Loading...
1996-12-17Minutes Beverly Pla-ning Board December 17, 1996 Meeting Members present: Chairman James Manzi, Joanne Dunn, Bill Delaney, Richard Dinkin, John Thomson, Barry Sullivan, Ellen Flannery; also present: Planning Director Tina Cassidy, Assistant Planning Director Debbie Hurlburt and Susan Akerman, Secretary to the Board. Chairman Manzi calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Sullivan: motion to recess for public hearings, seconded by Thomson. All in favor, motion carries. Public Hearing (continued): 22 Paine Avenue: Special Permit Request for Creation of pork-chop lot / Paul Quinn, First City Development Cor~. Cassidyreads the legal notice and states that there are two issues that were outstanding as of the last meeting. The first related to fire flow tests to be performed on Paine Avenue. Those results came back and the Fire Dept., in a letter dated December 12, 1996 stated that the flow is quite sufficient; the second issue was a request for a legal opinion from the City Solicitor. Cassidy reads letter from City Solicitor (on file). Cassidy reads the following letters to the Members: - Memorandum from City Solicitor Marshall handly dated December 12, 1996. (On File) Letter from Mr. Eric Bornhofft of Paine Avenue. (On File) - Letter dated 12/19/96 written on behalf of Elizabeth Garcia and signed by Mr. Garcia. (On File) - Letter dated 12/16/96 from Ronald & Kathleen Jackson. (On File) Planning Board Minutes December 17, 1996 Meeting Page Two - Letter dated 12/5/96 from Serafini, Serafini & Darling, Salem, MA. (On File) - Letter dated 11/15/96 from Fred Horne. (On File) Chairman Manzi asks if Counsel would like to make a presentation. Mark Glovsky, Counsel for Mr. Quinnaddresses the Board and updates the Members and states that issues have been clouded, and they are not asking for a variance. Mr. Glovsky adds that the Rg0 zoning will be adhered to. Mr. Glovsky states that 21 other lots in this vicinity do not meet the required frontage of the R90 zoning, and that this lot will meet the requirements of the zoning provision for pork-chop lots. Chairman Manzi asks if any members of the public wish to be heard by the Board. Richard Thorndike 3rd, 71 Paine Avenue states that he is opposed to the creation of the pork-chop lot or any other lot that doesn't meet the requirements of the R90 zoning. A resident of 38 Paine Avenue states that the other 21 lots are irrelevant and that he is concerned with the infrastructure, and additional demands on water pressure. Harold Pinkham, 35 Thorndike Street addresses the Board and states that Mr. Quinn has rights to create two houses, that individuals have rights to prevent the two houses from going up, but he believes the Historical Commission's input is an important principal, add believes the historic value should be considered for restoring the house to its original condition. Ian Gardiner, Paine Avenue states that he is opposed and that he is concerned with the infrastructure, density, and the character of the neighborhood, that the area will be changed. Conor Fennessy, 11 Paine Avenue states that he is opposed entirely, that issues have been clouded by the historical group, that there is no guarantee that Mr. Quinn is going to restore the house and that the R90 zoning should be maintained. Anna Haley, 65 Paine Avenue states that the R90 zoning should be maintained to keep the integrity of the neighborhood. Elizabeth Riorden, 25 Paine Avenue states that she is opposed and that laws should not be bent and that there should be a commitment to those who live there. Planning Board Minutes December 17, 1996 Meeting Page Three George Gardner, 37 Paine Avenue states that he is concerned with the density. Attorney John Serafini of Serafini, Serafini & Darling; representing the neighbors addresses the Board and states that there are five other letters from residents of Paine Avenue who are in opposition and who are concerned with the Petition. Mr. Serafini submits a letter from Mr. Robert Noone, a Real Estate appraiser, who researched the adverse effect the lot will have on the property value and stated in his letter that the creation of the pork-chop lot would cause a decrease in the value of properties that abut the new lot because the roadway was designed in such a way that it curves and the width was kept at a minimum, not an adequate way and that the view should be preserved. He also stated in his letter that there is no 75' of required frontage, that it fails to meet the requirements of this ordinance and that the petition should be denied. Joseph Haley, 65 Paine Avenue addresses the Board and states that the plan is being reviewed by the Planning Board which involves two lots, the pork-chop lot and the remaining lot but explains that the zoning law measurement excludes a portion that is in the throat of the pork-chop lot. Mr. Haley states that it is on the margin to grant a special permit and states that, in keeping with the intent of the Ordinance, it should include this area within the portion of the pork-chop lot that isn't useable. Chairman Manzi asks if any other members of the public wish to be heard by the Board. Hearing no response, Manzi closes the public hearing. Public Hearing: 30 Rantoul Street: Special Permit Request to operate take out establishment in the "CC" zoning district as permitted by the Board of Appeals / Karen & Dennis L'Italien Cassidy reads the legal notice. Cassidy reads the following letters to the Members: - Letter dated 12/12/96 from the Beverly Police Department. (On File) - Letter dated 12/12/96 from the Beverly Fire Department. (On File) - Letter dated 12/12/96 from the Beverly Board of Health. (On File) Planning Board Minutes December 17, 1996 Meeting Page Four Chairman Manzi asks if the applicants are present to make a presentation. Richard Gardner addresses the Board and states that he is looking to open a small take out seafood restaurant on Rantoul Street and asks if the Members have any questions. Chairman Manzi asks if it conforms to all the rules and regulations for special permits. Cassidy states yes, since the Board of Appeals granted the applicant the right to request a special permit for this use. Chairman Manzi asks if any members of the public wish to be heard by the Board. Hearing no response, Manzi closes the public hearing and returns the Board to regular session. Discussion/Decision: 22 Paine Avenue: pork-chop lot special permit request / Paul Quinn, First City Development CorOoration. Cassidy states that the issues that have been raised during the hearing include the subjects of: legal frontage, preservation of the building and adequacy of the services. Delaney: motion to recess for five minutes, seconded by Dinkin. All in favor, motion carries. Cassidy distributes copies of letters that have been received on this filing to the Board members for review. Delaney: motion to reconvene, seconded by Dinkin. All in favor, motion carries. Dinkin asks/states: - Asks does propose pork-chop lot have adequate frontage; States that the existence of the road does not hinge upon the 1977 subdivision plan and that the applicant does in fact have easements throughout the total area; Asks is there something about this proposal that is so different/unique from neighbors that would cause an adverse affect on the area; - States that he does not believe that the proposed lots will be so different in their size or physical access; Planning Board Minutes December 17, 1996 Meeting Page Five - Asks will there be any impact on value of abutting properties, he believes there would not be; - States that applicant will use the proceeds of the lot sale for the restoration of the Old Fort; - States that the requirements for a special permit for the creation of a pork-chop lot are met by this application. Sullivan asks if there is a mechanism to guarantee that the applicant will restore the Old Fort and that the new home will be in keeping with the character of Paine Avenue. Glovsky addresses the Board and states that he has prepared a preservation agreement that would take effect upon the issuance of a building permit for the first lot, but it has not been approved by the Massachusetts Historic Commission as of yet. Glovsky states that preliminary plans for a Queen Anne building have been prepared for the second lot; the plans are shown to the members, as is the draft presentation agreement. Delaney asks if water/sewer information is available and if testing has been done and if what exists is adequate. Glovsky states that tests have been done and the Fire Department has indicated that the results have been deemed acceptable for the additional lot. Delaney asks how the lots are provided with sanitory waste disposal. Mr. Glovsky states a non-conforming cess-pool which will need updating to meet current Title V requirements. Delaney asks if there is an ability to tie in to an existing sewer line. Mr. Glovsky states he is not aware of any ability to do so at present. Delaney states that he is in favor of this proposal, that the preservation of the existing home is not the main issue but rather a collateral issue, but that there are reasonable and necessary issues that necessitate considering the imposition of certain conditions. Delaney states that the applicant has met the ten criteria for special permits outlined in the zoning ordinances. Delaney also states that: (a) abutting properties won't be adversely affected; (b) that Noone's letter says very little, that there is no back up or consideration that renovations and improvements might have a positive impact on property values; (c) that no undue traffic will be added; (d) that there is adequate and appropriate facilities available to service the lots; (e) test Planning Board Minutes December 17, 1996 Meeting Page Six flows have been done and have been deemed acceptable by the appropriate City agency; (f) the pork-chop lot meets the zoning requirements for frontage; and (g) application meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Dinkin states that he is concerned about the wisdom of placing conditions on the special permit and asks if the applicant is willing to accept these conditions. Thomson states that he understands Dinkin's reservations but feels because the granting of the special permit is discretionary, the Board can impose conditions. He would like to place certain conditions on the special permit because he would like to see the Old Fort preserved. Delaney states that he is concerned with timing of the proposed preservation agreement, and suggests that the agreement be triggered by the issuance of a building permit for the new lot. Glovsky responds that a five year period be attached to the preservation agreement to assure that the property is restored. Sullivan suggests that the Board consider mandating that the special permit would lapse if a building permit is not obtained within 180 days after the appeal period expires or litigation conducted. Sullivan states that he also believes the Board should place conditions on the Special Permit. Dinkin states that the Board should consider conditioning the Special Permit by prohibiting the issuance of a building permit for the second lot until the preservation agreement is accepted by the Historic District Commission and the City Solicitor. Dinkin: motion to approve the special permit for the following reasons: (1) That the property proposed for division had frontage on a street in existence at the date of adoption of the pork-chop lot provision of the zoning ordinance; (2) That the property at 22 Paine Avenue is an appropriate location for the creation of a pork chop lot because the lots meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance and because the application to create a single- family house lot is in keeping with the character of adjoining uses to the property; (3) That no factual evidence was found during the Board's review of the application that would indicate that property values in the district would be adversely affected by the proposed use; a report submitted by an appraiser retained by a member of the public alleging a diminution of property Planning Board Minutes December 17, 1996 Meeting Page Seven value for an abutter was found by the Board to be so vague, broad, lacking in specifics and incomplete as to be unreliable and not credible; (4) That no undue traffic, nuisance, or unreasonable hazard will result from the granting of this petition to create one additional single-family home; (5) That adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation and maintenance of the proposed use; in particular, the Board noted approval of fire flow test results by the Fire Department and State Sanitary Code Title 5 requirements for subsurface sanitary disposal systems that will be imposed by the Board of Health; (6) That there were no valid objections from abutting property owners based on demonstrable fact; (7) That the proposed pork-chop lot satisfied the applicable dimensional requirements for area, width, yard setbacks, and depth of lot requirements specified in the zoning ordinance; and (8) That there is not more than one other pork-chop shaped lot with frontage contiguous to it. The special permit was granted Subject to the following conditions: (1) That no building permit will be issued for the second building lot until such time as a Preservation Agreement, approved by the Beverly City Solicitor and Beverly Historic District Commission, is executed; and (2) That the special permit is valid as long as the existing historic structure is not substantially demolished, seconded by Sullivan and approved unanimously. Discussion/Decision: 30 Rantoul Street: special permit request for take-out establishment in the "CC" Zoning District / Karen & Dennis L'Italien. Cassidy updates the Board. Dinkin asks if there have been any objections from abutters. Cassidy responds no. Sullivan questions whether this special permit, if granted, would apply only to this applicant to operate a take out restaurant or whether it would allow any type of fast food take out by any operator. Thomson states that he is concerned with the time limit on the permit, and asks if it should be renewable after five years to make sure that the Board is happy with the circumstances. Sullivan recommends that the granting of the permit be worded in such a way as to require a new owner to come in for a renewal and Planning Board Minutes December 17, 1996 Meeting Page Eight approval of operation in the event a moretraffic intensive use was proposed for this site in the future. Sullivan states that he has no problem with a take out facility but is concerned that there may be a problem if this establishment were to become one with a delivery service and four or five trucks are added. Sullivan: motion to grant special permit to operate a take out seafood establishment with no sit down dining at 30 Rantoul Street and to incorporate the site plan and floor plan as presented as part of the approval, seconded by Dinkin. Motion carries 6-0. 3. Discussion/Decision: Woodland Road definitive subdivision plan / S & J Development Cassidy reads letter dated 12/13/96 from the Commissioner of Public Works that indicates several unresolved issues and problems with the drainage calculations that have been submitted by the development team. (On File) Thomson states that he can't see how the Board can act on this without sufficient information. Cassidy references a letter dated 12/17/96 from Attorney Alexander, and summarizes its contents for the Board. Thomson asks if the applicant has investigated an abutter's claim that the water line existing in Montserrat Road is on private property. Attorney Tom Alexander, representing the developer states that the line is in fact in a public utility easement and that th eproposed water line in this development will be connected to it. Delaney states that the Board is waiting for the Public Works' director's comments on the revised drainage calculations and informs the audience and the applicant that there will be other issues/concerns that the Board will need to discussed at the next meeting, including the waivers being requested by the applicants. Cassidy states that the developers have requested an extension of time for Board action to January 22, 1997. Thomson: motion to accept extension to january 22, 1997, seconded by Dinkin. All in favor, motion carries. Planning Board Minutes December 17, 1996 Meeting Page Nine 4. Discussion/Decision: Porter Terrace Extension preliminary subdivision plan / Crosby and Davis Cassidy updates the Board and states that there are two waivers being requested; one is a waiver for minimum radius and the second waiver is for a right of way width design of 40' instead of 50' as required. Cassidy states that modifications have been made to the hammerhead design. Attorney Alexander addresses the concerns of the angle of the hammerhead and states that it has been extended on one side. Sullivan asks if City Engineer George Zambouras has reviewed this new plan. Cassidy states that George has not had a chance to comment upon it as of yet, since it was not submitted to him prior to the meeting. Delaney asks if the square footage of the paved area of the proposed hammerhead has been increased. Mr. Vernon LeBlanc, engineer for the project, responds yes and explains that the area of the road is now 10,000 square feet compared to the first draft of the preliminary plan on which the road and turnaround covered 8,000 square feet, and that it does add more impervious area to the parcel. Delaney asks if the length and width of the road and hammerhead are different. LeBlanc responds yes and explains that the dimensions of the hammerhead are now 90 x 36 compared to 73 x 24 previously. Delaney states that he is not sold on the plan, that it is not an appropriate use of the property, and that he is not in favor of granting waivers of the Board's requirements for radius and road layout. Thomson states that he is concerned with the overall amount of area that would become impervious and is not prepared to grant the waivers requested. Delaney: motion to deny the requested waiver from the Board's regulations regarding minimum roadway layout widths, seconded by Sullivan. Motion carries 5-1. Delaney: motion to deny the requested waiver regarding the minimum radius requirement at the intersection, seconded by Sullivan. Motion carries 5-1. Delaney: motion to deny the preliminary subdivision plan of Porter Street Extension, seconded by Sullivan. Motion carries 6-0. Planning Board Minutes December 17, 1996 Meeting Page Ten 5. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR'S), if any a. 280 Rantoul Street / Hilldie Cassidy addresses the Board and states that the plan meets all the Board's requirements for ANR plans and should be endorsed as such. Dinkin: motion to endorse the plan of land for 280 Rantoul Street as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Delaney. All in favor, motion carries. b. Cornell Road Extension Cassidy addresses the Board and states that the plan meets all the Board's requirements for ANR plans and should be endorsed as such. Delaney: motion to endorse the plan of land for Cornell Road Extension as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Dinkin. All in favor, motion carries. Laurel Ridge Subdivision: Request for extension of construction completion date referenced in Form G Restrictive Covenant / N.E.H.S., Beverly Hospital William Tinti of Tinti, Quinn & Savoy, attorney for N.E.H.S. and Beverly Hospital addresses the Board and explains that he is seeking an extension of the construction completion date referenced in the Form G Covenant for an additienal six months. Dinkin asks if the property is subject to pending litigation. Mr. Tinti responds yes. Delaney asks if a six month extension would coincide with the expiration of any zoning freeze exemption for the Laurel Ridge Subdivision. Cassidy states yes. Delaney: motion to grant applicant's request for an extension of construction completion date to June 30, 1997, seconded by Dinkin. All in favor, motion carries. 7. Cherry Hill Industrial Subdivision: Request for extension of construction completion date / The Flatley Company Cassidy updates the Board, and informs members that Flatley has requested a six month extension .of the completion date for this project. Planning Board Minutes DeCember 17, 1996 Meeting Page Eleven Delaney: motion to grant applicant's request for an extension of construction completion date to June 30, 1997, seconded by Sullivan. All in favor, motion carries 6-0. 8. Approval of minutes: November 19, 1996 Reqular Meetinq Manzi asks if there are any correction that need to be made to the minutes as drafted. There are none. Delaney: motion to approve the minutes of the Board's November 19, 1996 meeting as drafted, seconded by Flannery. All in favor, motion carries 6-0. 9. New or Other Business a. January 6, 1997 Joint Public Hearing with City Council / Order #467 regulating towers and antennae Cassidy updates the Board and states that there will be a Joint Public Hearing On January 6, 1997 to discuss regulations regarding radio and telephone transmissions. b. Signing of plans: 49 Boyles Street definitive plan (Arthur Sheehan) Moore Circle Subdivision plan (Paul & Sheila Moore) Cassidy updates the Board and states that these plans need to be signed. Adjournment Dinkin: motion to adjourn, seconded by Delaney. All in favor, motion carries 6-0. Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.