Loading...
1999-04-12City of Beverly, Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board: Planning Board Subcommittee: Date: April 12, 1999 Place: Beverly Senior Center, 90 Colon Street Board members present: Chairman Richard Dinkin, Vice-Chairman William Delaney, Robert Rink, Joanne Dunn, Peter Thomas, John Thomson Board members absent: Salvatore Modugno, Barry Sullivan Others present: Planning Director Tina Cassidy, City Engineer Frank Killilea Chairman Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and recesses the regular meeting for public hearings. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review application//44-99: reconstruction of retail properties at 240-250 Elliott Street / MaRiano, Bass River Trust Cassidy reads the legal notice. Thomas Alexander, representing Bass River Trust and the Marcianos, explains that this project calls for the redevelopment and improvement of the property. The project would involve the construction of additions to some of the buildings on the site and rehabilitation of the exteriors. The parking lot would be reconfigured and a public walkway and public park constructed along the river. He notes that the reconstruction of Route 62 being undertaken by the City will involve a redesign of the curb cuts from this property to the road. He states that the Marcianos and their engineers have consulted with both Mr. Killilea and the City's consulting engineering firm, HTSD, on the subject. He further notes that this site currently has eight curb cuts, and that number would be reduced to four under this plan. The site will have 74 parking spaces, which is the number of spaces that would be needed in accordance with the parking requirements of the zoning ordinance. Alexander shows a rendering of the property to the Board and audience and states that two buildings on the site will be sprinklered. He notes that the Design Review Board has some concerns with respect to the planting scheme for this property, and notes that the number of propesed trees on the property will be increased to address one of those concerns. He introduces Joe Luna, the project architect, and Jennifer Neville, the project engineer. Dinkin asks Cassidy to read correspondence from the various City departments. She reads letters from the Harbor Management Authority, Design Review Board, Parking and Traffic Commission. Police, Fire, and Health Departments. Planning Board minutes April 12, 1999 meeting Page two Dinkin asks if members of the Board have any questions. Thomson notes that the Harbor Authority has indicated several State permits are needed for this project, and asks Alexander for additional information. Alexander states that the Chapter 91 license, which is a requirement for this project, is usually applied for last. In this way, all local issues, concerns, and recommendations are incorporated into the Chapter 91 license application the State reviews. He notes that it is certainly possible that the final Chapter 91 license will necessitate changes to the plan, but states the applicants must start somewhere in the permitting process and starting it locally makes sense. Dinkin asks if the owners are planning to raze any of the existing buildings on the site and construct new ones. Luna states that the facade of the building that now houses Lena's sub shop will he rehabbed on the exterior. The second and third buildings, housing the White Hen Pantry store and the former Appleby & Wyman insurance office will he reconstructed as a new two-story structure with a bank and drive-through on the lower level and office space on the second floor. He also notes that an addition will he constructed to the existing Bass River Flooring building. All facades will be reconstructed. Dinkin asks for an explanation of what establishments will exist on the site once the project is finished. Luna states that the White Hen site will he retail space, the Lena's building will he a food service establishment with additional retail space. The third building will house a hank with office space above, and the addition to the flooring establishment will he used as warehouse space for the business, although it could be converted to retail use in the future. Dinkin questions the number of parking spaces on the site, and Neville states that the current number of 16 - 20 parking spaces will be increased to 74 upon completion of the project. Delaney asks if the buildings that have parking spaces in the back of the structures will have access to the parking areas from the rear of the establishments. Luna responds that those establishments will have accesses from both the front and the rear. The other buildings will have front entrances. Delaney asks for an explanation of the lighting scheme for the site. Luna notes that there will be a series of light stanchions on the property, and refers to the landscape plan which shows the locations in detail. Along Elliott Street, they hope to utilize the existing street lights for lighting that area of the lot. Delaney asks for an explanation of the drainage scheme for the property, and asks if there is any special issues with regard to the Bass River. Neville replies that the drainage scheme is being finalized. She notes that at present everything runs off the back of the site into the river. She states that with the redevelopment proposal, the runoff will be collected, filtered, and treated before discharge into the river. Delaney asks when the Planning Board minutes April 12, 1999 meeting Page three drainage plan will be finalized, and Neville answers that the Conservation Commission will review both pre- and post-conditions with respect to runoff and will dictate the final drainage design. She adds that eighty percent of the pollutants will be treated and removed from the runoff. Delaney asks Alexander if there are any pending issues outlined in the department and board letters that remain to be discussed and decided at this point. Alexander states that one recommendation of the Design Review Board (to add a planter along Elliott Street) must be finalized. Placement of a planter in this location would require approval from the state, since it would be partially located within the Elliott Street fight of way. He also notes that the Board asked if some of the parking spaces proposed for the front of the buildings could be moved to the rear of the site. Alexander states that he thinks this will be difficult to comply with because of Chapter 91 regulations. Dinkin recesses this public hearing until 9:00 p.m. Public Hearing: Request for waiver of the frontage requirements of zoning in accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81-R and definitive plan approval / 495R Cabot Street / Walter Ewaschuk Cassidy reads the legal notice. Dinkin asks the applicant to make his presentation. Attorney Joseph Correnti, representing Mr. Ewaschuk, states that his client was before the Board in November of 1998 for an 81 -R waiver and plan approval. In the preceding September, Mr. Ewaschuk received a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals to construct two crafismen's shops on two parcels of land, neither of which had frontage. He states that this revised plan shows a new location for the proposed access right of way, which was originally going to traverse land owned by Dr. Kaplan. This proposal is better in that it relocates the right of way to Mr. DiPaolo's property, away from the residences, and runs alongside the railroad tracks. The easement fight of way is now 15' wide, which is wider than originally proposed, and that the applicant feels this location is better. Correnti adds that lot one is now 1,800 sq. ft. smaller than originally proposed and lot two is consequently 1,800 sq. ft. larger. He notes that parcel A on the plan has been extended by about 200 sq. ft. as an accommodation to the abutter. He further indicates that Ewaschuk is seeking a modification of the plan that was approved in November, in order to reflect the changes outlined above. Dinkin asks Cassidy to read communications from different City departments, and she reads letters from the Police and Fire Departments. Planning Board minutes April 12, 1999 meeting Page four Dinkin asks Correnti who owns the right of way and is informed it will be owned by the owner of the lot on Cabot Street (currently owned by DiPaolo) but will be a recorded, permanent easement to service lots 2 and 3. Dinkin asks if there are any clarifying questions from the Board or the audience. Bill Squibb, 509 Cabot Street, states that he believes the variance was for one craftsmen's shop, not two. Mr. Ewaschuk states that the approval was for two shops, but that he is not sure there will ultimately be two. He states that if there is a second shop in the future it will be built on lot #3 and that there will be a right of way through lot 2 to allow access. Thomson questions whether Mr. Ewaschuk will need to return to the Board of Appeals for an mended variance to reflect the new right of way location. Ewaschuk answers that he may need to go hack to that board. Lorelei Azarian, 509 Cabot Street, questions the entire project and states that as a mother, she is uncomfortable with the proposed use of this property. Claudette Turner, Roosevelt Avenue, questions whether a study was done with regard to drainage. Correnti answers that drainage was discussed during the Board of Appeals hearing and that while the subject of run off was an issue, it was determined that if an underground drainage system were needed, Mr. Ewaschuk was willing to install it. Dinkin asks who would make the determination about the system, and Correnti answers the building inspector would. Ed Camara, 505R Cabot Street, states he is concerned about the devaluation of his property and wants to know who would be responsible for preventing that from happening. He wants to know if he would he notified of the type of building and details of construction. He asks how high the building will be. Cassidy answers that the submitted plan does not show this information, but notes that the zoning ordinance allows a height of 35'. Dinkin places this hearing in recess until 9:30 p.m. Public Hearing on request for modification to approved definitive subdivision plan for the Birch Woods Subdivision / Jack Rivers, Trustee, P.R.Z. Realty Trust Cassidy reads the legal notice. Jack Rivers introduces himself to the Board and states that he would be amenable to modifying the subdivision plan to provide a gravity sewer system in Cross Lane, instead of the force main system now in effect. The city's Director of Engineering would prefer a gravity line, since it would be far most cost effective and efficient for the residents along Planning Board minutes April 12, 1999 meeting Page five Cross Lane to tie into. In exchange for agreeing to install the gravity line, Mr. Rivers has submitted a modified subdivision plan for the Board's consideration that would need several waivers from the Board. One sidewalk would he eliminated along Birch Woods Drive, the curbing would he sloped granite curbing instead of straight faced, and he is seeking the elimination of the requirement that a tot lot be created in the subdivision. Dinkin asks if there are any questions from members of the Planning Board. Rink asks Rivers to show the location of all existing dwellings in the subdivision. Rivers points out both houses, which are currently on septic systems. Dinkin asks Rivers what the cost differential is between a gravity sewer and a force main sewer. Rivers answers that an estimate is very difficult to give, since the answer depends on how much ledge he encounters in Cross Lane. The total cost of construction of the sewer line and subdivision improvements is about $1.4 million. Delaney asks if any portion of the Cross Lane sewer line will be force main. Rivers answers yes, there will he one short section that will require the installation of a force main. The vast majority of the line is gravity. Rivers notes that the pump station to be constructed in this subdivision is of sufficient size to handle additional sewage if the City elects to extend sewer service down the remainder of Cross Lane. Delaney asks Killilea if he agrees with Rivers' construction costs. KiIlilea states that using the construction costs in the Planning Board's regulations, the total project would cost about $1.6 million with approximately $233,000 of that figure going to the Cross Lane sewer line work. Cassidy notes that she has a copy of Killilea's letter and the bond estimate which is attached to that letter. She asks if the attachment assumes the modifications being requested by Mr. Rivers are approved, and Killilea responds that it does. Hearing no other questions from the Board, Dinkin asks if members of the public have any questions. Mary Lou Koczwara, 92 Cross Lane, notes that the developer is required to sewer her lot, and that the plan as presently drawn shows the line ending in the back yard. She would like to have the line extend up to her lot within the roadway right of way for Cross Lane, if that change is possible. Dinkin places the hearing in recess until 9:45 p.m. Special Permit Request #101-99: Use of structure at 54-56 Cabot Street as 100% residential in a "CC' zoning district / David Carnevale, C & D Realty Trust Planning Board minutes April 12, 1999 meeting Page six Cassidy reads the legal notice. Thomas Alexander, attorney representing Mr. Carnevale, states that there are two historic buildings that have been moved to the site. The buildings were owned by the Dane Street Congregational Church and were slated for demolition until Mr. Carnevale agreed to take the buildings and reuse them. He notes that the language of the "CC" zoning district encourages a mixed use of commercial and residential uses, but states that these buildings are not really suited for commercial use due to their construction and the need to comply with contemporary building code and access requirements. As a result, Mr. Carnevale is seeking a special permit to use the buildings for 100% residential purposes, and notes that there is adequate parking on site for the residential units. Alexander continues that the findings required for the special permit have been met with this application. This is an appropriate location for the proposed use, property values will improve with this development, and it will not cause increased traffic in the area. He also notes that six neighhers have signed a petition in favor of the special permit. Cassidy reads communications received from the Police and Fire Departments. Dinkin asks Alexander to explain the plan in detail. Alexander explains that two buildings have been moved to the lot and have been connected to make one building containing three one-bedroom units. Dinkin asks if memhers of the Board have any questions at this point. Hearing none, he · asks if there are any questions from the audience. Glenn Battistelli states that the rehabilitation of the structures should be in keeping with the historical nature of the buildings. Alexander notes that Mr. Carnevale intends to reclapboard the buildings with wood clapboard. Scott Housemen, Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals, states that when this application was discussed by the Zoning Board of Appeals last year, it was a different proposal that included commercial space in the front building on Cabot Street· He urges the Board to be very specific and clear with any conditions of approval they might place on this development. Dinkin asks if any other members of the audience wish to speak. Hearing none, Dinkin declares the public hearing closed. Discussion/decision: Site Plan Review application #44-99:240-250 Elliott Street / Marciano Bass River Trust Dinkin asks if there are any comments in support of this proposal. Alexander states that in response to a query from Delaney, the City Planner will be involved in securing approval from the State for the construction of a planting strip along Elliott Street· He adds that he does not believe it will be possible to move some of the parking spaces from Planning Board minutes April 12, 1999 meeting Page seven the front of the buildings to the back, given environmental concerns of other permitting agencies. Dinkin asks what the increase or decrease in the amount of impervious pavement will he on this site. Alexander states that the pementage of the lot covered with impervious surfaces will decrease by six to seven percent. Dinkin asks if there are any questions from members of the public. George Whitney, Chairman of the Beverly Harbor Management Authority, notes there has been no specific action to comply with the requirements of M.G.L. Chapter 91. He notes that a significant portion of this site is filled tidelands and there are unique requirements that will apply to this development. Alexander assures the Board his client will comply with the requirements of that law. A resident of 55 Sturtevant Street states he is in favor of the project but believes it is difficult to access this site so a traffic light should he considered, or a decrease in the number of curb cuts. George Christie, 21 County Way, feels the project would enhance the entire area. William Tabry states he owns land on Greene Street and feels the project would be an improvement. A resident of 24 Overlook Street is in favor and feels the project would improve traffic flow. Dinkin asks if anyone else has any questions or is in favor or against the project. Hearing no response, Dinkin declares the public hearing closed. Thomas states that the entire area has been a traffic problem and feels that moving the light, creating a bigger parking lot, and treating contaminants from surface runoff before discharge into the Bass River would be improvements. Delaney: motion to approve site plan application #44-99 subject to the conditions that a) the comments from all City departments be incorporated into the Board' s approval and complied with, with the exception of the Design Review Board suggestion that certain spaces be moved to the rear of the property. Motion seconded by Thomson, all members in favor. Motion carries. 6. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR's) a. Cross Lane / Mary Lou Koczwara Cassidy explains that the applicant is creating one additional building lot with sufficient frontage on Cross Lane. Her co-applicant, Jack Rivers, will he buying an additional piece of land from her which will give him an additional building lot as well when it is combined with remaining land he owns. Planning Board minutes April 12, 1999 meeting Page eight Dehney: motion to approve the plan as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by F!annery. All members in favor, motion carries. b. Bow Street / Anderson Cassidy explains that there are presently two houses on one lot. She reads the provision in the City's zoning ordinance that allows for a lot to be divided in such a way as to place the houses on their own lots, as long as the houses were in fact dwellings. The applicants are taking advantage of this clause to create this subdivision. Thomson: motion to endorse the plan as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, subject to a determination by the Building Inspector that the buildings were actually houses - and not simply structures - when zoning was adopted in 1939. Motion seconded by Flannery, all members in favor. Motion carries. Discussion: Request for definitive plan approval and waiver in accordance with M.G.L. Chanter 41, Section 81-R / Walter Ewaschuk Owner Tom DiPaolo indicates he is in favor of the project and states they came up with an alternative plan requiring Mr. Ewaschuk to purchase an additional piece of land near the railroad tracks, and Mr. Ewaschuk has agreed to buy it. He further notes that there has always been a business on this property including a cement block bnsiness, an electric motor repair business, and a nursery. He states there is a fifteen foot wide driveway easement, and has tried to be sensitive to the neighber's concerns. Dinkin asks if there is any public comment. Jeff Hall, 505 Cabot Street, notes he has lived there for forty years and states there is a water problem in the back of the site. He is concerned about the impact of this development on the existing water problem. Ed Camara, 505 R Cabot Street, questions the number of stores that will he allowed here. Cassidy states that retail establishments can be up to 5,000 sq. It. in size in this zoning district, and there are no specific number of establishments for this site - the number would be site dependent. She states that the height limit in this zone is 35 feet and is measured from the peak of the roof to the average elevation at the building foundation. In response to a question, Dinkin explains that the decision of the Board will he given in writing to the City Clerk and available there and in the Planning Department as a public Planning Board minutes April 14, 1999 meeting Page nine document. He notes the appeal period for an aggrieved party is twenty days from the date of the filing of the decision with the City Clerk. A resident of 509 Cabot Street feels the buildings are extremely large in comparison to tbe houses in that area. Ms. Loma Hall, 505 Cabot Street, states she is totally opposed to the project. Laura Turner of Roosevelt Avenue says she is also opposed to the project and questions what is going to be built behind the craftsmen's shops. She states that all of the neighhors in the area are concerned about the project. Robert Squibb, 509 Cabot Street, notes there is a water problem in the area and that in the spring this lot looks like a lake. He says traffic will also be a problem and notes that in the wintertime, the buses for the school have a difficult time on this stretch of Cabot Street. A resident of 15 Roosevelt Avenue states be has lived in his house for thirty years and says there is flooding every spring and fall and says that the applicant previously told the zoning board of appeals that there would only be one building, and now there will be two. Dinkin asks if there is any other public comment. Hearing none, he declares the public hearing closed. Discussion/decision: Modification to the approved Birch Woods subdivision / Jack Rivers, Trustee Gary Ciavola, 109 Cross Lane, states he is pleased to see there was a compromise that could be struck and asks the Board if it is sure the proposed sewer system can handle an eventual tie-in of the remaining homes on Cross Lane in the future. Killilea responds that he is sure the system, as designed, can accommodate the additional demand. Ciavola asks if the funding is in place for the City to design an extension of the sewer line. Killilea states there is money identified in the City's capital expenditure plan for engineering studies. He indicates that if the design of the project and funding could be secured in the coming months, there is no reason why construction of a sewer extension couldn't be done while the Birch Woods subdivision is under construction. Joan Johnson, Hale Street, asks if the smaller box culvert will impact the drainage system in a negative way. She also expresses concern about the safety of using sloped granite curbing instead of straight-faced granite curbing. Rivers states that the original design of the box culvert was drawn to accommodate a lowering of the brook in the future, and that given present laws of the conservation commission, it is very unlikely that such a project (to lower the stream) would ever be allowed. He notes this is a slow-flowing brook that will be lined with stones, and he has the concurrence of the engineering department that the new design will be sufficient to carry the necessary volume. Planning Board minutes April 12, 1999 meeting Page ten Debbie Heslop, 111 Cross Lane, asks about the status of Cross Lane, which is not on the official list of accepted City streets. Cassidy answers that there is a possibility that Cross Lane will he added to the official acceptance list, although it is presently on the list of streets the City has agreed to construct emergency repairs to. Rivers states that his attorney has traced the history of the street back to the 1840's and identifies it as an ancient way. Dinkin asks if there are any additional coments or questions from the public. Hearing none, he closes the public hearing. 9: Discussion/decision: 495 Cabot Street: M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81-R waiver request and definitive plan approval Dinkin asks for questions and comments from the Board. Delaney states that he would like to conduct a site visit to the property and hopes the Board will table further discussion on the applications until the next meeting. Dinkin asks if there is any other comment at this point. There is none. Delaney: motion to table discussion on the pending applications for 495 Cabot Street to the Board' s regular May meeting, and to schedule a site visit to the property for Saturday, May 8, 1999 at 9:00 a.m, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion carries. Dinkin asks the landowner, Mr. DiPaolo, if he would he willing to allow members of the public to accompany the Board on the site visit, and Mr. DiPaolo refuses. 10. Discussion/decision: Modification to the approved Birch Woods Subdivision plan Delaney asks for clarification on the three waivers being requested. Cassidy lists the elimination of a sidewalk on one side of all streets, the use of sloped faced granite curb instead of straight-faced granite, and the elimination of the requirement that a tot lot be constructed in the subdivision. Thomson asks who will maintain the pump station once it is installed, and Cassidy replies that the City will own it and the developer will grant the easements necessary for the City to operate and maintain it. Thomson asks Rivers what he intends to do with the land that had been slated for a tot lot. Rivers answers that it will likely remain as an easement. Dinkin asks if there are any other questions or issues for the Board to discuss. Planning Board minutes April 12, 1999 meeting Page eleven Delaney: motion to approve the modified plan of the Birch Woods Subdivision to reflect the fact that the following three waivers have been granted: the elimination of sidewalks on one side of Spruce Run and Birch Woods Drive, the use of sloped-faced granite curbing instead of straight-faced granite curbing, the requirement for a tot lot shall be eliminated; and to reflect the approval of various engineering revisions that have been discussed this evening and incorporated into the modified plan now before the Board, SUBJECT TO the conditions that a) all recommendations of the Engineering Department contained in a letter dated 4/12/99 from Mr. Killilea to the Chairman of the Planning Board be adhered to, and b) that the developer provide the necessary and appropriate easements to the pumping station so that the City may maintain and control the operation of the pump station. Motion seconded by Flannery, all members in favor. Motion carries. 11. Discussion/decision: Special Permit Request #101-99: Use of structure at 54- 56 Cabot Street as 100% residential in the "CC' z6ning district Delaney indicates he is somewhat troubled by this request because he feels the situation the developer now finds himself in could have been avoided. The developer knew the size of the buildings when he moved them, and therefore should have known there was no way to retrofit the building for commercial uses. He adds that if only one building had been placed on the property instead of two, there might indeed have been enough room on the site to develop the site commercially. He would feel better if the intention to construct residential units had been made clear to the Zoning Board of Appeals in the beginning. Flannery agrees with Delaney's statements. Alexander sates that the construction methods used in older buildings are different from new construction standards today.. Flannery notes that as a contractor in the rehabilitation business, Mr. Carnevale should have been aware of the differences. She is concerned with the situation. Thomson questions the director on the City's zoning policy for commercial and residential uses. Thomson states that one could argue that breaking up a commercial district with residential units would erode the commercial district and be a detriment to the retail merchants. The Board holds a brief discussion. Thomson: motion to grant a special permit to allow the use of the property at 54-56 Cabot Street for 100% residential purposes, seconded by Thomas. All members in favor, motion carries. Planning Board minutes April 12, 1999 meeting Page twelve Thomson: motion to reconsider the previous motion to approve the special permit, seconded by Thomas. All members in favor, motion carries. Thomson: motion to approve a special permit to allow the use of the property at 54- 56 Cabot Street for 100% residential uses SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: a) that the total numbor of bedrooms in both buildings cannot exceed four (4); b) that the rights granted by variance by the Board of Appeals on March 24, 1998 be surrendered; and c) that all parking spaces must be located a minimum of five (5) feet from the property line. Motion seconded by Thomas, all members in favor. Motion carries. 12. Subdivision Approval Not Required Phns (SANR's) a. Moraine Farm at 719 Cabot Street / George Batcbelder Jim Monahan from Landvest, representing the Batchelders, sites this plan was brought before the Board previously to create four (4) new lots. This plan reflects an adjustment to that earlier plan from December of 1998 which shifts one lot line to the north. Dinkin asks Cassidy if the plan meets the Board's requirements for endorsement as an ANR. Cassidy states that it does. Thomson: motion to endorse the plan as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Thomas. All members in favor, motion carries. b. 77 Cross Lane and Spruce Run / George Scala Cassidy presents the plan which shows that one of the lots has only I00' of frontage, which is insufficient to meet the zoning requirements of the City. She therefore recommends that the plan be denied. Delaney: motion to withhold endorsement of this plan as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Thomson. All members in favor, motion carries. 13. The Planters Subdivision: expiration of performance bond and construction completion date Cassidy reads letter from City Engineer Frank Killilea. Planning Board minutes April 12, 1999 meeting Page thirteen Delaney: motion to begin bond revocation proceedings on the surety posted for this subdivision unless and until the developer provides an appropriate extension of the surety of at least two (2) months' time, and that the Board place this matter on the agenda for the next meeting. Motion seconded by Thomson, all members in favor. Motion earties. 14. Brimbal Hill Drive Extension: expiration of construction completion date referenced in Form G Restrictive Covenant Cassidy reads a letter from the owner's representative requesting and explaining the reasons for the request. They are seeking an extension of the completion date from April to October 1999. Delaney: motion to extend the construction completion date for the Brimbal Hill Drive extension subdivision to October 28, 1999. Motion seconded by Flannery, all members in favor. Motion carries. 15. Birch Woods Subdivision: request to establish bond amount Cassidy informs members that the developer of this subdivision has asked that a bond amount he established, and City Engineer Killilea has written a letter to the Board recommending that the bond be set at $1,595,193.75. Delaney: motion to establish the bond for the Birch Woods subdivision at $1,595,193.75, seconded by Thomas. All members in favor, motion carries. 16. Thackerey Way: request to establish bond amount Cassidy informs members that the developer of this subdivision has asked that a bond mount be established, and City Engineer Killilea has written a letter to the Board recommending that the bond for the remaining work be set at $76,150.00. Thomas: motion to establish the bond amount for remaining work in the Thackerey Way subdivision at $76,150.00, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion carries. 17. City Council Order #43: recommendation to City Council Dinkin asks Cassidy to explain the time lines associated with this order. Cassidy explains that by law the Board has twenty days to report its recommendations to the Council, and that time has now gone by. Although the City Council may technically now act on the Planning Board minutes April 12, 1999 meeting Page fourteen proposal without the Board's recommendation, it is not likely to do so. Dinkin suggests that due to the lateness of the hour, the Board will table discussion on this item to the next Board meeting. 18. City Council Order #136 (proposed roomers and boarders ordinance) and #109 (creation of open space and recreation district and rezoning of Map #81, Lot #191 and Map #82, lot #9 to the new district) Cassidy explains that these two orders have been referred to the Planning Board for a public hearing. Thomson: motion to recommend that the City Council and Planning Board hold a Joint Public Hearing on both Orders, seconded by Thomas. All members in favor, motion carries. 19. Approval of Minutes Dinkin asks if there are any changes that should be made to the draft minutes of the October 20, 1998 and December 15, 1998 meetings. There are none. Flannery: motion to accept the minutes of the October 20, 1998 and December 15, 1998 meetings as drafted, seconded by Thomas. All members in favor, motion carries. 20. New or Other Business Cassidy explains that the Board has received a site plan review application for the construction of a new Dunkin Donuts on Elliott Street and recommends that the Board schedule a public hearing on the application. Thomson: motion to schedule a public hearing on the site plan review application for Dunkin Donuts for the Board's May 18, 1999 meeting. Motion seconded by Thomas, all members in favor. Motion carries. Cassidy states that the developers of the Ice House Lane subdivision have asked the Board to accept a Form G Restrictive Covenant as surety for the project, and to release the two remaining lots for building purposes only. Thomson: motion to accept a Form G Restrictive Covenant as surety to guarantee completion of the Ice House Lane subdivision and to release the two Planning Board minutes April 12, 1999 meeting Page fifteen remaining lots for building purposes only, not for sale. Motion seconded by Thomas, all members in favor. Motion carries. Dinkin asks if there is any other business for the Board to conduct. There is but one. Flannery: motion to adjourn, seconded by Thomas. All members in favor, motion carries.