2002-09-19
City of Beverly, Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
BOARD: Planning Board
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: September 19, 2002
PLACE: Beverly City Hall
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin; Joanne Dunn, John
Thomson, Ellen Flannery, Barry Sullivan, Elizabeth
McGlynn, Robert Rink, Patricia Grimes
ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT: Planning Director, Debra Hurlburt and Asst.
Planning Director, Leah Zambernardi
RECORDER: Jeannine Dion
Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Thomson:
motion to recess and reconvene for scheduled public hearings, seconded by
Grimes. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries.
Public Hearing: Special Permit Application #105-02 for Congregate Housing for
Elderly and Site Plan Review Application #72-02 for Construction of 20 Multi-
Family Buildings, Rehabilitation of Five Existing Buildings and Associated Site and
Utility Improvements – Whitehall Hill Realty Trust/Henry Bertolon
Hurlburt reads the legal notice into record.
Attorney Thomas Alexander states the applicant is seeking to build 94 units of senior
housing on a 29-acre parcel under the Senior Congregate Elderly Housing provision of the
Zoning Ordinance. He states the project provides an opportunity for the city and the
applicant to bring a high quality project, maximize open space and also preserve some
historic buildings on the site. The zoning for this Special Permit allows for four units per
acre, which would come out to 116 units. The applicant is proposing 94 units, which is
less than the maximum.
Alexander states the applicant will also be presenting what a conventional subdivision plan
would look like on the site. The applicant is not looking for approval of a conventional
subdivision. It is meant to bring to the dialogue the development alternatives for the site.
There have been questions regarding this proposal and how it fits into the definition of
congregate elderly housing. The applicant is going to spend a fair amount of time talking
about how this project satisfies the requirements for congregate elderly housing. The
Planning Board Minutes
September 19, 2002
Page 2
input of neighbors and experts makes for a better project. The applicant would like to
work collaboratively with the board, neighbors and their experts.
The project is a cluster oriented one. The new buildings will be set back 125 feet from
neighboring properties as opposed to a 25 foot setback for a conventional subdivision.
There will be 5 ½ acres of open space right next to the Cove Elementary School.
Jay Burnham, the Marketing Consultant for the project has projected that this project has
the potential to generate revenue in the amount of $507,000 in the first year (building
permit fees, etc.) and over time an annual revenue stream of approximately $806,000. All
costs for the project will be handled by the association (plowing, street maintenance, etc.).
Alexander asks that everyone keep an open mind. He realizes that people have legitimate
concerns and the applicant wants to answer the questions.
Alexander compares this project to The Maples in Wenham, Massachusetts. The Maples
is more than twice as dense as the proposed project. The Maples is 55 units on 7.8 acres,
which comes out to 7 units per acre. This project is 94 units on 29 acres, which comes
out to 3.24 units per acre.
Alexander introduces the development team:
·
Thomas Skahen and Christos Kuliopulos – Senior Ventures, LLC
·
Bob Griffin – Griffin Engineering
·
Mike Wasser – Landscape Architect, Hines Wasser & Assoc., LLC
·
Gary Snyder – Architect, Bloodgood Sharp Buster
·
Giles Ham – Traffic Consultant, Vanasse and Associates
·
Henry Bertolon – the Principal of the Project
Thomas Skahen introduces himself and he provides an overview of the company Senior
Ventures, LLC. Senior Ventures, LLC designs, implements and manages on-site
community management services. It is a 20 plus community management company
providing on-site property management, maintenance and catered living services. Skahen
provides national and New England trends and demographics of active adult communities.
Bob Griffin from Griffin Engineering introduces himself and provides an overview of the
site plan for the development. He states the parcel is approximately 30 acres. Twenty
nine acres will be devoted to the project and one acre will be developed separately as two
single family homes (ANR). Six acres will be preserved as open space. There are four
wetland areas on the site. Wetland areas B and D are located on the 6 acre parcel, and
Wetland areas A and C are on the larger parcel.
Planning Board Minutes
September 19, 2002
Page 3
Dinkin asks what percentage of the parcel will be newly impervious. Griffin responds that
he is not sure but he will get the information to the board.
Dinkin asks if Griffin can also provide the board with some idea of the direction that the
runoff from the newly impervious area will go. Griffin will provide that information at a
future date.
Griffin states the correct number of units is 92 (not 94 units). The 92 units are made up of
70 townhouse units. Each unit will have two bedrooms and two car garages. In addition
to the 70 units, 4 units will go in an existing house located at 30 Boyles Street and 8
condo units will go in an existing structure located at 28 Boyles Street. There is an
existing two family structure on Hale Street and there will continue to be two families in
that house. The structure will stay as part of the project as part of the congregate
housing. There is also an existing building on Hale Street, formerly an art gallery. The
proposal is to put two units in the former art gallery. The art gallery will be restored. The
applicant is proposing to put the community center in the Whitehall mansion and an
additional five condo units.
Griffin states the access in and out of the site is through a loop. There is a one-way
entrance at the existing intersection of Hale and Boyles Street and a one-way exit down
the existing driveway. The four units at 30 Boyles Street and eight units at 28 Boyles
Street will be served by an expanded driveway coming directly off Boyles Street.
Griffin states that in reviewing the proposed layout with the Parking and Traffic
Commission and the Fire and Police Departments, they expressed concern that the slope
of the driveway is 10%. If this was a new subdivision and not a private roadway, it would
require a 6% slope. They asked that the applicant look at the slope issue and try to find
another way to provide access at the site. Since then, he has met with the Parking and
Traffic Commission again and proposed an emergency access connection so that in the
event of a snowfall or emergency, there would be an emergency connection.
Dinkin asks if the proposed emergency access would be for public safety vehicles? Griffin
responds that it would be ONLY for public safety vehicles.
Griffin states that there are no zoning variances required for this plan whatsoever. All of
the buildings are 125 feet or more from the property boundary and all roadways meet the
dimensional requirements.
Griffin states much of the drainage at the site is being directed to a proposed detention
pond. The drainage report shows that post construction conditions are no worse than
present conditions. There will no direct impact on bordering vegetated wetlands
associated with the project. There is a crossing of the intermittent stream and some bank
impacts, which will be reviewed by the Conservation Commission.
Planning Board Minutes
September 19, 2002
Page 4
Griffin provides an overview of an alternative conventional single-family subdivision plan.
A typical single-family subdivision would have 40 single-family house lots and would
preserve a lot less open space. The houses are close together.
Griffin provides a comparison of the two plans (proposed versus a conventional single-
family subdivision).
·
There is a strong need for congregate housing. The need for single-family
subdivision market is still very strong as evidenced by continuing rise in home sale
prices.
·
From a setback point of view, the single-family subdivision plan is a 25-foot
setback requirement versus 125-foot setback for the congregate housing.
·
There would be more open space set aside with the 55+ plan versus the single-
family house plan.
·
The 55+ plan renovates most of the existing structures on the property.
·
The 55+ plan is required to go through the design review process. A single-family
house plan would not be required to go through design review.
·
There would be less traffic with the 55+ plan versus a single-family subdivision.
·
The 55+ plan would have less impact on city services because the homeowner’s
association is responsible for maintenance, snow plowing, utilities, etc.
·
Less noise for the 55+ plan than a single-family subdivision.
·
Fewer structures for the 55+ plan versus a single-family subdivision.
Dinkin asks if 55+ means that one member of a couple has to be 55 or both? Griffin
responds that one member of the couple must be 55 years old.
The hearing is put into recess until 9:15 p.m.
Public Hearing – Modification to Site Plan Review #62-00 Rework Layout of
Original Landscape Plan – Jerry Guilebbe/Datum, Inc.
Greg Burnett, Project Engineer from Samiotes Consultants, Inc. Civil Engineers, appears
on behalf of the applicant. He states Datum, Inc. received site plan approval on January
17, 2001 for the construction of an addition to the existing office building at 34 Tozer
Road. The approval was for a two-story, 19,300 square foot addition consisting of 2,490
square feet of manufacturing and 16,810 square feet of office space. The plan also
included the creation of additional parking and landscaping. The approval was subject to
several conditions from the Conservation Commission, Parking and Traffic Commission,
Board of Health, and Design Review Board. The Design Review Board requested several
enhancements to the Landscaping Plan by adding more trees as well as different varieties.
Planning Board Minutes
September 19, 2002
Page 5
Mr. Burnett states an application for modification to the site plan has been submitted. He
states he was before the Parking and Traffic Commission today. The changes to the
original plan are minor. The building was lowered to match the first floor elevation of the
existing building. Two handicap parking spots were added and some of the layout was
changed. The applicant still meets the required number of parking spaces (163 parking
spaces on site). Due to some of the parking changes, the landscaping has changed. Some
of the plantings have been cut back and a few minor changes were made to the
landscaping.
Hurlburt reads the following letters into record:
·
Letter from the Deputy Chief – Fire Prevention, dated Sept. 19, 2002.
·
Letter from the Police Department, dated Sept. 19, 2002.
·
Letter from the Design Review Board recommending changes in the landscaping
plan, dated Sept. 19, 2002.
·
Letter from the Parking and Traffic Commission, dated Sept. 19, 2002.
Dinkin asks if there are clarifying questions from members of the public. There are none.
Dinkin asks if there are comments in opposition from members of the public. There are
none.
Dinkin asks if there are comments in support from members of the public. There are none.
The public hearing is closed.
Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR’s)
Wood Lane – Anthony Jack
Zambernardi states that Mr. Jack is proposing to donate a portion of land to the city and
creating an ANR lot. In April of 2001 the board reviewed the plan and asked for more
information from the Police and Fire Departments regarding the right-of-way on Wood
Lane. Mr. Jack has decided to apply again.
Zambernardi reads the following into record:
·
Letter from the Fire Department dated August 21, 2002.
·
Letter from the Police Department dated September 9, 2002.
·
Letter from the Building Department dated August 19, 2002.
Planning Board Minutes
September 19, 2002
Page 6
Mr. Jack states he was approached by the Open Space and Recreation Committee
regarding a parcel on Wood Lane. He said he would donate 8.1 acres if he could have an
approximate one-acre building lot approved. It was received by the Conservation
Commission, Tina Cassidy and nobody had objections.
Dinkin asks if there are questions from members of the board.
Thomson states the Planning Board does not have authority to approve the ANR if there
is no access.
Mr. Jack states he would like to withdraw his application.
Thomson:
motion to accept Mr. Jack’s request to withdraw his ANR application,
seconded by Grimes. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion
carries.
275 Elliott Street – Gerry Wittenberg
Zambernardi states the applicant has filed an ANR plan with the board to convey a 2,098
square foot parcel of land to his abutter at 1 Echo Avenue. Both houses are located upon
pre-existing nonconforming lots. 275 Elliott Street received a variance “of the frontage
and dimensional requirements necessary for subdivision and/or conveyance of a portion of
the parcel” from the Zoning Board of Appeals in March of 1999. Because this
conveyance of property does not affect the frontage of 275 Elliott Street and increases the
nonconforming frontage of 1 Echo Avenue from 50 feet to 75.42 feet where the 100 feet
is required, a waiver from frontage is not required of the Planning Board.
Dinkin asks what the hardship is. Hurlburt reads the Zoning Board of Appeals decision
into record.
The plan meets the Board’s requirements for endorsement as an ANR.
Thomson:
Motion to endorse the plan for 275 Elliott Street as one not requiring
approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Flannery. All
members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries.
14 Beaver Pond Road – Carmen Frattaroli
Mr. Frattaroli states he was before the board four years ago with an ANR and he is before
the board tonight for two additional lots. First the combination of lots B5 and B2. They
meet frontage. The next combination is of lots B7 and B6. Both have at least 45,000
square feet and 175 feet of frontage on Beaver Pond Road.
Planning Board Minutes
September 19, 2002
Page 7
Thomson:
Motion to endorse the plan for 14 Beaver Pond Road as one not requiring
approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Rink. All
members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries.
Discussion/Decision – Modification to Site Plan Review #62-00 Rework Layout of
Original Landscape Plan – Jerry Guilebbe/Datum, Inc.
Thomson:
Motion to grant the Modification to Site Plan Review #62-00 – Datum,
Inc., seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor, no one in opposition.
Motion carries.
8 – 8 ½ Hobart Street – Jonathan Kail and Kathleen McHugh
The applicant is proposing to divide the existing lot at 8 – 8 ½ Hobart Street. The current
lot contains two houses: one to the rear and one to the front. The house to the front was
originally a garage that was converted to a house between 1918 and 1920. Mr. Kail has
submitted a deed and an atlas from 1919 indicating that the two buildings were standing
when the subdivision control law came into effect in 1954.
Zambernardi reads from MGL Ch 41 Sec. 81L.
Thomson:
Motion to endorse the plan for 8 – 8 ½ Hobart Street as one not requiring
approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Flannery. All
members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries.
58-60 and 62-64 Dodge Street – Estate of Anne M. Bushby (owner) Mart
Management
Attorney Thomas Alexander, on behalf of Mart Management has filed an ANR plan with
the board to convey an 8,474 square foot parcel from Lot B and Lot A. Both Lot A and
Lot B are owned by the Bushby Estate.
Thomson:
Motion to endorse the plan for 58-60 and 62-64 Dodge Street as one not
requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by
Flannery. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries.
238 Conant/89 Cherry Hill Drive – Signature for Recordation of Plan/Nancy A.S.
McCann on behalf of Ralph and Martha Ardiff, and Thomas J. Flatley
Planning Board Minutes
September 19, 2002
Page 8
Zambernardi explained that this plan was approved in December 2001. The applicants
need an additional mylar of the plan to be signed for filing with Land Court. Dinkin states
he will sign the plan at the end of the meeting.
Public Hearing: Special Permit Application #105-02 for Congregate Housing for
Elderly and Site Plan Review Application #72-02 for Construction of 20 Multi-
Family Buildings, Rehabilitation of Five Existing Buildings and Associated Site and
Utility Improvements – Whitehall Hill Realty Trust/Henry Bertolon
Mike Wasser, the Landscape Architect, provides an overview of the project. He states the
intention of the project is to give it a pedestrian feel. He will work with the town forester
on the street tree plantings.
Thomson asks if there will be sidewalks. Wasser responds that there will not be sidewalks
because of the predicted low traffic counts.
Gary Snyder, the Architect, provides an overview of his company, the project and the
elevations and floor plans of the units and the elevations of the detached garages.
Giles Ham, the Traffic Engineer, provides an overview of the traffic study. He states the
four elements of a traffic study are existing conditions, trip generations, intersections and
recommendations.
The highlights are as follows:
·
The projection for the trip rate for the 55+ project during a.m. peak hours is 26
vehicles over one hour and the p.m. peak hours of 30 vehicle trips over one hour.
·
8 – 9 new vehicles added to Boyles Street during the a.m. peak hour.
·
15 – 20 new vehicles added to Hale Street during the a.m. peak hour.
·
The intersections work very well.
·
The exit traffic could come out on Boyles Street.
Dinkin questions the choice to place the entrance at what is “not the safest corner in
town.” He asks if there are engineering considerations or if it is driven by traffic safety
considerations. Ham responds that you look at both engineering and safety.
Dinkin recommends that the applicant consider creating the main entrance somewhere
further up Boyles Street – perhaps where the secondary entrance is located. Ham
responds that he can look at that but he feels that the access provides safe access.
Dinkin asks that Ham walk him through the thought process for locating the entrance
where it is. Ham responds that he worked with the site engineer and they tried to balance
safety, impact on residential streets, looked at site distance, etc.
Planning Board Minutes
September 19, 2002
Page 9
Griffin states that age restrictive developments are low traffic developments and they
generate less traffic than single-family homes. He states he believes the intersection is safe
and after meeting with the Parking and Traffic Commission, he feels the site distance is
excellent.
Tom Skahen reconvenes his presentation. He states Senior Ventures, LLC provides
community management services. The services represent property management services
and catered living services. Community Management Services contracts to the
homeowner association to provide services. There is a Concierge Service Director on site
located in the Community Center, who will coordinate and manage the property
management and catered living services.
Property Management Services include on-site homeowner association management, real
estate asset management (budget preparation, financial statement preparation, capital
improvement and reserve management) and property maintenance (landscaping, trash and
snow removal, pool maintenance, security management, community center/clubhouse
management).
Catered Living Services are shared homeowner support services accessed and managed on
site through a single source via a Concierge Director located in the Community
Center/Club House. Services include: wellness center services, activities planning
services, housekeeping and carpet cleaning services, transportation services, restaurant
and catering delivery to the homeowner or in the community shared dining room and
handyman services.
Skahen provides an overview of the Club at Whitehall. There will be a shared dining room
area with a kitchen (for functions), pub room, Concierge Service Center, large patio/pool,
community living room, wellness center with a wellness coordinator (low level health care
and classes), sauna/whirlpool.
Dinkin asks what the level of licensure of the wellness coordinator. Skahen responds that
the wellness coordinator would be responsible for the exercise, training, aerobic, activities
in the wellness center. The wellness coordinator would be a certified trainer.
Skahen reads the congregate elderly definition as it relates to the zoning ordinance. He
reads from the regulations and states that they effectively coordinate the concierge
services and the real estate services using a hospitality approach and integrating those two
dynamics.
Dinkin asks if a 27 year-old wheel chair bound individual would be able to purchase one of
the units? Alexander responds that nobody could be excluded based on a handicap. They
could, however, be excluded based on their age.
Planning Board Minutes
September 19, 2002
Page 10
Dinkin asks if members of the board have clarifying questions.
Thomson asks for more of an explanation regarding the interpretation of the definition of
congregate elderly housing. Alexander responds that he believes the applicant meets the
definition of congregate elderly housing definition. He states the definition requires the
following:
·
that it is alternative housing for elderly persons (55+),
·
shared living arrangements with others,
·
residents shall have their own dwelling unit,
·
shared living rooms, dining area, kitchen,
·
support services,
·
excludes nursing homes and halfway houses,
·
intended for independent living not assisted living,
·
reference in the regulation for services to be housed within the main building on
site.
Thomson asks how the services are being provided. Alexander responds that the services
are included in the monthly condominium fee. There would be a basic menu of services
that everybody would receive and then there would be the opportunity to pay for
additional services as needed.
Dinkin states on a couple of occasions the Planning Director has asked for the applicant to
provide legal rationale for city counsel to review.
Grimes asks if housekeeping and transportation services are routinely provided.
Alexander responds that services are provided on an a la carte basis. You don’t have to
pay for the service if you don’t want it. It is there if you need the service.
Dinkin asks if member of the public have comments in opposition.
Joanne Avallon, 17 Boyles Street, states she is a member of Friends of Chapman’s Corner,
which a community organization that has hired several professionals who would like to
speak to the board tonight. She introduces Attorney Tom Harrington.
Harrington states he would like to make three points.
1. Address the definition of congregate elderly housing.
2. Discuss why the community organization believes this application as presently
submitted fails to meet the standards of approval.
Planning Board Minutes
September 19, 2002
Page 11
3. Discuss how the application as submitted is insufficient to be accepted as a
completed application.
Definition of Congregate Elderly Housing
He reads Sec 29-2 B13 from the zoning ordinance and states he does not think it is either
elderly congregate housing or handicap persons congregate housing. The idea is that both
groups could benefit from a shared living environment. With all due respect, beautifully
designed condo units with a clubhouse is not congregate living arrangement. To
demonstrate this point, he cites two sources.
1. Beverly Housing Authority: They consider congregate elderly housing to be “a
unique blend of private shared living …”. The idea is that the people may need
some small level of care. They are capable of living on their own but they share
living space.
2. Office of Elder Affairs from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts – Maggie
Dionne, Director of Housing and Supportive Services, provides the following
definition: “Congregate housing is a shared living environment designed to
integrate the housing and service needs of elder individuals.” Again, it is a single
unit.
Harrington states the definition is important because the applicant is here with a Special
Permit. A Special Permit offers the applicant relief from zoning. They are allowed to put
a lot more units on this plot than they normally would. Therefore, it is in the board’s
hands to make sure that they follow the letter and the spirit of the bylaw. What is being
proposed does not and this is not a congregate living arrangement.
Standards of Approval
Harrington states the board needs to be satisfied that the following six things are present
before issuing a Special Permit:
1. This specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use.
2. Property values of the surrounding abutting properties will not be negatively
impacted.
3. No undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result.
4. Adequate and appropriate facilities provide the proper operations and
maintenance of proposed use.
5. There are no valid objections for abutting property owners.
6. Adequate and appropriate city services are and will be available.
Harrington states this is a tough standard and the applicant does not come close. He
provides examples.
Planning Board Minutes
September 19, 2002
Page 12
·
Hydrologist will show that there are problems with drainage. That will be bad for
property values in bad weather conditions because it will contribute to hazardous
conditions.
·
Retention basin will go to Eisenhower, which will create an unsafe condition.
·
There are a number of private drainage facilities to take the water away, which will
create two concerns:
1. The applicant plans to use the private drainage systems to pass water along,
which is a negative impact on the neighbors.
2. The drainage system is privately owned. The development is not allowed to
use the private drainage systems any more than they are right now. If they are
going to increase the use, they need written permission from the owners of
each of the private drainage structures.
Insufficiencies
·
The applicant failed to delineate the proposed contour lines. It is a very hilly sight
but you can’t tell looking at any of the submittals. The public needs to know what
the applicant intends to do to the contours in order for everyone to make an
appraisal if the project is suitable or not.
·
The Planning Board should apply the Subdivision Control Rules and Regulations
to this development.
·
Concern about the >6% grades throughout the project, which is very unsafe.
·
Two cul-de-sacs are longer than 500 feet, which is a safety hazard.
·
Frontage – Insufficient frontage. Need specific survey to determine if there is
sufficient frontage.
Closing
·
Harrington asks that the board make a ruling as to whether or not it feels the
project as submitted meets the definition of congregate elderly housing.
·
Before another hearing is held, the community organization asks that the board
make a determination that the application is complete.
Daniele Lantagne of Alethia Environmental provides an overview of her analysis of the
site. She reviews existing drainage on the site, proposed drainage on the site and drainage
analysis.
Paul Hajak, the Traffic Consultant provides an overview of the traffic study he conducted.
The highlights are as follows:
Planning Board Minutes
September 19, 2002
Page 13
·
The Year 2007 No Build/Build Analysis should be redone to account for increased
enrollment at Endicott College and the Cove Elementary School, Endicott College
football field, Montessori School, etc.
·
Baseline on existing traffic volume on Boyles Street.
·
Driveway design is the most important issue. The design and location of the
driveway that intersects Hale and Boyles Street is not safe. The site distance is not
referenced. A speed survey should be done.
·
Boyles Street design is very narrow and snow banks reduce the width of the road.
Hajak states that he believes the project would have an adverse impact on pedestrian and
vehicular safety.
Hajak reads neighbors’ comments regarding traffic:
·
Intersection of Hale and Boyles Streets.
·
A lot of accidents at the intersection reported and unreported.
·
The project will increase the accident potential.
·
Major school bus stop.
·
No safety features being proposed.
Dinkin asks Hurlburt to provide Attorney Harrington’s written comments and the letter
that Attorney Alexander will provide to the legal department to review both letters and
provide the Planning Board with comments as to whether this meets the definition in the
zoning ordinance of congregate elderly housing. He asks that the legal department’s
comments be provided in time for the next meeting.
Dinkin also asks Hurlburt to refer the traffic study and Mr. Hajak’s comments, the
drainage study with Ms. Lantagne’s comments to Frank Killilea for his review. He
requests Mr. Killilea’s comments in time for the next meeting.
Dinkin asks for the Police Department to provide the board with traffic incident reports
for the past 12 months for the length of the proposed frontage of the project and 150
yards in either direction.
Dinkin states that at the next meeting, all letters will be read into public record.
Thomson:
motion to recess until October 17, 2002 at 7:30 p.m., seconded by
Flannery. All members in favor. Motion carries.
Planning Board Minutes
September 19, 2002
Page 14
Birchwoods Subdivision – Expiration of Completion Date
Hurlburt states the board has received a letter dated September 13, 2002 from Joseph
Phelan III requesting to extend the performance bond in the amount of $1,595,193.75.
The official completion date of the project is October 30, 2002. The final As-Builts will
be submitted on September 30, 2002.
Hurlburt reads a letter from Frank Killilea into record recommending the board grant the
extension until October 30, 2002.
Thomson:
motion to grant the extension to October 30, 2002, seconded by
Flannery. All members in favor. Motion carries.
Approval of Meeting Minutes:
Thomson:
motion to accept the meeting minutes dated June 19, 2001, July 16,
2002 and August 1, 2002, seconded by Flannery. Grimes abstains.
Motion carries.
Authorize Planning Department to make application for $30,000 from EO418.
Flannery
: motion to authorize the Planning Department to make application for
$30,000 from EO418, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor.
Motion carries.
Form recommendation to the Mayor to appoint a Comprehensive Rezoning Study
Committee
Thomson:
motion to recommend to the Mayor to appoint a Comprehensive Rezoning
Study Committee, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor. Motion
carries.
Scott Houseman, Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals addresses the Board
Rink:
motion to suspend the rules to allow Scott Houseman to address the board,
seconded by Thomson. All members in favor. Motion carries.
Houseman asks the Planning Board to consider a joint public hearing regarding the Site
Plan review process for a proposal for 70 age-restricted units off Boulder Lane. He states
that it would be very beneficial for both the Zoning Board and the Planning Board to have
an opportunity to go through the analysis of the project rather than solely having the
boards meet separately and have written reports come from the Planning Board to the
Zoning Board.
Planning Board Minutes
September 19, 2002
Page 15
Dinkin expresses concern that if there is a joint public hearing, we may be overreaching
our authority.
Houseman states he would conduct the joint public hearing in the same fashion as the joint
public hearing between the Planning Board and the City Council. The Planning Board
conducts its meeting (the ZBA listens) and the Planning Board recesses. The ZBA then
conducts its meeting (the Planning Board listens) and then after comment, recesses. The
primary purpose of the joint public hearing is so that the ZBA could listen to the Planning
Board. Houseman states he is interested in the efficiency.
Attorney Alexander states the applicant would waive any scheduling constraints in order
to facilitate a joint public hearing.
Adjournment
Flannery:
motion to adjourn, seconded by Dunn, all members in favor, no one
opposed. Motion carries.
The meeting is adjourned at 11:55 p.m.