Loading...
2000-05-16City of Beverly, Massachuaetts Public Meeting Minutes BOARD: Planning Board SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: May 16, 2000 PLACE: - Beverly City Hall BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice Chairperson Bill Delaney, John Thomson, Barry Sullivan, Ellen Flannery, Joanne Dunn, Peter Thomas, Robert Rink, Elizabeth McGlynn ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: City Planner Tina Cassidy RECORDER: Tina Cassidy Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Delaney: Motion to recess for public hearing, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor. Motion carries. Public Hearing: Request to modify approval of the Maplewood Subdivision by eliminating the tot lot requirement/Beverly Parks and Recreation Commission Tom Scully, Director of Community Services, 10 Walnut Avenue speaks on behalf of the Parks & Recreation and states that the Commission is recommending a modification to the Maplewood Subdivision plan because the location for the proposed tot lot is unsafe, unsuitable and very expensive to maintain. He states the Park and Recreation Commission does not want the responsibility for maintaining the operating the park. Dinkin asks if members of the Board have questions. Sullivan asks Scully what he would propose to do with the lot if the Maplewood Subdivision were to he modified. Scully responds that it is up to the city as to what to do with the lot and reiterates that the Park and Recreation Commission does not want the responsibility for it. Thomson asks what would happen to the money that the developer donated. Scully responds that he would like to allocate the money to improve Cahill Park, which is the closest park to this subdivision. Thomson asks where the money is being held. Scully responds that the money is in an escrow account being held by the city. . Phnning Board Minutes May 16, 20OO Page 2 Dinkin asks if members of the public have questions. Dana Allure, 30 Holly Lane asks for clarification regarding the escrow account. Cassidy responds that the developer gave thc city $10,000 ss a condition of approval and the money is being held in an escrow account earmarked specifically for improvements to the tot lot at Maplewood Village. Allure asks about the decision to reallocate the $10,000 donation. Dinkin states reallocating the money would be a separate modification to the subdivision approval plan. He states the donation to the city was made as conditional approval and another public hearing would have to take place. Dinkin states he would like to consult with the city's legal department. Jeff Stelman, 7 Fern Street, asks if the abutters would be notified in the event of a public hearing regarding the reallocation of the money. Dinkin responds that it would be a public hearing structure identical to this public hearing. Cassidy states that because of special interest on the part of the residents, the Planning Department made sure they were notified of the public hearing. She adds that although it was not a requirement to do so, it was the right thing to do. Mark Fanacoli, 16 Fern Street, asks for clarification of the donation. Cassidy reads the original condition of approval attached to this subdivision. John Murray: 14 Greenwood Avenue reads a letter from Symes Associates dated 11/7/95. Murray states the location for the tot lot is poor. Jeff Stelman asks if the Planning Board were to grant a modification of approval of the Maplewood Subdivision tot lot, does it have the authority to impose a condition on the modification that the residents of Maplewood Village have some input into the reallocation of the monies? Dinkin responds that he would like to consult with the City Solicitor.. Dinkin asks if there are comments in support of the modification. Debbie Kintish, 22 Holly Lane, states that she believes everyone is in agreement that there should not be a tot lot at the Maplewood Subdivision because it is a dangerous spot, too small, etc. She states she purchased her property believing there would be a tot lot built and the residents are concerned about what happens to the $10,000 donation. Jeff Stelman states that he would support the modification of subdivision approval. He adds that many people had the expectation that the tot lot would be built and a reasonable Planning Board Minutes May 16, 2000 Page 3 offset would be that the residents of Maplewood subdivision have input on what happens to the money. Debra Kintish, 22 Holly Lane agrees with the others and states she would like the money to go to a park nearest to her home. Brace Doig, Chairman of Parks and Recreation states that all conversation regarding this issue center around using the funds in Centervllle at Cahill Park. Murray agrees that the neighbors should have input as to where the money goes. Sarah Bronstein (6 Fern Street), Don Pasquarela (20 Holly Lane), Mike Fanacoli (16 Fern Street) and Ed Stewart (25 Holly Lane) are in favor of the modification. Recreation Director, Joan Fairbank states she spoke with neighbors and sent a letter to the City Solicitor in May, 1998 and has not received a written response. She states it has taken a long time to go through the process and asks how long it will take to complete the process. Dinkin responds that he would suggest that the process of freeing up the money, disposing of the property would be a process of months - not days. Dinkin asks if there comments in opposition. There are none. He closes the public hearing. Public hearing is closed. 2. Public Hearing: Request to modify approval of the Planters Subdivision by eliminating the tot lot requirement/Beverly Parks and Recreation Commission Cassidy reads the legal notice. Tom Scully, Director of Community Services, 10 Walnut Avenue states that Parks and Recreation Commission feels this is not a suitable location for a tot lot and it does not want the responsibility for the park. Dinkin asks who owns the property. Cassidy responds that the deed to the property has been in limbo pending resolution of this issue. At the moment it is still owned by the developer, although the tot lot has been constructed. Dinkin asks if members of the Board have questions. Planning Board Minutes May 16, 2000 Page 4 Thomson asks if $15,000 was spent to fix up the lot. Cassidy responds that fencing and equipment were installed, and more than $15,000.00 has been spent. Delaney asks why the Parks and Recreation Conunission feels the property is not appropriate for a tot lot. Scully responds because the fence line in the back goes right out to a fairly deep swale/wetland and the fencing andi gate may not be sturdy. He states the commission is concerned about children falling into the ravine. Dinkin ask if members of the board have any clarifing questions. There are none. Dinkin asks if memhers of the public have any clarifying questions. Jim Doherty, 15 Wentworth Drive asks for clarification regarding the Planning Board's condition. Cassidy reads the condition of original subdivision approval. Bruce Doig, Chairman of Parks and Recreation states that the developer never submitted a plan for the improvements to the Recreation Commission. Murray states fence is poor quality and therefore, unsafe. He adds that this is a different situation from Maplewood Subdivision because the tot lot has been built and the neighbors utilize it. Dinkin asks Fairbank if an adequate fence would help the situation at the tot lot. Fairbank states that a better quality fence would help and the addition of at least one tree for shade. She adds that the equipment meets all current ADA requirements and is of very good quality. Dinkin asks who owns the equipment. Cassidy state the property is currently owned by Mr. Ellis, one of the original developers. Scu!ly states that the fencing on the back and right of the property has a drop off which is not on stable ground.. He is concerned that the fence could collapse. Dinkin asks if there are comments in support of the modification (vacating the tot lot). Dinkin asks if there are comments in opposition of the modification (keeping the tot lot). Kristin Bouchard states that children are always supervised at the tot lot. The tot lot is a neighborhood meeting area and the neighborhood is a true community. She adds that people who do not live in the subdivision also visit the tot lot and it is utilized on a daily Planning Board Minutes May 16, 2000 Page 5 Doherty presents a petition requesting the tot lot not be vacated. He states he has heard a suggestion that the neighbors should form a homeowners' association to take title to the tot lot. He states the neighbors should not have to take on the liability for other residents in the city when the city mandated the condition. He adds that the tot lot is being utilized and to take it away would present a hardship for the neighbors. A member of the public states if there was concern it should have been addressed long ago and he does not think the neighbors should be penalized. Alison Danforth, 16 Wentworth Drive states that she believes that the tot lot should not be vacated and it is safer than going to another park and she does not see a legitimate reason to modify the requirement. Tim Flaherty, 1 Michael Road concurs that the tot lot has been built and the people are using it. He adds that the city should honor its commitment and not vacate the tot lot. A resident of 1 Canterbury Circle states that the erosion issue is not a valid issue. Paul DePietro, 26 Wentworth Drive states that Cahill Park is not a good alternative because it is not appropriate for the younger aged children. Bruco Doig, Chairman of Parks and Recreation states that they hope to put a tot lot in at Cahill Park. Bill Johnson states he does not understand the fence and shade issues. There are approximately 50 children who would lose a great place to play over issues that are fictitious and ludicrous. All Corelli, Canterbury Circle states there is not a tree within 75 feet of Cahill Park and the hill is very steep. Joan Fairhank asks if the Building Inspector can certify that the fence on the back and side be secure. She states she is concerned about the safety of the children and does not want anyone to get hurt. Dinkin asks if there are any more comments in opposition. There are none. He closes the public hearing. 3. Discussion/decision: Cogswell Avenue definitive subdivision plan Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson and Sullivan recuse themselves from this portion of the meeting due to absence at the initial part of the hearing. Flannery resides as Chair. Planning Board Minutes May 16, 2000 Page 6 Cassidy reads legal notice. Cassidy states the Planning Board tabled discussion until this meeting so that members could conduct individual site visits to the property. Additionally, City Engineer Frank Killilea recommended a series of modifications be made to the plan. The addition time was necessary to allow the applicant to revise the plan accordingly. Richard Doherty from Hancock Engineering appears on behalf of the applicant. He states a site walk with members of the Conservation Commission members occurred on April 29, 2000. He adds that he took all comments from the City Engineer and the Conservation Commission and incorporated them into the revised plan. Cassidy reads letter from City Engineer Frank Killilea indicating that he reviewed the definitive subdivision plan drainage calculations and believes the drainage for the cul-de- sac has been properly addressed. Cassidy asks Killilea for his comments regarding the revised plan. Killilea responds that they have complied with his comments. He recommends using 2 inch copper instead of PVC for the individual house service. Doherty states the applicant will comply. Flannery asks if there are clarifying questions from the public. Richard Bronstein asks what approval of a subdivision means when the applicant is applying for a single lot. He states he has concerns about further subdivision and asks if the Planning Board can condition approval of the project on no further subdivision of the lot. Thomas responds that since the applicant is asking for some waivers, the board can apply that as a condition. Doherty states the applicant would be willing to accept that condition of approval. Flannery asks if there are additional comnents from the public or board. There are none. She closes the public hearing. Flannery asks Cassidy to update the board regarding the waivers the applicant is requesting. Cassidy responds that the applicant is requesting the following waivers: 1. Waiver of the 250 feet maximum length of a minor street (asking for 1,500 feet); 2. Waiver from the minimum right of way cul-de-sac diameter; and 3. Waiver from the minimum cul-de-sac pavement diameter. Planning Board Minutes May 16, 2000 Page 7 Thomas: Motion to approve the plan with the waivers being requested subject to the following conditions: 1) use of copper piping instead of PVC piping for the house service, 2) recommendations of the City Engineer and city agencies be incorporated into the board's approval and 3) lot not be subdivided for further development (cited in the deed), seconded by McGlynn. All members in favor (5-0). Motion carries. The meeting is recessed for 5 minutes and reconvenes at 8:55 p.m. with Mr. Dinkin once again presiding as Chairman and all other members present. 4. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review application #59-00: Revised site plan for redevelopment of 240-250 Elliott Street Marciano Bass River Trust Attorney Thomas Alexander appears on behalf of the applicant regarding the modification of a previously approved site plan by the Planning Board. He lists the changes as follows: 1. Moved building to accommodate Chapter 91 concerns. 2. Walkway was widened to 10 feet(from 5 feet) pursuant to a request from DEP. 3. One building footprint originally submitted as a two-story building and is now a one- story building. 5. Drainage plan was slightly revised. The drainage system will allow the retention of water on site nnd treatment before discharge. Alexander states the applicant has had meetings with Tom Maguire from the DEP. Maguire states they may have to move the building and driveway approximately two feet. Cassidy reads letters from Engineering Department, Parking & Traffic Commission, Police Department, Fire Department, Conservation Commission (issued an amended Order of Conditions on 5/2/00), Board of Health (recommend comments detailed in 4/5/99 letter be condition of approval) and Design Review Board. Dinkin asks if there are questions from the board. Dinkin asks what the drive-through is intended for. Alexander responds that it will accommodate a fast food business. Dinkin asks if there are clarifying questions from the public. There are none. Dinkin asks if there are comments in support of the application. John Murray, 14 Greenwood Avenue commends the l0-foot public access walkway. Planning Board Minutes May 16, 2000 Page 8 Dinkin asks if there are comments in opposition. Betty Ewing, 10 Green Street asks about the lights and hours of operation of a fast food business. Mr. Joe Luna responds that the site lighting will be the same as on the Stop & Shop parcel. The lighting will be directed toward the signage - not on the building. Dinkin asks about hours of operation. Alexander responds that there will be normal business hours. Dinkin asks if the White Hen is a 24 hour business. Alexander responds that it is and has been for 28 years. Alexander states that the Marciano family has owned the property for 50 years and they live in Beverly. They will take pride in the appearance and be responsible for the trash situation. Dinkin asks if there are additional questions. There are none. He closes the public hearing. The Regular board meeting is called to order. 5. Discussion/decision: Request to modify approval of the Maplewood Subdivision by eliminating the tot lot requirement Beverly Parks and Recreation Commission Thomson: Motion to approve a modification of the Maplewood subdivision by eliminating the tot lot requirement and recommend that the City Council turn the money over to the Parks and Recreation Commission to he used at Cahill Park or other Centerville Parks, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor. Motion canies. Delaney states he would have voted differently if the neighbors expressed interest in keeping the tot lot. He believes the city has an obligation to the neighbors. Sullivan agrees and asks if there are any assurances that the money will go to the right place. Delaney states he appreciates Sullivan's concerns, however, he feels comfortable going forward with tonight's vote. Dinkin suggests that the disposition of resources is not the purview of the Planning Board and should be the purview of City Council. Planning Board Minutes May 16, 2OOO Page 9 6. Discussion/decision: Request to modify approval of the Planter's subdivision by eliminating the tot lot requirement Beverly Parks and Recreation Commission Thomson states he was influenced by the neighborhood response and the board should not vacate the tot lot. Delaney agrees with Thomson and states the city should respond to safety issues. Dinkin states he does not recommend deeding public amenities to private hands and believes the community should be responsible for them. Thomson: Motion not to modify approval of the Planters subdivision by eliminating the tot lot requirement seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor. Motion carries. 7. Discussion/decision: Site Plan Review application #59-00: revised site plan for redevelopment of 240-250 Elliott Street/Marciano Bass River Trust Delaney: Motion to approve the revised site plan subject to the condition outlined by the Board of Health detailed in 4/5/99 letter, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor. Motion carries. 8. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR's) a. 41 Grover Street/Gelsomini and Kenney Cassidy states the owner of a non-conforming lot on Grover Street received a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals in April to break off a portion of the parcel so that it could he sold to an abutter. The transfer would enlarge the abutter's back yard by 1,843 square feet. Thomson: Motion to endorse the plan as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, provided the plan not be released to the owner until the appeal period of the variance expires without appeal, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor. Motion carries. 9. Virginia Avenue Extension subdivision: update on progress toward construction completion Planning Board Minutes May 16, 2000 Page 10 Cassidy states that at last month's meeting, members voted to approve a short extension of the construction completion date to 6/15/00. Mr. Jones states the sidewalks are being cut and the curbs should be in place by Friday. He states he will attend the next Planning Board meeting to provide an update and request a bond reduction. 10. Sunday Drive subdivision: reauest for final bond release Cassidy states the developer has requested release of the final $1,000. City Engineer Frank Killilea recommends the Planning Board release the money. Delaney: Motion to release the remaining surety in the amount of $1,O00, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor. Motion carries. 11. Sam Fonzo Drive subdivision: expiration of construction completion date Cassidy states that the project is nearing completion and the completion date expires at the end of the month. The board received a letter from Frank Killilea requesting an extension until 9/1/00. Delaney: Motion to grant an extension of time for the construction completion date of Sam Fonzo Drive subdivision to 9/1/00, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor. Motion carries. 12. City Council Order #163: proposed zoning amendment increasing the maximum height limit in "IG" zoning districts with certain setbacks Cassidy suggests that the board recommend to the City Council that a Joint Public Hearing be held to consider the proposed amendment. Delaney: Motion to reconamnd to the City Council to schedule a Joint Public Hearing regarding City Council Order #163, seconded by Thomson. All members in favor. Motion carries. 13. Approval of minutes: March 21, 2000 and April 18, 2000 Thomson: Motion to approve the minutes of March 21, 2000 and April 18, 2000, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor. Motion carries. 14. New/Other Business Phnniag Board Minutes May 16, 2000 Page 11 Cassidy says that the Board has received a pork-chop lot special permit request from Mr. David Carnevale for land he owns on Prince Street. She suggests that the Board schedule a public hearing on the request. Flannery: Motion to schedule the public hearing on this application for the Board's June 20, 2000 meeting, seconded by Dunn. All members in favor. Motion 15. Flannery: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor. Motion carries. The meeting is adjourned at 10:00 p.m.