Loading...
1996-03-19 irman James A. Manzi Vice Chairman Richard Dinkin Planning Director Tina P, Cassidy William Delaney Ellen K. Flannery Salvatore Modugno D. Stephen Papa Barry Sullivan John Thomson Minutes Beverly Planning Board Tuesday, March 19, 1996 Members present: Chairman James Manzi, Vice-Chairman Richard Dinkin, Sal Modugno, John Thomson, Ellen Flannery, Joanne Dunn, Steve Papa, Barry Sullivan; also present: City Planner Tina Cassidy Manzi call the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Dinkin: motion to recess for public hearings and reconvene, seconded by Papa; all members in favor, motion carries. Public Hearing (continued): Aileen's Way Definitive Sub- division off Meadow Road / Richard and Aileen L'Abbe Cassidy rereads the legal notice and explains that legal counsel for the property owners and developers has requested that the Board accept an extension of time for final action by the Board, and continue the public hearing on this application to April 1st. She explains that the property owner would like an opportunity to meet with abutters about an existing woods road over the property. The deadline for action on this subdivision plan is March 28th, which is prior to the next meeting of the Board. An extension 'of time will be necessary in order for the Board to defer taking action on this this evening. Dinkin: motion to accept the applicants' request for an extension of time for final action by the Board from March 28, 1996 to April 2, 1996. Motion seconded by Thomson, all members in favor. Motion carries. Dinkin: motion to recess the public hearing on the Aileen's Way Definitive subdivision plan to April 1, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. Motion seconded by Thomson, all members in favor. Motion carries. Hail 7~Q? Cabot Street Beverly, Massac,;usetts 01975 (508) 921-6000 Fax (508) 922-0285 Planning Board Minutes March 19, 1996 Meeting page two Public Hearing: Chapel Hill Definitive Subdivision Plan Grover Street / Tim Ford Cassidy rereads the legal notice for this filing and reminds the Board that it conducted a site visit to this property several weeks ago, and that abutters' concerns centered around the issue of drainage from the site onto adjacent property and the issue of clearcutting of mature trees during construction. Thomas Alexander, attorney representing Mr. Ford, states that the developer will preserve, to the greatest extent possible, mature trees and shrubs on the site. He states that George Zambouras, Commissioner of Public Works, has reviewed and approved the drainage calculations for this project. He also states that both he and Tim Ford are present to answer any questions the Board may have. Manzi asks if any members of the public or Planning Board have questions or comments on the proposal. Dinkin asks Cassidy to read Zambouras' letter, which she does. Margaret Desjardins, who owns property across the road from the site, asks the Board if it would consider granting whatever waivers are necessary to allow a narrower roadway and a landscaped island in the center of the cul-de-sac. She believes that a narrower road and landscaped island would minimize the number of trees that would need to be cut and would also lessen the visual impact of the new roadway on the neighborhood. Cassidy explains that the Board would need to grant waivers to permit this. Ward 6 Councilor John Murray asks for clarification on the number of lots being created. Cassidy explains that there are three (3) ANR lots with existing frontage on Grover and seven (7) lots to be created along the new roadway. Murray asks how many lo~ were included in the drainage calculations submitted to the City. Ford states all ten (10) lots were included. Murray gives the Board a brief history of the house on the site and the fact that the Beverly Historic District Commission recently enacted a six month delay on the demolition of the house on the site. Since the Commission's decision, additional information about the home's historic significance has come to light. Tim LiPorto of Old Rubbly Road asks where the new hydrant has been located. Ford states at the center of the cul-de-sac. Dinkin asks Ford to outline the location of the house on the plans. Thomson asks Ford if he has considered moving the house to one of the new lots in this subdivision. Ford states that he has had two individuals inspect the house, and moving it is too complicated to accomplish. The house is too big of a structure to make it feasible to move. Planning Board minutes March 19, 1996 meeting page three Manzi asks if there are any other questions or audience or from members. Hearing none, Manzi hearing. comments from the closes the public Concurrent Public Hearings (continued): Pearson Road Definitive subdivision plan and special permit for development in excess of two house lots in the Watershed Protection Overlay District / off Old Rubbly Road / Gary Palardy and David Camevale, developers Cassidy rereads the legal notice and states that the developers' attorney has requested that the Board recess this public hearing to the Board's April 1, 1996 meeting. Dinkin: Motion to recess the concurrent public hearings on the Pearson Road definitive subdivision plan to the Board's April 1, 1996 meeting at 7:45 p.m., seconded by Papa. All members in favor, motion carries. Manzi reconvenes regular meeting. Discussion/decision: Chapel Hill Definitive Subdivision Plan Tim Ford, developer Dinkin asks the developer to elaborate on his efforts to preserve the Minot estate. Alexander states that the possibility of renovating the house has been studied, and the structure is not conducive to renovation. Dinkin asks if the developer has considered rehabilitating the property into condominiums. Alexander states that the economics of rehabilitation don't make sense to pursue this. Ford elaborates on the condition of the house's interior. Dinkin states that he does not feel entirely comfortable knowing that the developer intends to demolish this historically-signifi- cant house; but the plan before the Board seeks no waivers from the Board's regulations, is without regulatory defect, and has the approval of all appropriate municipal agencies. He is hopeful that during the six-month demolition delay period a potential buyer of the house will come forward. Ford says he would be delighted if someone would preserve the structure, and adds that he would be prepared to submit plans on a lot-by-lot basis showing the mature plantings that would be preserved on each site. Dinkin: motion to approve the Chapel Hill definitive subdivision plan subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner grant an easement for highway purposes to the City of Beverly for the length of the property's frontage on Grover Street; the width of said easement Planning Board minutes March 19, 1996 meeting page four shall be determined by the Commissioner of Public Works, but shall not be wider than fifty (50) feet; and 2. That the developer shall make every effort to preserve the maximum number of trees possible on site of 6" in caliper or greater, and that a plan shall be submitted to the Planning Board indicating which trees will be preserved. Motion seconded by Flannery, all members in favor. Motion carries. 5. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR's) USM South parcel / corner of Elliott St. and MacPherson Drive Cassidy explains that an ANR has been submitted for this parcel of land slated for the development of a new Stop & Shop supermarket. Notes explaining the land transactions, many of which were required by the City's vote to rezone the land to allow the store, are included on the plan. Thomson asks if all lots meet the minimum zoning requirements. Cassidy answers yes, and that Thomas Alexander is present should members have questions. Alexander elaborates on the parcels involving Dock Lane and the Bass Haven Yacht Club's access. Sullivan asks if there are any restrictions on the use of lot #2 on the plan. Alexander states that the remediation package includes a restriction that the property be used by a non-profit boat club. Dinkin: motion to endorse the plan as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion carries. USM South Parcel / Elliott, Balch, and McKay Streets Cassidy explains this ANR, and notes that the plan meets the Board's requirements for endorsement. Thomas Alexander, representing the applicant, explains the lots being created. Dinkin: motion to endorse the plan as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor, motion carries. Dinkin: motion to recess the meeting for five minutes, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor, motion carries. Planning Board minutes March 19, 1996 Meeting page five 6. Nicole Avenue preliminar~ subdivision plan / Tom Camevale Cassidy updates the Board on this filing and reads a letter to the Board from Commissioner of Public Works George Zambouras dated March 19, 1996 (see file). Michael McCarron, attorney representing Mr. Carnevale, explains that the sewer line for this development has been relocated entirely within the City limits of Beverly, and that a sewer extension permit from the City will be necessary. He reminds the Board that in January, the plan showed the roadway located partially in the town of Wenham. Last Thursday evening, the Wenham Planning Board decided that this plan was not subject to the subdivision control law, and that ANR endorsement should be given instead. Therefore, he indicates that all Beverly subdivision design standards will be adhered to. McCarron states that with respect to the pump station, it is now proposed to be located on land currently owned by an abutter. He adds that if the plan is approved, the land under the station could be divided off and given to the City, or an easement obtained. John Ricci, engineer for the developer, indicates that two waivers are being requested. One seeks permission to install a sidewalk on only one side of the roadway and the second seeks permission to allow the installation of sloped granite curbing instead of straight-faced granite curbing. Dinkin states that the Board has occasionally waived the curbing requirements when the developer has installed other public amenities. He is not in favor of waiving the sidewalk requirement. He questions how the Beverly Planning Board could require a sidewalk in Wenham. Thomson asks if the developer would agree to a possible condition that lot #4, which includes a house site in Beverly and all remaining land of the applicant in Wenham, would not be further subdivided in the future. McCarron states that the developer would not agree to such a restriction, and instead hopes that conditions might change in the future to make subdivision possible. Thomson states that the City may expose itself to liability by maintaining the pump station and road in Wenham. Sullivan asks McCarron to list the benefits that would accrue to the City if the road remained privately owned and maintained instead of public. McCarron states that if the road was a public way, the City would be able to provide the new residents with the same services as it does all others on public ways. Cassidy states that developers usually consider private ways to be less desirable from a marketing standpoint, in that the homeowners on private ways must pay for their own snow plowing and other roadway and utility maintenance. Dunn notes that during the discussion about lot #4, the engineer Planning Board minutes March 19, 1996 meeting page six stated that the lot would not meet the requirements of Title V, and asks why it cannot. Ricci responds that the soils are not providing acceptable percolation rates. Cassidy adds that the Ward 6 councilor has informed her that the subject of the Citypossibly installing sidewalks along Hull Street to the Wenham town line has been discussed. Thomson: motion to approve the Nicole Avenue preliminary subdivision plan, subject to the following conditions: 1. That a notation be added to the Plan indicating that the developers must adhere to the Board of Health's Soil and Solid Fill Requlations; 2. That any definitive subdivision plan for this property should be based on actual surveys of the property's perimeter, not on previous plans; and information regarding property lines should be with confirmation of recorded documents and descriptions; 3. That a design of the sewer pump station should be submitted to the Board and the Commissioner of Public Works at the same time the definitive subdivision plan is submitted; 4. That the language of all proposed easements shown on the definitive subdivision plan shall be drafted and submitted to the Board with the definitive plan for review; 5. That the developer communicate with the Beverly City Solicitor on the legal aspects of the City's potential ownership and maintenance of the proposed road that is located in another community and accessible only from another community, and that at least preliminary discussions on possible City acceptance of the roadway be started with the City Council prior to submission of the definitive subdivision plan; 6. That the developer consider the possibility of restricting future subdivision of the lot depicted at lot #4 on the preliminary subdivision plan; and 7. That the requests for waivers from the Board's Rules and Regulations relative to installation of only one sidewalk and sloped-faced granite curbing BE DENIED. Motion seconded by Sullivan. Dinkin states that he is disinclined to vote in favor of this preliminary plan on the Planning Board minutes March 19, 1996 Meeting page seven basis that the developer has failed to meet the obligation to provide adequate municipal services, and that he does not consider this plan to be ready to proceed at this time. The Board could decline to act on the plan. Thomson states that he would like to get the Board's concerns recorded for the developer to consider. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Sullivan, Thomson, Modugno, Dunn, Flannery, Papa in favor, Dinkin against. Motion carries. Manzi steps down from the role of Chairman and leaves the meeting on an issue of conflict of interest. Dinkin assumes the chairmanship. 253 Rantoul Street: Request for extension of expiration date of special permit / Karen L'Italien, Darren Realty Trust Cassidy explains that the owners of this property received a special permit from the Planning Board in 1990 to create an 18-unit apartment building in the "CC" zoning district. A special permit was required because the residential use of the building comprised more than 75% of the total floor area in this commercial district. The special permit was extended several times since 1990, and the owners are now requesting an extension of the expiration date for a period of six months, from March 22, 1996 to September 22, 1996 (see file for letter). Mark Glovsky, attorney for the owners, explains that the need for the request is the result of economic and market conditions that prevented the project from commencing sooner. The developers have been given verbal confirmation of project financing, and that they intend to start construction within the six month period. Flannery asks if the building now rented to Zwicker Press will be demolished. Glovsky states that it will not be; the new building will be located to the rear of the existing building on the site and will have an access to Federal Street as well as Rantoul Street. Board members review the 1990 plan, and Dunn asks how big the units will be. Glovsky answers that they will be one-bedroom units. Dinkin discloses that Manzi left the meeting because he owns property on Rantoul Street that abuts the site in question. He informs members that the vote to grant the special permit required a vote of six members of the nine-member Board, and asks Cassidy how many votes would constitute a valid vote on this extension request. Cassidy answers that this type of a vote requires a simple majority of Board members in order to pass; this will require five votes of the nine-member Board. Planning Board minutes March 19, 1996 meeting page eight Thomson: motion to grant an extension of the expiration date of the special permit for the project at 253 Rantoul Street from March 22, 1996 to September 22, 1996, seconded by Sullivan. Papa asks Glovsky if six months is a realistic timetable, since it is unlikely construction will conclude during that time. Glovsky states that the developer is convinced he can exercise the permit during that time. Papa states that it has been the Board's policy to discourage long extensions, and believes it is not in the Board's best interest to extend the permit. He asks Cassidy what would happen if the Board elected not to extend the permit; Cassidy answers that the owner would have to refile an application for the special permit. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Papa, Thomson, Modugno, Flannery, Dunn, Sullivan in favor. Motion carries. Manzi resumes the chair. Brimbal Hill Drive subdivision: request for extension of construction completion date referenced in FormS Restrictive Covenant / Roger Wyner Cassidy explains that discussion on this request was tabled at the last Board meeting so that the City Solicitor's input could be obtained on possible legal ramifications of the Board's action. Cassidy states that she has discussed the matter with the City Solicitor and that he has advised the Board to consider the request on its merits, or lack thereof, without regard to possible future legal action by the owner. Thomson states that there appears to be sound reasons why the developer could not complete work during the initial two-year time frame. Sullivan adds that initial requests for completion extensions are not out of the ordinary. Dinkin: motion to grant the applicant's request for an extension of the construction completion date for the Brimbal Hill Drive subdivision plan from April 28, 1996 to October 28, 1997. Motion seconded by Papa, all in favor. Motion carries. 9. Moore Circle Subdivision: remand of court case / Paul and Sheila Moore Cassidy explains that the Board tabled action at the last Board meeting pending clarification on formal action needed by the Board. She states that the subdivision plan has been modified to resolve a pending court case, and that the court has remanded the plan back Planning Board Minutes March 19, 1996 meeting page nine to both the Beverly and Danvers Planning Boards for review. She reads letter from Commissioner of Public Works George Zambouras (see file) indicating that he has reviewed the plan and found that none of the plan modifications are in Beverly, and that the modifications being proposed result in a better drainage plan from Beverly's perspective. Manzi asks Cassidy to reread the letter, given the concerns of the city councilor representing the ward in which the project is located. Dinkin states that the Board should first consider whether the modifications ate "major" or "minor" changes, and then consider approving or disapproving them. Dinkin: motion to find that the modifications to the approved Moore Circle subdivision plan are minor in nature, seconded by Thomson. All in favor, motion carries. Dinkin: motion to approve the proposed modifications to the approved Moore Circle subdivision plan subject to the following conditions: 1. That all conditions and covenants applicable to the Board's original approval remain in full force and effect; and 2. That an "Intermunicipal Agreement" be executed by both the Beverly City Council and Danvers Board of Selectmen with respect to the provision of municipal services. Motion seconded by Thomson, all members in favor. Motion carries. 10. Thomas Road: Request to set public hearing date for requested waiver from M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81--R / Christopher Velonis Cassidy explains that the Board has received a request from the owner of property at the end of Thomas Road for a waiver from the frontage requirements of the zoning ordinance as permitted by M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81-R. The Board of Appeals has previously granted a variance for less frontage than is required by the zoning ordinance. Dinkin: motion to schedule a public hearing on the above- referenced request for the Board's April 17, 1996 regular meeting, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor, motion carries. 11. City Council Order #74: Amendment to the zoning ordinance to permit consideration of use variances for structures deemed historically-significant Planning Board minutes March 19, 1996 meeting page ten Cassidy explains that the Board has received an Order which would allow the Zoning Board of Appeals to consider granting use variances for structures in residential zoning districts if the structure were deemed historically significant by the Historic District Commission. Dinkin: motion to recommend to the City Council that a Joint Public Hearing between the two boards be scheduled for City Council Order #74. Motion seconded by Flannery, all members in favor. Motion carries. Approval of Minutes: Januax7 16, 1996 regular meeting; February 20, 1996 regular meeting; and March 12, 1996 special meeting Manzi asks if there are any changes that must be made to the minutes. There are none. Dinkin: motion to approve the minutes of the Board's 1/16/96, 2/20/96, and 3/12/96 meetings a8 drafted, seconded by Modugno. All members in favor, motion carries. 13. New or Other Business Cassidy informs the Board that it has received a copy of an amnesty license application for property at 44 Prince Street. She states that no formal action is necessary by the Board, but that it is on file in the Planning Department should members wish to review it. She also notes that a special meeting of the Board will be held on April 1, 1996 beginning at 7:00 p.m. with the City Council, and that the regular April meeting of the Board will be held on the third Wednesday of the month, on April 17th. Dinkin: motion to adjourn, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.