Loading...
1997-06-17 Minutes Beverly Planning Board June 17, 1997 Meeting Members present: Chairman James Manzi, Vice-Chairman Richard Dinkin, John Thomson, Steve Papa, Joanne Dunn, Ellen Flannery, Batty Sullivan and Bill Delaney. Also present: Planning Director Tina Cassidy and Assistant Planning Director Debbie Hurlburt. Chairman Manzi calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Consideration of Repetitive Petition in accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 16 / 321 & 325 Cabot Street / Robert & Cheryl Brilliant, Gall Balboni & Robert Carrarini Cassidy reads legal notice. Manzi asks if counsel for the applicants would like to make a presentation. Attomey Alan Grenier addresses the Board, and introduces himself and applicant Robert Brilliant. Grenier presents the proposal to the Board and adds that he has submitted this proposal as a new filing, not as a repefitive petition. Delaney asks Grenier if he could describe the difference in this plan as one being a new filing and not as a repetitive petition. Grenier responds that there are two criteria for this difference, one being that the addition would comply with the zoning setbacks and therefore doesn't rely on non-conforming status, and two being that they had added properly to the rear of the tot for additional parking. Cassidy states that them are additional units, the initial proposal calls for 22 units and this plan shows 26. Delaney asks Grenier to present what changes have been made to the plan that would specifically and materially affect the conditions on which the original petitions were denied. Grenier responds that there are two chahges, one being the additional property, and two being that they no longer require non-conforming status, and those two constitute a specific and material change. Planning Board Minutes June 17, 1997 Meeting Page Two Grenier states that he filed this plan as a new special permit application, not as a repetitive petition. Delaney asks Cassidy to respond to what the Board is to be reviewing at this time. Cassidy explains MGL Chapter 40A regarding repetitive petitions and states that if a special permit is denied, then the Board must first find that specific and material changes have occurred to the conditions on which the initial denial was based, not changes to the plan necessarily. Second, the Board must consent to rehear the application. Dinkin asks Grenier if he thinks that this plan should be treated as an entirely different application, with the time frame starting on the date that you filed this recent plan. Grenier responds yes. Thomson asks if there is an addition that no longer extends to the rear lot line, and if it will be removed. Brilliant responds that the original plan shows an existing building on the revised plan with an additional story having the same setbacks. Brilliant adds that the existing building stays but the new addition sits 15' from the property line, to comply with the zoning requirements. Cassidy adds that zoning issues were not cited by the Board last November when the original petition was denied. Thomson asks if the existing building is going to stay on its current footprint. Grenier responds yes. Cassidy states that she understands that there is a lease or sale option pending on the additional land that would be added to the project: however. she is not clear on this issue. Grenier clarifies that his client has contracted to purchase the property. Dinkin asks about the property that is pertinent to the purchase and sale agreement, and if the use of that property will be part of this plan. Grenier responds yes for parking and landscaping. Brilliant states that the Building Inspector wrote a letter to the Planning Board with concerns at the last minute last year, and he was of the understanding that these issues were all set. Brilliant adds that he redesigned the nlan to address the setbacks, parking, handicapped ramp and other code issues that were highlighted in that letter. Thomson states that them are four reasons cited in the original denial of the Special Permit and the site plan and that the Board is required to take these reasons in consideration. Thomson mentions the denial does not mention setbacks or parking inadequacies on site. Grenier responds that those are ethereal issues, and property changes are quite appropriate. Grenier adds that by adding the properly there are changes in the setbacks and the addition is no longer non- conforming. Dinkin states that he thinks that the question to be resolved is the determination that this filing is a repetitive petition filing or a new special permit. Dinkin suggests that this is an administrative decision, in this case, the City, Planner's, although there should be an appeal to that process, and what venue would be available to the petitioner. Planning Board Minutes July 17, 1997 Meeting Page Three Grenier states that the relief is the specific and material change to the plan, but not to the decision itself. Dinkin asks Grenier if he agrees that the planning director is the entity to make that decision. Grenier responds that it is a planning board. Dinkin asks Grenier if he then believes that if the Planning Board determines it to be a repetitive petition, then would the Board's consent to rehear the repetitive petition within two years be required. Grenier responds that it is up to the Board. Thomson asks Grenier if he applied for this to be a repetitive petition. Grenier responds no, as a brand new filing. Dinkin: Move to recess for ten minutes, seconded by Delaney. All members in favor, motion carries. The Board is back in session. Delaney states that based on his review of MGL Chapter 40A, Section 16, he doesn't agree with Attomey Grenier, and that he agrees that this application constitutes a reapplication of a special permit and site plan review petition. Delaney adds that the criteria is not the plan itself but the conditions upon which the Board's original decision was based. Delaney states that the decision did not reference zoning issues and was not cited in the Board's decision. Delaney states that one of the changes is the physical layout of parking. and the question is whether the building addition and the additional parking affects the criteria on which the Board based its November decision. Delaney restates the reasons for the original denial: 1. that factual, credible evidence was presented at the public hearing which indicated that property values in the area would be adversely affected; 2. that the project would create nuisance and traffic congestion concerns; 3. that the character of the adjoining neighborhood and uses would be adversely affected by the proposed project; and 4. that the site is not an appropriate location for the intensity of-the use being proposed. Delaney states that the applicants have not submitted any new or additional information to the Board to counter those findings and if anything, the new plan causes more concern than the first one did. He believes that the applications now before the Board are indeed repetitive petitions. Dinkin states that he believes that during the discussion earlier this evening it was represented that the configuration of the architecture itself and the rooms within the addition would have less impact on the neighborhood. Grenier responds that the plan conforms to zoning and that they are not creating any non-conformities. Brilliant states that the original plan had exterior porches with lights and the redesign has eliminated the lights and the porches, that this is now only a colonial building and the layout includes a common hallway. Planning Board Minutes June 17, 1997 Meeting Page Four Dinkin asks if the pomhes on the plan were intended to face Cabot Street or the rear of the building. Brilliant responds they would face the parking lot toward Cabot Street. Thomson states his belief that such architectural modifications would not material change the conditions cited by the Board and that he does not believe that the Board should consent to rehear the reapplications. Delaney: motion to find that specific and material changes have not occurred to the conditions on which the first denial was based, seconded by Sullivan. Dinkin, Flannety, Sullivan, Delaney, Dunn, Papa, Thomson and Manzi in favor. Motion carries 8-0. Dinkin: motion to recess for public heating, seconded by Delaney. All members in favor, motion carries. Public Hearing: 224 Elliott Street / Modification to approved Site Plan / (proposed Stop & Shop development) National Development of New England Cassidy reads legal notice. Cassidy updates the Board and indicates that since the site plan was approved, Mass Highway has plans to do work on the balance of Route 62, and the City wanted to coordinate the work of Mass Highway with Stop & Shop because there were different roadway and construction methods being proposed. The site plan amendments would result in uniformity of design and construction materials. Cassidy states that she has received a letter for Sherry Clancy from National Development and also a letter from City Engineer Frank Killilea for Stop and Shop dated June 17, 1997 and reads the letters to the Board (see file). Clancy states that this is primarily a house-cleaning item to them and that the changes need to be made. Delaney asks if the Engineering Department has reviewed the changes. Cassidy responds yes and indicated that the letter she read was from the new City Engineer. Delaney asks if the changes are more costly than before. Cassidy responds yes, in some cases. Delaney asks if the State and National Development of New England are working together on these items, and who will be paying for the upgrade. Clancy responds that the project is being coordinated, and that the State will be paying for the upgrade. Planning Board Minutes June 17, 1997 Meeting Page Five Manzi asks if there is anyone else who would like to speak on this item. There being none, Manzi closes the Public Hearing. Dinkin: Move to approve the proposed modifications to the previously-approved site plan for 224 Elliott Street. seconded by Papa. Thomson. Flannery. Dunn. Sullivan, Delaney. Dinkin and Papa in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR's) Prince and Hale Street / Dexter Trust Thomson and Sullivan recused themselves from discussion on this matter. Cassidy presents the plan to the Board and indicates that there is frontage on Prince Street and Hale Street. Cassidy also briefly discusses the proposed plan for Ben Eisenstadt property because both of these plans relate to one another. Cassidy states that for instance. Lot Six on this plan is to be conveyed to adjacent property which is reflected on the 345 Hale Street ANR plan (Eisenstadt). This plan reflects six lots; two are not to be considered buildable lots and are to be conveyed to other adjacent lots, one has an existing house on it, and three are to be buildable lots. Cassidy reads letter from the City Clerk dated June 17, 1997 regarding the City maintaining and using Prince Street as a city street (see file). Manzi asks if the plan meets the City's Rules and Regulations. Cassidy responds that it does. Dinkin: Move to approve plan identified at Prince and Hale Street, for Dexter Trust, as a plan not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Flannery. Dunn, Delaney, Dinkin, Flannery and Papa in thvor. Motion carries 5-0. 345 Hale Street / Eisenstadt Thomson and Sullivan recuse themselves from discussion on this matter. Cassidy presents the plan to the Board and indicates that this plan is adjacent to the previous plan that the Board discussed on Prince and Hale Street. Cassidy states that this plan indicates five lots; two are not to be considered separate building lots, one has an existing house, and two are buildable lots. Planning Board Minutes June 17, 1997 Meeting Page Six Manzi asks if this plan meets the City's Rules and Regulations. Cassidy responds that it does. Dinkin: move to approve plan identified at 345 Hale Street as a plan not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Flannery, Dunn, Dinkin, Flannery, Delaney and Papa in favor. Motion carries 5-0. Thomson and Sullivan return to the meeting. 325R Elliort Street / Prince Cassidy presents the plan to the Board states that there are three lots on the plan: A, B & C, and indicates that the applicant wants to convey Lot A to Lot C. Manzi asks if the plan meets the City's Rules and Regulations. Cassidy responds that it does. Dinkin: move to endorse the plan identified as 325R Elliott Street as one not requiring approval under the subdivision control law, seconded by Delaney, Dunn, Dinkin, Delaney, Flannery, Papa, Sullivan and Thomson in favor. Motion carries. 7-0. Discussion/decision: The Planters Subdivision - Acceptance of Funds for Tot Lot Improvements and Traffic Improvements mandated by 1992 Subdivision Approval Recommendation to City Council on Acceptance of Deed to Tot Lot / John Keilty. Cassidy updates the Board and states that back in 1992, when the Board approved the subdivision, a number of conditions were placed on the approval. One was for the design and expenditure of at least $15,000 to improve the upland portion of the tot-lot, with the design to be approved by the Commissioner of Public Works and the Recreation Department. Cassidy adds that another condition was that the developer expend $15,000 to fix the intersection of Essex and Hull Streets. Cassidy reads letter from Keilty that provides for the $30,000; $15,000 for the tot-lot and $15,000 for the street improvements at Hull and Essex Street. Cassidy states that the letter asks the Board to accept the money and recommend to the City Council that they accept this money. Cassidy adds that generally the developer does the improvements; however, that has not been what the Recreation Department would prefer, they would prefer the money so that they could do the improvements. Dinkin states that there is a liability issue, and wonders if the appropriate City agencies have been contacted and if they are agreeable. Cassidy responds that she is clear that the Recreation Department would prefer the money and coordinate with the other departments. She has not spoken with the Engineering Department on the matter. Planning Board Minutes June 17, 1997 Meeting Page Seven Sullivan asks how did the City arrive at the $15,000 amount and wonders if it is enough to do the work and what is the timetable to do the work. Cassidy responds that the timetable is driven by how quickly the Recreation Commission can consider this, and adds that it is advisable that they handle the design as expeditiously as possible. Cassidy goes on to state that as far as the amount is concerned the Board referred to the Maplewood subdivision because they did a similar project a month in advance of this project for $10,000 and that it seemed appropriate at the time the subdivision was constructed. Thomson asks what is the condition of the site now. Cassidy responds that she did not know. Delaney states that there needs to be a plan, and it should be designed by the developer. Delaney adds that he is not inclined to allow other entities to design something that the developer is responsible for, and that he is not sure that the City can handle this in a timely fashion and maybe the developer should build it. Dinkin states that there are several issues here, and that he concurs with Delaney. Dinkin adds that others may prefer that the Recreation Department manage this, but it is clear to him that the requirement is to spend a minimum of $15,000 for tot-lot, and the requirement to create a plan to develop a tot-lot area is a separate requirement. Dinkin goea on to state that at the minimum, in addition to giving the money for the development of the lot, either a complete plan needs to be filed or the Board needs to create a monetary figure for the development of the plan. Dinkin states that the roadway improvements are specific and are not to exceed $15,000 and that the Board can accept this item. Thomson asks if the applicant is willing to separate the two. Dinkin responds that the Board can deny the request and the Board can refuse accept the check for $30,000. Dinkin adds that the City should contact the developer to get a figure to develop the plan. Cassidy states that the Board can table this until July. Dinkin: move to table discussion of the Planters Subdivision discussion until July, seconded by Delaney. Dunn, Thomson, Flannery, Papa, Dinkin, Delaney and Sullivan in favor. Motion carries, 7-0. Discussion/decision: Cherry Hill Park Subdivision / Expiration of Conslruction Completion Date / The Flatle Comvanv Cassidy states that the Planning Department has received a letter from the Flatley Company requesting an extension of the construction completion date, and reads the letter to the members. Planning Board Minutes June 17, 1997 Meeting Page Eight Dinkin asks if the current surety is adequate to complete the project if necessary. Cassidy responds that George Zambouras checked the last time an extension was sought, and there has not been a reduction in surety and that there are enough funds to complete remaining work items. Dinkin: move that the Board extend the construction completion date for the Flatley Company to June 30, 1998, seconded by Flannery. Dunn, Delaney, Papa, Dinkin, Flannery, Sullivan and Thomson in favor. Motion carries, 7-0. Discussion/decision: Morgan's Island Subdivision / Expiration of Tri-Partite Agreement / Dennis & Karen L'ltalien Cassidy state that the Planning Department is in receipt of a letter from Dennis & Karen L'Italien seeking a one year extension of the Tri-Partite Agreement as surety for the Morgan's Island subdivision. A letter signed by the Danvers Savings Bank agreeing to the extension has been submitted (see file). Dinkin: move to accept the extension of the Tri-Partite Agreement for the Morgan's Island Subdivision to June 30, 1998, seconded by Sullivan. Dunn, Flannery, Delaney,Dinkin, Sullivan, Thomson and Papa in favor. Motion carries, 7-0. Discussion/decision: Conifer Way Subdivision / Expiration of Construction Completion Date / Jeffrey Bunk Cassidy states that the Planning Department is in receipt of a letter from Jeffrey Bunk seeking a one year extension of the construction completion dare for this project to June 27, 1998. Dinkin: move to extend the conslruction completion date for the Conifer Way subdivision to June 27, 1998. seconded by Flannery. Dunn, Sullivan, Thomson, Papa, Dinkin, Flannery and Delaney in favor. Motion carries, 7-0. Discussion/decision: Birch Woods Subdivision: Expiration of Construction Completion Date / David Walsh Cassidy states that the Planning Department is in receipt of a letter from David Walsh seeking an extension of the Form G Covenant and the construction completion date from June 30, 1997 to June 30, 1998. Cassidy adds that the reason for this extension request is due to the appeals that have been filed with the Conservation Commission for 8 of the 13 lots. Dinkin: move to grant the extension of the construction completion date of the Birch Woods Subdivision for one year to June 30, 1998, seconded by Thomson. Flannery, Dunn, Sullivan, Dinkin, Thomson, Papa and Delaney in favor. Motion carries, 7-0. Planning Board Minutes June 17, 1997 Meeting Page Nine Discussion/decision: Moore Circle Subdivision Cassidy states that this item is not on the agenda tonight. Informal Discussion: 58-62 South Terrace / Jack Heaphy Cassidy states that Mr. Heaphy is here to discuss the property at 58-62 South Terrace, and that the property is a division by mediation of a court order. Cassidy adds that she did a site visit there and the driveway services three lots, and Mr. Heaphy question to the Board is, whether they would consider the access sufficient to service all three lots. Cassidy adds that this could technically be an ANR; however, the issue is that the frontage for Lot 2C has ledge outcroppings and she has a concern with adequate access. Cassidy states that on the plan there looks like there is access to the lot, but the outcroppings would prohibit any access to this lot except by the existing drive. Cassidy adds that she does not believe that there is an adequate way to access this lot as shown and would literally require that he trespass onto abutting property to place his car in his garage. Delaney recommends that Heaphy relate the Planning Board's concern with the lack of adequate access to Lot 2C to the judge in this matter. Old/New Business - Summer Recess Cassidy states that the Board generally takes a recess in August. General discussion takes place regarding the need for a July meeting. Dinkin: move that the Board recess regular meetings after July 15 to September 16, seconded by Delaney. Dunn, Flannery, Papa, Sullivan, Dinkin, Delaney and Thomson in favor. Motion canies, 7-0. Amnesty License Cassidy states that the Board has received an Amnesty License for Port Marine at 43-67 Water Street in the event that members would like to review the License. It is on file with the Planning Department. Master Plan Workshop Cassidy asks the members if they would like to schedule some time to discuss the Master Plan process. Dinkin states that it may be advisable to wait until the fall to discuss the matter. Sullivan suggests that the Board wait to see the July agenda before making a decision on this. Planning Board Minutes ,lune 17, 1997 Meeting Page Ten Adjournment Delaney: move to adjourn, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor. Motion carries.