2002-02-12
CITY OF BEVERLY, MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Planning Board
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: February 12, 2002
LOCATION: Council Chambers, Beverly City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice-Chairperson John
Thomson, Robert Rink, Joanne Dunn, Ellen Flannery
Elizabeth McGlynn, Peter Thomas, Patricia Grimes
MEMBERS ABSENT: Barry Sullivan
ALSO PRESENT: Acting Planning Director Debra Hurlburt, Engineering
Director Frank Killilea
RECORDER: Karen Bradley
Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
Thomson:
motion to recess for public hearing, seconded by Thomas. All members in favor,
no one in opposition. Motion carries 8-0.
Public Hearing (continued): Site Plan Review Application #67-01 – Cabot Crossing –
construction of commercial building and mixed-use commercial/residential building – 495
Cabot Street/Town & Country Homes
Hurlburt reads the legal notice for the public hearing.
Dinkin states that this public hearing has been reopened for the limited purpose of discussing the
traffic study and any other new information that has become available since the September
meeting.
Attorney Thomas Alexander is present to represent Town and Country Homes. Also in
attendance are Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering, Paul Hajec of Hajec Associates, and George
Belleau of Town and Country Homes.
Alexander updates the Board stating that the Conservation Commission is of the opinion that this
project is not in compliance with the Wetlands Protection Act, therefore denying this project. He
states that this project is presently under the review of the Department of Environmental
Protection.
Alexander states that as a result of the traffic study, Town and Country Homes has agreed to
some mitigation that was recommended by the City’s traffic consultant. He states that the final
conclusion of the traffic study is that this project will have an imperceptible and insignificant
impact on traffic in this area.
Alexander explains that an abutter expressed some concern regarding the drainage plan. He
states that the drainage setback has been redesigned so that it does not cross the City’s drainage
easement.
Planning Board minutes
February 12, 2002 meeting
Page two
Alexander states that this project has been excessively reviewed and approval has been granted
by the Police Department, the Fire Department, the Parking and Traffic Commission, the Design
Review Board, the City Engineer and the Building Inspector. He states that the Public Services
Director has strictly reviewed the drainage for this project and suggested some changes that have
been incorporated into the revised drainage plan.
Hajec provides a detailed review of the traffic study that was performed by Bayside Engineering
including trip generation and trip assignment. He states that upon review of this traffic study, the
findings did not change by any great degree.
Hajec next provides a detailed review of the mitigation for this project which will include a stop
light and stop bar to provide controlled exits and do not enter signs at the two exits, and
appropriate markings (striping of lanes) for the school exit at the developer’s expense.
Dinkin asks if there are any questions from the members of the Board.
Grimes asks for clarification of appropriate markings out of the school driveway. Hajec states
that they will stripe the road as necessary to ease flow of traffic out of the school exit. He
reminds the Board that there will be a stop sign at the exit of the project.
Thomson asks for definition of a stop bar. Hajec explains that it is a stop line of either white
paint or white plastic material put on the pavement at the exit, whichever material the city
determines most appropriate.
Thomas asks why the egress is situated on the left side; he states that it is usually situated on the
right. Hajec states that the location of the egress for this project allows more efficient operation
with respect to the location of the school exit.
Thomas raises some concern for parking along the roadway in this area. Hajec states that
installation of curbing and signage in this area should prevent parking. Thomas asks if parking
was observed in this location during the traffic study. Griffin states yes, and adds that it was
recommended by the City Engineer to install granite curbing and no parking signage once the
drainage is complete. Griffin states that the road striping should also serve to limit parking on
the roadway.
Thomas asks if lighting is required at this four-way traffic location in accordance to the State
regulation. Griffin explains that the requirement is 75 vehicles per lane exiting one of the sites
during peak hours. He states that this location does not come close to that requirement.
Thomson asks the location of the crosswalk in this area. Hajec points out that it is 20 feet north
of the driveway of this project.
Dinkin asks if there are any additional questions from the Board. There are none.
Dinkin asks if there are any clarifying questions from the public.
Planning Board minutes
February 12, 2002 meeting
Page three
Beverly resident, Tim Smith, states that he has concern for where all the traffic will go. Hajec
states that the level of service analysis shows that there will be an additional delay of one second,
but no greater volume.
Rosemary Maglio, 30 Pleasant Street, asks if all internal roadways for this project will be 18 feet
in width. Hajec states yes. Maglio asks if 18-foot roadways will create congestion. Dinkin
reminds the public that this public hearing is restricted to the impact of the traffic study.
Alexander states that internal parking and traffic lanes for this project have been designed in
accordance with the City of Beverly zoning ordinance.
Lorelei Azarian, 509 Cabot Street, states that she is concerned for doubling ways of traffic in this
area as well as buses managing turns within the striped lanes. She is of the opinion that it is
unfair to the children at the school to create any additional traffic. She mentions the numerous
businesses in this area and asks what is the enforceability to limit commercial businesses on this
site since it is private property. Hajec states that the enforceability is for the site itself, not
outside of that private property. Hajec states that he understands her concern for the children.
Roger Morency, 8 Columbia Road, asks how many vehicles will be generated from both the
commercial and residential properties on this site. Hajec explains the trip generation in detail.
He states that in the a.m. peak hour there will be 53 new trips and 14 pass-by trips, and in the
p.m. peak hour there will be 28 new trips and 7 pass-by trips. Hajec states that these numbers
have been revised and approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
Bill Squibb, 509 Cabot Street, asks if there will be a crossing guard at the school and if there is
not, will there be an additional cost to the city to have a crossing guard. Alexander states that
there is a crossing guard at the school already; therefore there will be no additional cost to the
city.
Rosemary Maglio, 30 Pleasant Street, asks how it is possible to estimate traffic in this area if
commercial uses have not been determined for this project. Hajec explains that the trip
generation is based on the square footage of the commercial retail space for the project. The
square footage of commercial retail space for Building 1 is 4,950 square feet and for Building 2
is 7,200 square feet. Hajec explains in detail the different categories of commercial uses that are
typically used for this type of estimation. He explains that specialty retail is a collection of sites
with different end uses.
Dinkin asks if there are any additional questions from the public relative to the traffic study
impact.
Bill Squibb, 509 Cabot Street, states that he is of the opinion that the commercial uses for this
site should be specifically determined. Alexander states that not all site plans that come before
the City of Beverly have specific tenants identified due to the process of collecting necessary
permits. He states that the likely uses have been identified for this project. Dinkin states that
there are a number of site plan approved with specific uses identified.
Planning Board minutes
February 12, 2002 meeting
Page four
Dinkin asks Killilea for comments on the traffic study.
Killilea states that Hajec has properly presented the transactions that have transpired with both
Hajac Associates and Bayside Engineering for the traffic study.
Dinkin asks Hurlburt to read any communications she has received. Hurlburt reads
correspondence received from the Engineering Department (dated 2/12/02), the Design Review
Board (dated 2/12/02), Mr. & Mrs. David Harman of 16 Roosevelt Avenue (dated 2/12/02), the
Principal at the Memorial Middle School (dated 12/19/01) that was submitted to the parents of
the middle school, and the Conservation Commission to George Belleau of Town and Country
Homes (dated 2/12/02).
Dinkin reminds the public that the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission work as
two separate entities and cannot condition upon one another. He states that the two entities
operate based upon very different statutes.
Dinkin asks if there are any additional clarifying questions from the public.
Lorelei Azarian, 509 Cabot Street, states that the original rebuttal from the Planning Board
questioned the consistency of the numbers on the traffic study. She asks for clarification on this
issue. Killilea states that this question will have to be referred back to the traffic consultant. He
states that he does not recall that discrepancy.
Dinkin asks if there are any additional questions from the public. There are none.
Dinkin asks for a review of the revised drainage plan.
Griffin explains the changes to the drainage plan in detail. He states that they will be using a 15-
inch pipe instead of a 12-inch pipe out connect out to the main pipe.
Dinkin asks if there are any questions from members of the Board.
Thomson asks if the larger 15-inch drainage pipe will serve to remove surface water drainage
from this site. Griffin states yes and adds that this drainage pipe will also handle any additional
drainage runoff from Roosevelt Avenue.
Dinkin asks Killilea for his opinion on the revised drainage plan. Killilea states that he reviewed
the initial redesign of the drainage pipe with Mike Collins and Dick McNeil and they
recommended relocating the drainage pipe along the sidewalk to avoid breaking up the area of
the road that was recently repaved. He states once the drainage is installed, the developer will
then add vertical granite curb and concrete sidewalk to the southern end of their property, which
will be an improvement to this area.
Dinkin asks if there are any questions from the public on the drainage plan.
Planning Board minutes
February 12, 2002 meeting
Page five
Claudette Turner, Roosevelt Avenue, asks how flooding in this area will improve if the driveway
for this project will be 1 ½ to 2 feet higher in elevation. Griffin explains that the new drainage
pipe will serve this area more efficiently than what presently exists. Turner states that she is of
the opinion that the proposed location of the replicated wetlands will create more flooding in her
yard.
Bill Squibb, 509 Cabot Street, states that this is not the same plan that is on file in the Planning
Department. Griffin states that this plan was submitted in January 2002. Squibb states that
MassHighway requires trench cover and replacement if the highway starts within 30 feet of the
project. A detailed discussion takes place on the State requirements. Griffin states this project
will follow any necessary State requirements.
Killilea provides clarification on the State requirements issue. He states that most of the
construction that Town and Country Homes is proposing is within the City’s portion of Cabot
Street.
Dinkin asks if there are any additional questions from the public. There are none.
Dinkin asks for comments in opposition from the public.
Renee Mary, 274 Hale Street, provides detailed comments voicing her opposition to this project
due to the high volume of traffic in this area.
Beverly resident, Tim Smith, states that he is strongly opposed to this project and is of the
opinion that the neighbors’ opposition to this project should be considered.
Roger Morency, 8 Columbia Road, states that there are seven schools with ½ mile of this project.
He states that 1/3 of the students get to school by bus, 1/3 of the students walk, and 1/3 of the
students are driven by parents. He states that there is no need to add additional vehicles into this
area.
Claudette Turner, Roosevelt Avenue, states that she is in agreement with Morency. She states
that the lights at Henry’s Market will also add to the traffic problems in this area. She states that
she is a bus driver and witnesses parking along the side of the road in this area everyday. She is
of the opinion that “No Parking” signs will not alleviate this problem.
Rosemary Maglio, 30 Pleasant Street, states that the plan is technically incorrect since it does not
properly show the abutting properties. She provides detailed comments voicing her opposition to
this project due to severe overcrowding in this area. She raises many other concerns as follows:
·
Questions developers rights to mixed uses;
·
Questions multi-family in CN zoned area;
nd
·
Questions where frontage is for 2 commercial building;
·
Questions where are the required setbacks for the townhouses;
·
Questions use of an 18-foot roadway - avoids subdivision control laws.
Planning Board minutes
February 12, 2002 meeting
Page six
Maglio states that a subdivision requires two ingresses and two egresses. She questions the
approval of the Fire Department and the Public Safety Commission based on this fact.
Dinkin asks for comments in support from the public. There are none.
Dinkin asks the developer if they wish to close the public hearing and the Board vote on the plan
as it stands, or if they wish to recess the public hearing to correct the technical defects of the plan
and provide a description of the proposed commercial uses.
Alexander states that they would prefer to recess the public hearing to correct the plan to show
abutting buildings to the site.
Alexander takes the opportunity to speak regarding some of the comments in opposition. He
states that this is not a subdivision plan, nor a plan requiring any special permits or variances.
He states that this is an as-of-right project that is in accordance with the City of Beverly Zoning
Ordinance. He also states that this project complies with Public Safety requirements as well as
the Parking and Traffic Commission and the Design Review Board. Alexander states that this
project will have an insignificant impact on the traffic in this area based on the most recent
traffic study. He states that the project will follow appropriate neighborhood uses in accordance
with the Zoning Inspector.
Thomson:
motion to recess the public hearing for 495 Cabot Street to March 19, 2002 at
7:30 p.m., seconded by Grimes. All members in favor, no one in opposition.
Motion carries 8-0.
Dinkin reconvenes and calls the regular meeting to order at 9:05 p.m.
1. Meeting Place Circle – Acceptance of Street Acceptance Plans and As-built Plans,
Performance Bond Reduction, Extension of Tri-Partite Agreement & Construction
Completion Date – Dana Tower/Tower Homes
Dinkin asks the Planning Director to update the Board, which she does.
Hurlburt reads communications that she has received. She reads two letters from Thomas Neve
(dated 2/18/02 and 2/8/02), and a letter from the Engineering Department (dated 2/12/02).
Dinkin asks if there are any questions from the members of the Board.
Thomas asks if any information was received regarding the drainage issue. Killilea states that
this is being addressed as a separate issue and a $25,000 bond has been posted. He states that the
major drainage has been complete but two items remain outstanding.
Dinkin asks if there are any additional questions from the members of the Board. There are
none.
Planning Board minutes
February 12, 2002 meeting
Page seven
Thomson:
motion to grant an extension of Tri-Partite Agreement and construction
completion date to February 28, 2003 for Meeting Place Circle, seconded by
Flannery. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries 8-0.
Thomson:
motion to grant Performance Bond Reduction to $5,500 for Meeting Place Circle,
seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion
carries 8-0.
Thomson:
motion to accept As-built Plans and Street Acceptance Plans for Meeting Place
Circle, seconded by Flannery.
Grimes asks if members of the Board review the As-built Plans. Killilea states
that the Engineering Department reviews the plans and submits their
recommendations to the Planning Board. He states that the plans are available for
the Board members to review at any time.
All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries 8-0.
2. Discussion/Decision: Cabot Crossing – Site Plan Review Application #67-01.
Construction of commercial building and mixed-use commercial/residential
building – 495 Cabot Street/Town & Country Homes
Hurlburt reads communication from Attorney Thomas Alexander (dated 2/12/02).
Thomson:
motion to accept the request to extend Planning Board action for 495 Cabot Street
to March 19, 2002, seconded by Grimes. All members in favor, no one in
opposition. Motion carries 8-0.
3. Proposed Zoning Amendment – City Council Order #29 – Section 29-23.D.1 &
Section 29-23.D.2.c or Zoning Ordinance of the City of Beverly – Recommend Joint
Public Hearing – 1, 2 & 3 Cailin Road/Cailin Road, LLC and Cabot Beverly, LLC
Dinkin asks the Planning Director to update the Board, which she does. Hurlburt reads
communication received from Attorney Mark Glovsky (dated 1/10/02).
Thomson:
motion to request joint public hearing with the City Council on proposed zoning
amendment – City Council Order #29, seconded by Grimes. All members in
favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries 8-0.
4. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (ANR’s)
a. Beaver Pond Road – Chris Albano
Hurlburt updates the Board stating that in November 2001 an ANR was approved by the
Board for this land that is slightly different from the ANR that is being presented this
evening.
Planning Board minutes
February 12, 2002 meeting
Page eight
Mike Zafiropoulos, 327A Watertown Street, Newton, is present to represent BC Nominee
Trust. He explains that the Land Court has requested that a couple of minor calculations
be shown on the common driveway and also that the lots be renumbered from 26A, 26B,
25A and 25B to 27, 28, 29, and 30 respectively. He states that nothing else has changed.
Thomson asks if any of the lot lines have changed. Zafiropoulos states no.
Dinkin asks if the plan remains in technical compliance. Hurlburt states yes.
Thomson:
motion to endorse the plan for Beaver Pond Road/Chris Albano as one not
requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Flannery.
All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries 8-0.
5. Hawk Hill Subdivision Settlement Plan – Acceptance of Form G Covenant and sign
Plan – Symes Associates
Dinkin asks the Planning Director to update the Board, which she does.
She states that she has deferred this matter to the Assistant City Solicitor, Bob Munroe.
Munroe is present and explains that this plan meets all the requirements of the Subdivision
Control Law and requests that the Board sign the Plan. Dinkin explains that the Board signs all
plans at the conclusion of their meetings.
Hurlburt reads communication received from Joshua Latham of Symes Associates requesting the
submission of a Form G Covenant to proceed with the project.
Dinkin asks Assistant City Solicitor to review the document. Dinkin recesses the meeting until
9:25 p.m. to allow Munroe to review the document.
Dinkin calls the regular meeting to order at 9:25 p.m.
Dinkin asks Munroe if the document is acceptable. Munroe states yes.
Thomson:
motion to accept Form G Covenant for Hawk Hill Subdivision Settlement Plan,
seconded by Dunn. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries
8-0.
6. Approval of minutes
a. Regular Meeting – December 18, 2001
Hurlburt reminds the Board that she was not present at this meeting and any
recollection and assistance would be helpful. A discussion takes place regarding the
suggested amendments.
Planning Board minutes
February 12, 2002 meeting
Page nine
Thomson:
motion to accept the meeting minutes as amended for the December 18, 2001
regular meeting, seconded by Grimes. All members in favor, no one in
opposition. Motion carries 8-0.
b. Executive Session – December 18, 2001
Thomson:
motion to accept the meeting minutes for the December 18, 2001 Executive
Session, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, no one in opposition.
Motion carries 8-0.
c. Regular Meeting – January 15, 2002
Thomson states that the motion to defer the public hearing for #67-01 – Cabot
Crossing (page 1) was made by him.
Thomson:
motion to accept the meeting minutes as amended for the January 15, 2002
regular meeting, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, no one in
opposition. Motion carries 8-0.
7. New/Other Business
a. Signature of Planning Board Officers for Registrar
b. Request for public hearing
Hurlburt states Attorney Thomas Alexander has requested a public hearing to modify
the Commodore Restaurant Site Plan. She states that the request is for an 11,000
square foot reduction to the plan.
Thomson asks if the site plan modification has been submitted to the Planning
Department. Alexander states yes.
Thomson:
motion to schedule the public hearing for the Commodore Restaurant Site Plan
Modification on March 19, 2002 at 8:30 p.m., seconded by Flannery. All
members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries 8-0.
8. Adjournment
Thomson:
motion to adjourn, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, no one in
opposition. Motion carries 8-0.
The meeting is adjourned at 9:35 p.m.