Loading...
1998-10-20City of Beverly, Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board: Planning Board Subcommittee: Date: October 20, 1998 Hace: Beverly Senior Center, 90 Colon Street Board members present: Chairman Richard Dinkin~ Vice ChaPman Bill Delaney, Barn/ Sullivan, Ellen Flannery, Joanne Eh~nn, John Thomson, Peter Thomas, and Robert Rink Board members absent: Salvatore Modugno Others Present: Tina Cassidy, Planning Director, and Frank Killilea, Jr., Director of Engineering Recorder: Susan Akerman Chahman Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. Deianey: Motion to recess for public hearings, seconded by Flannery. Dink/n~ Delaney, Sullivan, Finery, DImn, Thomas, Thomson and Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Public Hearines: Estates at Prides Crossins Dd'mitive Subdivision HanfroH Brothers and James Muilen Cassidy reads the legal notice. Thomson recuses him~elf from this HeadnF~ Cassidy updates the Board and explains that this public hearing started in June, it was then tables to the Board's September 8, 1998 meeting, and then continued to tonight's meeting. Cassidy gates that at the last meeting there were a number of concerns (i.e.: drainage, traffic, changes in the nature of the parcel, etc.), and that the Board commissioned Camp Dresser & McKee to repo~ on this filing. Cassidy states that the report has been subm~ed, and that one meeting has been held between the City of Beverly, Camp Dresser & McKee and Toll Brothers to discuss the issues at hand° Engineering Director Fryink Killilea, Jr. addresses the Board and states that they did have a meeting, and at that meeting Mr. Peter Ogren submitted his documented responses to the Board's concerns, that they went through each item, discussed each response, and noted that there were some concurrence on issues, but on others there is continued disagreement. Killilea states that he has suot completed his review of this plan, but that the subject area where there seeme to be si~nificant disagreement is drainage. Attorney Thomas Alexander addresses the Board on behalf of T oH Brothers, and gates That they appreciate CDM' s input, and input fi'om members of the public. Alexander states that they are going to try to atteihpt to address m-ch of that input and where this Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 20, 1998 Page 2. information came ~om especially the issues of drainage, Greenwood Avenue access, traffic, weftand issues end environmental imp, act. Alexander states that Toll Brothers is attempting to develop this project which is a right of any property owner. Alexander states that there are a number of waivers being requested, and that these waivers were discussed during the discussion on the preliminary plan, and a resolution was reached. Alexander states that the design will attempt to incorporate that discussion so that it will be in the best interest of everyone. Peter Ogren of Hayes Engin~,~ug addresses the Board and discusses the different alternatives to this project that were proposed, noting that the original proposal was for a 69 lot subdivision that would have been waiverless, but through much discussions it was decided that the subdivision will consist of 58 lots, but with a number Of Waiver needed. Ogren states that this is the plan before the Board tonight, and notes that they anticipate certain waivers because they dropped the subdivision to 58 lots. Next, Ogren reviews storm water management, and states that basically they did a typical analysis according to the Board' s Rides and Regulations, and that they divided the proposed area of development into three major watersheds. Ogren explains each of the watersheds, and states his opinion that Toll Brothers has mitigated the peak water flows, that these aspects have been incorporated into the plan, and that the proposal does meet storm water management requirements. Ogren notes that there is very little activity in the brown watershed, reviews the existing conditions, and the rate ofrun-offthat will go downstream Ogren states that the bulk of the development will affect the central watershed, and that he has subm~ed a comprehensive watershed report. Ogren states that after submission of his report he received additional critiques from CDM end HydroAnalysis, end that he has also submitted a detailed response to those that include information with respect to del~h of coverage of a sewer line with a waiver request. Ogren also states that there will be no conflict between proposed water mains and sewer lines. Next, Ogren reviews speciticaHy hem #2 - Extension of a sewerage, and h~n #4 - Final discharge of sewer. Ogren states that the report doesu 't indicate where the pump station is going to be, but notes that there are four ways to discharge sewerage fxom the subdivision. Further, Ogren states that neither the City nor Camp Dresser & McKec has responded to Toll Brothers with a decision on how they want the sewerage to discharge. Next, Ogren reviews the drainage, specifically Item #1, and notes that they used the 25 year storm design plan, end notes that pocket wetlands will be created in detention basins, and that each ahs been designed to have a certain amount of dead storage volume. Ogren states that water quality benefits outweighed other concerns. Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 20, 1998 Page 3. Next, Ogren reviews Item #4 - Outfall, and explains that the minimum pipe size should be 12 inches, but that ~msller diameter pipes are needed, and states that this is a feature of the plan that needs to be included. He then reviews the concerns with respect to final destination of pipe, discharge, states that there is no lack of adequate capacity here, and then reviews the standards that Toll Brothers have to meet. Ogren ~'views the watersheds, and states that the minlmv. m times of concentration used were inappropriate (very conservative), that they should have been shorter, so the numbers provided are very reasonable. Dinloin questions Camp Dresser & McKee's comment with respect to the size of the pipe and drainage system, noting that he didn't hear a response as to a trade off concerning pipe width and design of the retention basins that seems to have inadequate capacity, and states that the amount of information being presented is overwhelming and that it might be a good idea to let the Board ask any questions they may have, then read through the given material, digest it, and continue with this presentation at a later time. Alexander states that he would like an opportunity to provide an overview of their response, and the opportunity to review all of Toll Brothers' information. Dinkln states that he will rule on the matter of continuing. the presentation later on. Ogren reads the comment in the report regarding Dinkin ' s questions, and states that they set forth a criteria that was considerably strict, that Toll Brothers did use the 100 year storm when designing the detention basins, but noted that the 25 year storm was more logical, and that is why they selected it, but that they did design for the 100 year storm. Delaney states that his basic difficulties focus on volume of water coming off the property (rate of flow), that he is concerned how the rate of ~ow will affect properties off-site, because increasing the voh~me and maintaining the rate of~ow ofwateronto a given property will impact off-property sites, that he is concaned that some sites may be able to handle the volume while others won't be able to do so. Sullivan states that even if the current plan meets legal requirements, it will no doubt cause problems to off-site propertie~ Ogren states as long as it meets the standard of reasonable use, the property owner can develop the land. Dinkin rides that Ogren can continue with the second part of his presentatimL Ogren continues with his presentation stating that Toll Brothers has spent a lot of money to investigate and improve the &ainage system in this area, but it is a fairly si~i~cant drainage system, but that it is a historic drainage system Ogren reviews how the present drainage system works, that the hydraulic system was hard to follow, but that they went Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 20, 1998 Page 4. into the drainage system with a digital camera and were able to inside the manhole on the south side ofthe property, and determined that it is a large drainage system, He then reviews the system, noting that they found a big chamber where there is a 24 inch pipe that discharges by an dwelling and goes under the railroad tracks, that there are two channel culverts, that they found catch basins and manholes that have not been uncovered for years, and that he hasn't figured out everything about the drainage system connections, but states that there is a depth of silt or mad down there that hasn't been cleaned in years, which may be affecting the system' s capacity. Ogren then explains the natural flow of water off the property, and states that the developer's consultants have tried to connect the flooding problem no Hale Street to the Mullen property, and that it could very well be that the drainage path couneets up to an area that we ere unaware of~ but yes there is natural drainage and yes it is on our property. John Shea, Environmental Consultant to Toll Brothers addresses the Board and reviews the law with respect to impact on downstream property owners, and explains that the owner of the property has the right to discharge drainage. Shea explains that Toll Brothers investigated off-she properties to see if the existing drainage system works, and determined that the pipes are adequately sized, that there will be an increase of volume ofrun-off~ but the investigation indicates that the system has the capacity to adequatdy handie these ~ow~ There would be no unreasonable use by the upstream owner in terms of impact on downstream properties. Shea states that a legal memorandum has been submitted to the Board regarding riparian rights under the hw and a summary of the investigation Ogren has done ( See File ), and thus con~tltutes a reasonable use of the property. Ogren states that inchded in the report submitted by Toll Brothers is a commitment to continue work on cleaning out the culverts, that they want to work with the neighbors in order to trace the hydraulic system, then come in, and get the drainage system cleared out, but that they would like help from the neighborhood because it doesn't fall on Toll Brothers to bear the total expense. Delaney sta~es that the presentation has focused in the drainage discharge system, but that are other watershed areas identified off-site that he could like Ogren to address. Ogren exphins that there are three other watersheds: ( 1 ) Greenwood Avenue, this one ultimately connects up to the natural drainage system, it has a hck of capacity, has very littie flow in the direction of the culvert, and the hydraulic system was not impacted; (2) Dix Park (Chubbs system), thi~ watershed has a diversion pipe in it, it takes water from the brook and discharges downstream, this system ultlmntely goes to Chubbs Brook, and notes that they did a preliminsry study on thi.~ watershed and two snggestiuns were given Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 20, 1998 Page 5. that would improve downstream runoff; and (3) A third watershed is described but Ogre~ states that Toll Brothers didn't focus on this one because it is free flowing, it has been kept clean, end has very little flow to the culvert. Ogren states that thi.~ watershed ultimately flows to the ocean, and then reviews on the map where this watershed flows. He then reviews the major watershed that controls the Mullen property. Rink asks if it would be a fair assessment of the material submitted to assume that the system in place if working and cleared would indeed handle the extra mount of flow. Ogren states yes, but to say it is adequate, I dun 't know, there is a very adequate hydraulic system that meets reasonable design standards, but won't say fithe culverts are designed forthe 10, 25 or 100 year storm event. Dinkin asks if it is pom}le to develop calculations of the real capacity of that system and if so, how long will it take to do se. Ogren states yes the calculations can be done, but that the culvert would first need to be cleaned out, and would have to investigate where the flow discharges because there are multiple pipes and notes that it is not the responsibility of his client, that this is a natural brook and he doesn't think this is or could be a private system. Og~n further states that they did a hydrological report and while there is no evidence of flooding in the field, there are some small pending areas. Dinkin recesses the public hearing until 9:25 P.M. Site Han Review aoulication 040-98: construction of new manufacturin2 Corporation/Fonzo Realty Trust H Cassidy reads the legal notice. Attorney Thomas Alexander addresses the Board and states that this will be the first new building to open on the Airport Road. Alexander states that they have gone before the Traffic & parking Commission for location forthe foundation, and notes that they intend to start building on this space soon. Alexander states that at this time the landscaping plans will be presented by Peter Ogren and that the elevation plans have not yet been completed, that they are hoping to get final approval forthis Site Plan Review Application at the next Board meeting. Artomey Alexander explains that they ere seeking approval from the Board to allow the developer to start work on this site for the foundation and location for the parking area. Cassidy reads the following letters: Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 20, 1998 Page 6. Letter from the Fire Department dated 10/19/98. (0 n File) Letter from the Conservation Commission dated 9/30/98. (On File) Letter from Parking & Traffic Commission dated 10/15/98. (On File) Letter from the Police Department dated 10/15/98. (On File) Alexander notes that he has revised plans that incorporate the suggestion of the Fire Depza'tment and the ParIcing & Traffic Commi.~sion. Peter Ogren addresses the Board and states that he has met with, and has submitted an amended landscaping plan to the Department of Environmental Protection and the Design Review Board regarding a proposal to take out several parking spaces and put landscaping there instead. Renee Mary of 274 Hale Street addresses the Board and inquires about the 100' hill/ridge that has a 12 - 13 - 14 degree descent, and asks what the developer intends to do with that all the wetlands down then, that the wetland issues lines were agreed to under the Request for Determination of Applicability, and that the Clean Water A~t should be taken as a whole, and not pan by part. Mary furlher questions the third test pit/gravel pit, and states that it has not been tested, and asks where this test pit is in rehtion to the gravel pit. Ogren states that then are no tests pits that det~,.ine anything (i.e., poisons), that then are a number of test pits where gravel ahs been taken out, and no poisons have been put in, and the wetlands have been mapped as pan of the process and will not change. Ogren further states that MEPA agreed that the storm water is to be handled as drain-out, and the applicant has filed with the Conservation Commission. Mary asks how they intend to handle the 100' hill Ogren explains where the tope is shown on the plan, that the building will be placed at elevation 70 here, and notes that ali the owner is seeIcing tonight is an approval to cut and fill. Ogren also states that the site is not quite level, but that it is easy to negotiate with a car. Dinkin asks Frank Killiles if he has anything to add to the presentation. Killilea exphins that he is still in the process of reviewing the storm water management report forthis submittal Alexander states that it is not the applicant' s request to get further site plan approval, but for the Board to vote whether or nut the developer can begin site work for the grading of the topography for location of the footings and for the location of the parking area. Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 20, 1998 Page 7. Thomson questions whether the applicant is asking for site work only, and that no construction is to start. Alexander states that the applicant would like to start on the foundation only. Ogran explains that the applicant is looking to get advanced site work done (cut and fill) before the hard winter weather sets Dinkin states that the opinion of the chair is to proceed with the work that will not affect the site plan review, such as grading. Cassidy states that it is her recommendation that the Board nut give approval without the approval of the Conservation Commission, and Frsnlc Killilea's review is needed. Joan Johnsun states that if the Board allows site work to be done, there is an area that is very senskive with respect to the Conservation CommllsiOn, and adds that when ske work does be~-~ sik fencing and haybales should be put around the area. Alexander explains that the applicant can't begin work that is in or affects any wetlands without approval of the Conservation Commission. Dinla. states that he is placing this matter in recess until the Board' s meeting scheduled for November 17, 1998 at 7:30 P.M. Dinkin calls to order the continued public hearing forthe Estates at Prides Crossing. Thomson recuses him~!f f~om the meeting. Peter Ogren addresses the Board and explains that there are two watersheds (A & B) that are nut included in the report because they were not connected with the roadway drainage system, but states that there was a hydraulic report done. Ogrea notes that there is quite a bit of information that was submitted regarding volume which he believes has been addressed adequately. He explains that he didn't find an outfall, but found a small drain pipe on the Mullen property for which there is no easement. Ogren states that the hydraulic calculations didn't state that this project would ereate a lot ofnm-offwater flow, but did include a hydraulic connection that would flow into a swale. Ogren explains that they did do dye testing on the pipe and found the pipe to flow low and unsuceass~dly, and that the emergency overflow, which would happen only on rare occasions, would discharge to reservoir #12. Ogren states that the report indicated that two drains are needed, but ere not necessary at every cut, but if they should be required, the applicant will come back to the City with a two drain design. Next, Oge~ states they didn't do a report on inlet capacity, but are proceeding with a better approach that looks at areas where greater flows ere. planning Board Meeting Minutes October 20, 1998 Page 8. EHnlHn suggests that Ogren wait unt'~ Dr. Shanahan, who is representing Groundswell, has had an oppommity give his presentation. Ogre~ points out that they are in receipt of Dr. Shanahan ' s report, but would like to save their presentation on that matter until they have had an opportunity review the report adequately. Dr. Sh,,nahan, a Professional Enghecring for Groundswell, addresses the Board and reviews the drainage system Shanahan states that it is a judgment call on how to represent a storm water basin, that we should assume that the basin is filled, not empty; that he sees an increase in nmoffin a n.mher of events, then reviews this information, noting that Watershed A increases for the two year storm, and questions how the applicant is to represent the watershed down on Hale Street; that they should divide the watersheds and submit the result of that analysis because thi~ v-tuber is important to ensure that the peak flow will not increase, and states that this situation needs to be looked at. Next, Shanahan goes over volume issues, stating that the vohime will increase, and will be seen in downstream areas; that the revised calculations show that the peak flow will increase and will have an impact downstream, then states that Dix Park is one place where we'H see an increase, and thus will see more problems. Shanahan states that the main po'mts that need to be addressed include reference standards, because these numbers are incorrect, and you can't trust that number where future flows are concerned; flows will hcrease, volume will increase, and the applicant needs to further analyze and assess where these problems will be. Delaney questions the time/ab'dity to develop rates of flow based on these models that are being talked about. Shsnahan states that it is not his job to develop these rates, with all Shanahan states that basically what this is, is the applicant took an earlier model, changed the parameters, reran it, and these are their results, a reasonable model of the watersheds in design ofrctention ponds. Tom Harrington addresses the Board and po'mts out that Shanahan's study complies with the DEP guidelines, that Shanahan's view is different than that of the applicant, and although the applicant says that downstream residents really don't have much of a right or cause of action, the State' s Subdivision Control Act does give the Board the right if the volume coming off-site will negatively impact neighbors. phlnnlng Board Meeting Minutes October 20, 1998 Page 9. Harrington further gates that at the be.~t~innin~ of the presentation the applicant had thirteen waivers that were being requested and reads from the Board' s Rules and Regulations, stating that the Board can take action on behalf of these neighbors. Killilea addresses the Board and states that Ogren has related his version of the meeting, and that he's be remiss if he didn't state that this was not a harmonious affair, that there was some disagreement and dissention, and that several times the meeting almost broke up prematurely. Killilea further states that his report will reflect the details of all subjects, and that thee are major engineering differences of opinion. Councilor Murray states that what Killilea said is true, that the meeting was not a 'love fest'. Next, Cassidy reviews time considerations for this filing. Dinkln asks Alexander if they would agree to continue this hearing to the Board's meeting of November 9, 1998 and notes that this matter will not conclude on this date. Alexander states that they are in agreement to request an extension of time for Board action to December 31, 1998. Alexander submits to Cassidy an agreement to continue the public hearing on the Estates at Prides Crossing Definitive Subdivision Plan to December 31, 1998. Delaney: Motion to accept applicant's request for an extension of the Estates at hides Crossing Definitive Plan to December 31, 1998, seconded by Flannery. Dinkln Delalley, Sullivall, Flallllory, Dunn~ Thomas, Thomson and R~nk in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Detaney: Motion to continue the public hearing on the Estates at hides Crossing Phn to the Board's next meeting scheduled for November 9, 1998 at 7:30 P.M., at a meeting location to be announced by the Planning Director, seconded by Flannery. Dinkln, Delaney, Sttllivan, Flaltnery, Denn> Thomas, Thomson, and Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Thomson returns to the meeting at thi.q line (10:05 P.M.) Alexander asks fithey could request that they are the only agends iten~ Dinkin explains that there is a possible that a ~imple matter may come in that the Board will have to hear. Otherwise, it will be only agenda iten~ Dinkin states that this public hearing is in recess until Monday, November 9, 1998 at 7:30 P.M. planning Board Meeting Minutes October 20, 1998 Page 10. Dinkin recesses the Board for 10 minutes. Dinkin reconvenes the meeting to regular session. Discussion/decision: Site Plan Review application 040-98: construction of new manufacturinPJ0f~ce buildin~ on Sam Fonzo Drive/Aero Manufacturin~ Corporation and Fonzo Realty Trust Dinkin asks members if it is the sense of the Board to either allow the applicant to proceed with site preparation only or not proceed prior to a final vote on the site plan. Sullivan gates that he feels that the applicant could proceed, that he doesn't have a problem with that. Sullivan: Motion to allow the applicant to proceed with site preparation only (no foundation work is to be done) at his own risk, seconded by Delaney, Dinkin~ Delaney, Sullivan, Fiaonery, Dnnn~ Thomas, Thomson and Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Subdivision Anoroval Not Reeuired Hans (SANR's) 14-16 Walnut Street/Richard Stone Cassidy explains to the members that thi~ is one lot with two houses existing on it prior to the adopting of zoning in Beverly in 1939, and that the applicant is seeking to put each home on its own lot so they can be sold separately. Cassidy notes that it will not be a 50- 50 split, that the plans show one lot having 48' of frontage while the other lot has 52' of frontage. Cassidy explains that this would enable them to allow for an additional 2' between the house and the lot line for off-greet parking in back of the propen),. Cassidy gates that this project conforms with the Board' s Rules and Regulations for ANRphns. Delaney: Motion to endorse the plan of !and for 14-16 Walnut Street as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Dunn. Dinkin, Delaney, Sn!Hvan, Finery, Dunn3 Thomas, Thomson and Rink all in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Cassidy reads a letter request from the developer anklng the Board to release the remaining bond monies in the amount of$33,050.00. Cassidygatesthataletterffom Frank Killilea, Jr. has been receiving stating that the as-buiits and acceptance phns are Plsnning Board Meeting Minutes October :20, 1998 Page 11. acceptable. Cassidy further states that $553.00 has been deposited with the City for the purchase of trees forthe Ryal Side area of the City in lieu of the correct size street trees. Rink asks Mr. Trentini how many trees $553.00 buys. Mr. Trcmtini explains that $553.00 is the vahe often trees. Ddaney: Motion to accept the ,~,m of $553.00 t~om the developer forthe purchase of trees to be planted in the Ryal Side section of the City, seconded by Thomson. Dinkin~ Delaney, Sullivan,, Flannery, Dnnn~ Thomas, Thomson and Rink in favor, no one oppose& Motion carries. Delaney: Motion to reduce the bond posted to guarantee completion of the Winthrop' s Grant Subdivision from $33,050.00 to zero and to release all remaining bond money, sec, onded by Flannery. All members in favor, modon carries. Brimball Hill Drive Extension: Exoiration of Form G - Restrictive Covenant Construction Completion dateM & L Realty Trust. Holly Lockwood. Trustee Cassidy updates the members and explains that she has received a letter from represeatatives of K & L Realty Trust seeIcing an extension of the construction completion date from October 28, 1998 to April 28, 1999. IManey: Motion to extend the construction completion date forthe Brimball Hill Drive Extension from October 28, 1998 to April 28, 1999, seconded by Sullivan. Dinkin~ Delaney, Sullivan, Flannery, Dunn, Thomas, Thomson and Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Worthington Green Subdivision: Expiration of construction completion date and Tri-Pafiite Aureement DoSted as surety. bond reduction/John Sanidas. Amberwood Construction Cassidy explains that she has received a letter of request from the developer seeking a reduction in the amount of the bond for this subdivision, and to extent the Tri-Partite Agreement. Cassidy reads a letter from (On File). Ikianey: Motion to accept the revised Tri-Partite Agreement in the amount of $21,938.00 as surety for the Worthington Gree~l Subdivision, seconded by Flann~y. Dinlcln; Dehnx~J, SRLiivan, FllllH~y, Dnnn~ Tholnas, TholHsou and Rink in favor, no one opposod. Motiun cALfties. Plsnnln~ Board Meeting Minutes October 20, 1998 Page 12. Ddaney: Motion to extend the construction completion date to March 30, 1999, seconded by Sullivan. Dinkin, Dehney, Sullivan, Flannery, Dunn~ Thomas, Thomson, and Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Delaney: Motion that the amount of the bond be reduced to $21,938.00, seconded by Flannery. Dinkin, Delaney, Sullivan, Flnnnery, Dnnn~ Thomas, Thomson and Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion eardes. Birch Woods Subdivision: Reauest to modify anDroved subdivision ~lan and vrevious modifieation. reauest for release of lots #11 and #13 from lan,oualze of Fore G- Restrictive Covenant/Joseoh Dandren. Trustee and Attorney Alan Grenier Attorney Alan Grenier addresses the Board and explains that this subdivision was approved in 1990 and that since then it has been under appeal by certain neighbors, and in order to resulve this matter it has been agreed upon to convey to the neighbor Edalstein Lots #11 and #13 which are not to be buildable lots. Grenier gates that they are requesting that the Board waive provisions of the covenant in order to convey to the neighbors, and comply with zoning requirements. Cassidy states that flit is the intent of the Board to release lots #11 and #13 that an ANR must be presented at a subsequent meeting if the Board approved the language release. Ddaney: Motion to grant applicant' s request to release lots # 11 and # 13 only from the Form G Covenant so that Lots # 11 and # 13 only can be conveyed, but not built upon, and that the conveyance instruments for these lots reference the fact that the lots cannot be built upon, seconded by Thomson. Dinkln~ Dehney, Sullivan, F]nnnel'y, Dnnn, Thomas, ThoHlson and Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Ddaney: Motion to set a public hearing on the modification request for the Board's November 17, 1998 meeting, seconded by Flannery. Dinkln~ Delaney, Sullivan, F]annex'y, Dunn~ Thomas, Thomson and Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Site Han Review Aoolication 041-98: Set date for oublic hearins on renovations and additions to the Beverly Coooerative ink/James Grisham. Beverly Conoerative Cassidy updates the members. Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 20, 1998 Page 13. Sullivan: Motion to schedule a date for Site Plan Review Application ~41-98 forthe Board's meeting of November 17, 1998, seconded by Thomas. Dinkin, Delaney, Sulfivan, Flannery, Dunn~ ThOmaS, Thomson and Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Site Han Review Anolication - #2 Marizin SWeet/Jeff Burk Cassidy explains that the applicant has filed for Site Plan Review. Sullivan: Motion to schedule a date for Site Plan Review for 2 Margin Street forthe Board's November 17, 1998 meeting, seconded by Thomson. Dinkin~ Delaney, Sullivan, Flannery, Dunn~ Thomas, Thomson and Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. 81-R: Reauest for Waiver from Frontage Reauirements: 295 Cabot SWeet Sullivan: Motion to set a date for 81-R~ Request for Waiver f~om Frontage Requirements forthe Board's meeting scheduled for November 17, 1998, seconded by Thomas. Dinkin, Delaney, Sullivan, Flannery, D!mn~ Thomas, Thomson and Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. APproval of Minutes: August 18. 1998 Regular Meetino: Seotember 22, 1998 Regular Meetlns Thomas: Motion to accept the August 18, 1998 and the September 22, 1998 Minutes as amended by changing paragraphs 2, 3, and 5 on Page 9 of 9/22/98 Minutes by interchanging Thomson with ThomaS, seconded by Bink Dinkin Delaney, Sullivan, Flatmen/, Dunn~ ThomaS, Thomson and Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. New or Other Business a. Reminder of workshop to discuss amendments to Board's Rules and Regulations on November 10. 1998 at GAR Hal Cassidy states that this date has been bumped and that she will set a new date. b. Update on last month's discussion on drainaie problems connected With the Chapel Flill Estates subdivision Plsnning Board MeetingMinutes October20,1998 Page 14. Cassidy gates that she spoke with Cky Solicier Marshall Handly regarding this matter, and according to him~ this is a private matter and notes that she is awaking as-bulks to confirm that the driveway was built where it was indicated on the plan. Adjournment Hannery: Motion to edjoum, seconded by Ehlnn Dinkin, Delaney, Sullivan, F]annery, Dnnn, Thomas, Thomson and Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Meeting was adjourned at 11:00 P.M.