Loading...
2003-01-23 City of Beverly, Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes BOARD: Planning Board SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: January 23, 2003 PLACE: Beverly City Hall BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin; John Thomson, Ellen Flannery, Patricia Grimes, Elizabeth McGlynn, Robert Rink (left at 7:50 p.m.) ABSENT: Joanne Dunn OTHERS PRESENT: Asst. Planning Director, Leah Zambernardi RECORDER: Jeannine Dion Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Flannery: Motion to recess and reconvene for scheduled public hearing, seconded by Rink. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. (Thomson recuses himself from this portion of the meeting.) Public Hearing – Special Permit Request #106-02 – Pork-Chop Lot 23 Pershing Avenue/Barrowclough Properties Zambernardi reads the legal notice. Attorney Mark Glovsky appears on behalf of the applicant, Barrowclough Properties. The property is Map 80, Lot 94, 23 Pershing Avenue, North Beverly. The total area of the five pieces is 52,538 square feet. The property has 192 ½ feet of frontage on the northeasterly side of Pershing Avenue and is in the R10 zoning district, which is the district that requires 10,000 square feet of area and 100 feet of frontage on a public way. In this case there is significantly more than the 10,000 square feet. Mr. Barrowclough considered doing a minor subdivision because it would be fairly easy but he is from the neighborhood, knows the neighbors and he feels it would be the appropriate approach to have one large lot rather than two smaller lots. He has spoken with the neighbors about conveying the odd pieces of parcels 1, 2, and 3, which will improve abutting properties. Consequently, this is a situation where everyone in the neighborhood seems to be winning. Most of the neighbors have signed a petition suggesting that they are supportive of creating this pork chop lot. Glovsky states that Lot A would have 19,856 square feet and Lot B, which is the pork chop lot would have 20,897 square feet and 92 ½ feet of frontage on Pershing. Lot B is Planning Board Minutes January 23, 2003 Page 2 7 ½ feet short of being a conforming lot. Lot A would have 19,856 s.f., roughly twice the required area. The lot that is going to be created as a pork chop lot is substantially larger than many lots in the neighborhood. Glovsky states the conditions that need to be met to establish that you are entitled to a special permit for a pork chop lot are that the applicant must show that what he is doing is appropriate for the location, that it is consistent with the character of the neighborhood, traffic, density, etc. He states the proposal would generate less traffic and less density than the alternatives. All of the dimensional requirements of the four sections under pork chop lots have been met. Glovsky states the proposal will benefit not only Mr. Barrowclough, but the neighborhood as well. Dinkin asks if there are clarifying questions from members of the board. There are none. Zambernardi reads the following correspondence: · Letter from the Beverly Police Department dated November 25, 2002. · Letter from the Beverly Fire Department dated November 26, 2002. · Letter from the Conservation Commission dated January 23, 2003. Zambernardi states that Tom Knowlton of the Salem/Beverly Water Supply Board has verbally conveyed that he has no concerns. Killilea asks if the applicant intends to put in a grinder pump and pump into the two-inch force main on Pershing Avenue that the next door neighbors have established and have connected to. Glovsky responds that the connection was just made to the house at 23 Pershing. He states the intent is to go to the sewer. Killilea states that due to the proximity to Wenham Lake, the City does not want anybody using on site sewage disposal in those locations. Dinkin asks if there are clarifying questions from members of the public. There are none. Dinkin asks if there are comments in opposition. There are none. Dinkin asks if there are comments in support. There are none. The public hearing is closed. The regular meeting of the Beverly Planning Board is called to order. Planning Board Minutes January 23, 2003 Page 3 Grimes: Motion to approve Special Permit Request #106-02 for a Pork-Chop Lot at 23 Pershing Avenue, seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor. Motion carries. (Thomson returns to the meeting.) The board will discuss the ANR at the next Planning Board meeting. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR’s) Tall Tree Drive – Carnevale Zambernardi states the proposed ANR is on Tall Tree Drive and involves three lots. Lots 2 and 2D are part of the Tall Tree Drive subdivision plan. Lot 2D-2 is a non-buildable lot. The people purchasing Lot 2D are getting a mortgage through Fannie Mae and one of the requirements in order to get the mortgage is they will not approve a property that is over 10 acres. As a result, they want to convey a triangular piece from Lot 2D to Lot 2. There was a condition in the Tall Tree Drive Settlement Agreement that the three lots not be further subdivided for additional residential lots. If you look at the plans, however, the boundaries are not changing. It is simply a proposal to convey the triangular piece, a little over an acre, to the other lot. Zambernardi states the City Solicitor reviewed the Settlement Agreement and he did not consider this a violation. Hurlburt states this is simply a conveyance. There is no new creation of a lot. They are just changing the internal boundaries. Zambernardi states the Settlement Plan also included a cart path and stone walls. She recommends an additional notation on the plan, which says “Please refer to the Settlement Agreement for information regarding locations of the Cart Path.” Thomson: Motion to endorse the ANR plan for Tall Tree Drive as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law with the condition that the following be added to the plan “Please refer to the Settlement Agreement for information regarding the Cart Path.” The motion is seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor. Motion carries. Farm’s Lane – off Park Street Zambernardi states the ANR plan is for a property located on Farm’s Lane, off Park Street. In 1975 the owner of the property received subdivision approval to create a lot with a 20-foot right-of-way as access to it. Currently, they are going for another lot. She Planning Board Minutes January 23, 2003 Page 4 states that a 20 foot right-of-way was approved and an approximately 12 to 15 feet drive was constructed. Zambernardi reads a letter from the Fire Department dated January 23, 2003 stating that the Fire Department is not in favor of the proposed ANR listing the following concerns: · The lot is 900 feet from the nearest fire hydrant. · Existing roadway is only 12 feet wide. · No turnaround for fire apparatus. Attorney Thomas Alexander states this is under MGL Chapter 41 Section 81L. Under the law it states if a lot is shown to have frontage and area on one of three kinds of streets it is signed off as an ANR: 1. Public way. 2. Private way (in existence prior to the adoption of the Subdivision Control Law in 1954). 3. A way shown on a plan and approved by the Planning Board. Alexander states the third situation applies. It was a way approved by the Planning Board. There was a public hearing held on this and it was approved at that time. He states he is aware of other lots in Beverly that have been approved for ANR purposes with 12 feet of pavement. He states if the board is concerned, the board could approve this subject to the condition that there be sprinkler built into the house. Dinkin asks what pavement width is shown on the approved plan. Alexander responds that there is no paperwork showing the width. Thomson asks if there were waivers in 1975. Alexander responds that he does not know. Zambernardi states that there were waivers granted, but the minutes and the decision do not specify what they were for. Alexander states that the layout was 20 feet but that roads are not always paved the entire width of the layout. Dinkin asks if Alexander implied earlier that the Planning Board could attach conditions to an ANR. Alexander responds that he understands in a situation like this it makes good sense and he does not think the applicant would have a problem with it. Thomson states the board does not have anything in its records to indicate what the waivers were and asks what the standard road width was in 1975. Zambernardi responds a 40-foot right-of-way and also a turnaround. Planning Board Minutes January 23, 2003 Page 5 Dinkin states the Beverly roadway layout requirements have not changed since 1975. Alexander states there have been waivers, for example on Sheehan’s Way (off Boyle Street). Grimes asks if the board has the discretion to determine if the roadway is stable. Alexander states that it has been approved for access to an existing house. Dinkin recommends tabling this for later in the evening. Thomson: Motion to adjourn for a scheduled public hearing, seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor. Motion carries. Proposed Amendment to Beverly Subdivision Rules & Regulations – Section IIIC. “Definitive Plan” – Adequacy of Public Ways providing access to proposed subdivisions Zambernardi reads the legal notice and provides an overview of the proposed amendment. Dinkin asks if there are questions from members of the board. There are none. Dinkin asks if there are questions from members of the public. Renee Mary, 274 Hale Street states she read the Rules and Regulations from the Town of Acton and she recommends that the board consider adding the text from Sections 9.9, 9.91, 9.92, 9.94.3 and 9.94.4. Dinkin states that the board cannot discuss anything beyond what has been advertised. Thomson states this could be addressed in another amendment. Dinkin asks if there are additional questions from members of the public. There are none. The hearing is closed. The regular meeting of the Beverly Planning Board is called to order. Farm’s Lane – off Park Street Thomson asks what the status of Farm’s Lane is. Alexander responds that it has 15 feet of pavement. Planning Board Minutes January 23, 2003 Page 6 Thomson asks if Farm’s Lane is private. Killilea responds that it is private. Killilea states he discussed this with his assistant, Gerry Marsella and it is his recollection that the 1975 approval mandated that there be a hydrant installed at the end of the drive to that lot. He is not sure if the hydrant has ever been installed. Thomson states that it is difficult to deny a lot based on inadequacy of access if the road already provides access to another lot that is further away. Zambernardi suggests that the Board add a notation to the plan requiring that any new construction on the lot is to have a sprinkler system. Thomson: Motion to endorse the ANR plan for Farm’s Lane as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law provided there is a notation on the plan requiring the installation of a sprinkler system, seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor. Motion carries. Chapman’s Corner Estates Preliminary Subdivision Plan – 2 Boyles Street – Whitehall Realty Trust/Henry Bertolon Zambernardi states the applicant has requested to continue the hearing to the February Planning Board meeting. Thomson: Motion to accept the applicant’s request for an extension of the hearing for Chapman’s Corner Estates Preliminary Plan, 2 Boyles Street, seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor. Motion carries. Elmtop Circle Preliminary Subdivision Plan – 5 Elmtop Lane – Elmtop Realty Trust/Michael Hubbard Attorney Thomas Alexander states he pulled the deeds for the property and there is an easement across Elmtop Lane, which allows for the ability to use the way for all purposes in which a public way needs to be used, including utilities. He states the most recent house built on Elmtop Lane was in 1995. In 1995 there was adequate access. Dinkin asks if it is Alexander’s position that a way has no breaking point in terms of adequacy, that a way that is adequate for the construction of one unit is adequate for the construction of additional units. Alexander responds that it is within the power of the board to require a traffic study. Bob Griffin, Griffin Engineering states the Fire Department was concerned about the similarity of the street name with Elmtop Circle and proposes changing it to Gallop’s Hill. The parcel is less than 1 ½ acre of land off Elmtop Lane. The proposal is to subdivide a Planning Board Minutes January 23, 2003 Page 7 parcel of land. Griffin states several of the comments made by the abutters related to whether a subdivision actually exists. He states it meets the requirements of a minor subdivision. Griffin states modifications were requested by the City Engineer and the abutters’ engineer and those modifications were incorporated in the plan. Questions from abutters are as follows: · Sewer – 8 inch to 6-inch sewer line. · Question regarding the water main. · Applicant agrees to comply with the Fire Department’s request to install sprinklers. · Addition of a drainage layout. · Griffin has requested advice from Coastal Zone Management regarding the coastal bank. · Private drain will be evaluated and addressed on the definitive plan. · Site Plan and Road Profile. Dinkin asks if there are any questions from the board. Grimes asks a questions regarding an easement on Lot 1. Griffin responds that the easement provides for construction of five feet of pavement. Griffin states the applicant is proposing to widen the pavement from 14 to 24 feet. Dinkin asks if it is still the intent to remove the structure on Lot 2. Griffin responds ‘yes.’ Thomson recommends that the board take no action at this time because he has concerns about the drainage and being able to review an adequate plan. Grimes expresses concern regarding maintaining a country road atmosphere, adequacy of access and traffic concerns. She suggests a traffic study. Dinkin asks the applicant if they are requesting a decision tonight. He states that the Board may vote to approve, disapprove or to take no action on the preliminary plan. Attorney Alexander states they would like a decision tonight. Thomson states that the applicant has made adjustments to address preliminary concerns related to the plan. He suggests the applicants address those concerns brought up tonight in the definitive plan. Planning Board Minutes January 23, 2003 Page 8 Thomson: Motion to take no action, seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor. Motion carries. Discussion/Decision – Proposed Amendment to Beverly Subdivision Rules & Regulations – Section III.C. “Definitive Plan” (Adequacy of Public Ways providing access to proposed subdivisions) Thomson states the overall purpose is to give the developer more clarity and hold people to those standards. It is always better to be clear. Zambernardi reads a letter dated January 23, 2003 from Frank Killilea stating that he has no modifications and recommends approval of the proposed amendment. Thomson: Motion to adopt the Amendment to Beverly Subdivision Rules & Regulations – Section III.C. “Definitive Plan” (Adequacy of Public Ways providing access to proposed subdivisions), seconded by Dunn. All members are in favor. Motion carries. Birch Woods Subdivision – Expiration of Completion Date – J.J. Phelan & Sons Zambernardi reads a letter from Frank Killilea. He states he is waiting for the final As Built Plans and a gas main location. He recommends extending the expiration of completion date to February 28, 2003. Killilea states he has been in communication with Benchmark Survey. They became the engineer of the project about 90% through. They informed Killilea that the contractor has turned over paperwork with notes and data and they are in the process of analyzing it and they hope to have all of the information down on the plan that is required for an As Built drawing. He states he is keeping a tight watch on this and he hopes within 10 days, if they don’t have the information on the gas lines, he will intercede with the Gas Company to get the information. Flannery: Motion to extend the Expiration of Completion Date to February 28, 2003, seconded by Dunn. All members are in favor. Motion carries. Proposed Zoning Amendment – Sign Ordinance – Request Joint Public Hearing Hurlburt states the Design Review Board and Scott Houseman, Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals went through the Sign Ordinance over an extensive period of time. The group tried to make it concise and to clarify points. The Design Review Board is an advisory group, which makes recommendations. Planning Board Minutes January 23, 2003 Page 9 Thomson: Motion to schedule a Joint Public Hearing with the City Council, seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor. Motion carries. Approval of Minutes Grimes: Motion to accept the minutes of December 17, 2002 as written, seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor. Motion carries. New/Other Business Election of Officers (Dinkin removes himself at this time and Thomson temporarily assumes the role of Chairman.) Thomson states that nominations are open for the position of Chairman of the Planning Board. Flannery: Motion to nominate Richard Dinkin for the position of Chairman of the Planning Board for the 2003 calendar year, seconded by Grimes. All members are in favor. Motion carries. (Dinkin returns.) Flannery: Motion to nominate John Thomson for the position of Vice Chairman of the Planning Board for the 2003 calendar year, seconded by McGlynn. All members are in favor. Motion carries. Design Review Board Requirement (Planning Board Member) – Signage and Site Plan Application Hurlburt asks Planning Board members if they are interested in serving on the Design Review Board. The Design Review Board (DRB) meets once a month and the meetings are usually very short. The DRB reviews signage and site plan review (façade, landscaping, lighting, etc.). It is part of the Ordinance that a Planning Board member be a member of the Design Review Board. If any members of the Planning Board are interested in participating on the DRB, they should call the Planning Department. Comprehensive Rezoning Planning Board Minutes January 23, 2003 Page 10 Hurlburt states that she is moving forward to submit a $30,000 reimbursement for comprehensive rezoning. She states the city has entered into agreement with McGregor & Associates from Boston, Massachusetts. McGregor & Associates did the City of Weymouth’s comprehensive rezoning. Hurlburt states this is one thing that she wanted to get going on to address the findings of the Master Plan. Adjournment Flannery: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Dunn. All members are in favor. Motion carries. The meeting is adjourned at 9:15 p.m.