1996-05-21 James A. Manzi
Vice Chairman
Richard Dinkin
Planning Director
Tina P. Cassidy
William Delaney
Joanne Dunn
Ellen K. Flannery
Salvatore Modugno
D. Stephen Papa
Barry Sufiivan
John Thomson
MINUTES
Beverly Planning Board
May 21, 1996 Meeting
Members present: Chairman James Manzi, Vice-Chairman Richard Dinkin, Sal Modugno,
John Thomson, Ellen Flannery, Steve Papa, Barry Sullivan, Joanne
Dunn. Also present: Commissioner of Public Works George
Zambouras, Planning Director Tina Cassidy.
Chairman Manzi calls meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Dinkin:
motion to recess for public hearings and reconvene, seconded by Thomson.
All members in favor, motion carries.
Special Permit Request # 90-96: permission to operate the Mayflower Motel
at 325 Cabot Street as a rooming house / Robert Brilliant
Cassidy reads legal notice. Manzi asks if counsel for the applicant is present to explain
the request. Attorney Thomas Alexander explains that Mr. Brilliant has recently
purchased the property in question, and lists the similarities between this establishment
and the Hannah's Port Motel that Mr. Brilliant also owns. Alexander explains that the
Mayflower will operated as a rooming house instead of a motel, and that is why the
applicant is seeking a special permit for a rooming house. There are 23 units in the
building and 23 parking spaces on site, which meets the minimum zoning requirements,
and there are no plans for any expansion at this time. He lists the criteria for granting
special permits that are outlined in the zoning ordinance, and states that he believes that
this application meets those criteria.
Manzi asks Cassidy to read any letters received on this filing; Cassidy reads letter from
the Police, Fire, Health, and Building Inspection departments (see file).
Naomi Cohen, Colgate Road, asks if there will be any children living in these units.
Alexander states that there will not be any children living here because the units are only
City Hall 191 Cabot Street Beverly, Massachusetts 01915 (508) 921-6000 Fax (508) 922-0285
Minutes of the Planning Board
May 21, 1996 meeting
page two
one-room units. Manzi asks if there are any other members of the audience or Planning
Board who have questions on the proposal. Hearing none, Manzi closes the public
hearing and returns the Board to regular session.
Sam Fonzo Drive definitive subdivision plan and special permit for
commercial/industrial development in the Watershed Protection Overlay
District / Aero Manufacturincl, the FlatleV Company, the City of Beverly
Manzi asks Cassidy to update the Board. Cassidy states that the Planning Board had
voted on April 30, 1996 to continue the concurrent public hearings on the above-
referenced filings to this evening; however, revised drainage calculations required by the
Commissioner of Public Works were not submitted to the Commissioner until this
afternoon and have not yet been reviewed by him. Additionally, one of the members of
the Planning Board is unable to attend this evening's meeting due to a conflicting
commitment. Cassidy recommends that instead of opening the hearings tonight, the
Board consider continuing the public hearings to the Board's June 18, 1996 meeting; in
that way, the member who is absent this evening will still be able to participate in the
discussion and decision on this project, and the Commissioner of Public Works will have
adequate time to review and comment on the revised calculations for the Board's
consideration. She also recommends that the Board consider accepting a written request
from Attorney Thomas Alexander for an extension of time for Board action on these
filings.
Dinkin:
motion to accept the extension of time for final action by the Planning Board
on the definitive plan and special permit filings from May 22, 1996 to June
20, 1996. Motion seconded by Thomson, all members in favor. Motion
carries.
Dinkin:
motion to continue the concurrent public hearings on the Sam For~zo Drive
definitive subdivision plan and special permit application to June 18, 1996,
seconded by Thomson. All members in favor, motion carries.
Dinkin:
motion to recess the meeting for two minutes, seconded by Flannery. All
members in favor, motion carries.
Manzi reconvenes the meeting to order at 8:12 p.m.
Discussion/decision: Special Permit application #90-96 to operate the
Mayflower Motel at 325 Cabot Street as a rooming house / Robert Brilliant
Dinkin states that he is pleased that the property owner has filed for this special permit
since it illustrates the true use of the property and will enable the City to more closely and
Minutes of the Planning Board
May 21, 1996 meeting
page three
accurately regulate the building as a rooming house. Manzi asks if any other members
of the Board have unanswered questions or comments. There are none.
Dinkin:
motion to approve the special permit request for permission to operate the
Mayflower Motel at 325 Cabot Street as a rooming house, seconded by
Papa. All members in favor, motion carries.
Discussion: Woodland Road Preliminary Subdivision Plan / Joseph Shelzi
and Glenn Larson
Manzi asks if representatives of the developers are present to explain the proposal.
Attorney Tom Alexander explains that a concept plan of proposed development of this site
was discussed with the Planning Board last year. He states that Bill Bergeron, from
Hayes Engineering, is present to explain the plan. Bergeron states that Woodland Road
is already laid out, but has not been constructed. The layout runs from Colon Street to
Montserrat Road. There are several homes constructed in the vicinity of Colon Street and
that the developers are proposing to follow the existing r6ad grades in that stretch and
construct better grades in the vicinity of the parcel to be subdivided. The length of the
road from Colon Street to the location of the temporary cul-de-sac at the end of
Montserrat Road is approximately 1,010 feet. The plan calls for ten house lots to be
created, and forty foot (40') rights-of-way are being proposed to be consistent with the
existing layout of Woodland Road. The proposed pavement width is 24', and the
developers hope to improve the existing street drainage which will tie directly into Colon
Street.
Cassidy reads a letter from the Police Department (see file); no other letters have yet
been received from City departments. She asks if the developers are proposing to
connect Woodland to Montserrat to create a through street, since the plan before the
Board does not clearly show a connection. Bergeron states that roadway will be a
through street. Cassidy asks Bergeron if the proposed roadway will need a waiver from
the maximum grade requirement of 6%. Bergeron states that from station 0 to 300, the
grade will be 12% - the existing grades exceed that. Beyond station 300, the road grade
will vary from 4.3% to 8% at its connection with Montserrat Road. Thomson asks
Bergeron why the developers are not proposing to reduce the grades of 12% in the
vicinity of the existing homes on Woodland. Bergeron answers that there are existing
driveways and carports very close to the roadway layout, and reducing the road grades
in that area to meet the Board's 6% requirement would result in huge grade cuts right in
front of the existing properties.
Sullivan states that he would like to see a comprehensive waiver list from the applicant
as well as comments from the Fire, Health, and Public Works Departments before voting
on this filing. He sees the proposed grades as a major problem, but will reserve
Minutes of the Planning Board
May 21, 1996
page four
comments until letters are received from all appropriate departments. Sullivan asks if
there is any possibility of relocating the Woodland Ave. right-of-way to create a 50' layout
and create a location away from the existing houses that would make it easier to meet
the Board's grade requirements. Alexander answers that all abutters have rights to use
the way and any attempt to relocate the right-of-way would require the approval of every
abuttar.
Thomson asks Cassidy for a list of waivers that would be required by this plan; Cassidy
states that a number of waivers will be necessary, but that the applicants have not yet
submitted a formal list. Dinkin asks if the Board can table discussion until the next
meeting and still meet the statutory time frames for final action; Cassidy states that it can.
Dinkin says that he would like to table discussion on the matter until a formal list of
waivers is submitted and all department comments received.
Dinkin:
motion to table discussion on the Woodland Road preliminary subdivision
plan to June 18, 1996, seconded by Sullivan: All members in favor, motion
carries.
Worthington Green Subdivision: Request to release lots #6 and #7 for
buildinq purposes only / John Sanidas
Manzi asks Cassidy to update the Board. Cassidy reads letter from Mr. John Sanidas
requesting that lots #6 and #7 in this subdivision be released for building purposes only.
This subdivision is currently covered by a covenant which prohibits the sale of and
building on lots until either a bond is posted or construction completed. Cassidy
recommends that the lots be released only for building purposes, and that the Board
consider notifying the developer that there will be no further lots releases unless an
acceptable form and amount of surety is posted with the Board. ~
Dinkin:
motion to release lots #6 and #7 in the Worthington Green subdivision for
building purposes only, but not for sale purposes. Motion seconded by
Flannery. Thomson suggests amending the motion to add a condition that
there will be no additional releases of lots unless an adequate form of
surety is posted first. Modugno seconds the amendment. Vote on the
amendment is unanimous; vote on the motion is unanimous, motion carries.
Chanticleer Drive subdivision: request to establish bond amount / Dan Finn,
CarriaQe Hill Realty Trust
Manzi asks Cassidy to update the Board. Cassidy reads a letter of request from Mr. Finn
asking that a bond amount be established for the above-referenced subdivision. She
Minutes of the Planning Board
May 21, 1996
page five
explains that Commissioner Zambouras has not been able to establish the bond amount
prior to this evening. Manzi asks Zambouras for an update; Zambouras recommends a
bond amount of $11,149~00 be set to guarantee completion of this subdivision.
Dinkin:
motion to set the amount of surety necessary to guarantee completion of
the Chanticleer Drive subdivision at $11,149.00. Seconded by Sullivan, all
members in favor; motion cardes.
Juniper Valley Court: request to modify approved subdivision plan and
recommendation to City Council on City acceptance of roadway / Douglas
Haring
Cassidy reads letter of request from the developer that has been submitted to the City
Council asking that body to accept Juniper Valley Court as a public way. Cassidy
explains that in 1983, the Planning Board had approved this subdivision plan, and the
plan included a notation that the road would be a pdvate way. This notation was included
on the plan at the developer's election, not as a Planning~ Board requirement.
The developer is now asking the City to accept the mad as a public way. Zambouras
states his opinion that maintenance of the road by the City would not be a problem; the
road is in good condition, and that serious ledge cuts dictated the existing road grades
at the time the road was constructed. The road has a 50' layout, there are no sidewalks,
and the grades would make installation of sidewalks at this point almost impossible.
Dinkin states that he would like to see acceptance plans submitted to the City before the
road is accepted. Haring states that his engineer is in the process of drafting acceptance
plans, and the physical surveying work has been completed.
Dinkin:
motion to find that the elimination of the "preface" statement to the list of
requested waivers on page four of the approved Juniper Valley Court
subdivision plan would be a minor modification, seconded by Flannery. All
members in favor, motion carries.
Dinkin:
motion to approve the minor modification referenced above, seconded by
Modugno. All members in favor, motion carries.
Dinkin:
motion to recommend to the City Council that the Juniper Valley Court
roadway be accepted as a City street, subject to approval of roadway
acceptance plans by Commissioner of Public Works George Zambouras.
Motion seconded by Thomson, all in favor. Motion carries.
Minutes of the Planning Board
May 21, 1996 meeting
page six
Conifer Way subdivision: Request to establish bond amount and release lots
for buildin~l I~urDoses only / Jeff Bunk
Cassidy explains that the developer of this four-lot subdivision has requested that a bond
amount be established for this subdivision, and that the Board consider releasing the four
lots from the language of the Form G Restrictive Covenant that prohibits construction on
any of the lots. She states that if the Board considers granting such a release, it be only
for building purposes and not for sale purposes.
Zambouras outlines the work remaining to be done in this subdivision, and recommends
that the Board set surety at $14,312.00.
Dinkin:
motion to release lots #1, 2, 3, and 4 in the Conifer Way subdivision for
building purposes only, not for sale purposes. Motion seconded by Sullivan,
all members in favor; motion carries.
Dinkin:
motion to establish an adequate amount ~f surety for the Conifer Way
subdivision at $14,312.00, seconded by Papa. All members in favor, motion
carries.
Nicole Avenue subdivision: set date for public hearing / Tom Carnevale and
John Ricci
Cassidy explains that a definitive subdivision plan has been submitted to the Planning
Board and a date for the public hearing must be set. She adds that when the Board
approved the preliminary plan for this parcel in March, the Board attached a condition to
the approval urging the developers to meet with both the City Solicitor and City Council
on the subject of future acceptance of this roadway by the City, since the road is partially
located in another community and is accessible only from Wenham. To date, the
developers' attorney has written a letter to the City Solicitor, but has made no contact with
the City Council. Dinkin asks how long the Board has to act on this filing. Cassidy states
that the Board has ninety (90) days from receipt of the application to act on the matter;
a public hearing could be scheduled for as late as the Board's July 16, 1996 meeting.
Dinkin:
motion to schedule the public hearing on the Nicole Avenue definitive
subdivision plan for July 16, 1996, and instruct the Planning Director to
express to applicants' counsel a sense of urgency in resolving the issues
surrounding the ownership and access questions on the roadway. Motion
seconded by Sullivan, who states he would prefer to see definitive answers
to those questions prior to the public hearing. All members in favor, motion
carries.
Minutes ofthe Planning Board
May 21,1996
page seven
Approval of Minutes: April 17, 1996 regular meeting, April 30, 1996 special
meetin¢l, May 6, 1996 sPecial meetina
Manzi asks the members if there are any amendments that should be made to the
minutes for the above-referenced meetings. Members offer no changes.
ThOITISOR:
motion to accept the minutes of the Board's April 17, 1996, April 30, 1996,
and May 6, 1996 meetings, seconded by Dinkin. All members in favor,
motion carries.
10. New or Other Business
a.~. Set public hearinQ: 564 Cabot Street / Brendan Teelinq
Cassidy explains that Mr. Teeling recently received a variance from the Board of Appeals
to subdivide his lot at 564 Cabot Street. The variance pertnits reduced lot frontages. Mr.
Teeling has now filed a request with the Planning Board for a waiver from the City's
frontage requirements in accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81-R.
Dinkin:
motion to schedule a public hearing on the above-referenced filing for the
Board's June 18, 1996 meeting. Motion seconded by Flannery, all
members in favor. Motion carries.
b. ReceiPt of amnesty license application: 30 Cliff Street / June Nelson
Cassidy explains that the Board has received a copy of a waterways amnesty license
application for property at 30 Cliff Street. The owner is June Nelson, and she is seeking
permission to maintain an existing pier at that address. Cassidy explains that r~o action
by the Board is necessary, but members who may be interested in viewing the application
may review it in the Planning Office.
Discussion relative to jurisdiction of Fire Chief with respect to
al~proved subdivisions
Cassidy informs the members of a situation involving the Fire Chief in conjunction with
tile Morgan's Island Subdivision (see memorandum from Planning Director in file). The
Fire Chief has required that the emergency access road approved by the Planning Board
be constructed in a different manner than the construction methods specified on the
approved subdivision plan.
Dinkin states that he believes the Fire Chief's actions have subverted the open and
Minutes of the Planning Board
May 21, 1996 meeting
page eight
democratic process outlined in M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81 -W, and that he is prepared
to request the Planning Director to seek a legal opinion from the City Solicitor on whether
the Planning Board can enjoin the Fire Chief from taking such action.
Thomson states that the developer does not have the right to subvert and ignore the
approved subdivision plan. There were several remedies, though possibly expensive, that
were available to him. Papa states that this matter was handled disgracefully, and that
no one should be forced to go to the courts for relief from a decision by a municipal
department head.
Dinkin agrees with Thomson's statement that remedies were available to the developer,
but believes that government should take special pains not to trample the rights of
individuals. He believes this is a case of administrative abuse of an individual, and that
the state statute empowers the Planning Board with the authority to a~mend subdivision
plans, not the Fire Chief.
Sullivan states that although that may be true, the develolSer should not have knowingly
ignored the approved subdivision plan and built something different.
It is the general consensus of the Board that the Planning Director should draft a letter
from the Board to the City Solicitor seeking clarification of the lines of authority of both
the Planning Board and Fire Department with respect to the approval, construction, and
modification of subdivision plans.
Dinkin:
motion to adjourn, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion
carries.