Loading...
1998-07-14 Minutes Beverly Planning Board July 14, 1998 Meeting Members present: Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice-Chairman Bill Delaney, Salvetore Modugno, Ellen Flannery, Joanne Dunn, John Thomson, Peter Thomas and Robert Rink. Also present: Planning Director Tina Cassidy, Director of Engineering Frank Killilea, ar., and Susan Akerman, Secretary to the Board. Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Delaney: Motion to recess for public hearings, seconded by Thomson. Dinkin, Deleney, Thomson, Modugno, Dunn, Flannery, Thomas and Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Public Hearings: Site Plan Review Application #38-98 / new McDonald's Restaurant at 224 Elliott Street (Stop & Shop site) / The McDonald's CorPoration Cassidy reads legal notice. Attorney Thomas Alexender addresses the Board ~nd reviews the site plan proposal for a new McDonald's Restaurant at 224 Elliott Street. Attorney Alexander explains that the proposal has beem. reviewed by the Design Review Board and notes that their suggestions/recommendations of that Board has been incorporated into the plan, and that the proposal has been reviewed as well by the Traffic & Parking Commission and the Conservation Commission. Attorney Alexander states that a number of questions have been raised regarding the amount of parking spaces on site, and explains that the impervious area is actually smaller than that which was previously approved by the Planning Board and Conservation Commission during the Stop & Shop site plan review in 1995. Attorney Alexander states that the impervious area has beenreduced from 76% to 64%. Attorney Alexander states that the as-built plans for the Stop & Shop project, and plans indicating how they intend to connect the sewer system for this particular project have been submitted tothe Director of Engineering for review, and have been approved. Beverly Planning Board July 14, 1998 Meeting Page Two Dinkin states that at the last meeting McDonald's agreed to assume responsibility for cleaning up the trash around the building, the parking lot and the adjacent public park twice a day. Cassidy reads the following letter received since the June meeting. - Letter from the Engineering Department dated 7/14/98. (On File) Dinkin asks the Board if they have any clarifying questions. Thomas asks if McDonald's would be willing to expand their area of trash pick-up a little more, to include the sidewalks, and the area along the Bass River. Attorney Alexander states that it wouldn't be a problem, that McDonald's want to keep the area clean, and that the concerned parties can come to an agreement. Thomson states that at the last meeting he asked whether or not there was any other development planned for this site and, the answer was no. He states that he knows there is another proposal for that site. A proposal for a gas station has been filed with the Board of Appeals for the opposit corner of the Stop & Shop parcel. Attorney Alexander states that he doesn't believe that was his answer, because obviously there is a proposal out there. Thomson asks Attorney Alexander if he considers this to be a different site than the one for the gas station. Attorney Alexander responds yes, because it is at the farther end of the area. Thomson asks if the parcels are under the same ownership. Attorney Alexander responds yes, the McDonald's site will be a lease arrangement with Stop & Shop. Dinkin explains that McDonald's will be a lease holder, and that in the Board's discussion of re-zoning the area, it was made clear to the Board that a second retail use would exist on the single site. A 9,600 square foot footprint was shown on that site plan. Thomson asks if the Board should consider a site plan approval application when the Board knows that there is another development being proposed to the site, because members of the Board might have an objection to another use. Attorney Alexander states that at the time another proposal goes forward the Board could reject the other use, or the Board would have to pick one if the Board thought two site proposals were too much for this property. Thomson states that the Board has a proposal in front of them and questions how the Board can adequately and properly deal with this site proposal without knowing all the facts. Beverly Pla-~ing Board July 14, 1998 Meeting Page Three Delaney states that he feels the same way as Mr. Thomson, and that he thinks this matter is directly linked to the whole traffic issue, that there are two particular proposed uses that will impact on Elliott Street, and feels that the Board can't make an informed decision without all the information being considered. Delaney further states that if the Board didntt know about the second proposal, no problem, but the Board does. Delaney also suggests that the Board request more information with respect to a traffic analysis for both uses. Dinkin states that he does not agree entirely with Mr. Thomson or Mr. Delaney, but does concur that issues related to site plan approval are different from those surrounding variance and special permit requests (the gas station would need a special permit from the Board of Appeals). While the Planning Board could defer its decision on the McDonald's site plan until the special permit application is decided on by the Board of Appeals, he personally feels comfortabel considering and voting on the site plan separately. Dinkin observes that if the Board follows Mr. Thomson and Mr. Delaney's suggestion, the applicant would not be able to develop any segment of this large parcel until the owner had development plans for the entire site, but that he is not sure how reasonable that demand would be given the way retail business is done. Thomson states that it is the Board's option whether to consider this proposal independently or as part of the same proposal, because the property is under the same ownership and the two additional businesses will share the same entrance to the same main street. Delaney states that traffic is the key concern with this project, and asks Attorney Alexander if the applicant has access to information that would give the Board a sense of how much traffic will be generated with a fast-food use. Attorney Alexander states that he believes that he can access that information, but he does not have that information with him this evening. Attorney Alexander addresses the Board and explains that there will be two separate sites on one parcel, that the owner has the ability to control what else goes on the site, and that he has never seen the Board take this precedent before. Thomson states that this is a unique proposal that involves an intersection of several major roads, including one that is under on-going traffic monitoring, and he feels that site plan review requires a case by case judgment by the Board. Beverly Planning Board July 14, 1998 Meeting Page Four Flannery asks if there is a reason why McDonald's won't consider reducing the nua~er of parking spaces proposed for the McDonald's. Attorney Alexander states that McDonald's does a lot of market research, and that the number of parking spaces proposed makes sense to them for business reasons. Joyce McMahon, Councilor-at-large addresses the Board and suggests that the Board delay their decision until this issue of a possible gas station proposal goes before the Zoning Board of Appeals, that their decision might change the way the Board reacts if one proposal is preferred over the other. McMahon further states that trash is a major issue, and that she would like McDonald's to consider a once a day clean up in the areas that include Elliott Street & the Bass River, McKay & Elliott Streets, and the fence along McPhearson Drive where a lot of trash might collect. These three locations are the areas she would like McDonald's to agree upon for a once a day clean up to make sure the area is kept clean. Ward 1 Councilor Maureen Troubetaris addresses the Board and states that she was in favor of the Stop & Shop site and the site development shown on this site plan but that she is dead set against the other proposal for a gas station. She agrees with Mr. Thomson and Mr. Delaney that this will have an even greater impact on traffic. Troubetaris further states that she does not want to see the old traffic study used because the area has changed so much, that she would like to see this public hearing delayed as long as possible, and recommends that the Board use up the statutory 65 days for review to see what the Zoning Board of Appeals decision will be. These two site proposals go hand-in-hand and will have a great impact on her neighborhood. RoseMary Maglio of Pleasant Street states that she is opposed to two commercial uses on the property, and considers that there are already two commercial uses, Stop & Shop and BankBoston, and how another possible proposal can even happen doesn't make sense. She further states that she went to the Design Review Board meeting, and notes that only one free standing sign appears to be allowed on the entire site, and notes that one already exists for Stop & Shop, that another one for McDonald's is not needed and is probably not allowed under zoning. City Council President Peter Gilmore addresses the Board and states that he agrees with the suggestions made by Mr. Thomson and Mr. Delaney, and beyond that he encourages the Board to delay any consideration until one knows what will be going on with the entire site. Mr. Gilmore further states that this site has become a critical one in the City, it involves a major entrance, and maybe even the primary entrance into Beverly. He says that Beverly doesn't need another typical McDonald's, and urges the Board to not permit development to construct a building on this site that looks Planning Board July 14, 1998 Meeting Page Five like a typical McDonald's, since the usual corporate design would not do justice to the improvements already made to this area. Renee Mary of 264 Hale Street states that she agrees with previous speakers that there should be only two proposed businesses not three, and asks if the Board closes the hearing will the public be able to speak again. Dinkin explains that when everyone who has come to speak has had the opportunity to do so, he intend to put this hearing in recess to the call of the chair, then the Board will enter into a discussion, and if the hearing is kept open the public will have more opportunity to speak, if the Board closes the hearing, the matter is closed to public comment. Attorney William DiMento of 990 Paradise Road, Swampscott addresses the Board and states that he is here representing two local business owners who are against this proposal, and who are concerned about the future of the area especially with respect to traffic issues. Attorney DiMento states that the Planning Board didn't contemplate a gas station on this site and the fact that the public will be fighting gas customers and tanker trucks is unreasonable. He notes that the Parking & Traffic Commission didn't know a major gas station was going to be proposed when it made its recommendations and feels that the Planning Board doesn't have enough information to go forward with a decision this evening. Attorney DiMento further states that there should be a joint site plan review for both proposals. John Fitzgerald, a former resident of E11iott Street addresses the Board and states that it is unbelievable to live in the area where the Stop & Shop is located, that someone needs to monitor the area, and he questions what will happen in an emergency (is: railroad tracks). Mr. Fitzgerald further states that this area is a horror show, that the City has made it a dangerous area to even cross the street and to raise children, and states that he doesn't think anything else should go in there, that there is no way to keep shoving stuff in a small area without consequences. RoseMary Maglio of Pleasant Street states that she has issues concerning the free standing sign; the number of parking spaces, that she would like to see a compromise because she doesn't feel that there should be 61-64 parking spaces, it's too much, all that is required is 26-27, and she notes that they have already covered 65% of their lot. She suggests that the Board require the applicant to reduce the number of proposed parking spaces. She further states that she is also concerned with trash, and comments that she see a lot of trash on Cabot Street when McDonald's was located there, and states that the City should try to support clean-up. Planning Board July 14, 1998 Meeting Page Six A resident of 38 Bates Park Avenue states that the police should do a traffic study to see how dangerous the area is especially when the kids go to school, and then asks how the City is planning to divert traffic. George Souris of Dodge Street explains that he goes to the McPherson Center and how dangerous it is for the kids to walk in this area. Kids are going to die just trying to get to the McPherson Center if traffic gets any worse. Don Preston of Pickett Street states that he is involved with the City's Masterplan study and that the whole idea is to try to reduce on the visual clutter and enhance the City. Mr. Lester of 110 Dodge Street states that he agrees with the comments made earlier regarding the railroad tracks and the traffic, that there is no way to get in and out of there easily. He states that he owns a couple of businesses in Beverly and notes that he reports an accident at least three times a week. He says that the area is a mess, and asks who watches this area, that there is a lot of traffic and it is getting worse. Mary Normand of 12 Washington Street states that she is retired and travels down Rt. 62 everyday and has no problem. She states that McDonald's willbe taking advantage of the traffic already going through the area, and notes that they do a good job cleaning up their property. A resident of Beverly states that he agrees with the comments made by a lot of the people here tonight, that traffic should be addressed, and notes that he gets a lot of towing jobs from that area, and states that the whole area should be looked at in a comprehensive fashion. A resident of Beverly asks if the applicant can estimate the number of cars that McDonald's will generate. Attorney Alexander states that the Traffic & Parking Commission did not ask the applicant to submit information regarding that type of a study. John Murray Ward 6 Councilor addresses the Board and states that McDonald's has a traffic study, that McDonald's relied on a traffic study during the rezoning process of the Stop & Shop review, and doesn't believe that McDonald's doesn't know how many cars the restaurant will generate. Dinkin suggests to Attorney Alexander that McDonald's must have traffic generation estimates from other McDonald's, and asks if there are marketing projections that would indicate how much traffic could be expected. Attorney Alexander states that Planning Board July 14, 1998 Meeting Page Seven McDonald's relies on the Institute of Transportation Engineers' standards for traffic generation estimates. RoseMary Maglio asks what the hours of operation will be. Attorney Alexander states that from Sunday to Thursday the hours will be 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.; on Friday & Saturday the hours of operation will be 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight. She further asks if the Board can condition hours of operation. Delaney asks if McDonald's keep information regarding marketing for particular sites. Attorney Alexander responds yes, but that information is proprietary. Don Preston of 3 Pickett Street says that the traffic study conducted for the Stop & Shop development has been discredited by the City's own engineer for the Route 62 project. Mr. John Fitzgerald agrees that the traffic is too much for the area, that the City is congesting the whole area. McMahon addresses the Board again and states that with respect to the sign issue, that only one free standing sign was to be allowed and one more sign below the Stop & Shop sign, that she is not in favor of a McDonald's sign being displayed, but does respect their right to place a restaurant in that area. Gilmore states that if the applicant previously agree to limit development to two buildings, the applicant should be held to those facts. Troubetaris asks if everyone on the Planning Board had an opportunity to read the original study/plan and traffic study for that area, and states that she would like all the Board members to take a couple of hours to review these two pieces of information because the traffic is changing on a daily basis. Virginia McGlynn, Ward 4 Councilor, states that she is not for or against McDonald's having a restaurant in this area, but feels that the City should conscientiously review this new plan. RoseMary Maglio states that the windows in the front of the building have 66 panes of glass, 30% of those 66 pains of glass are intended to have signs in them, and states that she would like to see less, and asks if the Board can limit the amount of signage in the windows. Dinkin states that he thinks that it is possible if the amount of window area is reduced during the site plan review process. William Demento of Paradise Road, Swampscott reads a section of M.G.L. Chapter 4DA and questions what the statutory review periods Planning Board July 14, 1998 Meeting Page Eight are for site plan. Cassidy states that the Planning Board has 65 days from the close of the public hearing to make a decision. Dinkin places the public hearing in recess to the call of the chair. Delaney: motion to recess for five minutes, seconded by Flannery. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson, Modugno, Dunn, Flannery, Thomas and Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Dinkin calls the Board back to order, and calls the site plan public hearing back into session. Dinkin states that the Board will continue with discussions until everyone has had an opportunity to speak, that he believes that the sense of the Board is to continue this hearing. Thomson states that he would like the additional information (full traffic study, ITE's information regarding trips per day, and what the restaurant is expecting to generate) submitted before the hearing is closed. Delaney states that he would like the same information submitted as Mr. Thomson, that he is concerned with McDonald's projection on trip generation, because the whole area will be changed and has been changed since the last traffic study. He would like traffic information on the proposed gas station as well, and states that he is also interested in alternative building designs. He would like feedback from appropriate City Commissions on signage and more information in general before the Board votes. Thomas states that he feels that the Board needs feedback from the Parking & Traffic Commission, (ie: if there are enough handicapped spaces); site specific (ie: architectural design for water sites), that he can't see a traditional McDonald's fitting into this site, it would change the aesthetics of the area. Cassidy states that she can ask the Building Inspector to review the City's zoning requirements for handicapped spaces and the signage. Thomson states that he would like to postpone a decision until the Zoning Board of Appeals has acted on the other proposal, that their decision could generate more questions, this is not the right time to close the hearing on the McDonald's. Delaney states that architectural renderings showing more appropriate designs of a building in a waterfront location will be helpful in making a decision, if they are available. Planning Board July 14, 1998 Meeting Page Nine Thomas states that he would like a plan in writing from McDonald's indicating the terms for trash clean up in the areas mentioned earlier. Dunn states that a police traffic accident report along with a traffic study would be helpful, because more pedestrian traffic is a concern, kids are a concern since Elliott Street generates a lot of traffic. Dinkin states that the Board's preference seems to be to leave this public hearing open, and recesses the hearing again to the call of the Chair. 2. Subdivision APProval Not Reauired Plans [SANR's) Wavland Road/Brimbal Avenue / DiSessa Cassidy updates the members and explains that the plan shows the division of one lot into two lots, that one lot has an existing house with frontage on Brimbal Avenue and that the second lot will be created to have adequate frontage on Wayland Road. Cassidy explains that the applicant submitted testimony from a postal carrier and a member of the public that state that they use the roadway on a regular basis, that it is very much used by the public although it is a private way. Thomas asks what the current condition of Wayland Road is. Cassidy states that Whalan Road is a dirt road, with two houses facing it, one on each side of the road, and states that it is plowed by the City of Beverly. Delaney asks if the dirt road runs adjacent to the playing field. The applicant responds yes. Cassidy reads a letter from a postal carrier and Mr. Leonard Colton of 24 Brimbal Avenue. (On File) Delaney: Motion to endorse the plan of land for Wayland Road as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Flannery. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson, Modugno, Dunn, Flannery, Thomas and Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Thomas: Motion to recess for the purpose of holding public hearing, seconded by Thomson. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson, Modugno, Dunn, Flannery, Thomas and Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Dinkin states that the public hearing on McDonald's Corporation is called to order. Planning Board July 14, 1998 Meeting Page Ten Public Hearinas: Site Plan Review Application #38-98 / new McDonald's Restaurant at 224 E11iott Street (Stop & Shop site) / The McDonald's CorPoration Dinkin asks Attorney Alexander if he has anything further to add to tonight's discussion. Attorney Alexander responds no, not at this time. Dinkin suggests that the applicant return to the next meeting with the additional information requested by the members on this application. Dinkin asks if there are any additional comments from members of the public. There are none. Thomson: Motion to continue the public hearing on Site Plan Review Application #38-98/new McDonald's Restaurant to the Board's next regular meeting scheduled for September 22, 1998, seconded by Flannery. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson, Modugno, Dunn, Flannery, Thomas and Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Dinkin returns the Board back to regular session. 3. SANR'S Hale Street / ~mmere Cassidy updates the members and explains that this parcel of land has frontage on Hale Street with two existing homes and that a private way cutting through the property services both this land and that of one other resident. This way would be used to provide legal frontage for one of the existing houses with the Hale Street frontage servicing the other home. Cassidy states that she asked Fire Captain Bruce Palmer to review this plan, and notes that Captain Palmer indicated that the plan is acceptable, that there are no issues from the Fire Department with respect to access issues, since the private way already provides adequate access to the homes. Thomson states that he is concerned that there is not enough facts to endorse this plan this evening~ as the lot lines are drawn on this plan, the second lot does not have at least 175' of frontage on the private way. Dinkin states that in his opinion the plan in front of the Board doesn't show adequate frontage on a way, that a driveway is not a street. Planning Board July 14, 1998 Meeting Page Eleven Delaney states that he agrees with Dinkin, that the driveway is not located entirely within the way which is problematic. The applicant Mr. John Gummere states that the way exists on paper and in the deed to the property, and that the driveway has been in existence since the early 1900's. Cassidy asks the applicant if he would agree to withdraw the plan without prejudice so that it can be reviewed and possibly revised to address the Board's concerns. The applicant responds yes, and writes a request to this effect. Thomson: Motion to accept applicant's request to withdraw without prejudice, seconded by Thomas. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson, Modugno, Dunn, Flannery, Thomas and Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Virginia Avenue Extension: Request for reduction of performance bondend acceptance of utility easement/Curtis Jones Cassidy updates the members and explains that the applicant is seeking a reduction in the performance bond from $59,225.00 to $47,662.50, and that the applicant is also seeking acceptance of the utility easement grant. The easement is acceptable to City Engineer Frank Killilea, who has also approved the bond reduction request. The easement document is also in a format previously approved by the Board. Deleney: Motion to reduce the performance bond for Virginia Avenue Extension from $59,225.00 to $47,662.50, and to formally accept the utility easement that has been submitted to the Board, seconded by Thomas. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson, Modugno, Dunn, Flannery, Thomas and Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. 5. Morgen's Island Subdivision: Request for bond reduction / Karen & Dennis L'Italien Cassidy informs members that the L'Italiens have requested a bond reduction for this project, and that the Engineering Department has reviewed and recommends that the reduction requested be granted. Thomson: Motion to reduce the performance bond for the Morgan's Island Subdivision from $39,675.00 to $32,175.00, seconded by Modugno. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson, Modugno, Dunn, Flannery, Thomas and Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Planning Board July 14, 1998 Meeting Page Twelve Winthrop's Grant Subdivision: expiration of performance bond and construction completion date, discussion on waiver issue for street trees / Ron Trentini Cassidy updates the members and explains that the applicants are seeking an extension of the construction completion date to October 30, 1998 because they have not yet submitted "As-Built Plans". Cassidy further explains that the applicant's landscaper inadvertently planted the wrong size trees (less expensive ones), and that the applicant is requesting permission to leave these planted trees in place in order not to cause problems with the finish curb and sidewalk. Cassidy notes that the applicant is willing to donate the difference in price to the Ryal Side Civic Association or to purchase trees to make up the difference and deliver them to the public services department for planting elsewhere in the ward. Dinkin asks if the survival rate of the different sized trees differs, and if the applicant gave an 18 month guarantee. Cassidy explains that if the survival rate differs, a portion of that money could be held in escrow for the possibility of some trees dying. Delaney asks if this subdivision has been before the Board within the last year for an extension of the construction completion date. Cassidy states that the applicants requested and were granted an extension back on July 31, 1997 for one year. Thomson: Motion to extend the construction completion date for this project for an additional three months, provided that an extension of the surety be in place before July 24, 1998 and to further move that the City Planner work with the City's arborist and developer to arrange for the purchase of trees valued at at least $553.00 for installation elsewhere in Ward 1. Motion seconded by Flannery; Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson, Modugno, Dunn, Flannery, Thomas and Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Chanticleer Drive Subdivision: Acceptance of as-built plans, release of remaining bond money / DanFinn, Carriage Hill Realty TruSt Cassidy updates the members and states that seeking a release of all remaining bond money, as-built plans for this project. the applicant is and acceptance of Cassidy reads a letter from the Engineering Department dated 7/14/98. (On File) Planning Board July 14, 1998 Meeting Page Thirteen Cassidy hands out a letter from an abutter raising some issues with respect to wetlands and Army Corps. issues. Dan Finn addresses the Board and states that he has made numerous efforts with this resident with respect to the letter, he states that the resident is not an abutter, that all work has been performed in accordance to Beverly's requirements, and that this resident only wants to complain. Mr. Finn explains that they invested ways to pipe the swale, but could not get consensus from the abutting neighborhood. Mr. Finn then reads a letter sent to one of the direct abutter dated 1/6/98. (See file for copy). Thomson asks if the swale was part of the official definitive subdivision plan. Mr. Finn states that it was not, that it was part of a settlement agreement with the abutters during DEP's review. Thomson states that enforcement of any problems with the settlement agreement appears to be out of the realm of the Planning Board's jurisdiction. Thomson: Motion to release the remaining bond money posted to guarantee completion of the Chanticleer Drive Subdivision and to accept the as-built plans as submitted, seconded by Delaney. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson, Modugno, Dunn, Flannery, Thomas and Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. The Plenters Subdivision: Request for bond reduction / Jack Keiltv end Albert Ellis, O,H.C. Realty Trust Cassidy updates the members and explains that the applicants are seeking a reduction in the bond to $44,512.00. Cassidy states that a letter from Frank Killilea dated 6/16/98 has been received, recommending that the bond be reduced to $44,512.00. Delaney: Motion to approve a bond reduction for The Planters Subdivision to $44,512.00, seconded by Flannery. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson, Modugno, Dunn, Flannery, Thomas and Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Boxwood Lane Subdivision: Recommendation to City Council on resident petition to accept the roadway as a City Street Cassidy updates members and states that she has researched previous approvals of minor subdivisions by the Beverly Planning Board. Planning Board July 14, 1998 Meeting Page Fourteen Over the past 10-15 years, five roads have been approved as minor subdivisions and none have been subsequently accepted as City streets. One roadway, which was voluntarily designated a private street by the original developer, was eventually accepted by the City. However, that roadway was not subject to the Planning Board's requirements for minor streets. Cassidy also reviews the regulations for minor ways and reminds members that private ownership and maintenance responsibilities are conditions of approval for minor roads. Both the Board's vote of approval and the recorded plan contain notations to this effect. She informs members that she requested and received comments from the Fire, Engineering, and Public Services departments on the road's condition (see file). She also notes that residents place their trash at the end of the road on Essex Street where it is picked up by the City's trash contractor. The residents are responsible for all other maintenance, including snow plowing. Thomson states that the private roadway status was duly noted in both the City's records and the Registry of Deeds~ he also states that the Board's regulations clearly state that minor subdivision roads will remain in private ownership "unless and until they are redesigned and improved in accordance with the minimum standards for streets." The owners have not done this in this instance. He also notes that this requirement has been in place for many years, and does not see anyunique circumstance with this development that would persuade him to accept the road as a City street. The road and associated systems are also in need of maintenance and repair; letters from the Engineering and Public Services departments are on file to this effect. Flannery states that she supports Mr. Thomson's thoughts, that a clear process has been established for the potential acceptance of minor roads and sees no evidence or facts here to suggest that special treatment be granted to this development. The rationale behind the Board's rules is logical and fair to all concerned. Delaney: Motion that the Planning Board recommend to the City Council that Boxwood Lane not be accepted as a City street, and that the Planning Director author a letter to the Council informing them of this recommendation and the reasons stated by the Board for such a recommendation, seconded by Flannery. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson, Modugno, Dunn, Flannery, Thomas and Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Planning Board July 14, 1998 Meeting Page Fifteen Approval of Minutes: April 21, 28, 1998 special meeting, April May 19. 1998 reaular meetin~ 1998 regular meeting, April 28, 1998 executive session, Thomas: Motion to accept the minutes of the April 21, 1998 regular meeting, the April 28, 1998 special meeting, the April 28, 1998 executive session, and the May 19, 1998 regular meeting, seconded by Flannery. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson, Modugno, Dunn, Flannery, Thomas and Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. 11. New or Other Business a. Reminder of August 8, 1998 site visit to Mullen/Loeb Estate and September 8, 1998 Special Meetinq on Mullen/Loeb Estate Cassidy states that she will send a reminder to the members of these two dates, in advance of the meetings. b. Proposed amendments to Subdivision Rules and Requlations Cassidy tells the members that she has drafted some proposed amendments to subdivision rules and regulations. She asks that members review the proposals with a goal of scheduling the required public hearing for October. c. Designation of Planning Board representative to the Design Review Board Peter Thomas volunteers to be the Planning Board's representative to the Design Review Board. Adt ournment Thomas: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Flannery. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson, Modugno, Dunn, Flannery, Thomas and Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Meeting is adjourned at 11:00 p.m.