2006-03-28
CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Planning Board
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: March 28, 2006
LOCATION: Sohier Room, Beverly Public Library
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice-
Chairperson John Thomson, Ellen Flannery,
Don Walter, Eve Geller-Duffy
MEMBERS ABSENT: Joanne Dunn, Charles Harris,
OTHERS PRESENT: City Planner Tina Cassidy, City Engineer
Frank Killilea
RECORDER: Andrea Bray
Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
1. Continued Concurrent Public Hearings: Foster Lane Definitive Subdivision
and Cluster Subdivision Plans/Hub Realty Trust
Attorney Marshall Handly, representing the applicant states that they are awaiting the
report from Camp, Dresser and McKee (CDM) which is the consulting engineering firm
used by the City for project reviews. They are working to address the concerns of the
abutters, and they are discussing a potential land swap with the abutters. He requests an
extension of time for final action by the Planning Board through May 2006.
Cassidy reminds the Board that two time extensions will actually be needed to continue
discussion of this subdivision to the May meeting; an extension of time for the
conventional definitive subdivision plan, and one for the cluster definitive subdivision
plan. Attorney Handly has already filed an extension request for the conventional
rd
definitive plan, but action is required by May 3, 2006 on the cluster plan. Attorney
Handly signs a written request for an extension of the cluster definitive plan hearings
through May 31, 2006.
Thomson:
motion to accept the extensions of time for Board action on the
conventional and cluster definitive subdivision plans for the Foster Lane
Subdivision to May 31, 2006, seconded by Flannery. All members are in
favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries 5-0.
Dinkin calls a recess which lasts three minutes.
Dinkin calls the meeting back to order.
Planning Board minutes
March 28, 2006
Page 2 of 7
Thomson:
motion to recess the concurrent public hearings on the Foster Lane
conventional and cluster definitive subdivision plans until May 9, 2006, at
7:30 p.m., seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor, no one in
opposition. Motion carries 5-0.
2. Sargent Avenue Extension Preliminary Subdivision Plan, Michael &
Suzanne Fiore, Owners
Bob Griffin, Griffin Engineering Group, outlines the preliminary subdivision plan for
Sargent Avenue. He distributes the original plan and a revised plan reflecting a change in
the design that will allow adequate frontage for one of the lots which previously failed to
meet the R-10 zoning district requirements. The revised plan adjusts the end of the road,
changing it from a hammerhead turn-around to a cul-de-sac, which alters the lot line
thereby providing enough frontage for the new lot. However, with the extensive ledge on
the property, construction of the full circle will be difficult. Consequently Mr. Griffin is
requesting a waiver so that he will not have to construct the entire cul-de-sac; instead, the
developer would build only part of the circle, while still allowing plenty of room for fire
trucks to turn around.
In addition to this waiver from the Board’s Rules and Regulations Governing the
Subdivision of Land, Mr. Griffin is requesting several other waivers including a
waiver from the requirement that all existing trees 6” in caliper or greater be shown on
the plan, a waiver from the 50’ minimum right of way width requirement a waiver from
the 32’ pavement width requirement down to 18’, a waiver from the requirement that a
hydrant be installed at end of cul-de-sac in favor of sprinklers on all properties, a waiver
of the required embankment outside of the right of way in order to maintain the existing
retaining wall, a waiver from the requirement that sidewalks be installed on both sides of
the roadway, a waiver from the curb and berm requirement, a waiver of the requirement
that two street trees be installed for each lot, a waiver of the fire alarm requirement, and a
waiver of the street light requirement.
Much discussion ensues. Thomson questions the drainage situation. Mr. Griffin explains
that the drainage would not change much from the current condition.
Thomson inquires if this project could be completed without these waivers. Cassidy
states her opinion that it could not; she believes the waiver from the 50’ right of way
requirement is needed.
Thomson inquires as to the history of any past subdivision plans. Cassidy and Griffin are
both unaware of any prior subdivision plan for this property. Thomson requests they
look into this and report back to the board.
Cassidy, reads letters of comment relating to the Sargent Avenue development from
various Boards, Commissions, and City departments.
Planning Board minutes
March 28, 2006
Page 3 of 7
Killilea questions the efficiency of the 2” water line. Will that be effective for use by the
Fire Department? Griffin states that a 2” water line has proven effective in other areas.
Walter questions the ambiguity of the revised plan which shows a cul-de-sac that will not
be fully constructed. The new plan provides adequate frontage for the lots on paper, but
will never be fully completed if the requested waiver is granted. He asks why Griffin
doesn’t just ask for a variance for frontage for the lot in question.
Much discussion on the cul-de-sac waiver ensues.
Dinkin agrees with Walter, and expresses concern over approving a plan that will never
be built out.
Thomson states that there are some examples where some portion of the cul-de-sac have
not been fully built out, but reiterates one of his core beliefs, that waivers should not be
granted unless the project could result in some benefit to the city. He requests that we
take no action until Griffin can return with subdivision history for Sargent Avenue.
Dinkin presents the board’s options on this matter; to take no action, to approve, or to
deny.
Thomson:
motion to lay this matter on the table until April 18, 2006 at 8:30 p.m.,
seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor, no one in opposition.
Motion carries 5-0.
3. Thompson Farm Subdivision, set bond amount /Tom Carnevalle, applicant
Cassidy updates the Board, stating that the Engineering Department has determined that
the amount of bond necessary to guarantee completion of this subdivision is $308,000.00.
She also states that the developer submitted a Letter of Credit to the Board this afternoon,
in the amount of $308,000, for the Board’s acceptance. However, she has not had an
opportunity to review that Letter of Credit to ensure it is in a form previously accepted by
the City’s legal department. She recommends that the Board establish the surety at
$308,000, vote to accept the Letter of Credit as surety to guarantee completion of the
project, and to execute a Form H Release Form so that the lots can be built upon and sold.
Thomson:
motion to set the bond amount for the Thompson Farm Subdivision at
$308,000, and to accept a letter of credit from the Danvers Savings Bank
as surety to guarantee completion of the subdivision, subject to review by
the City Planner as to form, and to execute a form H release form after the
Planning Board minutes
March 28, 2006
Page 4 of 7
surety is determined to by acceptable, seconded by Flannery. All
members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries 5-0.
4. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans, Enon and Lincoln Streets
Enon Street Realty Trust
The owners of the Mariner Restaurant on Enon Street have filed an ANR to divide a
vacant lot of land they own into two lots. One portion (consisting of 2,500 sq. ft. of land
with 50’ of frontage on Lincoln Street) would be deeded to the owners of an abutting lot
to form one contiguous lot. The second portion (consisting of 7,521 sq. ft of land and
having no frontage) would be deeded to the owners of the current Mariner Restaurant lot
to form one contiguous lot.
After the transfers, both lots would conform to the requirements of the zoning ordinance,
so planning staff recommends it be endorsed as one not requiring approval under the
Subdivision Control Law.
Thomson recuses himself from voting on this issue. Because they are lacking a quorum,
the board members cannot take any action on this plan at this time. Cassidy states that it
will be constructively approved on the twenty first day after its filing with the City Clerk.
5. City Council Order #10 – Proposed Zoning Amendment, Definition of
Setbacks / Recommendation to City Council
Cassidy updates the Board by stating that the public hearing on this proposed amendment
was held on March 6, 2006. Since that time, a revised definition of SETBACK has been
suggested by Thomson to provide more clarity on which street rights-of-way would be
included in the definition, and to eliminate what would otherwise be a potential conflict
with rules for accessory buildings.
The new definition reads as follows:
“Setback – A line beyond which the foundation wall and/or any enclosed covered
porch or other enclosed portion of a building shall not project. Minimum yard
setbacks required by this Ordinance shall be measured from either (i) the lot line or
(ii) the sideline of any public or private street right-of-way providing vehicular
access to or over the lot, whichever of (i) or (ii) is closer to the proposed building at
any point.”
Cassidy has had correspondence with Paine Avenue residents that expressed concern
with the definition. The residents wanted the setback requirements to be observed from
easements, and find the proposed language acceptable so long as the term “easement” is
included in the term ‘right-of-way”.
Planning Board minutes
March 28, 2006
Page 5 of 7
Cassidy read the original language of the ordinance.
Thomson:
motion to recommend to the City Council that Order #10 be adopted with
the revision and that the City Council be notified that the City Solicitor
may need to rule on the issue of whether the revised language can be
adopted given the parameters of the original advertisement, seconded by
Flannery. All are in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries 5-0.
6. City Council Order #31 – Proposed Zoning Amendment – Building and
dimensional Requirements for the CC Zone District / Recommendation to Council
Cassidy provides members with a map of the downtown area depicting the CC zoning
district as it exists today. She also distributes two documents concerning this issue; one
was written by Mayor Bill Scanlon, and one was written by Bill Finch and Scott
Houseman. Cassidy has also spoken to Bill Finch about this issue.
Currently, buildings in the CC Zone that do not abut a residential zone may have a
maximum height of 55’. The amendment to the Ordinance would permit these same
buildings to have a maximum height of 75’, but only by special permit from the Planning
Board.
Thomson states that he is in favor of approval of this concept for a limited portion of
Rantoul Street but not on Cabot Street, provided a tiered setback requirement is
introduced to limit the height and mass of the buildings along the street. He expresses
concern that the amendment would allow some “very creative” lot divisions, and believes
that other things can be done in Beverly’s downtown area that would benefit the
economic plan.
Dinkin is in favor of approving the amendment as is. He feels that Beverly is not poised
to become an economic center that would have 7-8-story buildings all lined up along one
street, and the specifics of the special permit are in place to prohibit a project from
causing harm to an abutting property, i.e. excessive shading or reduction of light.
Flannery concurs with Dinkin but would prefer Thomson’s suggestion for tiered setbacks.
Walter prefers to keep the buildings low and does not want to see the approval for 75’
buildings. He sees no need for adding 20’to the height of any buildings in Beverly.
Geller-Duffy wishes to put off her decision until she can look around the area and see
what is currently there. She suggests shading some areas on this CC Zone map that could
be approved for the new zoning. She is not ready to approve it for the entire area.
Dinkin states that the matter before the Board is a recommendation to the City Council on
a zoning amendment for CC zoning building height. This will probably require a new
Planning Board minutes
March 28, 2006
Page 6 of 7
public hearing. He believes a reduction of the area to which the change would be
applicable would be “more restrictive” than that which was advertised, and would
therefore necessitate a new public hearing. .
Thomson suggests that the Board endorse the concept for the ordinance but scale it back
to include only a portion of Rantoul Street, and to put provisions in place to guide design
of buildings over 55’ to have some type of tiered setback.
Dinkin suggests including a section of Cabot Street north of Dane Street.
Walter strongly objects to including that portion of Cabot Street in the proposal as those
buildings north of Dane Street are all currently very small.
Much discussion ensues regarding in which areas a 75’ building should be allowed.
Cassidy suggests the Board consider indicating to the City Council that while the
Planning Board endorses and supports the concept of this zoning proposal, the area it
applies to should be smaller than proposed by this Order and should be accompanied by
design guidelines for taller commercial buildings.
Dinkin cautions the board against providing the City Council with vague guidelines, and
stresses the need to be specific with its recommendation.
Thomson:
motion to recommend that the City Council not adopt Order #31 as
proposed but that the Board supports the principle of the proposal, and to further
recommend that it apply only to a portion of Rantoul Street, and that provisions regarding
the massing of buildings be developed, seconded by Flannery. Four members vote in
favor, Dinkin in opposition. The motion passes 4-1.
7. Hannah Court Preliminary Minor Subdivision Plan off Bayview Avenue
Katherine Bacon, Owner, Robert Hubbard, Applicant
Attorney Marshall Handly requests that a public hearing on the definitive subdivision
plan be scheduled for the Board’s May meeting.
Thomson:
motion to schedule a public hearing on the Hannah Court Definitive
Subdivision Plan for May 9, 2006 at 8:30 pm., seconded by Walter. All
members are in favor, no one in opposition. Motion passes 5-0.
8. Approval of Minutes: January 24, 2006 meeting
th
Dinkin asks if there are any corrections to the minutes for the January 24 meeting. No
corrections are requested.
Planning Board minutes
March 28, 2006
Page 7 of 7
Thomson:
motion to approve the minutes of the January 24, 2006 meeting as drafted,
seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor. No one is in opposition.
Motion carries 5-0.
9. Schedule next Planning Board meeting
After some discussion about the possible meeting dates, the board agrees to hold the next
meeting on Wednesday, April 26, 2006, and to schedule the May meeting for May 9,
2006.
Dinkin asks if there is any other business for the Board to conduct. There is none.
Flannery
: motion to adjourn, seconded by Walter. All members are in favor, no one
in opposition. Motion carries.
The meeting is adjourned at 9:35 p.m.