Loading...
2000-06-20 CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: LOCATION: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: RECORDER: Planning Board Jnne 20, 2000 Beverly City Hall Chairman Rich Dinkin, Vice-Chairman Bill Delaney, Robert Rink, Elizabeth McGlynn, Ellen Flannery, Barry Sullivan, John Thomson Joanne Dunn, Peter Thomas City Planner Tina Cassidy, City Engineer Frank Killilea Tina Cassidy Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Delaney: motion to recess for public hearing, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor, motion carries. Public Heating: Application for pork chop lot special permit / Hale and Prince Streets / David Carnevale and Bradford Paul Cassidy reads the legal notice. Attorney Tom Alexander, representing the applicants, explains that the Board approved a five lot ANR for Carnevale's property in 1998. That approval was appealed by a group of abutters. The abutting land formerly owned by Eisenstadt was purchased by Mr. Paul, and the appeal has been dismissed without prejudice. The owners have developed this plan with input from those abutters to create a plan that is acceptable to all parties. Alexander explains that the Paul property will not be subdivided into building lots at this time. A pork chop lot would be created on Prince Street and the Paul property wilt: be accessed via one of the hammerheads on Prince Street. He provides two letters of support from neighbors to the Board. Dinkin explains the manner in which the hearing will be conducted, and then asks Board members if they have any questions. Thomson asks Alexander if he is submitting an ANR plan for endorsement this evening. Alexander answers no. that if the approval is granted and the appeal period expires without appeal, he will file an ANR at that tinge. Delaney asks if the two lots to the north of the hammerhead are owned by Carnevale or by other private owners. Alexander answers that they are now privately owned by others. Dinkin asks if the size of the Paul lot would allow for further subdivision. Alexander states that while they are not proposing a division now, division of the lot would be possible in the future. Planning Board minutes June 20, 2000 meeting Page two Thomson ash Cassidy to explain the requirements for pork chop lots. Cassidy states that the zoning ordinance allows for the creation of a pork chop lot with a minimum of 75' of frontage on a road that existed prior to December of 1984. Delaney lists the findings that the Board must make in order to grant special permits: · That the specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use, and that the character of adjoining uses will not be adversely affected; · That no factual evidence is found that property values in the district will be adversely affected by such use; · That no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result; · That adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation and maintenance of the proposed use; · That there are no valid objections from abutting property owners based on demonstrable fact; · That adequate and appropriate City services are or will be available for the proposed use. Dinkin asks Cassidy to read any comment letters received on this filing. She reads letters from the Police Department, Fire Department, Conservation Commission, and two abutters. Dinkin asks if there are any questions from members of the audience. There are none. Dinkin asks if there is anyone who wishes to be recorded as being in favor of the application. George Balich, 28 Prince Street, states that he supports the application. Jack Oliver, 2 Prince Street, also supports the request. Delaney asks if water and sewer services will be provided to this lot. Alexander answers yes. Thomson asks if the access for the pork chop lot will come from the shared driveway proposed on lot #18, or whether the developer intends to provide another driveway off Prince Street for this lot. Alexander answers that they intend to use a shared driveway over lot #18. Thomson asks the developer if he would be willing to accept a condition that access to the pork chop lot must be via a shared driveway. Carnevale states that he would be willing to accept this condition. Dinkin asks if there is any additional comment in favor or against the application. Hearing none, he closes the public hearing. Thomson states that there appears to be no harm in approving the application, and in fact there would be a benefit to the neighborhood in doing so in that there would be one less driveway onto Prince Street if this plan is approved. Planning Board minutes Jane 20, 2000 meeting Page three Delaney:motion to approve the application for a pork chop lot on Prince Street based on the following findings: a.That the site is an appropriate location for the proposed use, and that the character of the adjoining uses will not be adversely affected; b.That no factual evidence was found to indicate that property values in the area would he adversely affected by the use; c.That no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result; d.That adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation and maintenance of the use; e.That there were no valid objections raised by abutting property owners based on demonstrable fact; and f. That adequate and appropriate City services will he available for the proposed use SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION that the pork chop lot shall not have its own driveway access onto Prince Street, and, that instead access to the pork chop lot shall he provided via a shared,"common driveway over lot #18 on the plan. Motion is seconded by Thomson, all members in favor. Motion carries. 2. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plan / Everett Street Cassidy introduces Attorney Steve Maia, representing the applicants Robert Evans and Mary Scofield. Maia explains that the owners of #32 and #38 Everett Street want to swap pieces of property between the lots. Each lot will have at least the same area and frontage on Everett Street after the land swap as they do today. Thomson: motion to endorse the plan as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor, motion carries. Meeting Place Circle: set bond amount, accept surety, release lots from language of Form G Restrictive Covenant, bond reduction /Tower Homes Cassidy explains that the Engineering Department is recommending a bond amount of $356,625.00 he established to guarantee completion of this subdivision. Thomson states that before setting the bond amount, he would like clarification on the progress toward making the off-site drainage improvements that were required as a condition of subdivision approval. Planning Board minutes Jane 20, 2000 meeting Page four Cassidy states that the developer has provided a separate bond in the form of a $25,000 cashier's check to cover that work. Developer Dana Tower states that the project engineer, Tom Neve, has spoken to the roadway contractor about doing the work, and he is ready to do it. They expect the work to take about two days to complete, but it is up to the City to secure the necessary permission and approvals for the work. Cassidy asks Killilea to update the Board on progress. Killilea states that he must meet with Neve and City Solicitor Marshall Handly regarding the specifics of the design and the most appropriate legal mechanism to acquire residents' permission to do the work on their property. The Board holds a general discussion on the need to complete these improvements and the timing of the work. Thomson expresses his concern about releasing all of the lots for building purposes before knowing when the off-site drainage improvements can be completed. Cassidy suggests that City staff can meet with both Neve and Handly prior to the July Board meeting, and provide the Board with an update on progress at that time. Thomson asks Tower which lots be anticipates beginning construction off between now and the July meeting. Tower answers that he wants to start building on lots #3 and #5. Thomson: motion to set the bond amount for the Meeting Place Circle subdivision at $356,625.00, seconded by Flannery, All members in favor, motion carries. Thomson: motion to accept the Tri-Partite Agreement as surety for this subdivision, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor, motion carries. Thomson: motion to release lot #3 and lot #5 from the language of the Form G Restrictive Covenant previously posted for this subdivision, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor, motion carries. Thomson: motion to accept the $25,000 cashier's check and the executed Bi-Partite Agreement as surety to guarantee completion of the off-site drainage work. Motion seconded by Sullivan, all members in favor. Motion carries. Cassidy notes that the Engineering Department is also recommending a reduction in the bond amount to reflect the fact that much of the construction work in this subdivision has already been completed. Thomson: motion to reduce the bond from $356.625.00 to $118,125.00. Motion seconded by Sullivan. all members in favor. Motion carries. Planning Board minutes June 20, 2000 meeting Page five Virginia Avenue Extension: request for bond reduction and expiration of construction completlon date / Curtis Jones Cassidy explains that Mr. Jones has completed much of the outstanding work in this subdivision. Work remaining to be completed includes the preparation of as-built, easement, and acceptance plans. The Engineering Department is recommending that the Board continue to hold money for the final roadway and sidewalk paving; although the paving was done today, it was not possible for Engineering to review and approve of the work before the meeting. Money should also be held to guarantee the tree and grass plot installation, which has also been completed. Sullivan: motion to extend the construction completion date for the Virginia Avenue subdivision to July 9, 2000. Motion seconded by Thomson, all in favor. Motion carries. Sullivan: motion to reduce the bond for the Virginia Ayenue Extension subdivision to $18,012.00, seconded by Delaney. All members in favor, motion carries. Cassidy urges Jones to submit the required plans to the Engineering Department prior to the July meeting. Jones states that he will forward the message to his engineer. Nicole Avenue subdivision: expiration of construction completion date / Tom Camevale Cassidy explains that the developer has requested an extension of the completion date for this four-lot project for three months. She also states that two property owners in this subdivision have written a letter to the Board requesting that the developer be required to finish the subdivision. She adds that the engineering department has noted there has been little progress toward completion in the last year, and that the engineering department has identified a potential grading problem with the sidewalks that will likely require correction. Dinkin asks how much is left in the bond. Cassidy states that more than $75,000 remains in place until September 10, 2000. Dinkin asks Killilea if that amount of money would be sufficient to complete the work in this project if the Board elected to seize the bond. Killilea answers that although he would prefer the developer finish the project, he feels $75,000 is adequate to complete the improvements if needed. Sullivan states that he recalls the Planning Board imposed a condition on subdivision approval thar required the developer install a sidewalk along Hull Slreet from the new Planning Board minutes June 20, 2000 meeting Page six subdivision to the existing sidewalk. Cassidy states that in fact that was a condition of approval, and she will remind the City's engineer and the developer of the requirement. Board members elect not to grant any extension of time for completion of this project. They instruct the City Planner to invite the developer to the July Board meeting, at which time he should he prepared to explain the nature of the grading problem and the proposed solution. The Board also states that it expects the developer to make significant progress toward subdivision completion between now and the July meeting. Hannah Lane subdivision: request to set bond amount, accept surety, release lots from Form G Restrictive Covenant / Brian Boches Cassidy expla'ms that the new developer of this two-lot minor subdivision has asked that a bond amount be established for this project, and has provided a Tri-Partite Agreement in the amount of $8,000 to guarantee completion of this subdivision. She reads a letter from City Engineer Frank Killilea recommending that the bond amount he set at $8,000.00. Delaney: motion to set the bond amount for the Hannah Lane subdivision at $8,000.00, to accept the Tri-Partite Agreement as surety, and to release the lots in the Hannah Lane subdivision for building and sale purposes. Motion seconded by Thomson, all members in favor. Motion carries. Hawk Hill Estates subdivision: set date for public hearing / Symes Associates Inc. Cassidy explains that Symes Associates has filed a 33-lot definitive subdivision plan for the Dallas and L'Abbe properties off Essex Street. She recommends that a public hearing on the application be set for the Board's July 10, 2000 meeting. Sullivan: motion to schedule the hearing on the Hawk Hill Estates subdivision plan for the Board's July 10, 2000 meeting. Motion seconded by Flannery. all members in favor. Motion carries. 45 Enon Street site plan review application: set date for public hearing / Enon Street LLC Cassidy explains that the Board has received a site plan review application for the site of the old Commodore Restaurant. and suggests that the Board schedule the public hearing on this application for its July 10, 2000 meeting. Planning Board minutes Jane 20, 2000 meeting Page seven Flannery: motion to schedule the public hearing on this site plan review application for the Board's July 10, 2000 meeting. Motion seconded by Sullivan, all members in favor. Motion carries. 9. Approval of Minutes Dinkin asks if anyone has any suggested corrections to the draft minutes of the Board's May meeting. There are none. Thomson: motion to accept the draft minutes of the Board's May 16, 2000 meeting. Motion seconded by Delaney, all members in favor. Motion carries. 10. New or Other Business Cassidy reminds members of upcoming meetings on June 29, 2000, July I0, 2000, and July 12, 2000. Dinkin asks if there is any other business. There is none. Sullivan: motion to adjourn, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion carries. Tbe meeting is adjourned at 8:50 p.m.