2006-01-24
CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Planning Board
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: January 24, 2006
LOCATION: Sohier Room, Beverly Public Library
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice-
Chairperson John Thomson, Ellen Flannery,
Don Walter, Jason Silva, Eve Geller-Duffy,
Joanne Dunn (at 8:10 p.m.)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Charles Harris
OTHERS PRESENT: City Planner Tina Cassidy
RECORDER: Tina Cassidy
Dinkin calls the meeting to order and welcomes Cassidy back as staff on a temporary
basis.
1. Hannah Court Preliminary Minor Subdivision Plan off Bayview Avenue
Katherine Bacon, Owner, Robert Hubbard, Applicant
Dinkin states that the first agenda item is a preliminary plan entitled “Hannah Court”, and
asks Cassidy to update the Board. Cassidy explains that the proponents have filed a
preliminary subdivision plan to create a new road and seven house lots off Bayview
Avenue. Five of the seven lots would have frontage on the new road, and two would
have frontage on Bayview Avenue. She states that the applicant has several
representatives in the audience tonight to explain the proposal.
Attorney Marshall Handly introduces himself and Bob Griffin from Griffin Engineering.
Griffin shows members a plan of existing conditions in the neighborhood depicting
existing roads, house lots, and infrastructure. He then explains a plan showing the
proposed development.
The development involves construction of a new dead-end road approximately 225’ long
extending from Bayview Avenue. Today, there is a 4” and 3” water line in Bayview
Avenue, which would be replaced with a new 8” water service with several new hydrants.
The applicant is also prepared to deed an easement to the City to facilitate the future
looping of the water main to Lawnbank Road.
Griffin explains the general drainage scheme, including catch basins at the intersection of
the new road and Bayview, as well as drainage toward the ocean. He notes the existing
sewer pump station at the corner of Neptune Street and Bayview Avenue. The sewer line
running to the station “necks down” from 8” to 6” in diameter, causing periodic backups
that must be cleared by the City’s Public Services Department. The developer is
proposing to improve that condition by replacing the section of 6” pipe with an 8” line.
Planning Board minutes
January 24, 2006 meeting
Page two
Griffin explains his position that the wording of the Board’s subdivision rules and
regulations does not make it clear that the developer needs a waiver of the 250’
maximum dead end length for minor streets. If the Board disagrees, Griffin states that
the project improves traffic safety and fire flows in the area, and that the end of the new
turnaround would be closer to Neptune Street than the existing cul-de-sac at the end of
Bayview Avenue.
Thomson asks Cassidy if she agrees with that assessment, and she does not. She quotes
from Section IV.B.5.e. of the regulations for minor subdivisions, which states that
“pavement design and geometrics shall be the same as for a street except as noted in 5.a.
through 5.d. above.” Since 5.a through 5.d. are unrelated to the maximum dead end
roadway length, she believes the standard provision applies. That provision reads in part
“…any proposed street which intersects solely with a dead-end street shall be deemed to
be an extension of the dead end street. Dead-end streets and their extensions, if any,
shall…be…measured between the sideline of the intersecting street and the center of the
turnaround…”
Griffin states that several people have expressed concern about the fate of a carriage
house that currently sits on the lot. They are planning to move the carriage house to one
of the new lots fronting on Bayview Avenue.
Handly distributes copies of a 1969 newspaper article covering a fire on Bayview
Avenue. The article mentions difficulties fighting the fire due to low water pressure in
the area. He elaborates on the safety improvements that would result from this
development including (a) an ability to turn fire trucks around to avoid the need to back
up Bayview Avenue, and (b) increased fire fighting capability with improved fire flows.
He notes that the applicant has also agreed to install sprinkler systems in all of the
houses. If the Board were amenable, the applicant would be willing to give the City the
cost of installing the sprinklers in lieu of installing them. The City could then use those
funds to offset the cost of acquiring the easements that would be needed to loop the new
water line, and installing that line.
Dinkin asks Cassidy to read comment letters from the various City departments and
commissions, which she does.
Thomson asks Handly to clarify the issue of the looped water line. Handly explains the
extent to which the applicant can grant an easement, and shows the two Lawnbank Road
properties outside of the locus over which the looped main could run. Thomson asks
about the existing problems with the sewer pump station, and Handly elaborates. Geller-
Duffy asks Handly whether the water line improvements will benefit the property owners
at the end of Bayview Avenue. Handly states that they will benefit, since the existing
water line at that end of the road is only 1.5” in diameter, and old.
Planning Board minutes
January 24, 2006 meeting
Page three
Cassidy notes that in addition to the dead-end roadway length waiver, the applicant has
requested a waiver from the requirement that all trees 6” in caliper or greater be shown on
the plan. She reads a paragraph from Griffin’s January 23, 2006 letter that provides
general information on soils conditions.
Dinkin states that the proposed plan could be improved by proposing a narrow pedestrian
walkway along the former hospital property that led to a public park. Including such a
public amenity would improve the plan.
Thomson asks if this plan was filed prior to the adoption of the new Open Space and
Residential Design ordinance. Handly states that it was. Thomson says he sees the
public benefits offered by the proposal, but underscores Dinkin’s comments by
suggesting that the proposed houses be relocated further from the shoreline and public
open space and meaningful public access to it be provided. With those additional
elements in the plan, he could support granting the waivers being requested.
Dinkin asks if there are any other comments from Board members at this point. He then
lists the options available to the Board – approve the plan, disapprove the plan, or vote to
take no action on the filing. He suggests the Board vote to take no action, hoping that the
applicants will revise his proposal to reflect the comments in tonight’s discussion.
Geller-Duffy suggests that the Board could also vote to approve the plan with conditions.
Dinkin agrees but states his personal reluctance to do so because such a vote could be
construed to mean that the current plan is acceptable – which is doesn’t appear to be,
based on tonight’s discussions.
Thomson
: motion to take no action on the preliminary subdivision plan entitled
“Hannah Way”, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, no one in
opposition. Motion carries 5-0.
Joanne Dunn joins the meeting at 8:10 p.m.
2. Informal Discussion: Corning Street right of way plan: Attorney Tom
Alexander
Dinkin states that the next item on the agenda is an informal discussion of a potential
ANR plan involving a right of way off Corning Street.
Attorney Tom Alexander addresses the Board and states that he represents a property
owner who lives on Corning Street and whose property abuts an existing 40’ wide right
of way that runs behind her property. There has been a recent court case regarding
claims of adverse possession involving portions of the right of way. He explains that the
Planning Board minutes
January 24, 2006 meeting
Page four
right of way existed since the 1940s, and has been shown on City assessors’ maps since
the 1950s. The way has existed since that time, although the pavement is “not in the
greatest shape”. The right of way is 40’ wide, and the traveled way is about 10-12’ wide.
He notes that he submitted, for the record, a copy of an approved subdivision plan from
the 1956 that shows the right of way. He then explains the three “tests” for a roadway to
provide legal frontage for an ANR lot, and tells the Board that in this case, the right of
way is a “way shown on a subdivision plan theretofore approved and endorsed in
accordance with the subdivision control law.” On that basis the plan is entitled to ANR
endorsement, Alexander says.
Members ask Alexander to point out the proposed lot division. Alexander directs
members to the last lot with frontage on the right of way.
Thomson asks Alexander to explain the nature of the recent court case. Alexander says
that several abutters have filed claims of adverse possession involving portions of the
right of way, claiming they now own to the centerline of the right of way.
Thomson states that he is unconvinced that simple depiction of the right of way on the
1956 plan gives it the status afforded by M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81-L. Dinkin
agrees, and states that the outcome of the court case may significantly alter the width of
the right of way at issue, and suggests that knowing the width of the right of way is
critical to the Board’s decision about the right of way’s adequacy. Thomson notes that
the Board recently declined to endorse an ANR plan on a road that was, similarly, 10’
wide but in fact paved.
Thomson states his informal opinion that based on the evidence discussed this evening,
the plan is not “approvable” as an ANR.
Alexander asks if it is the consensus of the Board that the plan is problematic. It is the
consensus of the members that it is. Alexander asks how the Board would view the right
of way if it were the subject of a subdivision plan with waivers from the Board’s right of
way width and length requirement. Dinkin offers his opinion that a subdivision plan
would also be problematic. Thomson states that if there was a public benefit to the plan,
he would consider granting waivers.
Alexander thanks the Board for its time.
3. Hawk Hill Subdivision: Request for extension of surety and construction
completion date / Symes Associates
Cassidy explains that the Board has received a request to extend both the construction
completion date and the expiration date of the surety posted to guarantee completion of
Planning Board minutes
January 24, 2006 meeting
Page five
this subdivision. Both the construction completion date and surety are set to expire on
st
February 1, and the applicant has requested an extension of both to August 1, 2006.
Cassidy reads a letter from City Engineer Frank Killilea explaining the work remaining to
be done, and recommending the time extensions.
Thomson
: motion to accept an extension of the Tri-Partite Agreement posted as
surety for the Hawk Hill Estates subdivision to August 1, 2006, and to
authorize the chairperson to execute the extension. Motion seconded by
Walter, all members in favor. Motion carries.
Thomson
: motion to extend the construction completion date for the Hawk Hill
subdivision to August 1, 2006. Seconded by Walter, all members in favor.
Motion carries.
4. City Council Order #10: Recommendation to City Council on Joint Public
Hearing
Cassidy explains that Ward 6 Councilor Pat Grimes is sponsoring this amendment to
address a fairly uncommon but important issue regarding the measurement of setbacks
for new buildings on lots having frontage on private ways. Cassidy summarizes an
earlier zoning changes regarding lot area that occurred in 1995. The 1995 provision was
interpreted by the Zoning Board of Appeals to apply to required zoning setbacks, in
addition to lot area. A subsequent amendment of that provision in 2004 altered the
language to preclude future application of the provision for setback requirements. In
doing so, it left the issue of setbacks on certain private ways unaddressed.
A group of residents who live on a private way in Beverly Farms asked the City to revise
the zoning to address their concerns. The attached amendment would specify exactly
how setbacks are measured for lots with frontage on private ways where property lines do
not coincide with the edge of the traveled way, but rather the centerline of the traveled
way.
Thomson
: motion to recommend to the City Council that a Joint Public Hearing be
held on the Order, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion
carries.
5. Election of Officers
Cassidy states that the Board has historically appointed a chairman and vice-chairman at
its January meetings to serve in those capacities for the upcoming year. Dinkin cedes the
chairmanship and asks Thomson to preside over this portion of the meeting.
Planning Board minutes
January 24, 2006 meeting
Page six
Thomson asks if there are any nominations for the position of Chairperson.
Flannery
: motion to nominate Richard Dinkin as chairperson of the Planning Board
for 2006, seconded by Geller-Duffy. Thomson asks if there are any other
nominations. There are none, and nominations are closed. On the motion,
all members in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries.
Dinkin resumes the chairmanship and asks if there are any nominations for the position of
vice-chairman of the Board.
Flannery
: motion to nominate John Thomson as vice-chairman of the Planning
Board for 2006, seconded by Dunn. Dinkin asks if there are any other
nominations. There are none, and nominations are closed. On the motion,
all members in favor no one opposed. Motion carries.
6. New or Other Business
(a) Potential Zoning Amendments
Definition of subsidized elderly housing. Dinkin informs the members that the
City Council recently adopted a new definition of subsidized elderly housing that
sets a minimum age threshold for occupancy at 55 years of age. The Planning
Board had recommended a minimum age of 62, but the Council chose to leave
the age at 55. Dinkin expresses his concern that setting the threshold age at 55 is
a very low bar to development of multi-family housing in any residential district.
He states that multi-family developments could occur city-wide as a result of
setting the age at less than 62. He is asking for the Board’s support in sponsoring
an amendment to increase the minimum age to 62 for subsidized elderly housing
developments.
Thomson
: motion to submit a zoning amendment to the Council that would
increase the minimum age for subsidized elderly housing projects
to 62, seconded by Flannery. All members (including the
chairperson) in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries.
Next, Cassidy submits a proposal to amend the language of the CC zoning district
in two ways: (i) add building and dimensional requirements for mixed use
buildings in the district that do not abut a residential zoning district, and (b)
authorize the Planning Board to grant special permits allowing a height greater
than 55’ for lots that do not abut a residential zoning district. She explains that
the need for item (i) became evident during a court case in 2005, and that she is
proposing height flexibility for certain lots in keeping with some of the
Planning Board minutes
January 24, 2006 meeting
Page seven
conclusions of the master plan and with the Commonwealth’s “smart growth”
initiative and policies.
Thomson
: motion to submit the proposed zoning amendment to the City
Council for considerastion, seconded by Geller-Duffy. All
members in favor, motion carries.
Next, Cassidy provides the members with background information on zoning for
adult entertainment. She states that she will continue to do research into options
for zoning for such uses, and will report back to the Baord at a subsequent
meeting with more information.
(b) Upcoming Meeting
Dinkin reminds members of the upcoming meeting scheduled for Tuesday,
st
January 31 at which the subject of inclusionary zoning will be discussed with the
City’s consultant. He urges all members to attend.
(c) M.G.L. Chapter 40R
Dinkin also mentions new legislation (M.G.L. Chapter 40R) that is worthy of
discussion by the Board at some point. The legislation requires a municipality to
create overlay districts that stimulate greater housing production. It also provides
for cash payments (on a per unit basis) for housing units created in an approved
40R zone, centered largely around areas where public transit and supporting
infrastructure already exists. He mentions three areas of the City that might be
appropriate for such districts – Beverly Farms village, the area in North Beverly
near the North Beverly train station, and the downtown. Thomson suggests the
neighborhood around the Montserrat train station might “qualify” as well.
Cassidy says she reviewed the legislation when it was first enacted, and viewed
the requirement ceding control of local zoning decisions to the State to be
unattractive to the community. But she says broader, public discussion of the
topic is warranted. Thomson recently attended a seminar on the subject, and
noted the same issue. He offers to review the written materials he received at the
seminar, and will share any information that could be helpful to the Board’s future
discussion of the issue.
7. Approval of Minutes: September 21, 2005, October 18, 2005, December 20,
2005 and December 29, 2005 meetings
Dinkin asks if there are any corrections to any of the sets of draft minutes. Thomson asks
that the fourth sentence of the last paragraph on page 9 of the 9/21/05 draft minutes be
Planning Board minutes
January 24, 2006 meeting
Page eight
corrected to say “He thinks that the extension of Cleveland Road is not in the best interest
of the City.”
Dinkin asks if there are any other corrections, and there are none.
Thomson
: motion to approve the minutes of the 9/21/05 meeting as corrected, and
approve the 10/18/05, 12/20/05, and 12/29/05 meeting minutes as drafted.
Motion seconded by Flannery, all members in favor. Motion carries.
Dinkin asks if there is any other business for the Board to conduct. There is none.
Geller-Duffy
: motion to adjourn, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion
carries.
The meeting is adjourned at 9:08 p.m.