Loading...
1998-03-17 Joanne Ounn Richard Dinkin ~~ Ellen K. Ftannery Vice Chairman Salvatore Modugno William Delaney D. Stephen Papa Planning Director Barry Sullivan Tina ~ Cassidy John Thomson Minutes March 17, 1998 meeting Members present: Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice-Chairman Bill Delaney, Ellen Flannery, Batty Sullivan, John Thomson, Peter Thomas, Sal Modugno, Joanne Dunn. Also present: City Planner Tina Cassidy Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Delaney: motion to recess for public hearing, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor, motion carries. Public Hearing: Special Permit application ~)9-98 for conversion of building at 10-16 Bow Street to 100% residential / Richard Goldberg Cassidy reads legal notice. Mr. Richard Goldberg addresses the Board and states that he has owned this property for twenty-eight years. There are nine units in the building, eight of which are currently residential. The single commercial unit on the ground floor houses a hairdressing salon, and he is seeking permission to convert it to a residential unit. He believes that a residential unit here will create less of a parking demand and generate less traffic than the existing commercial activity. He explains the nature of the abutting properties for members' information. Cassidy reads letters from various City departments (see file). Dinkin asks if any members of the audience have questions or comments on the petition. There are none. Dinkin asks if any members of the audience wish to speak in favor of or in opposition to the application. Heating none. Dinkin closes the public heating and declares the Board back in regular session. 1. Discussion/decision on special permit request #99-98 to convert existing commercial unit to residential creating 100% residential floor use of a "CC" zoned building. Dinkin asks the Board members if they have any questions or comments. Dclaney asks Goldberg to explain the parking situation. Goldberg explains that there are no off-street parking spaces on this lot. However, some parking is available on street and there is a municipal off-street parking lot within 500' of the entrance to this building which will satisfy the City's off-street parking requirements. Cassidy states that she has confirmed this with the Building Inspector. Delaney says that hc concurs with the conclusion that a residential use should require less parking than City Hall 191 Cabot Street Beverly, Massachusetts 01915 (978) 921-6000 Fax (978) 922-0285 Planning Board minutes March 17, 1998 meeting page two a commercial enterprise. Dinkin expresses a general concern with the erosion of the commercial space in the downtown area. Goldberg states that this end of Bow Street, while it has several commercial tenants, is relatively weak with tenants often staying less than one year. Thomson points out that if the market for commercial space becomes such that renting this unit commercially makes more sense, the owner can convert the unit back to commercial by right without further Board action being necessary. Sullivan states that while there is a lack of quality commercial space in downtown Beverly, there isn't a lack of commercial space generally. He does not foresee a shortage of commercial space happening in the near future. Dinkin asks if there are any additional comments. There are none. Delaney: motion to grant a special permit to allow the floor area of the structure at 10-16 Bow Street to be used 100% residentially, seconded by Flannery. All. members in favor, motion carries. 2. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR's) a. Red Rock Lane / Estate of Hermann Kirschner Cassidy presents this ANR to the Board. The plan shows the division of a vacant lot on Red Rock Lane into two. Both lots would meet the minimum frontage requirements of zoning, and the plan meets the Board's requirements for ANR plans. Delaney: motion to endorse the plan of land on Red Rock Lane as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Thomson. All members in favor, motion carries. b. Red Rock Lane / Estate of Hermann Kirschner Cassidy presents this ANR to the Board and explains that an existing lot with a single-family home is being subdivided into two lots. Both would meet the minimum frontage requirements of zoning, and the plan meets the Board's regulations for ANR plans. Delaney: motion to endorse the plan of land on Red Rock Lane as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law. seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion carries. 3. Request for finding of specific and material change and permission to reapply to the Board of Appeals within two years of a variance denial in accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 16 / 19 Bates Park Avenue Dinkin asks Cassidy to update the Board. Cassidy explains that the owners of property at 19 Bates Park Avenue applied to the Board of Appeals for a setback variance last fall so that they Planning Board minutes March 17, 1998 meeting page three could construct a three-season room addition to the existing home. Their contractor was supposed to appear at the meeting on their behalf, and failed to attend the meeting. In the absence of representation before the Appeals Board, members denied the variance. The homeowner, Joan Driscoll, has modified the plan by enlarging the addition and relocating the stairs and door. The Planning Board must f'md that a specific and material change has been made to the original application and all but one member must consent to permit the owner to reapply to the Board of Appeals within two (2) years. Dinkin asks Ms. Driscoll to explain the change to the Board. The Board must have sufficient information to find that the new plan reflects a specific and material change to the original application. She explains that the original proposal was for a 10' x 12' addition with no deck and one set of stairs. The new application shows a 12' wide and 14' long addition with two sets of stairs and a ten foot deck. The roof line of the existing building would also change. Thomson asks Driscoll if she will be using a different contractor. She states yes. Modugno asks Cassidy why the Board of Appeals did not continue the hearing to the following month's meeting, instead of denying the application outright. Cassidy answers that she does not know exactly why the Board took that action; perhaps the mandatory deadline for action by the Board was running out. Thomson asks that a copy of the Board of Appeals' decision on this application be forwarded to him. Dinkin asks if there are any other questions or comments from the members. There are none. Delaney: motion that the Planning Board find that a specific and material change has been made to the proposed application for a setback variance for property at 19 Bates Park Avenue, and that the Board consent to the applicant's request for permission to reapply to the Board of Appeals within two (2) years of a variance denial in accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 16. Motion is seconded by Flannery; Delaney, Flannery, Dinkin, Modugno, Sullivan, Thomson, Duma, and Thomas in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries 8 - 0. 4. Maplewood Subdivision: Request for reduction in bond posted as surety., extension of construction completion date, recommendation to Cih., Council on acceptance plans / AI Symes, Maplewood Village Partnership Cassidy explains that the developers have requested a reduction to the Tri-Partite Agreement posted as surety to guarantee completion of this project and have also submitted acceptance plans to the City. She states that although most of the work has been completed, the Board must retain some money for the required tree and grass plot guarantee which will in turn necessitate an extension of the construction completion date for this project. She reads a letter from City Engineer Frank Killilea recommending that the Board carry $4,480.00 in surety for this purpose. Delaney: motion to extend the construction completion date for the Maplewood subdivision to March 1, 1999, to recommend to the City Council that that body accept the Planning Board minutes March 17, 1998 meeting page four acceptance plans for this subdivision, and to reduce the amount of the Tri-Partite Agreement to $4,480.00. Motion seconded by Thomas, all members in favor. Motion carries. 5. Approval of Minutes of January 22, 1998 and February 23, 1998 meetings Dinkin asks if there are any questions or amendments that should be made to these sets of minutes. Sullivan asks fellow members to explain the February 23rd Loeb Estate preliminary subdivision vote with respect to the waivers the developer had requested. The minutes do not show that any votes were taken on the waivers. Delaney explains that instead of voting on any of the requested waivers at that point, the Board chose to broadly indicate that several were unlikely to be granted and several were worthy of potential consideration at the definitive plan stage. Delaney: motion to accept the January 22, 1998 and February 23, 1998 minutes as drafted, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion carries. Thomas: motion to adjourn, seconded by Flannery. all members in favor, motion carries. The meeting is adjourned at 8:16 p.m.