2011-05-10CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Planning Board — Special Meeting
SUBCOMMITTEE: -
DATE: Tuesday, May 10, 2011
LOCATION: Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard Dinkin, Vice Chairman John
Thomson, Michael O'Brien, Charles Harris, Ellen
Hutchinson, Ellen Flannery
MEMBERS ABSENT: David Mack, James Matz
OTHERS PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director, Leah Zambernardi
RECORDER: Diana Ribreau
Chairman Dinkin called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Harris made a motion to recess for a scheduled public hearing. Motion seconded by
Flannery. Motion carried 5 -0 -1 with the Chair abstaining.
1. Public Hearing and Discussion/Decision — OSRD Site Plan Application #02 -10 —
875 and 875 VS Hale Street — Montrose School Park, LLC.
Thomson made a motion to waive reading of the legal notice. Motion seconded by
Flannery. Motion carried 5 -0 -1 with the Chair abstaining.
The following persons were present on behalf of the applicant: Bill Bergeron, Hayes
Engineering; Jeff Rhuda; Attorney Brad Latham; James Emmanuel, Landscape Architect.
Jeff Rhuda, Symes Development discussed the adjustments made to the plan in response
to comments received at the last Planning Board meeting. He stated that the yard
easements have been eliminated; lot lines have been realigned; and the plan includes
50.17% open space. In addition, the site line easement has been executed. The requested
waivers were presented for review with the original application package. Rhuda
concluded by stating the plan is in full compliance with the ordinance. At this time he
passed the discussion over to Emmanuel, Landscape Architect, to discuss the landscaping
plans.
Public Meeting Minutes — Beverly Planning Board
May 10, 2011
Page 2 of 7
Emmanuel reviewed the landscape enhancements done to the revised plan, which
included the lawn area; wooded area; meadow /turf grass; and wetland area. Emmanuel
reviewed the planting area and mentioned that the types of plantings are listed on the
Landscape Plan.
Dinkin opened the meeting up for questions from the Planning Board.
Thomson asked Emmanuel to explain the vegetation in detail by describing the options
that are proposed for street trees, evergreens, shrubs, flowering trees, low plantings, and
ground cover.
Harris asked if the selections of plantings on the plans are options or if they are for the
actual proposed use. Emmanuel stated that there are a variety of options under the
categories of plantings to choose from and they will use what makes the most sense and
what is available to them at the time of planting.
Thomson asked that Emmanuel show the Board the new lot line boundaries. Thomson
said that the landscaping shown on the two middle lots with L shaped plantings appears
to create defined space and asked what the intentions are for those areas. Emmanuel
responded that it is more of a visual buffer between the site -line to the open space area
and acts as a buffer.
Rhuda explained that the "L shaped landscaping" enhances the open space area where
there is existing yard space. It also acts as a screen to the abutters behind the wetland
area.
Flannery asked for confirmation that the waiver requests are included in the
documentation they have. Latham responded that the waivers were included in the initial
application documentation.
Dinkin opened the meeting to any questions from the public.
Robert Lewis, 903 Hale Street, stated that he felt that it would be far better to put a row
of trees to act as a buffer /screening. He felt that adding trees rather than the landscaping
proposed would better define the open space and create a nice buffer zone for the abutters
but that both could be done. Latham responded citing the letter from the City Engineer
asking that they move any buffer 10 -15 feet from the drainage easement and that they
complied with that request.
RJ Lyman, 852 Hale Street, informed the Planning Board that he hired an Engineering
Firm to analyze the proposed site according to the OSRD Ordinance, which he feels the
applicant has yet to do. Lyman presented documentation relating to the discussion for the
record. Lyman said that the 4 lots appear the same on the latest plan presented vs. all the
Public Meeting Minutes — Beverly Planning Board
May 10, 2011
Page 3 of 7
other plans submitted by the applicant. He referred to page 6 of the document he
submitted and pointed out where the buildable area could be without getting a waiver
from the Planning Board. He believes that there are other options for the property other
than making the most profit possible and claiming that they are entitled to six lots.
Lyman said that according to Massachusetts State Law, the Subdivision Control Law is
the only body that gets to control how many lots they are entitled too. He then referred
the Board to Page 7 showing approximately what the applicant can build on the lots
without any waivers from the Planning Board or any other deciding body. He asked that
the Planning Board think sensitively and sensibly to what the applicant can build. Lyman
said that the applicant has requested waivers for buildable lot areas that went from 10,000
s.f. to 6,000 s.f and now to 4,300 s.f. He agreed that the applicant is eligible for 6 lots
however he asked the Board not to ignore what the applicant should be entitled to rather
than eligible for. He feels the representation by the applicant avoids the one waiver that
the Planning Board is unable to grant which is the standard for open space that is stricter
than anything else. He asked the Board if they feel that the proposed plans are so clear -
cut that they would make a decision that effectively guts the benefits to the Ordinance,
which is in place to protect the character of Beverly.
Latham responded by citing the purpose of the Ordinance. He reminded everyone that
the plans have already been approved for a 6 -lot Yield Plan and that the proposed plans
are a product of what the Planning Board suggested. The end product is a plan that
shows flexibility and creativity to the open space requirements in question. He asked that
the Planning Board respectfully grant what he and the applicant think is a good plan.
Lyman recited Section II.3 of the OSRD Ordinance. He added that the land was
purchased as 1 lot, which was then turned into 3 lots and now they are proposing 6 lots.
He states that this goes against Section II.3. Despite all the conversations over the past
18 months he feels that the plans do not look much different to him.
Latham stated that he respectfully disagrees with Lyman and shared his view for the
purpose for Section II.3 vs. Lyman's interpretation.
Nancy Coffey, 97 Haskell Street, Vice Chair of the Open Space and Recreation
Committee (OSRC) read a letter to the Planning Board from the OSRC. She stated that
she personally hasn't figured out the actual yard space that is shown on the plan. She
mentioned that representatives for the applicant stated that the back section of the
property is mowed lawn and she claims that it is not. Coffey disagrees with how the
plans can show yard area between the proposed houses and call it open space.
Elton Brown, 903R Hale Street said he would like to see an alternative to the proposed 6
lots and asked why an alternative has not been presented.
Public Meeting Minutes — Beverly Planning Board
May 10, 2011
Page 4 of 7
Bob Lewis, 903 Hale Street stated that it was his recollection from the OSRC letter
previously presented that open space is to be left as meadow and mowed twice a year.
He feels that the proposed plans go away from what the OSRC recommended.
Rhuda responded to Coffey's comment regarding mowed lawn and wanted to clarify that
the area is actual turf grass.
Thomson asked for clarification on the areas not to be disturbed on the plan. Bergeron
responded that it was shown on the plans presented before to the Planning Board and that
it still complies.
Tom Grant, 868 Hale Street, wanted clarification that the plantings shown on the plans
are part of the open space area. Bergeron responded yes.
Thomson suggested that the Conservation Commission and the OSRC have a chance to
review the Open Space Management Plan and other documents. Zambernardi responded
by informing the Board that the latest revised plan with all accompanying documentation
was sent out that day for comments.
Coffey stated that she just received the updated plan today, which did not give the OSRC
a chance to discuss the new material and make comments in time for this meeting. She
also mentioned that plans are dated January 2011. Zambernardi responded to Coffey
clarifying that there is a revised date on the plan of May 5, 2011.
Rhuda pointed out that nothing has really changed on the plans. The only comment from
the OSRC regarding the plan was the yard easement areas and they have been eliminated.
He continued to say that there should be no new comment from the Conservation
Commission or the OSRC. Rhuda agrees that the Open Space Management Plan and
other documents should be reviewed by all parties involved.
Latham approached the Planning Board suggesting that the Public Hearing be closed
pending the review of the documents mentioned.
Thomson stated that he had a few comments to make: Concern that the Open Space
Management Plan (OSMP) mentions structures and he feels that it should read that there
are to be no permanent structures of any kind and that should be clarified in the plan.
Rhuda said that the change could be made. Thomson pointed out that parking is
mentioned in the OSMP. Rhuda stated that would be removed. In addition, Thomson
noted a discrepancy between the documents 1/5 interest is mentioned in the Trust
document and 1/6 interest is mentioned in the OSMP. Rhuda confirmed that it should be
1/6 interest and will have the discrepancy corrected. In addition, in reference to the
Restrictive Covenant, Easement and Agreement - Open Space document, page 2, #4 -
Public Meeting Minutes — Beverly Planning Board
May 10, 2011
Page 5 of 7
Thomson noted that the bond amount reads $3,000. He asked if that amount came from
anyone in the City of Beverly's staff Rhuda responded no.
Tom Grant, 868 Hale Street, wanted clarification that relative to the prior plan there are
no changes to the plantings shown on the revised plan. Emmanuel stated that the
plantings have remained in place. Emmanuel stated that only the lots have been
reconfigured. Emmanuel explained that the plantings didn't move because they serve the
same objective as before. Grant asked Emmanuel what the estimated height of the trees
are on Lot 4 if they are 10 -12 ft. high when planted. Emmanuel stated that they could
range from a 15 -25 foot tree height. Grant felt that the heights of the trees are a bit much.
Rhuda questioned the lengthy discussion about the landscaping. He stated that the
landscaping provides some reasonable privacy and allows for free now of the land.
Thomson responded by saying he feels that the discussion on landscaping is relevant and
that there are concerns because the trees seem to be the definition of the owner's yard
area and that the open space character of the land would be impacted. Rhuda stated that
they have provided some type of screening rather than using signs to delineate the
meadow from turf grass and that the focus should be on the open space objective.
Thomson said that the landowners should see the markers in some shape or form.
Emmanuel agreed that the landowners would.
Dinkin stated that the intent seems to be to create on the ground what you are not able to
create at the Registry of Deeds.
Coffey asked if the Homeowners Association is the one responsible for policing of open
space. Latham responded yes. Coffey stated that with the Homeowners Association
being made up by the owners of the land, she cannot see that a neighbor would complain
about another neighbor putting up a temporary structure. Rhuda added that in addition to
the Homeowners Association, the City has a responsibility that the Homeowners
Association conforms. Rhuda agrees with Thomson's earlier suggestions that the OSMP
state that there should be no structures allowed in the open space area. Coffey said that
ultimately yards are being created and called open space.
Lyman presented submitted copies of an analysis he did based on the size of properties
and sales of properties in the Beverly Farms area. He stated that most everyone in the
room this evening lives in a home smaller than the ones proposed.
Thomson asked what the time frame is for the Planning Board's decision on the matter.
Zambernardi responded that the OSRD decision is required 65 days from the date of the
Public Hearing being closed.
Public Meeting Minutes — Beverly Planning Board
May 10, 2011
Page 6 of 7
Thomson made a motion to close the Public Hearing. Motion seconded by Flannery.
Motion carried 5 -0 -1 with the Chair abstaining.
Dinkin stated that the Special Meeting would remain in recess until 8:40 p.m.
Dinkin called the Special Meeting back to order at 8:40 p.m.
2. Discussion/Decision 875 Hale Street Definitive Subdivision Plan - create 6 new
lots in R10 Zone Montrose School Park, LLC.
Thomson began by stating that the proposed site has been discussed for a long time and
various versions of the plans have been presented. He recognized that many would prefer
a smaller design. He continues to believe and maintain that the Applicant is within their
rights and have demonstrated their Yield Plan is 6 lots, which has already been approved
by the Board. Despite all the discussions regarding marketability and value he feels that
the primary goals of the OSRD are respected and have been achieved. The Planning
Board asked that the Applicant present a plan, which would reduce the size of the lots
below 6,000 s.f and they have done so. He feels that the purposes of the Ordinance
would be unnecessarily frustrated if the Board held them to 6,000 s.f. lots. The applicant
has reduced the size of the roadway and has just barely met the 50% open space
requirement under the Ordinance. He stated that the appropriate parties such as the
OSRC and the Conservation Commission need time to work out the technicalities and
conditions on all new documents presented. The Board needs time to craft a detailed
decision. He suggested making a preliminary approval and taking the next month to draft
a decision to be voted on at the next regular meeting in June.
Dinkin wanted to discuss Lyman's point on the eligibility to further subdivide after an
ANR has been approved under Section II.3 of the Ordinance before moving on to
Thomson's comments. Dinkin stated that he has an advantage that he is privy to
legislative history with this Ordinance. The intent in crafting that particular portion of
the Ordinance is intended to prohibit a developer from escaping the requirements of an
OSRD with a thousand ANR's. The intent was never to prohibit further subdivision of
land that was otherwise sub - dividable s Lyman argued.
Thomson made a motion to make a finding that the primary purposes of the OSRD
Ordinance would be unnecessarily frustrated if the Board did not allow the
applicant to reduce the proposed lots below 6,000 square feet. The motion carried
5 -1 -0 ( Dinkin, Thomson, Flannery, Harris and O'Brien in favor) (Hutchinson in
opposition) (no one in abstention).
Thomson made a motion to preliminarily approve the OSRD site plan subject to the
Planning Board formulating a detailed decision with appropriate conditions to be
Public Meeting Minutes — Beverly Planning Board
May 10, 2011
Page 7 of 7
embodied in that approval to be considered at the June 21, 2011 regular meeting of
the Board. The motion did not carry 3 -2 (Thomson, Harris and O'Brien in favor)
(Flannery and Hutchinson in opposition) (Dinkin in abstention).
Dinkin asked for another motion. No motion is made. Dinkin stated that with no further
motion, this leaves the Planning Board 65 days to make a formal decision. Dinkin tabled
the matter until the June 21, 2011 Regular Planning Board Meeting.
Harris thanked the abutters for their contributions to the Planning Board's process. It is
his hope to see more active participation and the type of support shown by members of
the public moving forward.
3. Continued Discussion/Decision - 875 Hale Street Definitive Subdivision Plan -
create 6 new lots in R10 Zone - Montrose School Park, LLC
Zambernardi informed the Board that the developer submitted a Form Q assent to a time
extension from May 31, 2011 to June 30, 2011.
Thomson made a motion to extend the deadline for a decision on the project to June
30, 2011. Motion seconded by Flannery. Motion carried 5 -0 -1 with the Chair
abstaining.
4. New or Other Business
a. Beverly Golf and Tennis Club SANR - Request for 81X Certificate. Zambernardi
reminded the Board that they signed an 81X certificate for an ANR Plan at 134
McKay Street recently. The 30 -day time allotment to file the plan has expired so the
Planning Director has asked that the Board sign another certificate. Members of the
Board sign the certificate.
3. Adjournment.
Harris made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Motion seconded by
Hutchinson. Motion carried 5- 0 -1with the Chair abstaining.