2003-07-15
City of Beverly, Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
BOARD: Planning Board
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: July 15, 2003
PLACE: Beverly City Hall
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin; John Thomson,
William Betts, Ellen Flannery, Daniel Hamm,
Elizabeth McGlynn, Robert Rink
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 and reconvene for a scheduled public hearing, seconded
by Flannery. All members are in favor. Motion carries.
Public Hearing - Site Plan Review Application #107-03 – One Pork Chop Lot – 5
Elmtop Lane – Elmtop Lane Realty Tr./Michael & Robert Hubbard, Trustees
Dinkin states that a quorum is present for the special permit hearing. Attorney Alexander
states that his clients prefer to wait for the last member of the Planning Board to arrive.
Richard Dinkin places this hearing in recess until 7:45 p.m.
Set Public Hearing - Definitive Subdivision Plan: Cleveland Road Extension, 391R
Elliott Street – William Beard
Thomson: Motion to schedule a public hearing on this matter to Tuesday, September 16,
2003 at 7:30 p.m., seconded by Flannery. All members in favor. Motion carries.
Set Public Hearing - Site Plan Review Application #75-03: Extended Stay America
Hotel, Intersection of Conant Street and Cherry Hill Drive
Thomson: Motion to schedule a public hearing on this matter to Tuesday, September 16,
2003 at 8:15 p.m., seconded by Flannery. All members in favor. Motion carries.
Hawk Hill Subdivision – Reduction of Tripartite Agreement and Partial Release of
Lots from Language of the Restrictive Covenant
Zambernardi reads into record a letter dated July 3, 2003 from Jeffrey J. Rhuda of Symes
Planning Board Minutes
July 15, 2003
Page 2
Associates, Inc. requesting a reduction of the Tri-Partite Agreement and a partial release
of lots. She then reads into record a letter dated July 15, 2003 from Engineering Director,
Frank Killilea recommending that the Planning Board grant this request.
Thomson: motion to reduce the amount of the Tri-Partite Agreement from $811,475.00
to $536,938.00 and to release lots 19, 20, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 from the restrictive
covenant, seconded by McGlynn. All in favor. Motion carries.
Set Public Hearing - Modification #2 to Site Plan Review, Application #60-00:
Commodore Plaza, former Commodore property, 45 Enon Street – Enon Street
LLC
Attorney Tom Alexander states that his clients wish to create an access road from the
Commodore Plaza property to the abutting Stop & Shop property on Enon Street.
Thomson asks if Stop & Shop is also an applicant. Attorney Alexander states that they
are not also an applicant.
Thomson: Motion to schedule a public hearing on this matter to Tuesday, September 16,
2003 at 9:00 p.m., seconded by Flannery. All members in favor. Motion carries.
Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR’s)
Rezza Road – Joint Venture Partners
Attorney Glovsky states this ANR plan is for the creation of one building lot with frontage
on Rezza Road. He explains that the lot has over the required 175 feet of frontage that is
required in the R-45 Zoning District. He also notes that this distance is also maintained by
the required front yard setback of 30 feet. The lot then becomes more narrow leading to
the buildable portion of the lot.
Thomson: Motion to endorse the plan for Rezza Road as one not requiring approval
under the Subdivision Control Law with the notation that this endorsement
is not a determination as to conformance with zoning, seconded by
Flannery. All members are in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries.
Site Plan Review Application #73-03: Prescott Farms, Boulder Lane – Miles Group
c/o Attorney Tom Alexander – Joint Public Hearing with the Zoning Board of
Appeals
The hearing is put into recess until September 16, 2003 at 9:30 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
July 15, 2003
Page 3
Thomson: Motion to recess and reconvene for a scheduled public hearing, seconded
by Flannery. All members are in favor. Motion carries.
Public Hearing - Site Plan Review Application #107-03 – One Pork Chop Lot – 5
Elmtop Lane – Elmtop Lane Realty Tr./Michael & Robert Hubbard, Trustees
Attorney Thomas Alexander states there were some concerns that were expressed by the
neighbors.
·
Both houses are sited too close to the top of the coastal bank. He states that the
applicant will be subject to the Conservation Commission jurisdiction.
·
Another concern was that the scale of two very large houses is not suited for the
narrow end of pork chop lot.
·
The garage openings facing the same direction will feel too commercial and detract
from the ambience of the new structures and devalue the surrounding properties.
·
The applicant agrees that no further subdivision within Elmtop will be allowed.
Alexander addresses the following questions:
·
Will blasting be required to excavate the new foundations? Alexander responds
that the applicant believes blasting will be required and insurance will be in place to
cover any damage, if necessary.
·
Will the new houses tap into the original house’s water and sewer services or the
services under the lane or both? Alexander responds that the existing water and
sewer will be tapped into within Elmtop Lane.
·
Will there be destruction of the lane in order to provide new services to the two
houses? Alexander responds that there will be some disruption but the applicant
will try to minimize it.
Dinkin asks if members of the public have questions.
Robert McCann, from the Law Firm of McCann & McCann, Danvers, Massachusetts
refers to the conditions that were submitted to Attorney Alexander for his client’s
response at the June meeting. He states he would like to go over the conditions and
concerns.
McCann states he represents eight of the neighbors and they are neither in support nor in
opposition at this point. He represents Mr. & Mrs. Riley, Mr. & Mrs. DeCristoforo, Mrs.
Glovsky, Mr. & Mrs. Levy, Dr. and Mrs. Schwartz, Mr. & Mrs. Harris, Mr. & Mrs.
Avallone and Mr. & Mrs. Dick.
Planning Board Minutes
July 15, 2003
Page 4
McCann states there were issues with the Conservation Commission. Trees were cut on
the coastal bank and in the buffer zone, a Cease and Desist Order was issued, there was
some continued work and more problems with the Conservation Commission. The
Hubbards have apologized to the Conservation Commission and Attorney Alexander has
said there were some issues that should not have happened. One of the reasons for the
conditions and issues that his clients are looking at is that there have been a lot of issues
and problems in the neighborhood. There has been unauthorized work, Cease and Desist
Orders were issued by the city and the neighbors want to make sure that if a Special
Permit is issued and the neighbors are in agreement with the Special Permit, that in fact it
is strong enough so that the issues that existed before, don’t come up again.
McCann gave the list of conditions to Attorney Alexander, to which he responded. He
and the neighbors have some issues that still need to be discussed and resolved. They still
need to try to address some of the responses from Alexander.
McCann reviews the conditions that the neighbors did not agree with:
·
Item 3 – Ober Street and the trees along the lane remain intact. The Fire
Department has requested that the opening be widened by two feet on each side.
Need more clarification.
·
Landscaping Plan – McCann states he is concerned that there not be a conflict
between a landscaping plan approved by the Planning Department and restoration
within the resource area that may be required by the Conservation Commission.
Dinkin notes that the Planning Board can, if it chooses, impose a landscaping plan
conditionally as part of a Special Permit but is not required to do so.
·
Drainage – McCann states he received drainage information from the applicant.
He notes problems with drainage, water in basements and issues that relate to
drainage, which will be discussed.
·
McCann states if the board approves the plans submitted by the applicant and the
neighbors agree with it, everyone wants the house built. He suggests that if a
subsequent owner wants to make a change and put an addition on, that they not
need the consent of 100% of the neighbors. They could come back to the Planning
Board, the neighbors get notice and the board can make an objective decision.
The concern is that the applicant does not make changes after the plan has been
approved.
·
Restrictive Covenants – McCann suggests working with Attorney Alexander and
the neighbors to come up with a Restrictive Covenant that makes sense and
impose them on all of the lots. The property owners are in agreement with the
concept of reimposing the Restrictive Covenants on the lots.
·
Size of the houses – Neighbors are concerned that the houses are out of character
with the neighborhood and the houses that exist there now.
Planning Board Minutes
July 15, 2003
Page 5
·
Location of the houses and coastal bank – McCann states that both houses are site
too close to the top of the coastal bank.
·
Direction of the garages – McCann states the neighbors don’t want to look at
garage doors.
Bob Griffin provides an overview of the drainage plan.
Michael Wasser provides an overview of the landscaping plan.
Alexander provides an overview of the concerns raised by the neighbors:
·
The developer should not modify or change the present pavement width.
Alexander states the applicant has no intention of changing the pavement width.
·
The present character and size of the lane be preserved. Alexander states the
applicant agrees except for where an opening needs to be made for the driveway.
·
The Ober Street stone opening and the trees along the lane remain intact.
Alexander states the applicant has no intention of taking down any trees and will
leave it to the Planning Board, in terms of the opening.
·
The stone retaining wall along the subject property remains intact. Alexander
states the applicant intends to keep the retaining wall except where the applicant
needs to create an opening for the driveway.
·
The landscaping in the buffer zone and coastal bank be restored and receive
sufficient plantings to reduce erosion and ensure the protection of the resource
area from runoff from properties. Alexander states the Conservation Commission
has a planting plan pending. He acknowledges that the applicants took down some
trees in the coastal bank area and it was a mistake and he apologizes for that
mistake.
·
That the neighbors’ engineers (Hancock Associates) be provided detailed runoff
drainage calculations. Alexander states the applicant has provided that
information.
·
That the neighbors receive detailed drawings of the house at #5 Elmtop Lane.
Alexander responds that the applicants have provided that information.
·
That the driveway from the house at #7 be straightened by eliminating a 90 degree
turn to allow the driveway to merge with a lane at the bottom of the property.
Note: The neighbors feel that the driveway excavation would adversely affect the
look and character of the lane. Alexander states the applicant is prepared to move
the driveway anywhere on the lot that makes sense to the neighbors.
·
That once the designs and plans have been accepted, no changes or new feature
shall be added without written consent of the neighbors. Alexander responds that
the applicant would be happy to have a restriction that changes require approval of
the Planning Board.
Planning Board Minutes
July 15, 2003
Page 6
·
That a full and complete landscaping plan for the entire property, including both
lots, be filed with the board and once approved, the landscaping shall be completed
in accordance with the plans and not modified or changed. Alexander states that a
landscaping plan has been submitted.
·
That the restrictive covenants on the other Elmtop properties be applied to all
properties, including the applicants. Alexander states the applicant has agreed that
provided there is unanimity among the neighbors, that would be the case and it
would apply once the construction of the buildings is completed.
Dinkin asks if there are existing deed restrictions on Elmtop Lane that prohibit design
modifications without the approval of neighbors. Alexander responds that he does not
believe that there are. McCann responds that he understands that there are deed
restrictions that apply to some but not all of the properties and they do not apply to this
property.
Dinkin asks if it is the intent of the neighbors to mean that should the future owner of one
of these homes want to build an additional deck or external patio, that in addition to a
building permit the condition requested would require the approval of whom? McCann
responds that it would require the approval of the neighbors. He states that it has been
suggested that building restrictions that apply to only some of the lots on Elmtop be
imposed as to all of the lots including this lot and Alexander has agreed to that. He
suggests that if the board decides to issue a Special Permit, to approve specific plans for
construction on these properties, to which there will be no future additions or changes
without the approval of the neighbors.
Dinkin asks if they are suggesting unanimous approval of the neighbors. McCann
responds ‘yes’.
Richard Dinkin places this hearing in recess until 8:50 p.m.
Public Hearing - Site Plan Review Application #76-03 Shaw’s Supermarket –
Relocation to former Ames Building – construction of a 690 sq. ft. loading dock,
landscaping & parking – S.R. Weiner Assoc./Appledore Engineering
Zambernardi reads the legal notice.
Shaws is currently in the process of relocating into the former Ames building. The
applicant is proposing to add a 690 s.f. loading dock to the south elevation, which faces
Hellard Road, to reconfigure the parking directly in front of the former Ames Building and
provide small areas of landscaping throughout this parking area.
Stephen Haight of Appledore Engineering appears on behalf of the applicant and provides
an overview of the project.
Planning Board Minutes
July 15, 2003
Page 7
David Filtranti, 5 Beverly Commons Drive states there are 17 units that directly face into
the loading dock and dumpster. Mr. Haight states the dumpster is totally enclosed.
Dinkin asks if as a condition of approval for the site plan the board wanted the loading
dock moved to another location, would the applicant have the authority to accept that
condition. Mr. Haight responds that he does not have the authority to change the
configuration of the building.
Mr. Haight asks if the board has a specific suggestion based on the comments from the
public. Dinkin responds that his specific suggestion is that the person who represents the
applicant at a hearing before the Planning Board has the authority to negotiate on the plan.
To do otherwise is a waste of time for the board and the members of the public who were
concerned enough to attend the hearing. He states that Mr. Haight has been put in an
untenable role by his client, who has asked him to make a representation before a board,
that has both a responsibility and a certain level of authority in these matters.
Betts asks why the parking field is being rotated. Mr. Haight states that Shaws prefers
that orientation of spaces to its main entrance.
Thomson asks about Shaws’ control of the area and their capacity to put more screening
along the Beverly Commons side of the property. Mr. Haight states that is something that
could be considered.
Brenda Kreplick of 13 and 15 Longwood Avenue states she is concerned about the
delivery times. She asks how often the compactor will be cleaned and replaced. She asks
how the neighbors can be assured that it will be kept clean. She states that the former
Shaws abuts Route 128 on the rear. Now they will be abutting the neighbors to the rear
which creates serious concern. She asks how the neighbors can be assured that trucks
operate properly. She notes that there were fewer deliveries for Ames than there will be
for Shaws. The rear of the building is extremely close to the neighbors. She also
expresses concern over noise generated by the heating and HVAC units, cooking and
odors. She asks where the trucks waiting to load will wait.
Mr. Haight states that deliveries are from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. for large grocery and
approximately 4 loads are delivered per day. The vendor trucks deliver smaller items.
The trash compactor will be self-contained.
A resident expresses concern about the hours of operation and the proximity of the
dumpster to his property.
Dinkin places the meeting in recess until 9:40 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
July 15, 2003
Page 8
Public Hearing - Site Plan Review Application #107-03 – One Pork Chop Lot – 5
Elmtop Lane – Elmtop Lane Realty Tr./Michael & Robert Hubbard, Trustees
McCann states there is concern about the utilities on Elmtop. They were installed 40+
years ago and they are private lines. If it does exist, there is concern regarding the
condition of the pipes and whether there is adequate service.
Richard Doherty, Hancock Survey states he has been retained by the abutters to review
the drainage only as it pertains to the proposed development. He states he has received
plans from Bob Griffin showing what post development is intended to be, drainage
computations and pre and post development analysis. The information is insufficient to
evaluate the adequacy of the design that is being proposed. He provides an overview of
the drainage analysis and requests further information from Bob Griffin.
Mary C. Horzempa with her husband, William Horzempa of 3 Elmtop Lane, states she is
not represented by Attorney McCann but she is opposed to allowing the creation of a pork
chop lot. She provides a letter to the Planning Board outlining her views.
McCann states that he and the neighbors have not had enough time to review all of the
information provided by Alexander. He suggests continueing this hearing to the next
meeting so the engineers can meet and resolve the drainage issues and so Mr. Alexander
and McCann can get through the remainder of the issues, including the restrictive
covenants that might be imposed, so that they can be circulated to everybody for review
and approval.
Dinkin asks Deb Hurlburt, Planning Director for a description of the matter the applicant
has before Conservation Commission. Hurlburt responds that it is under appeal right now
on the location of the coastal bank. It has been appealed by the applicant and the abutters.
She has no idea when DEP will make a decision on it. After that, there is an adjudicatory
process that could go on for another extended period of time. The Conservation
Commission will be discussing the tree planting plan for the area which has been cut down
and she is not sure if there will be resolution this evening.
Zambernardi reads letters from the following departments into record:
·
Letter from the Engineering Department dated June 17, 2003.
·
Letter from the Board of Health dated June 12, 2003.
·
Letter from the Fire Department dated June 12, 2003.
·
Letter from the Conservation Commission dated June 10, 2003.
·
Letter from the Police Department dated June 12, 2003.
Alexander states the applicant has been trying to meet with the neighbors for months and
he requests that a continuance to August would be a fair request.
Planning Board Minutes
July 15, 2003
Page 9
Hurlburt states the Conservation Commission does not meet in August.
Flannery: Motion to continue the public hearing for the Site Plan Review Application
#107-03 to September 16, 2003 at 10:00 p.m., seconded by Thomson. All
members are in favor. Motion carries.
Public Hearing - Site Plan Review Application #76-03 Shaw’s Supermarket –
Relocation to former Ames Building – construction of a 690 sq. ft. loading dock,
landscaping & parking – S.R. Weiner Assoc./Appledore Engineering
Madelaine Pujo, 11 Longwood Avenue expresses concern regarding the location of the
dumpsters and the noise. She asks how to regulate the amount of trucks entering the
property and the time of day the trucks.
Councilor-At-Large William Coughlin states moving from one building to another is like a
shoehorn. He cites the following issues: congestion, reduction of value of homes in the
area, safety and health concerns and residents don’t want to allow any loading or
unloading before 7:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m.
Mr. Haight states the only issue before the Planning Board is the 690 square foot enclosed
loading dock addition.
Thomson states there are three issues that keep coming up including 1. providing adequate
screening for the neighbors, 2. regulating the direction of truck traffic (away from Hellard
Road), and 3. limiting the hours of deliveries.
Marguerite Coughlin states as a former member of the Planning Board she knows there
have been times when the Planning Board members have been willing to do a site visit.
She recommends that the members consider visiting the site so they would have a better
understanding of the location.
Rink states the major issue is screening abutters. He also recommends moving the loading
dock further away from the neighbors.
Mr. Haight states he can look at relocating the loading dock 10 feet closer to the front of
the building.
Dinkin asks if it would be possible to build out a post fence 6 to 10 feet from the side of
the dock and around for further screening. Mr. Haight responds he thinks it would create
another hazard.
Planning Board Minutes
July 15, 2003
Page 10
Hurlburt states she spoke to an abutter about a week ago, who would not be able to
attend the hearing. She said her concern was the HVAC unit that was on Ames. She was
concerned about the noise and refrigeration, which might compound the situation.
Hurlburt states the Board was kind enough the accommodate Shaw’s by holding the
hearing this evening and she thinks the hearing could be continued to September.
Flannery: Motion to continue the public hearing on Site Plan Review Application
#76-03 to Tuesday, September 16, 2003 at 7:00 p.m., seconded by Rink.
All members are in favor. Motion carries.
The regular meeting of the Beverly Planning Board is called to order.
Minutes
The minutes of the May 13, 2003 and April 28, 2003 Joint Public Hearings with the
Zoning Board of Appeals are tabled until the next regular meeting.
Adjournment
Thomson: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Flannery, all members are in favor.
Motion carries.
The meeting is adjourned.