2006-09-20
CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Planning Board
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: September 20, 2006
LOCATION: City Council Chambers, Beverly City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice-Chair
John Thomson, Ellen Flannery, Don Walter,
Charles Harris, David Mack, Peter Thomas,
Joanne Dunn
MEMBERS ABSENT: Eve Geller-Duffy
OTHERS PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Leah
Zambernardi, City Engineer Frank Killilea,
Building Commissioner Robert Nelson
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 Chair is in favor. The motion passes 8-0.
1. Foster Lane Cluster & Definitive Subdivision Plans
And
2. Modification of Site Plan #52-99, Dunkin Donuts – 112-114 Elliott Street
th
Thomson: Motion to continue each of these public hearings to October 16 at 8:30
pm and 9:00 pm respectively, seconded by Harris. All members are in favor, none in
opposition. The Chair is in favor. The motion passes 8-0.
Zambernardi states that the public hearing for Dunkin Donuts should be opened and
continued at 8:00 p.m. as shown on the agenda.
3. North Shore Commons Preliminary Subdivision Plan – 140 Brimbal Avenue
Zambernardi states a preliminary subdivision plan has been filed by Steven Cohen to
subdivide the former Archdiocese parcel into three parcels in the IR District. It will also
create North Shore Commons as a dead end road off Brimbal Avenue.
Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering explains the plan, while noting that the site is
relatively level with no wetlands. He adds that access to the parcel will be from Brimbal
Planning Board Minutes
September 20, 2006
Page 2 of 11
Avenue. Griffin notes that the applicant is interested in hearing the comments of the
Planning Board prior to finalizing a definitive plan.
Zambernardi reads the following letters concerning the site:
Dated September 20, 2006, from Amy Maxner, Environmental Planner
Dated July 18, 2006, from the Director of Public Works, Frank Killilea
Dated July 5, 2006, from Deputy Chief, Beverly Fire Prevention, Wayne Francis
Dated July 10, 2006, from Board of Health Director William T. Burke
Dated September 14, 2006, from Traffic Sergeant Safety Officer Christopher Negrotti
Dated September 20, 2006, from Steven J. Connelly, President of Connelly Brothers Inc.
The final letter brings into question the ownership of a small parcel of land attached to
the applicant’s site. Thomson asks Griffin to respond.
Griffin disputes the letter by Steven Connelly and explains that attorneys for the
Archdiocese, for the owner, and for the owner’s title insurance company all believe that
Steven Cohen and CEA Group own that parcel.
Mack asks Griffin to show the small parcel on the subdivision plan.
Thomson asks for clarification about the plan and the boundary lines. He questions why
the entranceway is so close to the 128 Access Road.
Griffin explains that they wish to maintain 2 acre lots and by moving the road, lot 3
would be smaller.
Thomson states he has a technical concern regarding how frontage for Lot 1 is measured.
He states that he is concerned about an additional driveway being put on Lot 1. He
suggests that Lot 1 have access on the subdivision road only. He also states that he is
more concerned about access onto Brimbal than he is about the shapes of the lots.
Griffin states that he could provide driveway access for Lot 1 by an easement, if needed.
Thomson asks Griffin to explain the plan for the drainage.
Griffin explains the drainage plan, indicating that there will be catch basins along the new
roadway.
City Engineer, Frank Killilea points out that this is a very important drain line for the
City. He states that additional load on this drain line would require improvements to that
drain.
Planning Board Minutes
September 20, 2006
Page 3 of 11
Dinkin asks if the drain line would require improvements prior to any new construction
being added to that line.
Killilea: Yes.
Dinkin asks if there are currently any intended purposes for the lots.
Griffin states that there are no tenants for the property as of yet but the property would be
used in accordance with the uses allowed in the zoning regulations.
Thomson asks about the closest abutters, and he asks that they are shown on the
definitive plan. He also inquires about the use of the nearby properties.
Killilea states that the City has a preliminary design of the Route 128/Brimbal Avenue
interchange. These plans show that traffic lights will be added at the intersection of Otis
Road and Brimbal Avenue and at the intersection of Sohier Road and Brimbal Avenue.
Thomson asks if a single light would be better here as opposed to multiple lights in that
area.
At 8:00 p.m. Dinkin asks to temporarily halt the regular meeting.
Thomson: Motion to recess for the public hearing, seconded by Flannery. All
members are in favor, none in opposition. The Chair is in favor. The motion passes 8-0.
Dinkin announces that the public hearing for the Dunkin Donuts at 112 -114 Elliot Street
th
has been continued until October 16 at 9:00 pm. He then reconvenes the regular
meeting to continue reviewing North Shore Commons. Dinkin requests that Griffin
coordinate with the City’s traffic engineers. He requests that Griffin work closely with
Killilea on development improvements to the existing drainage. He states that to do that,
Griffin should consider the most intensive uses possible for the site.
Thomas asks where the municipal drain pipe goes to.
Killilea states that the pipe goes across Sohier Road then to Tozer Road to the low point
of Tozer Road and into wetland on the right side of Tozer Road. He adds that this is one
of the larger drains in the area.
Thomas inquires about the boxes in the diagram that are described as tree easements.
Griffin states that it is the City’s request to have tree easements for the street trees so they
can maintain them.
Planning Board Minutes
September 20, 2006
Page 4 of 11
Thomson addresses Griffin’s proposal for the street to be a public way. He states that the
proposal seems to be a public way into a private industrial development. He states that
because it is a dead end, he is not sure he agrees with that.
Mack asks which part of the property was originally used as a dump.
Griffin states that most of the property was used as a dump, especially closest to Sohier
Road. There is evidence of 20-40 feet of fill and trash near the front of the property with
that amount diminishing further to the back of the site.
Thomson asks how close the waste is to the surface.
Griffin states that in some areas the waste is 1-2 feet below the surface. He states they
will have to make provisions in the development to properly ventilate gas from the
ground.
Killilea notes that the City ceased to use that property as a dump early enough to exempt
that site from DEP’s capping requirement for all dumps and landfills.
Harris states that with no specific use defined for these lots, a density issue may arise. He
asks if it is normal procedure for the Planning Board to approve an application without
knowing a definite use for the property.
Dinkin states that it is not a requirement to know the use of the property to approve a
subdivision. He cautions the group not to go beyond the Board’s jurisdiction which is
only to approve the subdivision of this parcel. Dinkin adds that the only authority the
Board has in this case is to determine the manner in which the land is subdivided.
Dinkin asks the Board for any additional questions.
There are none.
Dinkin explains the Board’s options with regard to this parcel, noting that the Board can
approve the application, deny the application, take no action, or place this issue on the
table and allow the members to think about it for a month. He adds that he is prepared to
entertain a motion.
Thomson: Motion to take no action on the application, seconded by Flannery. All
members are in favor, none in opposition. The Chair is in favor. The motion passes 8-0.
4. 11 Pickman Road, Subdivision Approval Not Required (SANR)
Planning Board Minutes
September 20, 2006
Page 5 of 11
Zambernardi explains this plan involves the division of a ±1.98 acre parcel into 3
buildable lots in the R10 Zone. The plan meets the requirements for endorsement as an
ANR.
Dinkin asks if the tennis court will create a new zoning violation.
Zambernardi reads the setback rules for tennis courts, stating that it should be set back a
minimum of 10 feet from the lot line and should not be in the front yard. Based on these
requirements, Zambernardi states that the new lot lines may be creating a new zoning
violation.
Thomson states that endorsement of the plan as an ANR is not a zoning determination.
Atty. Mark Glovsky who represents the Carbone family speaks about the plans for the
subdivision, stating that this parcel will be sort of a family compound with these lots
remaining in the Carbone family, at least for the foreseeable future. The lots will share a
common driveway.
Thomson asks if the frontage indicated on the plan is real frontage, not illusory.
Glovsky states that it is real and there might be some blasting required for the driveway
but this subdivision is more straight-forward than many other plans. The lot currently has
a very good driveway.
Thomson notes that if the common driveway did not work out each of these houses must
be able to construct their own driveway at some later date.
Glovsky agrees.
Thomson: Motion to endorse the plan, seconded by Mack. All members are in favor,
none in opposition. The Chair is in favor. The motion passes 8-0.
5. 31 Atlantic Avenue, Subdivision Approval Not Required (SANR)
Zambernardi explains that this is currently one lot and the applicant is proposing to split
it into two lots.
The members review the plan.
Dinkin asks the members if there are any questions. There are none.
Thomson: Motion to approve this plan, seconded by Flannery. All members are in
favor, none in opposition. The Chair is in favor. The motion passes 8-0.
Planning Board Minutes
September 20, 2006
Page 6 of 11
6. 600 Manor Road, Subdivision Approval Not Required (SANR)
Zambernardi explains that the applicant wishes to split one parcel off of the Apple
Village complex which is located off of Trask Road. She adds that this site is in the RSD
Zoning District where there is no frontage requirement and a 3600 square foot area
requirement.
Attorney James Doherty who represents the applicant explains that the purpose of the
subdivision is to break off a lot from Apple Village. The owner is trying to refinance the
property and the lender is requiring that lot A be divided out.
Thomson asks where the access to this property will be.
Doherty states that access would be off of Trask Road.
Thomson states that the access would be through the Apple Village on Manor Road. He
asks whether or not Manor Road is a public way. He cites M.G.L. Chapter 41 which
requires that ANR lots must have frontage.
Doherty states that he considers Manor Road a public way that is maintained by Apple
Village.
Thomson states that lot A may not be on a publicly accepted road.
Thomson asks Zambernardi for clarification as to the status of Manor Road.
Zambernardi states that she does not know if Manor Road is considered public or private,
but that she can check with the Engineering Department who keeps a list.
Thomson states that he would need the answer to that question before he can move
forward. He notes that if Manor Road is a private way, and the owner of Apple Village
chose to move the driveway he could cut off access to Lot A at any time. Thomson
recommends that this application be withdrawn and then reapplied for discussion at the
next meeting.
Zambernardi reads the Zoning Ordinance to clarify the subdivision of the land with a
private way. The Manor Road issue is still left in question until the public status can be
determined.
David Mack asks if the applicant can achieve the same desired result, ie. the refinance
without subdividing.
Doherty states that it might be possible but this is about allowing the applicant to
maintain some flexibility with the property for future use.
Planning Board Minutes
September 20, 2006
Page 7 of 11
Dinkin explains that it should be possible to exclude that parcel from the surety in the
refinance agreement.
Doherty agrees that it may be possible but restates that the applicant wishes to have
flexibility. He then asks if there are any other issues of note that could be brought up
now so that he may resolve them before the next meeting.
There are none.
Doherty asks to withdraw this application without prejudice.
Thomson: Motion to withdraw the application without prejudice and return the
application fee to the applicant, seconded by Harris. All members are in favor, none are
in opposition. The Chair is in favor. The motion passes 8-0.
7. Federal Heights Special Permit and Site Plan Approval
Zambernardi explains that this applicant’s project, now under construction, was
previously approved by the Planning Board. She adds that the construction is in violation
of the approved plan. Zambernardi notes that there are two issues to discuss with this
property.
1. A wall was to be constructed between the subject property and an abutting property by
th
September 30. As of today the construction of the wall has not yet begun. A meeting
will be held next week with the City Engineer to determine the final design for the wall.
The deadline for completing the wall is September 30, therefore the wall will not be
constructed during the term of the special permit.
2. The building that is under construction is not in compliance with the architectural
elevations that were approved as part of the site plan review. One violation involves a
front door which was supposed to be facing Federal Street, and now the door is on the
side of the building. Other non-compliance issues include differences in the shingling
and the roof pitch.
Zambernardi reviews the Board’s options: (1.) Extend the special permit by way of the
abutter and the developer signing an agreement to extend the date, or (2.) Revoke the
special permit. Zambernardi states that it is not opportune for anyone to revoke the
special permit.
Dinkin explains that he is concerned with both of these issues, in particular he objects to
endorsing non-compliance.
Planning Board Minutes
September 20, 2006
Page 8 of 11
The applicant Mr. Sonny Antinarelli speaks to this situation, stating that he and his
engineer are meeting with the City engineers next week to determine the exact design for
the wall. And it will be built once it is approved. On the second issue, Mr. Antinarelli
states that there were two sets of plans and he did not have the right set. He was not
aware of any non-compliance issues until last week. He adds that architecturally the
building has been upgraded well above standard requirements.
Dinkin asks the Director of Municipal Inspections, Mr. Robert Nelson, if Mr. Antinarelli
was not supplied with an accurate set of plans.
Nelson explains that there was a change of owners on this project which might have led
to the confusion.
Thomson notes that his only real issue here is the absence of the door on Federal Street.
He asks Mr. Antinarelli how this change happened.
Antinarelli explains that the door was moved because the foundation was raised, causing
a need for additional front steps which would have put the bottom step in the middle of
the sidewalk. The door was moved to the side where there was adequate space for the
steps.
Dinkin advises Antinarelli that the Board’s roll now is to determine how to get from point
A to point B without having him rip down his building and start again.
Thomson suggests that the Board put this off until November.
Dinkin states that if construction on the wall is held up until November then it might not
be built until the spring. He adds that he would like to proceed by beginning the process
th
of revoking the special permit, enforceable on September 30, pending on a schedule that
gets the wall completed in this building season.
Killilea states that it will take at least one month to get approved drawings for the wall.
Thomson asks how long the wall will take to build after it is approved.
Killilea states that it depends on the type of wall that is designed. He adds that there is a
possibility that the existing wall must be taken down.
Dinkin asks Antinarelli if he is willing to commit to complete the wall within this
calendar year.
Antinarelli: Yes.
Planning Board Minutes
September 20, 2006
Page 9 of 11
Zambernardi states that there must be a public hearing to revoke an approval. She adds
that there will not be enough time to advertise for the October public hearing if they wait
th
until September 30 for the special permit to expire.
Much discussion ensues about the exact procedure.
Dinkin recommends that the Board schedule a public hearing for November 21 at 7:30
p.m. to revoke the special permit.
st
Thomson: Motion to schedule a public hearing on November 21 at 7:30 p.m. to revoke
the special permit for Federal Heights, with the provision that the public hearing will be
canceled if an agreement is signed by both parties extending the September 30 expiration
date and laying out a schedule that gets the wall built by the end of the year, seconded by
Walter. All members are in favor, none are in opposition. The Chair is in favor. The
motion passes 8-0.
Dinkin explains the procedure to Mr. Antinarelli, stating that the public hearing will be
cancelled if Antinarelli rectifies the violations, or shows documentation that such
remedies is in progress.
Dinkin states that Mr. Antinarelli needs to file a modification to his site plan in order to
get approval for his elevation changes.
Zambernardi explains that plans will be required for the completed structure.
Dunn asks about the second set of plans.
Antinarelli explains that he never got the right plans.
Thomson explains that the burden does not fall on the City to determine if the correct
plans are in the hands of the developer. The applicant has the responsibility to go to City
Hall and pull the plans and ensure that the construction is in compliance.
Antinarelli apologizes for the discrepancy and states that he takes full responsibility for
the mistake.
8. Proposed Zoning Amendment, City Council Order #170
Dinkin explains that the Board must recommend a joint public hearing.
Thomas: Motion to recommend to the City Council that they schedule a joint public
hearing for the proposed zoning amendment, seconded by Thomson. All members are in
favor, none are in opposition. The Chair votes in favor. The motion passes 8-0.
Planning Board Minutes
September 20, 2006
Page 10 of 11
9. Open Space Residential Design, (OSRD) Ordinance
Zambernardi explains that staff has drafted Rules and Regulations for the Open Space
Residential Design Ordinance passed in December 2005. She states that she is requesting
that the Board hold a public hearing for that and to amend the Board’s Rules and
Regulations governing fees for the next meeting. She adds that the application fee for
OSRD will be $400.
Dinkin asks how that number came about.
Zambernardi explains that it is equal to the Board’s special permit application.
Dinkin explains that the fee is related to the actual cost of the staff time in servicing that
application, not only for the cost of advertising the meeting schedule.
Thomson states that he thinks that it is a good number to start with.
Zambernardi states staff would also like to invite Mr. Ken Buckland of the Cecil Group
to make a presentation on his analysis and recommendations for the OSRD Ordinance.
Thomson suggests that the Board schedule the meeting with Mr. Buckland for October
th
16.
Dinkin asks that Zambernardi forward Mr. Buckland’s recommendations to the Board in
advance of the meeting.
Mack: Motion to schedule a public hearing to discuss OSRD Rules and
th
Regulations and Regulations Governing Fees on October 17 at 7:30 p.m., and that the
Board Members meet the night before with Ken Buckland so he can give his
recommendations on the OSRD, seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor, none
are in opposition. The Chair votes in favor. The motion passes 8-0.
10. Approval of Minutes – Regular Meeting, July 18, 2006
The Board reviews the minutes and suggested changes are made.
Harris: Motion to approve the amended minutes, seconded by Walter. 7 members
are in favor, none in opposition. Dunn abstains as she was not present for the meeting in
July. The motion passes 7-0-1.
11. Open Space Residential Design (OSRD) - Related Issues, Discussion
Zambernardi reads the portion of the ordinance that pertains to the yield plan, specifically
how waivers of the subdivisions rules and regulations should be requested.
Planning Board Minutes
September 20, 2006
Page 11 of 11
Dinkin states that this Board should not issue waivers relative to the Subdivision Rules
and Regulations.
Thomson agrees with Dinkin and notes that applicants cannot approach the Planning
Board in an attempt to obtain a waiver pending ZBA approval.
Much discussion ensues pertaining to the yield plan.
Zambernardi states that she believes that the ordinance states that the Planning Board
would not grant a waiver accept if a waiver has been previously granted by another
authority.
Dinkin asks if there is any other business.
No response.
Dinkin wishes all members a Happy Rosh Hashanah.
Thomas: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Walter. All members are in favor, none in
opposition. The Chair votes in favor. The motion passes 8-0.
The meeting is adjourned at 9:45 pm.