Loading...
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.