2005-02-08
City of Beverly, Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
BOARD: Planning Board
TOPIC: Regular Meeting
DATE: February 8, 2005
PLACE: Council Chambers, Beverly City Hall
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson, Richard Dinkin, Vice Chairman, John
Thomson; Ellen Flannery; Eve Geller-Duffy; Jason
Silva; Donald Walter
OTHERS PRESENT: Leah Zambernardi, Assistant Planning Director
RECORDER: Jeannine Dion (by tape)
The regular meeting of the Beverly Planning Board is called to order.
Thomson: Motion to recess for a scheduled public hearing. Seconded by Flannery.
Motion carries unanimously.
Concurrent Public Hearings (continued): Whitehall Hill Circle Definitive “Cluster”
Subdivision Plan – Proposed development of 33 new building lots – with 5 existing
buildings for a total of 38 lots on 31 acres. Off Boyles, Eisenhower, Hale Streets and
Birch Drive and Request for Modification to Special Permit #85-96 – Request for
the removal of Conditions 1 & # of Special Permit for two pork-chop lots at 30
Boyles Street dated 2/23/96. David Carnevale, Manor Homes at Whitehall, LLC &
Matthew Kavanagh
Thomson: Motion to waive reading of the public hearing notice. Seconded by Flannery.
Motion carries.
Dinkin asks for questions from members of the Board. There being none, he asks
members of the public for questions and comments.
Attorney Thomas Harrington, representing the Friends of Chapman Corner states that
Paul Hajack will be attending the meeting tonight to give a presentation on traffic impact.
He states that at the December 21, 2004 meeting, the Board directed the applicant to
address how volume increases will affect surrounding properties. He states that the
Friends submitted a list of 20 properties to be analyzed by the applicant. He states that the
Board has heard testimony on the state of properties in the area. He also addresses how
the application is being processed. He states it is both a cluster and a modification to a
special permit. He talks about the criteria by which a cluster should be considered.
Planning Board Minutes
February 8, 2005
Page 2
Dr. Peter Shanahan of Hydoanalysis speaks on behalf of the Friends of Chapman Corner.
He states that the public has not seen the calculations behind Bob Griffin's January 31,
2005 letter reporting on the volume impact on surrounding properties. He states that the
new model is of greater scope than what they have looked at before.
Attorney Harrington states that the City's consultant has reviewed the drainage based on
DEP's Stormwater Management Standards. He asks if there is a review based on anything
other than these standards.
Robert Griffin of Griffin Engineering states that they are not increasing the rate of flow to
the properties.
City Engineer Frank Killilea states that the Board is holding this particular applicant to a
standard that is higher than is typical.
Attorney Harrington states that the Board's role is to make sure this development does not
adversely affect the neighborhood. He states they will be impacted by more water.
Paul Hajeck of Hajeck Associates prevents an overview of the traffic study he completed
on behalf of the Friends of Chapman Corner.
Dinkin states there is another public hearing scheduled. He puts this hearing into recess
until 10:45 p.m. this evening.
Public Hearing: Site Plan Review #84-04 - Request for a 6-story Hotel - Beverly
Commerce Park Inc.
Thomson: Motion to waive reading of the public hearing notice. Seconded by Flannery.
Motion carries.
Gerard McSweeney, representing the Cummings Center states that a traffic study was
completed. He presents the results of the traffic study.
Dinkin asks for questions and comments from members of the public.
Joan Murphy, 36 Longmeadow Road asks about the function hall. She wants to know
what time of day it will operate and where people will park.
Rosemary Maglio, 30 Pleasant Street asks how many seats there will be in the function
hall.
Planning Board Minutes
February 8, 2005
Page 3
Hope Benne, Hillcrest Avenue states that with 300 people coming to the function hall, she
thinks there will be a traffic impact.
Maglio states the function hall will create noise and it will be a nuisance to abutters.
Murphy states questions the statement that most activity would happen on the weekends.
She states that there would probably be conferences during the week. She notes that
function hall workers would also be on-site.
Silva asks if the study considered that the hotel and function hall would be occupied fully.
McSweeney affirmed that it did. Silva asks for a copy of the traffic study. Zambernardi
agrees to send the traffic study to all members.
Zambernardi states that the Parking & Traffic Commission has not had the opportunity to
review the traffic study. She states that they will make a recommendation once they have
had a chance to review the study. She also states that she would like the Board to request
that Building Commissioner and Zoning Enforcement Officer Bob Nelson review the
parking to make sure that the hotel site and the overall Cummings Center site conform to
the City's parking requirements.
Renee Mary, 274 Hale Street asks that the public hearing be kept open so the public can
continue to comment on this proposal.
Dinkin closes the public hearing.
Open Space Residential Design (OSRD) Site Plan Ordinance
Dinkin states that tonight the discussion will have more focus on public comment. The
meeting will be a bit more formal than the last meeting. Dinkin asks for public comment.
Robert Buchsbaum of the Open Space and Recreation Committee states the group is
largely in favor of the Ordinance. The group feels a 2 acre threshold is a reasonable
approach.
Hope Benne, 44 Hillcrest Avenue states she is opposed to the Ordinance. She states that
development now in Beverly is on mostly ledge and wetlands. The land this Ordinance
will address is that type of land. This concept is not appropriate and it takes people's
attention away from a vision of Beverly's future that encourages lessening development.
This is a proverbial rearranging of chairs on the Titanic.
Mary Rodrick, 14 Peabody Avenue makes comments.
Planning Board Minutes
February 8, 2005
Page 4
Joan Murphy, 36 Longmeadow Road asks a clarifying question regarding the public right
for input.
Thomson responds that this topic was addressed during the previous discussion on this
topic.
Rosemary Maglio, 30 Pleasant Street, asks a clarifying question regarding the definition of
25% of undevelopable. Thomson responds that the way the current draft is written, 25%
of what is undevelopable land can be counted toward the open space requirement. Not
more than that.
Dinkin states currently in yield calculations for a parcel, 20% of the wetlands is included in
determining what the yield of that parcel is.
Thomson clarifies that the basic premise of the OSRD is that it is a development neutral
ordinance. Except for the density bonus, the proposed ordinance does not allow more
units of housing to be built on a piece of property than could be today. All it says is those
units will have to be placed in areas that are not sensitive.
Dinkin states if you have a 100,000 square foot parcel today in the city, and 50,000 square
feet are upland and 50,000 square feet are wetland, for development purposes, you have
62,500 square feet.
Thomson states the way the ordinance is currently drafted, 50% of the lot needs to be
open space but you can only count for that open space, 25% of what is already
undevelopable. The other 75% effectively has to come out of developable property.
Dinkin states the goal is, within the context of the underlying zoning, to be density neutral.
So that if you have a parcel that strict application of today’s zoning allows you to put 5
units on, then under the OSRD, you would be able to locate 5 units, but site them
differently. It is the same 5 units, whether they are 5 units spread across the parcel or 5
units clustered together. It is still 5 units.
Thomson states the ordinance allows a person to put properties closer together, have
smaller lots but, in doing so, they preserve portions of the property that the city really
most wants to preserve.
Thomson states he thinks there is a misconception that you can take undevelopable land
and make it developable. It is exactly the opposite. Undevelopable land can never be
developed. The total number does not change unless the developer produces an even
higher open space than the 50% required. If a developer gets up to 70% open space
requirements, then a fairly small density bonus is allowed, but only then. Otherwise, it is
development neutral. It doesn’t encourage or discourage development. What it does is
Planning Board Minutes
February 8, 2005
Page 5
take the development and design it in a way that would be more satisfactory to the city
and achieve the objective that the city has.
Renee Mary, 274 Hale Street asks several questions:
??
Why are density bonuses needed?
??
She expresses concern that neighbors/abutters have been shut out of public input.
??
Does OSRD supercede the Conservation Commission?
??
Is it good procedure to go back and correct or add what has been left out of the
ordinance?
??
Why is there no section citing a “community water supply?”
??
How much land is left for commercial and industrial development?
??
Section 9 – The clause is unacceptable
Thomson responds to Mary’s questions:
Density bonus
is a fair question. It is a policy decision that the board will have to
consider. If there is a mandatory ordinance, is there any reason to have a density bonus?
If it is voluntary, is there more reason? Reasonable people can disagree. This needs to be
discussed further.
Public input/hearing
: Thomson and Houseman have discussed this and believe there can
be a requirement that the public be notified so that neighbors know when something is
going on. The public should be there to listen and it is the intention that these be open
public meetings so the public can watch what is going on and there should be open public
meetings, at which the public can watch what is going on. There will be a hearing before
the final decision is made.
Does the OSRD supercede the Conservation Commission?
No. It also does not
supercede zoning.
Community water supply
– Thomson states he is open to mentioning that but thought is
was adequately dealt with and protected within the confines of open space.
Thomson states there may be more commercial properties, which are not governed by the
proposed OSRD ordinance.
Dinkin clarifies that the members of the board do not universally agree on all of the details
of the proposal and want the public’s questions and comments. The purpose of the
meeting is not to debate the answers but to exchange information.
Thomson states there is a lot of misinformation and he would like to correct it.
Planning Board Minutes
February 8, 2005
Page 6
Thomson states whether or not the density bonus is mandatory or optional, the density is
supposed to be incentive. The reason for that is to preserve more open space.
Rodrick asks a clarifying question regarding the density bonus.
Thomson states that 50% of a property needs to be preserved as open space. If the
applicant preserves 70%, then based on the number of units they can build under
applicable zoning, they will get a small increase. The trade off is more open space and
slightly more units.
Walter asks if there could be a calculation of how many homes could be built on the
potential 840 available acres. He expresses concern about the impact more homes would
have on roads, water and schools. All of the extras that are being created will hit on
resources in the city. He also expresses concern that homes might be built closer to
people than you would have been before the ordinance.
Thomson states the only way anyone could get a density bonus is by preserving more open
space.
Cassidy states to estimate the number of units on 840 acres under OSRD would require
literally months and months of work.
Walter states the concept of OSRD is excellent but states he would like, as a member of
the Planning Board, to be ensured that this could not be turned around later on by
someone who looks at ever caveat in the ordinance and finds a way to put more where
there should not have been.
Dinkin states the 840 acres really don’t address the development challenges that will be
seen in this community in the next generation. The challenging issues are lots that are
already developed, for example the Great Estates. He states that not only should the 840
acres be considered but also land that is currently developed and the economy will drive
other uses in the near future must also be considered.
Scott Houseman, co-drafter of the Ordinance, agrees with Dinkin’s comment. He states
the 840 acres is based upon the figures in the Master Plan. He provides illustrations, in
draft form, which illustrates the question of should some percentage of unbuildable
wetlands be allowed to be counted for the open space requirement.
Benne states she thinks there should be some way there could be some general idea of
how many residences this would mean.
Planning Board Minutes
February 8, 2005
Page 7
Houseman states there is nothing in the OSRD ordinance that in any way supercedes,
changes or violates the existing wetland ordinances in the city. The existing protections
we have today would apply to any other OSRD.
Dinkin states the proposal is not for individuals be allowed to build on protected wetlands.
It is just a formula for calculating how many units of housing should be allowed to be built
on a particular parcel. It is identical to the formula that exists in current zoning in all
respects. You can’t build on wetlands in Beverly today. You can count 20% of the
wetlands in determining what your developable lot size is but that just speaks to how many
units of housing you can put on the parcel. It has nothing to do with actually building on
wetlands. The Planning Department does not have the resources of mapping out an
approximate yield.
Maglio asks a clarifying question.
Houseman responds that OSRD basically does a waiver of requirements for setbacks and
frontage and allows the developer to design the layout of the lot in such a fashion that the
setback requirements are being thrown out. Setback requirements protect the
environment, designation of conservation areas and secondary areas. Rather than have a
big mathematical formula with no relation to the ecology, what the developer is being
asked to do under OSRD is to say does it deal with, accommodate, and protect the
ecology not protect some arbitrary 25 foot buffer.
Thomson states this is a zoning ordinance and it is one-stop with the Planning Board.
Thomson asks if this topic could be scheduled for a Special Meeting in March for further
discussion because he is not able to attend meetings in February.
Pam Kampersal states she will put her comments in writing and would like her comments
and questions addressed before any decisions are made on this matter.
Thomson moves to continue the public hearing for OSRD to March 3, 2005 at 7:30 p.m.,
seconded by Walter. All members are in favor. Motion carries.
Concurrent Public Hearings (continued): Whitehall Hill Circle Definitive “Cluster”
Subdivision Plan – Proposed development of 33 new building lots – with 5 existing
buildings for a total of 38 lots on 31 acres. Off Boyles, Eisenhower, Hale Streets and
Birch Drive and Request for Modification to Special Permit #85-96 – Request for
the removal of Conditions 1 & # of Special Permit for two pork-chop lots at 30
Boyles Street dated 2/23/96. David Carnevale, Manor Homes at Whitehall, LLC &
Matthew Kavanagh
Paul Hajeck continues presenting the Traffic Report of the Friends of Chapman Corner.
Planning Board Minutes
February 8, 2005
Page 8
Thomson asks if the Friends of Chapman’s Corner traffic consultant’s main objection is
that the traffic study that the applicant prepared is defective or as designed that it is truly
unsafe.
Hajeck states there is accident potential on Boyles Street and possible unsafe site distance
coming out of Whitehall Circle.
Thomson observes that the neighbor's compromise plan that was submitted to the Board
includes an access to Boyles Street although now the neighbors are opposing it.
Dinkin asks if it is safe to say that Mr. Hajeck has not been asked to do a thorough review
of the neighbor’s plan. Hajeck responds that is correct.
Joanne Avallone, 17 Boyles Street states the Neighborhood Plan was made as a
compromise. Do the neighbors like it? No. The neighbors don’t want to see access on
Boyles Street and believe they have a right to argue about it and are willing to sit down
and talk and try to make this work.
Giles Hamm of VAI, the applicant’s traffic engineer, states he prepared an extensive
review and provides an overview of the applicant’s Traffic Study.
A member of the public asks for the traffic engineer to explain how the peak travel was
determined. Hamm explains the methodology.
Dinkin asks if there are comments in support of the project. There are none.
Dinkin asks if there are comments in opposition of the project.
Charles Noss, 10 Brackenbury Lane states he is in favor of development on this property,
however, the development should be responsible, reasonable and should not harm the
neighbors and the city. He is very concerned about drainage and wants to see a
reasonable and responsible plan.
Renee Mary, 274 Hale Street states that she believes the applicant’s traffic study to be
inaccurate.
Ed Doherty, 13 Eisenhower Avenue expresses concern about drainage, specifically the
increase in volume. He states there are no calculations showing increased volume on his
property. He states the applicant is not supposed to do more harm to his property. He
states if the development occurs and there is a problem, what do I do? He states there are
no legal remedies.
Dinkin states the applicant has stipulated there will be an increase in volume.
Planning Board Minutes
February 8, 2005
Page 9
David Patch, 7 Birchwoods Drive states he is favor of a development but is very confused
by all of the different things people are saying. He urges members of the board to request
more information if there is continuing to be a question about how much increased volume
there will be.
Jim Avallone, 9 Brookhead Avenue asks to see the new calculations of the hydrological
analysis.
Joanne Avallone requests that the applicant provide calculations on additional volume.
She states that the Board can deny a subdivision plan that cases surface water flooding.
Zambernardi reads the following letters into record:
??
A letter dated February 8, 2005 from John and Amy Murphy, 15 Eisenhower
Avenue opposing the proposed development.
??
A letter dated January 27, 2005 from Ann Hayes expressing concerns about
drainage and traffic.
??
A letter originally submitted August, 2002 from Marie and John Alves, 5
Morrison Avenue expressing concern about potential flooding problems.
??
A letter from Joanne Avallone dated.
??
A letter dated January 12, 2005 from neighbors, which was also E-mailed to all of
the Planning Board members. Thomson moves to waive reading the letter,
seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor. Motion carries.
??
A letter from Stan and Janice Ostrowski dated December 13, 2004.
Attorney Alexander references a letter from Bayside Engineering, which was submitted
this evening, in response to some of the neighbor’s questions and concerns.
Dinkin asks that Dr. Shanahan’s letter, which was submitted this evening, to go to CDM
for comment and the traffic studies to go to Bayside Engineering for comment.
Dinkin closes the hearing.
Adjournment
Silva moves to adjourn, seconded by Walter. All members are in favor. Motion carries.