2010-11-16CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Planning Board
SUBCOMMITTEE: -
DATE: Tuesday, November 16, 2010
LOCATION: Beverly City Hall, Council Chamber, Third Floor
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard Dinkin, Vice Chairman John Thomson,
Joanne Dunn, Ellen Flannery, Charles Harris, Ellen
Hutchinson, David Mack, James Matz
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director, Leah Zambernardi
RECORDER: Diana Ribreau
Chairman Dinkin called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Subdivision approval Not Required Plans (SANR's)
a. 237 and 271R Hale Street — George Lodge, Jr. and Jennifer Lodge. Zambernardi
stated that the applicants are requesting in their proposal to extinguish a lot line between 237 and
271R Hale Street with the purpose of combining the lots into one lot (to be named - 239 Hale
Street).
Thomson: Made a motion to approve the proposed request to combine the aforementioned
lots into one lot. Motion seconded by Flannery. Motion carried 7 -0 -1 with the Chair abstaining.
b. 39 and 45 Broadway — Donald E. Kowalski. Attorney Thomas Alexander was
present on behalf of Dr. Donald Kowalski. Alexander stated that Dr. Kowalski owns 39 and 45
Broadway. Dr. Kowalski operates a dental office at 39 Broadway and 45 Broadway is currently
a vacant rooming house. Parking spaces for Parcel A (39 Broadway) are currently cut -off from
45 Broadway. The request for a parking easement would allow Parcel A to continue to have
parking for the dental office during the day and parking will be reserved for the rooming house
residents at night. Alexander stated that it conforms to the City zoning and SANR guidelines
and the request is really to formalize what has been in existence for some time.
Dinkin asked how many units total in the rooming house. Alexander stated 16 units.
Dinkin asked Alexander if the intent is to market 45 Broadway for SRO's. Alexander responded
that the plan is to keep the building vacant for now. If the opportunity to partner with the
Commonwealth were presented again he believes Dr. Kowolski would welcome it. The property
is on the market now but Alexander stated that Dr. Kowolski has expressed that his first
preference would be to entertain a contract with the Commonwealth as was done in the past.
Harris: Made a motion to accept the applicant's request. Motion seconded by Flannery.
Motion carried 7 -0 -1 with the Chair abstaining.
Public Meeting Minutes — Planning Board
November 16, 2010
Page 2 of 8
New or Other Business
a. Set date, time, and place for holiday dinner.
Thomson asked if the Beverly Golf and Tennis Club has a function room to accommodate a
Holiday party. Zambernardi said that it does.
Wild Horse and Chianti were also suggested by board members.
Flannery said she would research the above - mentioned venues for availability and get back to
everyone.
The date and time for the holiday dinner was agreed upon to be held on Tuesday, December 14,
2010 at 6pm.
b. Set date and location for January meeting.
Zambernardi stated that the Council Chambers is not available for the upcoming January 18,
2011 Planning Board Meeting. Board members decided that the meeting will be held on January
18, 2011 at the Beverly Senior Center at 7:30 p.m if it is available. If not, the library will be
used.
C. Planning Board Member Designee to Open Space and Recreation Committee
Matz offered to take the spot for the Open Space and Recreation Committee.
Thomson: Made a motion to recommend to the Mayor that James Matz be appointed as the
Planning Board representative on the Open Space and Recreation Committee. Motion seconded
by Flannery. Motion carried 7 -0 -1 with the Chair abstaining.
d. Meeting reminder - Metropolitan Area Planning Council Public Meeting on City
and Regional Open Space and Economic Development Priorities - Wednesday,
November 17, 2010 at 6:30 p.m., Council Chambers, City Hall
Dinkin reminded members of this meeting and that the meeting notice is contained in appendix
A of the staff report.
e. Approval of Minutes: September 21, 2010 Regular Meeting
Matz suggested the following changes be made:
• Page 6 of 10, last paragraph, 3. change 32,00 to read 3,200 s.f.
• Page 7 of 10, first sentence, second paragraph, to read "stamped by Mr. Ogren"
removing "stampled ".
• Page 7 of 10, second sentence, paragraph two, to read "He states the discrepancy
is that the neighbors VHB plan does not omit that which is required to be omitted
by the Rivers Act ".
Public Meeting Minutes — Planning Board
November 16, 2010
Page 3 of 8
• Page 9 of 10, Remove 5 th paragraph from the minutes
Harris: Made a motion to approve the minutes dated September 21, 2010 with the above
mentioned amendments. Flannery seconded the motion. Motion carried 7 -0 -1 with the Chair
abstaining.
Dinkin calls for a five minute recess.
Thomson: Made a motion to recess the meeting for five minutes. Hutchinson seconded the
motion. Motion carried 7 -0 -1 with the Chair abstaining.
Dinkin called the meeting back to order. The meeting reconvened at 8 p.m.
Thomson: Made a motion to reconvene the meeting. Hutchinson seconded the motion. All in
favor. Motion carried 7 -0 -1 with the Chair abstaining.
Public Hearing: 26R Michael Road Definitive Plan- Norwood Realty TrustZambernardi read the
legal hearing notice.
Attorney Thomas Alexander was present on behalf of Norwood Realty Trust. Alexander
reviewed the history of Dr. Norwood, a local pediatrician who has practiced since 1965. In 2006,
Dr. Norwood owned two lots on Michael Road of which one was sold to the Goodwin Family
(26 Michael Road). Dr. Norwood is looking to build a single family residence on the remaining
lot and is seeking to pave the layout of Michael Road which would create 100 feet of frontage
which requires paving. The lot itself has adequate square footage at 10,003, where 10,000 is
required in an R -10 zoning district. The proposal went before the Zoning Board of Appeals
(ZBA) originally requesting a shorter paved road of approximately 50 ft. It is documented that
21 out of 23 neighbors supported the variance request. Two neighbors have concerns with the
shorter paved way. The ZBA put the matter on hold. The plans have been changed to show the
full 100ft. of pavement to accommodate the neighbors' request. The applicant proposes that the
Michael Road Extension be a Public Way in accordance with the City's Rules and Regulations
Governing the Subdivision of Land. The Michael Road Extension will create accessible frontage
for an existing 10,003 s.f parcel in the R -10 zoning district. The project proposes to:
• Extend Michael Road approximately 100 ft. within the existing right -of -way. The
paved portion of the extension will be 32 -feet wide;
• Provide municipal water, sewer, gas, electrical, telephone, and cable services to
the single - family parcel;
• Provide a 500 gallon drywell to infiltrate the storm water runoff from the
proposed driveway and a portion of the roof that is captured by the proposed
trench drain.
• Construct a single - family residence with attached garage and associated driveway
and landscaping.
Public Meeting Minutes — Planning Board
November 16, 2010
Page 4 of 8
• Providing a "hammerhead" turning area for large vehicles at the end of the
extension. The applicant will provide a Turning Easement on the lot to the City
of Beverly for a portion of this.
Zambernardi read the following letters that were submitted for the record aloud:
1. Board of Health, letter dated November 9, 2010
2. City of Beverly Fire Department, letter dated November 3, 2010
3. City of Beverly Police Department, letter received November 2, 2010
4. City of Beverly Engineering Department, letter dated November 16, 2010
5. City of Beverly Conservation Commission, letter dated November 16, 2010
Griffin noted that the street layout does not fully conform to the design standards published in
the City of Beverly Rules and Regulations Governing Subdivision of Land however, the
proposed layout is similar to the existing Michael Road Layout and to the extension of
Berrywood Lane which was approved by the Planning Board in May, 2001.
Griffin described the requested waivers from the following design standards outlined in Sections
III, IV, and V of the subdivision regulations:
• Section III, C. 3 . Required: The engineer to provide an Adequacy of Ways report
analyzing the ways providing access to the subdivision.
Provided: Preparing this report deems unnecessary. The extension of Michael
Road will provide access to only one single - family residential parcel and will not
significantly impact the existing ways.
• Section IV, A. 5.b. Required: Dead -end streets shall have a turn - around having an outside
roadway diameter of at least 100 -ft and property line diameter of at least 120 -ft.
Provided: The existing parcel and right -of -way lines are not wide enough to
provide such a turn - around. An alternate AASHTO - compliant turning area is
provided which utilizes the 32 -foot wide roadway and a turning easement area in
the proposed driveway for maneuvering.
• Section IV, J. Required: All utilities shall be placed underground at the time of initial
construction including electrical and telephone.
Provided: The electric, telephone, and cable services are proposed to be overhead
to match the existing utility services.
• Section V, C.2.a.1 Required: The regulations require a minimum 8 -inch diameter water
line.
Public Meeting Minutes — Planning Board
November 16, 2010
Page 5 of 8
Provided: Approximately 180 feet of 1 -inch Type "K" water service will connect
from the proposed dwelling to the existing 6 -inch water line in Michael Road.
• Section V.D.2. Required: The sidewalk shall extend the full length of each side of the
street and shall be a minimum width of 5 -ft.
Provided: Existing sidewalk on the west side will extend to the proposed
driveway and match the existing sidewalk width of approximately 4 -ft.
• Section V.E.1. Required: Straight face granite curbs of 6- inches in height shall be
provided along each side of the roadway.
Provided No curbing is proposed.
Griffin stated that in keeping consistency throughout the neighborhood the request has been
changed from 100 ft. to 107ft. of pavement to bring it to the edge of the property line.
Thomson asked for verification as to the location of the catch basins. Griffin gave the details to
Thomson's satisfaction.
Matz asked about the history of the pipes and drainage in the area and if there is any knowledge
to excess storm water or flooding. Griffin responded that he has no knowledge of the catch
basin's history.
Griffin went over the drainage calculations stating that the actual in -flow up from the knoll to the
properties are in four directions.
1. The water flow calculations will reduce flow towards 35 Berrywood Lane
2. South East direction increases slightly into a large depression in the woods
3. South West flow direction (City of Beverly parcel) small increase in flow in 2yr to 100 yr
storm frequency.
4. No increase in direction to the Goodwin property.
Dinkin called a ten - minute recess with discussion of Michael Road. The meeting recessed at 8:30
p.m.
Continued Public Hearing - 875 Hale Street Definitive Subdivision Plan- Montrose School
Park, LLC
At this time, Dinkin asked Zambernardi to update the Board.
Zambernardi stated that the Planning Board received a letter dated November 12, 2010 with a
receipt dated 11/16/2010 in which O. Bradley Latham makes a request for and consent to an
extension of time for the Planning Board to act on a definitive subdivision plan filed under the
Subdivision Control Law. The waiver reads: Pursuant to the General Law Chapter 41 Section
81U Montroe School Park LLC, 50 Dodge Street, Beverly, MA herewith requests and assents
Public Meeting Minutes — Planning Board
November 16, 2010
Page 6 of 8
to an extension of time from November 23, 2010 to December 28, 2010 within which the
Planning Board can take final action on a definitive subdivision plan entitled "Definitive Plan,
875 Hale Street, Beverly, Mass ". They also requested an extension for December 21, 2010 as a
continued hearing date.
Dinkin asked if anyone is in the audience that would like to speak regarding the aforementioned
matter.Being none, he asked the Board to make a motion.
Thomson: Made a motion to grant the extension to December 28, 2010 with a continued
hearing date of December 21, 2010. Mack seconded the motion. Motion carried 7 -0 -1 with the
Chair abstaining.
The meeting reconvened at 8:40 p.m. to continue the public hearing on Michael Road.
Continued Public Hearing: 26R Michael Road Definitive Plan- Norwood Realty Trust
Paul Goodwin, owner and resident of 26 Goodwin Road asked what would happen if a storm
comes that the basins can't handle being that the drywell is close to his property. Griffin replied
that any driveway run -off will hit the trench drain but water elsewhere will continue on down
Michael Road into the catch basins and will not reach Mr. Goodwin's property.
Mr. Goodwin asked if there was anything that was preventing the drywell to be on the other side
of the property. Griffin said that the location of the underground utilities lines would prevent
that from taking place.
John Horrigan, of 33 Berrywood Lane, said that the Planning Board had previously approved a
variance and granted the right to build his house which was subdivided between 35 Berrywood
and now 33 Berrywood. He feels that the Planning Board should take that information into
consideration and grant the same to Dr. Norwood.
Brian Maloblocki, abutter at 23 Michael Road, said that now that he has talked with Mr. Griffin
during the recess about the telephone utility pole that is to be installed after his property line, he
is not in opposition to the project.
Thomson stated the importance of being consistent throughout the neighborhood and asked what
the options would be to decrease any run -off to make things comply. Griffin replied saying he
could not think of anything that would make the run -off decrease further. A drywell could be put
in to replace the isolated large depression but he didn't feel that it would be necessary.
Dinkin said that his understanding is that beyond the proposed driveway, there is no use for
pavement except to provide meaningful frontage. He asked if there is any reason why the back -
end of the driveway could not be narrowed to reduce the permeable area. Griffin responded by
stating again that the plans originally had 50 ft. of paved road rather than a full 100 ft. however,
two of the neighbors objected at the ZBA meeting and they are trying to accommodate the
neighbors request and are now presenting the request to the Planning Board before going back to
the ZBA with the application for a variance.
Public Meeting Minutes — Planning Board
November 16, 2010
Page 7 of 8
Paul Goodwin and Brian Maloblocki (26 and 23 Michael Road respectively) stated that they are
the two direct abutters that raised concerns and did not sign off with the other 21 neighbors.
Goodwin said that in the wintertime the snow plows push all the snow from the entire street to
the end which is where their properties are. This prohibits parking around the bottom of the
street. Every year they have to clean up and reseed the areas that snow plows have destroyed. He
does not feel that having only 50 ft. of pavement is enough frontage. It would force the snow
plows to do the same for the proposed lot which would further be a problem with parking on the
street with visitors, deliveries, etc. He continued to say that he felt it affects the resale value of
his property and their way of life when people are forced to park in the street rather than in their
own driveway. He doesn't see any big hardship to have the 100 ft. frontage especially where all
the other houses on the street have it.
Both Goodwin and Maloblocki stated that in the 3 + years they have both lived in their homes
they have not had any water leakage in their homes nor has there been any icing on the street.
Dinkin stated that the Hearing is now closed.
Discussion/Decision: 26R Michael Road Definitive Plan - Norwood Realty Trust
Dinkin asked the Board what the decision will be.
Mack: Made a motion to approve the plans with the requested waivers and subject to the
conditions set forth in the letters received. Hutchinson seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-
0-1 with the Chair abstaining .
Continued Discussion/Decision - Proposed Adoption of "Submission Requirements,
Procedures and Supplemental Regulations" pursuant to Section 29 -34 "Inclusion of
Affordable Housing" and amendments to "Planning Board Regulations Governing Fees
and Fee Schedules"
Zambernardi referred members to Appendix D of the staff report. Dinkin stated that the next
agenda item is a continued discussion on the procedure for calculating "fees in lieu of in the
Inclusionary Housing Regulations. There is an agreement on all aspects of the regulations "save
the fee structure ". The question is can we adopt the balance of the regulations without adopting
the fee structure? If so, is there a way to deal with fee structure to at least have a bottom line for
developers. Dinkin said there needs to be some guidance and asked the Board their thoughts on
the matter.
Thomson said he didn't feel that there has been enough critical mass with the board members to
tackle the fee question without having some disagreement on the matter and lengthy discussion.
Thomson feels that more time is needed to discuss the fee schedule.
Dinkin said another question to consider is whether to apply a city -wide rate or break rates into
neighborhoods charging a fee significantly higher between affordable units and market rate units.
Dinkin said that it seems odd that the proposal penalizes developers who develop in areas where
housing is more affordable.
Public Meeting Minutes — Planning Board
November 16, 2010
Page 8 of 8
Thomson asked if you can base it on the cost of building houses rather than the market rate.
Instead of legislating a fee ahead of time the applicant would need to present the real cost to
construct the unit(s). Adding that the average cost not be less than $50,000. Dinkin said that you
would need to include the land acquisition cost and that this scenario would be difficult to break
down.
Mack stated that there are too many variables with soft /hard /developer costs. It would be
impossible to pinpoint with enough precision to come to any decision for a fee structure.
Hutchinson presented a possibility of taking a percentage of the average sales price for the last 2
fiscal years and have it be on a graduated scale so there are increases from less affordable
neighborhoods to more expensive neighborhoods in the city. Hutchinson stated she feels that
coming up with a graduated fee schedule would make it so that the least expensive are paying a
smaller amount based on the average sales price.
Zambernardi suggested a subcommittee be created to discuss the matter further. Dinkin agreed
and asked that Matz, Dunn, Hutchinson with Mack helping out as a part -time subcommittee
member be on board to discuss before the next scheduled planning board meeting.
Thomson: Made a motion to approve the " Submission Requirements, Procedures and
Supplemental Regulations" for the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and amendments to
"Planning Board Regulations Governing Fees and Fee Schedules" as drafted with the exception
that the "fee in lieu of units" shall be revised to not less than $50k and not more than $lm per
unit subject to the discretion of the Planning Board. Flannery seconded the motion. Motion
carried 7 -0 -1 with the Chair abstaining .
Adiournment
Matz: Made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Dunn seconded the motion. Motion
carried 7 -0 -1 with the Chair abstaining . The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.