Loading...
2002-05-21 City of Beverly, Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes BOARD: Planning Board SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: May 21, 2002 PLACE: Beverly City Hall BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin; Joanne Dunn, Ellen Flannery, Robert Rink, Patricia Grimes, Elizabeth McGlynn, John Thomson ABSENT: Barry Sullivan OTHERS PRESENT: Planning Director Debra Hurlburt, Assistant 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 Flannery. All members in favor. Motion carries. Public Hearing – Modification to Site Plan Review Application #34-97 Airport Mini Storage Warehouse – Combine (2) 25’ X 220’ Buildings into (1) 50’ X 220’ Building/Beverly Airport Mini Storage, Inc. – T. Ford Dinkin states that although the hearing was posted in City Hall, the legal notice was never published in the newspaper. Therefore, in order to enable maximum public input on this matter, this matter is placed in recess until June 18, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Beverly Planning Board is called to order. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR’s) a. 200 Bridge Street – Thomas Carnevale (Dinkin recuses himself and Thomson steps in to chair this item on the agenda.) Hurlburt states this request is a changing of a lot line. Lot 13B is a triangular shaped piece that is being conveyed to Lot 12A. The lots will now have a more square shape to them. It complies with the Zoning Ordinance. Planning Board Minutes May 21, 2002 Page 2 Flannery: Motion to endorse the plan for 200 Bridge Street as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Grimes. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. (Dinkin returns to chair the meeting.) b. 163 West Street – Joan Kulukunkis Hurlburt states this request is a conveyance of property. There is a small sliver of property, identified as parcel 3A, which is being conveyed to Lot 2A. The lots are conforming and the plan has no technical defects. Thomson: Motion to endorse the plan for 163 West Street as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. Cogswell Avenue Minor Subdivision – Performance Bond Expiration – Peter Scouras Hurlburt states that the board has received a letter from Peter Scouras, the developer for the one lot subdivision. Hurlburt reads the letter into record. The developer requests a 30-day extension for completion of work at the Cogswell Avenue Subdivision so that he may install 3 concrete bounds, a fence on the top of the retaining wall and an as-built for the cul-de-sac. Hurlburt reads a letter from Frank Killilea to the Planning Board recommending that the Planning Board extend the completion date to June 28, 2002. Thomson: motion to grant the extension of the completion date for the Cogswell Avenue minor subdivision until June 28, 2002, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor. Motion carries. Modification to Site Plan Review Application #36-97 – 108 Cherry Hill Drive Axcelis Technologies (formerly Eaton Nova) – Set Public Hearing Hurlburt states that Axcelis is looking to expand the shipping and receiving area for additional storage. This expansion will occur in the rear of the building. Grimes: motion to set a public hearing for the Modification to Site Plan Review Application #36-97 – 108 Cherry Hill Drive to June 18, 2002 at 8:00 p.m., seconded by Dunn. Thomson abstains. (6-0-1). Motion carries. Planning Board Minutes May 21, 2002 Page 3 Approval of Minutes – Regular Meetings: March 19, 2002 and April 16, 2002 Flannery: motion to accept the minutes dated March 19, 2002 and April 16, 2002 as written, seconded by Dunn. All members in favor. Motion carries. New Business Hurlburt states she recently spoke with Joan Fairbank of the Parks and Recreation Commission. Fairbank is interested in starting an advisory committee for Lynch Park that is going to “develop a report that would protect the integrity of the park to best serve the community for the future.” The membership would include a member of the Planning Department or the Planning Board. It is intended to be a short committee (1 to 2 years). Hurlburt states that Ellen Flannery has offered to represent the Planning Board. Thomson: motion to appoint Ellen Flannery to the Lynch Park Study Committee, seconded by Dunn. All members in favor, no one is opposed. Motion carries. Reminder: Presentation of Master Plan by Master Plan Steering Committee – June Meeting Hurlburt reminds members that the Master Plan Steering Committee will be presenting at th the June 18 Planning Board meeting. Thomson: motion to set the presentation of the Master Plan Steering Committee at 8:30 p.m. on June 18, 2002. Thomson: motion to recess the regular meeting and reconvene for scheduled public hearing, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor. Motion carries. Public Hearing – Modification to Site Plan Review Application #70-01 - Relocate Portions of Parking & Landscaping – Sam Fonzo Drive – Connolly Brothers, Inc. Hurlburt reads the legal notice into record. Attorney Mark Glovsky appears on behalf of the applicant, Connolly Brothers, Inc. He introduces Steve Connolly, President of Connolly Brothers, Inc. and Chris Sparages, Project Engineer from Hayes Engineering. Glovsky states that the applicant was before the board in October with respect to approval of a Site Plan Review and tonight the applicant is asking for a leave to modify, which would enable an additional phasing of the project. The reason is there is an appeal pending with respect to activity that was proposed and permitted by the Conservation Planning Board Minutes May 21, 2002 Page 4 Commission within the buffer zone. He anticipates that will be resolved and consequently, the applicant anticipates to revert to the original plan with the original phasing. Glovsky describes that this project is the merger of two electric insurance offices at one site. The property is approximately 28 acres of land, 17 of which is upland and the remainder is wetlands. There is approximately 1,300 feet of frontage on the eastern side of Sam Fonzo Drive. The buildable portion of the lot is separated from residential properties along Sam Fonzo Drive by a significant area of wetland. What was and still is proposed is a precast concrete 4-story building with glass curtain wall construction. The building has not changed. The building would be constructed in two phases. The first phase would be 155,000 square feet and the second phase approximately 36,000 square feet (total 190,904 feet of office space). The project will meet or exceed all of the dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance. It is an appropriate use for the site. Most of the employees live in Beverly and have flexible work hours. The applicant is proposing a phasing that would enable him to move all of the parking from the wetlands buffer zone. No new parking is proposed with the modification. Chris Sparages from Hayes Engineering provides an overview of the proposed modification. He states the number of parking spaces has not changed. The purpose of the revised plan was to provide alternate phasing of the project. In the modified site plan, all activities were pulled out of the buffer zone. There is no work within 100 feet of the BVW. All of the DEP’s requirements for storm water management have been met, although not required. Dinkin asks if there are clarifying questions from members of the board. Dinkin states that in presenting this plan, the applicant must assume certain risks as opposed to simply waiting out the appeals process. Glovsky responds that there are also risks in waiting out the appeals process. He states the modified plan isn’t as good for the neighborhood or for the city as the original plan and that is why the applicant wants to go back to the original plan. Grimes asks if the board approves the Modification tonight, which plan does the applicant intend to implement? Connolly responds that he intends to go forward with the modified plan. Grimes asks if the DEP appeal is resolved, will the applicant come back to put in the additional parking spaces? Connolly responds that he believes there will be resolution with the DEP prior to completion of the project. If there is resolution, the applicant will revert to the original plan. Planning Board Minutes May 21, 2002 Page 5 Dinkin asks what the planned completion date of the project is. Connolly responds September, 2003. Dinkin asks when the applicant expects resolution with the DEP. Connolly responds he expects resolution next spring. Thomson asks if the Modification is approved, construction has started and the developer wants to go back to the first plan, would he have to come back before the board. Glovsky responds that he does no think the applicant would have to come back before the board. Dinkin states he sees two very different site plans. He is prepared to vote on either one of the plans. If the applicant wants a different site plan from the one approved tonight, he will have to come back for another modification. He does not believe the applicant can walk out of the meeting with two site plans and then pick one. He states the applicant must show which site plan he wants to walk out of the meeting with tonight. Glovsky states the modification is the sequencing of the work that gets us to the result of the plan approved last fall. Dinkin states that if he is presented with a Site Plan and at some point something changes, that is a different site plan. He believes this request extends the authority of the Planning Board beyond the intent of the ordinance. Thomson states he does not have an objection to looking at a multiple phase site plan. The applicant has revised a “phase.” Hurlburt reads the following letters into record: · Letter from Frank Killilea, · Letter from the Design Review Board (Deb Hurlburt), · Letter from the Parking and Traffic Commission, · Letter from Conservation Commission (Deb Hurlburt), · Letter from the Police Department, · Letter from Bill Burke, Director of Public Health. Dinkin asks if there are questions from members of the public. Pam Kampersal, Norwood Pond Association asks if the Planning Board approves the plan, which moves parking out of the buffer zone, can the applicant proceed developing before resolution with the DEP. Glovsky responds “yes.” Mary Rodrick of 14 Peabody Avenue asks a clarifying question regarding the impervious surface. Planning Board Minutes May 21, 2002 Page 6 Dinkin asks if there are comments in opposition. Steve Goldin, Sierra Club states that the status is confused and difficult to understand. He states the applicant should have to come back before the Planning Board if any changes are made. Mary Rodrick, 14 Peabody Avenue expresses concern regarding the huge parking area and its proximity to the acquifer to Wenhan Lake. Dinkin asks if there are any comments in support. There are none. The public hearing is closed. The regular meeting of the Beverly Planning Board is called to order. Discussion/Decision – Modification to Site Plan Review Application #70-01 - Relocate Portions of Parking & Landscaping – Sam Fonzo Drive – Connolly Brothers, Inc. Thomson states phased projects are routine. Grimes states that she would rather err on the side of knowing what is going on and would like the applicant to return if any changes are proposed. Dinkin states that he does not think the board has jurisdiction over phased construction and the applicant should come before the board if any changes are planned. There is discussion regarding the confusion regarding the date on the plans. Glovsky, Sparages and Connolly concur that the date of the plans being heard tonight is April 16, 2002. Modification to Site Plan Review Application #70-01 – Relocate Portions of Parking & Landscaping – Sam Fonzo Drive Connolly Brothers, Inc. Thomson: Motion to approve the site plan in its entirety as shown in two phases (The first phase not involving parking in the wetlands buffer and the second phase including parking in the wetlands buffer); approval of all conditions attached to the original approval and inclusion of all the comment letters read into record, seconded by Flannery. Rink, Thomson, Flannery and Dunn are in favor. Grimes, McGlynn and Dinkin are opposed. Motion carries (4-3-0). Planning Board Minutes May 21, 2002 Page 7 Adjournment Grimes: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Flannery, all members in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. The meeting is adjourned at 9:30 p.m.