Loading...
2002-09-19 City of Beverly, Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes BOARD: Planning Board SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: September 19, 2002 PLACE: Beverly City Hall BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin; Joanne Dunn, John Thomson, Ellen Flannery, Barry Sullivan, Elizabeth McGlynn, Robert Rink, Patricia Grimes ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Planning Director, Debra Hurlburt and Asst. Planning Director, Leah Zambernardi RECORDER: Jeannine Dion Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Thomson: motion to recess and reconvene for scheduled public hearings, seconded by Grimes. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. Public Hearing: Special Permit Application #105-02 for Congregate Housing for Elderly and Site Plan Review Application #72-02 for Construction of 20 Multi- Family Buildings, Rehabilitation of Five Existing Buildings and Associated Site and Utility Improvements – Whitehall Hill Realty Trust/Henry Bertolon Hurlburt reads the legal notice into record. Attorney Thomas Alexander states the applicant is seeking to build 94 units of senior housing on a 29-acre parcel under the Senior Congregate Elderly Housing provision of the Zoning Ordinance. He states the project provides an opportunity for the city and the applicant to bring a high quality project, maximize open space and also preserve some historic buildings on the site. The zoning for this Special Permit allows for four units per acre, which would come out to 116 units. The applicant is proposing 94 units, which is less than the maximum. Alexander states the applicant will also be presenting what a conventional subdivision plan would look like on the site. The applicant is not looking for approval of a conventional subdivision. It is meant to bring to the dialogue the development alternatives for the site. There have been questions regarding this proposal and how it fits into the definition of congregate elderly housing. The applicant is going to spend a fair amount of time talking about how this project satisfies the requirements for congregate elderly housing. The Planning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 2 input of neighbors and experts makes for a better project. The applicant would like to work collaboratively with the board, neighbors and their experts. The project is a cluster oriented one. The new buildings will be set back 125 feet from neighboring properties as opposed to a 25 foot setback for a conventional subdivision. There will be 5 ½ acres of open space right next to the Cove Elementary School. Jay Burnham, the Marketing Consultant for the project has projected that this project has the potential to generate revenue in the amount of $507,000 in the first year (building permit fees, etc.) and over time an annual revenue stream of approximately $806,000. All costs for the project will be handled by the association (plowing, street maintenance, etc.). Alexander asks that everyone keep an open mind. He realizes that people have legitimate concerns and the applicant wants to answer the questions. Alexander compares this project to The Maples in Wenham, Massachusetts. The Maples is more than twice as dense as the proposed project. The Maples is 55 units on 7.8 acres, which comes out to 7 units per acre. This project is 94 units on 29 acres, which comes out to 3.24 units per acre. Alexander introduces the development team: · Thomas Skahen and Christos Kuliopulos – Senior Ventures, LLC · Bob Griffin – Griffin Engineering · Mike Wasser – Landscape Architect, Hines Wasser & Assoc., LLC · Gary Snyder – Architect, Bloodgood Sharp Buster · Giles Ham – Traffic Consultant, Vanasse and Associates · Henry Bertolon – the Principal of the Project Thomas Skahen introduces himself and he provides an overview of the company Senior Ventures, LLC. Senior Ventures, LLC designs, implements and manages on-site community management services. It is a 20 plus community management company providing on-site property management, maintenance and catered living services. Skahen provides national and New England trends and demographics of active adult communities. Bob Griffin from Griffin Engineering introduces himself and provides an overview of the site plan for the development. He states the parcel is approximately 30 acres. Twenty nine acres will be devoted to the project and one acre will be developed separately as two single family homes (ANR). Six acres will be preserved as open space. There are four wetland areas on the site. Wetland areas B and D are located on the 6 acre parcel, and Wetland areas A and C are on the larger parcel. Planning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 3 Dinkin asks what percentage of the parcel will be newly impervious. Griffin responds that he is not sure but he will get the information to the board. Dinkin asks if Griffin can also provide the board with some idea of the direction that the runoff from the newly impervious area will go. Griffin will provide that information at a future date. Griffin states the correct number of units is 92 (not 94 units). The 92 units are made up of 70 townhouse units. Each unit will have two bedrooms and two car garages. In addition to the 70 units, 4 units will go in an existing house located at 30 Boyles Street and 8 condo units will go in an existing structure located at 28 Boyles Street. There is an existing two family structure on Hale Street and there will continue to be two families in that house. The structure will stay as part of the project as part of the congregate housing. There is also an existing building on Hale Street, formerly an art gallery. The proposal is to put two units in the former art gallery. The art gallery will be restored. The applicant is proposing to put the community center in the Whitehall mansion and an additional five condo units. Griffin states the access in and out of the site is through a loop. There is a one-way entrance at the existing intersection of Hale and Boyles Street and a one-way exit down the existing driveway. The four units at 30 Boyles Street and eight units at 28 Boyles Street will be served by an expanded driveway coming directly off Boyles Street. Griffin states that in reviewing the proposed layout with the Parking and Traffic Commission and the Fire and Police Departments, they expressed concern that the slope of the driveway is 10%. If this was a new subdivision and not a private roadway, it would require a 6% slope. They asked that the applicant look at the slope issue and try to find another way to provide access at the site. Since then, he has met with the Parking and Traffic Commission again and proposed an emergency access connection so that in the event of a snowfall or emergency, there would be an emergency connection. Dinkin asks if the proposed emergency access would be for public safety vehicles? Griffin responds that it would be ONLY for public safety vehicles. Griffin states that there are no zoning variances required for this plan whatsoever. All of the buildings are 125 feet or more from the property boundary and all roadways meet the dimensional requirements. Griffin states much of the drainage at the site is being directed to a proposed detention pond. The drainage report shows that post construction conditions are no worse than present conditions. There will no direct impact on bordering vegetated wetlands associated with the project. There is a crossing of the intermittent stream and some bank impacts, which will be reviewed by the Conservation Commission. Planning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 4 Griffin provides an overview of an alternative conventional single-family subdivision plan. A typical single-family subdivision would have 40 single-family house lots and would preserve a lot less open space. The houses are close together. Griffin provides a comparison of the two plans (proposed versus a conventional single- family subdivision). · There is a strong need for congregate housing. The need for single-family subdivision market is still very strong as evidenced by continuing rise in home sale prices. · From a setback point of view, the single-family subdivision plan is a 25-foot setback requirement versus 125-foot setback for the congregate housing. · There would be more open space set aside with the 55+ plan versus the single- family house plan. · The 55+ plan renovates most of the existing structures on the property. · The 55+ plan is required to go through the design review process. A single-family house plan would not be required to go through design review. · There would be less traffic with the 55+ plan versus a single-family subdivision. · The 55+ plan would have less impact on city services because the homeowner’s association is responsible for maintenance, snow plowing, utilities, etc. · Less noise for the 55+ plan than a single-family subdivision. · Fewer structures for the 55+ plan versus a single-family subdivision. Dinkin asks if 55+ means that one member of a couple has to be 55 or both? Griffin responds that one member of the couple must be 55 years old. The hearing is put into recess until 9:15 p.m. Public Hearing – Modification to Site Plan Review #62-00 Rework Layout of Original Landscape Plan – Jerry Guilebbe/Datum, Inc. Greg Burnett, Project Engineer from Samiotes Consultants, Inc. Civil Engineers, appears on behalf of the applicant. He states Datum, Inc. received site plan approval on January 17, 2001 for the construction of an addition to the existing office building at 34 Tozer Road. The approval was for a two-story, 19,300 square foot addition consisting of 2,490 square feet of manufacturing and 16,810 square feet of office space. The plan also included the creation of additional parking and landscaping. The approval was subject to several conditions from the Conservation Commission, Parking and Traffic Commission, Board of Health, and Design Review Board. The Design Review Board requested several enhancements to the Landscaping Plan by adding more trees as well as different varieties. Planning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 5 Mr. Burnett states an application for modification to the site plan has been submitted. He states he was before the Parking and Traffic Commission today. The changes to the original plan are minor. The building was lowered to match the first floor elevation of the existing building. Two handicap parking spots were added and some of the layout was changed. The applicant still meets the required number of parking spaces (163 parking spaces on site). Due to some of the parking changes, the landscaping has changed. Some of the plantings have been cut back and a few minor changes were made to the landscaping. Hurlburt reads the following letters into record: · Letter from the Deputy Chief – Fire Prevention, dated Sept. 19, 2002. · Letter from the Police Department, dated Sept. 19, 2002. · Letter from the Design Review Board recommending changes in the landscaping plan, dated Sept. 19, 2002. · Letter from the Parking and Traffic Commission, dated Sept. 19, 2002. Dinkin asks if there are clarifying questions from members of the public. There are none. Dinkin asks if there are comments in opposition from members of the public. There are none. Dinkin asks if there are comments in support from members of the public. There are none. The public hearing is closed. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR’s) Wood Lane – Anthony Jack Zambernardi states that Mr. Jack is proposing to donate a portion of land to the city and creating an ANR lot. In April of 2001 the board reviewed the plan and asked for more information from the Police and Fire Departments regarding the right-of-way on Wood Lane. Mr. Jack has decided to apply again. Zambernardi reads the following into record: · Letter from the Fire Department dated August 21, 2002. · Letter from the Police Department dated September 9, 2002. · Letter from the Building Department dated August 19, 2002. Planning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 6 Mr. Jack states he was approached by the Open Space and Recreation Committee regarding a parcel on Wood Lane. He said he would donate 8.1 acres if he could have an approximate one-acre building lot approved. It was received by the Conservation Commission, Tina Cassidy and nobody had objections. Dinkin asks if there are questions from members of the board. Thomson states the Planning Board does not have authority to approve the ANR if there is no access. Mr. Jack states he would like to withdraw his application. Thomson: motion to accept Mr. Jack’s request to withdraw his ANR application, seconded by Grimes. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. 275 Elliott Street – Gerry Wittenberg Zambernardi states the applicant has filed an ANR plan with the board to convey a 2,098 square foot parcel of land to his abutter at 1 Echo Avenue. Both houses are located upon pre-existing nonconforming lots. 275 Elliott Street received a variance “of the frontage and dimensional requirements necessary for subdivision and/or conveyance of a portion of the parcel” from the Zoning Board of Appeals in March of 1999. Because this conveyance of property does not affect the frontage of 275 Elliott Street and increases the nonconforming frontage of 1 Echo Avenue from 50 feet to 75.42 feet where the 100 feet is required, a waiver from frontage is not required of the Planning Board. Dinkin asks what the hardship is. Hurlburt reads the Zoning Board of Appeals decision into record. The plan meets the Board’s requirements for endorsement as an ANR. Thomson: Motion to endorse the plan for 275 Elliott Street as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. 14 Beaver Pond Road – Carmen Frattaroli Mr. Frattaroli states he was before the board four years ago with an ANR and he is before the board tonight for two additional lots. First the combination of lots B5 and B2. They meet frontage. The next combination is of lots B7 and B6. Both have at least 45,000 square feet and 175 feet of frontage on Beaver Pond Road. Planning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 7 Thomson: Motion to endorse the plan for 14 Beaver Pond Road as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Rink. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. Discussion/Decision – Modification to Site Plan Review #62-00 Rework Layout of Original Landscape Plan – Jerry Guilebbe/Datum, Inc. Thomson: Motion to grant the Modification to Site Plan Review #62-00 – Datum, Inc., seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. 8 – 8 ½ Hobart Street – Jonathan Kail and Kathleen McHugh The applicant is proposing to divide the existing lot at 8 – 8 ½ Hobart Street. The current lot contains two houses: one to the rear and one to the front. The house to the front was originally a garage that was converted to a house between 1918 and 1920. Mr. Kail has submitted a deed and an atlas from 1919 indicating that the two buildings were standing when the subdivision control law came into effect in 1954. Zambernardi reads from MGL Ch 41 Sec. 81L. Thomson: Motion to endorse the plan for 8 – 8 ½ Hobart Street as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. 58-60 and 62-64 Dodge Street – Estate of Anne M. Bushby (owner) Mart Management Attorney Thomas Alexander, on behalf of Mart Management has filed an ANR plan with the board to convey an 8,474 square foot parcel from Lot B and Lot A. Both Lot A and Lot B are owned by the Bushby Estate. Thomson: Motion to endorse the plan for 58-60 and 62-64 Dodge Street as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. 238 Conant/89 Cherry Hill Drive – Signature for Recordation of Plan/Nancy A.S. McCann on behalf of Ralph and Martha Ardiff, and Thomas J. Flatley Planning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 8 Zambernardi explained that this plan was approved in December 2001. The applicants need an additional mylar of the plan to be signed for filing with Land Court. Dinkin states he will sign the plan at the end of the meeting. Public Hearing: Special Permit Application #105-02 for Congregate Housing for Elderly and Site Plan Review Application #72-02 for Construction of 20 Multi- Family Buildings, Rehabilitation of Five Existing Buildings and Associated Site and Utility Improvements – Whitehall Hill Realty Trust/Henry Bertolon Mike Wasser, the Landscape Architect, provides an overview of the project. He states the intention of the project is to give it a pedestrian feel. He will work with the town forester on the street tree plantings. Thomson asks if there will be sidewalks. Wasser responds that there will not be sidewalks because of the predicted low traffic counts. Gary Snyder, the Architect, provides an overview of his company, the project and the elevations and floor plans of the units and the elevations of the detached garages. Giles Ham, the Traffic Engineer, provides an overview of the traffic study. He states the four elements of a traffic study are existing conditions, trip generations, intersections and recommendations. The highlights are as follows: · The projection for the trip rate for the 55+ project during a.m. peak hours is 26 vehicles over one hour and the p.m. peak hours of 30 vehicle trips over one hour. · 8 – 9 new vehicles added to Boyles Street during the a.m. peak hour. · 15 – 20 new vehicles added to Hale Street during the a.m. peak hour. · The intersections work very well. · The exit traffic could come out on Boyles Street. Dinkin questions the choice to place the entrance at what is “not the safest corner in town.” He asks if there are engineering considerations or if it is driven by traffic safety considerations. Ham responds that you look at both engineering and safety. Dinkin recommends that the applicant consider creating the main entrance somewhere further up Boyles Street – perhaps where the secondary entrance is located. Ham responds that he can look at that but he feels that the access provides safe access. Dinkin asks that Ham walk him through the thought process for locating the entrance where it is. Ham responds that he worked with the site engineer and they tried to balance safety, impact on residential streets, looked at site distance, etc. Planning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 9 Griffin states that age restrictive developments are low traffic developments and they generate less traffic than single-family homes. He states he believes the intersection is safe and after meeting with the Parking and Traffic Commission, he feels the site distance is excellent. Tom Skahen reconvenes his presentation. He states Senior Ventures, LLC provides community management services. The services represent property management services and catered living services. Community Management Services contracts to the homeowner association to provide services. There is a Concierge Service Director on site located in the Community Center, who will coordinate and manage the property management and catered living services. Property Management Services include on-site homeowner association management, real estate asset management (budget preparation, financial statement preparation, capital improvement and reserve management) and property maintenance (landscaping, trash and snow removal, pool maintenance, security management, community center/clubhouse management). Catered Living Services are shared homeowner support services accessed and managed on site through a single source via a Concierge Director located in the Community Center/Club House. Services include: wellness center services, activities planning services, housekeeping and carpet cleaning services, transportation services, restaurant and catering delivery to the homeowner or in the community shared dining room and handyman services. Skahen provides an overview of the Club at Whitehall. There will be a shared dining room area with a kitchen (for functions), pub room, Concierge Service Center, large patio/pool, community living room, wellness center with a wellness coordinator (low level health care and classes), sauna/whirlpool. Dinkin asks what the level of licensure of the wellness coordinator. Skahen responds that the wellness coordinator would be responsible for the exercise, training, aerobic, activities in the wellness center. The wellness coordinator would be a certified trainer. Skahen reads the congregate elderly definition as it relates to the zoning ordinance. He reads from the regulations and states that they effectively coordinate the concierge services and the real estate services using a hospitality approach and integrating those two dynamics. Dinkin asks if a 27 year-old wheel chair bound individual would be able to purchase one of the units? Alexander responds that nobody could be excluded based on a handicap. They could, however, be excluded based on their age. Planning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 10 Dinkin asks if members of the board have clarifying questions. Thomson asks for more of an explanation regarding the interpretation of the definition of congregate elderly housing. Alexander responds that he believes the applicant meets the definition of congregate elderly housing definition. He states the definition requires the following: · that it is alternative housing for elderly persons (55+), · shared living arrangements with others, · residents shall have their own dwelling unit, · shared living rooms, dining area, kitchen, · support services, · excludes nursing homes and halfway houses, · intended for independent living not assisted living, · reference in the regulation for services to be housed within the main building on site. Thomson asks how the services are being provided. Alexander responds that the services are included in the monthly condominium fee. There would be a basic menu of services that everybody would receive and then there would be the opportunity to pay for additional services as needed. Dinkin states on a couple of occasions the Planning Director has asked for the applicant to provide legal rationale for city counsel to review. Grimes asks if housekeeping and transportation services are routinely provided. Alexander responds that services are provided on an a la carte basis. You don’t have to pay for the service if you don’t want it. It is there if you need the service. Dinkin asks if member of the public have comments in opposition. Joanne Avallon, 17 Boyles Street, states she is a member of Friends of Chapman’s Corner, which a community organization that has hired several professionals who would like to speak to the board tonight. She introduces Attorney Tom Harrington. Harrington states he would like to make three points. 1. Address the definition of congregate elderly housing. 2. Discuss why the community organization believes this application as presently submitted fails to meet the standards of approval. Planning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 11 3. Discuss how the application as submitted is insufficient to be accepted as a completed application. Definition of Congregate Elderly Housing He reads Sec 29-2 B13 from the zoning ordinance and states he does not think it is either elderly congregate housing or handicap persons congregate housing. The idea is that both groups could benefit from a shared living environment. With all due respect, beautifully designed condo units with a clubhouse is not congregate living arrangement. To demonstrate this point, he cites two sources. 1. Beverly Housing Authority: They consider congregate elderly housing to be “a unique blend of private shared living …”. The idea is that the people may need some small level of care. They are capable of living on their own but they share living space. 2. Office of Elder Affairs from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts – Maggie Dionne, Director of Housing and Supportive Services, provides the following definition: “Congregate housing is a shared living environment designed to integrate the housing and service needs of elder individuals.” Again, it is a single unit. Harrington states the definition is important because the applicant is here with a Special Permit. A Special Permit offers the applicant relief from zoning. They are allowed to put a lot more units on this plot than they normally would. Therefore, it is in the board’s hands to make sure that they follow the letter and the spirit of the bylaw. What is being proposed does not and this is not a congregate living arrangement. Standards of Approval Harrington states the board needs to be satisfied that the following six things are present before issuing a Special Permit: 1. This specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use. 2. Property values of the surrounding abutting properties will not be negatively impacted. 3. No undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result. 4. Adequate and appropriate facilities provide the proper operations and maintenance of proposed use. 5. There are no valid objections for abutting property owners. 6. Adequate and appropriate city services are and will be available. Harrington states this is a tough standard and the applicant does not come close. He provides examples. Planning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 12 · Hydrologist will show that there are problems with drainage. That will be bad for property values in bad weather conditions because it will contribute to hazardous conditions. · Retention basin will go to Eisenhower, which will create an unsafe condition. · There are a number of private drainage facilities to take the water away, which will create two concerns: 1. The applicant plans to use the private drainage systems to pass water along, which is a negative impact on the neighbors. 2. The drainage system is privately owned. The development is not allowed to use the private drainage systems any more than they are right now. If they are going to increase the use, they need written permission from the owners of each of the private drainage structures. Insufficiencies · The applicant failed to delineate the proposed contour lines. It is a very hilly sight but you can’t tell looking at any of the submittals. The public needs to know what the applicant intends to do to the contours in order for everyone to make an appraisal if the project is suitable or not. · The Planning Board should apply the Subdivision Control Rules and Regulations to this development. · Concern about the >6% grades throughout the project, which is very unsafe. · Two cul-de-sacs are longer than 500 feet, which is a safety hazard. · Frontage – Insufficient frontage. Need specific survey to determine if there is sufficient frontage. Closing · Harrington asks that the board make a ruling as to whether or not it feels the project as submitted meets the definition of congregate elderly housing. · Before another hearing is held, the community organization asks that the board make a determination that the application is complete. Daniele Lantagne of Alethia Environmental provides an overview of her analysis of the site. She reviews existing drainage on the site, proposed drainage on the site and drainage analysis. Paul Hajak, the Traffic Consultant provides an overview of the traffic study he conducted. The highlights are as follows: Planning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 13 · The Year 2007 No Build/Build Analysis should be redone to account for increased enrollment at Endicott College and the Cove Elementary School, Endicott College football field, Montessori School, etc. · Baseline on existing traffic volume on Boyles Street. · Driveway design is the most important issue. The design and location of the driveway that intersects Hale and Boyles Street is not safe. The site distance is not referenced. A speed survey should be done. · Boyles Street design is very narrow and snow banks reduce the width of the road. Hajak states that he believes the project would have an adverse impact on pedestrian and vehicular safety. Hajak reads neighbors’ comments regarding traffic: · Intersection of Hale and Boyles Streets. · A lot of accidents at the intersection reported and unreported. · The project will increase the accident potential. · Major school bus stop. · No safety features being proposed. Dinkin asks Hurlburt to provide Attorney Harrington’s written comments and the letter that Attorney Alexander will provide to the legal department to review both letters and provide the Planning Board with comments as to whether this meets the definition in the zoning ordinance of congregate elderly housing. He asks that the legal department’s comments be provided in time for the next meeting. Dinkin also asks Hurlburt to refer the traffic study and Mr. Hajak’s comments, the drainage study with Ms. Lantagne’s comments to Frank Killilea for his review. He requests Mr. Killilea’s comments in time for the next meeting. Dinkin asks for the Police Department to provide the board with traffic incident reports for the past 12 months for the length of the proposed frontage of the project and 150 yards in either direction. Dinkin states that at the next meeting, all letters will be read into public record. Thomson: motion to recess until October 17, 2002 at 7:30 p.m., seconded by Flannery. All members in favor. Motion carries. Planning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 14 Birchwoods Subdivision – Expiration of Completion Date Hurlburt states the board has received a letter dated September 13, 2002 from Joseph Phelan III requesting to extend the performance bond in the amount of $1,595,193.75. The official completion date of the project is October 30, 2002. The final As-Builts will be submitted on September 30, 2002. Hurlburt reads a letter from Frank Killilea into record recommending the board grant the extension until October 30, 2002. Thomson: motion to grant the extension to October 30, 2002, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor. Motion carries. Approval of Meeting Minutes: Thomson: motion to accept the meeting minutes dated June 19, 2001, July 16, 2002 and August 1, 2002, seconded by Flannery. Grimes abstains. Motion carries. Authorize Planning Department to make application for $30,000 from EO418. Flannery : motion to authorize the Planning Department to make application for $30,000 from EO418, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor. Motion carries. Form recommendation to the Mayor to appoint a Comprehensive Rezoning Study Committee Thomson: motion to recommend to the Mayor to appoint a Comprehensive Rezoning Study Committee, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor. Motion carries. Scott Houseman, Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals addresses the Board Rink: motion to suspend the rules to allow Scott Houseman to address the board, seconded by Thomson. All members in favor. Motion carries. Houseman asks the Planning Board to consider a joint public hearing regarding the Site Plan review process for a proposal for 70 age-restricted units off Boulder Lane. He states that it would be very beneficial for both the Zoning Board and the Planning Board to have an opportunity to go through the analysis of the project rather than solely having the boards meet separately and have written reports come from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board. Planning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 15 Dinkin expresses concern that if there is a joint public hearing, we may be overreaching our authority. Houseman states he would conduct the joint public hearing in the same fashion as the joint public hearing between the Planning Board and the City Council. The Planning Board conducts its meeting (the ZBA listens) and the Planning Board recesses. The ZBA then conducts its meeting (the Planning Board listens) and then after comment, recesses. The primary purpose of the joint public hearing is so that the ZBA could listen to the Planning Board. Houseman states he is interested in the efficiency. Attorney Alexander states the applicant would waive any scheduling constraints in order to facilitate a joint public hearing. Adjournment Flannery: motion to adjourn, seconded by Dunn, all members in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. The meeting is adjourned at 11:55 p.m.