, seconded by Delaney. All members in favor, motion carries.
Cassidy urges Jones to submit the required plans to the Engineering Department prior to
the July meeting. Jones states that he will forward the message to his engineer.
Nicole Avenue subdivision: expiration of construction completion date / Tom Camevale
Cassidy explains that the developer has requested an extension of the completion date for
this four-lot project for three months. She also states that two property owners in this
subdivision have written a letter to the Board requesting that the developer be required to
finish the subdivision. She adds that the engineering department has noted there has been
little progress toward completion in the last year, and that the engineering department has
identified a potential grading problem with the sidewalks that will likely require correction.
Dinkin asks how much is left in the bond. Cassidy states that more than $75,000 remains
in place until September 10, 2000. Dinkin asks Killilea if that amount of money would
be sufficient to complete the work in this project if the Board elected to seize the bond.
Killilea answers that although he would prefer the developer finish the project, he feels
$75,000 is adequate to complete the improvements if needed.
Sullivan states that he recalls the Planning Board imposed a condition on subdivision
approval thar required the developer install a sidewalk along Hull Slreet from the new
Planning Board minutes
June 20, 2000 meeting
Page six
subdivision to the existing sidewalk. Cassidy states that in fact that was a condition of
approval, and she will remind the City's engineer and the developer of the requirement.
Board members elect not to grant any extension of time for completion of this project.
They instruct the City Planner to invite the developer to the July Board meeting, at which
time he should he prepared to explain the nature of the grading problem and the proposed
solution. The Board also states that it expects the developer to make significant progress
toward subdivision completion between now and the July meeting.
Hannah Lane subdivision: request to set bond amount, accept surety, release
lots from Form G Restrictive Covenant / Brian Boches
Cassidy expla'ms that the new developer of this two-lot minor subdivision has asked that
a bond amount be established for this project, and has provided a Tri-Partite Agreement
in the amount of $8,000 to guarantee completion of this subdivision. She reads a letter
from City Engineer Frank Killilea recommending that the bond amount he set at
$8,000.00.
Delaney: motion to set the bond amount for the Hannah Lane subdivision at
$8,000.00, to accept the Tri-Partite Agreement as surety, and to release the
lots in the Hannah Lane subdivision for building and sale purposes.
Motion seconded by Thomson, all members in favor. Motion carries.
Hawk Hill Estates subdivision: set date for public hearing / Symes Associates
Inc.
Cassidy explains that Symes Associates has filed a 33-lot definitive subdivision plan for
the Dallas and L'Abbe properties off Essex Street. She recommends that a public hearing
on the application be set for the Board's July 10, 2000 meeting.
Sullivan: motion to schedule the hearing on the Hawk Hill Estates subdivision plan
for the Board's July 10, 2000 meeting. Motion seconded by Flannery. all
members in favor. Motion carries.
45 Enon Street site plan review application: set date for public hearing / Enon Street LLC
Cassidy explains that the Board has received a site plan review application for the site of
the old Commodore Restaurant. and suggests that the Board schedule the public hearing
on this application for its July 10, 2000 meeting.
Planning Board minutes
Jane 20, 2000 meeting
Page seven
Flannery: motion to schedule the public hearing on this site plan review application
for the Board's July 10, 2000 meeting. Motion seconded by Sullivan, all members in favor. Motion carries.
9. Approval of Minutes
Dinkin asks if anyone has any suggested corrections to the draft minutes of the Board's
May meeting. There are none.
Thomson: motion to accept the draft minutes of the Board's May 16, 2000 meeting.
Motion seconded by Delaney, all members in favor. Motion carries.
10. New or Other Business
Cassidy reminds members of upcoming meetings on June 29, 2000, July I0, 2000, and
July 12, 2000.
Dinkin asks if there is any other business. There is none.
Sullivan: motion to adjourn, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion
carries.
Tbe meeting is adjourned at 8:50 p.m.