2003-02-20
City of Beverly, Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
BOARD: Planning Board
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: February 20, 2003
PLACE: Beverly City Hall
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin; Joanne Dunn, John
Thomson, Ellen Flannery, Patricia Grimes, Elizabeth
McGlynn
ABSENT: Robert Rink
OTHERS PRESENT: Asst. Planning Director, Leah Zambernardi;
Engineering Director, Frank Killilea
RECORDER: Jeannine Dion
Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Chapman’s Corner Estates Preliminary Plan – 2 Boyles Street – Whitehall Realty
Trust/Henry Bertolon
Zambernardi reads a letter from Attorney Thomas Alexander on behalf of the applicant
agreeing to extend the hearing until the next regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting
on March 18, 2003.
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.
Birch Woods Subdivision – Expiration of Completion Date – J. J. Phelan & Sons
Zambernardi reads a letter dated February 20, 2003 from Frank Killilea recommending
that the Planning Board grant an extension for the expiration of the completion date
regarding the Birch Woods Subdivision to April 30, 2003.
Killilea states that the engineering firm took over the project at the 80% completion point
and they were not aware that the sewer line from Spruce Run to Cross Street was part of
the project. They plan to go out to survey but can not at this time due to the snow. He
suggests that the extension to April 30, 2003 is a realistic date to complete the survey.
Thomson:
Motion to grant an extension for the expiration of the completion date for
J.J. Phelan & Sons – Birch Woods Subdivision to April 30, 2003, seconded
by Flannery. All members are in favor. Motion carries.
Meeting Place Circle – Expiration of Completion Date – Tower Homes
Planning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 2
Zambernardi reads a letter from Thomas Neve and Associates dated February 14, 2003
requesting a final bond release in the amount of $1,250.
Zambernardi reads a letter from Frank Killilea dated February 20, 2003 recommending
that the Planning Board release the $1,250 bond to Dana Tower and that the board
recommend to City Council acceptance of the street as a public way.
Thomson:
Motion to release the remaining bond in the amount of $1,250 and that the
board recommend acceptance of the street as a public way to the City
Council, seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor. Motion carries.
(It was later determined that Meeting Place Circle has already been accepted as a City
Street)
Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR’s)
55 Paine Avenue – Robert & Marie McInnes
Zambernardi states that lot 1A is part of the lot across the street (52 Paine Avenue). The
proposal is to make Lot 1A part of the lot at 55 Paine Avenue, essentially returning it to
the same status as it was prior to 1999.
Dinkin asks if the ANR will be creating or destroying any lots. Zambernardi responds
‘no’.
Dinkin asks if the plan has any technical defects. Zambernardi responds that there are no
technical defects.
Thomson:
Motion to endorse the ANR plan for 55 Paine Avenue as one not requiring
approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Flannery. All
members are in favor. Motion carries.
23 Pershing Avenue – Barrowclough Properties
Zambernardi states this ANR is a pork chop lot, which recently was granted a Special
Permit. The requirements for frontage pertaining to pork chop lots have been met.
Grimes:
Motion to endorse the ANR plan for 23 Pershing Avenue as one not
requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by
Flannery. All members are in favor. Motion carries.
50 & 52 West Street
Planning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 3
Zambernardi states the proposal is for a land swap. The proposal is to swap Parcel A
from Richardson to Blake and Parcel B from Blake to Richardson. The lots are
preexisting non-conforming lots.
Zambernardi states that she was concerned about frontage. She spoke with Tim Brennan
(Building Inspector) and Peter Gilmore (City Solicitor) regarding her concerns. A letter
from Peter Gilmore is read into the record indicating that he has reviewed the plans and
there is no requirement to file for a Special Permit.
Mr. Richardson is present at the meeting. He states the request is to make the plans
conform to the current usage of the land.
Thomson:
Motion to endorse the ANR plan for 50 & 52 West Street as not requiring
approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Dunn. All
members are in favor. Motion carries.
Boulder Lane/Prescott Farms – Site Plan Review Application #73-03 – 69-Units Age-
Restricted Planned Residential Development – Miles Group, Inc. – Set Public
Hearing
Zambernardi states Miles Group has filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) to
construct 69 age restricted residential units on approximately 45 acres of land off Boulder
Lane. The development falls within both the IR and R15 zones, which necessitates two
applications: a special permit for a Planned Residential Development (PRD) to allow age-
restricted residential units in the R15 zone (Section 29-23.a.); and a variance to allow age-
restricted residential units in an IR zone (Section 29-19). Both the special permit and
variance applications trigger site plan review from the Planning Board. In order to grant a
special permit for a PRD, a report from the Planning Board must be made to the ZBA in
the form of site plan review. The scale of new construction in the IR zone also triggers
site plan review.
Thomson asks if it is premature for the Planning Board to review this before a Variance
has been issued by the ZBA.
Zambernardi states that the Chairman of the ZBA, Scott Houseman and Attorney Thomas
Alexander would like the comprehensive project reviewed as a total package.
Grimes states that the Planning Board is only advisory on the special permit matter and
cannot make decisions regarding land use.
Dinkin states the ZBA is the permitting authority for PRD’s in the city and while the
Planning Board must review the PRD prior to the ZBA, it is only advisory in nature.
Planning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 4
Zambernardi states what triggers the site plan in the IR zone is the type of construction
(multiple dwelling in IR zone).
Thomson recommends that the Planning Board request the City Solicitor’s
comments/opinion on how to proceed.
Zambernardi states that Houseman and Attorney Alexander argued that the two plans are
tied together and it might be difficult to look at each separately.
Dinkin expresses concern that this creates a difficult procedural question in determining
what argument is relevant and what is not in order.
Thomson states that if the Board were to piecemeal the review, the Board would probably
need to accept public comment on the whole project but make a ruling based on only the
R15 zone portion of the project. The Board would then review the IR section of the
project once a variance has been obtained.
Thomson states it would also be useful for the Board to hear Attorney Alexander’s
arguments.
Thomson:
Motion that the Planning Board table this topic until the next meeting
pending an opinion from the City Solicitor on the following question: “Can
the applicant apply for Site Plan Review prior to a Variance?” The motion
is seconded by Grimes. All members are in favor. Motion carries.
New/Other Business
Proposed Zoning Amendment – Sign Ordinance
Zambernardi reminds board members that there is a joint public hearing scheduled with the
Planning Board and the City Council for March 3, 2003 at 7:15 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers. A Special Meeting of the Planning Board has been arranged immediately
rd
following the Joint Public Hearing in the 3 Floor Committee Room of City Hall for
Discussion/Decision of the Sign Ordinance.
Planning Board Member volunteer to serve on the Design Review Board
Zambernardi reminds board members that Planning Staff is trying to fill up all of the
vacant spots on the Design Review Board. The Zoning Ordinance calls for a Planning
Board member to serve on the City’s Design Review Board. Membership would require
attendance at monthly meetings. She asks members to consider serving on the Design
Review Board.
Planning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 5
Adjournment
Dunn:
Motion to adjourn, seconded by Flannery, all members are in favor.
Motion carries.
The meeting is adjourned at 8:30 p.m.