Loading...
2000-09-25City of Beverly, Mamchusetts Public Meeting Minutes BOARD: Planning Board SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: September 25, 2000 PLACE: Beverly City Hall BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice Chairman Bill Delaney, Joanne Dunn, Robert Rink, John Thomson, Barry Sullivan, EIlen Flannery, Peter Thomas, Elizabeth McGlynn ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: City Planner Tina Cassidy RECORDER: Jeannine Dion Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Delaney:Motion to recess for public hearing, second by Flannery. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. 1. Hawk Hill Estates definitive subdivision plan / Symes Associates Cassidy states the public hearing was continued to this evening to allow the Planning Board sufficient time to conduct a site visit, which has taken place. The Planning Board also asked for a review of the drainage design by Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM), a consulting firm retained by the city for this purpose. CDM provided a report dated September 18, 2000, which is read into the record. Cassidy reads a letter dated September 20, 2000 from Symes Associates in response to a letter from the City Engineer dated July 10, 2000 into the record, and a letter dated September 18, 200O from Frank Killilea, City Engineer. Dinkin asks if members of the board have clarifying questions. Thomson asks if the applicatant has a response to CDM's letter. Jeff Rhuda from Symes Associates states the applicant agrees to makeamendments to the details of the subdivision plan. Thc only item which still needs to be addressed is the outlet structures and he will rerun the drainage numbers in the next couple of days to insure they can comply with CDM's recommendation without any difficulty. Planning Board Minutes September 25, 2000 Page 2 Delaney asks Killilea if he is satistied with the CDM recommedations. Killilea responds that he believes CDM did a good job idenfifying issues of real concern. Cassidy reads a letter from the Police Departnmnt dated September 22, 2000 into the record expressing concern regarding the width of the street. It states the wider the pavement width, the faster the travel speed. The Police Department believes the 26 foot wide street should be considered and by allowing the sidewalk on one side of the street only and by allowing for a narrower street width, the developer can make larger driveways to reduce the need for on-street parking. Kiililea states he recently had an experience on a drain project on Chase Street. He received a call from a woman complaining that the newly-resurfaced road was too narrow and she had difficulty getting in and out of her driveway. The street had been paved to its original 25 foot width. Killilea states he would recommend that the road be at least 28 foot wide with parking on one side of the street for citizens to get in and out of their driveways. Cassidy reads a letter dated July 10, 2000 from the Fire Department into the record. Dinkin asks if any other Board members have questions. Having none, Dinkin asks if members of the public have clarifying questions. Marie Pike, 291 Essex Street expresses Concern regarding streets being too narrow and asks if it is necessary to have sidewalks on both sides of the street. Cassidy states the sidewalks need to meet the ADA requirements but she believes there is nothing in the ADA law that requires sidewalks on both sides of the street. John Murray, 14 Greenwood Avenue recommends that the Planning Board hold the public hearing open until receiving a report from the Conservation Commission. Randy Warren, 278 Essex Street asks what a headwall is. Williams responds that a headwall is something that holds the pipe at the outlet. Warren asks if there are regulations about how frequently the city is called upon to maintain detention ponds. Killilea responds that the city does not maintain any detention ponds and they are maintained by the developments. They are not city property. Cassidy adds the issue of maintenance of the detention ponds has to be decided as part of the approval. Pike asks about a cart path which is now proposed to become a road. Jeff Rhuda from Symes Associates responds that it is a deeded Right of Way. Dinkin adds that the Planning Board has a regulation that requires a developer to create a right-of-way to Planning Board Minutes September 25, 2000 Page 3 abutting vacant land onto the adjoining property, to enable all property owners to not be at risk of a "land locked parcel." Stella Mae Seamans, 840 Hale Street asks what the acreage of the detention ponds is. Williams responds that it is less than one acre. Dinkin asks if there are any comments in opposition. Pike states she is not in opposition to the project, however, she is in opposition to the smaller streets. She is also concerned about Maestranzi having access to the subdivision. Warren states he has concern regarding water control and maintenance and would like to see safeguards prior to approval. Murray states he believes the City's drainage infrastructure is not capable of handling this subdivision and again requests the board wait on a decision until it has received a report of findings from the Conservation Commission. Joan Johnson, 677 Hale Street states she hopes the Master Plan Committee will look into cluster zoning so that developments can be done in the most advantageous way to preserve open space. Dinkin responds that this is a topic of discussion in the Master Plan Committee. Larry Ralph 252 Essex Street expresses concern regarding traffic mitigation and safety. Dinkin states he has some questions for Sergeant Tarsook, who is not in attendance this eveningo. He states he would entertain a motion to recess the public hearing. Thomson: motion to recess the public hearing until the next scheduled meeting on October 17, 2000, seconded by Delaney. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. Rhuda states he would like to discuss the issues on the waiver requests tonight before recessing. Dinkin states the Planning Board is not prone to render decisions on waiver requests while deliberations are still pending. He states if the applicant wants a discussion, the alternative is to close the hearing and by closing the hearing this evening, it does a Phnning Board Minutes September 25, 2000 Page 4 disservice to the applicant and to the public. Dinkin states he does not believe that he has adequate information to begin deliberation. Dinkin asks if the applicant would grant an extension of time for final Planning Board action on this filing to October 17, 2000. Rhuda responds that he will, and signs a request. Thomson: motion to accept the extension of time on the Hawk Hill Estates subdivision plan to October 18, 2000, seconded by Delaney. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR's) a. 2 Boyles Street / Bartlett Cassidy states that this property presently contains two structures, both of which predate the Subdivision Control Law and zoning. They were built prior to 1939. The applicant is proposing a lot division to create what is shown as Lot #1, a 22,000 square foot parcel. The remaining 3 ½ story stucco dwelling would remain on its own lot with frontage on Boyles Street. Cassidy states the board as received letters from three concerned abutters which will be included in the file. Dinkin states the board has limited jurisdiction on ANR plans and this is not a public hearing process. The solicitation of public comments only occurs should the board determain that the plan fails to meet the narrow criteria and the owner chooses to pursue a conventional subdivision. Cassidy states the property is in the R22 zone with a very small portion of the property in the R10 zone. Attorney George Andrews, representing the trust, clarifiies frontage for the parcel. Sulli;van asks clarifying question regarding a note on the plan indicating that one property will be deeded to the historical society. Cassidy responds that is an unsubstantiated rumor and is not sure if that is true. The purpose of the plan though is to create a separate lot for one of the existing structures so that ownership of it can be transferred. Planning Board Mhlutea September 25, 2000 Page 5 Thomson: motion to endorse the plan of 2 Boyles Street as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Delaney. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. New Salem Road preliminary subdivision plan / Communication & Power Industries (CPI) Robert Tuchmann from Hale & Dorr represents the applicant. He states he is before the board to present a preliminary subdivision plan. CPI no longer has the need for one of the buildings in the complex and a company called Private Resources, Inc. wants to move into the building and purchase it. Tuchmann states the applicant is tryying to create frontage for the property. There is no construction involved in the subdivision and the only reason for filing the preliminary plan is to conform with state law. A definitive plan has already been filed. Tuchmann introduces John Dick from Hancock Survey Associates. Dick states the access to the facility is now off of Sohier Road. There are three industrial buildings and two residential structures on the property. He states it would be difficult to create lots that would ANR off of Sohier Road and allow adequate frontage and access for the buildings. Old Salem Water Works Road has been abandoned and the applicant proposes to take advantage of the existing layout in Old Salem Water Works Road. Cassidy reads letters from the Police Department (dated September 20, 2000), Fire Department (dated September 21, 2000), Board of Health (dated September 25, 2000) and the Enginering Department (dated September 25, 2OO0) into the record. The departments express concern regarding the naming of the street and recommend using a different street name. Tuchmann states the applicant would be willing to change the street name and welcomes recommendations from the Planning Board. Dinkin asks if there are questions from members of the Board. Dinkin asks if there will be additional parking spaces created on site. Dick responds that the parking spaces on the plan currently exist, and no new ones are being proposed. Delaney: motion to set a date for the public hearing on the definitive subdivision plan for October 17, 2000, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. Nicole Avenue Subdivision: bond reduction, expiration of construction completion date / Tom Carnevale Attorney Thomas Alexander represents Tom Carnevale owner of the Nicole Avenue Subdivision. He states he has meet with the Engineering Department to review the status Planning Board Minutes September 25, 2000 Page 6 of the subdivision. Almost everything in the subdivision is done, however, it is the city's practice to hold a sum of money out for 1 - 1 ½ years to ensure the loam and grass strips grow. The as-Built plans have been submitted to the Engineering Department. Alexander requests that the bond amount be reduced to $8,737.50. The board is currently holding $75,962.50. Dinkin states he received a telephone call from a property owner in the subdivision who informed him that several contractors have told him due to the relationship of the sidewalk and his lot, they are unable to install a proper driveway. Dinkin asks Frank Killilea if he is aware of the situation. Killilea responds that he is aware that there is a resident on that street that has a concern about his driveway. He is hoping that this can get squared away with Mr. Carnevale and believes tbe arnount of money that the city is retaining would be sufficient to make any corrections if` the city had to do the work. Cassidy asks Killilea if the sidewalks were done according to the plan. Killilea repsonds that they were done according to the plan layout. The problem is in the elevations, further down the street. Alexander states Mr. Bob Cottle of the Engineering Department has been to the site a number of times to inspect the work and has told him that the bond amount left would be sufficient to address the problem. Dinkin asks Killilea if the proposed amount of $8,737.$0 is enough money to do the work. Killilea responds it is enough money. Delaney: motion to reduce the form of surety for Nicole Avenue from $75,962.50 to $8,737.50, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. Meeting Place Circle subdivision: discussion on release of lots and update on off-site drainage improvement project/ Tower Homes Cassidy states at the last meeting the board discussed the release of some lots in the subdivision and ultimately the board decided to release three more lots, in addition to the two lots that had already been released for building and sale purposes. The board was reluctant to do this becasue the off-site drainage improvement project has not been completed. At the last meeting, the board asked Cassidy to come up with a timeline and a status report. She states she has only received one release form back from a property owner. The rest of the property owners are reluctant and others need more information before they can make a decision. Cassidy and Thomas Neve have agreed to hold one more site visit on the property with the developer, city engineer and Planning Department to discuss the specifics of what is going to happen on the property. All affected residents have been or will be invited. Planing Board Minutes September 25, 2000 Page 7 Thomas Neve, the project engineer states the board retianed an independent consultant to review drainage calculations and they determined the impact to the neighborhood was negligible. He has met with the City Solicitor, Frank Killilea and neighbors to discuss concerns. Neve states there is a limited opportunity to do the project and explains the steps. Killilea agrees with Neve's assesment of how to do the project (starting at the little pond, clearing it out and going upstream). He states to do it otherwise could create other potential problems. Thomson asks how long the project would take. Killilea responds 1 to 2 weeks (weather permitting). Thomson: motion to ask the city to proceed with time schedule and scope of work for the drainage project, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. Thomson: motion to release the remaining lots (Lots 6 and 7) in the Meeting Place Circle subdivision from the language of the Form G Restrictive Covenant, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. 6. Virginia Avenue Extension: request for bond reduction / Curtis Jones Cassudy states the completion date and the surety for this subdivision does not expire until fall of next year. Mr. Jones has requested a reduction in the surety. The board has received a letter from the City Engineer dated September 25, 2000 recommending that the Planning Board hold some monies ($7,575) to ensure healthy trees and grass strips. Delaney: motion to reduce the amount of surety from $11,012 to $7,575 for Virginia Avenue Extension subdivision, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. 7. 311 Essex Street: set date for public hearing on definitive plan application and request for frontage waiver in accordance with M.G.L. Chaptar 41, Section 81-R / Kenneth & Elaine Nelson Cassidy states the board has received a defnitive plan and request for waiver in accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81-R for a piece of land at 311 Essex Street. The plan contemplates the transfer of a small sliver of land from one owner to another. The owner was required to get a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Staff recommends scheduling a public hearing for the next regular meeting. Planning Board Minutes September 25, 2000 Page 8 Delaney: motion to set the date for the public hearing on the 311 Essex Street definitive plan application and request for frontage waiver in accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81-R for September 17, 2000. Motion seconded by Flannery, all members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. 8. Site Plan Review application # 61-00: set date for public hearing on application to construct one 3-story office / Research & Development / manufacturing building / Cummings Properties, Inc, Cassidy states the board received a Site Plan Review application that is complete. Staff recommends the board schedule a hearing for the next regular meeting. Delaney: motion to set the date for a public hearing on Site Plan Review application # 61-00 for the Board's September 17, 2000 meeting. Motion seconded by Dunn. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. 9. Approval of Minutes: July 10, 2000 regular meeting Dehney: motion to approve the minutes of the July 10, 2000 meeting. The motion is seconded by Flannery, all members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. 10. New / Other Business Cassidy reads a letter dated August 14, 2000 from Pam Kampersal regarding the Site Plan Review for the Commodore site expressing her concern about drinking water, water water supply, existing aquifer and increased storm water runoff. Killilea responds that the letter contains generalizations and inaccuracies. Dinkin asks if the is any other business for the Board to conduct. There is none. 10. Adjournment Delaney: motion to adjourn, seconded by Thomson, all members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. The meering is adjourned at 10:30 p.m.