2002-07-16
City of Beverly, Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
BOARD: Planning Board
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: July 16, 2002
PLACE: Beverly City Hall
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Ellen Flannery, Robert
Rink, Patricia Grimes, Elizabeth McGlynn, Joanne
Dunn
ABSENT: Barry Sullivan, John Thomson
OTHERS PRESENT: Debra Hurlburt (Planning Director) and Leah
Zambernardi (Assistant Planning Director)
RECORDER: Jeannine Dion
Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Grimes: motion to recess and reconvene for scheduled public hearings, seconded by
Flannery. All members in favor. Motion carries.
Public Hearing – Modification to Site Plan Review Application #57-00 – Reduce size
of proposed construction of a one-story, 10,000 sq. ft. building for manufacturing
and distribution purposes – 480 Rantoul Street – Rantoul Street LLC & Force
Realty LLC c/o Dinart Serpa/Dunkin Donuts
Hurlburt reads the legal notice into record.
Attorney Mark Glovsky appears on behalf of the applicant. He introduces Dinart Serpa,
the General Manager. Glovsky states that the property is at 480 Rantoul Street. It
contains approximately 68,000 square feet with 80 feet of frontage on Rantoul Street.
The applicant was before the Zoning Board, Planning Board, Design Review Board and
Parking & Traffic Commission in the year 2000. The same project, a single-story masonry
and steel building, which is approximately 10,000 square feet in size, is proposed this
evening. It would be used as a commercial bakery for Dunkin Donuts. Donuts and other
baked goods would be made at night and delivery would be in the morning to
approximately 30 Dunkin Donuts stores on the north shore. The project was designed
with 42 parking spaces, which exceeds the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. It was
not a project that required dimensional relief. A variance was obtained in 2000 because
the property was made up of two pieces. One of the pieces is in the CC zoning district
and the main portion of the property is in the IG zoning district. Because the applicant
was using a portion of CC property for parking and access to the IG property, the
variance was needed. The variance was granted by the Zoning Board. When the Zoning
Planning Board Minutes
July 16, 2002
Page 2
Board granted relief, there were certain conditions that were added to the variance, which
are still in effect. The conditions deal with hours of operation and a significant amount of
landscaping that was being proposed between Rantoul Street and the building itself.
The Site Plan was approved by the Planning Board on March 21, 2000. In the approval
letter, the conditions of the Zoning Board and comments from a March 21, 2000 letter
from Frank Killilea were incorporated.
The applicant is now proposing a slight modification. The modification is a reduction of
287 square feet on the corner of the building, which is the portion of the building that was
originally going to be constructed over an existing storm water main. It was determined
that relocation of the water main was going to be very difficult and expensive so the better
solution was to make the building a little smaller by angling the corner of the building.
Dinkin asks if there are clarifying questions from members of the board. There are none.
Dinkin asks if there are clarifying questions from members of the public.
John McHale, 492 Rantoul Street expresses concern regarding the parking and hours of
operation. Glovsky responds that there will be no retail traffic at all. There are
approximately 30 employees and the parking will have approximately 42 parking spaces.
Dinkin asks if there are questions in support. There are none.
Dinkin asks if there are questions in opposition.
Rosalie Cohen, 115 Elliott Street states she is opposed to the project.
Domenic Secondiani, 485 Rantoul Street asks, if other than the footprint reduction, if the
proposal will be the same. Glovsky responds that it will be.
Hurlburt reads the following correspondence into record:
·
Letter from Frank Killilea, dated July 16, 2002.
·
Letter from the Board of Health, dated July 15, 2002.
·
Letter from the Design Review Board, dated July 15, 2002.
Hurlburt asks Killilea to offer his comments. Killilea states that the Planning Board should
have the stamp and signature of a registered architect from the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts on the architect’s plans as is required of all plans that come before the City
of Beverly. He states that the 6-inch water main goes directly into the building and that
the City requests a more detailed plan showing a tee-off with a smaller domestic line. He
suggests the Planning Board may include this as a condition. He pointed out to the
Planning Board Minutes
July 16, 2002
Page 3
developer that if they come in with a smaller domestic line there will be a smaller water
demand charge, if he revises the drawings.
Glovsky states the applicant would be happy to incorporate Mr. Killilea’s comments.
The public hearing is closed.
The regular meeting of the Beverly Planning Board is called to order.
Discussion/Decision – Modification to Site Plan Review Application #57-00 – Reduce
size of proposed construction of a one-story, 10,000 sq. ft. building for
manufacturing and distribution purposes – 480 Rantoul Street – Rantoul Street
LLC & Force Realty LLC c/o Dinart Serpa/Dunkin Donuts
Flannery asks Mr. Glovsky if everything else is the same on the plan besides the proposed
modification. Glovsky responds that everything is the same, including all of the previous
conditions.
Dinkin states that two out of three sheets are not signed. He asks Mr. Killilea his
recommendation. Killilea responds that if the Planning Board gets the assurance that they
will be signed, the board can vote this evening.
Flannery: motion to vote in favor of #57-00 – 480 Rantoul Street including the
conditions stipulated by Mr. Killilea (signatures of registered architect) and
those conditions in the original approval, seconded by Grimes. All
members in favor. Motion carries.
Birch Woods Subdivision – Request for Extension of Completion Date – J. J. Phelan
& Sons, Inc./Joseph Phelan
Hurlburt reads a letter from Joseph J. Phelan dated July 11, 2002 to the Planning
Department requesting an extension of the Performance Bond in the amount of
$1,595,193.75 and the official completion date to September 30, 2002.
Hurlburt reads a letter from Frank Killilea recommending approval of the request for
extension of time.
Flannery: motion to grant the extension of the construction completion date to
September 30, 2002, seconded by Grimes. All members in favor. Motion
carries.
Planning Board Minutes
July 16, 2002
Page 4
Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR’s)
a. 865 Hale Street/Kevin Barry
Hurlburt states that this is a conveyance of a sliver of property from one owner to another.
The reason for the conveyance is that Lot 1 is putting an addition on the house. The plan
is technically compliant.
Flannery: motion to endorse the plan for 865 Hale Street as one not requiring
approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Grimes. All
members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries.
Site Plan Review Application #72-02 and Special Permit Application #105-02 – 92
Congregate Elderly Units – 2 Boyles Street – Whitehall Realty Trust – Set Public
Hearing
Attorney Thomas Alexander appears on behalf of the applicant. He states that the
applicant is requesting a date for a public hearing in September.
Flannery: motion to set a public hearing for Site Plan Review Application #72-02 and
Special Permit Application #105-02 – 92 Congregate Elderly Units – 2
Boyles Street for September 19, 2002 at 7:30 p.m., seconded by Grimes.
All members in favor. Motion carries.
Master Plan Discussion
(The following members of the Master Plan Steering Committee are in attendance:
Wendy Frontiero, Maureen Troubetaris, Joanne Avallon, Linda Goodenough, Don
Preston, Virginia McGlynn, Scott Houseman and George Simon)
Dinkin states that the discussion with the Master Plan Steering Committee is part of the
process of the adoption of the Draft Master Plan. It will consist of dialogue between the
Planning Board and some members of the Master Plan Steering Committee. There will
not be an opportunity for members of the public to ask questions.
Grimes states that she has four (4) proposed amendments to the Draft Master Plan.
Amendment #1
Amendment #1 (on pages 28 and 29 of the Draft Master Plan) – Grimes expresses concern
about the rights of property owners in relation to setting guidelines and standards for the
neighborhood organizations.
Planning Board Minutes
July 16, 2002
Page 5
Grimes recommends that the Draft Master Plan be amended by deleting the three
paragraphs following the label “Establish Neighborhood Associations.”
Goodenough states that the Master Plan Committee was here one month ago and has
spent hundreds of hours working on the draft Master Plan. She states the purpose of this
section was to put more teeth into regulations, zoning requirements and design. The
intent is not to give the neighborhood groups a regulatory role.
Avallon states she is a member of a neighborhood association in the Boyles Street
neighborhood, which was completely defunct until there was potential for 92 units to be
built in the middle of the neighborhood. It is not intended to be a regulatory or legislative
authority. It simply exists to advise the Planning Board.
Avallon proposes instead of deleting text from pages 28 and 29 to add the following:
Neighborhood Associations do not embody any regulatory or legislative authority. Thus
are merely advisory boards on the discretion of the Planning Board.
Preston states the intent of neighborhood associations is to be inclusive not exclusive.
Dinkin asks if there are questions from members of the board.
Dinkin states that the Planning Board is the adopting authority and there are members of
the Board who have certain specific objections to very specific areas of the plan. There
should be a dialogue. The board would be derelict in its duties if it simply accepted the
document without question and made the acceptance process a rubber stamp process.
Dinkin states that his issue is that with enshrining neighborhood associations in a
document accepted by the City, the message that you send is if you want your voice heard,
the only way you can have your voice heard is through the neighborhood association.
Grimes states that the intent of the text on pages 28 and 29 is meaningless. It is not
needed, it is meaningless and it has the potential to be really dangerous. The mechanisms
are in place right now. She asks if people are going to decide what the taste and design of
the homes in the neighborhood should be. She questions what kind of enforcement power
the neighborhood association would have.
Houseman states that the true spirit and intent is to say that as a City, our vision
cumulatively includes the Planning Department partnering with, listening to, and seeking
the participation of the neighborhood associations as well as citizens. The intent is to
recognize that we have these organizations and they have value in the community.
Planning Board Minutes
July 16, 2002
Page 6
Dinkin states he believes there is potential that the Draft Master Plan could be evidentiary,
the language deserves a certain amount of care.
Houseman states that the Master Plan is a vision statement and a culmination of many
comments.
Avallon suggests doing something quite simple.
Grimes states that she is willing to come to a compromise.
Dinkin recommends that the group run through those sections that members of the board
take issue with and then appoint a small subcommittee (representatives from the Planning
Board and Master Plan Steering Committee) to do rewrites.
Amendment #2
Amendment #2 (on page 56 of the Draft Master Plan) – Grimes recommends deleting the
chapter beginning, “Although the city may meet its 10% requirement for Chapter 40B …”
Grimes states she is absolutely for affordable housing in Beverly. She interprets the text
to say that even though the City of Beverly meets the 10% standard, we should go beyond
the 10% and we should be able to establish affordable housing anywhere in the city in any
zone. She states that would circumvent zoning and would blow apart the zoning
protections that residents rely upon.
Houseman states that he interprets the text differently.
Goodenough states that she thinks the intent was for the city to pay attention to the 10%
requirement and to be ahead of 40B.
Dinkin recommends the following: It is the obligation of the community to be proactive
keeping the availability of affordable housing above 10%.
Amendment #3
Amendment #3 (on pages 67 & 68) – Grimes states that any reference to the Community
Preservation Act (CPA) should not be in an official document. It is a political issue. She
believes a city official can take a stand on the topic, however, an official document should
not be taking a stand on a political issue. She believes it is illegal.
Flannery agrees that it would be logical to delete reference to the CPA.
Planning Board Minutes
July 16, 2002
Page 7
Houseman states the CPA was viewed as a potential funding source. It is advocacy of an
idea.
Grimes states that the CPA is up to the voters and the voters did not vote for it when it
was on the ballot.
Hurlburt states if the CPA comes back before the voters, the Master Plan could insert text
about the CPA. She is in agreement with Grimes because it has gone to the voters and
they did not support it. She states the Master Plan could be amended in the future and the
text could be reinserted.
Amendment #4
Amendment #4 (on page 71) – Recommendation for tradition design. Grimes states she
views the text to make open space subdivision design the preeminent design and the
traditional subdivision to be allowed only by special permit.
She recommends deleting all of the text in the box on page 71 under the caption
“Recommendations for Traditional Designs” and inserting the following text: “Retain
traditional subdivision design and allow the use of CSD standards upon the issuance of a
special permit by the Planning Board.”
Houseman states that he would not want to see the Master Plan handcuff the discussion of
the open space subdivision. If it is not clear, he has no problem changing it, but he does
not want to handcuff the community before discussions even happen.
Dinkin states he appreciates all the time and effort the Master Plan Committee has put into
the document. He states that he has some background in Master Plans and he believes the
document is more than acceptable.
Rink asks a clarifying question about the essence of the vision for the waterfront.
Goodenough states that there was a lot of emphasis placed on commercial development,
mixed use (commercial/residential). There was consensus that the waterfront will drive
new development downtown. There is a natural beautiful harbor, which is underutilized.
Massive rezoning will need to occur.
Avallon adds that there should be support of the fishing industry.
Dinkin states that he has one philosophical issue (on page 86) referring to additional layers
of government. He proposes the deletion of Section 4 on page 86 beginning at the second
sentence.
Planning Board Minutes
July 16, 2002
Page 8
There is discussion regarding the future of the role of the Master Plan Steering
Committee.
Dinkin states he believes that empowering the same body to create and monitor a plan is
horrible internal control. He asks the Planning Director for her opinion.
Hurlburt states that it could be a double-edged sword. It could be good from a historical
perspective. However, there is a lot that falls on the Planning Department in terms of
staffing various boards and the department may not have the ability to really monitor the
plan.
Dinkin recommends creating a subcommittee to work on the rewrites pertaining to the five
issues discussed this evening.
All parties agree to the following members for the “rewrite subcommittee”:
Grimes and Rink from the Planning Board, Simon and Avallon from the Master Plan
Steering Committee and Leah Zambernardi (Assistant Planning Director).
Flannery: motion to conduct a special meeting on August 1, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. to
vote on the amendments to the Draft Master Plan so that that the Planning
Board can move forward on the vote, seconded by Grimes. All members in
favor. Motion carries.
Approval of Minutes – Regular Meeting, June 18, 2002
Flannery: motion to accept the minutes dated June 18, 2002 as amended, seconded
by Grimes. All members in favor. Motion carries.
City Council Order
Hurlburt states that Councilman Tim Flaherty has submitted an order for the creation of an
ordinance relative to construction under 25,000 square feet. This order is a measure that
the City can use to increase design standards for certain development in Beverly. He has
referred this order to the Planning Board for its review and support. The Planning Board
is being asked to review this order and to take the strategies and formats of the model
ordinances, supplied as an attachment in the staff report, into consideration while
discussing whether it supports such design standards for Beverly.
Dinkin states he does not want to bring this to a vote and suggests that the Planning
Department treat it as a request from a member of City Council to draft a proposed
ordinance for review and introduction to the City Council.
Planning Board Minutes
July 16, 2002
Page 9
Adjournment
Flannery: motion to adjourn, seconded by Dunn, all members in favor, no one
opposed. Motion carries.
The meeting is adjourned at 10:00 p.m.