Loading...
1997-05-20Minutes Beverly Planning Board May 20, 1997 Meeting Members present: Chairman James Manzi, Vice-Chairman Richard Dinkin, John Thomson, Barry Sullivan, Joanne Dunn, Salvatore Modugno and Ellen Flannery; also present: Assistant Planning Director Debbie Hurlburt and Susan Akerman, Secretary to the Board. Chairman Manzi calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Dinkin:motion to recess for public hearings, seconded by Thomson. Dinkin,Thomson, Sullivan, Dunn, Modugno and Flannery in favor,no one opposed. Motion carries. Continuation of Public Hearing: Montserrat Estates Definitive Subdivision Plan / Gladys Dailey, Suzanne Sullivan, Philip Moran Thomson recused himself from discussion of this matter. Hurlburt reads legal notice. Manzi asks if counsel for the applicants would like to make a presentation. Counsel is not present at this time. Hurlburt reads the following letter: Letter from George Zambouras dated 5/16/97. Dinkin states that given George Zambouras' comments the Board can either recess to the call of the chair or proceed to take public comments, close hearing and not give applicants another chance. Dinkin: Motion to place public hearing in recess to the call of the chair, seconded by Flannery. Dinkin, Thomson, Sullivan, Dunn, Modugno and Flannery in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Thomson rejoins the meeting at this time. Planning Board Minutes May 20, 1997 Meeting Page Two Continuation of Public Hearing: Bartlett Street Definitive Plan and Request for Waiver From Frontage Requirements of Zoning Ordinance in accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81-R / Consuelo Martinez and Nicholas Metta Hurlburt reads legal notice. Manzi asks if counsel for the applicants would like to make a presentation. Attorney Kim Driscoll of Attorney Thomas Alexander's office addresses the Board, and states that the revised plan to reconfigure the rear lot lines to add a parking lot for off-street parking purposes in Lot A has been submitted and is before the members. Dinkin asks what is the total number of residential dwellings. Attorney Driscoll states that there are two. Dinkin asks what the total number of available off-street parking spaces there will be. Attorney Driscoll states that they will be creating enough space for three cars to park on Lot B and that one off-street parking space already exists on Lot A, so there will be a total of 4 off-street parking spaces available. Michael Gaudette of 3 South Street states that he is concerned with the easement for Lot A, and notes that the little parking space on Lot A is partially on someone else's property and not legally a parking space. Mr. Gaudette states that he is concerned with the width proposed for these additional parking spaces, the zoning requirements and that this parking lot will drop the value of the homes in this area. Kathleen LaPointe of 54 Bartlett Street, a direct abutter, states that she did sign a redemption letter/notice but that it didn't include a parking lot and states that she is concerned that this parking lot will be graded toward her property and that she will get water run-off in her basement. Dinkin asks if the applicant has an easement that gives them the right to use the existing parking space on Lot A. Attorney Driscoll states that she is not sure if her client has an easement but that the parking space has been used by them since they purchased the house. Sullivan asks how many cars are there presently. Attorney Driscoll states three and explains that the applicant is currently parking one car in a small public parking lot on Water Street, that one is parked in front of Lot B and that the third one is parked on the street. Attorney Driscoll states that the applicant is concerned mainly with parking for the winter months. Planning Board Minutes May 20, 1997 Meeting Page Three Thomson asks how many off-street parking spaces are required for new developments in an R-10 zoning district. Hurlburt states two per unit. Sally King of 51 Front Street explains that the parking lot on Water Street is not all public parking, that some of the spaces are for the condo owners. William Finch of 50 Front Street reviews the history of the lot and states that he is concerned with how the lot is going to be reworked to legally fit four off-street parking spaces and still have a lot that is 8,000 square feet. Mr. Finch states that he is concerned with the waiver for frontage, and that access to this lot will be made even more difficult with the creation of parking spaces. Dennis Corbett of 38 Front Street states that there must be zoning requirements. Tracy Cole a resident of Beverly states that she has no problems with the proposed parking area. Katie Corbett of 38 Front Street submits a letter to the Planning Board written by a neighbor who could not be in attendance, and also states that there are zoning requirements that should be followed. Hurlburt reads the above letter dated 5/14/97 from June Van Knowe of 12 Front Street which states that she is opposed to this proposal. (On File) A resident of 61 Front Street states that they don't have a problem with the proposed parking lot, and notes that Bartlett Street is a lot wider than Front Street. Sally King of 51 Front Street states that Bartlett Street may be wider but that she is concerned with the spillage that comes over onto Front Street especially when the snow gets piled up. Michael Gaudette of 3 South Street refers to the by-laws and asks if the lot has to be hot topped. Attorney Driscoll states that they will comply with any applicable by-laws. Dinkin explains that the language of the by-law states that gravel or crushed stone is applicable. Thomson asks Attorney Driscoll to describe the history of the two family dwelling. Attorney Driscoll explains that the property has always been used as a two family house and has always been zoned as a two family house. Planning Board Minutes May 20, 1997 Meeting Page Four Mr. Finch of 50 Front Street reads a copy of the Board of Appeals finding and states that the two family house has been used as a single family dwelling. Hurlburt reads the following letters: - Letter dated 2/24/97 from the Beverly Fire Department. (On File) - Letter dated 2/4/97 from the Beverly Police Department. (On File) Michael Gaudette of 3 South Street notes that the above Departments have not reviewed and/or commented upon the new revised plan and asks if they should. A direct abutter states that the boundary provides a solution to the agreement. Chairman Manzi asks if there are any other members of the public who would like to speak on this issue. Hearing none, Chairman Manzi declares this public hearing closed. Continuation of Public Hearing: Montserrat Estates Definitive Subdivision Plan / Gladys Dailey, Suzanne Sullivan, Philip Moran Dinkin: Motion to remove the public hearing for Montserrat Estates Definitive Subdivision Plan from the table, seconded by Sullivan. Dinkin, Thomson, Sullivan, Dunn, Modugno and Flannery in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Public Hearing now open. Thomson recused himself from discussion of this matter. Dinkin asks Mr. Marchionda to briefly describe his authority to represent the property owners. Mr. Marchionda states that he has the ability to vote and make any necessary decisions on behalf of the property owners. Suzanne Sullivan states to the Board that she is one of the owners. Mr. Paul Marchionda of Marchionda & Associates addresses the Board and reviews the history of this project stating that soil borings have been performed, that a geotechnical engineer was hired and that both results/reports have been submitted as requested. Mr. Marchionda states that he had a meeting with George Zambouras to go over Zambouras' concerns regarding the drainage analysis, soil borings, sewerage pump facility and traffic issues with respect to Planning Board Minutes May 20, 1997 Meeting Page Five the revised plan and feels that all concerns besides the traffic issue have been resolved. Mr. Marchionda also states that there is no preference as to how the access onto Brookhead Avenue is designed. Sullivan asks what is the legality of using Brookhead Avenue. Mr. Marchionda states that the right to use Brookhead Avenue will be a private matter. Attorney George Richardson representing Peter Tarr addresses the Board and reviews the rights to use Brookhead Avenue, and states that a legal opinion with respect to the usage of access to Brookhead Avenue was requested and has not yet been done, but that a Memorandum of Law has been submitted and endorsed with solicitors opinions. Dinkin asks if there are any waivers that are currently being requested. Mr. Marchionda explains that an issue has been raised with respect to a waiver from showing all trees 6" or greater in caliper because in his opinion it is a wooded site, and states that if one is needed, he will request it. Mr. Marchionda adds that a waiver was requested for a reduction of the road crossing so that they could eliminate the grass plots for the sidewalks. George Zambouras addresses the Board and states that the plan as drawn would require a waiver for trees 6" or greater in caliper and that a request, conditioned upon approval, to allow a reduction of the roadway at the wetland crossing to eliminate grass plots would be needed. Mr. Zambouras states that the only waiver that needs to be requested would be for the trees, that everything else meets the Board's requirements. Dinkin asks Mr. Zambouras to explain his concerns with respect to the soil conditions and roadway. Mr. Zambouras explains that the soil is a fine sandy texture, that the water table is between 1"- 3" below the surface, and that standard foundations and footings would not stand up to these soil conditions. Dinkin asks if the plan needs to be revised for re-engineering of the roadway. Mr. Zambouras states that notes on the plan have already been reflected on the plan, subject to approval, prior to any construction of the project. Dinkin asks Mr. Zambouras to explain his concerns regarding traffic. Mr. Zambouras explains that the traffic analysis deals with the existing traffic, that there is no combined analysis of how the additional traffic from the new development will affect the area and the safety of Boyles Street, especially during peak hours and states that the roadway is not sufficient to safely pass two cars. Mr. Zambouras continues to explain that the intersection of Planning Board Minutes May 20, 1997 Meeting Page Six Brookhead Avenue and Boyles Street is hard to get in and out of, with poor sight distances, and that the intersection should be improved. Mr. Marchionda states that to his knowledge, there are no set standards for traffic analysis that have to be submitted and asks that the Board let him know what he is missing in the submittal. Dinkin states that failure to analyze traffic impacts resulting from the additional development is an issue of the adequacy of the contents of your traffic analysis, and that an issue has come up with the analysis' set of conclusions, an analytical difference. Mr. Marchionda states that he feels that the burden to improve Boyles Street is not his client's responsibility. Peter Tarr of 3 Brooks Circle states that the Board and City Solicitor Handly asked for a legal opinion, no opinion was submitted so Mr. Marchionda's client has not established any legal rights to build a roadway and that the proposal should be denied. Nancy Legendre of 11 Brookhead Avenue states that she bought her house with the impression that she would be living within a safe cul-de-sac, that it is unconscionable to build a roadway in this neighborhood and that details of the applicant's rights to use Brookhead Avenue should be submitted. Joanne Avallon of 17 Boyles Street states that she is concerned with the roadway, that the same set of restrictions for Brookhead Avenue should apply, and explains that Brookhead Avenue has a lot of very restricted uses of what can and can't be done on Brookhead Avenue. ' Ellen Todd of 4 Brooks Circle states that the problem with this access is that both streets will go onto Brookhead Avenue, that this proposal is not alleviating any traffic issues and that access to another street would be more acceptable. Chairman Manzi asks if there are any other members of the public present who would like to speak on the matter. Hearing none, Chairman Manzi declares this public hearing closed. Dinkin: Motion to close public hearing, seconded by Sullivan. Dinkin, Sullivan, Dunn, Modugno, Manzi, Flannery in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Planning Board now in session. Planning Board Minutes May 20, 1997 Meeting Page Seven Discussion/decision: Montserrat Estates Definitive Subdivision Plan/Dailev, Sullivan, Moran Dinkin states that there are really two issues that the Board needs to address in making a determination on this subdivision. The first being whether the applicants have adequate legal rights to use Brookhead Avenue to create an access into their subdivision; and the second issue is development of this site at the level of intensity of the proposal, whether the development is a premature one given the reality of the public ways that surround it. Dinkin further states that it seems to him that over the course of a long detailed public hearing that the weight of the evidence is that the applicants have no legal right to join a 28-1ot subdivision into Brookhead Avenue, and states that development of the site at this intensity will have a negative impact on public safety in the surrounding neighborhoods, in particular Boyles Street. Sullivan echoes Dinkin's concerns and states that the applicants' legal right to use Brookhead Avenue by adding 28 units will create a problem. Dinkin asks if the applicant is interested in an extension of time for final Board action to resolve these two issues. Mr. Marchionda states that his clients choose not to ask for an extension. Dinkin: Motion that the Board disapprove the Definitive Subdivision Plan for Montserrat Estates on the following grounds: that the subdivision has no legal right or ability to use Brookhead Avenue for the purpose proposed and therefore does not have adequate access and-egress into the subdivision, and because the negative impact of traffic and safety at this intensity on surrounding roadways that would arise would pose a danger or injury to the public and therefore, is a premature development in accordance with the Board's rules and regulations, seconded by Sullivan. Manzi, Dinkin, Sullivan, Dunn, Modugno and Flannery in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Dinkin: Motion to recess for 5 minutes, seconded by Sullivan. Dinkin, Sullivan, Dunn, Modugno and Flannery in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Thomson rejoins the meeting after the recess. Planning Board returns to session. Planning Board Minutes May 20, 1997 Meeting Page Eight Discussion/decision: Bartlett Street Definitive Plan and waiver from frontage requirements of zoning in accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81-R / Consuelo Martinez & Nicholas Metta Sullivan comments that looking over the plan, he sees no problem with the lot size but does have reservations regarding the frontage waiver in that the significance of the waiver from frontage requirements will have a negative impact on the neighborhood and feels that the Board should not grant this waiver. Thomson states that he agrees with Mr. Sullivan's sentiments and that he is uncomfortable with the merits, that the parking is not a big problem if applicant does this right, but that there needs to be a balancing issue. Mr. Thomson states that it is a policy question, that there is too great of a variance from existing frontage requirements with this application. Dinkin states that he sees merits regarding both positions but believes that Mr. Thomson is correct in stating that this is essentially a question of policy, to make a waiver from a frontage requirement of this extreme magnitude is too great and states that he doesn't oppose urban density in urban neighborhoods but feels 22'-23' is too small. Dinkin: Motion that the Board deny the requested waiver in accordance with M.G.L Chapter 41, Section 81-R of frontage requirements for the Definitive Subdivision Plan at 46-48 & 50 Bartlett Street, seconded by Sullivan. Manzi, Dinkin, Thomson, Sullivan, Modugno and Flannery in favor, Dunn abstains. Motion carries 6-1. Dinkin: Motion to disapprove the Definitive Subdivision Pran for the property located at 46-48 & 50 Bartlett Street, seconded by Sullivan. Manzi, Dinkin, Thomson, Sullivan, Modugno and Flannery in favor, Dunn abstains. Motion carries 6-1. Dinkin: Motion to recess for public hearings, seconded by Sullivan. Dinkin, Thomson, Sullivan, Dunn, Modugno and Flannery in favor. Motion carries. Public Hearinqs Public Hearing: 24 Brimhal Avenue Definitive Plan and waiver from frontage requirements of zoning in accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81-R / Leonard & Virqinia Colton Virginia Colton addresses the Board and reviews the history of the property explaining that they are seeking approval to divide the property into two lots and leave the rear lot to her son. Ms. Colton explains that the rear lot (Lot B) will face Montserrat Road Planning Board Minutes May 20, 1997 Meeting Page Nine with Lot A facing Brimhal Avenue. Ms. Colton states that there is 11,008 square feet of land area for Lot A and 11,023 square feet of land area frontage for Lot B. Both lots were granted frontage variances by the Board of Appeals last year. Hurlburt reads the following letters: Letter from Conservation Commission dated 4/15/97. (On File) Letter from the Police Department dated 4/15/97. (On File). Letter from the Board of Health dated 4/17/97. (On File) Letter from Councilor Virginia McGlynn dated 3/19/97. (On File) Chairman Manzi asks if any members of the public wish to address the Board on this subject. Hearing none, Chairman Manzi closes the public hearing. Public Hearing: 589 Essex Street Definitive Plan and waiver from frontage requirements of zoning in accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81-R / Sean Bell Hurlburt reads legal notice. Hurlburr reads the following letters: Letter from the Police Department dated 4/29/97. (On File) - Letter from the Board of Health dated 5/1/97. (On File) Attorney Kim Driscoll addresses the Board on behalf of the petitioner Sean Bell, and states that the applicant is seeking approval for the division of his property which would involve the transfer of Lot B to his neighbor, that it would not be a buildable lot and that the applicant has obtained a variance from the Board of Appeals. Attorney Driscoll states that the applicant is here tonight seeking a waiver from frontage for the transfer of Lot B and that a petition has been submitted in favor of the division. Chairman Manzi asks if any members of the public wish to be heard on this petition. Hearing none, Chairman Manzi closes public hearing. Dinkin: Motion to reconvene, seconded by Sullivan. Dinkin, Thomson, Sullivan, Dunn, Modugno and Flannery in favor. Motion Carries. Planning Board Minutes May 20, 1997 Meeting Page Ten Planning Board now in session. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR'S) 102 Cherry Hill Drive Hurlburt updates the Board and shows the reconfiguration of a lot line that the Flatley Company has submitted to the Board for endorsement. Chairman Manzi asks if the plan conforms to all the Board's rules and regulations. Hurlburt responds yes. Dinkin: Motion to endorse plan as plan not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Flannery. Dinkin, Thomson, Sullivan, Dunn, Modugno and Flannery in favor. Motion carries. Dinkin: Motion to recess for public hearing, seconded by Sullivan. Dinkin,Thomson, Sullivan, Dunn, Modugno and Flannery in favor. Motion carries. Public Hearing: 102 Cherry Hill Drive site plan review application #29-97 / The Flatley Company Hurlburt reads legal notice. Charlie Cummings of The Flatley Company addresses the Board and states that the reason for the reconfiguration of the area is because the City of Beverly is looking to develop some property in the rear of the building and needs an access road. Mr. Cummings states that they are proposing to construct a 58,500 square foot building that is located in an "IR" zoned area, that the plan exceeds site plan review requirements, that they have complied with all zoning requirements as well as all ordinances. Mr. Cummings explains that the building will employ between 175-190 new employees and that 225 parking spaces have been provided. Mr. Cummings states that they have submitted a building design, that the Flatley Company has been before the Beverly Airport Commission and received approval to park in the avigation easement area. Dinkin asks if the Flatley Company is in negotiations with any tenants. Mr. Cummings explains that they are in negotiations with one tenant but cannot release the name. Thomson asks if there will be access from the proposed roadway to the parking area and back to the roadway. Mr. Cummings states yes and describes how the access will be obtained. Thomson asks what type of landscaping will be installed between the parking lot and the new roadway. Mr. Cummings explains they will Planning Board Minutes May 20, 1997 Meeting Page Eleven not be disturbing the natural ground and that a landscaping plan has been submitted. Dinkin asks Mr. Cummings if he could describe the general category of business that will be conducted. Mr. Cummings states information technological. Hurlburt reads the following letters: - Letter from the Traffic Commission dated 5/15/97. (On File) - Letter from the Police Department dated 5/15/97. (On File) - Letter from the Board of Health dated 4/23/97. (On File) - Letter from the Design Review Board dated 5/13/97. (On File) Mr. Cummings further states that the building will be connected to the municipal water and sewer systems. Dinkin: Motion to recess for 5 minutes, seconded by Flannery. Dinkin, Thomson, Sullivan, Dunn, Modugno and Flannery in favor. Motion carries. Chairman Manzi asks if any One else wishes to speak on the site plan. Hearing none, Chairman Manzi closes the public hearing. Dinkin: Motion to reconvene, seconded by Flannery. Dinkin, Thomson, Sullivan, Dunn, Modugno and Flannery in favor. Motion carries. ' Discussion/decision: 24 Brimbal Avenue definitive Plan and waiver from frontage requirements of zoning in accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81-R / Colton Dinkin: Motion to approve the Definitive Subdivision Plan for 24 Brimbal Avenue and to grant the requested waiver from frontage with waivers for Section III.C.l.b., General Definitive Filing Requirements; Section III.C.2., Definitive Plan Contents; Section III.D.8., Performance Guarantee; Section III.C.9., Reduction of Bond Surety; Section III.C., Release of Performance Guarantee; Section IV, Design Standards; and Section V, Required Improvements for an Approved Subdivision, seconded by Thomson. Dinkin, Thomson, Sullivan, Dunn, Modugno and Flannery in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Planning Board Minutes May 20, 1997 Meeting Page Twelve Discussion/decision: 102 Cherry Hill Drive site plan review application #29-97 / The Flatley Company Dinkin: Motion to approve the site plan for 102 Cherry Hill Drive and incorporating the comments from the Parking and Traffic Commission, seconded by Modugno. Dinkin, Thomson, Sullivan, Dunn, Modugno and Flannery in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Discussion/decision: 589 Essex Street Definitive Plan and waiver from frontage in accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81-R / Sean Bell Thomson: Motion to approve the Definitive Subdivision Plan for 589 Essex Street and included is approval of the requested waiver from frontage with waivers for Section III.C.l.b., General Definitive Filing Requirements; Section III.C.2., Definitive Plan Contents; Section III.D.8., Performance Guarantee; Section III.C.9., Reduction of Bond Surety; Section III.C., Release of Performance Guarantee; Section IV, Design Standards; and Section V, Required Improvements for an Approved Subdivision, seconded by Sullivan. Dinkin, Thomson, Sullivan, Dunn, Modugno and Flannery in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Chanticleer Drive Subdivision: posted as surety / Dan Finn Expiration of Letter of Credit Hurlburt reads a letter from Developer Dan Finn dated 5/10/97 requesting a six month extension of the expiration date of the Letter of Credit and construction completion date of this project. (On File) ' Hurlburt reads a letter from the Salem Five Savings Bank dated 5/16/97. (On File) Dinkin: Motion to accept the extension Letter of Credit for the Chanticleer Drive Subdivision and the construction completion date to 12/1/97, seconded by Flannery. Dinkin, Thomson, Sullivan, Dunn, Modugno and Flannery in favor. Motion carries 6-0. 325 Cabot Street (former Mayflower Motel): Finding of specific and material changes, consent to reconsider revised special permit and site plan review applications for construction of 26-unit addition to existing facility / Robert and Cheryl Brilliant, Robert Carrarini, Gail M. Balboni Hurlburt explains that the Planning Board must set a date for reconsideration of a specific and material change to a special Planning Board Minutes May 20, 1997 Meeting Page Thirteen permit application in accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 404, Section 16. Dinkin: Motion that the Planning Board place on the June 17, 1997 meeting a discussion of applications to reconsider a revised site plan and special permit for 325 Cabot Street and to notify abutter of this meeting, seconded by Flannery. Dinkin, Thomson, Sullivan, Dunn, Modugno and Flannery in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Moore Circle Subdivision: Request to allow transfer of portion of land under Form G Restrictive Covenant / Paul and Sheila Moore Hurlburt updates the Board and notes that Tina Cassidy recommends that the Board should not transfer the covenant restrictions to another party because the final dismissal of the court case has not yet been submitted to the Board as required last November. Dinkin: Motion to lay this matter on the table to the Board's June 17, 1997 meeting and strongly urge the Moore's to be present to address any questions, seconded by Sullivan. Thomson, Sullivan, Dunn, Modugno and Flannery in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR's) Stewart Avenue Hurlburt updates the members. Chairman Manzi asks if the plan meets all the Board's rules and regulations. Hurlburt responds yes. Dinkin: Motion to endorse plan as plan not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Modugno. Dinkin, Thomson, Sullivan, Dunn, Modugno and Flannery in favor. Motion carries. Informal Discussion with resident David Gardner on open space issues. David Gardner addressed the Board and explains how the Open Space Committee members took the Assessor's map and listings and found lots of open space that was undeveloped. Mr. Gardner explains the results of the open space survey and states that there are three major areas of open space that could be developed, the first being an area around the Bass River, the second is in the area of the Norwood Pond/Brimbal Avenue and the last area being the Boulder Lane and Pole Swamp Lane area. Planning Board Minutes May 20, 1997 Meeting Page Fourteen Mr. Gardner states that they are requesting on-going deliberations to consider how to extract some right of ways and are inquiring about protecting City owned land. Mr. Gardner explains that they would like to create a trail network and hands out an action plan with items for the City to undertake. Thomson asks if there is a land trust here in the City. Mr. Gardner responds that he is not sure if there is, but doesn't believe there is. Discussion on the matter ends. Approval of Minutes: April 15, 1997 Regular Meeting and the April 22, 1997 Joint Public Hearinq and special meeting. Dinkin: Motion to approve the minutes of. the Board's April 15, 1997 Regular Meeting and the Board's April 22, 1997 Joint Public Hearing and special meeting as drafted, seconded by Flannery. Dinkin, Thomson, Sullivan, Dunn, Modugno and Flannery in favor. Motion carries 6-0. New or Other Business Dinkin: Motion to lay Item #12 A-C on the table to the Board's next meeting scheduled for June 17, 1997, seconded by Thomson. Dinkin, Thomson, Sullivan, Dunn, Modugno and Flannery in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Dinkin: Motion to remove Item #12A off the table, seconded by Thomson. Dinkin, Thomson, Sullivan, Dunn, Modugno and Flannery in favor. Motion carries 6-0. a. Construction changes to approved site plan for Stop & Shop Sherry Clancy representing Stop & Shop addresses the Board and states that they are requesting the Board's approval of modifications to the roadway design approved as part of Stop & Shop's site plan. Ms. Clancy explains that Mass Highway plans major improvements to Rt. 62 and that it would be in the best interest for both parties involved to make amendments to the site plan so that all roadway construction will be consistent. Ms. Clancy reviews the requested amendments and shows actual construction plan for this project. (See letter in site plan approval file.) Planning Board Minutes May 20, 1997 Meeting Page Fifteen Dinkin states that he is not prepared to make a decision on this matter tonight and suggests that the City Engineer review and give the Board his assessment at the next meeting. Thomson asks Ms. Clancy if this delay would hold up construction. Ms. Clancy responds no. Thomson: Motion to table this item to the Board's June 17, 1997 meeting, seconded by Sullivan. Dinkin, Thomson, Sullivan, Dunn, Modugno and Flannery in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Adjournment Dinkin: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Thomson. Dinkin, Thomson, Sullivan, Dunn, Modugno and Flannery in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Meeting is adjourned at 10:35 p.m.