2003-10-21
City of Beverly, Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
BOARD: Planning Board
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: October 21, 2003
PLACE: Beverly City Hall
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin; John Thomson,
William Betts, Joanne Dunn, Ellen Flannery,
Daniel Hamm, Elizabeth McGlynn, Robert Rink,
Donald Walter
OTHERS PRESENT: Leah Zambernardi, Asst. Planning Director
RECORDER: Jeannine Dion
Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Thomson: Motion to recess for scheduled public hearings. Seconded by Flannery.
Motion carries 9-0.
Public Hearing (cont.): Chapman Corner Estates – 2 Boyles Street – Definitive
Subdivision Plan – Manor Homes at Whitehall, LLC/David Carnevale
Zambernardi reads the public hearing notice.
Attorney Alexander states that due to an issue with the application, he is requesting a
continuance to the November meeting.
Thomson asks if he will also extend the time for Planning Board action. Attorney
Alexander agrees.
Thomson:
Motion to continue the public hearing to the November meeting of the
Board and to extend the time for Planning Board action on this matter from
December 1, 2003 to January 30, 2004. Seconded by Rink. Motion carries
9-0.
Dinkin reconvenes the regular meeting of the Board
Repetitive Petition – Request for Planning Board approval to return to ZBA within
2 years of a variance denial – 10 Tall Tree Drive – Tom Carnevale
Zambernardi reads the public hearing notice.
Planning Board Minutes
October 21, 2003
Page 2
Attorney Alexander states that Mr. Carnevale received an Order of Conditions from the
Conservation Commission to build a house on the lot. The Order was appealed and the
DEP issued a Superceding Order of Conditions. This Order included a request that the
petitioner apply for a variance from the ZBA. The ZBA denied the variance last summer
due in part to objections by the Conservation Commission. The Commission
recommended that the petitioner relocate the house on the upland portion of the lot, to the
west of a perennial stream. Since then, the petitioner found that relocating the house to
the upland area was not possible due to a sewer easement at that location. They are now
proposing to keep the house on the east side, but to reduce the size of the house so it is
outside of the wetland area. This still requires a variance by the ZBA. The petitioner is
now requesting that the Planning Board make a finding that there has been a specific and
material change to the petition so that the applicant may reapply to the ZBA, as allowed
by M.G.L. Chapter 40A §16.
McGlynn asks what the difference in size is between the two dwellings. Attorney
Alexander states that the dwelling was 4,500 square feet. It is now 3,000 square feet.
Thomson
: Motion to make a finding that there have been specific and material changes
relative to the dimensional elements mentioned above. Seconded by Betts.
Motion carries 9-0.
Thomson
: Motion to recess and reconvene for scheduled public hearings. Seconded
by Flannery. Motion carries 9-0.
Public Hearing: Site Plan Review Application #77-03 – Cummings Center –
construction of a 3-story office building – (21,000 sq. ft./floor) attached to existing
garage with access off McKay Street – Beverly Commerce Park, Inc. – Gerard
McSweeney
Mr. McSweeney states that Cummings properties proposes to construct a three-story
office and research building consisting of approximately 21,000 s.f. per floor. The
building will be located near the intersection of Elliott and McKay Streets and will be
connected to the existing parking garage. The application also involves access onto
McKay Street from the second floor of the parking garage.
Mr. McSweeney states that the building will have a steel frame on piles with a glass and
concrete façade. The plans have changed slightly since the original submission to
accommodate the comments of the Beverly Design Review Board. The Conservation
Commission and Parking and Traffic Commission have approved this petition. He states
that this site originally had 3 curb cuts onto Elliott Street. Two have been eliminated and
the remaining cut is Cummings Center Drive.
Planning Board Minutes
October 21, 2003
Page 3
He states there have been 6 traffic studies on this parcel since 1996. A study in 1998
recommended as a mitigating measure that a curb cut from McKay Street would help
traffic. In 2000, they came back to the Planning Board for site plan review to make this
curb cut. At that time, concerns were expressed by neighbors and the City about the curb
cut in relation to improvements being done at the time on Elliott Street and McKay Street.
The intersection signals and turning lanes had not been completed at that time. It is now
finished and operates beautifully. He consulted with the Planning Director and the City
Engineer and they suggested an updated traffic assessment of the building and the impact
of the new driveway.
Thomson
: Motion to recess this public hearing until 8:45 p.m. so they can convene
for the next scheduled public hearing. Motion carries 9-0.
Public Hearing – Modification to Site Plan Review Application #76-03 – Shaw’s
Supermarket – Relocation of two light poles – S.R. Weiner & Associates/Appledore
Engineering
Zambernardi reads the public notice.
Steve Haight of Appledore Engineering states that he received site plan approval at the
last meeting in order to construct a loading dock and to make parking and landscaping
improvements to the former Ames building for the Shaw’s relocation. He states they
overlooked adding two light poles near Hellard Road to the plan. Because these light
poles are very close to existing residences, there was a need to bring the revised plan back
to the Board for approval. Dinkin asks the Board if they have any questions. There are
none. Dinkin asks the public if there are any comments in favor or in opposition to the
proposal. There are none. Dinkin closes the public hearing.
Dinkin calls the regular meeting of the Board back to order.
Discussion/Decision- Modification to Site Plan Review Application #76-03 – Shaw’s
Supermarket (former Ames Building) – Relocation of two light poles – S.R. Weiner
& Associates/Appledore Engineering
Flannery
: Motion to approve the Site Plan as presented. Seconded by Rink.
Motion carries 9-0.
Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR’s)
Wood Lane – Anthony Jack
Thomson states he would like a notation added to the plan recognizing that Parcel A is not
a building lot and that any new house should have residential sprinklers.
Planning Board Minutes
October 21, 2003
Page 4
Mr. Jack agrees to add these notations to the plan.
Thomson
: Motion to endorse the plan as one not requiring approval under the
Subdivision Control Law. Seconded by Flannery. Motion carries 9-0.
Melvin Avenue – Doherty and DeLuca – 35 Doty Avenue and 2A Tibbets
Avenue, Danvers
Thomson:
Motion to endorse the plan as one not requiring approval under the
Subdivision Control Law. Seconded by Flannery. Motion carries 9-0.
Approval of Meeting Minutes
Flannery states that the Sabatini ANR plan was not recorded in the minutes.
Flannery
: Motion to reject the minutes so that they may be amended. Seconded by
Thomson. Motion carries 9-0.
Thomson
: Motion to reconvene for scheduled public hearing. Seconded by
Flannery. Motion carries 9-0.
Public Hearing (cont.): Site Plan Review Application #73-03: Prescott Farms –
Planned Residential Development (PRD) – Part of a 70-Unit Elderly Residential
Development in adjacent IR Zone – Boulder Lane – The Miles Group
Zambernardi reads the public hearing notice.
Attorney Alexander requests a continuance to the January meeting of the Board.
Thomson
: Motion to continue this matter to the January meeting of the Board. Seconded
by Dunn. Motion carries 9-0.
Dinkin reconvenes the regular meeting of the Board.
Discussion/Decision – Special Permit Application #107-03: One Pork-Chop Lot –
5 Elmtop Lane – Elmtop Realty Trust/Michael & Robert Hubbard, Tr
.
Attorney Alexander states that the neighbors and the petitioners have agreed that the
conditions presented to the Board at the last meeting would be made through a private
agreement. Attorney Robert McCann concurs. Attorney Alexander states that the
petitioners agree that there will be no substantial or material changes to the plans
Planning Board Minutes
October 21, 2003
Page 5
submitted and on file with the Board without the presentation of such changes to the
Planning Board at a public hearing.
Thomson
: Motion to approve the special permit with the conditions that there shall be
no substantial or material changes to the plans submitted and on file with the
Board without the presentation of such changes to the Planning Board at a
public hearing, and that the plans are subject to the conditions suggested in the
department head comment letters. Seconded by Flannery. Motion carries 9-0.
Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR’s)
5 Elmtop Lane – Elmtop Realty Tr./Michael & Robert Hubbard
Flannery
: Motion to endorse the plan as one not requiring approval under the
Subdivision Control Law. Seconded by Betts. Motion carries 9-0.
Flannery
: Motion to recess and reconvene for scheduled public hearing. Motion carries
9-0.
Public Hearing: Site Plan Review Application #77-03 – Cummings Center –
construction of a 3-story office building – (21,000 sq.ft./floor) attached to existing
garage with access off McKay Street – Beverly Commerce Park, Inc. – Gerard
McSweeney
Mr. McSweeney continues that the access drive will be used as a shortcut to the garage
only. He states the most recent report states this access drive will not be a problem.
Dinkin asks the Board for their clarifying questions.
Walter asks about the curb cut going into the second floor of the garage. Mr. McSweeney
states that the curb cut leads directly into the garage. It does not take people anywhere
else on the site.
Dinkin asks if the current plan is for both right and left turns. Mr. McSweeney states that
it is.
Hamm asks about cueing of cars waiting to get into the garage. Mr. McSweeney states
that will probably not occur as there is much room in the garage for cars. The average
utilization now is 30 percent. He states it is a 500-slot garage.
Planning Board Minutes
October 21, 2003
Page 6
Dinkin asks about the anticipated utilization rate due to the increase in access and
additional demand. Mr. McSweeney states that it will be a 70 to 80 percent range and
that the garage only fills up on snowy weekdays.
Walter states that in the worst case scenario, everyone could leave the garage by taking
rights on McKay Street.
Mr. McSweeney stated that he anticipates most of the people would be using Elliott
Street. Not many people would be traveling north on McKay. He anticipates that people
traveling on Balch Street would use the Balch Street entrance.
Dinkin asked about the nature of tenants in the new building. Mr. McSweeney states that
the tenants would be tech firms and professional offices. There are many entrepreneurial
businesses. He states that many of them have different office hours than 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Hope Benne, 44 Hillcrest Avenue, asks what the applicant’s plans are to come into
compliance with Chapter 91. She questions how the applicant intends to have a seamless
walkway from the McDonald’s site with the pond walk. She states the walkway would
have to go through a parking lot area and the applicant is not in compliance with the
license. McSweeney responds the Chapter 91 license was issued a couple of years ago
when the walkway wasn’t done.
Ms. Benne asks the Planning Board if the applicant should be allowed to start the new
building when they aren’t in compliance with the license. Dinkin responds that he has a
concern that the applicant is drifting from what is appropriate to this hearing. The board
has no jurisdiction over the enforcement of Chapter 91 licenses. The discussion is very
specific to a building and a curb cut.
Mr. McSweeney states because the building permit rests on historic filled tidelands, it will
require an additional Chapter 91 filing with the state DEP.
A resident of McKay Street expresses concern about traffic on McKay Street.
A resident of Elliott Street expresses concern about traffic.
Zambernardi reads a petition to reject the proposal by Cummings Center for entrance and
exit on second level west parking garage to McKay Street near the Elliott Street
intersection.
A longtime resident of Goodyear Street states she approves of many of the improvements
made at Cummings Center but enough is enough. She states she can’t get out of her
street and she has increased traffic cutting through her street as a result of the Cummings
Planning Board Minutes
October 21, 2003
Page 7
Center. She asks that the Planning Board take into consideration what the neighbors
want.
Susan Mueller, Executive Director of Beverly Chamber of Commerce, states she
represents the Chamber, Board of Directors and the Executive Committee. She states the
Cummings Center has always been a good corporate neighbor and has enriched the
business community.
Julia French, 90 McKay Street states that she appreciates what the Cummings Center has
done for the community, however she has a problem with traffic. She expresses concern
regarding pedestrian traffic, the proximity of the project to the playground and increasing
traffic near the school for the deaf. She asks if the applicant could wait and see what
traffic is going to be like when the Cummings Center is fully occupied and then reassess
the situation.
Rosemary Maglio, 30 Pleasant Street, states in a June 21, 2001 letter the applicant agreed
to limit the size of the building to 42,000 square feet.
Mr. McSweeney states the concept for the Cummings Center was to create a campus
environment where there are services available on site so that when people come to the
site in the morning to go to work, they don’t have to get in their car and leave every time
they want a cup of coffee, sandwich, haircut, daycare, etc.
Thomson asks how many people would work in the building of 63,000 s.f.
Mr. McSweeney states that it could be anywhere from under 100 people to over 200
people depending on the business.
Dinkin asks a question about the floor space to parking space ratio. Flannery asks about
the location of the driveway.
Thomson asks a clarifying question regarding landscaping. McSweeney responds full
landscaping will be done and there will be a tremendous amount of additional plantings
done. He states the amount of pervious surface will increase with this proposal.
Dinkin asks if members of the public have any questions.
A resident of McKay Street states traffic has increased on McKay Street immensely in the
past six years and she has serious safety concerns. She has no problem with the building.
A resident asks why another curb cut is necessary. Mr. McSweeney responds that the site
is close to 2 million square feet of space and it has thousands of cars per day. The
Marciano property across the street, which is a little strip mall (60,000 square feet) has 5
Planning Board Minutes
October 21, 2003
Page 8
curb cuts and a traffic light. He states the property warrants an additional entrance and
exit.
Jim Latter, 145 Park Street, states there is universal opposition to this proposal in the
neighborhoods. He asks what the difference is today, than 2 years ago.
Mr. McSweeney states that the traffic signals and new turning lanes have been completed.
He states that Tarsook questioned this proposal at length and he is of the opinion that the
turning lanes are operating perfectly.
Mr. Latter states that since the site has changed, another site walk should be done. He
reiterates that most people are against the proposal and he thinks they need support from
the neighborhood.
John Burke, 13 West Dane Street states the homes on Elliott Street don’t share the same
residential character as the homes on McKay Street. He also states the traffic study does
not take into account the full capacity of a six-story that already exists. Mr. McSweeney
responds that the last two traffic studies (2001 and 2003) both take into account the six-
story 500 building.
A resident on Pierson Street states that she believes everything done at the Cummings
Center has been done in a responsible community-minded way. She does not blame
McKay Street problems on the Cummings Center.
Rosemary Maglio, 30 Pleasant Street, asks about the location of the truck delivery and
asks what type of truck deliveries will be done. Mr. McSweeney responds that most of
the deliveries will be FedEx, UPS and U.S. Mail. They could go in the front door and
there will be a receiving door in the back of the building, too.
Scott Robinson, 155 McKay Street, states that the light works well now but he has
concerns about the effect of the curb cut.
Maureen Troubetaris, Ward I Councilor, states her concern over the traffic study.
Ms. Maglio asks clarification regarding the size of the building. McSweeney responds that
the building size was estimated at 42,000 square feet a couple of years ago when the
Planning Board and City Council asked for a Master Build-out Plan. The size of the
building was only an estimation.
Dinkin asks if there was an agreement that the building be no larger than 42,000 square
feet. McSweeney responds they changed the size of the building from the first
approximation.
Planning Board Minutes
October 21, 2003
Page 9
Dinkin states if the applicant came in with a building that was 45,000 square feet, he
would agree that is approximately 42,000 square feet. He states he is having a hard time
with 62,000 square feet being approximately 42,000 square feet. Mr. McSweeney
responds that when the city requested Cummings to think about this was that the
completely unused top floor of the garage might end up being converted to office space,
which is approximately 42,000 square feet. The desire now is to build one more building.
Ms. Maglio asks if there is adequate parking on the site to support the proposed space.
Mr. McSweeney responds that he believes there is adequate parking. Dinkin states the
board may want an analysis of the number of spaces versus the amount of space and
usage.
Ms. Maglio references a letter from Sergeant Tarsook dated April 16, 1998
recommending that there not be a curb cut onto McKay Street.
Dinkin states Sergeant Tarsook was addressing a roadway configuration that existed at the
time. In the current letter, he is addressing the roadway configuration that exists now.
Katherine Summit, 88 McKay Street, expresses concern about traffic.
Tom Levit, 38 McKay Street, expresses concern about the increase in traffic and safety.
A neighbor states he is concerned about trucks on Balch Street. Mr. McSweeney states
there is a sign saying no trucks on Balch Street.
Rink asks about the trash area near the new curb cut and how trucks will access it.
Thomson asks how critical the curb cut is to the design of the building.
Mr. McSweeney states that the importance of the curb cut outweighs the concerns. The
experts say this is ok. The Board should approve this.
Julia French, 90 McKay Street, asks if the applicant would consider waiting until the
Cummings Center is at 100% capacity and reassess the situation at that time to see what
the need is. McSweeney responds that the current occupancy at the Cummings Center is
75% if you take into account the new building. If you disregard the new building, it is
90%. The last two traffic studies both projected the full build out of the new six-story 500
building.
Dinkin states he is not necessarily opposed to the curb cut but he is interested in pursuing
a conversation on traffic controls – traffic controls that go beyond a speed bump at the
entrance to the garage. He thanks all of the members of the public for coming to the
hearing. It is a difficult balance for the board because you don’t want to discourage those
Planning Board Minutes
October 21, 2003
Page 10
people in your community who want to take economic risk. If the applicant wants to build
more space when it is at 75% occupancy, he wishes him luck because it is good for the
community. How do you balance the need to not discourage those who want to take
economic risk with the legitimate fears and perceptions of the people who surround the
site of the economic risk.
Zambernardi reads the following letters into the record:
·
A letter dated October 15, 2003 from the Fire Department.
·
A letter dated October 10, 2003 from the Board of Health.
·
A letter dated October 21, 2003 from the Engineering Department.
·
A letter dated October 20, 2003 from the Police Department.
·
A letter dated October 17, 2003 from the Design Review Board.
·
A letter dated October 20, 2003 from the Conservation Commission.
·
A letter dated October 21, 2003 from the Parking & Traffic Commission.
The public hearing is closed.
The regular meeting of the Beverly Planning Board is called to order.
Discussion/Decision: Site Plan Review Application #77-03 – Cummings Center –
construction of a 3-story office building – (21,000 sq. ft./floor) attached to existing
garage with access off McKay Street – Beverly Commerce Park, Inc. – Gerard
McSweeney
Thomson suggests that a site visit be conducted.
Thomson:
Motion to schedule a site visit on November 15, 2003 at 10:00 a.m.,
.
seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor. Motion carries
Adjournment:
Thomson:
Motion to adjourn, seconded by Betts. All members are in favor. Motion
carries.
The meeting is adjourned.