Loading...
2003-05-13 with Zoning Board City of Beverly, Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes BOARD: Planning Board, Joint Public Hearing with Zoning Board of Appeals SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: May 13, 2003 PLACE: Beverly City Hall BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin; Joanne Dunn, John Thomson, Ellen Flannery, Daniel Hamm, Elizabeth McGlynn, William Betts ABSENT: Robert Rink OTHERS PRESENT: Debra Hurlburt, Planning Director; Leah Zambernardi, Asst. Planning Director; Robert Nelson, Acting Building Commissioner; Diane Rogers, Zoning Clerk; Frank Killilea, Engineering Director; Scott D. Houseman, Zoning Board Co- Chair; Andrea Fish, Zoning Board Co-Chair; Scott Ferguson, Zoning Board Member; Margaret O’Brien, Zoning Board Member; Jane Brusca Zoning Board Alternate; Joel Margolis, Zoning Board Alternate RECORDER: Leah Zambernardi and Diane Rogers Zoning Board Co-Chair Scott Houseman opened the continued public hearing on the matter of the Miles Group petition for a variance and a special permit. Thomson: Motion to recess and reconvene for a scheduled continued public hearing on the site plan review application, seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor. Motion carries. Zambernardi read into record the public notice regarding the Miles Group petition. Attorney Thomas Alexander spoke on behalf of the Miles Group. He stated he had mailed to the Zoning Board Members the revised plans of the proposal. He also included in the packet information on other law cases relative to hardships due to soils and topography. Such cases were Valentina Guiragossian v. Board of Appeals of Watertown, Paulding v. Heavens Bruins and Wolfman v. Board of Appeals of Brookline. He stated the Board had requested that he speak with the Town of Wenham’s Board of Selectmen and obtain a letter stating their willingness to allow the Miles Group to use their access road, subject to their conditions. He discovered that his contact on the Board was away; therefore, the letter requested by the Board would be entered into record at a later date. Attorney Alexander stated that the total amount of the interior square footage of the 69 units was Planning Board Joint Public Hearing with the Zoning Board of Appeal - Minutes May 13, 2003 Page 2 also requested from the Board last month. Mr. John Crowell Architect wrote in a letter what the approximate numbers would be, using the average unit size of 2,250 sq. ft. multiplied by the number of units (69), results in a project total of 155,250 square feet. The actual lot coverage (first floor footprints) will be 1,600 square feet per unit, or 110,400 total square feet. Attorney Alexander submitted a model set of deed restrictions for a project in Topsfield. Attorney Alexander submitted a copy of the Conservation Restriction on the property. A layout was submitted for the proposed 55 and older residential project and for an alternative industrial project. An analysis of the costs associated with building the industrial development as opposed to a residential development was submitted in a letter dated May 12, 2003 from Meridian Engineering. A spreadsheet was also submitted by Meridian Engineering summarizing the impacts of the industrial plan and the residential plan. Mr. Knowles of Meridian Engineering explained that the total developed area would be 11.65 Acres (28.8%) on the residential and 14.95 Acres (37%) on the alternative industrial layout. Total parking spaces required in the residential development are 138 spots vs. 638 spots for the industrial requirement. The percentage of undisturbed area is 71.2% for the residential project and 63% for the industrial project. The total alteration to wetland resource areas would be 0 s. f. in the residential project and 3,159 s. f. for the industrial project. Other calculations included total wastewater generated, earthwork required, and traffic generation. Mr. Knowles discussed the proposed plan that Attorney Alexander had sent the Board Members by mail over the weekend. He asked the Board members to see page 5 of 15 and explained that 2 buildings had been moved per recommendation of the Design Review Board. He then presented two cross-sections for the industrial and residential layouts showing mature vegetation and the proximity of buildings to the neighbors. He showed photographs of the site. Dinkin stated that these plans show the profile in relation to the site as a whole. Fish stated that the profile did not appear accurate. She questioned the drawings presented. Attorney Alexander stated the scale was expanded so to see it more clearly. Dinkin asked if 33% removal of rock and ledge to be cut in the residential area was a typical measure throughout the site. Houseman stated it shows about the same amount being cut in residential as in the industrial. Attorney Alexander stated the amount of grade cut for residential is about 1/3 less. Dinkin questioned the impacts of a contemplated industrial building, four stories, and 60 feet high. Mr. Knowles responded there would be a parking garage as opposed to an outside parking lot. He added there are 20 acres of wetlands on the 40-acre site that cannot be developed. He stated that none of the wetland area would be disturbed with the residential development and 3,000 s.f. would be disturbed in the industrial development. 2 Planning Board Joint Public Hearing with the Zoning Board of Appeal - Minutes May 13, 2003 Page 3 Thomson asked about the lighting plan. Mr. Knowles stated that the drive is to give a consistent throw of light for safety throughout the site. Attorney Alexander stated the proposed lighting plan for the development would be designed so as the lighting is directed inward toward the project, and not outward. Dinkin asked if there were ever plans or considerations to construct fewer larger buildings. Attorney Alexander responded that initially, the project included 100 units. After the wetland analysis was done the number of units were reduced. The applicant feels that a townhouse style development is more appropriate for the site. Dinkin asked if the site could accommodate fewer, larger units. Mr. Knowles stated that that the demographic prefers smaller units. Dinkin observed that it is a marketing decision. Attorney Alexander stated that it is both. The developer needs a specific number of units that are saleable to justify a cost. Dinkin asked why if this site supports residential build-out, why could it not support, for example, professional offices, which is a permitted use. Mr. Alexander responded there would be extreme site costs for that type of development. He added the hills, valleys, and slopes would have to be cut. Mr. Crowell stated that offices require a more level site. With individual buildings, they can be set within the contours of the site. Thomson asked if the roadway layout conforms to the City’s subdivision standards. Mr. Knowles stated that the site does not exceed a 6 percent grade. The streets maintain a 24- foot pavement width, the size of a minor street. Attorney Alexander stated there would be sidewalks on one side of the street. There would be sloped granite curbing as opposed to straight granite. The turning radius is in excess of a minor street. It will be 45 feet in accordance with the Fire Department’s recommendation. Dinkin observed that these would be private streets. Margolis stated he is concerned with there being only one entrance/exit. In the event of an emergency, if the entrance becomes blocked, there will be no way out. He stated that in Topsfield at the Grey Hill development, there is an emergency gated exit in the rear of the lot. He commented that this issue needs to be addressed within this project. Attorney Alexander responded that unfortunately the Beverly Fire Department does not allow “gated entrance ways” as a secondary access. He added that a second access could not go through Kennell Hill Drive because of wetlands. Dinkin asked if it would be possible to loop around the wetland to create a second access. He stated that the Boards must weigh the possibility that a large fallen tree could block the entire project. If a fire breaks out, there are 69 units affected. It only takes 4 to 6 minutes for a unit to go up in smoke, even if there are sprinklers. Attorney Alexander suggested he would take another look at this issue. He added the buildings are fully sprinklered and 3 Planning Board Joint Public Hearing with the Zoning Board of Appeal - Minutes May 13, 2003 Page 4 response time is quick. Margolis stated that response time is negligible if the trucks cannot get in. Dinkin stated that a single entrance to the project makes him nervous. Houseman commented the same would be true with an industrial project. Margolis reiterated that he would like some kind of proposal to address this matter. Diane Rogers, Clerk of the Board of Appeals, read into record a letter from Mercene Perry of 66 Cogswell Avenue relative to the Miles Group donating $25,000 for a playground at Centerville School. Ms. Perry is in favor of this project. Houseman stated that he is interested in hiring an outside expert to evaluate the materials submitted by the applicant. He is not qualified to make an objective evaluation of certain materials presented. He would like specifically an evaluation of the placement of buildings on the site and of the stormwater calculations. He stated that the Board should have the right to ask an applicant to pay for the Board to hire a consultant that is answerable to the Board only. He is of the opinion that he has not had sufficient time to review the plans to be satisfied. He believes the layout of the buildings relative to the topographical contours of the site could be improved to better fit the topography. He would like to review what is proposed for the location of the buildings on the property. He feels there might be another way that would require less filling and cutting. Mr. Dinkin responded the Planning Board does not have the authority to require the Miles Group to hire a second consultant. McGlynn stated that the Board should rely on the City Engineer’s comments first. Thomson stated that the Board should obtain as much information as possible. Dinkin stated that an analysis of the suitability of the site for professional offices would be useful. The applicant already presented that the site is unsuitable for any permitted use. He would also like to hear verification from an independent source because he is not an engineer. Ferguson stated, regarding access of fire safety, he would like more information, perhaps from the Fire Department. O’Brien asked what the percentage level of profit would be, 10 % or perhaps 30%. Attorney Alexander stated the reason this site has been vacant for fifty years is because it has been cost prohibitive to build it out. He reiterated the allowed use isn’t possible because of the soil and topography of the site, which is the hardship. He added that Mr. Killilea, Director of Engineering is present tonight. He can give engineering costs and an analysis of storm drains. Attorney Alexander stated he was concerned with the Boards consideration on architectural aesthetics when there is a Design Review Board who already gave their opinions. It is common practice to have an engineering analysis. 4 Planning Board Joint Public Hearing with the Zoning Board of Appeal - Minutes May 13, 2003 Page 5 Ms. Fish and Mr. Houseman stated they concur that the Design Review Board gave their opinion, however, they are a volunteer Board and a hired consultant has more time to thoroughly look at the plan. They are looking for professional recommendations. Houseman also stated that they are not speaking about architecture or aesthetics; they are talking about building footprints and earthwork. They would like someone to identify the best way the residences could be placed to be sensitive to the contours of the land. Mr. Killilea stated that calculations for drainage could be done although evaluating building footprints involves input by the developer and the motivations behind why buildings were located. He stated that typically, an engineering team would come in with goals such as looking at a plan to trying to reduce costs. He does not want to constrain that and he asked what the criteria would be for another firm to come in. Houseman stated it would be an exercise that could provide a worthwhile perspective. Engineers are a necessary component but are not the sole field of expertise on this subject. Hamm stated that part of the whole exercise could be balancing the amount of cut and fill to retain as much topography as possible. Killilea stated that this could be done but that there are other factors in locating buildings such as traffic, aesthetics and engineering. Flannery stated that if best practices have been utilized, would it be subjective to their opinion. She asked what is fixed and what is varied. Dinkin stated that there are two alternatives; a second engineering firm could provide an analysis of reducing costs for cut and fill or could create a plan that minimizes the amount of cut and fill to be done. Houseman stated that this is not just the task of an engineer. There are land planners or landscape architects who could lie out buildings within the topography and an engineer could do the calculations. The initial layout would not have to be done by an engineer. Thomson stated that new information has been submitted and he would like the opportunity to digest the information. There is the threshold question of the variance. We are asking for various alternatives when the threshold question has not been determined. He thinks that the threshold question should be answered first. Houseman stated that they rarely grant a variance without conditions. He feels that he is not in the position to make conditions without a well-developed plan. If the Zoning Board were to grant a variance without conditions he could not support it. Thomson suggested that the Zoning Board should seek whatever information it needs to determine if there is a hardship. 5 Planning Board Joint Public Hearing with the Zoning Board of Appeal - Minutes May 13, 2003 Page 6 Dinkin asked what the conditions must speak to. Houseman stated that the conditions are made to ensure that the variance results in no public harm since there would be no hardship and the development would be harmless. Attorney Alexander stated that in terms of proceeding, he agrees that the Zoning Board needs to be comfortable with the expert testimony in terms of hardship. He stated that someone could be hired through Killilea although for quantifiable reasons such as stormwater or cuts and fills. Houseman suggested that the Boards meet again together although the Zoning Board should meet in the interim to have a separate discussion on the variance. He stated the Zoning Board might continue this case at the regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, May 27, 2003. Then the two Boards could schedule another joint meeting. Houseman requested that Attorney Alexander provide both Board Members and the neighbors copies of all new information for their review. (including copies of plans and photographs relative to the Industrial Cross Section, Residential Cross Section and Site Photograph, with a Key indicating from where photographs were taken on site and with a conceptual plan for industrial use). Houseman asked for public comment or questions. Mrs. Lorraine Iovanni of 28 Kennell Hill Drive stated she was speaking for approximately twenty neighbors and herself. She showed a layout of the original document that was attached to her deed, from Hayes Engineering. She requested the Board view this document and compare it with the drawings Meridian had submitted. She is of the opinion that Meridian’s drawings are not clearly documented. Ms. Iovanni stated the key point in this project is the “hardship requirements”. She does not believe the criteria for a variance has been met. She stated that in no way can there be a second fire egress through Kennell Hill Drive because of existing wetlands. Lot 31A and 32C must be held in common ownership. She showed her yard in the photographs provided by Attorney Alexander. She feels the foliage will not block the view of these proposed new dwellings. She stated she would like to have a neutral party examine the proposed plans and state that the drawings are accurate. Mrs. Iovanni stated she did speak to the town of Wenham. She did not receive an answer of how the roadway was going to be built. Ferguson asked Ms. Iovanni for a copy of the petition she submitted indicating she was speaking for twenty neighbors. Ms. Iovanni responded a copy had been submitted in August. She will send the members a copy of the document with neighbor’s signatures opposing the project. Ms. Renee Mary of 274 Hale Street stated that it is imperative for members to walk the 6 Planning Board Joint Public Hearing with the Zoning Board of Appeal - Minutes May 13, 2003 Page 7 site. Mr. John Condon of 19 Wellman Street stated the city needs revenues and that he was in favor of this project. The Board discussed how to proceed. Dinkin stated he is not entirely convinced that more joint public hearings are necessary. He suggested separating and pursuing separate agendas. Thomson stated that one more joint session might make sense. Houseman stated that the ZBA should meet in the interim to take a straw vote on where they are leaning toward with the variance. Ferguson: Motion to continue the hearing until the next scheduled meeting May 27, 2003. Seconded by O’Brien. Chairman Houseman stated he would like an opinion from the City Solicitor regarding some documents. Ferguson withdrew his motion. Fish: Motion to request that the City Solicitor submit his opinion before the May 27, 2003 scheduled hearing, as to whether, and to what degree, the three cases submitted by the Miles Group support the position of the applicant that a variance could be appropriate zoning relief for the subject parcel, and taking into account the Applicant materials and at least (1.) the letter dated May 12, 2003 from Kenneth Knowles, Meridian Associates, to Attorney Alexander, (2.) the comparison of the proposed residential and industrial layouts, (3.) the memo from Attorney Alexander to the ZBA dated April 17, 2003 and (4.) memos dated August 27, 2003 from the neighbors. Seconded by Ferguson. All members in favor. Ferguson: Motion that this hearing be continued to the regularly scheduled May 27, 2003 meeting, provided two waivers of time are signed by Attorney Alexander. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion carries 5 – 0. (Houseman, Fish, Ferguson, O’Brien, and Margolis) Chairman Dinkin asked for a motion to continue the joint public hearing to a later date. Dunn: Motion to continue the public hearing on the site plan review application, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor. Motion carries. Zambernardi stated she would verify a new date for a joint public hearing and would notify members, the applicant and abutters. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. 7