2006-07-18
CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Planning Board
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: July 18, 2006
LOCATION: City Council Chambers, Beverly City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin, John Thomson,
Ellen Flannery, Don Walter, Charles Harris,
David Mack, Peter Thomas
MEMBERS ABSENT: Eve Geller-Duffey, Joanne Dunn
OTHERS PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Leah
Zambernardi, City Engineer Frank Killilea
RECORDER: Andrea Bray
Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order.
Thomson: Motion to recess for public hearing, seconded by Flannery. All members
are in favor, none in opposition. The motion passes 7-0.
1. Foster Lane Definitive Subdivision and Cluster Subdivision Plans
Harris recuses himself from this petition.
Thomson: Motion to suspend reading of the public hearing notice, seconded by
Flannery. All members are in favor, none in opposition. Chair is in favor. The motion
passes 6-0.
th
Mack: Motion to recess this public hearing until September 20 at 7:30 pm,
seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor, none in opposition. Chair is in favor.
The motion passes 6-0.
Harris returns to the meeting.
2. Whitehall Hill Circle Definitive Subdivision Plan (Cluster) Settlement Plan
Discussion
Attorney Dennis Crimmins introduces himself and provides a brief history of the matter.
The property owners have contacted the neighborhood group and they have designed an
agreeable settlement plan. There are currently seven pending appeals on a previously
approved plan. Crimmins turns the meeting over to Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering.
Bob Griffin distributes copies of the settlement plans and presents a history of the plans
and their modification.
Planning Board Minutes
July 18, 2006
Page 2 of 14
Griffin explains that the conventional definitive subdivision was denied by the Planning
Board. All of the right-of-ways met the PB approval.
Griffin notes that the second plan for a cluster subdivision plan was approved by the
Planning Board with conditions. The plan contains 5.9 acres of protected open space
with a connection from the open space up to Whitehall Circle. Chapman’s corner drive
had an 8% slope as opposed to the maximum 6% slope. It was denied by the
Conservation Commission.
There are seven pending appeals on these two plans. As a result of joint discussions
between the developer and the neighbors a settlement plan has been developed which has
a lower density of structures. The new plan proposes a total of 27 structures, 10 of which
are around Wetland A. The lot lines were changed so that the art gallery building at
Chapman’s Corner will continue to have the parking lot. The developer does not yet
have detailed drainage calculations. Chapman’s Corner Drive does not exist on the new
plan. A house on Boyles Street has been removed. The plan reflects a relocated
driveway near the Lawrence property on Boyles Street. The developers will install
historic streetlights at the project, and there will be some no-cut zones at the Birchwoods
area.
They have added even more modifications after their last meeting with the neighbors due
to discussions with the Conservation Commission. Wetland A in the center was filled
with waste 5-8 years ago. That waste has been almost totally removed. Lower Wetland
A area will have the remaining debris removed. There are no-cut zones on the western
boundary along Morrison Ave. The plan has 5.9 acres of open space. The applicant
intends to improve the plantings along Pond 2. The developers are maintaining a water
line near the Birchwoods area to Hale Street to improve the water pressure and
serviceability in the area. Chapman’s Corner Drive has been removed from this plan.
The applicant will provide a traffic study.
Griffin states that in terms of traffic, 1/3 of connections to roadways will be lost. He
states they will have their traffic engineer make a report/update on the traffic impact and
they will submit this information to the City's traffic consultant for a review.
Dinkin inquires about the number of affordable units on the new plan.
Griffin isn’t sure but believes that 252 Hale Street may be retained for that purpose.
Crimmins assures Dinkin that the original plans for three affordable units which were
approved by the Board have not changed.
Thomas asks how the driveways will be constructed.
Planning Board Minutes
July 18, 2006
Page 3 of 14
Griffin states that they are looking at the possibility of using common driveways, but
having individual driveways may enable the properties to sell faster.
Zambernardi asks if there have been any neighborhood concerns about utilization of
private drainage structures in the area.
Griffin says that he assumes that the settlement plan has settled all of these issues
including drainage.
Crimmins adds that the Whitehall drainage system has no connection to the storm sewer
drainage system which currently exists on Morrison Ave.
Dinkin asks if the developers have discussed connections to private drainage systems
with any of the neighbors.
Crimmins states that the applicant has had no specific discussions but has received no
complaints from the neighbors about the drainage.
Thomson inquires as to the fate of the art gallery at Chapman’s Corner.
Thomson stresses his opposition to seeing that property being allowed to deteriorate.
Dinkin inquires as to the status of the new plan.
Griffin states that the applicant wishes to hear from the Planning Board prior to finalizing
the plan.
Thomson opines on this issue stating that he is in favor of the plan. He is pleased with
the reduction in density. He likes the elimination of the Detention Pond. This is all with
the exception of their lack of expedience with the art gallery building.
Dinkin states that he would like to see fewer dramatically irregular lots, but overall he is
happy with the plan.
Dinkin asks the Board members if they have any other comments.
There are none.
3. North Shore Commons – 140 Brimbal Ave.
Zambernardi states the applicants have requested a continuance to September 20.
Planning Board Minutes
July 18, 2006
Page 4 of 14
th
Thomas: Motion for a continuance of this matter until September 20, seconded by
Walter. All members are in favor, none in opposition. The chair is in favor. The motion
passes 7-0.
4. Hawk Hill Subdivision - Perfomance Bond Expiration
Zambernardi states that Symes Associates has requested a three month extension to a Tri-
Partite Agreement which guarantees completion of the subdivision.
Zambernardi reads letter of request into the record.
Zambernardi reads a response letter from Frank Killilea, City Engineer.
Walter: Motion to extend for another three months the three party agreement,
seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor, none in opposition. The Chair is in
favor. The motion passes 7-0.
5. Approval of minutes, Special Meeting, June 5, 2006, Executive Session, June 5,
2006, and Regular Meeting June 20, 2006
Dinkin asks for corrections or additions.
There are none.
Flannery: Motion to approve the minutes, seconded by Harris. All members are in
favor, none in opposition. The Chair is in favor. The motion passes 7-0.
Flannery: Motion to recess the regular meeting to reconvene the continued public
hearing, seconded by Mack. All members are in favor, none are in opposition. Chair
votes in favor. The motion passes 7-0.
Dinkin calls the public hearing to order.
6. Public Hearing: Bayview Court Definitive Subdivision Plans
Charles Harris recuses himself from this issue and sits with the public.
Zambernardi reads the public hearing notice.
Dinkin reviews the process and issues the ground rules for this hearing. He states that
adversarial comments will not be tolerated. He advises the group that he will recess the
hearing at 8:45 pm. to open another scheduled public hearing. He then asks Board
members for clarifying questions. There are none. Dinkin asks for clarifying questions
from the public.
Planning Board Minutes
July 18, 2006
Page 5 of 14
Bill Obrien of 45 Neptune Street asks how many houses are permitted under the current
zoning?
Griffin states that based on the existing frontage on Bayview Avenue, there are two
houses permitted.
Dinkin clarifies that this is a subdivision with proposed infrastructure, and the land will
support more structures if a cul-de-sac is installed.
Tom Harrington of 125 Watertown Street, Watertown, Massachusetts asks what the
distance is from Neptune Street to the end of Bayview Court.
Griffin states that there are 1275 feet from the intersection of Neptune Street and
Bayview Avenue to the end of Bayview Avenue, but 1075 feet to the end of Bayview
Court.
Joe Savy of 25 Neptune Street states that he has a question from the last meeting and is
expecting to hear an answer to that question tonight. Has there ever been any blasting
this close to the shore line?
Zambernardi reads a letter asking that question to the Fire Department and their response.
Mary Zachy of 37 Abbot Street asks how the silhouette of the shoreline will differ as a
result of the blasting.
Griffin shows an illustration and talks about soil borings and perc tests he performed.
Only minor blasting is needed in the middle of the street, roughly 11 or 12 feet for a
utility drain pipe.
Thomson: Motion to recess this public hearing until 8:50 pm, seconded by Flannery.
All members are in favor, none are in opposition. The Chair is in favor. The motion
passes 6-0.
7. Public Hearing: Modification to Site Plan Review #52-99: Dunkin Donuts
Walter: Motion to waive reading of the public hearing notice, seconded by Flannery. Six
members are in favor, none in opposition, Thomson is in abstention. Motion passes 6-0-
1.
th
Walter: Motion to recess this public hearing until September 20 at 8:00 pm, seconded by
Flannery. Thomson sits in abstention. Motion passes 6-0-1.
At 8:50 pm the public hearing for Bayview Court is resumed.
Planning Board Minutes
July 18, 2006
Page 6 of 14
Peter Lapin of 46 Neptune Street asks a follow up question to one asked at the last
meeting. He asks how will the drainage design deal with the extreme weather conditions
such as heavy rains similar to the ones which occurred last weekend?
Griffin states that this system is designed to handle several inches per hour and will
handle a 25 year storm.
Lapin states that when the tide is out the fresh water rain goes onto the beach, and the
fresh water kills the microorganisms.
Griffin clarifies that the system is designed to stand up to a 25 year storm, but has ample
capacity to withstand a 100 year storm.
Mike Lowell of 122 Hale questions the residents’ maintenance of the drainage.
Griffin states that it is one of the responsibilities of the homeowners association and all of
the responsibilities of the association will be written into the deeds. He states there will
be some reporting to the City required and the maintenance is done on an annual basis.
Charles Harris of 9 Ober Street asks to what standards the drainage is being designed to.
Griffin states that these estimates are designed based on DEP's Stormwater Management
Standards.
Don Lombardi of 3 Lawnbank Road asks how many times a developer can have the right
to have a hearing. He states that this applicant has been before the board many times on
this issue.
Dinkin states that this is a continued hearing. This is one hearing which is held on
several days.
Lombardi then asks how many more months will this take.
Dinkin advises that it will be no less than 1 month.
Lombardi then asks how long the project will last.
Griffin states that the construction of the roadway will occur in 3-6 months and the
houses take up to two years.
Lombardi then asks what percentage of the trees will be taken down.
Griffin states that roughly 25 percent, or about 25 trees.
Planning Board Minutes
July 18, 2006
Page 7 of 14
Mary Zachy of 37 Abbot Street asks if the removal of the trees will affect the drainage.
She notes that trees assist in absorbing water and questions whether there will be enough
impervious surfaces after they are removed?
Griffin states that the results of the soil testing shows that soils at the site are more
pervious than originally calculated. The developer will design a drainage system that
does not rely on trees because the drainage properties of trees are seasonal.
Mary Zachy of 37 Abbot Street asks if the entire habitat will be replaced by new
landscaping. Will all of the current living things die?
Griffin states that the road is constructed first, then the houses. 25 percent of the trees
might be lost, but 75 percent of the trees will remain. He adds that additional trees will
be planted, and the applicant is not trying to clear all of this area at once, nor will it be the
sterile environment that she describes.
Miles Handridge of 11 Bayview Avenue asks another drainage question. Street drains
service by the city of Beverly have not been serviced and ran down to lot 13. He asks if
the new development is installed, how the neighbors can expect the association to
maintain the drainage system when the City won’t or can’t do that.
Jean Soulious of 12 Bayview Avenue is an abutter to the site. She asks if a waiver is
granted based on public interest.
Dinkin states that the Board bases the decision for a waiver on all of the information and
input received at the public hearing.
Mary Beth McPherson of 9 Lawnbank Road inquires as to the necessity and function of a
loop to the water main. Is it expected to improve the drainage?
Griffin reviews the plan to replace water pipe at the corner of Neptune and Bayview
Avenues and to install the loop with an easement. A loop avoids the possibility that the
water will become stagnant and improves serviceability thereby minimizing the
disruption if the water is turned off.
Mary Beth McPherson of 9 Lawnbank Road asks if the long length of the dead-end street
would create an issue with the water quality.
Dinkin advises her that the length of the dead end street is at issue only because of the
emergency vehicles and their ability to service the entire street.
Planning Board Minutes
July 18, 2006
Page 8 of 14
A resident of 5 Ober Street asks about the safety of children given that there are no
sidewalks on Bayview Avenue, and the additional volume of traffic. Has there been any
further consideration of sidewalks?
Michael Harrington of 7 Bayview Avenue asks if the air conditioner is on.
Dinkin advises the group that there will be a short break while Zambernardi turns up the
air conditioner.
Charles Harris of 9 Ober Street asks a clarifying question about drainage. He then asks
how the current market conditions will affect the completion date.
Griffin states 2 years typically. Harris states that a construction project near his house by
the Hubbards began in 2002 and was not completed until this year.
Kan Smith of 47 Neptune Street asks for an estimate of the percentage of drainage
increase from the new development into the ocean.
Griffin states that the drainage outlet will feed to a rocky shoreline, not a muddy
substrate, and the runoff will fall into water. He adds that there is not a substantial
movement between mean high water and mean low water.
Smith asks how the use of fertilizers on this area will affect the runoff.
Griffin states that there have been no studies of fertilizer. He advises that the drainage
system will include a deep sump catch basin to trap pollutants and a storm water
treatment device.
Elizabeth Dick of 27 Ober Street asks a clarifying question about the discharge of the
development’s water to the ocean. Will it indeed be purified of pollutants?
Griffin: Yes
George Serus of 4 Lawnbank Road asks how the developer will get the water to flow up.
Griffin advises him that the storm water will travel via a series of underground pipes
which slope downward to the ocean. He adds that there might be digging through rock to
install these pipes, and studies have confirmed that this will be achievable based on the
soil condition.
George Serus of 4 Lawnbank Road asks to clarify the removal the trees. He states that
the 25 percent number of trees cleared for the road may result in a 75 percent removal
after the homes are installed.
Planning Board Minutes
July 18, 2006
Page 9 of 14
Griffin states that he currently has no exact estimate for the percentage, but his rough
estimate is a projection for the total trees removed.
Michael Alexi of 122 Hale Street asks if the developer meets the requirements of the City
and State for drainage.
Dinkin advises that a subdivision will be approved if it totally conforms to State Law and
City Ordinances. He adds that to the extent that the subdivision varies from the
requirements the board will consider the limits.
Joe Savy of 25 Neptune Street asks for clarification of the sewer system improvement.
Will there be a six inch drain at the corner of Bayview Avenue or two four inch drains?
Or will a ten inch drain be installed? Why wouldn’t the City of Beverly install the 10
inch drain?
City Engineer Frank Killilea advises him that it would be advantageous to the City of
Beverly if the developer installs the ten inch drain. It would save the City money.
Dinkin notes that Beverly is like any other City as to its responsibility to live within a
budget.
Alex Devereaux of 52 Lovett Street asks if there are any measures in place to protect this
area if the project is not completed due to financial hardship.
Dinkin explains that the developer must post a bond equal to the cost of the infrastructure
improvements. If the developer fails, the City takes that bond, and then determines
whether it is more economical for the City to complete the infrastructure or let the private
industry complete it.
Alex Devereaux of 52 Lovett Street asks if the City has yet determined an estimate for
the amount of the bond.
Dinkin advises that at this stage the estimate has not yet been determined.
Rick Malley of 15 Bayview Avenue asks if the substantial increase in tax revenue may be
offset by schools cost.
Dinkin says that he will not require the applicant to answer that question. Dinkin
explains that every developer projects a number for tax revenue. That number is never
used as a consideration for approval of a subdivision development.
James Wilcox of 2 Vester Terrace #3 asks to provide reasons why this development will
benefit the greater Beverly community.
Planning Board Minutes
July 18, 2006
Page 10 of 14
Attorney Handley, representing the developer, states that there will be improved public
safety as a result of the circle in the cul-de-sac, which provides space for the emergency
vehicles to turn around.
Bob Duda of 6 Bayview Avenue asks how fire protection could be deemed a public
safety issue.
Mike McPherson of 9 Lawnbank Road asks if the inconsistencies that have been stated
by the applicant cause the Board to understand the skepticism of the citizenry.
Thomson: “Yes.”
Mike McPherson of 9 Lawnbank Road cites the applicant’s statement about “a few trees”
and expresses his frustration with inconsistency. Then he asks the board members if they
believe everything else.
Dinkin states that this is a nonspecific description, not a scientific process, and the Board
will visit the site to determine the accuracy of this description. He adds that Mr. Griffin
is a licensed professional, whose license is at stake, so he would have to assume that Mr.
Griffin knows more than him about engineering. Dinkin notes that he will ask Mr.
Killilea to confirm the statements of Mr. Griffin. He qualifies all of this by reminding the
public that every professional in this room is shaping his statements based on the interest
of his clients.
Alan Norris asks whether the Board would have the option of approving this plan for
fewer houses.
Dinkin states that technically the Boards decision it is strictly “yes or no”, but, in fact
there is a negotiation process.
Dinkin then asks the public for any additional clarifying questions.
There are no more.
Zambernardi reads the following letters from City officials.
1. Building Commissioner and Zoning Enforcement Officer, Bob Nelson, dated July
17, 2006
2. City Engineering Director, Frank Killilea, dated July 18, 2006.
3. Historic District Commission Chairman, William B. Finch, dated June 16, 2006
4. Open Space and Recreation Committee Chairman, Robert Buchsbaum, dated July
14, 2006.
Dinkin states that he wishes to delay reading written comments from the public.
Planning Board Minutes
July 18, 2006
Page 11 of 14
Michael Harrington asks if it is useful to inquire of the audience to take comments at this
time.
Dinkin inquires of the Board whether to continue this hearing now or at a later date.
Thomson states that he would like to continue now, but set a closure time of 11:00 pm.
Dinkin asks the other members if a closure time of 11:00 pm acceptable.
All members agree that 11:00 is acceptable.
Dinkin asks for comments in support of the project.
There are no comments.
Dinkin asks for comments in opposition of the project.
Tom Harrington of 124 Watertown Street, Watertown, MA, an attorney representing the
Friends of Hospital Point, draws attention to four facts.
1. The length of the cul-de-sac is approximately 175 feet too long. Regulations state
that any cue-de-sac must be 500 feet long. That limit is now a standard
throughout the State because of an historic decision of the Beverly Planning
Board. In addition to the Board’s right to enforce the length of cul-de-sac, there
are previous cases, which include Woodland Road, Eileen’s Way, Montserate,
Cove circle, and Birchwoods Drive, which were all denied by the Board in the
past.
2. There is not adequate access to the lots on this subdivision. It is the Board’s right
and duty to ensure that there is adequate access to all of the homes on this site.
3. Applicant has applied for approval as a minor subdivision. This is not a minor
subdivision. Lots 1 & 7 both need Bayview Court to get adequate frontage. By
using Bayview Court as a means of attaining frontage the applicant disqualifies
the project as a minor subdivision. (A minor subdivision by law consists of no
more than six lots.)
4. Frontage: He calls attention to drawing C2. Lot 3 frontage length is 98.09 feet
taken from a set-back line which is not the correct way to take the frontage.
Thompson points out to him that there is a curve that provides part of that
frontage. Harrington agrees then states Lots 1 & 7 used 2 frontage streets which
can be used only when the interior angle is more than 125 degrees.
Finally Mr. Harrington notes that the developer claims that the project will provide many
benefits including the improvement to the sewer system. The sewer project is already on
the list to be completed by the City.
Planning Board Minutes
July 18, 2006
Page 12 of 14
John Thomas, President of Beals and Thomas Inc, Southborough Ma, representing the
Residents of Bayview Avenue speaks highly of the current natural features and the
aesthetics of the property. He states that the landscape is beautiful, and cautions the
Board about the allowing the developer to alter the character of this property.
Dinkin states that he will not be inclined consider Thomas’ comments about the
landscape unless he is a landscape architect.
John Thomas states that he is the president of the company, and employs six landscape
architects. He goes on to state his qualifications in detail. He warns that the storm
drainage system which will head toward Rice’s Beach area will require extensive blasting
and rock cut, and that the amount of disturbance to the neighborhood will be extensive as
it will involve roadway cuts perhaps rock faces along the sides of the road. He suggests
that this site will be torn apart. Thomas notes that water quality and drainage issues have
been reiterated by CDM in their review letter. He adds that many issues have not been
examined, including water quality sizing information and how the pollutants will be
mitigated. Overall he restates the natural features such as the beauty of the Beech trees.
Griffin rebuts some of Thomas’ characterizations stating that they are incorrect. He notes
that documenting perk rates are favorable, and found shallower ledge cuts than were
previously anticipated. He disputes the graphics provided by the engineering firm stating
that it does a misleading job of trying to represent the subdivision. Griffin sites one
example where Thomas’ graphic depiction shows the houses on a downhill slope which
is not accurate.
John Thomas argues that his graphics are not intended to be accurate but to depict the
development with an approximate density which is similar to the project being projected.
Griffin states that as and Engineer, Mr. Thomas has a responsibility to provide accurate
information.
George Chizinsky of 10 Lawnbank Road reads a statement expressing opposition to the
proposed development.
Anna Green of 4 Lawnbank Road reads the letter that she addressed to the Planning
Board. She requests that the Board deny the application.
Tommy Thomson 15 Bayview Avenue, abutter to the vacant property and abutter to the
Coast Guard property and active member of the Friends of Hospital Point, states that he is
67 years old and plans to retire in the cove and does not want his precious ambiance
destroyed. He adds that he lives within 150 feet of Hannah Park. He urges the board to
consider the many legal precedents and to deny this waiver.
Planning Board Minutes
July 18, 2006
Page 13 of 14
Michael Harrington, Congressman, the longest tenured resident on Bayview Avenue,
states that there is an existing restriction relating to cul-de-sacs, which he would like to
see enforced. He adds that he will not give any ground for this and that he is puzzled that
the Board would subject itself to this extended hearing. He notes that the Board and the
City should not back door this project as a way to obtain free municipalities, and he
suggests that there is no more reason to take the Board’s time to give this waiver.
Tom Johnson of 62 Neptune Street states that he looks at the question “Is the City going
to be better off?” with this development. He adds that the project would eliminate a
public park, and public safety would be compromised during the construction with the
truck traffic and the increase of traffic after the project is finished. He says he is
surprised that the developer uses the safety argument. Johnson notes that the tax revenue
is actually a net zero and many of the trees will be eliminated. He urges the Board to
deny the application.
Dinkin states that the Board has exceeded the agreed upon adjournment time.
Thomson states that the comments tonight have been very good but the Board has heard
nothing new, so he would like to close the hearing to make a decision.
Thomson: Motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Flannery. All members
are in favor, none in opposition, Harris in abstention. The motion passes 6-0-1.
Handley requests an opportunity to speak.
Dinkin grants Handley the time to speak, and calls a 5 minute recess.
Dinkin calls the Regular Meeting back to order.
Handley speaks for the approval of the application, and responds to a number of the
points that were made in opposition.
Thomson explains that the Board is conducting a process that everyone is entitled to have
even if the project requires waivers. He explains that the Board wishes to err on the side
of allowing the public to provide as much input as possible. He states that he does not
agree that having a developer offer to take over a municipal improvement is the type of
benefit that the Board seeks with granting a waiver. As to the argument that the Board
should grant a waiver for a cul-de-sac off of an existing cul-de-sac which exceeds the
limit, Thomson states that he doesn’t find that a strong enough point to vote in favor of
granting the waiver. He concludes by stating that he would like to deny this application.
Thomson: Motion to deny the plan, seconded by Walter. Six members are in favor,
none in opposition, Harris in abstention. The motion passes 6-0-1.
Planning Board Minutes
July 18, 2006
Page 14 of 14
Thomas: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Mack. All members are in favor, none in
opposition. The motion passes 7-0.
The meeting is adjourned at 11:20 pm.