Loading...
2005-07-19 CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD: Planning Board TOPIC: Regular Meeting DATE: July 19, 2005 PLACE: Council Chambers, Beverly City Hall BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson, Richard Dinkin, John Thomson, Joanne Dunn, Ellen Flannery (arrives 7:50 p.m.), Eve Geller-Duffy, Jason Silva (arrives at 9:30 p.m.), Donald Walter (leaves at 8:30 p.m.), Charles Harris OTHERS PRESENT: Leah Zambernardi, Assistant Planning Director RECORDER: Robin Levesque Chairperson Dinkin calls the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:30 p.m. Thomson: Motions to recess for a scheduled public hearing. Seconded by Harris. All members in favor. Motion carries. Public Hearing: Cleveland Road Extension Subdivision Plan #2- 405 Elliott Street/Alphonso & Mary Vitolo Zambernardi reads the legal notice. Attorney Phillip Posner of Metaxas, Norman & Pidgeon, 900 Cummings Center, Beverly, MA speaks on behalf of the Applicant. He introduces William Griffin of Griffin Engineering. Mr. Griffin states the subdivision is similar to one submitted over a year ago by William Beard. He states the Applicant is requesting an extension of Cleveland Road to provide frontage for one new building lot. The Vitolo's currently have 35 feet of frontage. Extending the road would add approximately 75 feet to that.. Griffin states they will be tying the new house into the municipal sewerand water lines. He states there is a guardrail in the east side where there is a drop off in grade. that leads to a wetland area . Griffin states that Cleveland Road was not built to the City Standards.The road already exceeds 500 feet and we plan on adding about 75 additional feet. Griffin states there will be loaming, seeding, guardrail, and a sidewalk. Griffin states they are requesting a number of waivers. He lists those waivers which were included in his application. Dinkin asks the members if they have any questions. Thomson asks Griffin to describe the Conservation issues. Griffin states they are submitting a Request of Determination of Applicability, which is less involved than a Notice of Intent. Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 2 Thomson asks about the run-off and how it would affect Mr. Beard's property. Griffin states the run-off is in that area already and he doesn’t believe it would affect them. Thomson asks about the legal status of the extension of the private way. Posner speaks of the roadway, sidewalks, and easements. Posner hands out a letter to this effect for the record, dated July 19, 2005,. Thomson states the water will cross Mr. Beard's property and the rate will be increased because there will be added impervious surfaces. He notes that with Mr. Beard's proposal, the runoff was going onto his own property. With this proposal, the runoff is going onto the abutter's property. Griffin talks about the runoff of the property. He states that with more impervious surface there will be more runoff. He states they shouldn't be creating a significant drainage issue. The water will flow in the direction that it flows now. Thomson asks if the water in the street is public. Griffin states it is a public line with a hydrant. Thomson asks if the road has been accepted by the City. Zambernardi states she has a letter from Mr. Beard's attorney submitted during the review of his subdivision indicating that the road is a private way. Thomson asks Attorney Posner who owns the land within the private way. Attorney Posner states he hasn’t done a complete title search of the property. Thomson states he would like to know whether the road is going to be public or private. He also recollects that Mr. Beard's subdivision had a stipulation that there should be not further access for more lots. He would like a title history done to show who has the rights to the way on both sides. He wants to know what rights the Vitolo's have to improve the way. Dinkin asks the public if they have any questions. Cynthia Osborn states they are purchasing 9 Cleveland Road. She has a purchase and sale on the property and she asks if the hearing can be continued until they are the owners of the property. Thomson states he has unanswered questions and he is not prepared to vote on this petition. He states the Board has 135 days to act which will bring them into October. Leonard asks if 405 Elliot Street is an existing address. Griffin states it is. Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 3 Leonard states Cleveland Road is extremely narrow. She states emergency vehicles have to turn in her driveway. She states there are no sidewalks. She states there are a lot of wetlands and the property values will go down. Griffin states that Extension #1 has not yet been completed. He notes that the former plans show the other house to be built. He states we have provided a turn around for fire equipment and will improve the roadway. Thomson: Motions to continue the public hearing to September 20, 2005 at 8:30 p.m. Seconded by Geller-Duffy. All members are in favor. Motion Carries. Thomson: Motions to schedule a site visit of the property for July 23, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. Seconded by Geller-Duffy. All in favor. Motion Carries. Cleveland Road Extension Subdivision #1 - Performance Bond Expiration - Request for Extension of Form G Covenant and Acceptance of Developer's Disclosure Agreement and Sample Lot Owner's Agreement and Acknowledgement Form Dinkin asks Zambernardi to update the Board. Zambernardi states that Mr. Beard's covenant with the Board to complete the ways within the subdivision will expire in September 2005. She states he has submitted a request for an extension of the covenant. She states that Mr. Beard is also requesting that the Board accept a developer's disclosure agreemend and a sample lot owner's agreement and acknowledgement form to provide Mr. Beard with a mechanism to sell or occupy the house while still being subject to the covenant. The forms are and acknowledgement by future owners that improvements are still necessary and that they will not hold the City harmless for the work. Zambernardi reads the following letters into record. ?? July 19, 2005 letter from Mr. Beard asking for extension ?? July 19, 2005 letter from Frank J. Killilea, Jr., Director of Engineering recommending extension. Thomson: Motion to grant extension for completion of the subdivision for 1 year to September 16, 2006. Seconded by Geller-Duffy. All members are in favor. Motion Carries. SANR- 9-11 Congres Street/Congress St. Realty Trust/P.Hanbury, Trustee Zambernardi show the plan of land to the members. She states the proposal is to reconfigure the lot lines between 3 lots on Congress Street. This reconfiguration would give all three lots sufficient area and frontage on Congress Street. She states the plan is technically compliant. Thomson: Motions to endorse the plan as one not requiring approval under the subdivision control law. Seconded by Harris. All in favor. Motion Carries. Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 4 SANR - 53 Trask St. - William J. Bates, Jr. Zambernardi states the property is in the R-45 Zone and it consists of approximately 3 acres. She states the plan splits one lot into two lots with conforming area and frontage. Thomson: Motion to endorse the plan as one not requiring approval under the subdivision control law. Seconded by Flannery. All members in favor. Motion Carries. SANR - 4 Woodberry Street - C. Sutton-Dowd Zambernardi states this proposal is to convey two parcels of land owned by Sutton to her abutters on Woodbury Drive. No new building lots are being created. Thomson: Motion to endorse the plan as one not requiring approval under the subdivision control law. Seconded by Flannery. All members in favor. Motion Carries. Approval of Minutes: Harris: Motion to approve the minutes of the Planning Board's meetings on March 3, 2005, March 15, 2005, and April 4, 2005. Seconded by Flannery. All in favor. Motion carries. Discussion/Decision: Foster’s Lane Preliminary Subdivision Plan- 30 Foster Street- Creation of cul-de-sac which will provide frontage for new lots—Michael Hubbard Zambernardi reads a letter from Griffin Engineering, dated July 18, 2005, requesting a continuance until the next Planning Board Meeting. Thomson: Motions to continue this meeting to the September meeting and to allow the Board until September 30, 2005 to take action on the plan. Seconded by Flannery. All members in favor. Motion Carries. Informal Discussion - Sturtevant Avenue Extension Subdivision Plan - Sturtevant Street Steve Archer The applicant is not present therefore no discussion occurs and no action is taken. Public Hearing (continued): Special Permit Application #112-05-Resubmission of Special Permit Application #105-01 (approved 9/01) – Federal Heights – Construction of 18 units with associated parking and landscaping – 245 Rantoul Street/48 Federal Street/ Rocco Scippa Zambernardi reads a letter from Attorney Richard Lynds requesting a continuance. Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 5 Thomson: Motion to continue the public hearing on the matter to September 20, 2005 at 9:00 p.m. Seconded by Flannery. All members in favor. Motion carries Public Hearing (continued): City Council Order #103- Proposed Zoning Amendment- Brimbal Avenue/Sohier Road-Change Zoning Map from Industrial/Research/Office District (IR) to General Commercial (CG) Thomson: Motion to waive reading of the legal notice. Seconded by Geller-Duffy. All members in favor. Motion Carries. Zambernardi explains what happened at the last Joint Public Hearing, stating that the Councilors closed their public hearing. Attorney Thomas Alexander of 1 School St., Beverly, MA, provides a recap of the proposal. He states it is a 6.5 parcel and the Applicant would like to change the zoning from IR to CG. Alexander states that the peak traffic for the proposed use would be less than for an office use. He states that Northridge is favor of the re-zoning and he states that there is some lack of support but most are in favor. Alexander states that the Parish, who is selling the property, speaks favorably of the project. Alexander states the property was a landfill and it will be properly cleaned up. Alexander compares the project with the Stop & Shop on Elliott Street. He states the property will increase revenues for the City and will allow St. Mary’s and the school to continue to operate. Alexander requests that the Board close the hearing and vote in favor of the proposal this evening. Dinkin asks if there are any comments in support. There are none. Dinkin asks if there are any comments in opposition. Rosemary Maglio of 30 Pleasant Street states the IR zone is better for the neighbors. She explains the pros and cons of the two zones, and what is allowed in each zone. She states there is no need for a CG zone in this area because there is another shopping center nearby. She states there is no commercial zone on Brimbal Ave. She states the proposed strip mall is not neighborhood friendly, that it would be a "24/7" operation and that traffic is continuous at night and on the weekends. She states that an industrial use would be less. She states there is a 5 foot strip owned by Connolly Brothers on Brimbal Ave along this property. She states that just because there is a better market for commercial property out there now, that doesn't mean it is better for the City in the longterm. Pam Kampersal of 241 Dodge St. states that over-development, traffic jams, and the potential of a new route 128 overpass are existing problems. She states the existing intersection is dangerous. She asks the Board to please consider the opinions of all the people who opposed the strip mall. David Woodbury, President of the Board of Directors of Northridge Homes states he agreed to work with the people of the strip mall and he agreed to a turning restriction onto Sohier Road to protect Northridge. He states their motivation was to protect the K Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 6 building. Woodbury states he smells gas and he believes it’s coming from the site. He states he’s very concerned with the gases and that Northridge will fight the proposal if K Building can't be protected. Dinkin asks which building is the K Building. Woodbury states that K building is 1 foot from the property line which abuts the subject property. He states that 90% of Northridge people are against the project. He states the gases are a huge concern. Silva states that previously your committee endorsed this project. Woodbury states they did. They discussed things like maintenance of the land, landscaping and water flow issues with CEA Group. He is concerned with the current traffic on Sohier and would like the right turn only restriction on Sohier but he realizes it's not in the best interest of the City. Dinkin states that the purpose of the hearing tonight is to make a recommendation on a zone change, not to approve or disapprove a project. Dinkin states the access and egress issues would be addressed through site plan review. He states there can be no project unless the zoning is changed. Relief would be the zoning change or a variance. The recommendation to the City Council would be whether to change the zoning or not. The project, per say, is not the question. Woodbury states there are health issues for our kids and they probably will fight the project. Harris asks about why the traffic patterns were introduced if they are not relevant. Dinkin explains the office park and mall have a different traffic pattern, depending what is put there. Traffic can be a consideration to the use that would be put there, but the specific project cannot. Steve Cohen of CEA Group, 26 Fayette St. Cambridge, Massachusetts states this project is not a strip center. It is a lifestyle center characterized by high quality design and materials. It is designed to work more like a village center. He addresses concerns about K Building and states that when Northridge was built as a 40B, it didn't comply with local zoning. It was built closer to the property line than the setbacks allowed. Every Board in Beverly opposed this. K Building got built and they have carved out a yard on the archdiocese parcel. He states that any time the owners could take that yard back. He states CEA Group would do something to help K Building if the Zoning is passed. They will get protection of the yard they would not other wise have. Regarding the environmental issues, the landfill is now unregulated and is exempt from any regulations. By virtue of this proposal, we'll subject ourselves to those regulations. DEP will make sure this site is cleaned up. A muriad of issues will be resolved including the environmental issues. Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 7 Alexander states that he understands the concerns with the process. CEA Group has agreed to have site plan review as a condition of the rezoning. That is the mechanism of this Board to enforce those representations. In order to allow the statements we have made here to come true, we will agree to site plan review. Cohen states we discussed safety issues with Northridge at great lengths and the safety issues we were persuaded to restrict right turns in and right turns out. Woodbury states Northridge agreed to all those things. He wants to make sure the Planning Board realizes how important all of this is to us. Joan Murphy of 36 Longmeadow Road states the traffic is better under the current zoning. She states the current zoning is more limiting in terms of night and weekend use. She states the Music Theater traffic would conflict with a shopping mall's traffic. She states that earlier the CEA Group said the sale wasn't contingent on a zoning change. She states the site would be cleaned up upon reuse regardless of the zoning. Rosemary Maglio of 30 Pleasant Street states that site plan review would be triggered for IR uses as well as CG uses. George Binns of 51 Baker Ave states the Roman Catholic Church acquired the land in the 1890’s. The Parish gave 30 acres of land in 1909. In 1934 the property was zoned fro residential. A special permit was granted for the Cemetery, and it was zoned single family. The City of Beverly received verbal permission to use the area as a landfill. The City wanted to put in a Fire Station but that never happened. In 1968 the zoning was changed to IR when 128 turned into a major highway. Binn reads from a newspaper regarding Northridge being built. He states that Griffin Engineering and the Church did test pits on the property and didn’t find anything. He states the things that I just read should be taken into consideration. Mary Rodrick of 14 Peabody Avenue states she is not an abutter but that she travels on Brimbal Avenue all the time. She is familiar with the interchange project. She is also bothered that the City seems to be re-zoning parcels one at a time to satisfy the needs of developers. She states the public has spoken. She doesn't think a commercial center that we don't really need should be built. It is important to look at what other CG uses can be there and to consider the neighbors on Brimbal Avenue. The proposed interchange would eliminate the exit onto 128 from Sohier Road. There could be a worse traffic situation caused by this. She states that the Ward 3 and the Ward 5 Councilors are opposed to this project and the zone change. Dinkin asks for more comments and questions. There being none, Dinkin closes the public hearing. Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 8 Discussion/Recommendation: City Council Order #103-Proposed Zoning Amendment-Brimbal Avenue/Sohier Road Zoning Map Change from (IR) to (CG)- Recommendation to City Council Dinkin states that in determining whether a zoning change is appropriate, there are a number of considerations including: 1. Does the proposed zoning district provide for a use that is necessary or desirable in the community? Is it desirable to have additional retail districts in the City? Does additional retail encourage or discourage the use of other retail districts?; 2. Is the proposed rezoning consistent with the Master Plan?; 3. Is the proposed change spot zoning because there's no contiguous use that is the same? If it's not they have a higher bar to meet. They must demonstrate that the zone change provides and identifiable public to the community as a whole. Zoning of a parcel is not a neighborhood issue, but a City issue because it affects the economy. Rezoning isn't a matter of private parties. Dinkin states that regarding the first question, he believes the rezoning would not provide a use that is necessary or desirable in the community. He believes the rezoning would draw investment away from existing commercial centers in the City. Dinkin states that regarding the second question, he believes it is not consistent with the Master Plan because the City wants to maintain the integrity of its IR Districts. Thomson states that he agrees that the City should not be rezoned on a parcel by parcel basis. He notes the City has not accepted some rezoning proposals. In his opinion it is appropriate to rezone a parcel when they can see how that rezoning would benefit the community as a whole. He thinks that the traffic is so problematic with the Norwood Pond Industrial area. He thinks this is not the time to rezone this parcel. He states it is not a peak traffic issue, but an issue caused by an overall far more intensive use. Thomson shares the concern that this change would open up other possible uses in the CG Zoning District that are not desirable. Thomson states he doesn't think the decision should be influenced by who the owner is or by the anticipated tax revenue. He states we need to take a longer term, broader approach and use the same criteria we've applied in other rezoning proposals. He gives the example of the Cummings Center which the Board was supportive of for a number of issues. It is at the heart of the City and a major economic development benefit for the City. Thomson believes this use would have an extremely adverse impact on traffic and safety. Ultimately whoever uses the site will have to clean it up regardless of the use. Regarding the Master Plan issue, Thomson thinks that the study committees were very specific and had a uniform judgement that they don't want to lose existing IR zones in the City. He thinks this is not the right way to approach rezoning of this parcel. Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 9 He states that everyone needs to give the City a chance to let the Master Plan play out. He states that there is no justification for rezoning the parcel at this time. Thomson: Motions to recommend to the City Council that it deny the zoning change. Seconded by Flannery. All members in favor. Motion carries. Silva: Motion to adjourn. Seconded by Flannery. All members in favor. Motion carries. The meeting is adjourned at 10:35 p.m.