1998-09-22 ~/~( Joanne Dunn
Chairperson Ellen K. Flannery
Richard Dinkin F~' ,.C~''1 Salvatore Modugno
o~ ~',~', Robert Rink
Vice Chairman ' ~ ] Barry Sullivan
William Delaney /~:~~;~
Planning Director Peter M. Thomas
John Thomson
Tina P. Cassiciy Minutes
Beverly Planning Board
September 22, 1998 Meeting
Members present: Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice-Chairman Bill
Delaney, Salvatore Modugno, Barry Sullivan, Ellen Flannery, Joanne
Dunn, John Thomson, Peter Thomas and Robert Rink. Also present:
Planning Director Tina Cassidy, Director of Engineering Frank
Killlien, Jr., and Susan Akerman, Secretary to the Board.
Vice-Chairman Delaney calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Thomas: Motion to recess for public hearings, seconded by
Sullivan. Delaney, Modugno, Sullivan, Dunn, Thomas,
Thomson and Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion
carries.
1. PUblic Hearinqs:
· Site Plan Review Application #38-98 / construction of a
McDonaldss Restaurant at 224 Elliott Street / The McDonald's
CorporatiOn
Cassidy reads legal notice.
Chairperson Dinkin joins the meeting at this time.
Cassidy reads the following letters:
- Letter from City Solicitor Marshall Handly. (On File)
- Letter from Building Inspector Tim Brennan. (On File)
Cassidy states that the plan before the members is a revised plan
for the Board to consider.
Attorney Thomas Alexander addresses the Board and reviews the
revised plan and addresses some items that the Planning Board has
raised. The first issue being litter control, Attorney Alexander
hands out a litter control program and map submitted by the
McDonaid's Corporation outlining where they have agreed to clean up
the litter; the second issue was a request for a traffic analysis,
Attorney Alexander submits a traffic analysis prepared by VHB and
summarizes it for the members.
City Hall 191 Cabot Street Beverly, Massachusetts 01915 (978) 921-6000 Fax (978) 922-0285
Planning Board
September 22, 1998 Meeting
Page Two
Alexander notes that the combination of trips that will be
generated by McDonald's and Stop & Shop will result in fewer trips
generated compared to the previous site plan originally
planned/approved for this site.
Dinkin asks if the VHB study refers to traffic patterns generated
specifically for a fast food restaurant. Alexander states that the
study's assumptions are based on a fast food restaurant with a
drive through window.
Lastly, Alexander explains that the applicant has pursued some
alternative designs, and summarizes that the original design for
the building was designed &san ocean front building which would be
in keeping with the design of the Stop a Shop (Cape Cod Design) and
explains that prior to this Board, McDonald's met with the Design
Review Board which had the following changes; that the roof be
changed to go all the way around the building, that the signage be
removed on the waterfront facade, that the trim and roof color be
revised, and that there be a reduction in the height and width of
the windows, so now there will be a 25% reduction in window area.
Alexander explains that they added a 1' diameter column to the
front of the building to break the window area view, that a patio
has been added facing the waterfront park at the request of the
Harbor Management Authority, and a brick pathway has been proposed
to be installed. Attorney Alexander explains that McDonald's
employees will police the patio and walkway area for litter as
well, and noted that as a result of the patio and walkway there
will be a break in the stockade fence that divides McDonald's and
the park.
Ellen Flannery joins the meeting at this time. (7:45 p.m.)
Attorney Alexander states that the patio and walkway are dedicated
for public use, and that this sums up what has been going on.
Cassidy reads a letter from City Engineer Frank Killilea, Jr. dated
9/22/98. (On File)
Chairperson Dinkin asks the members if they have any clarifying
questions.
Thomson asks if the City Engineer has received plans that actually
show the utilities tieing into Elliott Street. Mr. Killilea states
that he has received plans prior to the July meeting that showed
stub connections to the utilities, but that the applicant was to
follow up with as-builts, and they have not yet been submitted.
Thomson asks if there are any plans to light the patio at night.
Mr. Killilea states that if there is going to be a public walkway,
the applicant should have proper illumination/lights along the
pathway. Attorney Alexander states that there are lights proposed
Planning Board
September 22, 1998 Meeting
Page Three
for around the pathway and that McDonald's Corporation would be
willing to add lights to the patio in accordance with the lights on
the pathway.
Delaney asks if they plan to put tables, umbrellas, etc. on the
patio area. Attorney Alexander responds yes.
Delaney suggests that the applicant address this issue further.
Dave Pagel addresses the Board and explains that the tables will be
cement terracotta with the chairs affixed to the table, so that the
wind won't blow them over.
Delaney asks the applicant if they have anything with them to show
the Board the difference on how the windows in the front of the
building will look. Attorney Alexander shows the members the
difference on the plan and explains the differences in the
dimensions.
Chairperson Dinkin asks if the signage internal to the building has
changed. Mr. Pagel responds no.
Delaney asks with respect to the letter from the Building
Inspector, is there a particular position for the free-standing
sign. Attorney Alexander explains that they have a different
interpertation of the ordinance, but that the applicant will abide
by the variance process if it chooses to erect a free standing
sign.
Thomas asks if the second sign is part of the Planning Board's
approval tonight. Attorney Alexander states that in light of the
Building Inspector's letter, it has not been included in tonight's
approval, and the applicant will amend the plan to eliminate it if
the Planning Board approves the plan this evening.
Thomas asks what the hours of operation will be. Attorney
Alexander states that the hours of operation will be from 6:00 a.m.
to 12:00 p.m., that they do not intend to go beyond that, but noted
that the site is not in a residential neighborhood so there are no
restrictions on the hours of operation.
Chairperson Dinkin asks if any one from the public wishes to speak.
Joan Murphy of Longmeadow Road addresses the Board and states that
at the first public hearing she stated that she was concerned with
the possibility that customers of McDonald's would take over the
public park, and now that there will be a division in the fence
between the public park and McDonald's and a proposal for a patio,
Ms. Murphy states that she is concerned that the customers could
conceivable take over the public park, and then asks if there is
Planning Board
September 22, 1998 Meeting
Page Four
anything in the plans to keep the park as a public park and not for
use for McDonald customers, what safeguards are there. Attorney
Alexander shows Ms. Murphy the plan and explains where the walkway
and the fence are, and where the opening in the fence will be, then
noted that the opening will be approximately 100' Attorney
Alexander states that they are proposing a patio to address a
concern, that McDonald's has no concerns either way, that they can
do with or without the patio.
Chairperson Dinkin asks if there are any additional questions from
the public. There were none.
Chairperson Dinkin asks if there are any comments in opposition to
this matter.
Joan Murphy states that she would like to see a smaller opening in
the fence.
Chairperson Dinkin asks if there are any comments in support of
this matter. There were none.
Chairperson Dinkin declares the public hearing on Site Plan Review
Application #38-98 / construction of a McDonald's Restaurant at 224
Elliott Street closed.
Chairperson Dinkin recesses the Board for three minutes.
2. Special Permit Application #100-98 for reconstruction of
exiStinu uas station at 38 Enon Street / Gibbs Oil Co.
Chairperson Dinkin states that the public hearing for Special
Permit Application #100-98 is called to order.
Cassidy reads the legal notice.
Cassidy updates the members and explains that there has been a
request by the applicant's attorney to have this public hearing
continued to the Board's November 17, 1998 meeting, due to the fact
that the applicant's attorney cound not present this evening due to
an unavoidable scheduling conflict.
Delaney: Motion to table the public hearing on Special Permit
Application #100-98 for reconstruction of existing gas
station at 38 Enon Street to the Board's November 17,
1998 meeting, seconded by Thomas. Dinkin, Delaney,
Modugno, Sullivan, Dunn, Flannery, Thomas, Thomson and
Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries.
Planning Board
September 22, 1998 Meeting
Page Five
Chairperson Dinkin states that this public hearing is continued to
the Board's November 17, 1998 meeting.
Chairperson Dinkin returns the Board back to regular session.
3. Discussion/Decision: Site Plan Review for McDonald's
restaurant on ElliOtt Street
Cassidy updates the members and explains that she has received
several revised plans with amendments, and if the Planning Board
chooses to approve this plan, that she would recommend two
conditions. The first condition being that the free standing sign
be eliminated, and the second condition is a request that any plan
sheets that need to be revised, be revised and submitted reflecting
the changes and the dates of these changes included.
Thomson comments that the Engineering Director has not yet looked
at the traffic study. Mr. Killilea states that the City is not
going to add any lanes to E11iott Street, but are talking about
adjustments of the signals to make the flow of traffic smoother.
Thomson asks if perhaps the concern of traffic is less now that the
proposal for a gas station is out of the question. Mr. Killilea
states that it is a mute question right now.
Delaney asks if the applicant might consider pursuing some
different ways of looking at the area that is to the right front of
the proposed building, from the street up to the proposed patio
where there will be no fence.
Ms. Murphy states as a point of view, that the applicant should
look at different ways because more people will use the park
because there is a division in the fence, and people do like a
buffering, and asks if it would be appropriate to do some
landscaping in that are (ie: shrubs, flowers to distinguish edge of
park). Attorney Alexander states that they can discuss the
possibility of a split rail fence or some other landscaping scheme
that will be acceptable to the Board.
Chairperson Dinkin states that demarcation plantings make more
sense. Attorney Alexander states perhaps junipers could be used.
Thomson states that he would like the City Engineer to get the
plans for the utilities. Mr. Killilea states that during the
recess he received the plans.
Thomson asks if there are any plans for a playground area.
Attorney Alexander states that the plan does not show for an
exterior play area. Mr. Page1 states that there are no plans at
this time for an exterior play area.
Planning Board
September 22, 1998 Meeting
Page Six
Thomson notes that there is a nicely grassed area along Elliott
Street before the public park which has gotten shabby, and asks if
McDonald's would be willing to take care of the weeds, etc. in that
area.
Chairperson Dinkin states that he believes that as part of Stop &
Shop's approval, Stop & Shop is to maintain that area, and that
maybe this is an enforcement issue with Stop & Shop. Attorney
Alexander states that this area is not part of the area that
McDonald's is leasing from Stop & Shop, but will speak with Stop a
Shop about maintaining the area more frequently.
Mr. Killilea explains that this part of Elliott Street is a
transition section, and with the reconstruction of Route 62 the
City plans to go in that section and continue the concrete
sidewalk, so the problem/concern may be corrected and rectified by
that project.
Chairperson Dinkin asks Mr. Killilea if he feels that he needs
additional opportunity to review the additional documents
submitted. Mr. Killilea responds no.
Delaney: Motion to approve Site Plan Application #38-98 for
construction of a McDonald's restaurant at 224 Elliott
Street with the following conditions: (1) that the free
standing sign in front of the building be eliminated from
the plans; (2) that the applicant landscape the right
front of the building from the patio toward Elliott
Street and subject to the approval of the Engineering
Department and the developer; and (3) subject to any
revisions to the plan be properly shown and dated,
seconded by Flannery.
Thomas questions if there should be a condition with respect to the
lighting of the patio area.
Thomson proposes that the motion be amended to require that
McDonald's propose the lighting scheme for the patio to be
consistent with that of the existing pathway.
Motion amended by Thomson and seconded by Flannery.
and in continuation of the motion, that the applicant agree to
police the area and pick up any trash in the areas identified
in the plans submitted to the Board tonight, and that with the
agreement and concurrence of the applicant the hours of
operation be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Dinkin,
Delaney, Modugno, Sullivan, Dunn, Flannery, Thomas, Thomson
and Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries.
Planning Board
September 22, 1998 Meeting
Page Seven
4. Nicole Avenue Subdivision: Request to establish Bond amount,
acceptance of surety g/21/99 posted to quarentee completion of
subdivision, release of lots for buildingend sale purposes,
extension Of construction completiOn.date / TOm Carnevale
Cassidy updates the members and explains that she has received a
letter from R.C. Realty Trust requesting that the Board (1)
consider extending the construction completion date from November
1998 to November 30, 1999 in order to enable the applicant to
complete the subdivision in that time; and (2) to establish a Bond
amount. Cassidy notes that the Engineering Department has reviewed
the letter and suggests that the Bond amount be established at
$222,131.25. Cassidy further notes that one additional work item
has not been reflected in the bond, and that being approval of the
subdivision was subject to the developer installing a sidewalk to
be consistent with that existing on Hull Street. Cassidy states
that this part of the project is estimated to cost between $2,000 -
$4,000, and that the Board may want to consider adding this to the
Bond amount. Cassidy explains that if these requests are accepted
the developer would also like to request that the Board accept a
Tri-Partite Agreement in the amount of $227,068.75, which will
cover the Hull Street sidewalk, and that lots be released from the
Form G Covenant for sale and building purposes.
Chairperson Dinkin asks if members of the Board have any questions.
There are none.
Delaney: Motion to establish the Bond amount for Nicole Avenue
Subdivision at $227,068.75, and that the construction
completion date be extended from November 1998 to
November 15, 1999, and that the Tri-Partite Agreement be
accepted in the amount of 227,068.75 in the form
submitted as previously approved by the Planning Board,
and upon approval of this condition that the lots be
released from the Form G Covenant for building and sale
purposes, seconded by Thomas. Dinkin, Delaney, Modugno,
Sullivan, Dunn, Flannery, Thomas, Thomson and Rink in
favor, no one opposed. Motion carries.
5. Chapel Hill Estates Subdivision: discussion on drainage issues
/ Tim FOrd
Cassidy updates the members and explains that she received a copy
of a letter from the Law Firm of Peterson & Associates regarding an
on-going issue with respect to drainage issues with an abutter.
One abutter has charged that there are drainage problems on his lot
resulting from this subdivision, and the applicant is asking the
Board to solve the issues. Cassidy notes that this is not part of
the project, and hands out a series of maps outlining the lots.
Planning Board
Sept-mher 22, 1998 Meeting
Page Eight
Cassidy explains that two lots 23F and 23G are under review by the
Conservation Commission because there are wetlands on them, and
that the developer will need to prove that the lots have been
graded as approved. Cassidy states that the abutter indicates the
lot causing his difficulties is one not subject to Conservation
Commission review, and that no final grading plans were required by
the Conservation Commission and/or Planning Board post development
for that lot.
Cassidy suggests that the Board may want to seek advice from the
City Solicitor, that he may be able to suggest how this matter can
be rectified, if in fact the Planning Board has the authority to
intervene in the matter.
Cassidy notes that it is not a requirement for an applicant to
submit grading plans with definitive subdivision plans.
Delaney states that the Board may have no control over what an
owner does on their property, and further states that he thinks
this could be a civil matter between the private parties.
Chairperson Dinkin states that as the Board looks at property in
the City that needs to be developed the Board will continue to see
issues on drainage.
Cassidy suggests that the Board ask the City Solicitor for guidance
and discuss the matter further at the Board's October meeting.
Dinkin states that he thinks that Cassidy's suggestion to refer
this matter to Marshall Handly is appropriate because if the lot
has been conveyed, this will result in a more complex problem.
Thomson states that he thinks that the suggestion to refer the
matter to Marshall Hanley is good, but questions whether the Board
can get involved. He suggests that the Board make a determination
on what remedies the Board can impose on a developer so that this
situation doesn't happen again.
Dinkin states that the Board needs to determine if the property has
been conveyed beyond the jurisdiction of the Board, and if not
conveyed may/may not be in our jurisdiction, a question for
Marshall Handly.
Delaney states that he agrees with Dinkin and that Mr. Thomson
thoughts are a good issue too, that this Board seek advice on what
authority the Board has in this matter. Delaney further states
that it is his opinion that the Board's authority is limited, that
the Board needs to find a long term resolution to this matter, and
that he doesn't think that it is the Board's issue to consider.
Planning Board
September 22, 1998 Meeting
Page Nine
Delaney: Motion that the Board direct the Planning Director to
consult with City Solicitor Marshall Handly to determine
the scope of the Board's authority with the issues raised
tonight, seconded by Flannery. Dinkin, Delaney, Modugno,
Sullivan, Dunn, Flannery, Thomas, Thomson and Rink in
favor, no one opposed. Motion carries.
New or Other Business
6. Accept New Covenant and Modify 5/9/98 Vote: Moore Circle
Subdivision
Cassidy updates the members and explains that the title for Moore
Circle has been turned over to new owners , and
that the new owners have submitted a new Form G Covenant which is
identical to that of what the Moore's had.
Cassidy explains that the Board needs to accept the new Form G
Covenant reflecting the new owners which has been notarized, modify
the plan to allow the house to be built on Lot #1 instead of Lot
#2, but notes that the plan will need to be modified, and that the
plan on record is irretrievable for this type of purpose, so the
Board needs to consider taking a vote to amend/reverse the previous
vote to reflect the amendment, and then record a new Certificate of
Board vote reflecting the Board's approval that Lot #1 can be built
on instead of Lot #2.
Cassidy reads a letter written by herself for Chairperson Dinkin's
signature regarding the action taken by the Board. (On File)
Chairperson Dinkin asks if Marshall Handly has looked at the
language of this letter. Cassidy responds no.
Chairperson Dinkin asks who owns the property. Cassidy states
J & M Realty Trust.
Thomas: Motion to accept the new Form G Covenant and to permit
the existing home on the site to be relocated to lot #1
instead of lot #2, seconded by Thomson. Dinkin, Delaney,
Modugno, Sullivan, Dunn, Flannery, Thomas, Thomson and
Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries.
7. Set Date for FonZO Site Plan Hearina
Cassidy states that the applicant has requested that the Board set
a public hearing date for a site plan review application filed for
construction of a new building on Sam Fonzo Drive.
Pl~.~ing Board
September 22, 1998 Meeting
Page Ten
Sullivan questions the likelihood of the Board getting to this
matter at their October meeting because of the Mullen/Loeb Estate
public hearing.
Dinkin states that he would prefer to schedule this public hearing
for the Board's October meeting and continue it the Board's
November meeting, if necessary.
Delaney: Motion to schedule a public hearing date for Fonzo Site
Plan for the Board's meeting scheduled for October 20,
1998 at 9:00 p.m., seconded by Flannery. Dinkin,
Delaney, Modugno, Sullivan, Dunn, Flannery, Thomas,
Thomson and Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion
carries.
8. Rules & Re~aulations
Cassidy updates the members with respect to amending the Board's
Rules and Regulations. Cassidy states that in July she supplied
the members with a first draft of the amended Rules and Regulations
for suggestions/revising. Cassidy states that John Thomson
submitted some suggestions that should be discussed in detail.
Cassidy reviews her suggestions for amendments to the Board's Rules
and Regulations, (On File) noting a few: (ie: to strike two words
from the definition of frontage; have all streets referred to as
one street instead of primary and secondary streets;
questions whether minor subdivisions should continue to be
permitted; and suggests that the Board consider increasing the fees
in accordance with other communities, etc.)
Delaney states that other Communities have graduated filing fee
schedules.
Cassidy states she will review how much it costs to process
applications and will look at a graduated scale.
Thomas states that other Cities require developers to pay for
individual Engineering consultants.
Thomson states that the Board needs to consider the best use of
Frank Killilea's time, to explore having it cost out to an
independent consultant.
Cassidy states that Frank still needs to be involved to some extent
because he is involved with all City developments.
Cassidy states that she would also like the Board to make some
suggestions with respect to ANR's; that she would like the Board to
consider establishing a section for 81-R waiver requests and set a
Planning Board
September 22, 1998 Meeting
Page Eleven
procedure for that; to consider the possibility of increasing the
fee for Preliminary Plans and requiring the submission of a list of
waivers the applicant wants; to include lot grading plans; replace
some words in general; keep the current 6% maximum grade or change;
and to take a look at dead ends roadway lengths.
Cassidy states that these are some major points and suggested that
the members hold a workshop to review the Rules and Regulations and
then set a hearing date.
The members scheduled a workshop for Tuesday, November 10, 1998 at
7:30 p.m. to review the Board's Rules and Regulations.
Approval o~ Minutes; July 14, 1998
Thomson: Motion to accept the minute of the Board's July 14, 1998
meeting, seconded by Flannery. Dinkin, Delaney, Modugno,
Sullivan, Dunn, Flannery, Thomas, Thomson and Rink in
favor, no one opposed. Motion carries.
ad~ ournment
Thomson: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Flannery. Dinkin,
Delaney, Modugno, Sullivan, Dunn, Flannery, Thomas,
Thomson and Rink in favor, no one opposed. Motion
carries.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Susan D. Akerman
20 Victor Avenue
Beverly, Massachusetts 01915
Beverly Planning Department
City Hall
191 Cabot Street
Beverly, MA 01915
Attention: Tina Cassidy
Bill for services rendered:
Corrections made to various Planning Board minutes.
1 hours ........... @ $10.00 per hour ..... $10~00
Total amount due ......... $10.00