Loading...
06.21.23 BPB Minutes Final City of Beverly Planning Board June 21,2023 Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 10 CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: City of Beverly Planning Board DATE: June 21, 2023 LOCATION: Beverly City Hall, 191 Cabot Street, 3rd Floor Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Vice Chair Derek Beckwith, Sarah Bartley, Ellen Flannery, George Gomes, Wayne Miller MEMBERS ABSENT: Rodney Sinclair OTHERS PRESENT: Director of Planning& Community Development Darlene Wynne,Assistant Planning Director Ken Clawson RECORDER: Naomi Moca Call to Order Chair Hutchinson calls the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Vice Chair Beckwith: Motion to recess. Flannery seconds. Motion carries (6-0). Recess for Public Hearings 1. Public Hearing: Special Permit#187-23 — 8 Summit Avenue—Robert I. Boudreau Director Wynne reads the legal notice. Tom Alexander of Alexander and Femino, Robert Boudreau, Applicant, and engineer George Zambouras are present. Alexander states that Boudreau owns the Anchor Pub and Restaurant, which has been under his family's ownership since 1996, and states that the applicant is seeking a special permit for using the lot for parking purposes which entails a few design deviations as set out in the public notice. The reason for the deviations is due in part to the relative scarcity of parking and the resulting unsafe parking habits in the area with the opening of the nearby Mission Boathouse restaurant and due to the upcoming busy season. The applicant seeks to establish additional parking options for the customers and staff of his business. Alexander states that the lot is next to the railroad tracks next to Ellingwood Court and Cox Court. Alexander outlines how the site meets the criteria for qualifying for a special permit in Beverly: 1)that the specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use and the character of the adjoining uses will not be adversely affected; 2)that no factual evidence is found that property values in the district will be adversely affected by such use, in fact, Alexander states that the area will be enhanced with more off-street public parking; 3)that no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result, in fact, Alexander states that hazard will overall 1 City of Beverly Planning Board June 21,2023 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 10 likely be reduced;)that adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation and maintenance of the proposed use, which is confirmed by Zambouras; 5)that there are no valid objections from abutting property owners based on demonstrable fact, in fact, Alexander states that 30 neighboring individuals signed a petition in support of the project as it may likely ease the parking situation in the neighborhood; 6)that adequate and appropriate City services are or will be available for the proposed use. Materials added to the record: • Petition signed by the residents of the neighborhood in support of the special permit The Board discusses that the lot is currently vacant, that the surface will be crushed stone gravel to allow for drainage on site and to minimize runoff, that the traffic flow into the lot is designed for one way in and one way out, that its use will be sporadic for the use by the restaurant, that the use of the parallel parking spaces will work the same way as parallel parking on a regular roadway, and that there is a fire hydrant about 100 feet away. Zambouras and Alexander state that the parking spaces will be delineated by concrete headers at the top of each space, that on Ellingwood Court,the spaces will be delineated by signs on the stockade,that the compact spaces will be delineated with striping on the ground, and that the signs offer guidance but do not guarantee that drivers will comply with the signage. The Board discusses that the crushed stone parking lot on West Beach is delineated with a chalk- style line that periodically has to be refreshed. The Board discusses that the signage will state "compact car space only" at the head of each compact space, and"for patrons of the Anchor Pub"in the lot in order for the rules to be enforceable by towing. The Board observes that two of the three direct abutters have not signed the petition, and Boudreau states that 7 Ellingwood is a three-family building and that the owner expressed that he is fine with the project when they spoke. Boudreau states that he placed the stockade fence 15 feet within his property line to allow extra space as a courtesy. Donald Swift of 3 Summit Avenue states that he has lived at this address since 1994, and that the property is a commercial residential lot and not RMD zoned. Swift states that the project will affect his property value,that the lot's runoff drains directly into his property causing water issues in his home, that the fence is one foot from his property line, and that if a car fire occurred in the lot it could be a hazard as his house has vinyl siding. Swift states that there is a three- family house behind his house, that the lot is already a gravel parking area, and that there is a one-foot buffer between the lot and 3 Summit Avenue. Swift points out the commercial residential zoning line. The Board clarifies with Swift that the zoning was changed to CC zoning two months ago. Alexander and Boudreau state that the lot has been a vacant lot, not a parking lot, and at one time it was an access driveway to 17 Summit Avenue. Zambouras states that the lot became overgrown over a 30-year period, and that it has always been and will continue to be a permeable surface. 2 City of Beverly Planning Board June 21,2023 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 10 Swift states that the lot's organic grass and trees were removed by the engineer, and now it is gravel, causing water to run off the lot toward his house. Zambouras states that the grade is pitched one foot east to west toward Ellingwood Court, not north to south toward Summit Avenue. Zambouras states that it was an uncapped lot until about two years ago when it was cleared and leveled. The Board discusses with Swift that the water flow toward and into his house increased in the time period after the clearing of the lot. Alexander offers on behalf of the applicant to install a drain into the lot to direct stormwater flow into the City drainage system at Summit Avenue. The flow would thus be redirected from west to east into the City drainage. Zambouras states that part of the lot was always gravel. Swift counters that it was always organic grass and trees. Zambouras states that the water runoff flows from east to west to the lawn of 7 Summit Avenue and into the City drainage system. The proposed drain would be close to the property line and eventually drain to the ocean. Swift states that he is unsure of the offered compromise and he states that the water flows from the 24-unit condominiums, along the entire length of the property, from north to south, and along the side of the lot where his house is located. Zambouras states that the level of the ground in the lot is lower than the top of the concrete wall, that elevations were measured two weeks ago, and that this is the first time he has learned of the flow of the water going into Swift's property. Boudreau states that he and Swift previously had a conversation about the water but the context of the conversation was about water in both their properties. Zambouras states that there can be many factors that contribute to water in the basement, including groundwater or surface water, which makes it difficult to determine how much of the water problem at Swift's property is caused by runoff from the lot, if any. Zambouras states that he is confident that a drain can be installed on the lot. Beckwith discusses a 15-space lot versus a 17-space lot and how a 17-space lot may impact the proximity of a vehicle to Swift's house, thus potentially risking damage to the house in the case of a vehicle fire. Alexander states that the preference is for 17 spaces. Hutchinson suggests eliminating space number 17 due to the noise factor in the neighborhood as space number 17 is directly adjacent to the property. The applicant agrees to eliminate space number 17. Zambouras states that eliminating space number 17 will not impact the ability to install drainage. Flannery: Motion to close the public hearing: Special Permit 4187-23 —8 Summit Avenue, Robert I. Boudreau, Applicant. Beckwith seconds. Motion carries (6-0). 3 City of Beverly Planning Board June 21,2023 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 10 Director Wynne states some potential conditions of approval for the Board to consider. Hutchinson asks about the grading of the lot as it relates to the installation of a catch basin. Miller asks about the maintenance of gravel in the parking lot. Wynne states that annual stormwater reporting is required under the NPDES permit which would address annual maintenance. Beckwith: With regard to application for Special Permit#SP 187-23 —8 Summit Avenue—Robert 1. Boudreau, Applicant, move that the Planning Board find that 1)the specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use, and that the character of the adjoining uses will not be adversely affected, 2)that no factual evidence is found that property values in the district will be adversely affected by such use, 3)that no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result, 4)that adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation and maintenance of the proposed use, 5)there are no valid objections from abutting property owners based on demonstrable fact, 6)that adequate and appropriate City services are or will be available for the proposed use, and to GRANT the Special Permit for the principal use of the lot as a parking lot, and deviations from the design requirements by allowing parking spaces within five feet of side lot lines, a two-way aisle width of less than 24 feet, compact car spaces to take up more than 25% of the spaces in the lot; and further, the applicant shall post signage that reads "Compact Spaces" adjacent to the compact parking spaces; delineate parking spaces with the placement of concrete headers; chalk lines for the parking spaces; install a catch basin drain in the lot to catch and divert surface water into the city drainage system,including associate grading of the lot, which will be reviewed by the City Engineering Department as required; if the water places a strain on the City's resources,the NPDES conditions shall apply including but not limited annual stormwater management reporting and annual maintenance of the gravel surface in accordance with the City of Beverly Engineering requirements; and eliminate space number 17 so that the total number of spaces is 16. Flannery seconds. Miller discusses that there is no lighting plan at this time, due to the street lights and the lighting from the condominium property being sufficient. Miller asks if there is video surveillance in place and it is stated that video surveillance does exist. Miller asks about snow removal and it is stated that snow removal will likely not be necessary in the winter as usage of the lot is expected to decrease. Boudreau states that in the case of an unusual amount of snow, it will be plowed into the two parking spaces nearest the fence. Bartley discusses the additional burden of annually refreshing the lines in perpetuity because the surface is crushed stone. Beckwith discusses that delineation is necessary because at times headers may not be adequate to delineate spaces, and because the aisle has been narrowed from 24 feet to 18 feet. Zambouras offers to look into installing colored concrete paving stones into the gravel surface to create permanent parking lines in lieu of chalk or paint. 4 City of Beverly Planning Board June 21,2023 Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 10 Beckwith: Amended motion: remove the "chalk lines"wording of the motion and replace it with "provide delineation or demarcation for the spaces."Flannery seconds. Motion carries 6-0. 2. Public hearing: Definitive Subdivision Plan— 119 and 119R Rantoul Street and 44 and 46 Pleasant Street—Wilso Ventures LLC and Tiny Ventures LLC Wynne reads the legal notice. Hutchinson discusses with Alexander that Wilso Ventures LLC dissolved in 2021 and that Tiny Ventures LLC dissolved in 2016. Hutchinson is unaware of what implication this information could have on the application. Alexander believes that there is no harm in moving forward as the LLC's most likely need to file their annual reports. Alexander states that it is not uncommon in Massachusetts to have an LLC be dissolved as a result of not filing annual reports and continue to function. Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering is present and states that in 2022 Christopher Crowley, who is a representative of the two LLCs,purchased the property. Griffin states that the purpose of submitting a provisional subdivision plan is to effectively freeze the zoning, and that Crowley has no plan to actually build the subdivision. Griffin reviews the layout of the proposed plan, which is similar to the previous plan, being roughly half an acre in size. The plan proposes to remove the existing buildings on the old Meineke property, and it complies with all the necessary requirements to build a subdivision in Beverly. There are two lots, and the subdivision is in the CC Zoning district which has no setback requirements. The drainage ties into the existing City storm sewer system and there will be a net decrease in runoff. Miller discusses that since the deed to the property has not been transferred to any other party, and the LLCs have been dissolved, if Christopher Crowley is legally the representative of at this point in time. Alexander states that the matter of the LLCs being reinstated can be resolved within 48 hours. Hutchinson discusses whether a nonexistent entity can legally file the plan, and Alexander counters that it is commonplace for plans to be filed by entities that have been dissolved. Hutchinson discusses whether the applicant would have to re-apply in the future in the case that the entities are reinstated, or whether the applicant can move forward on the condition imposed by the Board that the entity be reinstated retroactively. Miller discusses that Christopher Crowley is listed on the application as the owner, but since he is signing on behalf of the LLCs as the manager, Miller questions whether it is accurate to list his name as the owner. Alexander states that statutorily, the filing has to be within seven months to effectively freeze the zoning, and since that purpose has been fulfilled he is comfortable continuing to the July 18, 2023 meeting. Beckwith: Motion to seek the opinion of the City Solicitor on whether an LLC that has been dissolved by a court order or by the Secretary of State's Office has legal 5 City of Beverly Planning Board June 21,2023 Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 10 standing to file an application for a Definitive Subdivision Plan. Flannery seconds. Motion carries (6-0). Flannery: Motion to continue to the public hearing to the July 18, 2023 meeting. Beckwith seconds. Motion carries (6-0). 3. Public hearing: Definitive Subdivision Plan—45, 47, and 53 Cabot Street and 5 Union Street - Gregory Ward Wynne reads the legal notice. Miranda Siemasko of Glovsky and Glovsky and Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering are present on behalf of the applicant. Siemasko states that there are three different owners of the four adjacent lots depicted on this definitive plan. Applicant Gregory Ward,the manager and principal of the two LLCs involved, is named as the applicant which Siemasko confirms is appropriate when filed under the Subdivision Control Law. Siemasko states that this filing is being done to preserve the prior zoning, and does not represent anything that is intended by the owners to be constructed. Beckwith asks if there are any changes from the Preliminary Plan. Griffin answers that there are minor changes from the Preliminary Plan that were not initially required, but that the layout of the lots remains the same. Griffin presents the plan, stating that the four lots together are about 40,000 square feet with 700 feet of frontage on Cabot Street. Griffin states that the layout meets all the requirements of the zoning, that the plan depicts a cul-de-sac, and that there are no setbacks. The sizes of lots one, two, three, and four are 9,000 square feet, 5,000 square feet, 5,000 square feet, and 7,000 square feet, respectively. Approximately one third of the land is tied up in the right-of-way. There is a high capacity for drainage on the site according to the test pit data,with the ability to accommodate a 100-year storm event. There is a water main and a fire hydrant on the site. Miller asks how deep the test pits were dug and Griffin responds that they were approximately eight feet and that no toxicity checks were conducted. Beckwith asks for a summary of the stormwater report. Griffin states that the project meets or exceeds the Stormwater Management standards,which are 1) no new untreated discharges, 2) demonstration that there is no increase in the rate of runoff from the site after construction and no potential increase in offsite flooding, 3) the recharge standard, 4)water quality requirement to meet DEP standards for treating water before it leaves the site, 5)no higher pollutant load, 6) critical area does not apply, 7)meet redevelopment standards to maximum extent practicable, 8) operations and maintenance, 9) erosion controls during construction, and 10)no illicit discharges from the site. Miller asks if there are gas lines in this area and Griffin states that gas lines are present with no indication of leaks. Hutchinson discusses that the project could, in theory, be built but that there is no intention to do any construction. The filing will accomplish the zoning freeze, which will be applicable for seven years even if it is not built within two years. Hutchinson asks if the traffic data in the 6 City of Beverly Planning Board June 21,2023 Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 10 traffic report is based on actual counts and Griffin responds that the traffic data for the current garden center and warehouse are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers traffic manual's data on land use associated with a farmhouse greenhouse center, as the basis for potential vehicle trips. Hutchinson asks if there is any actual data on traffic trips and Griffin responds that there is not. Griffin states that the maximum yield of 23 residential units would generate approximately 110 trips down from 410 trips according to the traffic manual data. Miller asks if there is any signage and Griffin responds that there is a stop sign at the end of the street. Beckwith asks if there are any new hydrants and Griffin states that the plan includes one new hydrant. Hutchinson discusses that, if it is not built within two years, the freeze will still exist, and the applicant will need to come before the Planning Board again. Hutchinson clarifies that while there is no intention to build, it is a Definitive Subdivision Plan. If a decision were made to go forward with construction, the project would still be subject to Site Plan Review. Alexander Knox of 2 Davis Street asks if there are plans for additional street lights and Griffin answers that there are not. Knox asks if structures can be built on top of the infiltration field between lots three and four, and Griffin states that he supposes it is possible. Knox asks what interference can be anticipated during the construction of the triple gate valve at the entrance in front of the stop sign, and Griffin states that water mains are typically five to six feet below grade, so it would require a day or two of digging work. Terrence Shaw of 7 Union Street states that he received the letter from City on Saturday and that was the first he heard of the plan, and not being a lawyer himself nor familiar with this process, he seeks clarification on what stage it is at. Shaw expresses that he understands now that the application is for the purpose of freezing the Zoning. Hutchinson explains to Shaw that the applicant filed a preliminary subdivision plan in November of 2022, which does not require a public hearing. The next step required by law is to file a Definitive Subdivision Plan, with this level of detail, as a placeholder to freeze the zoning. The applicant has made clear there is no intention to develop it,but that it is a placeholder, and there is a possibility that in the future there could be another plan. The filing of the application serves as a mechanism to freeze the zoning. Siemasko adds that when and if a project that is real is contemplated, the City's requirement for Site Plan Review is a public hearing, and in that case, adjacent residents and owners are required to receive notice about the real project,just as in the case of today's placeholder plan. Shaw asks why the applicant would go through the effort and expense of filing the plan when there is no intention to build. Hutchinson explains that the law requires this level of detail to apply and since the new zoning affects the allowable height of buildings,the profit yield from an additional story might outweigh the cost of submitting these plans. Beckwith further clarifies that in this case, no variance or waiver from the City is required, meaning it is by-right. 7 City of Beverly Planning Board June 21,2023 Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 10 Shaw asks if, theoretically, in the next seven years the applicant decides to go ahead with construction, abutters will receive another notice, and Hutchinson answers yes. Wynne discusses that mail delivery within Beverly has been slower lately, as these notices were mailed around Memorial Day. Chris Brennan of 7 Union Street asks what the new height limitation is and what it was prior to the zoning change. Wynne states that depending on the lot and its adjacencies,the zoning was reduced from 55 feet(about five stories)to 45 feet(four stories) in some cases. Brennan expresses concern that the building or buildings could be five stories high. Wynne explains that the zoning change has already occurred, and this application allows the applicant to build to the pre-zoning allowable height. Brennan asks why the height was lowered in the zoning, and Hutchinson states that among other reasons,there were concerns in the City about the size of buildings. Beckwith expresses that the applicant is following the technical letter of the law by doing everything properly that is required, and the Board cannot deny the applicant's right to do so. Brianna Buhassi of 14B Stone Street states that it felt shocking to learn that zoning in the area was changed and that there were neighbors contemplating building a five-story building. Hutchinson explains that this public hearing is the first notification and opportunity to ask questions about it. Miller explains that there is a grace period provided by law that allows property owners to freeze the previously existing zoning after the zoning goes into effect. Buhassi asks what possibility there is for her or others in the neighborhood to change or put a stop to the plan. Hutchinson explains that if the applicant makes a decision to build anytime over the next seven years, the plan must come before Board for Site Plan Review, at which time the neighbors will be notified again. At that time, the neighbors will have the opportunity and right to review the plan, ask questions, and potentially express to the Board the reasons they oppose it. Hutchinson states that the filing of a site plan does not guarantee that the plan will be approved. Buhassi states that if she were a property owner, she would want to maximize her investment by constructing the maximum capacity building possible. Buhassi expresses concern about potential noise, height, and sustainability issues with the project. Hutchinson discusses that prior to the zoning change, the owner had the right to build 5-story building all along, and that the discussion today is hypothetical. Hutchinson emphasizes that plans typically go through multiple iterations over the course of the approval process, and uses The Block project near the Post Office as an example. Hutchinson states that neither the Board nor Buhassi can change the fact that the zoning is frozen, but Buhassi has the right to express her opinion about why the building should not be five stories. Peter Saggese of 14A Stone Street states that there is already an existing traffic problem on Stone Street due to its being a state highway with parking on the odd-numbered side of the street, and expresses concern that the development may add to the traffic issues. Furthermore, Saggese states that the traffic light at Cabot Street causes daily backups. Saggese expresses concern that 8 City of Beverly Planning Board June 21,2023 Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 10 parking would be constructed adjacent to his property in the access way that runs behind 10 Stone Street and 14 Stone Street. Griffin clarifies that he was talking about the traffic on Cabot Street,not Stone Street,in his presentation. Griffin states that the plan includes nothing on the access way because it cannot accommodate parking, being 18 feet in size. Hutchinson discusses that the comments are valid and perhaps better left for a potential future time if or when the plan becomes definitive. Wynne states that a subdivision plan is defined as the creation of a roadway and lots, and explains that the plan does not show any buildings, so essentially,the applicant is showing the re-adjustment of the lot lines. Wynne states that there are zoning requirements that have to be met with adjacent properties as well. Knox asks what is being approved at this meeting. Hutchinson explains that the applicant has asked the Board to approve the definitive subdivision plan, which freezes the pre-change zoning. The submission of this plan, not the approval, enacts the zoning freeze. Knox expresses that he opposes the plan based on the expected increase in traffic flow. Hutchinson discusses that the applicant has complied with every requirement and that the comments of the neighbors may be better suited to a time when the plan moves forward. Beckwith: Motion to close the public hearing. Flannery seconds. Motion carries (6-0). Beckwith discusses that the application was done correctly, following the letter of the law, so the Board does not have legal standing to vote against it. Tonight's vote is not on laws or zoning ordinances,but rather on the approval of the plan. Bartley states that property owners have the right to develop their property within the parameters of the law, and the Board seeks to protect their rights as well the rights of their neighbors, and requiring a project to change only because neighbors do not like it is overstepping. Miller states that the Board does not have legal standing to deny this request as it meets all parameters and is upheld by state law. Flannery points out that the developer has historically met with neighbors on other projects and is open to discussion and compromise. Flannery: Motion to approve the Definitive Subdivision Plan application for 45, 47, and 53 Cabot Street and 5 Union Street- Gregory Ward, Applicant. Miller seconds. Motion carries (6-0). Flannery: Motion to reconvene the regular meeting. Beckwith seconds. Motion carries (6-0). Reconvene Meeting 4. Set public hearings,if any: a. Definitive Subdivision plan: Trask Lane—Folly Hill Associates 9 City of Beverly Planning Board June 21,2023 Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 10 Wynne summarizes that this Definitive Subdivision Plan received conditional approval for the benefit of a zoning freeze six years ago,was appealed, and then was remanded back to the Planning Board in 2022. The Board delayed at the request of the owner due to a pending sale and the potential owner wanted to come in with a plan to address the deficiencies. The Board approved the Definitive Subdivision Plan but denied certain waivers, and the applicant appealed the approval. The owner has had the benefit of a zoning freeze for six years that has not started yet. Wynne explains that the City Solicitor suggested putting this item back on the agenda to address the fact that it has been remanded back to the Planning Board by the courts. Wynne states that the applicant's attorney has requested that the Board not schedule the public hearing. Wynne states that her office will provide a detailed history, and that any questions should go to Wynne individually to comply with open meeting law. If any current members were not on the Board at that time, they are still eligible to discuss and vote at the hearing. Beckwith: Motion to set the public hearing for the July 18, 2023 meeting. Miller seconds. Motion carries (6-0). 5. New or other business: a. The Board discusses nominating a representative to serve on the Community Preservation Committee (CPC). Beckwith's current CPC term expires July 31, 2023. Beckwith summarizes the CPC's projects in the last funding round, and expresses that he is happy to continue volunteering on the CPC. Flannery: Motion to nominate Beckwith as the Planning Board representative to serve on the Community Preservation Committee for the August 1, 2023 —July 31, 2026 term. Miller seconds. Motion carries (5-0-1). Beckwith abstains. 6. Adjournment Flannery: Motion to adjourn. Miller seconds. Motion carries unopposed. Meeting adjourns at 9:28 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Planning Board is scheduled for Tuesday, July 18, 2023. 10