2005-04-20
CITY OF BEVERLY, MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD: Planning Board
TOPIC: Regular Meeting
DATE: April 20, 2005
PLACE: Council Chambers, Beverly City Hall
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson, Richard Dinkin, John Thomson,
Joanne Dunn (left at 7:30 p.m.), Ellen Flannery, Eve
Geller-Duffy, Jason Silva, Donald Walter
OTHERS PRESENT: Leah Zambernardi, Assistant Planning Director
RECORDER: Robin Levesque
Dinkin calls the regular meeting of the Beverly Planning Board to order.
Thomson: Motion to recess and reconvene for a regular scheduled public hearing,
Seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor. Motion carries.
North Shore Wind Power Project Presentation - Sam Cleaves/Metropolitan Area
Planning Council (MAPC)
Sam Cleaves of MAPC states that MAPC received a $50,000 grant from the Renewable
Energy Trust of the Massachusetts Technology Council, Community Wind Collaborative,
for technical and educational assistance for Ten North Shore Coastal Communities;
(Beverly, Essex, Gloucester, Ipswich, Lynn, Manchester-by-the-Sea, Marblehead,
Rockport, Salem and Swampscott). He passes out a survey for members to fill out and
notes the survey is also available online.
Joanne Dunn arrives at 7:10 pm
Cleaves states that MAPC is hosting two wind energy forums on the North Shore. There
was one in Ipswich in January and there will be one in Lynn on June 1, 2005 from 7-9
pm. They will discuss the barriers, obstacles and opportunities for achieving the goals of
the grant.
He states the requirements of municipally owned land. He states the wind needs to be at
least 13 mph at hub height, and that the North Shore has good wind resources. He states
that a good site is a large open lot (schools, water plant, commercial and industrial sites)
with at least a 400 – 500 setback, high elevations to catch the wind resources and access
for road construction and maintenance. Cleaves displays on a map showing the best wind
resources in Beverly.
1
Cleaves states that the turbines should not be placed in environmentally sensitive areas
and historic areas. Residential areas are also difficult. He states that you should look for
commercial and industrial sites to locate the turbines.
Cleaves continues with the potential income and the capital costs for installation. He
states that the turbine would be approximately 260 feet in height and it would produce 4.3
million kilowatts a year, enough energy for approximately 240 homes
Cleaves states it would cost the City $1.5 million to purchase and install a turbine. He
states that the operation and maintenance is $30,000 a year, and that it would take
approximately 4 to 5 years for the tower to pay for itself.
Cleaves states there are fewer avian collisions because the turbines are larger and they
move slower. One to three birds a year are killed.
Cleaves states Lynn’s tower has been up and running for several months and that Lynn
now is working on a Wind Power Ordinance. Boston Harbor Island, Lenox, and
Kingston are a few other communities exploring wind power.
Cleaves talks about zoning. He states that these facilities must be listed as a primary use
to be allowed and that most North Shore zoning bylaws do not list “power generation” as
a use, which makes it, prohibited. He states 7-10 communities do have a wind power
ordinance including Beverly, Gloucester, Manchester-by-the-Sea and Rockport. He
states these ordinances don't address the larger 250-foot towers. They address the smaller
scale turbines that were an earlier variety.
Dinkin asks if there are any comments.
Dr. John Coleman of Solar Now states he supports wind power in Beverly, that Beverly
has a tower behind the High School at the corner of Tozer and Sohier Roads, and that he
would like to see it expanded.
Thomson asks a clarifying question about the map.
Flannery: Motions to recess and reconvene for a regularly scheduled Public Hearing.
Seconded by Walter. All members are in favor. Motion carries.
Joanne Dunn leaves at 7:30 p.m.
Public Hearing: Thompson's Farm Definitive Subdivision Plan - 16-18 Cole Street -
Estate of Arthur Thompson c/o James Manzi
Zambernardi read the legal notice.
2
Attorney Thomas Alexander, 1 School St., Beverly, Massachusetts appears on behalf of
the Applicant. Alexander stated that the area is flat and has limited wetlands, and the
Conservation Commission closed the hearing April 12, 2005.
Alexander stated that the R15 zone requires 15,000 sq. ft. lots and the subdivision lots are
larger than that required by zoning. He also states that the Applicant requests the
following waivers:
??
that 6” caliper trees not be shown on plans but to show only the major trees in
areas of proposed disturbance and edge of wooded areas.
??
that the property line at the proposed street intersection be rounded in accordance
with the existing property line radius of 20 ft rather than the required 30ft.
??
that the pavement width be 24-feet rather than the required 32-feet. Alexander
states it’s a short street, rural neighborhood, a dead end and that it has more than
adequate access for vehicles.
Alexander states that Thad Berry of Xeriscape Design, LLC will discuss the design detail
of the cul-de-sac roadway.
Berry states they will mitigate runoff with a wet basin. The drainage will be collected by
a series of catch basins and will pass into the pond. He states that he met with the City
Engineer and that sewer and water connections are provided.
Dinkin asks members if they have any questions
Thomson asks the applicant to describe the discussion at the Conservation Commission
Meeting regarding the detention basin.
Berry states the basin is within the 100-foot wetlands buffer zone but that it is outside the
25-foot no disturb zone. He states that water quality and planting are all according to the
Regulations.
Thomson asks about the drainage design in general.
Berry states he did studies of the 2, 10, 25 and 100 year storms and tests on the soils.
Berry states that there will be deep sumps in the catch basins to catch silt, that the water
will be filtered before it gets to the wetlands. He states that the system meets the siltation
removal requirement of 80 percent. He states there will be no increase in the peak rate of
runoff post development. He states there will be no increase in runoff of the 2, 10, 25
and 100-year storms. He states they meet the water quality requirements. He states the
roof gutters will go into infiltrators.
Thomson asks if Berry has information on the volume of runoff.
Berry states there will always be an increase in volume based on the soils. He states that
you have to deal with the volume increase through infiltration of a certain amount into
the ground. He states there is 25 percent of impervious area you have to infiltrate.
3
Thomson asks if there is a total balance of volume. Berry states no. Berry states that all
volume is directed to the pond. He states he mitigates the peak rate, which will increase
the volume into the wetland. Thomson asks if there is any information on the degree of
increase. Berry states he meets the standards of DEP.
Berry states they are requesting a waiver of the turning radius. He states the situation is
existing as they have no ownership of that part of the land.
Dinkin asks about the proposed detention pond. He asks if it will be contained in a single
lot and if it will it be maintained by the lot owner.
Berry states yes, the property owner will maintain the pond. He states that once the street
is accepted, the City will take over the catch basins.
Thomson asks if the subdivision is being designed under the major subdivision standards.
Berry confirmed that it is. He states this is because the dead-end street length is 500-feet.
Walter asks about the detention pond and whether there will be standing water after a
storm. Berry states that there is a sump and the owner will have to make sure the outlet
pipe is clear after the pond is vegetated and grown in. He states if the outlet were not
maintained, the pond would rise. He states the pond is designed with an emergency
overflow if this occurs. He states the property owner’s deed will indicate the
maintenance requirements of the pond. Thomson asks what provisions it will have.
Alexander states the Order of Conditions will state the maintenance of the pond.
Dinkin asks if any one in the audience has any questions.
Daniel Spencer of 14 Foster Street thanks the members for their time. He states that
water is a huge problem and it seems that the 100-year storm is coming more often. His
property is already saturated with water. He states that there is no drainage on his street
and that he needs help. He submits photos into the record of his property. He states that
overflow goes to the Girl Scout camp that goes through the pond and into his yard. He
states that in severe storms his property becomes flooded. He states he has spoken to
people at City Hall about his property. He states he doesn’t object to the development,
but he cannot handle more water on his property.
John McKenna of 15 Cole St. states the neighborhood has water problems. There is a
history of water in his backyard. He states that water flows from 17 Cole St. down the
road into his backyard. Water runoff from this project will run down to my property. He
states his property is turning into a swamp. He asks if there are any plans for retaining the
water on Cole Street. He asks where the water goes after it reaches the wetlands. He
speculates that it will pour off the site and he is downhill from that. He states he hasn't
heard any solutions, yet the area is getting wetter.
4
Andrew Newman of 17 Cole St asks a question about the direction of runoff. Berry
states the flow goes to Cole Street under existing conditions. He states there is a decrease
of flow towards Cole Street.
Frank Killilea, City Engineer states he would like an independent review of hydraulics
performed by Camp Dresser and McKee.
Alexander states the applicant will offer a review by Camp Dresser and McKee.
Renee Mary of 274 Hale Street states that every development that takes place up stream
comes toward her property such as Tall Tree Drive and Hawk Hill. The water goes into
detention ponds and rises. She states perhaps they can make the detention pond larger.
She states there are already problems already with water. She notes that runoff from
every development goes down stream.
Thomson asks whether the size of the detention pond can be increased. He asks if there
are limitations. Alexander states they already exceed the stormwater management
standards. Thomson asks if there are physical limitations to increase the size of the pond.
Berry states there is a 100-foot wetland buffer zone. He states it would have a steeper
embankment. Alexander states that it is already larger than it’s required to be and there
is no reason to make it larger. Berry states making it wider would probably make it
larger.
Berry states DEP regulations require we filter water into the soils. They accommodate
the fact that we cannot contain it all.
Thomson states he questions whether DEP's stormwater runoff standards are the criteria
the Board should use. He wants the applicant to explore opportunities for avoiding any
increase runoff from the site.
Berry states that the federal standards are filtered to DEP and that they are already
stringent. He states he cannot have the water kept on-site...he will have to have the soils
absorb it. Thomson states he is interested in not increasing the volume or runoff rate
from pre-development. Berry states the volume can be looked at.
Thomson states the assessor's map shows other frontage on Cole Street that may not need
waivers. He asks why they are not using that instead. Alexander states that part of the
land was recently ANR'd and a separate lot was created. The Thomson lot no longer has
frontage there. Thomson states that the applicant created the hardship by subdividing off
that lot and asks why the Board should grant waivers for the other entrance alternative.
Alexander states he doesn’t think you can design the roadway from that point.
The owner states that if the roadway goes at the other location, the water will flow into
the street and there is no way of address the runoff. He states the water would be running
5
into the street instead of the lowlands on the other side of the site. Alexander states there
is very little site distance.
Thomson states he is perturbed because they couldn't discuss this at the preliminary plan
stage.
Thomson states at this point he is not interested in granting a waiver. He also wants to
know whether it’s in the Board's best interest to grant the detention pond differential.
Thomson asks for a site visit to help the Board understand this better.
Dinkin asks for a follow-up relative to the drainage system and the detention pond. He
states he would like to know by how much it exceeds the DEP's stormwater management
standards.
Joan Murphy of 36 Longmeadow Road asks if the water runoff is to the left. She asks if
the Board will prohibit runoff going to the left. Berry states the water runs to the left
and then to the road.
John McKenna of 15 Cole St. asks if there are any plans for catch basins going down to
17 Cole St. Berry states nothing is planned in that direction. He states water will be
flowing down the new roadway. He states that water is currently flowing on Cole St. and
there always will be water flowing on Cole St. McKenna states he was told during the
development of 17 Cole St. that the water problem was taken care of but it wasn’t.
Renee Mary of 274 Hale St. asks Frank Killilea if there are any catch basins on Cole St.
Killilea states no there are no catch basins on Cole St. Renee Mary asks if there are any
catch basins from Cole St. to Essex St.
Daniel Spencer of 14 Foster St. states that the compost pile on Standley St. is right near
his house. He states it is under water and it smells. He asks if the houses are built high
because they will probably hit water when digging. Berry states that when you do test
pits, you record the water table and find the water levels. He found the area is sand and
gravel. He states the houses are not elevated to the road.
Silva questions the rate of flow and asks if the rate going away from the pond would not
be increased. Berry states it would not be increased. Silva asks where the water goes
after it reaches the pond. Berry states it goes into the wetland. Silva asks what it takes
for the pond to fill up. Berry states a 2-foot snow or rainstorm.
John McKenna of 15 Cole St. states he has no quarrels with the project. He asks the
Board to help the water problem.
Thomson asks Frank Killilea to tell them what he knows about Cole St. Frank Killilea
states the Cole St. area is flat. The street flow is connected to Kelleher’s Pond. He states
he wants to increase the size of the drainage pipes and to dredge Kelleher’s Pond and
increase drainage from that area. He states Cole St. and Essex St. do not have much of a
6
drain. He states that you can't put water in a catch basin and run it too far. He states that
you have to go deep in the ground and pump it. He states it would be a large capital
improvement project for storm drains and catch basins. He states the water is a sheet
flow and the wetlands are a sponge that absorb the water and release it. He states that
with more and more development backyards start to act like wetlands. He states more
impervious surface causes more water to flow.
Thomson asks if there are any solutions in terms of what this proponent can do to
ameliorate the problems.
Killilea states they will have to review the hydraulics. He states there will continue to be
water coming off the site and into Cole St. He states the applicant is not preventing that
and the question is whether the City looks into that problem.
Geller-Duffy asks Berry to go through the design and point out the calculations on the
map to help her get a sense of the overall impact on the neighborhood. Berry points out
the areas on the map and further explains the drainage design. Geller-Duffy asks what
impact the flow will have on this development and the residents. Berry states that the
100 year storm results in only 4 inches.
Dinkin there is another hearing at 8:30 and the Board should continue to later this
evening or to another meeting date.
Thomson: Motion to continue the public hearing to May 17, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. and to
schedule a site visit for Saturday May 7, 2005 at 10 am. Seconded by Flannery. All in
favor. Motion carries.
Public Hearing (continued): Chapman Corner Estates Definitive Subdivision Plan -
2 Boyles Street - Manor Homes at Whitehall, LLC/David Carnevale
Thomson: Motion to waive reading of Legal Notice. Seconded by Flannery. All in
favor. Motion carries.
Thomson: Motion to accept extension of time from applicant to May 17, 2005 at 8:30
p.m. Seconded by Walter. All in favor. Motion carries.
Request for Extension of Special Permit Application #98-97 - Airport Mini-Storage -
L.P. Henderson Road - Beverly Airport, Inc/ Thomas Ford
Zambernardi reads letter submitted by Thomas Ford requesting to withdraw his request.
Thomson asks the reason for this withdrawal. Attorney Thomas Alexander, 1 School St.,
Beverly, Massachusetts states they began the demolition sometime ago and have
exercised the special permit.
7
Set Public Hearing: Modification to Site Plan Review Application #84-04 (6-Story
Hotel) - 950 Cummings Center - Beverly Commerce Park, Inc./Gerard McSweeney
Zambernardi states this petition is to set a public hearing for the May agenda. The
specific request is to amend the site plan to reflect the Board's decision on the McKay
Street access drive at the last meeting.
Zambernardi states that the site plan for the 3-story office building had the conditions on
the restricted turning lanes for the property while the actual layout was drawn on the 6-
story hotel site plan. She asks if this should be a modification to both site plans.
Dinkin states that when they received approval for the 6-story hotel, they abandoned their
office building plans. Thomson agrees that it should be a modification to the hotel plans
only.
Walter asks why the Board is going to consider this. He states that allowing this could
result in a negative effect. He states he would like to wait until the hotel is operating.
The turning restrictions can be left on until then and the traffic can be reassessed.
Dinkin states that the Board can't deny a request to have a public hearing. Thomson
states this application reflects a vote made by the Board at the last meeting. He states the
Board has already voted on this matter.
Silva: Motion to schedule the public hearing for May 17, 2005 at 8:45 p.m. Seconded by
Flannery. Dinkin, Thomson, Flannery, Geller-Duffy, Silva in favor. Walter opposed?
Motion carries.
Public Hearing (re-opened): Whitehall Hill Circle Definitive Cluster Subdivision - 2
Boyles Street - David Carnevale, Manager, Manor Homes at Whitehall LLC &
Matthew Kavanagh
Thomson: Motion to waive reading of the Legal Notice. Seconded by Flannery. All in
favor. Motion carries.
Dinkin asks Zambernardi for an update
Zambernardi updates the Board on correspondence received since the last meeting.
Dinkin asks Frank Killilea if he has had time to review the documents. Frank Killilea,
City Engineer states that he has. He states Mr. Griffin has showed the flow of water and
calculated that quite accurately, however he needs to show calculations in other areas.
Robert Griffin states that a request was made for information in regards to his letter dated
January 31, 2005. He states that the runoff to the watershed is small. He states Camp
Dresser & McKee reviewed the letters. He states they found he satisfactorily uses
th
acceptable treatments to control water, which is indicated in their March 15 letter. He
st
states on March 21, he distributed back up documentation of pre and post development
8
runoff. He reported on the 2-, 10-, and 25-year storms. He states that there is going to be
an increase in runoff volume when water goes to the detention basin and he describes
how.
Griffin distributes hydrographs to members stating the blue is pre-development and the
yellow is post-development. He states you want the yellow line to be lower than the blue
line, in which it is.
Frank Killilea quotes from Camp Dresser's letter regarding Wetland B and Eisenhower
Avenue.
Griffin states that he doesn’t think there will be much of a difference in Wetland B, pre-
or post-development.
Griffin addresses Bayside Engineering's letter of April 19, 2005 regarding roadway
slopes. He states an 8% roadway slope is within AASHTO’s (American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials) design standards for local roads. He states
that many communities allow 8% slopes. Griffin reminds the members that Boyles St.
has a 6% slope and some streets in Beverly have more than an 8% slope. Griffin states
that Herrick St. has a 10% slope and Kernwood Heights has an 11% slope.
Dinkin asks if there are any questions or comments.
Elaine Bolgatz of 4 Pasture Rd states that one of the drains is close to her house and her
property has flooding already. She states that the drain can’t take any more water. She
states that Griffin indicated a 4% increase in the flow. She states the drain is small and it
was designed for the existing houses, not for more houses. She asks what kind of
protection she will have from additional volume.
Leroy Hutt of 71 Cross Lane asks is this is a new plan. He states this is the first time he
has heard that water will go to Lawrence Brook. Hutt states that 40 years ago, Lawrence
Brook was about 5 feet wide and today it’s about 15 feet. He states the water is coming
from Cole St. Hutt states that the City of Beverly is putting water on his property from
Lawrence Brook.
Martin Greenstein of 65 Cross Lane states that Lawrence Brook overflows his property.
Adding more water to Lawrence Brook would cause flooding problems.
Elaine Bolgatz asks why it is necessary for water to flow down Pasture Road.
Griffin states water will leave Wetland B to an intermittent stream and then flow down to
Lawrence Brook. Water will continue to flow as it does today. The rate of discharge will
be no greater than it is today. He states that, to the extent the neighbors will allow them,
they can make some improvements such as infiltration measures to help decrease the
runoff volume.
9
Wayne Miller of 5 Pasture Road states he cannot figure out whether he will get more
water. He states the calculations say he's going to get 14 percent than he has now. He
states he already has flooding. Griffin states the water should go to the municipal
drainage system before it gets to him.
Peter Shanahan from Hydroanalysis states that Griffin calculates flow to the edge of the
property and then stops. He states that Griffin's January 31, 2005 letter shows the flow
as it exits the watershed and then goes into the ocean. He states that no one has shown us
what happens at the intermediate points. He asks why the calculations have to stop at the
end of the property. He can't answer the questions the neighbors are asking of what will
happen on my property. He states there will clearly be flow increases. He states that
may be problematic.
Amy Murphy states she is the first house after Wetland B. She states that if the wetland
gets more water than it can handle, it goes into her yard.
Attorney Thomas Harrington of 124 Watertown St. Watertown, MA and representing the
Friends of Chapman’s Corner states that the Board has heard testimony that the applicant
has not carried the burden of showing there will be no adverse affect. He states that the
subdivision rules call for a 6% grade and the applicant has shown no evidence of why
they are entitled to that. They have two other entrances. There is no need for this one.
Harrington asks the Planning Board to close the hearing and deny the project.
Steven Gonzalez of 11 Birchwoods Dr. asks if the detention pond near his house will be
at the same elevation as it is today.
Griffin states the grades at the back of Gonzalez house will be below 10 feet, that he does
not anticipate a large grading change.
Edward Doherty of 13 Eisenhower Ave states you can’t solve the issues. The City
engineer is saying there are still needed refinements. He states there have been 10-12
meetings. He states there still is not a complete application.
st
Griffin states that the March 21 letter from Camp Dresser & McKee defines the
information.
Doherty asks whether these drainage calculations work. He states he still can't answer
that.
Dinkin asks if there are any other comments.
Frank Killilea states that Camp Dresser & McKee has indicated that the developer
exceeds the State's stormwater management standards. He states that the calculations
being referred to relate to the volume of water coming down the hill. He states that’s not
what they where asked to do. He states they have gone beyond what was asked.
10
Joanne Avallon of 17 Boyles St. states that the question is not whether the drainage meets
state standards. She states it is a question of whether they have proven there will be an
adverse affect.
Alexander states that DEP's stormwater management policy is the only published
standard. The City's engineer agrees that we've met the only standard that applies. He
states that if you apply all reasonable standards and you meet them, that means there is no
adverse impact. He states that the standards have been met and the City has allowed an
increase of the 6% grade before. HE states that he met the burden on the additional
traffic. He states they have a special permit for a pork chop lot that is no longer needed
because they will provide conforming frontage or a waiver of the frontage under the
cluster provision of Zoning.
Zambernardi reads the following letters into the record.
April 11, 2005 from 7 Boyles St
April 15, 2005 from 7 Birchwoods Dr
April 13, 2005 from 20 Brackenberry Lane
April 19, 2004 from Open Space and Recreation Committee
Dinkin closes the hearing
Public Hearing: Cabot Crossing - Modification to Site Plan Review #67-01 - Salem
Five Bank Drive-Up Teller & ATM - 495 Cabot Street - Salem Five Bank/ Nicholas
Capparole and Town & Country Homes of New England/George Belleau
Zambernardi reads the Legal Notice
Attorney Thomas Alexander states they are seeking a modification of the site plan. He
states they modified the site plan once before because of a settlement with the abutters.
He states that there is an agreement with Salem Five to use the back of the first building
and that the front will be used by an Optometrist. Alexander states the Board approved
the Bank to use the back part of the building at the last meeting. Alexander states he is
asking for a modification for the Bank to have a drive-thru window and a drive-thru
ATM. He states they have had a traffic study done and they have received approval from
the police and fire departments. Alexander also states that the Design Review Board has
approved the project.
Philip Wysor from Glovsky & Glovsky states that the main traffic concern is the
movement of traffic within the site. He states that we were asked for a 5 car cue, but we
will make room for a 7 car cue. He states that there probably will never be more than 3
cars cuing at one time. He states that the traffic arrows will show the direction of travel
and that the parking area near the entrance will be reserved for employee parking to avoid
customers trying to back out of parking spots during times when the drive thru has a cue.
He states these modifications were made based on comments received over the past
month.
11
Dinkin asks the Board if there are any questions or comments.
Walter asks if the ATM will have a video camera and will it be used on off hours.
Wysor states that all ATM’s are equipped with video cameras. He states that he
anticipates ATM’s will be used mostly off hours. He states that the design of the ATM
and drive-up allows the driver using an ATM to leave the cue when he/she is done, rather
than waiting in line until the drive thru is clear.
Thomson asks about cuing. Wysor states there will be a sign asking customers not to cue
past a certain point which he hopes drivers will read and obey. He states they have made
room for 7 cars just in case. Thomson asks about the parking space very close to the exit
and anticipates that it is not a practical space and will hardly be used.
Dinkin asks about the Traffic Study. Wysor states that studies have been done in 2 areas,
the larger in Danvers and the smaller in Hamilton and they observed that at different
times of the day, there were two to three cars in the cue. Dinkin asks for the addresses of
the two bank locations. Wysor states that Salem Five in Danvers is located on High St.
and the Salem Five in Hamilton is located on Rte. 1A.
Dinkin asks if the two areas mentioned are heavily trafficed. Alexander states that High
St. in Danvers is a very busy area that the branch in Danvers quite large. He states that
Hamilton is also a very busy street. He provides traffic counts for both Hamilton and
Danvers.
Dinkin asks why the ATM can't be in the building. Alexander states there is no room in
the foyer for the ATM. Dinkin states that if the interior space is empty today, how can
there be no room in the foyer that is not yet constructed?
Walter states that the places looked at didn't have both an ATM and a teller at the drive
through. Griffin states that is correct.
Dinkin asks members of the public for their comments and questions.
William Squibb of 509 Cabot St. asks about the traffic count. He states that he has
always had concerns about the traffic at this location and that is not going to change. He
states there is hardly room for fire apparatus. He states that when the project was
approved there was going to be a landscaped buffer between the property and the gas
station, which is no longer. He questions the use of Friday for the traffic study. He
realizes that the banks need drive thru's to be competitive, but he has concern about
cuing, the location of the ATM and the lack of a buffer.
Alexander states that there will be a fence to separate the two properties.
12
Joan Murphy of 36 Longmeadow Road states that vines could be put along the fence.
She disagrees with the notion that the ATM won't be heavily used. She states they will
have more traffic volume than they assume they will have. She thinks the drive thru
should be in a safer place than in the rear of the building.
Griffin contemplates there may have been a better day but the bank indicated to them that
Fridays were their busiest day and that is why they did their counts on a Friday.
Dinkin closes hearing.
Discussion/Decision: Modification of Special Permit #85-96 - David Carnevale,
Manager, Manor Homes at Whitehall, LLC & Matthew Kavanagh
Thomson states that there is no scenario in front of us that doesn't show an entrance onto
Boyles Street at this location. He states that his recollection of the Board's intent with the
original special permit was to permit the waiver in exchange for no more development on
those particular properties that were part of the special permit. He states that he doesn't
think it was the Board's intent to prevent development of property behind the property.
He thinks it was to prohibit more development of that site. He states he thinks the special
permit is no longer needed.
Thomson: Motion to approve the special permit modification with the condition that
this approval is applicable to only the cluster and the conventional plans before them
now. Flannery seconds the motion. Discussion on the motion: Silva agrees and states
that all the plans have show this entrance, including the neighbors' compromise plan.
Dinkin states he concurs with the intent of the Board and he can't identify what he would
do to amend the substance of the motion. All in favor. The motion carries unanimously.
Discussion/Decision: Whitehall Hill Circle Definitive Cluster Subdivision Plan - 2
Boyles Street - David Carnevale, Manager, Manor Homes at Whitehall, LLC &
Matthew Kavanagh
Thomson thanks, the City, the Developers, and the Friends of Chapman Corner for all the
work they’ve done. Everyone has done an excellent job and he has learned allot through
this process. He thanks the developers for answering all of their questions in good faith.
He thinks that the Boyles Street entrance passes muster in the site lines, the turning radii
are appropriate. He states that he knows Boyles Street is not a perfect road but he feels
that the other exits will allow for dispersed traffic. Because of these circumstances he is
not concerned about traffic impact. His concerns have been addressed. He states the
Hale Street entrance is not a favorite of mine. He states that having a Hale Street
entrance improves traffic flow at the site. If they grant the 8% slope waiver, he wants
something in return and he notes that we are being offered a reduced number of lots. He
states that he is sick over the fact that a historic building was demolished and he would
have preferred they preserved the building. He states that won't effect his decision
however.
13
Thomson states that in terms of drainage, he thinks about the impact 2-fold. First, he
states his opinion that the applicant's have met their burden of showing there is no
increase in the rate of flow from pre-development to post development. Secondly, he
states he is troubled by the fact that there are points in the data that show where various
exit points show increase in volume during various storm levels. He states that the Board
needs to consider a new standard, particularly in cluster situations.
Thomson states that if the subdivision is approved he is interested in requiring the
applicant to produce zero increase in volume at each location that water flows off site.
He states the one exception would be Birch Woods because he doesn't think there is any
room for that because it's a new drainage system. He states that they were given an
option by the developer for buffering Detention Pond #4 and he states he prefers that it be
landscaped so the detention area is not visible to the street with low bushes and trees. He
refers to the Open Space and Recreation Committee's letter and states that he would like a
walkway linking the street to the open space behind lots 6 and 7 or lots 7 and 8. Griffin
states he can accommodate that. Dinkin states he would like a number of the units to be
designated as affordable units. Alexander states they would make 3 affordable units in
the existing buildings on Hale and Boyles streets. Geller-Duffy states she is disappointed
that the historic building at the corner of Hale Street and Boyles Street has not been taken
care of. She would like to see it brought back. Being an entrance point into the
development, she would like to see it restored before any site work is done on the
property. Silva states he would like the applicants to look into the viability of a sidewalk
on Boyles Street. Killilea states there is no room for a sidewalk. Zambernardi states she
would like the Board to consider making conditions about having a maintenance
contractor hired before any of the lots are sold and about requiring information from the
developer regarding design, capacity and location of the drywells before any building
permits are issued. Thomson states that he would like the applicant to submit a
redesigned plan addressing the condition about no increased volume subject to review
and approval by the City engineer.
Thomson: Motion to approve the cluster subdivision with the following conditions. The
applicant is required to revise the drainage system on the plans and provide supporting
drainage calculations showing there will be a zero (0) percent increase in volume of
storm water runoff from the property during the 2-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year design storms
post development (as compared to pre-development) at all discharge points except for the
Birch Woods Access Road, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the
City's drainage consultant. The Board determined that the new drainage system at Birch
Woods was sufficient to handle the post development increase in flow. That final plans
be submitted, subject to review and approval by staff of the Planning Department and the
City Engineer, with such expert assistance as may be required, which reflect all changes
recommended by the City Department heads and the City's consultants in prior
correspondence with the Board. That Detention Pond #4 is landscaped with low bushes
and trees, which will serve as a visual screening buffer between the pond and Hale Street.
That, in accordance with a letter dated April 19, 2005 from Open Space and Recreation
Committee Chairman, Robert Buchsbaum (attached), a walkway is provided in the
vicinity of lots 6, 7 or 8 to connect the sidewalk of Whitehall Hill Circle to the parcel
14
identified as "Open Space" (Lot 99). That three of the units within the development
(including the buildings now on Hale Street and Boyles Street) are dedicated as
affordable housing in perpetuity in accordance with the standards of the Massachusetts
Department of Housing and Community Development. That the existing historic
building on Lot #35 is stabilized and that the facades visible from public streets are
repainted, refurbished and preserved prior to the commencement of any site work on the
property. That prior to transfer of any lot in the development, a homeowner's association,
that is responsible for maintaining the drainage system, is established and a contractor,
responsible for maintenance of the drainage system, is secured. That prior to issuance of a
building permit for each house, engineered drawings noting the location, design and
capacity of the drywell(s), are submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
The City Engineer must verify that the drywell(s) meet the terms of the final plans and
drainage calculations. That all comments outlined in letters received by the Board from
the following City Departments and Boards/Commissions are adhered to. These letters
include: a letter dated October 14, 2005 with attachments from Director of Public Health,
William T. Burke and a letter dated October 8, 2004 from Deputy Chief of Fire
Prevention, Clark A. Mitchell. Prior to the sale of any lot, the open space shown on the
plans shall be conveyed by deed acceptable to the City Solicitor to the homeowners
association, to be kept as open space in perpetuity, with an easement to the City for
public access and access to all drainage and detentions ponds and structures. Seconded by
Flannery. All members in favor. Motion carries.
Discussion/Decision: Cabot Crossing - Modification of Site Plan Review #67-01 -
Salem Five Bank - 495 Cabot Street.
Thomson states he thinks the bank is an appropriate use for that location. He states that
cuing is a concern. He states that he would like to approve the site plan but ask Salem
Five and the owner to return in one year after construction to talk about the traffic
impacts. Thomson states he still has a concern with the high traffic volume at the
location.
Zambernardi asks to have that language changed to one year after operations commence.
Thomson: Motion to approve the site plan with the conditions that the conditions of the
first modified site plan remain in effect and that the Board retains jurisdiction to review
the traffic impact and cueing situation of the Drive Thru and Drive Thru ATM one year
after commencement of bank operations. Seconded by Flannery. All members in favor.
Motion carries.
Preliminary Subdivision Plan - Foster's Drive - 30 Foster Street - Michael Hubbard.
Zambernardi states that a preliminary subdivision plan was submitted to create a dead
end with a cul de sac and five lots. She states that the plan was recently received and the
applicant has agreed to be put on the May meeting agenda.
Approval of Minutes
15
Flannery: Motion to approve the minutes of January 4, 2005 and January 18, 2005.
Seconded by Walter. All members in favor. Motion carries.
New/Other Business
a. Review of Uses - 495 Cabot Street - Cabot Crossing
Alexander states that an optometrist is going to go into the first floor of the first building.
He requests a review and approval of the use by the Planning Board. He shows floor
plans.
Flannery: Motion to approve the use of an optometrist office on the first floor of the first
building. Seconded by Walter. All members in favor. Motion carries.
b. Open Space Residential Design Ordinance
Zambernardi states she has emailed members the latest version of the Open Space
Residential Design Ordinance. She asks members if they would like a red line version so
they can review the changes that were made since the first filing. Members concur they
would like to view the redline version.
Geller-Duffy: Motion to adjourn. Seconded by Walter. All members in favor. Motion
carries.
16