Loading...
1998-12-15City of Bevedy, Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board: Planning Board Subeommlttee: Date: Dec~tber 15, 1998 Hace: Beverly Senior Center, 90 Colon Stx~ct. Board members present: Richard Dinkin~ William Delaney, John Thomson, Joanne Dunn~ Peter Thomas, Ellen FJnnnery, Robert Rink. Board members absent: Barry Sullivan, Salvatore Modugno Others present: Frank Killilea, Direaor of Engineering, Tina Cassidy, Planning Director Recorder: Carol/L Pearce Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.IVL by Chairman Dinkin. Mr. Dinkin indicates he will entertain a motion to recess for continued public hearings. Motion made by Mr. Delaney, seconded by Ms Flannery. No discussion among Board members, all in favor, motion el-ties. Thomson recuses him~lf~om this hearing. Estates at Prides Crossinl~ Definitive Subdivision Plan. Public Hearim~ (continued~ Chairmall Dinkln asks the planning Director to read the legal Notice. lVls. Cassidy reads the legal Notice. Mr. Dinkin asks for an update for the Board, and Ms. Cassidy indicates the meeting was continued from the Public Hearing last month until today with the idea that the Board would discuss with the applicant waivers that are being requested ~om the Planning Board Regulations relative to subdivisions. She also states that the Planning Board asked the applicant to provide the Board with a complete list of waivers and an explanation as to how the granting of those waivers would be in the public interest and be consistent with the Subdivision Control Law. She further states it was decided that at thi~ meeting the Board would discuss the waivers being requested with the assistance of the developer and get a sense of the Board's opinion on whether any or all of those waivers might be granted. Chahman Dinkln asks the applicant if they have any additional information to add to their formnl presentation. Attorney Thomas Alexander confirms that all Board members received copies of the waiver justification se~t out previously, and states that in addition he would also present some work done on the fiscal impact of the projea based on figures provided by the City of Beverly. (Copies distn'buted to Board members- see file). Plannln~ Board Meeting Minutes December 15, 1998 Page 2. Mr. Alexander states that consideration was given to 58 lots w~th an average value of $650,000, based on City of Beverly fiscal year 1998 tax rate of $16.39 per thousand, and assumed excise taxes at the State rate of $25 per thousand, it would result in a total gross revenue stream forthe City of Beverly in the amount of $690,000, which would be new money. Deducted from that would be revenue presently generated from the site as presently taxed, and according to the City records that is a total of $88,581 so there would be a net to the City ofbetweem $601,000 and $602,000. He further cites education costs according to City of Beverly figures for the 1999 fiscal year budget of $29,158,000 and state aid of $5,571,000 which leaves the taxpayers a cost of $23,587,000. Based on 4893 students, the cost per student would be $4,820. Mr. Alexander continues, stating dedu~fiug figures for other City services in the amount of $40,912,000, outside income including State reimbursement and revenues for water and sewer fees, results in a $17,250 cost of property taxes for other services, and assuming 95% of those services are going for residentis1 purposes, it results in a cost of $1,496 per residence. ffyou take education and other services costs, the cost per residence is $3,906. Using those figures and deducting from the gross revenue, it leaves a net revenue for the City in the amount of $375,000. Mr. Alexander states that in the material he provided to the Board members earlier, he has included the source of figures used in his calculation~ Mr. Alexander indicates he was also asked to prepare as much further drainage analysis information as possible, and since Peter Ogren has undertaken that, he will defer to Mr. Ogre~ Ogren addresses the Board end states they continued to investigate the drain and have additional information to provide to the Plannln~ Board thi~ evening on that subject. He states that at the last meeting they said they were going in with a jet track and clean out the drainage system, prove its continuity, and report back to the Board. He states estimates were also done with regard to capacity and are contained in his report. (Copies of his report are distributed to Board members - see file). Ogren states the Hale Street pit, which is a fairly large brick chamber, was jetted out and has provided photos to the Board, some showing sediment which was removed. After the process he says you can see the clean bricks in the chamber. He indicates he has a videotape which can be shown. They found a manhole 20 feet down, but couldn't cross the manhole. They panned inside with the camera and he says you can see it's a manhole on a property, but they could not fmd the cover. About 126 feet up is another manhole on the paved portion of Paine Avenue. He says they could see the water did in fact flow through, so they did in effect prove the continuity of the pipe. Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 15, 1998 Page 3. Mr. Ogrea states a deeded easement was discovered which is important in that it supported the contention that there was an historic, natural water course, but also there was actually a deeded easement when the drain went in. The language contained in that deed says "Also such right if any as the Town of Beverly or any individuals may have to maintain drain pipes or other drainageway along the course of the old water course through the level field consisting of the northwesterly portion of the granted premises". That deed is in the chain of the land marked 'Hardy", which he referenced in his first report and said there was a natural water course and that it would be subject to the general rights of the public. The date of that deed is April 17~ 1891, just about a hundred years ago. So that drainage system was built at that time. Mr. Ogren states the last thing the Board inquired about was the hydraulic capacity which he can't answer fully at this time because h e doesu 't know the rate of grade between each manhole, but assuming the grade is linear, you'd find a 24 inch drain, like the condition on Hale Street, would be 24 cubic feet per second, with a theoretical barrel capacity of 15.4 cubic feet per seconcL Mr. Ogrcn maintains that the drainage pipe f~om Hale Street goes in there. He says it would be possible to check a thirty inch pipe which would be about 50 cubic feet per second with a theoretical barrel capacity of 27.9 cubic feet per second. Mr. Ogren said his conclusions are that the drainage system has been cleaned f~om Hale Street down to the manhole at Paine Avenue, that they have proved the continuity of the drainage system, that they have confirmed it was constructed in a historic water course and proved there is sufficient hydraulic capacity in the downhill drainage system, all of which was stated in his original ~ort. Mr. Ogren indicates that's the extent to which they have proceeded at thia time. Mr. Alexander indicates he would like to get a sense of the Board on the waivers that have been requested in fight of the information provided, and states it would be helprid to get a sease of why certain waivers would or would not be accepted. Chairman Dinkin states that prior to the issue of waivers, he feels that the fiscal impact statement may have generated some question and indicates that the floor will be open specifically to Mr. Alexander's fiscal impact statement and Mr. Ogren's remarks relative to drainage. Chairman Dinkin states he has a question for Mr. Alexander and then will open the floor to the Board and members of the public. Chairman Dinkin wants to know what if anything it does to the numbers if rather than including in the analysis every residential unk in the City to include only owner-occupied single family residences. Mr. Alexander replies he doem't believe it would make a large difference, and that the biggest source of Plsnning Board Meeting Minutes December 15, 1998 Page 4. cost is the educational component, and states that from what he' s seen, there would not be a sjEni~cantly greater number, more than one half child or less per residence across the entire city. Chairman Dinkin asks for any other questions from the Board, and Mr. Thomas wants to know how they arrived at the enrollment number of 4,893 students. Mr. Alexander states he obtained that information from the Business Manager of the public school system There being no additional questions from the Board, the Chairman opens the floor to questions from the public. Attorney Thomas Ha,i~gton addresses the Board and states he represents Groundsweli and several members of the Loring f~mily, and wants to address Mr. Ogren's points regarding use ofthe drainage pipe that runs out to the ocealL He states he is confused why this would affect property at 531,569, 573 and 581 Hale Street. Mr. Ogren asks Mr. Jonathan Loring to show the location of the propeay in question, and then states the Hardy title is not upstream from the Loring property. F.~mmon Fennessy of 11 Paine Avenue questions water coming in 126 feet and wants to know how the rest of the area would be affected. Mr. Ogren states the drainage area drains the whole area. Mr. Fennessy indicates that in a serious rainstorm, the water collects at 5 Paine Avenue and goes under #7 where the condos are, and wonders what additional drainage will do to that property. Mr. Ogren replies the drain is quite clear and flows freely, indicating that that is the natural drainage course. ChairmE Dinkln indicates this matter will be recessed until 8:30 PM. Birch Woods Definitive Han: Public Hearin¢, on Recluest to Modlfv ADoroved Sewer Deslin Thomson rejoins the meeting. Chairman Dinkin opens thi~ continued Public Hearing and instructs the Planning Director to read the legal notice. (Ms. Cassidy reads legal Notice). Attorney Stephen Guschov, from Grenier and McCarron, states he is present to give the consent of Joseph A. Dandreo, trustee and owner of the Birch Woods Subdivision, to tonight' s presentation to be made by Mr. Jack Rivers with respect to the change in the design of the sewer. Mr. Dandreo has given his full consent to allow Mr. Rivers and his associate Mr. DeSanti to give thi~ presentation. They will be selling the land to Mr. Rivers and Mr. DeSanti on Monday, December 21, and they have requested to be allowed to make the presentation on their own thi.~ evening. Mr. Guschov states he will not be participating in the presentation but would be happy to answer to any questions with respect to his client. phmning Board Meeting Minutes December 15, 1998 Page 5. Jack Rivers addresses the Board as agent forthe applicant and soon-to-be new owner of the property. He indicates initial approval showed a pumping station forthe site and a force-main sewer but then he later learned there was a modification by a prior prospective buyer converting the proposed sewer design to a gravity sewer line and he wanted that modification to be reverted back to the original approval He indicates he had a meeting with the City Engineer and Planner and the City Engineer stated that circum.qances had changed since it was originally approved and that the standards were somewhat different, and also stated the requirement for a back-up gas generator as a back-up electric power source. He indicates they will be meeting the new design standards for that p.mping Cassidy states she mat with Marshall Handiy who indicated the opinion was that the planning Board acted in good faith in approving the modification in 1996 and stated there is an issue that the owner may knew about the modification, but did not provide written consent, and there was an isaac with respe~ to notification. The developer has asked for a modification to revert back to the original design and Mr. Randiy felt comfortable that the Board could take action on that request and decide the matter without regard to what happened previously. The developer is not a~ldng for a legal opinion, just reversion back to the original design. Mr. Rivers reiterates that they are a~klng that the modification reinstate the pumping station force -main design, meeting the necessary new standards with the backup generator. Mr. DinIda asks the planning Director to read any correspondence t~om City depmiments. Cassidy reads a letter dated Decmnber 18, 1998 fxom City Engineer Frank Killilea. Mr. Dinkin asks for comments or questions t~om the Board. Hearing none, he asks for comments or questions ~om the public. In response to a cencern by Debbie Heslop, a member of the public, Cassidy states it is her understanding that the request now before the Board is proper for the Board to consider irrespective of any previous vote of the planning Board to modify that mxbdivision plan. Mr. Delaney wants to know if the City Engineering DepaRment has a preference in te~iiis of whether the system would be built in a gravity design, and Mr. Killilea responds he would prefer to see a gravity system, and if the owner wants to pursue a pu.~f. ing station aiternative he would want to see a modification in the forc~ main design. Residents across Cross Lane could come in by gravity if the sewer design were changed to a gravity fine. planning Board Meeting Minutes December 15, 1998 Page 6. Mr. Dehney asks if it will affect the ability ofhomeownen on Cross Lane to tie in, and Mr. Killilea states it would have to be designed so that the majority ofhomeowners on Cross Lane could tie in to the gravity systenL Mr. DeLsney states it is his understanding that the City Engineering Department does not recommend an entirely force- main system, and Mr. Killilea responds he would not recommend making the entire length a force- main system end making the existing homeowners install grinder pump. s in order to access the forced main. Mr. Delaney inquires if the Engheering Depa~hne~t would prefer a total gravity system, noting there seems to be an intermediate design. Mr. Killilea states if the developer wanted to put in the pump station he could come up with basically a third design that would show where he could raise the depth of gravity sewer that's nmning down Cross Lane from the way that it is shown on the 1997 plans, so there is a third alternative that could be designed. Mr. Rivers states his decision to modify was basically economically motivated, and states he would be happy to work with the City Engineering Department to accomplish this to the greatest possible end. Chairman Dinkin states he feels this requires a new plan, and that the Board will not be able to resolve the issue this month, and questions Mr. Cmshov about granting the Board an extension of the dine to allow for continued considention of this plan. Mr. Gushov indicates that Mr. Dandren will consent to the extension. Chairman Dinl6. a,~lc~ if there are individuals present who wish to be heard on this matter. He indicates thi.~ matter will be continued to the next regular Board meeting, but if there are people who came to be heard tonight, this is the time to address the Board. David Heslop, 111 Cross Lane, asks for chrification of the alternative to take the forced main to the top of the hill and gravity feed down toward Lake Shore Avenue and Lothrop Street, and asks if that is colfeet. Mr. Killilea responds that it is correct. Gary Ciavoh, Cross Lane, wants to how what the expected cost per homeowner will be. Mr. Rivers states that it is his understanding that the homeowner would only be required to pay from the home to the main line. Mr. Killilea indicates it would be a gravity system, and Mr. Rivers states that it would, to the extent that gravity can be fed to that. He indicates there is a pumping station at the entrance of the new street that would carry the sewerage up to a nnlt that converses with the gravity line, but forthe bulk ofthe homes, he believes it would eliminate the necessity for a pump. plsnnlng Board Meeting Minutes December 15, 1998 Page 7. Bill Bruce, 81 Cross Lane, questions easements and the phcement of the pump. ing station, and Mr. Rivers indicates that he anticipates granting an easement from the p~rnping station to fac'ditate those homes immediately adjacent. Chairman Dinloin states he is going to place this public hearing in recess until 7:30 P.M. on January 19, 1999, location to be nnnounced. Chairman Dinkin calls the re~n~lAr meeting of the Planning Board back in session and asks the Plsnning Director to read a document in her possession. Cassidy reads request from Mr. Gushov for an extension of time for final action by the Board on the Birchwoods Modification from December 30, 1998 to January 31, 1999. Delaney: motion to accept the request for extension, seconded by Flaonery, all members in favor, motion passes. Chal, i-an Dinkin annoonces he will entertain a motion to recess and reconvene for public hearings. Delaney: motion to recess and reconvene for public hearings, seconded by Flannery, all members in favor, motion passes. Chairman Dinkin states the reg~lAr meeting of the Beverly planning Board is recessed. Estates at Prides Crossine Definitive Subdivision Han Public Hearing, Thomson recuses himself and Dinkin reopens the hearing and recalls the Board was in the process of taking specific questions on the presentation made by Alexander on cross imp. act and by Ogren on drainage. He asks if there are additional specific questions on those areas of concern. A resident of 11 Greenwood Avenue asks regarding the cost savings and the tax coming to the City, he wants to know if the rate of inflation was taken into consideration and if it is known what those rates were overthe last ten or twenty years. Alexander replies that they did not take inflation into account, they just did a snapshot in time. The resident also asks if the need for building more schools was taken into consideration, and Alexander responds it probably would not be necessary to build more schools, based on an average of.5 child per house, 58 new houses, means 29 children over 12 grades. planning Board Meeting Minutes December 15, 1998 Page 8. Dinkin interjects that the Planning Board is equally able to consider the statistical validity of Alexander's projections and also the relevance of the projections will be taken into consideration. John Murray, 14 Greenwood Avenue, asks when did the Planning Board receive the information contained in the cost imps act, and Chairman Dinkin replies it just arrived this evening. Mr. Murray says perhaps some of the audience would like to respond, and presumes this hearing will be kept open forthe next meeting so that those who may want to make a detailed response may do so. Chah ii.an Dinkin says that this is a presnmp~tion and he is not sure that he is going to validate that presnmp~tion. Mr. Murray indicates that they c~ challenge that decision if the Board doesn't want to debate the issue tonight, but think.~ a detailed response should be taken into consideration because otherwise the Board is aSSuming that the facts presented by Alexander are validated. Chairman Dinkin states that ' s an assumption and asks for any other qualifying questions from the audience. Kesident Andten Fish questions the $650,000 value per year and wants to know if the figure is based on the sale price or assessed valuation. Alexander states it's the assessed valuation. A resident f~om 629 Hale Street questions drainage with regard to maintenance and cleaning of the drainage which apparently has not bee~ done for some time, and Ogren responds the si~ definitely came from upstream~ and they haven't been cleaned for a while. Another resident of Hale Street wants to know if they have looked into what happens under above normal flow conditions and wants to know if they are expecting the Board as well as the public to believe the same sewer system and drainage system developed in 1891 is going to be ~t~cient enough to take care of 58 new houses, thousands of trees taken down, and all the exploding dynamite. Ogren says he believes that water course is the one that ac~pts the drainage f~om thi~ property, and believes that means and technology was available back in 1891 to build a proper drainage system He says he made no mention of sewers, and did not say the sewer system was constructed one hundred years ago. The sewer system was definitely constructed subsequent to the drainage systen~ A member of the audience wants to know whose responsibility it will be to make sure the drainage system is cleaned out, whether it will be the property owner or the City. Dinkin states the responsibility for maintenance of the drainage system would fall upon the property owners through whose property it traverses, and that the particular combination of property owners may be modified by the existence of ensements if any and asks for Phnning Board Meeting Minutes December 15, 1998 Page 9. clarification on that f~om Attorney Alexander. Alexander says he agrees this is a correct state~nent. Resident Jay Wallace wants to know if an inquiry was made to the schools as to whether or not they will accept additional students, or is it anticipated that some children would be going to private schools? Alexander indicates his study did not anticipate any students would be going to private schools. He states they did look at a comparable subdivision in Canton where there are 23 new homes and there are two school age children in the subdivision. Alexander further explains that he does not feel additional schools need to be built at thi.q time to facilitate the 58 new homes proposed. A resident of Avalon Avenue wants to know how much water fxom Avalon Avenue goes into the same drainage system, and Alexander replies an analysis was not done with regard to the capacity of those pipes. He states also below that is a dam, and they have not done an analysis of that akhough it may be restricting the flow in the pipes. Mr. Alexander advises the resident that the dam should be licensed in the Commonwealth, and that perhaps he could look at the dam license to see what it is designed for. Steve Cormors, 514 Hale Street, wants to know what percentage of the runoff will be corrected by the drainage system being proposed. Ogren states he does not have an act figure, but estimates it would be ninny to ninety-five percent. He further indicates that there are catch basins every 250 feet for the proposed new roads. Stella Mae Searoans, 840 Hale Strea, questions Alexander regarding his statement that there would be a profit to the City in the range of $300,000 plus or minus, and then it would be necessary to build an addition to the school or additional classrooms to himdie the new childre~ Alexander indicates again that the need for an addition to the school or even additional classrooms is not indicated by this report. A Common Lane resident wants to know if the water tables have been measured, and if the water table rises and there is damage, can those property owners hold liable the City and this Board as developers? Mr. Dinkin advises that she would have to seek her own legal coonsel, and that he does not intend to answer that question on behalf of the City or the Board The resident further asks if the City makes a decision that damages property of the people who already own that property, is the City liable? She thlnics this is a fair question. Mr. Dinkln statOs that if she has a general or specific interest and has legal counsel, she should consult with that counsel Mr. Dinkin further states he would suggest that Alexander not offer an opinion on that question in this forum~ Dinkln states he would like to move on to the waiver portion of the discussion, and would like to deal with this portion of the meeting by a.qlcing the plnnning Director to read each planning Board Meeting Minutes December 15, 1998 Page 10. waiver and then a~king Alexander to briefly summarize his teams' reasons for s~king for the waiver, and then there will be brief comments on each individual waiver if necessary. Cassidy reads waiver request 3.C.2.d. Alexander states he would not add anything to what they had previously written as justification. Mff. Dinkin asks for public comment on this Waiver, and Richard Baker, 643 Hale St., notes there are very sj~ni~cant trees in that area and thinks the standards require due regard for forests and trees, and states the City has not even inventoried what is out there and would sites open so that homes are not protected. Murray says thi~ and the other waivers are not in the public interest and should be denied. ARer brief comment from the public, Dinkin requests the Planning Director to read the next waiver request. Cassidy reads waiver request 3.C.2.p. Alexander states he would be willing to provide numbers if requested but would wait until the Spring season. Cassidy reads waiver request 3.C.2. s and Alexander states they will pot in whatever trees the City desires. Murray states it' s not in the public interest if you have a beautiful beech tree that if it i~n 't shown, they could chop it down and replace it with a two foot twig, and that' s basically what the Board is allowing them to do if it approves the waiver. Ogren indicates it's not a matter of trading one tree for another. It's also not a matter of locating every sillgle tree, bttt he thinks they have located every impommt tree and states that in the past they have had great luck with getting trees to survive. Cassidy reads waiver request 3.C.2.u and Alexander states it is the applic~ut's intent to show all the requirements in t~:~s of street lights, underground electric and fire alarm systems. He states they are just looking for a waiver as a matter of timing because they are desi~nning utilities around a street, rather than desi~rning a street to a hypothetical situation. Cassidy reads waiver request 4.A~2.c. Alexander responds that a fair amount of time was spent on this in the last meeting with the traffic expert, and they are seeking the waiver order to work with the hind a little better than what the regulation calls for. The developer believes this waiver is in the public interest in that it would result in less disruption to the area than the regulations require, and make for a more aesthetic appearance of the site. Paul Hayes, Jr., 375 palmer Street, Lawrence, Ma, makes a brief comment that vehicular operations in the area would be threatened if this is denied. planning Board Meeting Minutes December 15, 1998 Page 11. Cassidy reads waiver request 4.k3. Alexander states the applicant started out with a 69- lot waiverless plan, and reduced the number of lots to 58 feeling there would be less disruption to the land and it also makes sense that with fewer lots there would be less income to offset the cost of the project. He also states that testimony from their trnfi~c expert using the ASHTO standards indicates that the roadway width proposed meets safety standards and would be more than adequate. The 20-foot waiver coming into Greenwood Avenue was done to reduce the width of that roadway in the area of the vernal pool to lessen any work that had to be done there. Charles D~mn~ 16 G-ree~wood Avenue, reminds the Board that a letter was read from the public safety officer that they would accept nothing less than 28 feet width for a two-way street. Murray eaHs attention to a letter dated December 7, 1998 from the Trnffie Safety Officer and quotes "no pavement width should be reduced to 20 feet. It is not safe for motorists to drive, vehicfes to park or unload, or children and others to pass by". Cassidy reads waiver request 4.A. 4.b. Alexander says the final design was done through a several month process of preliminary proposals made to the Planning Board - the applicant reduced the roadway grade to 8.99 or effectively 9%. A grade of 6% results in more cuts and fills and greater destruction to the land. Murray points out again that the Board has on file letters from the Police and Fire dep:ulments stating it should be kept at 6 percent. Resident John Fisk states he feels that the planning Board is slnart enough to see through the statement that the waiver will reduce the amount of destruction to the property. He says the property is going to be destroyed, and that they just want more money. Cassidy reads waiver request 5.E. Alexander states that permitting sloped-faced granite curbing would not be inconsistent with the Subdivision Control Law. Alexander also points out that eventually the streets will be owned by the City and the slope curb is easier to maintain, so there would be benefit to having the sloped granite. Murray states the traffic sergeant said before that the vertical granite is a safety factor, and he feels that the Board should heed this advice. Cassidy reads waiver request 5.B.4. Alexander says the two-foot horizontal to one foot vertical cut waiver will allow for less horizontal impact on the site thereby reducing the amount of tree cutting and excavation that will be required. The second part is not actually a waiver. Murray states again it will save money for the developer, but where is the public interest? Tins Cassidy reads waiver request 5. C.3. Ogren states basically they have provided drainage analysis. He states it is not in the public interest to have any more catch basins than are required as they will have to be maintained at some point down the road, so you Phnning Board Meeting Minutes December 15, 1998 Page 12. only want to have the number of catch basins that are justified by the design which is what they provide~L Steve Cohen, 514 Hale St., says he can't understand the location of the catch basins Ogren replies it would be approximately every 250 feet. In some cases they're closer, and in some cases they're farther apart. There is no hard and fast rule. Peter Shanahan, working with Groundswell, says that in a prior le~x, Mr. Ogr~n indicated the applicant was willing to perform certain detailed analyses, and he does not feel that this has been done. Ogree says we are willing to do it to show that we have the capacity, but if the Board doesn't vote it, then there' s no need to perform the work. Cassidy rends the request for Typical Cross Section waiver. Alexander states with regard to the six foot cover forthe sewer line, the applicant has agreed to provide that except in the area where the sewer line was connecting to the existing sewer line in Rez-~ Road, and the reason is that the existing sewer pipe is less than six feet down. The other part of this request is to provide a three-foot cover for all drainpipes. Dinkin reads the next request which is quoted "Reduction of the side-line radius at the intersection of Greenwood and Estate Drive to 15 feet, and allowing the curve PC to be non-tangent at Greenwood Avenue". Ogrea says they asked forthe sideline radius and then to have a non-tangent curve in that location to give them the opportunity to have a single point, the reason being to minimiv~ the effect on the verllal pool He states this is simp. ly an attempt to go along with State Law and says it will be the minimum that could be approved by the Planning Board. The public interest is served by the protection of the vernal pool by whichever way the State wants it protected. In response to a question f~om a resident, Ogren states that the major access to the subdivision is offof Hale Street. Dinkin states he is not interested in creating an enforcement problem for the police depa~'taient. He says speaking for hlm~elfrather than the Board as a whole, he is not interested in putting in a road for emergency use or limited use or whatever, knowing full well that it will be used for whatever purpose the folks who buy property in that subdivision det,~,~.ine they will use it for. He says again, speslcin~ as an individual and not attiring to represent the sense of the Board, he is not interested in creating any type of problem. Dinkin then moves to the next waiver item which is the elimination of the sidewalk on the northeasterly side of the roadway in the area of the vernal pool Alexander says this would limit the amount of work to be done in the pro~mity of the vernal pool and the roadway. planning Board Meeting Minutes December 15, 1998 Page 13. Murray again cites the traffic sergeant's letter of December 7, 1998 and quotes one paragraph: "The elimination of a sidewalk is totally unacceptable given the scope of this whole project. A sidewalk on both sides of the street is a serious safety issue for children and others to move about inside and outside of the subdivision" and he concludes the letter saying that he feels that these are serious safety concerns with all three of these additional waiver requests and hopes that the Planning Board will also reco~iTe the safety violations if these waivers are granted. DinKin places this hearing in recess until 10:35 P.M. thi~ evening at which time the regular Board meeting will reconvene and the Board will discuss the requested waivers and the Chair will accept motions on the sense of the Board on each individual waiver. The Board is in recess for ten minutes. Dinkin calls the meeting back into session and states he will be accepting motions and would like to have the motions phrased 'It is so ruled that the sense of the Beverly Planning Board is - - so on the first waiver request, from Section 3.C.2.d, he calls for any djsctlssion. Dehmey states he thinks it's fairly clear that the standards have not been met, and he has a problem with both of those issues. Dinkin says he would like to see cited each tree over 6 inches in callper which is intended to be taken out. Ddany: motion that it is the sense of thi.~ Board that waiver requested from 3.C.2.d be denied, seconded by Ms. Flaxmen]. No further discussion, all members in favor, motion passes. Dinkln moves to waiver request 3.C.2.p and asks for discussion. Delaney states he feels some of these waivers are more important than others, and indicates he thinks Mr. Shanahan articulated a reason why information could be beneficial. He states it's his personal sense that this waiver should be denied. Ddaney: motion that it is the sense ofthe Board that waiver requested from 3.C.2.p should be denied, seconded by Fiannery, aH members in favor, motion passes. Dinkin moves to waiver 3.C.2.s and cells for discussion. Delaney says he views this as a timing request and thinks that's what it is intended to be. They don't want to show proposed street trees at thi~ point in time, however, they will be shown before a definitive plan would be signed. He states thi~ has been done in the past, there is logic to it, and there is some public benefit to it as well. Ddaney: motion that the sense of the Board is to grant the waiver from 3.C.2.s, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion passe~ planning Board Meeting Minutes December 15, 1998 Page 14. Dinkin calls for comment on waiver request 3.C.2.u. Dehney feels the same about this request. l)elaney: motion it is the sense of the Board that the waiver requested from 3.C.2.u be granted, seconded by F!annery. All members in favor, motion passes. Dinkin states the next waiver is 4.A.2.c, and Delaney responds that many of the next waivers have to do with roadway design and layout and slopes and tangents, interrelated to each other. While voted separateby and in isolation, he states he may not have a problem with soma of these waivers. l)elaney: motion to propose the Board vote on the reverse ~rve, 32 foot pavement, and grade deviation and hopes to join those questions, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion to enjoin passes. Delaney says it's his personal opinion that when those issues are looked at together with some of the later slope requests, which he doesn't want to join, he can't find it' s in the public interest, doesn't think the standard has been met. l)elaney: motion that it' s the sense of the Board that those three requested waivers which have been joined for the purposes of this motion are denied, seconded by F3nnne~. All members in favor, motion passes. Dinkin indicates next is waiver request 5.E - curbing. Delaney states this is a requested waiver that he would not be opposed to entertain, but under the circum~amces presented before the Board, he would request that it be denied. l)daney: motion to deny waiver request, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion passes. DinIcY notes the next waiver request is 5.B.4, request for waiver on vertical slope. Delaney states he does not feel it is in the public interest forthis to be granted. He feels there are serious public safety concerns and it doesn't make a lot of sense. He feels the Board should stick to the three to one vertical slope requirement and states he would be looking to the Engineering Depsulment at some point in time for a sensible ledge cut. Deianey: motion that it is the sense of the Board that this be denied, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion passes. Dinkin notes the next article which is 5.C. 3, request for waiver that the catch basins be spaced 250 feet apart. pI;nning Board Meeting Minutes December 15, 1998 Page 15. Ddaney: motion that it is the sense ofthe Board that this waiver be granted, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion passes. Dinkin notes the next is the waiver request from their Typical Cross Section. Delaney states they have had some information from the Engineering Department that there would not be any interest to the City to deviate from this standard. Ddsney: motion that it is the senso of the Board that this waiver request be denied. seconded by Flannery. M members in favor, motion passes. On additional wai~ers, #1, Delaney states he does not have a complete understanding of thli waiver, and depended on input from the Engineering Department Ddaney: motion that it is the sense of the Board that tl~ig waiver request by denied, Seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion passes. On Request for additional waivers, #2, minimum paved width of the roadway, Dehmey feels it' s definitely a safety concern where you have a two-way roadway 20 feet wide. l)daney: motion to deny this requested waiver, seconded by F~snnery. A]I members in favor, motion passes. Dinkin states that the final waiver is the elimination of the sidewalk on the northeasterly side of the roadway in the area of the vernal pool Delaney says he feels this waiver request presents a serious safety issue. Ddaney: motion that it is the senso of the Board that the waiver be denied, seconded by Flannery. M members in favor, motion passes. Dinkln notes that we have five minutes to deal with other issues, and wants to know if there is an issue we can deal with in five miraires. 4. Subdivision Aporoval Not ReQuired Hans ("SANR's") Cassidy states there are several ANR plans for the Board to consider, the first being 486 Essex Street, proposing that an existing lot be divided into two building lots. She also notes that the plan depicts wetlands run along the front of the property along Essex Street, ra'~ng a question as to whether this lot can be accessed from Essex Street. Ddaney: motion to deny endorsement ofthi~ plan as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Thomas. All in favor, motion passes. Endorsement is withh elcL Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 15, 1998 Page 16. 5. Estates at Prides Crossing Subdivision Plan: Public HearinpJJames Marten, Toll Brothers Construction Dinkin calls the Prides Crossing Estates hearing back in session, and wants to know if the applicant has anything to add based on the sense of the Board votes? Alexander states they do not have anything to add in light of that, and that they do have some information that they are working on and would hope to present at the next meeting of the planning Board in response to a letter sent to them by Cassidy in November. Cassidy reads into the record a letter dated December 15, 1998 from the Beverly Fire Depat ttaent, a letter dated December 7, 1998 from the Beverly Police Department, a letter dated November 23, 1998 from Peter & Elizabeth Loring of 573 Hale Street, a letter dated December 7, 1998 from Attorney Ha~,hgton, and a letter dated November 30, 1998 from residents of the Carriage House, 7 Avalon Avenue. Cassidy states that these and other letters are on file for review by the public. Joan Johnson of Groundswell indicates she has petitions from 600 residents in Beverly who request the planning Board to ~ject the development. Alexander states they would like the opportunity to complete their presentation in January at the next meeting. 1)daney: Motion to accept the request for an extension of time for final action on this filing from 12/30/98 to 1/31/99, seconded by Thomas. All members in favor, motion passes. Dinkin pla~s this public hearing in recess until January 19, 1999 at 8:00 P.M. 6. KeHv Nissan: Set date for site elan review oublic hearin~ Cassidy notes there is a request for public hearing on a set of plans fo~ a 6050 square foot addition to a building in Beverly. Ddaney: motion to set a public hearing on the site plan for the Board's January 19, 1998 meeting, seconded by Thomas. All members in favor, motion passes. 7. Subdivision Anoroval Not Recluire Plan (SAN'R) a. Beaver Pond Road/Carmen & Elizabeth Frattaroli Attorney Carmen Frattaroli explains this plan for his property to the Board. One new building lot would be created on this private way. Ddaney: motion to endorse thi.~ plan as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion passes. phmnlng Board Meeting Minutes December 15, 1998 Page 17. 8. Access Road Subdivision: Exoiration of Construction Comnlete Date/David Carnevale Cassidy notes the work remaining to be completed in the Access road subdivision and states the applicant requests an extension of the construction of this project. Ale~mder requests a six-month extension, to plant street trees and finish the area, probably to be completed in the spring. He states they would look for an additional six months to plant the trees and do additional lawn and reseeding. Ddaney: motion to grant the six month extension to June 30, 1999, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion passes. Cassidy notes that on the Sunday Drive subdivision there is a six month extension requested from December 1998 to June 1999 on the construction completion, and an accompanying letter f~om Frank Killilea, Director of Engineering, outlining work to be Ddaney: motion to grant the requested extension of the construction complete date to June 30, 1999, seconded by Flannery. ALl members in favor, motion passes. Cnmeral discussion regarding plans for Christmas party dinner. Ddaney: motion to adjourn, seconded by Thomas. All in favor, motion passes. Meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M.