2003-04-15
City of Beverly, Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
BOARD: Planning Board
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: April 15, 2003
PLACE: Beverly City Hall
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin; Joanne Dunn, John
Thomson, Ellen Flannery, Patricia Grimes, Robert
Rink, Daniel Ham, William Betts, Elizabeth
McGlynn
ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT: Debra Hurlburt, Planning Director and Leah
Zambernardi, Asst. Planning Director
RECORDER: Jeannine Dion
Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Chapman’s Corner Estates Preliminary Plan – 2 Boyles Street – Whitehall Realty
Trust/Henry Bertolon
Attorney Thomas Alexander appears on behalf of the applicant, Whitehall Realty
Trust/Henry Bertolon.
Dinkin asks if Alexander has reviewed the City Solicitor’s opinion. Alexander responds
that he has reviewed Peter Gilmore’s opinion and has provided a memorandum to the
Planning Department last week.
Dinkin asks if members of the board have questions.
Grimes asks a clarifying question regarding the boundary. Alexander provides a response
to Grimes’ question.
Thomson states based on the legal memorandum prepared by the applicant, the Friends of
Chapman’s Corner neighborhood association and the City Solicitor, he does not think the
plan is approvable as presented. In contrast to the usual practice of taking it under
advisement or tabling it and based on the opinion of the City Solicitor, he recommends
that the plan be denied.
Thomson:
Motion to deny the Preliminary Plan of Chapman’s Corner Estates - 2
Boyles Street based on the legal opinion of the City Solicitor, seconded by
Planning Board Minutes
April 15, 2003
Page 2
Flannery. Grimes, Thomson, Dinkin, Flannery, Rink and McGlynn in
favor. Hamm and Betts in abstention. Motion carries.
Discussion on the vote.
Grimes reiterates that she agrees with Thomson. There are unapprovable lots such as lot
40, which is segmented. The plan should be denied.
Dinkin explains that a motion was made to disapprove the Preliminary Plan as it was
presented. The basis for the motion was that there are several lots within the subdivision
that the board does not believe are legal lots. Therefore, the question that comes before
us in a Preliminary Plan is “Does the board believe that a subdivision configured in the
way it is presented is ultimately approvable?” Because of the existing lots we believe not
to be legal lots, then a subdivision configured in this way is not approvable. Now the
reality is that the applicant may proceed and present a Definitive Subdivision Plan, which
is identical in every respect. There is no encumbrance for this applicant to not do so. He
states he would not anticipate that the Planning Board would not see a Definitive Plan
from this applicant. In fact, the Definitive may be the same, similar or somewhat different.
Birch Woods Subdivision – Completion Date Expiration – J.J. Phelan & Sons
Zambernardi states that the Frank Killilea from the Engineering Department has provided
a letter regarding this matter. She reads the letter dated April 13, 2003.
The letter states that the Engineering Department has been patiently waiting for many
months for PRZ to present As Built Plans for Birch Woods Subdivision. The Engineering
Department has been in communication with Benchmark Survey, engineers for PRZ with
little success. Killilea recommends that the Planning Board give PRZ one month’s time to
produce the As Built Plans. If this is unsuccessful, we suggest having another engineering
firm do this work and paying them out of the PRZ fund.
Thomson asks Killilea how long it would take a different engineering firm to prepare the
As Built plans. Killilea responds that it might take a couple of months. He states that he
has been talking with Benchmark Survey and they have just stopped talking to the
Engineering Department.
Thomson asks if a new engineering firm would start work right away or one month from
now. Killilea responds that if another engineering firm picks up the job, it would have to
qualify. If you go with another engineering firm, the new firm might itemize what they are
and not responsible for. It would be better for to have Benchmark Survey complete the
work.
Planning Board Minutes
April 15, 2003
Page 3
Thomson:
Motion that the Planning Board give PRZ one month’s time, with a
deadline of May 15, 2003 to produce the As Built Plans. If unsuccessful
producing the As Built Plans, the Planning Board approves retaining
another engineering firm do the work, which will be paid out of the PRZ
bond, seconded by McGlynn. All members are in favor. Motion carries.
Approval of Minutes:
Betts:
Motion to accept the minutes of the Planning Board meetings dated
January 23, 2003 and March 18, 2003 as written, seconded by Flannery.
All members are in favor. Motion carries.
A meeting goes into recess until 8:00 p.m.
The meeting reconvenes at 8:00 p.m.
Inclusionary Housing Amendment
Hurlburt states at the last Planning Board meeting she talked about her desire to research
Inclusionary Zoning. She started to look at it and she as found that the best way to do it is
through a Special Permit via zoning. Other communities are trying to do it through
Subdivision Control, which is very “iffy” at best. She states that Peabody has passed it
and they have it triggered with 8 units or more.
Hurlburt states she recommends writing Inclusionary Zoning with Peter Gilmore’s review.
Most communities that do it with Special Permit do it with multifamily units and that is
how they get away with it. The City of Beverly’s Zoning Ordinance allows multi-units by
right in some zoning districts. She states that taking a step back and try to induce a
special permit on multi-unit developments that are currently allowed by right may be very
difficult to do. She states it could be included in the Subdivision, if willing to take that
risk, or go with the Special Permit for the multi-family district.
Thomson states he was under the impression that Inclusionary Zoning really has not been
tested in this state. Hurlburt states she cannot answer that but she spoke with Mr. Clark
Ziegler, the Executive Director of Mass Housing Partnership, and he said that Ipswich is
on 100% solid ground to put it in the Zoning, not the Subdivision.
Hurlburt states she needs more time to work with Peter Gilmore. She wants to be sure
that the Planning Board would not be overstepping the boundaries.
Reconsideration of Minutes:
Dinkin states the board needs a motion to reconsider the minutes of March 15, 2003.
Planning Board Minutes
April 15, 2003
Page 4
Thomson: Motion to reconsider the minutes of March 15, 2003, seconded by
Flannery. All members are in favor. Motion carries.
Grimes states that the second paragraph on page 4 should be amended to read, “Peter
Gilmore states that the Planning Board is not compelled to conduct Site Plan Review prior
to a variance, but it may do so if it chooses.
Thomson: Motion to accept the amended minutes dated March 15, 2003, seconded by
Flannery. All members are in favor. Motion carries.
Dunn arrives at 8:05 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 – One-Stop Market – Site Plan Review Application #74-03 - 174
Rantoul Street – Renovate existing 1,535 sq. ft. convenience market and a 2,002 sq.
ft. addition – proposed convenience store Jaspal Gill
Zambernardi reads the legal notice.
Brian DiLuiso from Winter Street Architects, Inc. provides an overview of the project.
Dinkin asks a clarifying question regarding the parking. He asks what the angle is that
someone would have to turn approaching the westerly side of the lot assuming a vehicle is
parked in slot #8. Mr. DiLuiso states it would be about a 30-degree angle. He states it is
a slender space to get by, but the proposed condition is not any worse than it is today.
They are improving the handicapped accessibility on-site. There are no recorded
accidents.
Zambernardi reads the following letters into record:
·
Letter from the Fire Department dated April 13, 2003.
·
Letter from the Beverly Conservation Commission dated March 17, 2003.
·
Letter from the Police Department dated April 14, 2003.
·
Letter from the Parking and Traffic Commission dated April 13, 2003.
·
Letter from the Design Review Board dated April 8, 2003.
·
Letter from the Board of Health dated April 11, 2003.
·
Letter from Engineering dated April 20, 2003.
Dinkin asks if there are clarifying questions from members of the board.
Planning Board Minutes
April 15, 2003
Page 5
Thomson states the site is problematic in terms of parking. Mr. DiLuiso states that there
is no viable improvement in the traffic plan for Mr. Gill. The fuel pumps have recently
been upgraded and they cannot be taken out.
Thomson states that green space on the north side would be visible and a benefit. Mr.
DiLuiso states that the space needs to be open for handicap accessibility.
Thomson asks if any landscaping could be added at the corner of Broadway and Rantoul
Street by building a well around the base of the sign.
Flannery asks how many curb cuts there are. Mr. DiLuiso asks how many curb cuts there
are. Mr. DiLuiso responds that there are 3 curb cute plus one small curb cut that is
frequently blocked by parked cars. There are striped spaces on Broadway, not metered.
Hamm states that the current width of the sidewalk and the lack of a break between the
sidewalk and the parking lot is hazardous for pedestrians. Mr. DiLuiso states that the only
solution would be to tear down the building and to put it back, which is cost prohibitive to
the applicant. Hamm asks how much space there is between the building and the building
to the rear. Mr. DiLuiso states there is approximately 3 feet.
The public hearing is closed.
The regular meeting of the Beverly Planning board is called to order.
Discussion/Decision - One-Stop Market – Site Plan Review Application #74-03 - 174
Rantoul Street – Renovate existing 1,535 sq. ft. convenience market and a 2,002 sq.
ft. addition – proposed convenience store Jaspal Gill
Thomson discusses traffic safety and landscaping concerns. He is concerned with traffic at
the gasoline canopy and landscaping attributes. He sees this project as an opportunity to
do something a little different.
Thomson states they are not making any substantial changes to the parking that exists
there now. He asks for more screening and buffering of the parking such as a raised
planter structure surrounding the freestanding sign at the corner of Broadway and Rantoul
Streets and additional landscaping between parking space #1 and Broadway. He also asks
if angle parking has been explored. Mr. DiLuiso states that angle parking would take up
approximately 20 percent more space.
Hamm states that parking space #8-13 are very dangerous to pedestrians because they
cause cars to back onto the sidewalk. Moving the building back is a solution.
Grimes states this is a common condition with convenience stores.
Planning Board Minutes
April 15, 2003
Page 6
Thomson: Motion to accept the Site Plan as shown with the conditions that a raised
planter structure with plantings be incorporated, which surrounds the
freestanding sign and curves around the edge of the property line at the
corner of Rantoul Street and Broadway for review by the Planning Board;
that an additional strip of landscaping be placed at the southwest corner of
the lot between Parking Space #1 and the sidewalk for review by the
Planning Board; and that all department comments are incorporated into
the plans. Seconded by Flannery. Motion carries.
New/Other Business
Sign Ordinance
Zambernardi states that at the last meeting the board recommended that the City Council
approve the Sign Ordinance. The meeting is coming up on Monday, April 22, 2003.
Reminder: Jt. Public Hearing 4/28/03 – Planning Board and Zoning Board of
Appeals Re: Prescott Farms/Off Boulder Lang/Miles Group, Inc. (70-Unit Planned
Residential Development in R-15 and IR Zoning District)
Dinkin reminds members that there is a Joint Public Hearing with the Zoning Board of
th
Appeals at the Senior Center on April 28 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss Prescott Farms.
Open Space Subdivision Zoning Amendment
Thomson states that he has met with Scott Houseman a couple of times to work on the
Open Space Subdivision Zoning Amendment. He would like some guidance from board
members when it comes back. One of the options is to require the applicant to come in
and get a Special Permit for Site Plan Review. The Planning Board would be the
authority to review the plan and bless it or not. There are a couple of other options.
One of the options is to have a set of rules they could set forth in the new bylaw to be so
clear and automatic, that if the developer chose that route, that there would be no need to
come in for the permit. They would simply have to design in accordance with the rules
and they would have to meet those rules.
Another alternative is to, as one community has done, have each developer come in with
two plans 1) a standard conventional subdivision plan and 2) an open space subdivision. It
gives the Planning Board the option of one plan or the other.
Thomson asks if anyone on the board has any comments.
Planning Board Minutes
April 15, 2003
Page 7
Dinkin states he would be interested in an option that maximizes public input. He is not
adverse to the Planning Board making some kind of pre decision that it thinks a
conventional or open space subdivision is appropriate. There should be a public hearing
process for the straight shot option. The straight shot option strikes him as a way of
minimizing the need for public hearing and that makes him extremely nervous.
Dinkin states he feels very strongly that open space that is created in this way be
something other than someone’s back yard. He is also not interested in creating liability.
Dinkin states he would like to see the proposal and the Inclusionary Zoning proposal be
on very close tracts. He would not like to see one precede the other.
Adjournment
Flannery:
Motion to adjourn, seconded by Thomson, all members are in favor.
Motion carries.
The meeting is adjourned.