2005-05-17 (2)
CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD: Planning Board
TOPIC: Regular Meeting
DATE: May 17, 2005
PLACE: Council Chambers, Beverly City Hall
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson, Richard Dinkin, John Thomson,
Joanne Dunn, Ellen Flannery, Eve Geller-Duffy
Jason Silva, Donald Walter, Charles Harris
OTHERS PRESENT: Leah Zambernardi, Assistant Planning Director
RECORDER: Leah Zambernardi, Robin Levesque
Dinkin calls the regular meeting of the Beverly Planning Board to order.
Thomson: Moves to recess and reconvene for a regularly scheduled public hearing,
Seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor. Motion carries.
Continued Public Hearing: Thompson’s Farm Definitive Subdivision Plan- 16-18
Cole Street – Estate of Arthur Thompson c/o James Manzi
Thomson: Moves to waive reading of the legal notice. Seconded by Geller-Duffy.
All members are in favor. Motion carries.
Attorney Thomas Alexander, 1 School St., Beverly, Massachusetts appears on behalf of
the Applicant. Alexander states that a site walk was done Saturday, May 7, 2005. He
states that the site walk helped members to see that the other possible entrance to the
subdivision, at the bend in Cole Street, has more dangerous site distances. Alexander
states that the property drains quite well.
Dinkin asks Zambernardi to read the letters submitted to the Planning Board by the
various department heads and boards and commissions.
??
April 20, 2005 and May 17, 2005 – City Engineer, Frank Killilea
??
March 30, 2005 – Public Health Director William T. Burke
??
April 2005 – City Arborist, Phil Klimowitz
??
April 19, 2005 – Deputy Fire Chief Clark Mitchell
??
March 15, 2005 – Sergeant Dennis Tarsook
??
April 20, 2005 - Amy Maxner, Conservation Agent
Dinkin asks members if they have any questions.
Thomson asks City Engineer, Frank Killilea about the recommendations from Camp
Dresser and McKee (CDM).
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 2
Killilea states he just received them today and they included comments on the drainage
calculations.
Thad Berry of Xeriscape Design, LLC states he reviewed the letter from CDM and that
their comment on infiltration is not correct. Berry states that the pond has a sump to take
care of the sedimentation and that the pond meets DEP's Best Management Practices. He
states that the description of the wetland is also incorrect. Berry states that the vegetation
was carefully looked at by Michael DeRosa and the plants that where selected will
survive and enhance water quality.
Dinkin states he would like the applicant to meet with CDM and the City Engineer to
resolve the issues. He would like the Board to be cc'd on any correspondence.
Dinkin asks the public if they have any questions.
Joe Coughlin of 8 Thomas Road states that he lives 100 feet from the pond. He has a
concern over whether it is sized adequately. He states his yard is close to the current
water level. He states that if the water goes up, his basement will flood. Coughlin
submits photos of his property to the members. Coughlin asks who will be responsible
for the maintenance of the pond.
Killilea states the maintenance of the pond should be the responsibility of the six
homeowners not just one. He states the City will clean the catch basins and drains if they
become clogged.
Dinkin asks Killilea if a maintenance easement should be provided to the City in the
event there is a failure by the homeowners association to maintain the pond. Killilea
states the easement should be to the homeowners association.
Flannery asks if there will be a homeowners association. Alexander states that there can
be one. He clarifies that the pond is actually a detention basin.
Dinkin asks how long of a period would it take for the basin to drain in a large storm
event. Berry states that the sizing of the detention pond is larger than 20 percent of a
pond designed for a 100-year storm. Berry states it would take 2-3 hour period for the
water to drain back down.
Dinkin asks what kind of protection will there be for the children and pets. Berry states a
fence could be erected around the basin.
Janice Rice of 34 Cole Street states that she will be an abutter to the pond and the
proposed road. She notes that the new home on Cole Street has a perpetual puddle in
front of it. She is worried about the negative impact the detention basin may have on her
property. She asks who is accountable if the homeowner does not maintain the detention
pond. She submits pictures of detention basins in other parts of the City that she states
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 3
are eyesores and are not being taken care of. She states that some have erosion, mosquito
infestation, debris and stagnant water.
Walter asks Joe Coughlin asks how long the water takes to dissipate. Coughlin states that
the water is there most of the year.
Thomson asks how is the drainage of this basin going to affect Coughlin's property.
Berry states that there will be an increase in volume off the site. He states that the rate of
flow is slowed.
Thomson states it will be a certain percent increase, not a decrease. He asks Berry if he
can redesign the drainage so that there is no increase in volume. He asks Berry to try and
address this.
Berry states that they are meeting DEP's standards currently.
Dinkin asks if the public for comments in support. There are none.
Renee Mary of 274 Hale Street asks if they could make the detention basin larger and
deeper.
Coughlin states he seconds that and he states his concern that the pond will overflow.
Joan Murphy of 36 Longmeadow Road states that she supports the idea that there is no
volume increase.
Daniel Spencer of 14 Foster Street states he is not fighting the development although he
is concerned and upset about the water problems in the neighborhood.
Mary states the ponds are getting bigger and bigger and she has seen the Centerville
Creek Brook increase. She requests that the members keep the hearing open so that the
City Engineer can meet with the applicant and CDM.
Geller-Duffy states she would like to clarify that this is a detention pond and that it is not
designed to hold water. The intent is for the water to flow out of the pond at a certain
rate and other measures are taken to infiltrate the water before it reaches the pond.
Thomson states he would like the volume controlled so there is no increase off the site.
Alexander states they will look into the volume.
Joan Murphy of 36 Longmeadow Road asks how it can be that 6 lot owners take care of
the basin, when the Conservation Commission stated it would be the responsibility of one
lot owner in their approval of this project.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 4
Alexander states the Conservation Commission did state that Lot 6 maintain the basin, we
can certainly have the Association maintain it.
Thomson: Moves to continue the public hearing to June 21, 2005 at 7:30 p.m.
Seconded by Walter. All members are in favor. Motion carries.
Zambernardi states that a subdivision approval not required plan (SANR) was recently
submitted and that the Board can consider it under New/Other Business on the agenda.
SANR – Kittredge Street and 417R Cabot Street
Zambernardi hands out plans to the members. She states that the plan involves
conveying a 3,112 square foot parcel from Parcel A to Lot 1.
She states that the plan meets the Board's requirements and she recommends that it be
endorsed as such.
Thomson: Moves to endorse the plan as not requiring approval under the subdivision
control law. Seconded by Geller-Duffy. All in favor. Motion carries.
Thomson : Moves to recess for scheduled public hearing. Seconded by Geller-Duffy.
All in favor. Motion carries
Public Hearing (continued): Chapman Corner Estates Definitive Subdivision Plan –
2 Boyles St – Manor Homes at Whitehall LLC/ David Carnevale
Zambernardi read the legal notice.
Thomas Alexander, 1 School St. Beverly, Massachusetts represents the Applicant.
Alexander introduces Robert Griffin of Griffin Engineering.
Griffin presents a brief overview of the project.
Dinkins states that should this plan be approved, it would supercede the prior approval of
the cluster plan. He asks Alexander to provide a memorandum if he disagrees.
Dinkin recesses the public hearing until 9:15 p.m.
Public Hearing: Modification to Site Plan Review Application #84-04 (6-Story
Hotel) – 950 Cummings Center Drive/201 Elliott St.-Beverly Commerce Park, Inc.
/Gerard McSweeney
Thomson: Moves to waive reading of the legal notice. Seconded by Flannery. All in
favor. Motion carries
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 5
Mr. Gerard McSweeney states that in November 2003, the Cummings Center received
approval to construct a 3-story office and research building at the corner of Elliott and
McKay Streets. The Board's decision included approval of an access drive to the existing
garage with the condition that the turning lanes would have restricted access and egress.
The Board also required that the applicant come back in one year for a review of the
impacts of the access drive. He notes that in March 2005, the Board approved a new
site plan at this location for a 6-story hotel. The Board also reviewed the impacts of the
turning lane restrictions on the access drive. After reviewing a traffic study by Bayside
Engineering and considering the comments of the City Engineer and the Parking and
Traffic Commission, the Board agreed that the turning restrictions may be removed. The
Board agreed to this with the condition that it retains jurisdiction to review the impact of
the drive one year after completion of the hotel. He states he is back before the Board to
formally eliminate the restricted turning lanes.
Dinkin asks the Members if they have any questions or comments. There are none.
Dinkin asks the public for comments in support. There are none.
Dinkin asks the public for comments in opposition.
Shirley Bachini of 64 McKay Street states she opposes this turn. She states that cars
come out and make illegal turns. She states she does not oppose the hotel. She asks if the
turn will continue to shut down at 8 p.m. as it does now.
Ward 3 Councilor John Burke of 13 West Dane Street states that he represents the
sentiments of the neighbors. He states that they want no adverse affect to the
neighborhood. He asks that if it relieves traffic on Rte.62 and how can it not have an
adverse effect on McKay Street. He states he has also seen people exiting illegally in the
wrong direction. Some would think this is the reason to open it up. He doesn't think so.
He doesn't think that bi-directional traffic is safe.
Resident of 323 Elliott Street states the traffic is pretty bad now and that the hotel will
produce additional traffic.
Joan Murphy of 36 Longmeadow Road states she has been opposed to a left turn from the
beginning and that it is a disaster waiting to happen.
Renee Mary of 274 Hale Street states she is also opposed to lifting the turning lane
restriction.
Councilor Burke states the hotel should be built first to see what type of traffic situation it
creates before the turning restrictions are lifted. He states that seems a logical approach.
Thomson asks Mr. McSweeney when the hotel will be completed and open.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 6
McSweeney stated the hotel would be open late 2006, early 2007…about 1-1/2 to 2
years.
Dinkin asks if there are any additional questions or comments.
Dinkin closes the hearing.
Walter: Moves to leave the turning restriction in place until the hotel is completed
and the traffic impacts can be assessed and then make a decision. No one
seconds the motion. Motion fails.
Frank Killilea states the McKay Street turn helps to relive the traffic on Elliott Street and
that traffic lines up to enter the Cummings Center on Elliott Street.
Dinkin asks Killilea if he thinks that the proposed two way turn on McKay would
increase traffic on McKay.
Killilea states that the new turn would relieve the traffic.
Thomson states that he was a mover of this restriction. He states that the results of the
traffic study show him that lifting the turning restriction would not be detrimental. He
states that the hotel will create new traffic conditions and that it could potentially change
things.
Thomson: Moves that the Board allow the turning restrictions to be eliminated but
still retain jurisdiction to review the impacts for one year after opening of
the hotel or the end of 2007, whichever comes first. Seconded by
Flannery. (Flannery, Dinkin, Thomson, Geller-Duffy, Dunn, Silva and
Harris in favor) (Walter in opposition) The motion carries 7-1.
Dinkin calls the regular meeting of the Beverly Planning Board to order.
Thomson: Moves to recess and reconvene for a continued public hearing, Seconded
by Flannery. All members are in favor. Motion carries.
Public Hearing (continued): Chapman Corner Estates Definitive Subdivision Plan-
2 Boyles Street- Manor Homes at Whitehall, LLC/David Carnevale
Zambernardi reads the following letters submitted to the Planning Board into the record.
??
Health Department, Director William Burke
??
Fire Department, Deputy Fire Chief Clark Mitchell, dated March
10, 2005
??
Police Department, Sergeant Dennis Tarsook, dated March 8, 2005
??
Conservation Commission, Agent Amy Ellert-Maxner, dated
March 2005
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 7
??
Engineering Department, City Engineer Frank Killilea, dated
March 15, 2005
??
Open Space and Recreation Committee, Chairman Robert
Buchsbaum, dated May 17, 2005
??
Beverly Public Schools, Superintenant Hayes, dated May 16, 2005
Dinkin asks if there are any questions or comments from the Members.
Thomson asks why we are here with a different plan if the applicants already have an
approval for a cluster subdivision.
Alexander state that the cluster plan may be appealed. This is a conventional subdivision
plan with no waivers being requested.
Thomson asks what the differences are in this plan. Alexander states there is no open
space dedication. The road has 32-foot width pavement where the cluster had 24-feet.
He states this plan conforms to all the requirements of the Planning Board including
grade, width and curbing and the frontage conforms to the zoning regulations. The
cluster plan did not conform to these requirements.
Thomson asks how many lots there are. Alexander states that there are 28 lots compared
to 33 in the cluster and that the road configuration is quite different.
Thomson asks Alexander which of the two plans his clients prefer. Alexander states they
prefer the cluster subdivision.
Geller-Duffy observes that the new road goes through wetlands to Eisenhower Avenue.
She asks how they are working with the roads and wetlands. Robert Griffin from Griffin
Engineering states they are proposing to fill 1800 s.f. of Wetland D and to do replication.
Alexander states that the plan is being reviewed by the Conservation Commission.
Attorney Thomas Harrington of 124 Watertown St., Watertown, MA, representing the
Friends of Chapman’s Corner asks clarifying questions. He asks if this is the same plan
that was filed and withdrawn last spring. He asks if it is a new plan with new drainage
calculations.
Griffin states it is essentially the same plan with the same drainage calculations.
Harrington states he would like to bring his hydrologist to the next meeting. He requests
the latest planning calculations before the next meeting.
Harrington asks if there will be amendments to this plan and new drainage calculations
submitted before the next meeting.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 8
Dinkin states it is too early to know that.
Harrington states that the cluster decision required that there be no increase in volume of
stormwater runoff from the site. He asks if the Board will consider this in the review of
this plan.
Dinkin asks the public if they have any comments in support of this project. There are
none.
Dinkin asks the public if they have any comments in opposition to this project.
Charles Noss of 10 Brackenberry Lane asks about the driveway to the Cove School and
about the grade leading down Eisenhower. Noss questions whether a traffic study has
been done and he states the speed limit is 30 mph. Noss states there is a large amount of
traffic in the morning and afternoon. He is afraid that with a 6% slope, an accident would
occur. Noss compares the slope with the Beverly-Salem Bridge and feels there is a
potential problem.
Marie Alves of 5 Morrison Avenue asks how close the houses are to the intermittent
stream. Griffin states they are about 40 feet and 75 feet from the stream.
Steven Gonzalez of 11 Birchwoods Drive asks about the setbacks from the property lines
and about the elevations of the road meeting Birchwoods Drive. Griffin states the road
will meet the existing grade at Birchwoods. He states that the largest cut will be near
Eisenhower Avenue. Gonzalez states the creation of the pond will make the area an
eyesore. Griffin states that the pond will be fenced in and it is a dry pond.
Wayne Lawrence of 16 Boyles Street asks for information on the driveway at 30 Boyles
Street, the size of the pond, grading of the road and about sidewalks on Boyles Street.
Griffin responds.
Joseph Henehan of 9 Birchwoods Drive asks Griffin if this plan is approved what
happens with the cluster plan.
Edward Doherty of 13 Eisenhower Avenue states he is mystified that the Board has
allowed that to happen.
James Avallon of 9 Brookhead Avenue questions the volume of traffic at Pasture Road
and he states it is unsafe.
Renee Mary of 274 Hale Street asks where the water on Boyles Street will go to.
Griffin states the water from Detention Pond 3 will overflow in a northerly direction
behind 94 Boyles Street.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 9
Joanne Avalon of 17 Boyles Street asks about presenting the neighbors’ traffic study and
hydrologic study at the next meeting.
Walter requests a legal opinion from the City Solicitor on the question of having two
plans approved for one parcel.
Thomson: Moves to recess the public hearing to June 21, 2005 at 8:30 p.m. Seconded
by Flannery. All in favor. Motion carries.
Thomson: Moves to request from the legal department an opinion on the relationship
between the approved plan and this plan to determine if both plans can be
before the Board at once. For instance, what happens to Plan A if Plan B
is approved? Motion seconded by Harris. Discussion on the motion:
Dinkin states this is premature. (Thomson, Harris and Silva in favor)
(Dinkin, Flannery, Dunn, Walter, and Geller-Duffy opposed). Motion
does not carry 3-5.
Geller-Duffy: Moves that the applicant submit an opinion on the matter for the City
Solicitor to review in time for the next meeting and to give the neighbors’
attorney opportunity to do the same. Seconded by Thomson. All in favor.
Motion carries.
Foster’s Drive Preliminary Subdivision Plan – 30 Foster Street – Michael Hubbard
Harris recuses himself from the meeting.
Robert Griffin of Griffin Engineering represents the Applicant. Griffin states the project
involves a 5-acre parcel, with a vernal pool within the wetlands. Griffin states the area is
zoned R-22 and it has residential properties, a camp and a compost site nearby. Griffin
talks about the roadway that will be 500 feet with a cul-de-sac. It will have granite
curbing on both sides and a sidewalk. Griffin states that there will be 5 conforming lots.
Griffin further explains utilities and drainage.
Thomson states this is a gross over development of a difficult parcel. He states that if
they have to squeeze in 5 lots, they should do it in a way that has more minimal
intrusions on the land and that they should work within the existing topography.
Flannery states this asks about runoff from the site.
City Engineer Frank Killilea states the applicant’s contribution to the City could be a
sewer easement. Killilea states they could run a drain pipe down Foster Street to provide
some relief to the drainage.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 10
Dinkin states the feedback from the Board is that they should look into doing a cluster
plan.
Griffin states he will discuss this with his client.
Thomson: Moves to continue the meeting on this petition until July 31, 2005.
Seconded by Flannery. All in favor. Motion carries.
Historic District Commission Study Report- Citizen Request for the Reduction of
Boundaries of Fish Flake Hill Local Historic District – Review and
Recommendation to the Historic District Commission
Thomson: Moves to suspend rules to allow Historic District Commission Chairman
William Finch and the citizens making the request to speak. Seconded by
Flannery. All in favor. Motion carries.
William Finch provides an overview of the citizen request and the Commission’s report
on this request. He describes the process for amending the boundaries of an historic
district. He states that the conclusion of the Commission’s draft report is that the
property at 59-63 Front Street should not be removed from the District.
Geller-Duffy asks Finch if the property owner was notified that they lived in a historic
district when they purchased the property.
Finch states that it is an owner’s responsibility through themselves or their broker to
inform themselves of any restrictions that may be on their property.
Dunn asks about the design intent from the original builder. Finch states the original
windows were wood and specified to be wood by the Commission at the time.
Dinkin states he would like to limit this discussion to comments.
Christopher Kaddaras of 63 Front Street asks what a historic district looks like. He states
he has pictures of houses not included in the historic district which should be. He states
other houses that are in the district, such as his, have no historic value and should not be
in the district. Kaddaras states that no one cares about this except for the Commission.
He states that the neighbors do not care.
Thomson: Moves to agree with the Historic District Commission Study Report on this
matter to recommend to the City Council that it act in accordance with the Commission’s
Report. Seconded by Walter. (Dinkin, Thomson, Flannery, Dunn, Geller-Duffy, Walter
and Silva in favor) (Harris in opposition). Motion carries 7-1.
Silva asks about the photo of the house across the street. Kaddaras states it was built in
the 1700’s and that it is not in the district.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 11
Finch states that the district boundaries where drawn up in the early 60’s or 70’s. The
boundaries were chosen as a result of the threat of urban renewal projects at the time.
Harris asks how the buyer would know of this if no one tells them. Finch states that the
building inspector would have informed them of the need to get approval for work if they
had applied for a building permit. They did not follow the law however and went ahead
with work that was not permitted. He states there are no laws requiring the City to tell
the buyer of the historic district just like there are no laws requiring the City to tell the
buyer of the zoning restrictions on their house. He states the burden is on the buyer and
seller. He states that as a result of this problem though, the Commission has worked with
Planning staff to send out a notice every six months to any new property owners within
the district that they bought property in a historic district.
Harris asks when the house was built. Finch states the house was built in 1986 and that it
replaced a house that burnt down many years ago and the lot was vacant many years prior
to the 1986 building.
Dinkin states the historic district is an important asset that needs to be protected. Dinkin
stated that he does not want to go into what property is in the district and what houses are
not. Dinkin states the question before us is, is it appropriate for this particular building to
be removed from the district. Dinkin states that he agrees with Mr. Finch. To disagree,
he would need to be convinced that removal of this house from the district would benefit
the community, the abutters, and the future owners of the property.
Sturtevant Street Extension Preliminary Subdivision Plan – 6 Lots- Steve Archer
Zambernardi states she was informed earlier that evening by the applicant’s attorney that
they wanted to continue the matter. Dinkin states that there is no one present to request
an extension from the Board, no request has been submitted in writing, and the Board’s
deadline is June 18, 2005. The Board therefore has no option but to deny the plan.
Thomson: Moves to deny the preliminary plan for the reasons given by Dinkin but to
invite the applicant in for an informal discussion at the next meeting.
Geller-Duffy seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carries.
Thomson: Moves to adjourn. Seconded by Flannery. All in favor. Motion carries.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
May 17, 2005
Page 12