Loading...
2006-02-22 City of Beverly, Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes BOARD OR COMMISSION: Planning Board DATE: February 22, 2006 LOCATION: City Council Chambers, City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice-Chairperson John Thomson, Ellen Flannery, Don Walter, Jason Silva, Eve Geller-Duffy MEMBERS ABSENT: Charles Harris OTHERS PRESENT: City Planner Tina Cassidy RECORDER: Maryann DiPalma The meeting is called to order at 7:30 p.m. Dinkin calls the meeting to order. Walter : motion to recess the meeting and reconvene following the concurrent public hearings, seconded by Thomson. All members in favor, motion carries. 1. FOSTER LANE DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION AND CLUSTER DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION PLANS / HUB REALTY TRUST Cassidy reads the legal notice for concurrent public hearings on a definitive and a cluster subdivision plan for property at 30 Foster Street. Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering is one of the developer’s representatives. He first summarizes the details of the conventional definitive subdivision plan. The 5 acre siteon Foster Street is surrounded by property owned by the City of Beverly (Stanley Street compost facility) to the north, by Camp Mitchman to the east and by land owned by the Girl Scouts organization to the west. To the south and on the opposite side of Foster Street there are residences. The property is approximately 1,100 ft. long (south to north) and 220 ft. wide (east to west). The topography of the site is such that surface drainage from 70-75% of the land flows toward the compost facility and 25% flows south toward Foster Street. The land is in the R-22 zoning district which requires a lot area of 22,000 sq. ft. and 150 ft. of frontage for a building lot, and requires front and side yard setbacks of 30 ft. and 15 ft. respectively. The proposal is similar to the filing the developer made in March of 2005. The preliminary conventional plan was originally heard in May 2005 and when the Planning Board requested that a cluster layout be considered, the developer presented such a plan in September/October of 2005. 1 The conventional subdivision layout shows 5 lots with conceptual house footprints for single family homes. Each lot will have the minimum 22,000 sq. ft. of land area and 150 ft. of frontage. The lots on the conventional plan conforms to all setback requirements and there are no waivers being requested regarding the geometry of the road. However, the developer is asking for two waivers from the Board’s Subdivision Rules and Regulations with this filing: (a) the requirement that all trees 6 inches in diameter or greater be identified and located on the plan, and (b) that percolation tests not be required by the Board since all lots will have City sewer service. The proposed roadway would have a 50 ft. right of way with 32 feet of pavement from the cul-de-sac, 5’ sidewalks on both sides of the proposed roadway with 5 ft. grass strips on each side and granite curbs along the entire roadway. The layout of the cul-de-sac is such that it could accommodate a landscaped island. The proposed road has a maximum slope of 6% (for approximately 160’ distance), a 3% leveling area and a 2% slope across the flat portion of the cul-de-sac turning area. The entire length of the proposed road from the center of the cul-de-sac to Foster Street is 473 feet. A proposed retention pond on lot #5 will receive some of the water from the new roadway. Two street trees per lot will be installed, for a total of 10. The developer consulted with the City Arborist on the species of street tree that should be planted. The developer selected Green Ash, but there were other acceptable species suggested by the Arborist that the developer would be willing to install if the Board preferred. There will be a fire hydrant on the edge of the cul-de-sac so a new water line will be constructed to bring water to the residences and to service the hydrant. Street lights are proposed at the bottom of Foster Lane on an existing telephone pole on Foster Street, as well as on a new telephone pole at the end of the cul-de-sac. Dinkin asks if the retention pond is sited on lot 5. Griffin replies yes. Dinkin then asks what the total acreage is for lot 5. Griffin is not sure but says he would calculate the answer during the break in the meeting. Dinkin then asks Griffin to calculate what the size of the lot would be minus the retention pond. Griffin states that the developer has proposed making some improvements to Foster Street to address the existing drainage problems and also to connect the proposed Foster Lane drainage system to the Centerville Brook area. From the cul-de-sac area on back, there will be 3 catch basins to catch and direct any runoff into the retention pond. Water will then be directed toward a stormceptor at the southern end of Foster Lane to the southerly side of Foster Street. There are existing flooding problems on Foster Street due to poor construction methods in the past. In some severe rainfalls, the pond on the Girl Scout land west of the site enlarges because water cannot flow as it once did historically due to previous changes in topography. The proposal is to construct 500 feet of 18” diameter drain line in Foster Street that would then be piped into an existing sewer easement on private property and directed toward Centerville Brook. Griffin states that Conservation Commission standards will require that board’s oversight of any work within 100 feet of a wetland resource. It is arguable if the proposal would 2 have to conform to Stormwater Management Standards because no work is proposed within 100 ft. of any known wetlands. The project conforms to stormwater standards. Some of the low spots at 28 Foster Street drain very poorly. The additional work on Foster Street proposed by the developer might be within 100 ft. of wetlands so some Conservation approval would definitely be needed for the discharge. Griffin states that the project would adhere to the nine required stormwater management standards: 1. No new untreated discharge to wetland resources: the proposed project has two discharges but in both cases the water is treated prior to discharge. 2. Drainage flows should be the same after development as before. 3. Thereshould be no loss of groundwater recharge. 4. At least 80% of all solids must be removed from the discharge. 5. Minimize potential for high-pollutant load site. 6. Discharge of drainage to critical areas requires best management practices. 7. Redevelopment projects must meet these standards to the extent practicable; this project is a redevelopment project that meets all the requirements. 8. Erosion controls are shown in special reports. Inspection reports are included in the plans. This is a normal part of subdivision plans. 9. Maintenance of the storm water system throughout the project. These are required through reporting forms. . This endsMr. Griffin’s presentation and he asks if there are any questions Thomson asks who would maintain the piping and catch basins and asks if it will be built according to city standards. Griffin replies that the infrastructure will be built according to City standards, and would become the City’s responsibility to maintain once the road was accepted as a City street. Griffin states that the City would also maintain the pipes and catch basins installed in Foster Street and the sewer easement as well. Thomson states that the easement in question is a sewer easement, not a drainage easement, and asks Griffin to explain why the developer believes he has the legal authority to install a drainage line in the easement to service this subdivision. Griffin states that Attorney Marshall Handly is present and will address this issue. Attorney Handly then addresses the Board. Thomson asks for clarification on the existing drainage problems in the area. Handly replies that the problem does not arise 3 from the fact that the pipes are inadequate. The problem is due to the pond overflowing during certain rain events. Thomson asks about use of the existing sewer easement for drainage purposes. Handly states that the Engineering Department requested that the developer look for ways to solve the existing drainage problem on Foster Street as part of the design of the proposed subdivision. Handly states that this project is not very large, and there is ample precedent for the City to consider doing an additional landtaking to allow the easement to be used for both purposes of sewer and drainage. He believes using the easement is not a necessity for the developer – another drainage design could be developed but it would not address the existing drainage problem in Foster Street. Handly states that use of the easement was not required because of the proposed subdivision, but rather suggested by the City Engineering Department as a way to solve the existing problem. Thomson asks if the Engineering Department’s request could have been because of increased run off resulting from the project. Handly states that the site is actually 25% ledge, and the existing topography makes the water flow toward Foster Street. He contends that the runoff post-development will be insignificant. Thomson then asks if the engineer has prepared drainage calculations assessing runoff from the site. Griffin answers yes, but he does not have those calculations with him this evening. Thomson asks Cassidy if she has spoken to City Engineer Frank Killilea about this issue. Cassidy says she talked to him in general terms about the existing drainage issue on Foster Street. However, she has heard nothing to indicate the City is willing or expecting to do any additional takings to expand the uses of the existing easement. Walter asks if there is a drainage report being reviewed. Cassidy states that the calculations were referred to the City’s consultant (Camp, Dresser & McKee) for review. Hopefully, it will be completed in time for next month’s meeting. Dinkin asks if the developer prefers to present the cluster subdivision plan now or take questions about the conventional plan. Griffin replies that we could do either but suggests moving on to the cluster subdivision plan. Cluster Subdivision Layout Griffin states that there were a couple of meetings with the Board in 2005. Several different options were explored, and one concept (for a cluster plan) was filed as an alternative design for consideration. With the cluster plan, the southern portion of the site would have most of the development. Roadway drainage would be done via a couple of catch basins going to a stormceptor with the water flowing toward the north going into the retention area. In the conventional plan, the road was 475 feet long; with the cluster plan the road is 325 feet long. Instead of a 50 ft. right of way, there would be a 40 ft. right of way. There would be the same type of utilities and tree plans with the cluster as with the conventional 4 plan, but more waivers would be needed for the cluster plan than for the conventional plan. There would be a 10% to 6% slope on the road, in excess of the Board’s maximum slope requirement of 6%. Griffin then compares the conventional plan to the cluster plan: ?? A hammerhead turnaround is proposed, instead of a cul-de-sac; ?? The lot sizes and frontages on the cluster plan are smaller than on the conventional; ?? There would be the same basic drainage plan on both; ?? There would only be one sidewalk with the cluster plan; There are several waivers required for the Cluster Plan: ?? Waiver of the requirement to locate and identify all trees 6” in caliper or greater; ?? Waiver regarding the requirement for percolation tests; ?? Waiver regarding right of way width; ?? Waiver regarding sidewalks (only one would be provided); ?? Waiver regarding the slope of the roadway (10% slope) Dinkin asks if the open space shown on the cluster plan would be owned by the homeowners’ association. Griffin answers yes. Thomson asks Cassidy to summarize the open space ownership options listed in the cluster subdivision ordinance. Cassidy states that upon recommendation of the Planning Board, all such open space shall be either (a) deeded to the City of Beverly for public use or conservation, or (b) deeded to an association of property owners for their common use, control, and management. The Planning Board has advisory powers over the location and size of open spaces proposed in cluster subdivisions. Dinkin asks if there are any additional clarifying questions from the members of the Board. Geller-Duffy asks if the footprints of the houses are the same as in the first plan for the garages. What is the difference in impervious pavement between the cluster subdivision and the conventional plan? Griffin answers that there is less impervious surface on the cluster plan. The plans are at the same scale but the footprints on the cluster plan are a little smaller than on the conventional. Flannery asks if the easement is on lot 5. Griffin answers yes. Dinkin asks if there are any members of the public who have questions on either filing, and cautions the audience that he will ask for comments in favor and against the proposal afterward. 5 Chet Walsh, Foster Street, states that he is speaking on behalf of most of the people in the room, and asks the percentage of land that drains toward Foster Street. He was told that 25% of the land drains in that direction and that the stormwater will be treated. He asks if he could get a copy of the drainage calculations. He also asks if he could get copies and was told he could make a request to the Planning Board but would have to pay. If he wanted to visit the Planning Board, he could read the information there and not have to pay anything. Dinkin says the information is a matter of public record. The homeowner over whose land the sewer easement travels asks how a developer could go through her property and use it for their purposes. She could find nothing in writing that answered this question. Dinkin restates Handly’s earlier explanation; the City could use the easement for the purposes for which is was originally taken, or use its eminent domain authority to expand those rights and compensate the owner for the value, which Handly said would be minimal. Joseph Boccia, who lives on Stanley Street, asks when the plans were filed. Dinkin states that the preliminary conventional plan was filed on March 5, 2005 and a preliminary cluster plan filed in the summer. There was discussion on both at the September Board meeting. A revised plan was presented at the October meeting where the board took a vote of no action. Definitive plans (cluster and conventional) were filed on December 19, 2005 with the Board. Dinkin further explains the process. The preliminary plan is a discussion between the developer and the Planning Board regarding general design issues. At the preliminary stage, there is no public input. It is somewhat unusual that a developer would file two plans, but he did so to in part address a request of the Board. A plan does not have to be formally submitted to the Board at a formal meeting; it can be submitted to the Planning Department, which staffs the Board. The plans were filed on December 19th, several days before the City Council voted to accept the OSRD. Thomson states that the two plans are on two different time schedules. The first plan requires the Board’s action before the next meeting, unless the developer agrees to an extension of time. The Board has until May 2006 to vote on the cluster plan. He notes that they comprise two separate applications, and any member of the public may visit the Planning Department and read the plans at no charge. Cassidy states that the City has asked Camp Dresser and McKee to review the drainage calculations and hopes that the report will be available by the next meeting. Dinkin asked if there are additional questions. Renee Mary, 274 Hale Street, states that after a rainstorm, there are always big puddles on Foster Street. She states that no one wants more water on their property. She asks the Board to be considerate as what they do will have an impact on people. She also asks if 6 there could be a report on drainage for all brooks. Cassidy asks her to specify which brooks. Renee Mary stated the Watershed Property. Dinkin asks if there are any comments in support of the plans. There are none. He asks if there are any comments in opposition. Walsh, 29 Foster Street, states that there are 10 or 11 of the closest abutters here this evening. His yard is the first to flood – also, there is too much congestion in the area. He says that he spoke with Conservation Commission agent Amy Maxner and wants an independent review. He feels this plan can cause many problems for those living in the area if such a dense subdivision is constructed. The water table keeps rising in the neighborhood. He states that the Girl Scout camp is a unique setting for kids. People have a significant investment in this area. What recourse do these residents have if there are unforeseen problems after development? Dinkin answers that in the event the plan is approved by the Board, residents have the option of litigating the matter. Ms. O’Brien, 31 Foster Street, states that she is against this plan. She enjoys the country setting of the existing neighborhood. She also feels there are safety issues for children using the camps if the houses are constructed. Dinkin passes around a booklet of Walsh’s photographs showing flooding in the area in the past. Peg Gasparoni says she has lived in the area for over 30 years. She expresses concern about the ledge and the amount of blasting that would need to be done. She says a former engineering report did not address this issue adequately. Diane King, 13 Foster Street, states there is a major water problem on her property. She doesn’t believe this plan will help her. It will ruin a very pretty street. Geller-Duffy says she is familiar with the area and asks what started the trouble with the high water table. A neighbor answers Turtle Creek, where blasting altered the underground flow of water. The resident invites anyone to come down and observe Standley Street. He is concerned about wildlife displacement and traffic issues, as well as safety concerns for joggers and bikers. Judy Wise, Director for the Girl Scouts organization, talks about Camp Paradise and lists concerns: safety, security, blasting, open space, and the quality of future campers’ outdoor experiences. Wise notes that the purpose of Girl Scouting is to help girls build character. These experiences have affected thousands of girls who have visited Camp Mitchman over the past 72 years. 7 Mr. Boccia gives a history of the parcel, including the fact that the Planning Board approved the lot now slated for subdivision as a pork chop lot in 1985. He questions whether the property can in fact be subdivided, given the apparent conditions that were imposed back in 1985. Dinkin suggests that Mr. Boccia provide copies of the documentation to the Planning Department and asks the City Planner to request a legal opinion from the City Solicitor relative to the documentation Mr. Boccia has. Alvin Mitchell explains his feelings about the benefits of Camp Mitchman to the community. When he bought the camp, he chose to use it for the benefit of children. This subdivision will come in right next to his property, and will be too close to the activities that the children will be involved in. He states that if the developer’s goal is to make money, they could sell their property. Walsh says he wants the easement checked on this proposal. Is the City interested? Dan Spencer, 14 Foster Street, shares his history of the area with the Board. In 1992 he built his house and has had to build a retaining wall in the backyard as the area became flooded from two minor rain storms. He says he could not put a pool in his backyard because the water table is too high. He states that he loves the City of Beverly and has purchased the property at 16 Foster Street to build another home. He comments that he had Mr. Griffin check the area which he was willing to do free of charge. Spencer states that Mr. Griffin was very kind and pleasant. Dinkin explains that it is apparent the Board will not have enough information to close these hearings this evening. In order to continue discussion until the next meeting on March 21, the applicant will need to request an extension of time to March 31, 2006. The applicant executes the extension form. Thomson : motion to continue the concurrent public hearings on the Foster Lane subdivision until March 21, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. Motion seconded by Geller-Duffy, all members in favor. Motion carries. Thomson : motion to accept an extension of time for action on the Foster Lane definitive and cluster subdivisions to March 31, 2006. Seconded by Flannery, all members in favor. Motion carries. Dinkin calls a 10 minute recess and reconvenes the meeting at 10:05 p.m.. 2. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANRs) Cassidy presents an ANR plan for property at 75 / 77 Dodge Street. The owner of 75 Dodge Street wants to deed 451 square feet of land to the owners of 77 Dodge Street. This will create a total lot area of 12,705 sq. ft. for the lot at 77 Dodge Street, bringing it into compliance with the minimum lot size requirement for the zoning district. However, the lot. However, the lot does not have sufficient frontage to meet the requirements of 8 the zoning ordinance. The property at 75 Dodge Street does (and would continue to) meet the zoning requirements for the district. Cassidy expresses concern that recordation of the plan may jeopardize any grandfather rights the lot at 77 Dodge Street may have. She urges the owners to consult with an attorney before recording the plan. Since the owners have the responsibility to file the plan, they can wait until a lawyer looks into the matter for them. Thomson : motion to endorse the plan as one not requiring approval under the subdivision control law, seconded by Geller-Duffy. All members in favor, none in opposition. Motion carries. 3. Approval of Minutes Dinkin asks if there are any corrections to the minutes of last month’s meeting. There are none. Flannery : motion to approve the minutes of the January 24, 2006 meeting, seconded by Walter. All members in favor, none in opposition. Motion carries. Dinkin asks if there is any other business for the Board to conduct. There is none. Flannery : motion to adjourn, seconded by Geller-Duffy. All members in favor, none in opposition. Motion carries. The meeting is adjourned at 10:45 p.m. 9