Loading...
4-3-18 BPB MinutesCITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Board: Planning Board Meeting Date: April 3, 2018 Location: Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers Members Present Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Zane Craft, Ellen Flannery, Allison Kilcoyne, David Mack, James Matz, Wayne Miller Members Absent: Vice Chair Ned Barrett Others Present: Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne Recorder: Samantha Johanson, Recording Secretary Chair Ellen Hutchinson calls the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans None. Board Discussion: Scheduling a Joint Public Hearing on proposed Solar Ordinance and /or next meeting date Ellen Hutchinson stated some options for them to choose from. Board decided to hold a joint public hearing with the City Council and a regular meeting on April 23rd at 7 p.m. They will cancel the meeting scheduled on April 24th. Approval of Minutes Ellen Flannery submitted some grammatical changes. James Matz commented on some sentences that need to be clarified and separated into more than one sentence. He also comments on a sentence needing to be change regarding the run -off into a stormwater basin. He gave Darlene Wynne the rest of the changes to make to the minutes. Flannery: Motion to approve minutes for February 13, 2018, as amended. Mack seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (7 -0). Recess for Public Hearings Matz: Motion to recess to public hearing. Craft seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (7 -0). Continued Public Hearing: 20, 30, & 40 Webster Avenue Definitive Plan — creation of 1 lot — Benco, LLC Wynne tells the Board that the applicant is requesting a continuance of the public hearing to the May 15 meeting. Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 3, 2018 Mack: Motion to approve request for continuance of public hearing to the May 15 meeting and grant any extension necessary. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (7 -0). Continued Public Hearing: Site Plan Review Application #133 -17 — 40 & 100 Sam Fonzo Drive — Construct a commercial office and warehouse on existing vacant lot — Fonzo Realty LLC Wynne tells the Board that the applicant is requesting a continuance of the public hearing to the April 23r meeting. Mack: Motion to grant continuance of the public hearing to the April 23r meeting. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (7 -0). Public Hearing: Modification to Open Space Residential Design (OSRD) Site Plan #02 -10 — 875 Hale Street — Montrose School Park, LLC James Matz recuses himself from the public hearing. Wynne reads the public notice. Rhuda submitted an OSRD Site Plan in 2011 and gives the Board a brief explanation about what happened since then. He says that, at the time a group of neighbors did not want this project to happen, so the applicant was required to take a definitive conventional plan to Conservation Commission and get an Order of Conditions to prove the yield plan. The OSRD was approved in June 2011 and it was appealed immediately and then in July 2011 they got a conventional plan approved, with a condition that it complied with the OSRD and then they appealed that as well. Both appeals were administratively consolidated by the Land Court. The Land Court agreed to set aside the OSRD appeal so it could entertain a summary judgment motion on their part for the conventional plan. And then the court remanded the conventional plan back to the Planning Board for consideration on weighing the waivers that were granted for that plan, as well as the length of the dead end road. The applicant revised the plan and the Board made a second decision on the plan in September 2012 and sent it back to the court. In January 2015, the court ruled that the conventional plan was approved. They also dismissed all cases having to do with 875 Hale Street, and during the appeal the OSRD requirement was also dismissed, which left the applicant with two approved plans. This past fall Rhuda came before the Board for a modification to the conventional plan for the right of way. The Board agreed to reduce the right of way on the conventional plan to 35 feet. Rhuda adds that a neighbor, Kevin & Susan Barry, contacted him and asked him to reconsider the OSRD plan. Symes entered into an agreement with the Barrys and Mr. Lyman, another neighbor, on things they would do that everyone would be satisfied with. Rhuda then shows the Board two different plans, the one approved in 2011 and the 2018 proposed plan. He shows them the view easement on the proposed plan resulting from the settlement agreement. He notes they have increased lot sizes and joined lots together to reduce common area between lots, noting the only change is the lot lines. He shows them the original lot 2 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 3, 2018 size and open space areas. They went from 4,000 to 7500 s£ They drew the lot line 10 -15 feet in the back of the house to allow for more open space. The only thing that changes is the Open Space area that goes from 35,860 sf down to 22,582 sf. He describes the different open space areas labeled on the plan. Mack asks Rhuda if in the view easement if the prohibition is on the height of the trees. Rhuda tells him that he is correct. Mack then asks if it will be disturbed but could still be vegetative. He tells him that even though they are removing trees that are 50 -60 feet high they will be replacing them. Mack then asks him if the Area 2 buffer was not included in the original Open Space calculations. Rhuda tells him he is correct. Hutchinson asks if without that Area 2 are they at 31.6% open space. Rhuda tells her that is correct. Hutchinson asks if they were to include it what does it jump up to and he tells her that it would be 46 %. Wynne mentions that she included the easement on the side of the lot as Open Space in her calculation. Rhuda then shows them the landscape plan and points out where they will be planting evergreens. He says they are putting in more trees, and that some of the trees coming down are quite high, about 60 -75 feet high. Flannery asks how many are coming down. Rhuda answers about one -half dozen on their property, but he is not sure how many are going to come down on the Barry's property. Rhuda notes that on the conventional plan the trees were all probably going to be gone. Miller asks what kind of trees are on the property. Rhuda tells him some beech and oak. Rhuda tells them that the OSRD roadway plan is significantly different than what the conventional plan proposes. He shows them the roads overlaid on a plan so they can get an idea of the scale of the road and how much narrower it will be. Flannery asks about the turn-out in the OSRD. Rhuda demonstrates on the plan where it is. Wynne notes the turn-out is shown on sheet 4 and asks how it works. Rhuda answers it just a bump -out and it is not paved, but will be pavers going in. Craft asks him to point it out on the plan. Rhuda shows it on the plan. Hutchinson asks him to point it out so the public can see it. Rhuda shows them where the turn -out is exactly on the plan. He explains that in 2011 they did some turning radius with the fire department. He then shows them where the drainage flare (drainage pipe) is located on the plans and notes that the undisturbed area exceeds 50 %. Mack asks him to respond to the Open Space and Recreation Committee letter. Rhuda tells him that he has not seen it yet, but he believes the 2018 plan is superior to the 2011 plan. Allison Kilcoyne asks about the general differences between the two plans and previous cases. Wynne answers that she went and looked back at prior approvals and noticed that the Beaver Pond OSRD received an extensive waiver for Open Space, but did not include a conservation restriction area of the wetland. She also states that, at that time, 50% of the buildable area was interpreted to mean that the Open Space that was set aside had to occur within the buildable area. She tells them that since 2014 the other plans have included some conservation areas in the Open Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 3, 2018 Space area. Kilcoyne asks how often has the OSRD been something similar to this plan and is the Planning Board setting a precedent and have they done this before. Wynne tells her that the very first OSRD that came in had a waiver for Open Space, providing only 7 %, and that didn't include any conservation areas. But since then everyone has been at or above 50 %, but noted that if they took out some of the wetland areas some of the plans would go below the 50 %. She points that there is a section of the ordinance that allows the wetland buffer areas to be counted in that percentage as Open Space. Hutchinson asks Rhuda if the Board approved the modification, is the proposed plan the one he is willing to commit to. Rhuda tells her yes, provided the Conservation Commission approves it. He says there is an existing Order of Conditions on the conventional plan and that they couldn't do one on the OSRD because the DEP doesn't allow two Orders of Conditions on the same piece of real estate. Hutchinson then asks if there is another house that was supposed to be retained and he tells her they had to demolish it, due to neglect. However, the carriage house still stands. Miller asks about the area of the wedge of land on the plan west of Lot 3, noting that is considered open space area but not much they can do with it and it's a small percentage of the land. Miller asks if it counts or not towards the open space percentage because it is so close to the lot line. He shows them where the site easement goes on the plan. Rhuda answers it is part of the open space. Wynne asks Rhuda if this plan is approved how will the Open Space be managed and he tells her they would have an HOA. Hutchinson asks if anyone else from the Board has questions and then opens up questions to the public. Wynne mentions that she has received some additional letters from the public, including letters in the staff report packets from Meg Erickson at 885 Hale Street, Katie Vande Water at 117 Valley Street, Robert Metcalf at 894 Hale Street, Christopher and Cary Smallhorn at 82 West Street, Whitney and Nicola Savignano at 820 Hale Street. Wynne has since received letters from Toni Gal, 861 Hale Street which she reads into the record, stating "I reside at 861 Hale Street in Beverly Farms and have lived here for 15 years and I am very much concerned about the decisions made with the Whittier property in my immediate neighborhood. It is my understanding that final decisions will be made after the April Y Planning Board meeting as to the type of development that will be permitted. I would like to express my strong preference for the OSRD plan. I feel this plan, coupled with larger lot sizes, will result in a development much more in keeping with the long time feeling of the neighborhood. A smaller road to access the development should also keep a safer environment for all cars and pedestrians alike. I very much appreciate your taking the time to read my email and consider my views. Sincerely, Toni Gal" Wynne also received another letter from Elise Kelley at 850 Hale Street, to be read into the record, "My name is Elise Kelley and I am writing on behalf of myself and my husband Brian Kelley, we reside at 850 Hale Street and want to express our support for the amended OSRD plan for a more open space at the 875 Hale Street parcel. As residents of this lovely community we are quite interested in maintaining the integrity of Beverly Farms and its individual charm. 4 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 3, 2018 What makes this community so unique and desirable is that it does not look like a newer development with large roads and houses on top of each other. Much of the value of our homes and therefore the amount of taxes generated by our homes is due to the fact that there is space between our homes with nice plantings and small roadways that fit the age and history of this town. It would be a travesty to see this lovely community change into something that just isn't true to its history so therefore we very much urge you to approve the open space plan for 875 Hale." In addition, Wynne received a letter from the Fire Department on March 28 and they had no issues with the modification of the plans. She also received an email from the Engineering Department on April 3, and said their comments from the 2011 letter remain valid and they have no other issues. She also notes the Parking and Traffic Commission issued a recommendation on April 3, stating the same conditions as in the previous approval. Kevin Barry of 865 Hale Street stated initially he and his wife were against the development but they were advised to work with the applicant to come to some decisions on what they will do with that property. They support the amended OSRD plan and believe that if it is landscaped appropriately it will work very nicely. He tells them that with the conventional plan there was no room for landscaping. He comments that they will be doing some additional landscaping on their own property to complement the applicant's property. He hopes the Planning Board will approve the amended OSRD plan. Miller asks for clarification about the right of way, and Barry tells him that he is providing a sight line easement, which goes across his property and requires him to move a fence /wall, but it's not required under the conventional plan. Barry tells them he has a 2.3 -acre lot and he will be building his retirement home in the back with a driveway to the side, and if they put a smaller house in the back of the property, both houses get to enjoy the mature gardens. He notes Rhuda has agreed to provide him access to a new driveway under either plan. Flannery: Motion to close the public hearing. Miller seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (6 -0). Miller: Motion to reconvene meeting. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (6 -0). Hutchinson asks the Board to discuss the Site Plan. Miller tells her that he would like to hear from the Conservation Commission again. Hutchinson explains that they are either going to say that the wetlands buffer is now part of the calculation which increases the amount to 46% and they are either going to be in favor of it or opposed to it. She wonders if having them take it back will change anything. Miller is not sure it will change anything but says his concern is to press it since it is a waiver of the OSRD and still will be. Mack comments that if they consider this 31% or 46% over the years, the point of the OSRD it is to try to be flexible to put the right development in that makes the most sense and to preserve the space but also to give the developer and property owner the ability to make use of the property. He says that the fact that it is almost universally supported, the OSRD is a recommendation only and they can approve it in Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 3, 2018 part or whole. He thinks they have to make it subject to approval from Conservation Commission. Mack: Motion to approve the modified OSRD Site Plan including the grant of two waivers: from Section 300- 54H(1) that designated open space be a minimum of 50% of the buildable area; and from Section 300- 54H(1)(c) that required open space shall be contiguous; and subject to the conditions: 1. That the Open Space may be disturbed only pursuant to the Settlement Agreement (Montrose Trim Area) as noted on the plan. 2. That permanent markers shall be set to mark the boundaries of the Do Not Disturb Areas and the dedicated Open Space Areas from individual lots, prior to the release of the first Certificate of Occupancy or first sale, whichever comes first. Plan showing such markers to be reviewed by the Planning Department and a site walk will be required for confirmation. 3. Any provisions / conditions of the prior approval shall remain in effect unless superseded by this decision. 4. Subject to receiving the appropriate approvals from the Conservation Commission. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion passes (6 -0). Second Request for Minor Modification to Site Plan Review #93 -08 — 95 Sam Fonzo Drive — Mark Glovsky on behalf of The Coastal Group, LLC Mark Glovsky presents to the group the minor modification to the Site Plan. He tells the Board that the requirement of the buildings and other structures heights are all within the guidelines. At the February meeting the Board granted an extension to the applicant and also a request for modification to the height from 26 to 30 to feet, but the owner /applicant has decided to keep the height at 26 feet. He says the Building Inspector is fine with it, and the applicant can live with it and will compromise mezzanine space he originally wanted. Glovsky concludes the applicant is asking for a modification to take the plan back to the original 26 feet. Hutchinson asks Glovsky to clarify the plan change. Glovsky introduces Scott Haenssler of the Coastal Group. He points out the slope on the plans and explains that per the Section 300 -13 of the Zoning Ordinance, the slope can't exceed 34:1, which he says would be 12 1 /2 feet above the roof line. So if a plane were to fly over the building, he says it's more than adequate glide path. Wynne clarifies to the Board that there are two different plans and neither were included in the application: one says that the runway paint line to building and another that says end of runway paving to building. Glovsky apologies. He tells her in both instances they exceed the required slope. Miller asks Scott Haenssler about what degree a 34:1 slope is. Haenssler says it is 3.4 and that they calculated to the end of the paint line but they also calculated it from the end of the runway which is more restrictive. Miller asks if it is 3.4 degrees from the end of the runway. Haenssler 11 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 3, 2018 tells him that degree is the required glide slope and with the end of the paint line being further in from the actual end of the runway, that is less restrictive. But they have calculated both. Miller asks how many degrees it is to the top of the building from the end of the runway. Haenssler says that the building can't exceed this imaginary glide path. Miller questions it is 66:1. Haenssler tells him he doesn't know the answer to that. Miller asks if it is within the FAA guidelines and he tells him that is correct. Wynne clarifies that the 34:1 ratio is the City zoning requirement which is a standard for obstruction in the flight path. Miller asks if that is the same as the FAA guidelines. Hutchinson asks if they have heard from the FAA about this. Glovsky tells them that they are required to file a Form 7460 which gets filed but it is really advisory and they intend to do that. Miller states that a normal guide slope for a plane landing is 3 degrees. He says if this is 3.4 degrees that means a plane has to go higher than that. Glovsky tells him they do meet the City's requirement. Glovsky tells him that they do have a consultant, Armand Dufresne from Gale Associates, who is filing the 7460 and he doesn't anticipate any problems. Hutchinson asks if they need to bring him in. Miller says if they are landing the plane at a 3 degrees slope and 3.4 is higher than that, at 3 degrees a plane would hit the building. Haenssler tells him that he believes that it was 3.4 but they will redo the calculations and get the degree of the slope clarified. Glovsky explains that this land was disposed of by the City in 2007 and the new owner got site plan approval from the Planning Board at the time and had plans for the 26 foot high building. He tells the Board that they are just asking to return to the project that was previously approved and they aren't going any higher than the previously approved project. Hutchinson tells him maybe it was an oversight on the Board's part then, but it seems to be a real issue now. Glovsky says they will do the FAA filing and the Building Department will have to ensure they conform to the regulations. Matz asks him if the roof is 26 feet above ground level, what is the difference in elevation between the roof and the runway. Haenssler tells him it is 6 feet and change. Wynne asks Haenssler if he has surveyed the site. Haenssler answers they did get the new land survey and there were 2 datum and there was a discrepancy between the two; the one that the airport was built on and the one that Sam Fonzo Drive was built on. He notes they are using the runway that the airport currently uses and that is where all the numbers are derived from. Glovsky explains that the building is about 650 feet away from the end of runway, so 6 feet above the runway if it were adjacent to the runway would be significant but if it is 650 feet away it is far less significant. Hutchinson states that he and she are not experts on this and she defers to Miller on this. She asks him if they should bring in their consultant. Miller tells them that if its 650 feet away and 6 feet is much less than 3 degrees, it is not a problem at all. Glovsky tells him he doesn't know what that translates to in degrees but agrees with Miller. Mack asks if the original plan whether the proposed modification is reducing the height of the building is minor, and if they need zoning relief under this ordinance, he's not sure if that is the Planning Board's issue. Aaron Clausen explains that since they need site plan review for the project, then it is under the Board's purview. They typically review whether it meets the zoning 7 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 3, 2018 requirements such as building heights, parking, etc. and tells them that this is the right venue for them to ensure that its meeting those requirements. Mack says it seems like this is something they might have missed before. Glovsky comments the purpose of the site plan review and special permit was to do all that and it was done and all they are doing now is asking to change a condition from last month to go back to the originally approved height of the building. Mack points out that if the original decision was based on incomplete information, is the Board bound to say even though they are making it better and it is a minor modification, if it still leaves in place that flaw. Glovsky states that the Building Inspector is the one that has to enforce the ordinance and they have to satisfy the Building Inspector that they meet the requirements. He is surprised they are revisiting these issues for an approved project and he thought they just had to modify last month's modification to eliminate something they approved. Mack states they probably would've discussed it then if it had been presented and brought to their attention at that point. Glovsky states that he understands this would've been critical at the time they were increasing the building height but they are not changing the building height. Mack asks if when it was approved, it complied with the Zoning Ordinance. He asks if they want to continue this discussion to get further confirmation. Glovsky asks why can't they allow the modification tonight conditioned on confirmation from whomever they choose that they meet the requirements of Section 300 -13, because he thinks what they submitted which was the stamped plans from the Engineer, provides that. Hutchinson tells him that her concern is that most of the Board lacks the expertise to really understand what the plan is telling them and it would've made sense for Mr. Benson to be present to explain it to the Board. Glovsky asks if the modification they are asking for was conditioned upon a signed and stamped statement certifying compliance with Section 300 -13. Miller states that based on the diagram that he questioned how many degrees equate to 34:1 and their answer was 3.4 and that doesn't work. He thinks it's not clear from the diagram what the relative elevation is and if it is 6 feet above the elevation based on sea level then 600 feet away wouldn't be a problem. Glovsky comments that the elevation at the end of the runway and the elevation of the building used the same datum. Mack comments that the next meeting is April 23r and he understands that they want to expedite this but if they deem it minor and if a plane crashes into the building on approach to the airport it is not minor. Glovsky states that the request is minor to go back to the other height and they already deemed it minor. Wynne comments the FAA Form 7460 needs to be applied 45 days before they apply for the building permit. Glovsky states that he doesn't know that. Hutchinson asks for the Engineer to come in to answer any questions Miller has or any other members of the Board have and she is not sure what role the FAA form plays in all of this. Haenssler tells them that the FAA is an advisory board and that they make suggestions. Hutchinson comments if the FAA is going to offer suggestions then it is that much more E3 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 3, 2018 important for the Board to see what they are. Glovsky tells them they will return on April 23r with experts to answer any questions they have about the FAA's role. Flannery: Motion to continue the minor modification review to the April 23r meeting. Matz seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (7 -0). Set Public Hearing: Special Permit Application #166 -18 — 461 Rantoul Street — Request for 6 units to be counted as "credit units" as part of a new inclusionary housing permit application to be heard concurrently — 461 Rantoul Realty LLC Wynne tells the Board they have requested to be scheduled for April 24 but they will schedule it for the meeting on April 23. Flannery: Motion to set public hearing for April 23 meeting. Miller seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (7 -0). New /Other Business a. Environmental Notification Form — Dunham Ridge LLC, 50 Dunham Road Wynne tells the Board they have a site visit on Friday. Due to the holiday, they have requested a meeting with the MEPA reviewer and somebody from Cummings on Thursday if anyone can attend, either at 2 p.m. or 3 p.m. at City Hall and that this would be the only opportunity to have a full meeting and submit comments to her and the Planning Department could review them. The outstanding question is whether or not an Environmental Impact Report would be required. She says the Planning Department may request an EIR and more analysis, noting that is the point of the whole process. Miller asks what will happen on Thursday and Wynne tells him that they requested a meeting because they were unable to attend the site visit. So it is a meeting with the MEPA reviewer (the person who writes the decision) who tells them whether or not they have completed review or if they have to complete an Environmental Impact Report, which is more substantial analysis of impacts that are triggered by only the specific permits that relate to it. They are subject to transportation and possibly land alterations, and possibly wetlands. Adjournment Mack: Motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 pm. Matz seconds the motion. The motion passes unanimously (7 -0). E]