2010-06-15
CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION:
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE:
LOCATION:
Planning Board, Regular Meeting
MEMBERS PRESENT:
June 15,2010
City Council Chambers, Beverly City Hall, 3rd
Floor
Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice Chairperson
John Thomson, Joanne Dunn, Ellen Flannery,
Charles Harris, Ellen Hutchinson
David Mack, James Matz
Assistant Planning Director Leah Zambernardi
Andrea Bray
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
RECORDER:
Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order.
1. Sturtevant Street Extension - Set Public Hearin2 Date
Zambernardi states that the board approved this in 1987. The new owners have
submitted a request to remove Sturtevant Street Extension and rescind the 1987
subdivision approval and rescind the lot lines shown on the subdivision approval.
Hutchinson: Motion to schedule the public hearing on July 20,2010 at 7:45 pm,
seconded by Flannery. Passes 5-0. The Chair abstains.
2. Set Public Hearin2 Date - 875 Hale Street Definitive Subdivision Plan -
Montrose School Park. LLC
Zambernardi states that this is a filing for a 6-lot subdivision that conforms to the rules
and regulations for conventional subdivisions. She explains that Jeff Rhuda, with
Symmes Developmet, has notified her that they do not need a public hearing date set
tonight, and they are willing to extend their deadline for a decision to October 23,2010.
Dinkin clarifies that the board needs to accept the extension proposed by Symmes.
Thomson: Motion to approve the extension, seconded by Flannery. Passes 5-0. The
Chair abstains.
3. Future Meetin2 Dates
Zambernardi states that the next meeting dates are July 20 and then September 21.
Planning Board
June 15,2010
Page 2 of 13
4. Mass Development Finance A2enCy notification of Cape Ann Waldorf School.
Inc. application for revenue bond for proposed proiect
Zambernardi states that the Board needs to determine if this project conflicts with the
Master Plan, and Dinkin states that it does not.
Dinkin recesses the regular meeting.
Dinkin calls the meeting back to order.
Harris: Motion to recess for a public hearing, seconded by Flannery. Passes 5-0.
The Chair abstains.
5. Concurrent Public Hearin2s - Modification to Site Plan Review #40-98 and
Special Permit Application #123-10 - Construction of 79.200 s.f. addition for li2ht
industrial and stora2e in Watershed Protection Overlay District - Aero
Manufacturin2 / 40 & 100 Sam Fonzo Drive - Salvatore Fonzo. Trustee of S & D
Real Estate Trust
Zambernardi reads the legal public hearing notice.
Chris Sparages of Hayes Engineering reviews the site plan, making the following points:
. Currently there is a 65,000 square foot structure at 100 Sam Fonzo Drive, and
they wish to combine this parcel with 40 Sam Fonzo Drive.
. The total size of the combined 2 parcels will be approximately 13.4 acres
. There is a long parking field in the front of the building, and one along the side,
and one at the rear of the building.
. There is an existing stormwater management system containing deep sump catch
basins that drain to on-site wetlands. The wetlands have been delineated by his
office and confirmed by the Conservation Commission. The current system will
be expanded to include catch basins that drain into culverts under Sam Fonzo
Drive and into Bass River.
. Current utilities including telephone, water, sewer, electric and gas feed into the
building from Sam Fonzo Drive.
Sparages states that even with the proposed addition, which increases the size by
approximately 79,200 square feet, they are well under the maximum lot coverage of 40%.
In fact, he adds that they are only at 24%. He explains that the new addition will be split
into 2 pieces, 2/3 used as storage and 1/3 for manufacturing, and some of the products to
be manufactured are very large and will take up a lot of space.
Sparages states that the Conservation Commission is currently meeting to review the
proposed expansion of the stormwater management system, which is necessary as a result
of the increase of pervious surfaces. He explains that there will be a series of deep sump
Planning Board
June 15,2010
Page 3 of 13
catch basins from the parking lot, and some of the runoff will be directed to the existing
stormwater management system (being expanded). He adds that most of the runoff will
be will be directed to a large sub-surface infiltration area and when that fills up, some
will overflow and run into the wetland and then make its way into the Bass River.
Sparages states that the utilities for the new structure will be fed from the existing
building and existing utilities on Sam Fonzo Drive.
Regarding the traffic flow, Sparages explains that they will be closing one of the existing
entrances, and there will be a 24-foot wide travel lane that will accommodate a tractor-
traIsler. Pertaining to the parking lot, he states that the Conservation Commission had a
site visit and determined that the building is so large and there are only a few employees
in relation to the size of the building, so additional parking would not be necessary. He
explains that the Conservation Commission has requested that they hold off on finishing
the additional 59 parking spaces and only prep the area for these spaces. He adds that the
Conservation Commission would not be opposed to allowing this area to be paved at a
later date if the additional spaces are deemed to be necessary. Because of the
Conservation Commission's finding he explains that he would need to ask the Zoning
Board of Appeals for a variance from the required number of parking spaces. He adds
that if they later determine that they need to add the parking spaces, he would prefer if
they do not need to return to the Board with another application process.
Dinkin states that a variance cannot be time-limited in any way.
Thomson states that he doesn't see this as time-limited.
Jack Kelleher states that they have approximately 100 employees.
Dinkin asks how many employees there will be after the expansion.
Jack Kelleher states that the increase in employees will not be proportionate to the size of
the addition. He describes the operation of the company.
Sparages states that there will be wal-pac lighting fixtures on the addition.
Thomson asks about the ledge cut.
Jack Kelleher states that there is about 12-14 feet of grade change edged in rip rap .
Zambernardi reads the following letters into the record:
. Dated June 11, 2010 from Amy Maxner, Environmental Planner on behalf of the
Conservation Commission
. Dated June 15,2010 from Frank Killilea, City Engineer
. Dated June 14,2010 from Director William T. Burke, Board of Health
Planning Board
June 15,2010
Page 4 of 13
. Dated June 10,2010 from Robert Mezzetti, Airport Manager
. Dated May 26,2010 from Sergeant Joseph Shears, Traffic Safety Manager
. Dated May 21,2010 from William Fiore, Beverly Fire Prevention
. Dated May 10, 2010 from Kate Newhall, Associate Planner
Zambernardi states that the Parking and Traffic Commission began their review but
requested additional information from the applicant, and that information has been
provided, so the Parking and Traffic Commission will review this information at their
next meeting in July.
Zambernardi reads a letter from the Salem and Beverly Water Supply Board, dated May
24,2010, into the record.
Dinkin recesses the public hearing.
Dinkin calls the public hearing back to order.
Sparages states that they are seeking a special permit for a light industrial building and
storage.
Zambernardi states that the building with the addition falls within both 100 Sam Fonzo
Drive and 40 Sam Fonzo Drive and the overlay district lies right on the border between
the two lots.
Thomson asks if they apply to the avigation criteria for the airport.
Kelleher states that they have signed an agreement with the airport and this building will
be the same height as the original building.
Zambernardi states that 40 Sam Fonzo was purchased and she has a question about
whether an ANR was necessary because the addition crosses the property line and there
are side yard setback requirements in the IR zone.
Sparages states that once the properties merge they do not need to apply to the set-back
requirements.
Kelleher expands on this issue.
Thomson states that once the building is built across the lot line there would be no way to
subdivide these two lots in the future. He asks if they should keep the hearing open
because the traffic issue is outstanding.
Kelleher states that the Parking and Traffic Commission asked for modification because
of the entrance and exit on Sam Fonzo Drive and the Board could approve this
Planning Board
June 15,2010
Page 5 of 13
application pending approval of the Parking and Traffic Commission. He explains that
Sam Fonzo wishes approvals that will not require him to come back at a later date
regarding the parking area, and he would like to have the ability to pave that area if
necessary without further approval.
Thomson states that the Board can vote on the special permit tonight and continue the site
plan review.
Thomson: Motion to continue the site plan review hearing until 8:30 pm on July 20,
2010, seconded by Flannery. Passes 5-0. The Chair abstains.
Dinkin closes the Special Permit Application Public Hearing.
6. Public Hearin2 - Proposed Adoption of "Submission ReQuirements. Procedures
& Supplemental Re2ulations" pursuant to Section 29-34 of the Beverlv Zonin2
Ordinance entitled "Inclusion of Affordable Housin2" and amendments to filin2
fees and procedures of the "Plannin2 Board Re2ulations Governin2 Fees and Fee
Schedules"
Zambernardi reads the legal public hearing notice.
Dinkin recesses until 8:45 pm.
Dinkin reopens the public hearing.
Zambernardi refers to Appendix C of the staff report, and states that the Inclusionary
Zoning Ordinance was passed by the City in 2007. She explains that the Ordinance
stipulates that a development with over 10 units must have at lease 12% of their units
affordable. She says that the Rules and Regulations modeled on those of Shrewsbury,
deal with issues of preservation of affordability and compatibility requirements.
Zambernardi states that she would like to get feedback from the Board specifically on the
method used to determine the fee payment in lieu of providing affordable housing units.
She notes that the fee can be charged based on the gap between an affordable unit sale
price and the market rate median sale price City wide. An alternative to this would be to
group the market rate median sale prices by neighborhood. She explains that the
planning staff conducted a fee study. She describes the different fee formulas.
Thomson: Motion to recess this public hearing until July 20,2010 at 9:00 pm,
seconded by Hutchinson. Passes 5-0.
Dinkin states he would like public input on the fee structures.
Planning Board
June 15,2010
Page 6 of 13
7. Concurrent Public Hearin2s - Continued Site Plan Review Application #101-10
(from 5-19) and Special Permit Application #125-10 - Expansion of Italian
Community Center buildin2 for interior renovations of multifunction room.
community room. sports bar and amenities and expansion of 25% of a private club
in the CC Zone - 302 & 292 Rantoul Street - Italian Community Center
Zambernardi reads the legal public hearing notice for the Special Permit Application.
Brian DeLuiso states that the representatives from the ICC have met and approved the
plans.
Zambernardi reads a letter dated June 10,2010 from Beverly Main Streets.
Dinkin asks for comments from the public.
Wayne Wendell of288 Rantoul Street speaks in opposition to this, stating that he has 40
questions for the applicant. He says he was promised some structural details at the last
meeting and he hasn't received them. He provides pictures of the previous demolition
and what was left behind. He states that he has not received any plans or any answers to
his questions. He asks the Board for help.
DeLuiso states that the drawings are fully engineered and define the pile system that
eliminates the need to excavate below the surface of the grade.
Wayne Wendell states that it is a fabulous design but the applicant needs to provide
details to McPhail.
Thomson asks Wendell ifhis only objection is the structure.
W end ell lists other issues including sound from the ballroom, sound from the roof
systems, underpinning, the non-conforming lot with a non-conforming structure, water
control, monitoring points for the street and for his foundation, site dust control, pest
management, maintenance, access to his property, security in the alleyway, and sidewalk
poured concrete.
Thomson asks for a copy of the list for the Board to have on file and Wendell provides
photos and a list of his questions to the Board.
Thomson states that this hearing should be continued until July 20. He asks that the two
parties review these issues in detail and come back with a report.
Steve Tossi, President of the ICC, states that the Board is getting only one perspective
from Wendell. He explains that he tried to meet with Wendell twice and he was told that
he is too busy to meet. He assures the Board the he has talked to Connolly Brothers to
Planning Board
June 15,2010
Page 7 of 13
determine how to minimize the disruption to Wendell's building. He says that this would
have been resolved if he had the opportunity to sit with Wendell. He advises the Board
that Wendell's building is directly on the lot line. He states that he believes that it is
unfair that they be delayed again.
Wendell says he was promised structural details.
Tossi states that he provided the full set of construction drawings.
Thomson states that Wendell has raised some credible issues and they need to defer this
hearing. He adds that if Wendell continues to turn down offers to meet with the ICC then
he will be not be considered credible and the Board will proceed.
Thomson: Motion to continue this until 9:30 pm on July 20, on the condition that the
abutter makes himself available to meet with the applicant, seconded by Flannery. The
Chair abstains.
8. Concurrent Public Hearin2s - Special Permit Application #124-10 and OSRD
Site Plan Application #03-10 - Create One Pork-Chop Shaped Lot and Four Lots
(three new and one existin2) - 1 Lakeshore Avenue - Lakeshore One Avenue Realtv
Trust
Zambernardi reads the two legal public hearing notices.
Attorney Tom Alexander reviews the basic tests for the pork chop lot and states that this
lot would meet all of the guidelines. He adds that his client has chosen to go with a
significantly less dense design, and they are in excess of the requirement for open space
and it abuts a large open space.
Alexander reviews the waivers that are being sought:
. A waiver to work in the no-disturb zones along lots 1 and 4 to install fence and
landscaping
. A waiver to work in the buffer to the wetlands on lot 4
. A waiver of the $25,000 cash bond. Alexander states that it doesn't apply here
and it would only apply if a corporation or trust owns this open space
Alexander states that this plan makes sense, and they are living with half the density
permitted, which translates to less traffic.
Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering states that he has provided additional information
regarding the utilities. He states that he has submitted a drainage application. He
explains that the impervious driveway that is being removed from lots 3 and 4 almost
offsets the construction on those lots. He adds that the house on Lot 1 will have roof
Planning Board
June 15,2010
Page 8 of 13
drains so there will be no increase in the rate of volume of runoff, and the runoff will
remain the same on the site of the original house.
Griffin states that all along the street there are no houses that have 25-foot no disturb
zones. Regarding the driveways, he explains that they will be better off bringing in
driveways from Lakeshore Avenue where the grade is lower, rather than to place the
entry close to the corner of Cross Street and run the road in back where the grade is
higher.
Zambernardi reads the following letters into the record.
. Dated June 15,2010 from William T. Burke, Director of Public Health
. Dated June 15,2010 from Frank Killilea, Director of Engineering
. Dated June 7,2010 from Sergeant Joseph Shears, Traffic Sergeant
. Dated June 7,2010 from William Fiore, Fire Department
. Dated June 4,2010 from Kate Newhall, Associate Planner on behalf of the DRB
Zambernardi explains that she received an email from Amy Maxner on behalf of the
Conservation Commission that states that they will be reviewing the plans at the June 15
meeting. Additionally, she states that all of the comments from the department heads are
the same as those for the OSRD application, including Engineering, Fire and Police.
Thomson asks about the bond.
Alexander states that the endowment language is not required language. He adds that he
has discussed this briefly with Amy Maxner, and he is proposing that the Conservation
Commission would hold the restriction.
Thomson asks if the property owner has no intention for further subdivision, and
Alexander states that he does not.
Zambernardi asks if the open space will have public access.
Alexander states that it would be restricted public access, similar the Beaver Pond Road
CR and that area abuts other restricted open space.
Dinkin asks for questions from the public.
Sheila Ouellette of 2 Lakeshore Avenue asks if the driveways will be built out of
permeable materials.
Griffin states that they will encourage any future owners to use green building practices.
He clarifies the area of the existing driveway that will be removed and the new
impervious surfaces to be added.
Planning Board
June 15,2010
Page 9 of 13
Ouellette mentions the removal of the trees on the lots. She expresses concern about the
runoff from these lots once they are developed.
Griffin explains the drainage study.
Richard Lampman of 57 Cross Lane asks about footprints of the homes.
Griffin states that they are included in the drainage calculations.
Lampman asks about the depression in lot 1 and states that there is a huge puddle on
Lakeshore Avenue after a storm.
Griffin explains the catch basin and the depression on Lot 1.
Lampman states that the houses on Lakeshore Avenue without the 25-foot buffers have
been there long before the OSRD.
William Isler of 17 Lakeshore Avenue asks if the abutters could be notified of the
schedule for the site visit.
Isler expresses concern about the trees that will come down. He states that there is a
ledge and his cellar wall got a crack from the blasting when the neighbor built a pool.
Howard Kartstein of 18 Lakeshore Avenue states that when the blasting occurred on
Cross Lane it caused damage to his front door and it can no longer open. He says that the
puddle on Lakeshore Avenue is not a puddle; it is a lake. He expresses concern about the
2 new driveways coming onto Lakeshore Avenue creating a pedestrian hazard. He
advises the Board that there are no sidewalks on Lakeshore Avenue.
Dinkin asks Griffin if they will blast.
Griffin states that they will blast. He adds that the police did not have any problem with
the addition of the driveways.
Dee Dee Kartstein of 18 Lakeshore Avenue asks for details on the depression on Lot 1.
Griffin states that it is about 40' long and 30' wide and is sort-of oblong.
Kartstein asks how close it comes to the road.
Griffin states that it is within about 10-15 feet to the road.
Planning Board
June 15,2010
Page 10 of 13
Kartstein asks if he is familiar with what the City had to do in that area. She explains that
it was a major drainage project and it did not solve any problems and those homes are
still flooding.
Richard Lampman of 57 Cross Lane asks about the depth and volume of the depression.
Griffin states that the volume is included in the drainage reports he doesn't have it and he
can get it for the next meeting.
Edith Isler of 17 Lakeshore Avenue states that her house is 300 feet away and she is
concerned about the blasting.
Dinkin states that they can't be guaranteed that they will not have damage to their houses
but the applicant must insure and the insurance company will payoff on any damage that
occurs.
Donna Lampman of 57 Cross Lane asks about the redesign of the intersection.
Griffin states that they did include all of the details about the intersection and they will
not change the intersection.
William Isler of 17 Lakeshore Avenue asks why they cannot place the homes in a way to
avoid the need for blasting.
Griffin states that they determined that it was better to bring this driveway off of
Lakeshore Avenue and it would be better to have the driveways away from the
intersection of Cross Street.
Zambernardi reads the following letters into the record:
Dated June 14,2010 from William Isler, 17 Lakeshore Avenue
Dated June 11, 2010 from Leo Yaffa and Catherine Yaffa
Dated June 3,2010 from many residents of Lake shore Avenue.
Dinkin states that he is reluctant to close this hearing absent the comments from the
Conservation Commission.
Thomson: Motion to continue this hearing until 7:00 pm on July 20,2010, seconded
by Flannery. Passes 5-0. The Chair abstains.
9. Discussion/Decision: Special Permit #123-10 and Modification to Site Plan
Review #40-98 - Aero Manufacturin2 I 40 & 100 Sam Fonzo Drive - Salvatore
Fonzo. Trustee of S & D Real Estate Trust
Planning Board
June 15,2010
Page 11 of 13
Thomson: Motion to grant the special permit, subject to conditions mentioned in the
letters from the boards, and support their application for reduced parking as requested by
the Conservation Commission. The applicants shall not be permitted to re-divide the lots
once the buildings have been constructed. The motion is seconded by Hutchinson. All
members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 6-0.
12. Discussion/Decision: Special Permit Application #124-10 and OSRD Site Plan
Application #03-10 -1 Lakeshore Avenue - Lakeshore One Avenue Realtv Trust
The members schedule a site visit at 11: 3 0 am on June 26, 2010.
Dinkin asks if the property owner will allow the public to attend the site visit and
Alexander states that they may attend if they sign a waiver of liability.
Dinkin states that the site visit is not a public hearing and that means that while the public
is welcome to attend they may not speak.
Alexander mentions the 2 abstentions on the Board and Thomson states that the absent
persons can listen to the recordings.
13. Open Space Residential Desi2n (OSRD) #02-10 - Initial Review - 875 and 875 ~
Hale Street - Montrose School Park LLC
Jeff Rhuda of Symes Development states that he received feedback at the April meeting
and that the last plan submitted had 23% of the buildable area as open space. He reviews
the feedback. He explains that they are also submitting a 6-lot convention subdivision
with a drainage plan with zero runoff. He reviews the builbable area of the site and the
physical constraints on the property.
James Manual, Landscape Architect reviews the design process and then goes further into
the changes they have made as a result of the comments. He displays a new concept plan
and says that this new plan increases the open space to 43%.
Thomson asks why the ANR lots are not included in the configuration method. He adds
that the boundaries for those lots can be adjusted on those lots. He suggests clustering the
homes and moving the homes further back, away from the street. He suggests using a
shared driveway instead of a road.
Attorney Brad Latham requests that this be considered an additional acceptable plan.
Dinkin asks for comments from members of the public.
Planning Board
June 15,2010
Page 12 of 13
RJ. Lyman of 852 Hale Street presents a plan and states that the ANR lots and the
proposed lots are under single ownership. He clarifies the total buildable area. He
clarifies the definition of "tract" in the OSRD ordinance.
Bob Lewis of 903 Hale Street states that the Conservation Commission recommended a
peer review of the drainage design. He adds that the road should separate the yards from
the wetlands to prevent encroachment.
Kevin Barry of 865 Hale Street states that he has been talking to Rhuda for the past 5
months. He states that he wants to preserve all of the trees abutting his property, and he
doesn't wish to have the first house moved further back as suggested by Thomson
because his patio would be too close to the houses. He states that he wishes to have the
other 2 houses pulled back away from his boundary and closer to the wetland.
Thomson asks if he is in agreement with the other neighbors and Barry says no but he has
the most at risk because he is the closest neighbor.
Alfred Brown of903R Hale Street states that he has more at risk because of the water
issue and because of the hill, and he wishes to maintain the trees on the hill, and he
doesn't want to see the houses pushed to the south.
Bob Lewis of 903 Hale Street states that he uses his land on a daily basis.
Thomson: Motion to schedule a site visit on June 26,2010 at 12:45 pm, seconded by
Flannery. Passes 5-0. The Chair abstains.
Thomson suggests that the public send communications to the Board on the design prior
to the next meeting on this.
Attorney Brad Latham states that the public can come to the site visit if they sign a
waiver of liability.
Dinkin states that the public can attend but they will not be allowed to speak.
Thomson: Motion to continue this meeting until June 26,2010, seconded by
Flannery. Passes 5-0. The Chair abstains.
14. 875 Hale Street Minor Preliminary Subdivision Plan - Montrose School Park.
LLC
Thomson: Motion to take no action on the preliminary plan, seconded by Flannery.
Passes 5-0. The Chair abstains.
15. Approval of Minutes: April 20. 2010 Re2ular Meetin2
Planning Board
June 15,2010
Page 13 of 13
Harris: Motion to approve the minutes, seconded by Flannery. Passes 5-0. The
Chair abstains.
Hutchinson: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Flannery. All members and the Chair
vote in favor. The motion passes 6-0.