2004-12-21
City of Beverly, Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
BOARD: Planning Board
TOPIC: Regular Meeting
DATE: December 21, 2004
PLACE: Beverly City Hall
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson, Richard Dinkin, Vice Chairman, John
Thomson; Joanne Dunn; 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.
Walter moves to recess and reconvene for scheduled public hearings, seconded by Silva.
All members are in favor. Motion carries.
Public Hearing: Modification #2 to Site Plan Review Application #34-97 – Airport
Mini-Storage Facility on LP Henderson Drive – Relocation of proposed leasing
office/manager’s apartment to opposite end of Building A – Thomas Ford, Airport
Mini-Storage, Inc.
Zambernardi reads the legal notice.
Dinkin asks if there is anyone present to make a presentation on behalf of the applicant.
The applicant is not present.
Dinkin asks if there are comments in support or opposed to the application. There are
none.
The public hearing is closed.
The regular meeting of the Beverly Planning Board is called to order.
Discussion/Decision: Modification #2 to Site Plan Review Application #34-97 –
Airport Mini-Storage Facility on LP Henderson Drive – Relocation of proposed
leasing office/manager’s apartment to opposite end of Building A – Thomas Ford,
Airport Mini-Storage, Inc.
Planning Board Minutes
December 21, 2004
Page 2
Zambernardi states the proposed modification is to relocate the proposed leasing
office/manager’s apartment to the opposite end of the building labeled “Building A” on the
plans and to reconfigure parking. The change should improve aesthetics, circulation and
security inside the facility.
Zambernardi states that the board has received comment letters from the City Department
Heads. The only issue was with the Conservation Commission. There was a Superceding
Order of Conditions for this property, which has expired and the applicant will have to file
a new Notice of Intent with the Conservation Commission.
Dinkin asks if the City benefits from the proposed change. Zambernardi responds that she
does not know of any benefit of the change for the City.
Geller-Duffy moves to approve Modification #2 to Site Plan Review Application
#34-97 – Airport Mini-Storage, seconded by Walter. (Dunn, Walter, Silva, Geller-
Duffy in favor.) (Dinkin is opposed.) The motion fails.
NoteIt was later determined that the motion carried and this petition was
:
approved. A quorum was present and a majority of the quorum voted in favor, per
legal opinion from City Solicitor Roy Gelineau dated December 29, 2004, where he
references Clark vs. City Council of Waltham, 328 MA 40.
Thomson and Flannery arrive.
Walter moves to recess and reconvene for scheduled public hearings, seconded by Geller-
Duffy. All members are in favor. Motion carries.
Modification to Definitive Subdivision Plan for Ancient Rubbly Way, approved
1986 – 2 Ancient Rubbly Way
Thomson recuses himself from the meeting.
Zambernardi states that the board approved a definitive subdivision in 1986 to create 15
lots and a new subdivision road called Ancient Rubbly Way, all off Old Rubbly Road. The
drainage design for this subdivision involved an easement over Lot 2 (now 2 Ancient
Rubbly Way) so that the drainage could be carried off Ancient Rubbly Way, through Lot
2, and into the detention pond on Lot 1. Later, in 1989, a field change was authorized by
the City’s Public Works Department and Conservation Commission to eliminate that
storm drainage outlet and to subsequently pipe that drainage down Ancient Rubbly Way
to Old Rubbly Road, through an 18” reinforced concrete pipe in Old Rubbly Road and
into the detention pond. The change was made in order to eliminate the need for a
through-lot easement, which would have made it difficult for the City to maintain, as
opposed to keeping the drain line in the streets.
Planning Board Minutes
December 21, 2004
Page 3
Arthur Emery, current owner of the parcel, states that he is selling his house and is
requesting that the easement that was created for the original drainage line be
extinguished, and that the board accept the actual drainage line that was constructed, as
shown on the As-built plans for 2 Ancient Rubbly Way. He states that in November 2004,
the City Council, on recommendation from the Engineering Department, approved Mr.
Emery’s request for a discontinuance of the drainage easement across 2 Ancient Rubbly
Way.
Mr. Emery also requests that the board waive the $825 filing fee for the Modification, as
this was a change made by the City back in 1989, and the drainage line has already been
constructed and inspected by the City. He is also bearing the cost of the legal ad.
Zambernardi reads a letter from Frank Killilea to Mayor Scanlon recommending that the
City discontinue the easement.
Dinkin asks if members of the board have any questions. There are none.
Dinkin asks if members of the public have any questions.
Joan Murphy, 36 Longmeadow Road asks if this area shows on the “Conservation maps.”
Emery responds that the proposed drainage easement goes into a detention pond.
Zambernardi states the Conservation Commission approved the drainage running through
Old Rubbly and Rubbly Road.
Dinkin asks if there are comments in support. There are none.
Dinkin asks if there are comments in opposition.
Tim Liporto, 2 Old Rubbly Road, states he has lived at his residence for 28 years. He
states the process of getting this subdivision approved was a 2-year process. Close to his
property there was a detention pond that was supposed to hold the run-off water that
comes off of Old Rubbly Road and into Rubbly Road and two catch basins. The two
catch basins don’t work and most of the water doesn’t go into the detention pond, as it
was originally designed to go. He states he recently was before the ZBA for a variance he
applied for to build an additional small single-family home and three neighbors from Essex
Street opposed. Dinkin informs Mr. Liporto that a zoning matter does not pertain to what
is before the Planning Board.
Mr. Liporto states the board should not approve getting rid of the easement. The
easement should be used and there should be additional catch basins put in on Ancient
Rubbly Road to direct the water into the detention pond, where it is supposed to go. He
contends the Essex Street abutters opposed his application because they get flooded out
and he is asking the board not discontinue the proposed drainage easement because the
Planning Board Minutes
December 21, 2004
Page 4
drainage easement is a way to rectify some of the flooding that is going on at the bottom
of Old Rubbly Road where it meets Essex Street.
Dinkin states the board is not being asked to discontinue the easement because the
Planning Board does not have the authority to discontinue an easement. Only the City
Council has the authority to surrender rights of easement. That has already occurred and
the easement no longer exists because the City Council surrendered the City’s rights in
that easement. The board is being asked to allow the filed plan to be modified.
Frank Killilea, the City Engineer agrees with Mr. Dinkin’s explanation of the events.
Mr. Liporto states the situation is not being rectified.
Dinkin states the board cannot go beyond the scope of its authority.
Mr. Liporto states he was not aware of any action on this matter prior to received
notification of this public hearing. He recommends that the board send this back to the
City Council and ask them to get some input from the neighbors before they give away an
opportunity to rectify a situation that is going on. Once the easement is gone, the City will
never get it back. By the board endorsing what the City Council has already done is not
the proper thing to do.
Dinkin states the easement is already gone.
Mr. Liporto asks if anything was put forth before the Conservation Commission before the
easement was discontinued. Mr. Killilea responds that he is not aware of any action by the
Conservation Commission.
Mr. Liporto states he would like to see a copy of the approved plan and letter that went to
the Conservation Commission.
Zambernardi provides Mr. Liporto with a copy of the letter to the Conservation
Commission. He reads the letter.
Dinkin asks if any other members of the public have comments.
A resident of Essex Street states she was very surprised to hear that there had been a
change in the easement. She was part of the discussion years ago about the detention
pond in the development and would expect to be notified of proposed changes. She was
never notified.
The hearing is put in recess until 8:50 p.m.
Thomson returns for scheduled public hearings.
Planning Board Minutes
December 21, 2004
Page 5
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 moves to waive reading the legal notice, seconded by Flannery. All members
are in favor. Motion carries.
Attorney Thomas Alexander states he does not have new information to present since the
last public hearing. Prior to the last public hearing changes were made in response to the
City’s traffic expert’s request and also some changes that pertained to drainage. The
applicant received a letter from the City’s expert (CDM), which will require some time to
respond to. There is no new information to present.
Dinkin asks if there are clarifying questions from members of the board and public. There
are none.
Dinkin asks if there are comments in support.
Dinkin asks if there are comments in opposition.
Attorney Tom Harrington, 124 Watertown Street, Watertown, MA, representative for the
Friends at Chapman’s Corner, states he would like to start his presentation with
hydrologist, Peter Shanahan from Hydro Analysis, Inc., 481 Great Road, Acton, MA.
Shanahan states he has done a review of the new drainage analysis and there have been
several correspondence going back and forth. He provides an overview of his analysis.
Bob Griffin, Griffin Engineering provides a response to Shanahan’s analysis.
Attorney Thomas Harrington expresses concern about increased volume of water, which
will affect downstream drainage structures. He states the applicant must analyze the
volume that is going to private drainage structures and ensure that they are not
overburdening those easements.
Harrington states this portion of the Zoning Bylaw lies somewhere between Subdivisions
and Special Permits. He asks the board to apply the standards for Subdivisions or Special
Permits or somewhere in between.
Dinkin responds that he believes both applications for Subdivisions and Special Permits
are being heard. He believes the application for Subdivision is long and requires a number
of waivers if it is to be built as presented.
Planning Board Minutes
December 21, 2004
Page 6
Attorney Thomas Alexander states the applicant has applied for Modification of Special
Permit in regards to the access on Boyle Street. The cluster provision under the City of
Beverly Zoning Ordinance makes no reference to Special Permit requirements. It appears
to be strictly in the nature of a subdivision. The PRD Section of the Zoning Ordinance
does make very clear that the PRD (Planned Residential Development) is a Special Permit.
The Cluster Provision has no reference whatsoever to the Special Permit requirement.
Attorney Harrington disagrees with Attorney Alexander’s comments. There are two types
of development. There is Subdivision under Chapter 41 and there is Special Permit under
Chapter 40A. There is really nothing in between. On this plan, under a Subdivision, the
Planning Board has the right to waive area requirements. He does not believe, however,
that the builder may build based on those waivers. If you are waiving frontage or area, it
is also going to apply to a variance. The Planning Board, under Subdivision Control, does
not have the right to change area requirement or frontage requirements. He states he
believes what is before the board is a Special Permit. He refers to Section 29-23B2
(Cluster Provision): “The Planning Board may approve a Subdivision Plan submitted in
accordance with the City of Beverly Planning Board Rules and Regulations. A meeting
requirement of this section provided a Cluster Layout will not adversely affect the
surrounding neighborhood.” Harrington states that is not a Subdivision standard. It is
much more akin to a Special Permit standard.
Thomson asks Harrington if he believes if this is a Special Permit does he believe with the
conditions of the Special Permit, they also need zoning relief?
Harrington responds that if this is a Special Permit, the Special Permit granting authority
has the ability to waive certain requirements of the Ordinance as long as standards are set.
Harrington states he thinks this can be treated as a Special Permit application. What they
need is a Cluster Subdivision Special Permit.
Dinkin asks if Harrington could provide a memorandum summarizing the comments he
just made. Harrington will provide a memorandum and will provide a copy to Alexander.
Harrington addresses the Special Permit Modification. He states last year former City
Solicitor Peter Gilmore said the applicant needs to go before the board to request a
Modification. He also said that Special Permit prohibited the applicant from further
subdivision and from accessing the property by any means other than the driveway. He
states in order for the board to modify, you need the neighbor’s consent. All of the
restrictions were put in to protect the neighborhood. The conditions were placed saying
the pork chop lots were given but not anything else. The applicant is now looking for a
Modification. The neighbors negotiated the conditions. Unless the board gets the
neighbor’s support, it is inappropriate for the board to modify the Special Permit.
Planning Board Minutes
December 21, 2004
Page 7
Dinkin asks Harrington if he is suggesting that the standards for evaluating a Special
Permit Applicant requires approval from the neighbors.
Harrington explains that in order to grant a Modification, it needs to be in harmony with
the neighborhood. There is evidence of the neighborhood participating in the underlying
Special Permit. If the board changes it, it has essentially taken away their right to
challenge the underlying Special Permit. While this is not an official standard, he does not
think the board needs to gather signatures. The board should get a sense from the
abutters that they are willing to accept the Modification. At a minimum, the people that
participated in the original Special Permit should be heard and if they do not ascent, it is
incumbent upon the board to deny.
Dinkin asks if Harrington is saying that once the board adjudicates on a parcel of land, it
then surrenders the authority for itself and all future Planning Board’s to revisit and
adjudicate that same parcel of land.
Harrington responds “no.”
Dinkin states that he does not understand Harrington’s point.
Harrington states the board may or may not be asked to modify a Special Permit.
Modifications to Special Permits can come from small waivers to a fundamental change in
the Special Permit. This one should be categorized as a fundamental change in the Special
Permit. This board or its predecessor said this land could be developed to allow two lots
and no more.
Dinkin states he does not mean to engage in a debate but he is trying to extract a general
rule from Harrington’s argument, and he is not able to.
Harrington states the board needs to look at this maybe a little differently than the typical
Special Permit Modification because this board allowed development on this parcel that
ordinarily would not have been developable. This board considered the matter very clearly
and said there could be no further subdivision of the property. Harrington states there are
people at risk by this decision and those people should be considered.
Dinkin states people who are interested today have the opportunity to protect their views
as do the proponents. He does not understand where Harrington thinks the process needs
additional protections for people.
Harrington states some of the abutters from Chapman’s Corner oppose the Modification.
Harrington does not think the board needs to any further than what the abutters say about
this.
Dinkin respectfully disagrees with Harrington’s position. He recesses this hearing until
9:15 p.m. this evening.
Planning Board Minutes
December 21, 2004
Page 8
Dinkin reopens the hearing for the Modification to Definitive Subdivision Plan for Ancient
Rubbly Way.
Modification to Definitive Subdivision Plan for Ancient Rubbly Way, approved
1986 – 2 Ancient Rubbly Way
Tim Liporto, 2 Old Rubbly Road, states he spoke with Mr. Emery in the hallway and this
is not personal against Mr. Emery. This is something that has been discussed before the
board numerous times and there are a lot of things that have slipped through the cracks
and several things were not built adequately. He asks that the board put this topic on the
back burner until the rest of the information is provided.
Leah Sak, 611 Essex Street, asks about the City Council’s public notification process.
She states she was never notified that a change was to be made.
Geller-Duffy notes that the Council already approved this.
Silva asks Killilea if he foresees the City using the easement.
Killilea responds that he looked at the drainage and he believes the use of the easement is
no longer required. In discussing this with the Engineering Department staff and Public
Services there was no mention of a drainage problem in the area. He states that given the
legal status of the easement, if the City wanted to use the easement in the future, it would
have to take it back by eminent domain.
Dinkin states that he doesn’t want to minimize the fact that the neighbors have a problem,
but he is of the opinion that there’s nothing the Planning Board can do about it. The
purpose is to alter the filed plan to reflect the real legal situation.
The hearing is closed.
Discussion/Decision: Definitive Subdivision Plan for Ancient Rubbly Way,
approved 1986 – 2 Ancient Rubbly Way
Dinkin states there is nothing the Planning Board can do about the problem the abutters
have with the property. There was an easement, which was never used. The easement
was vacated by the City Council and the board is now asked to alter the file plan in a way
that reflects the real legal situation. It doesn’t matter what the board does or doesn’t do
tonight, in terms of the City’s ability to use the easement. The easement is gone and the
City has no legal right to use it simply because it appears on a plan.
Flannery makes a motion to approve the Modification, seconded by Geller-Duffy.
The motion fails (3-1-2). (Geller-Duffy, Dinkin, and Flannery in favor) (Dunn in
abstention) (Walter and Silva in opposition).
Planning Board Minutes
December 21, 2004
Page 9
There is no other motion. (See motion to reconsider the vote later in the evening.)
Dinkin advises Mr. Emery to consult with his attorney to determine the impact of this vote
because he is not clear.
Dinkin puts the meeting into recess.
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
Dinkin asks Attorney Harrington if he is done with his comments. Harrington is finished
with his comments.
Dinkin asks if there are further comments either in support or opposition.
Leroy Hutt, 71 Cross Lane, states he owns land beside the proposed Pond #1 and he
wants to be sure that no more water is going to his property or to the brook.
Bob Griffin responds the water will go down to Wetland B and not to his property.
Joanne Avallon, 17 Boyles Street, has a comment with respect to the Modification to the
Special Permit. She states it seems apparent to her that a Modification for a Special
Permit would have to meet the same standards of a Special Permit itself. One of the
Special Permit conditions would be that there are no valid objections from the neighbors.
She believes the original Special Permit conditions were created because of valid
objections from the neighbors on Boyles Street. Therefore, there would need to be a
change in Boyles Street, which would alleviate the need for those conditions to continue
existing. Boyles Street is still very narrow and encumbered with drainage.
Thomson asks if it is the existence of the Boyles Street entrance that is a key objection or
it is overcome-able.
Ms. Avallon states that you can mitigate the traffic impacts by lowering the density and by
limiting cut through traffic.
Zambernardi reads the following letters into record:
Planning Board Minutes
December 21, 2004
Page 10
??
A letter dated December 13, 2004 from Stanley and Janet Ostrowski, 236 Hale
Street expressing concern about water runoff to abutters and off-site areas,
including neighboring beaches.
??
A letter from Richard Lord, President of the Beverly Historical Society.
Attorney Thomas Alexander states he has had several conversations with the attorney for
the Historical Society and he told him that it was Mr. Bertolon’s intention to renovate and
improve the property. They are awaiting the disposition of the project. He states it is in
our best interest to improve the property as it is located at our entrance to the project.
A resident of 260 Hale Street states the property is a disgrace.
Thomson states there are still comments to hear from CDM and there are still questions
regarding Pond #4. He would also like to schedule a site walk. He suggests that the
board not close the public hearing until we have answers to those questions.
The members schedule a site walk on January 8, 2005, at 10:30 a.m.
Dinkin states that at the site visit, the public is welcome to come, but he notes that public
comment will not be taken.
Harrington asks the board to request information from the applicant regarding additional
volume flow and its impact on private drainage structures.
Alexander asks for clarification as to which structures they’d like information on.
Dinkin asks Harrington to submit information identifying which structures he wants
calculations on and he requests that Griffin respond to this.
th
Thomson motions to continue the public hearings to January 18 at 7:30 p.m. Flannery
seconds the motion and it carries unanimously.
.
The regular meeting of the Beverly Planning Board is called to order
Modification to Definitive Subdivision Plan for Ancient Rubbly Way, approved
1986 – 2 Ancient Rubbly Way
Thomson recuses himself.
Silva states it was his understanding that the voting this evening was to extinguish the
easement that was there.
Silva makes a motion to reconsider the vote for the request for a Modification to Ancient
Rubbly Way. Geller-Duffy seconds the motion. The motion carries 5-1. (Dinkin,
Flannery, Geller-Duffy, Dunn, Silva in favor.) (Walter in opposition.)
Planning Board Minutes
December 21, 2004
Page 11
Silva moves to approve the proposed Modification to Definitive Subdivision Plan for
Ancient Rubbly Way. Geller-Duffy seconds the motion. The motion carries 5-1. (Dinkin,
Flannery, Geller-Duffy, Dunn, Silva in favor.) (Walter in opposition.)
Silva moves to approve the request to waive the filing fee, seconded by Geller-Duffy.
Dinkin is opposed. Walter abstains. There is a question as to whether a majority of the
board or a majority of the quorum can vote on this.
Dinkin asks Ellen Flannery to chair.
Dinkin moves to reconsider the previous vote, seconded by Geller-Duffy. The motion
carries (5-1-0). (Dinkin, Flannery, Geller-Duffy, Silva, and Dunn in favor) (Walter in
abstention) (no one in opposition).
Dinkin moves to approve the request to waive the filing fee, seconded by Silva. The
motion carries (5-1-0). (Dinkin, Flannery, Geller-Duffy, Dunn, Silva in favor.) (Walter in
abstention.)
Thomson returns to the meeting.
Tall Tree Drive Definitive Subdivision Plan – Acceptance of Final As-Built Plans
and Street Acceptance Plans and Release of Performance Bond – Thomas Carnevale
Zambernardi reads a letter dated December 20, 2004 from Thomas Carnevale requesting
Release of the Performance Bond on Tall Tree Drive. An As-Built Plan was submitted to
the Engineering Department.
Zambernardi reads a letter dated December 20, 2004 from Frank Killilea stating that Tall
Tree Drive is complete and recommending that the Planning Board release $35,700
remaining in Mr. Carnevale’s Performance Bond.
Thomson moves to accept the Final As-Built Plans and Street Acceptance Plans for Tall
Tree Drive and release the balance of the Performance Bond as requested, seconded by
Flannery. All members are in favor. Motion carries.
Set Public Hearing – Site Plan Review #112-04 – Cummings Center Hotel – 950
Cummings Center Drive – 201 Elliott Street
Zambernardi states the board received a Site Plan Review Application to construct a six-
story hotel at the corner of McKay and Elliott Street at the Cummings Center.
Thomson moves to set a public hearing for 8:30 p.m. on the next meeting scheduled in
January, 2005, seconded by Dunn. All members are in favor. Motion carries.
Planning Board Minutes
December 21, 2004
Page 12
Cummings Center – Review of Access Drive from McKay Street
Zambernardi states the board approved a 3-story office building at the site of the proposed
hotel last February. As part of the conditions of the approval, the board required that the
access drive onto McKay Street be reviewed. She states that Mr. McSweeney has
submitted a letter to the board asking that the review is put off until the spring (June or
July of 2005) because the driveway wasn’t built until the spring of 2004.
Zambernardi asks if the six-story hotel would warrant any traffic studies. She asks if the
board should keep the access drive review on the agenda, maybe as part of the Traffic
Study or keep it on the February agenda as a separate item.
Thomson notes that a full year’s worth of data would be useful. He notes that the access
drive would also be part of the 6-story hotel proposal, which comes before the board at
the January meeting.
Dinkin states that he wants to be absolutely certain that the entrance and egress discussion
is not lost in the site plan discussion for the hotel. He recommends keeping it on the
February agenda.
Set Public Hearing – Definitive Subdivision Plan: Chapman’s Corner Estates –
Manor Homes at Whitehall LLC – Set Public Hearing
Attorney Thomas Alexander states a Definitive Subdivision Plan was withdrawn without
prejudice in October with the understanding that the applicant may resubmit. In light of
the pending zoning change with OSRD, the applicant decided to resubmit the Definitive
Plan and go forward with it.
Dinkin asks if Alexander wants to schedule this in January or put it on the agenda in
February. Alexander responds he would leave it to the discretion of the board.
Thomson states that he does not wish to unduly complicate the hearing process. He
suggests postponing that hearing as long as possible.
Thomson makes a motion to schedule the public hearing for the February meeting at 7:30
p.m. The motion carries.
City of Beverly Affordable Housing Plan
Dinkin asks Zambernardi to distribute a copy of the draft Beverly Affordable Housing Plan
to members for discussion electronically.
Thomson moves to place the draft Beverly Affordable Housing Plan on the agenda for
discussion at the February meeting, seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor.
Motion carries.
Planning Board Minutes
December 21, 2004
Page 13
Definitive Subdivision Plan: Hale Court – Sheldon & Madeline Frisch – Acceptance
of Performance Bond, Submission of Developer Disclosure Agreement and Signature
of Plan
Thomson moves to accept the Form G Covenant as presented, seconded by Flannery.
Dunn abstains. Motion carries.
Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR’s)
Estate of Rosalie Galuzzi c/o Mary Duff, Executrix – 10 Peabody Avenue
Zambernardi states that Mr. Joseph Grenier has submitted an ANR plan, on behalf of
Mary Duff, as the purchaser of 10 Peabody Avenue. In order to help finance the
purchase, Mr. Grenier proposes to divide the lot into two buildable lots. The lots have
sufficient frontage and area and meet the requirements for endorsement as an ANR.
Thomson moves to endorse the ANR plan for 10 Peabody Avenue, seconded by Flannery.
All members are in favor. Motion carries.
110-116 Park Street
John Serafini appears on behalf of the Clemenzi Realty Trust, who intends to buy on
Thursday the former DPW lot, which the state owns. The frontage is on Park Street,
which is a public way, he believes the lot is entitled to ANR treatment. The applicant is
proposing to combine two parcels.
Thomson moves to endorse the ANR plan for 110-116 Park Street, seconded by Walter.
All members are in favor. Motion carries.
Approval of Minutes
Flannery moves to accept the minutes of the Planning Board meetings dated September
21, 2004, and October 19, 2004 and the December 6, 2004 Joint Public Hearing as
written, seconded by Silva. All members are in favor. Motion carries.
Adjournment
Geller-Duffy moves to adjourn, seconded by Walter. All members are in favor. Motion
carries.