2004-01-20
City of Beverly, Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
BOARD: Planning Board
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: January 20, 2004
PLACE: Beverly Senior Center
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin; John Thomson, Joanne
Dunn, Ellen Flannery, Daniel Hamm, Robert Rink,
Don Walter
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: William Betts, Elizabeth McGlynn
OTHERS PRESENT: Leah Zambernardi, Asst. Planning Director
RECORDER: Jeannine Dion (by tape)
Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Flannery moves to recess and reconvene for scheduled public hearings, seconded by Dunn.
All members are in favor. Motion carries.
Public Hearing (cont.): Site Plan Review Application #73-03 Prescott Farms –
Planned Residential Development (PRD) – Part of a 70-unit Elderly Residential
Project in adjacent IR Zone – Boulder Lane/The Miles Group
Thomson
: Motion to continue this public hearing to March 16, 2004 at 7:30 p.m.,
seconded by Flannery. Motion carries.
Hawk Hill Subdivision – Expiration of Tripartite Agreement/Symes Associates
Zambernardi reads a letter dated 1/12/04 from Jeff Rhuda of Symes Associates requesting
to extend the expiration date to February 1, 2005. She then reads a letter dated 1/20/04
from Engineering Director Frank Killilea recommending the Planning Board grant this
request.
Thomson
: Motion to extend the expiration date to February 1, 2005, seconded by Hamm.
Motion carries.
A notarized amendment to the Tripartite Agreement is placed on file.
Site Plan Review Application #77-03 – Review Approved Plan Revision of
Cummings Center 3-Story Building and Access Drive per 11/18/03 Approval -
Beverly Commerce Park, Inc./Gerard McSweeney
Planning Board Minutes
January 20, 2004
Page 2
Zambernardi states that Cummings Properties submitted a revised plan to the Board dated
1/12/04. Engineering Director Frank Killilea has requested an outside review of this plan
by Bayside Engineering. He requests that this matter be continued to the February
meeting so the Board can review Bayside Engineering’s response.
Thomson:
Motion to place this item on the February agenda, seconded by Flannery.
Motion carries.
Public Hearing: (cont.) Chapman Corner Estates – 2 Boyles Street – Definitive
Subdivision Plan – Manor Homes at Whitehall, LLC/David Carnevale
Attorney Thomas Alexander introduces members of the project team. Bob Griffin, Griffin
Engineering provides an overview of the project.
Giles Ham states he met with the Parking and Traffic Commission on October 14, 2003
and he provides an overview of the Traffic Study.
Zambernardi reads the following letters into record:
·
A letter from the Board of Health dated October 21, 2003.
·
A letter from the Engineering Department dated January 20, 2004.
·
A letter from the Police Department dated October 15, 2003.
·
A letter from the Fire Department dated October 15, 2003.
·
A letter from the Conservation Commission dated January 20, 2004.
·
A letter from the Parking and Traffic Commission dated January 20, 2004.
·
A letter from the Open Space and Recreation Committee dated September 2,
2003.
Dinkin asks if members of the board have clarifying questions.
Rink asks if Griffin can describe in more detail the grading of the project. Mr. Griffin
responds.
Thomson asks a clarifying question regarding the lots on Hale Street. Griffin provides an
overview of the lots on Hale Street and states that he believes the applicant has sufficient
frontage.
Thomson asks if it is Griffin’s view that frontage does not have to be contiguous. Griffin
responds that is correct.
Thomson asks Attorney Alexander if he will file a Form A for these lots. Attorney
Alexander states that there is an existing non-conforming on frontage and the applicant
Planning Board Minutes
January 20, 2004
Page 3
has not changed that non-conformity. There are two houses and under Chapter 41 Sec.
81L it states that if you have two existing houses that predate the Subdivision Control
Law, you are allowed to get two lots out of it.
Dinkin asks if the applicant can outline the existing lot that the two-family sits on today.
Griffin complies with Dinkin’s request.
Dinkin asks if it is the contention of the applicant that they are using the existing non-
conformity, not creating a new lot. Alexander responds that there are two houses with
frontage shown and at the end of the day, you have two houses with frontage shown. The
petition is not about the two houses. The petition is about the 28 lots.
Thomson asks if a Form A has been filed to date. Alexander responds that a Form A has
not been filed.
Dinkin asks if it is the intent of the applicant to file a Form A. Alexander responds that the
applicant probably will file a Form A.
Thomson asks what the use of the driveway coming off Hale Street will be. Griffin states
they would not have to use it. Thomson asks if they could cut off the connection between
the driveway and the new road. Griffin responds they could.
Dinkin states he got the impression from the earlier presentation that the intent was to file
a plan with Conservation Commission that was in some variance to this plan. He asks if
that impression was correct. Griffin responds that there is discussion regarding a change
to the plan, that would eliminate part of Spinnaker Court and revise the layout of
Eisenhower Avenue Extension. By doing so, it would minimize the effects on Wetland B.
Dinkin states it peaks his curiosity a bit as to why the applicant is presenting this plan if
there is the intent to provide a different plan in the near future. Griffin responds that they
are not talking about fundamental changes to the overall layout of the subdivision.
Dinkin states several lots have been designated as non-buildable, including one that looks
like its intended use is a mosquito hatchery (lot 10). He asks about the plan’s disposition
of those lots. Will the current owner of the property retain title to those lots? Griffin
responds that he would anticipate that lot 10 would go to the city.
Thomson asks if it is the applicant’s understanding that the drainage produced by the
increased impervious construction on the site will increase or decrease the runoff. Griffin
responds that there will be some changes in the runoff rates and the drainage meets all of
the storm water management requirements of DEP.
Planning Board Minutes
January 20, 2004
Page 4
Thomson asks if the design increases the runoff as a total from the site from what is there
today. Griffin responds if you look at the site in total, there is an increase – one at Hale
Street and one at Eisenhower Avenue.
Thomson asks if the runoff runs to city drainage structures. Griffin responds that is
correct.
Dinkin asks if there are clarifying questions from members of the public.
Tom Harrington, attorney for The Friends of Chapman’s Corner, asks if he will have the
right to submit comments from their hydrologist and traffic engineer on the current plan.
Dinkin responds that he will at some point during the evening ask for a date on which
those reports will be available, since it is not fair to neither the developer nor members of
the public to maintain a hearing in perpetuity.
Anne Hayes, 2 Brookhead Avenue, asks what the width of road is at Boyles/Eisenhower
extension intersection. Griffin responds that the pavement width is 32 feet. She asks if
the upper right detention pond will drain into the wetland area. Griffin responds that it
will.
Joanne Avallon, 17 Boyles Street, asks if there is a way to see where the parking island is
in relation to the existing Eisenhower Avenue and the new Eisenhower extension. Griffin
points it out on the plan.
Avallon asks if the width of Eisenhower Avenue is based on the existing sidewalk or is it
based on lot lines that were created when the Murphy and the Doherty’s lots were
subdivided out. Griffin responds that the line is pretty flush with the existing curb line of
Eisenhower Avenue.
Martin Sullivan, 8 Sullivan Road, asks clarifying questions regarding tree removal and
drainage and traffic counts. Griffin states that Eisenhower Avenue Extension and the
school traffic were included in the traffic counts. He states that most of the lots have
existing trees that will be taken down although some will be under the jurisdiction of the
Conservation Commission. Sullivan asks about the sewer connection to existing sewer
lines on Boyles Street. He asks where it flows to. Griffin responds that it flows in a
northerly direction to wetlands at 48 Boyles Street.
Dinkin asks if Griffin can respond better to the question regarding tree removal. Griffin
responds that at this point in time the applicant has not identified any particular areas of no
cut zones but he can give some thought to it and provide more information. Dinkin asks
him to give it more thought.
Planning Board Minutes
January 20, 2004
Page 5
Jean Walsh, 29 Brackenbury Lane asks a clarifying question regarding drainage and how it
will impact the private beach.
Debbie Fatello, 3 Boyles Street, asks about runoff. Griffin responds there will be less
water runoff.
Judy Miller, 5 Pasture Road, asks if the traffic study anticipated cut-through traffic and
what the plan is for traffic control at Eisenhower Avenue. Griffin states it will be a school
zone.
Ed Doherty, 13 Eisenhower Avenue, asks a clarifying question regarding grading at the
site. He states the left side grade will be lower, creating blind spots into the Cove School
lot.
Janice Ostrowski, 236 Hale Street, asks a clarifying question regarding drainage and flows
toward Hale Street. She states there is a steep slope behind her house. She is also
interested in an answer on trees. Griffin states that this is near lot 16. There is no need to
alter the embankment at her house.
Amy Murphy, 15 Eisenhower Avenue, asks a clarifying question regarding drainage on
Hale Street. Griffin states that the city drainage on Hale Street travels northeast to #3 or
#5 Boyles, the pipe goes in a southeast direction and discharges into Centerville Creek, the
duck pond and eventually to the beach.
Michael Green, 10 Birch Woods Drive, asks about the grade on Birch Woods Ext. Griffin
states it is 6 percent.
Don Callanan, 8 Pickman Road, states this development will create more runoff than there
is today.
Jim Avallon, 9 Brookhead Avenue, asks a clarifying question regarding 30 Boyles Street.
Zambernardi responds that there is a Special Permit for a pork chop lot granted at 30
Boyles Street. She reads the specific conditions related to the driveway. A 1996 Special
Permit request to create two pork chop lots at 30 Boyles Street was approved subject to
the following conditions.
1. Vehicular access to both lots (# 1 and 2) shall be provided shall share the
driveway existing on site.
2. An easement be granted to the City of Beverly along the frontage of both
lots along Boyle Street for the purpose of future sidewalk installation by the
City. The width of this easement shall be determined by the Commissioner
of Public Works.
Planning Board Minutes
January 20, 2004
Page 6
3. A restriction shall be placed on the lots created by the Special Permit
prohibiting further subdivision of the lots in the future in such a manner as
to create additional building lots. A notation to this affect shall be
incorporated onto the plans prior to endorsement by the Planning Board.
Dinkin puts the Chapman Corner Estates – 2 Boyles Streethearing into recess until 9:30
p.m.
Site Plan Review Application #78-04 – Public Hearing Construction of a 13,000 sq.
ft. CVS Retail/Pharmacy with drive-thru, reconfigured parking field, landscaped
islands, demolition of existing Papa Gino’s & Fleet Bank ATM kiosk - S.R. Weiner
Associates/Appledore Engineering
Zambernardi reads the legal notice.
Steve Height, Appledore Engineering provides an overview of the project. He states he
has met with neighbors, the Design Review Board and the Parking and Traffic
Commission. He summarizes some changes made to the plan.
·
The neighbors requested that the 4-foot fence be changed to a 6-foot fence. The
applicant agrees to change the fence to a 6-foot fence.
·
The neighbors requested that the dumpster be enclosed. The applicant agrees to
enclose the dumpster.
·
There will be extensive landscaping between the site and Dodge Street.
·
The Parking and Traffic Commission asked for an access off of Dodge Street and a
sidewalk.
·
The Parking and Traffic Commission recommended an exclusive right lane out,
which has been incorporated in the plan.
·
The Design Review Board had concerns that the proposed building will be in
keeping with what is in the plaza now. All parties are working on this.
Thomson asks what the parking space count is for the entire shopping center. Haight
responds that he can provide that information.
Thomson states that he would like to have a feel for the entire center and know that
parking spaces aren’t being taken away.
Thomson asks what the total parking spaces will be after construction. Haight responds
there will be 796 parking spaces. The requirement is 786 parking spaces.
Thomson states he would like a plan that shows where the spaces are and the total of
parking spaces today and after construction. He wants to be sure that the number of
Planning Board Minutes
January 20, 2004
Page 7
spaces after construction is not a decrease of what is there today. He is also interested in
seeing final design plans.
Zambernardi reads the following letters into record:
·
Letter from the Engineering Department dated January 20, 2004.
·
Letter from the Conservation Commission dated January 6, 2004.
·
Letter from the Fire Department dated January 14, 2004.
·
Letter from the Board of Health dated January 13, 2004.
·
Letter from the Police Department dated January 20, 2004.
·
Letter from the Design Review Board dated January 20, 2004.
·
Letter from the Parking & Traffic Commission dated January 20, 2004.
Dinkin asks if members of the board have clarifying questions. There are none.
Dinkin asks if member of the public have clarifying questions.
Matt Pujo, 11 Longwood Avenue, asks where employees will park and about the lease for
Papa Gino’s.
Dan Carnevale, 17 Landers Drive, asks a clarifying question regarding the height of the
landscaping. Haight responds that the landscaping will be approximately six to eight feet
in height.
Dinkin states that since members of the board have unresolved questions, he would like to
ask for a motion to continue the hearing.
Thomson:
Moves to continue the hearing for Site Plan Review Application #78-04 to
February 19, 2004 at 7:30 p.m., seconded by Flannery. All members are in
favor. Motion carries.
The hearing is in recess until February 19, 2004 at 7:30 p.m.
Public Hearing: (cont.) Chapman Corner Estates – 2 Boyles Street – Definitive
Subdivision Plan – Manor Homes at Whitehall, LLC/David Carnevale
Dinkin asks if there are additional clarifying questions from members of the public. There
are none.
Dinkin asks if there are comments in opposition from members of the public.
Planning Board Minutes
January 20, 2004
Page 8
Attorney Tom Harrington, attorney for the Friends of Chapman’s Corner, 124 Watertown
Street, Watertown, Massachusetts, makes the following points:
·
The law states that in order to utilize private drainage or increase their use of
private drainage, they need to get the approval of the owner of the drainage. The
applicant intends to impact the two Brackenbury culverts, which are owned
privately.
·
Harrington wants to be sure that the hydrologist’s comments submitted to the
Planning Board and Conservation Commission on September 9, 2003 were
received.
·
Harrington states the hydrology does not meet DEP storm water standards. The
Conservation Commission has hired an independent engineer.
·
In October/November, 2003 there was discussion regarding the impact of the
Special Permit on 30 Boyles Street. The City Solicitor issued an opinion in which
he said, 1) they could not further subdivide the two lots and 2) they could not use
that driveway for their access road.
·
In 1996 Sergeant Tarsook’s opinion was that Boyles Street was in a very
dangerous condition and something had to be done.
Harrington asks if the Board would consider asking the applicant to make whatever
changes the applicant is going to make before the Friends of Chapman’s Corner comments
are made.
Ed Doherty, 13 Eisenhower Avenue expresses concern about drainage. He states that the
neighbors submitted a drainage study over a year ago on the congregate elderly
development and they never received any responses. He notes that the drainage enters the
city’s system but goes over private properties first.
Michael Green, 10 Birch Woods Drive, states he thinks the traffic studies are absurd.
Traffic will increase. The study ignores the influx of traffic associated with the schools. It
ignores the impact of students coming from the schools. He is also concerned about the
grade of Birch Woods Extension.
Dinkin asks Attorney Harrington if the hearing is continued until the next regular meeting
on February 19, 2004 could the hydrology and traffic reports be available to the Planning
Department one week prior. Harrington responds that the reports will be available one
week prior.
Dinkin asks if the applicant can provide the plan that is submitted to Conservation
Commission made available to the Planning Board and Attorney Harrington on or before
February 3, 2004. The applicant will provide the information.
Planning Board Minutes
January 20, 2004
Page 9
Joanne Avallon expresses concern that if Spinnaker Court is removed to accommodate the
Conservation Commission, that will change the traffic and hydrology studies and there
may not be enough time to respond to the changes. Dinkin requests the applicant provide
any changes made to the plan that result in changes to the traffic or drainage study to the
Planning Board and Attorney Harrington on or before February 3, 2004. He then states
that the neighbors need to submit their studies one week before the March meeting, March
9, 2004. He asks the neighbors to distribute their plans via e-mail.
Thomson
: Motion to continue the public hearing Chapman Corner Estates – 2 Boyles
Street to March 16, 2004 at 9:00 p.m., seconded by Rink. All members are
in favor. Motion carries.
Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR’s)
143 West Street – Mr. Daniel Carnevale
Carnevale states he is in agreement to acquire an 8-foot strip of land on West Street. The
Conservation Commission has issued an Order of Conditions. He has a sequence of
events and a detailed replication plan. He states this is just to wiggle the house the way
that he needs it relative to a setback and a view easement, which Conservation
Commission has already approved.
Thomson:
Motion to endorse the plan for 143 West Street as one not requiring
approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Flannery. All
members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries.
Approval of Minutes – Regular Meeting – November 18, 2003
Thomson:
Motion to approve the Planning Board minutes dated November 18, 2003
as written, seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor. Motion
carries.
Request to Set Public Hearing: Site Plan Review Application #79-04 and Special
Permit Application #108-04 – Bushby Estates, 58-64 Dodge Street/Mart
Management Inc.
Dinkin states there is a request to set a public hearing for Special Permit and Site Plan
Review for the demolition of an existing used car lot and rehab an existing 5-unit
residential structure into two units and build 14 new townhouses attached to 1,152 square
feet of commercial space at 58-64 Dodge Street.
Thomson:
Motion to set concurrent public hearings for Special Permit and Site Plan
Review for the demolition of an existing used car lot and rehab an existing
Planning Board Minutes
January 20, 2004
Page 10
5-unit residential structure into two units and build 14 new townhouses
attached to 1,152 square feet of commercial space at 58-64 Dodge Street
for February 19, 2004 at 8:00 p.m., seconded by Flannery. All members
are in favor. Motion carries.
New/Other Business:
a. Election of Officers
Dinkin yields the chair to the Vice Chairman. Thomson assumes the Chair. He requests
nominations for the position of Chairman for 2004. Flannery makes a motion to nominate
Richard Dinkin. Seconded by Rink. Motion carries. Dinkin reassumes the Chair and asks
for nominations for the position of Vice Chair for 2004. Flannery makes a motion to
nominate John Thomson. Seconded by Walter. Motion carries.
b. Set Date for Planning Board Educational Session
Members set a date for Tuesday, February 24, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. for an educational
session.
c. Project Review Fees and Administrative Fees
Zambernardi states the draft regulation was included in the Planning Board staff report.
Thomson suggests that monies for review fees is put into escrow upon application.
Members agree to take this matter up at the next meeting.
d. Rezoning the Edwards School
Dinkin states an Order to rezone the Edwards School has been referred to the Planning
Board by the City Council.
Thomson:
Motion to recommend to the City Council that they set a Joint Public
Hearing between the City Council and the Planning Board, seconded by
Flannery. All members are in favor. Motion carries.
Adjournment:
Dunn:
Motion to adjourn, seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor.
Motion carries.
The meeting is adjourned.