Loading...
2006-05-09 CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: Planning Board SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: May 9, 2006 LOCATION: City Council Chamber, Beverly City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice- Chairperson John Thomson, Ellen Flannery, Don Walter, Eve Geller-Duffy, Joanne Dunn Charles Harris, David Mack, Peter Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Leah Zambernardi, City Engineer Frank Killilea RECORDER: Andrea Bray Dinkin calls the meeting to order. Thomson: Motion to recess for public hearing, seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor, no one in opposition. Motion passes 9-0 1. Concurrent Public Hearings: Foster Lane Definitive Subdivision and Cluster Subdivision Plan Charles Harris recuses himself from this petition and states he will participate as a member of the public. Zambernardi reads the public hearing notice. Dinkin asks for clarification regarding the application before the Board. Zambernardi responds. Attorney Marshall Handley representing Hubbard Realty Trust states that he is awaiting a review of the drainage calculations for the subdivision. He is unable to respond to the Planning Board’s request for his opinion on two previously raised issues. 1. The applicant’s legal ability to use a sewer easement on an abutter’s property for drainage purposes. Handley has reviewed the city records for the easement and found the document to be unclear as to the purpose and use of the easement. 2. The impact of a special permit for a structure on a pork-chop lot on this property. Upon his arrival to the City Council chamber this evening Handley received a document containing the opinion of the City Solicitor regarding the special permit issue. He is not prepared to respond to this newly received information at this time. Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2006 Page 2 of 17 Handley requests a continuance until next meeting and agrees to an extension for a decision on this issue. Dinkin states he has spoken with the City Solicitor at length on the special permit issue, and advises the attorney of his belief that in order to achieve relief from the special permit, he must apply for a modification or a vacating of that special permit. Handley agrees to present an opinion on this and requests an extension to do so. A future th meeting date of July 18 is discussed. Thomson requests that soil borings are done in time for the next meeting. Dinkin opens the floor to the public for questions on the matter. Chester Walsh of 29 Foster Street requests copies of all pertinent documents in advance of the next public meeting. He provides his telephone number to Zambernardi for follow up. He then questions the issue of using eminent domain to take an easement for drainage. Dinkin states that the Planning Board does not have the authority to issue eminent domain. That is the right of the City Council. Thomson states the Board is waiting for a demonstration by the applicant on how that easement exists. He states that the Board has not seen the original documents yet. Walsh then asks if a traffic study has been conducted. He expresses concern about a line- of-site issue on Foster Street. Dinkin states they have not asked for a traffic study as of yet. Joseph Boccia of 36 Foster Street inquires about the schedule for soil borings. He expresses a concern about the dust which could result from the drilling and requests that it be done before June 26th. City Engineer Frank Killilea advises Boccia that the borings would be in the detention areas only. Kevin Lynch, Representative of Massachusetts Bay Commuter Rail states that the Railroad has contacted him regarding the level of the creek flowing under the railroad track. The culvert has barely enough space for the water to pass. Any addition water flow may flood the tracks. The Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad is looking for some proof that the existing culvert will be able to handle the creek flow. Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2006 Page 3 of 17 Patricia Grimes of 26 Old Town Road notes that the Planning Board possesses a letter from traffic officer Chris Negrotti which expresses concern with line-of-sight distances on Foster Street. In his letter Officer Negrotti suggested that a traffic study be performed. Zambernardi reads the officer’s letter requesting a traffic study calling attention to a blind spot at the intersection of Foster Lane and Foster Street. th Dinkin requests more information from the applicant on this matter by June 20, and advises that the City Engineer Frank Killilea will determine the necessity of a study once this information is submitted. Thomas requests that the Board have access to the information at least two weeks before the next public hearing in order allow enough time for the Board and the public to review the information. th Zambernardi requests information on traffic sight lines be available by June 20. Walsh reminds the Board that the Planning Department has several photos of the sight lines from the corner of Foster Street and Foster Lane that he submitted. st Handly signs a request for extension through July 31. Thomson: Motion for an extension of the public hearing for the Foster Lane st Definitive Subdivision and Cluster Subdivision Plans through July 31, seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor, none in opposition. The motion passes 9-0. th Thomson: Motion for a meeting on the Foster Lane property on July 18, seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor, none in opposition. The motion passes 9-0. Charles Harris returns to his seat on the Board. Eve Geller-Duffy left the meeting at this point. 2. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans 15, 17 & 19 Kernwood Heights – Joseph E. and Carol L. Stacey Chairperson Dinkin recuses himself from this issue, steps down, allowing the Vice- Chairperson Thomson to preside over the proceedings. Zambernardi states the applicants have filed a request to reconfigure the lot lines for 3 parcels they own in the R10 Zone on Kernwood Heights in order to create three buildable parcels. The plan meets the requirements for endorsement of an ANR. Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2006 Page 4 of 17 Zambernardi distributes the Kernwood Heights plan, and explains that each lot has over 100 feet of frontage and over 10,000 square feet. The existing house would be either demolished or moved to conform to the existing setback requirements. Flannery: Motion to approve the plan with amended lot lines, seconded by Walter. Eight members are in favor, none are in opposition. The Chairperson has recused himself. The motion passes 7-0. 100 and 104 West Street ANR Kenmark 1994 Trust and Ralph Cerundolo Zambernardi states the applicants have filed a request to convey an 1162 square foot parcel of land from Kenmark Realty Trust to land of Cerundolo. The plan meets the requirements for endorsement of an ANR. Attorney Pierre Rumpf, representing Ralph Cerundolo and by agreement Francine Cecida presents the application. Thomson requests clarification for the application. Rumpf explains that the two properties are adjacent, non-conforming lots and the applicants wish to move the dividing lot line. He states they already received a variance from the Zoning Board. Thomson: Motion to approve the ANR lots, seconded by Walter. All members are in favor, no one in opposition. The motion passes 8-0. Enon and Lincoln Streets, Enon Street Realty Trust Vice-Chairperson Thomson recuses himself from voting on this application. Zambernardi states the owners of the Mariner Restaurant on Enon Street have filed an ANR to divide a vacant lot of land they own into two lots. One portion (consisting of 2,500 sq. ft. of land with 50 feet of frontage on Lincoln Street) would be deeded to the owners of an abutting lot to form one contiguous lot. The second portion (consisting of 7,521 sq. ft. of land and having no frontage) would be deeded to the owners of the current Mariner Restaurant lot to form one contiguous lot. After the transfers, both lots would conform to the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Attorney Handley briefly reviews the ANR with the Board. Harris: Motion to endorse the plan, seconded by Walter. 7 in favor, no one in opposition. The Vice-Chairperson recuses himself. Motion passes 7-0 Dinkin states that the committee stands in recess until 8:30 p.m. Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2006 Page 5 of 17 At 8:30 p.m. Dinkin calls the meeting back to order. Thomson: Motion to recess the regular meeting and convene for a scheduled public hearing, seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor, none in opposition. The motion passes 8-0. 3. Bayview Court Definitive Subdivision Plans, Hubbard Realty Trust Board member Charles Harris recuses himself from voting on this application. He states he will sit in the audience as a member of the public. Zambernardi reads the public hearing notice. Dinkin begins by reviewing the process and procedure for the public hearing. He requests that the public hold all questions until after the presentation of the plan. Architect Paul Duran presents the plan, then introduces Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering. Griffin explains that the original house on the property burned down in 1969. Fire fighters determined that inadequate water pressure was at fault for the total destruction of the home. The low pressure resulted from having a 3 inch water pipe on Bayview Ave. The pipe was too narrow to provide enough pressure to douse the fire. The same water pipe remains on that street today. The applicants plan to replace that 3 inch water pipe with an 8 inch water pipe, thereby correcting the problem and increasing water pressure to all of the Bayview Avenue residences. Two ANR lots will be created with frontage on the existing Bayview Avenue and five subdivision lots will be created with frontage on the newly constructed Bayview Court. Three fire hydrants will be placed on the subdivision development and all lots will have sprinkler systems. The applicant requests two waivers 1. A waiver of the requirement for borings and perk tests. 2. A waiver of the requirement for a minor street to be less than 250 feet in length. Storm drainage for lots with frontage on Bayview Ave (lots 1 and 7) will not change. It will continue to flow toward Bayview Ave. Drainage for the other five lots will be directed toward the ocean. Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2006 Page 6 of 17 Griffin then reviews all of the nine DEP standards for drainage in any subdivision development, stating that the applicant meets or exceeds all of the nine standard requirements. Griffin states the applicant is proposing two easements: 1. An easement to provide pedestrian access from Bayview Ave to Hannah Park. They wish to develop a five-foot walking easement to the edge of the property. He notes Hannah Park currently has no access from Bayview Ave. He states this walkway will bring public access closer. 2. A proposed easement along lots 2 and 3 to the edge of the property. If the easement went through abutting property on Lawnbank Road it would provide a water loop through the area of Bayview Ave, Bayview Court, Lawnbank Road, and part of Neptune Ave, for the purpose of improving water quality in the area. The water loop may also have a positive effect on the water pressure on the Bayview Avenue neighborhood. Griffin states all new construction will have residential sprinkler systems. The density of the planned housing is similar to the density of housing on Lawnbank Road. The sewer connection on Bayview Ave will be improved. Bayview Ave will be repaved from curb to curb. A modern, efficient storm water system will be installed. Griffin reintroduces Architect Paul Duran. Duran states that the architecture of the development will be more consistent with the surrounding neighborhood than the existing 70’s ranch, which is currently sited on the property. Tax revenue would increase an estimated $100,000 plus each year as a result of the new project. Marshall Handley addresses one requested waiver, the 500-foot rule for the cul-de-sac. He maintains that new structures will not be at risk by being more than 500 feet from Bayview Ave. The new cul-de-sac provides the only turn-around space for large emergency vehicles. Currently the fire trucks must back up on Bayview Avenue because they are not able to turn around at Hospital Point. The waiver of the 500-foot rule can rectify a public safety issue. He notes that density is a defined, legislative standard. In the case of this zone there is a 10,000 square foot minimum lot size. The proposed lots are all over 10,000 square feet and several are twice that size. The average lot size for the seven lots is 19,000 square feet. While addressing the architecture he notes that there is no historical significance in the current 1970’s style “monstrosity”. This project doesn’t touch views. No neighboring homes have a water view through or over this property. When it is completed the new development will be invisible as it will be more consistent with the neighboring properties. Zambernardi reads the following letters concerning the Bayview Court Subdivision: Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2006 Page 7 of 17 1. Police Department dated 5/5/06 2. Conservation Commission dated 5/8/06 3. Wayne Francis Deputy Chief of Fire Prevention dated 4/4/06 4. William T. Burke, Director of Public Health dated 5/1/06 5. Engineering Department dated 5/9/06 6. Open Space and Recreation Committee dated 5/9/06 Dinkin asks if the Board members have any clarifying questions. Thomson inquires about the plans for streetlights and sidewalks. Griffin states that there will be no sidewalks and two streetlights. He notes there is a fence between their property and the federal property, which is owned/maintained by the U.S. Coast Guard. Dinkin opens the floor to clarifying questions from the public. A resident of 37 Abbot Street inquires about the proximity of the Ancient Highway to the project. Handley notes that the Ancient Highway does not touch this property. Bob Shirley of 52 Ober Street questions the potential safety issues associated with the applicant’s decision not to install any sidewalks. Handley explains that the applicant offered to install sidewalks, but the traffic officer considered that issue and found no significant risks attributed to the lack of sidewalks. Miles Handridge of 11 Bayview Avenue questions why the City of Beverly didn’t rectify the inadequate water main at any point since the fire of 1969. He also asks who will maintain the storm water filters. Griffin states that the Bayview Court association fees will cover the maintenance of the storm water filters as well as other property maintenance. Jeff Prince of 12 Gardner Street inquires as to the effect of the drainage discharge onto the rocky shoreline. Has an environmental impact statement been conducted? Griffin states that the drainage calculations are the extent of what has been submitted. Tom Harrington, Attorney representing the Friends of Hospital Point asks whether theproject plans were stamped by a registered surveyor and whether the actual frontage measurements for lots 1 and 7 are less than the current requirements. Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2006 Page 8 of 17 Zambernardi states a land surveyor stamped the plans. Handley explains that his statement is not correct because the applicant possesses project plans with all of the required signatures and that when measured according to the city standards, lots 1 and 7 both contain the required frontage. Mike McPherson of 9 Lawnbank Road disputes the use of the term “a few trees” as described on the project’s document. He states that he counted over 150 trees on the property. Griffin agrees that the term “few trees” is an incorrect characterization of the property. Ann Devereaux of 11 Lawnbank Road inquires as to the easement for the proposed water loop. She believes that it will be on her property and would like to know how one attains an easement. Griffin states the easement his clients will give goes to the edge of their property line. He states that we don’t have the ability to get an easement over someone else’s private property. He states that the City will determine the necessity and feasibility of an easement. Nicholas Argeros of 17 Bayview Avenue asks why the water main will not go all the way to the end of Bayview Avenue. Griffin states that even though the new 8-inch water pipe will not go to the al the way to the end of Bayview Avenue, he believes that it will improve the pressure for the all residences on that street. John Bishop of 5 Lawnbank Road asks what new costs the City can anticipate relating to education, street maintenance, and snow removal for the new project. Dinkin explains that the Planning Board does not have that information and Mr. Bishop can inquire with the City Finance Director. Diane Belisle of 4 Elm Street questions the total extent of this development. Where does this development stop? Dinkin explains that all areas are developed and redeveloped within the limits that the zoning permits. He states that this project was filed under older zoning. He states that the number of lots they proposed is well within the number that the parcel will yield. Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2006 Page 9 of 17 Joseph Savy of 25 Neptune Street inquires about the faulty sewer system on Neptune Street. How will the new sewer system affect the rest of Neptune Street if five additional homes will be added? Griffin explains that the applicant will replace the troublesome connection and 6-inch pipe at the corner of Neptune Street and Bayview Avenue. This redesign is expected to correct the current sewer back-up problem for all of the affected residences. Thomson asks the City Engineer to clarify the current condition of the sewer system in that area. Killilea explains that long ago a 6-inch sewer pipe was installed on Bayview Avenue, and a joint with a 6 inch pipe was installed at the corner of Neptune Street and Bayview Avenue. Mr. Griffin’s solution will reduce the need for constant sewer maintenance to this area. He states they would like a 10” pipe rather than an 8” pipe, Griffin agrees. Tom Wilburn of 40 Neptune Street asks what will happen to this property if this new plan is rejected. Dinkin states that currently the property has two pre-existing lots. Daniel Martignetti of 12 Lawnbank Road asks what is included in the calculated 26,000 square feet of impervious surfaces. Griffin says that it is the approximate total area of all roofs, roads and driveways. Martignetti inquires about the timeline for the construction. Griffin does not have a build schedule at this time. Dinkin states that the build schedule is not relevant to this approval. Burt Gordon of 16 Neptune Street asks if the new homes added into the water line would have any effect on the “downstream” Neptune Street homes. He is concerned that the additional demand and the new 8-inch pipe on Bayview Avenue might reduce water pressure on the other parts of the water line. Griffin says that he doesn’t foresee any impact on water pressure on Neptune Street. William Cammet of 3 East Corning Street expresses concern about the potential hazards associated with blasting in a thickly settled area. Dinkin explains that the City requires the developer to protect, insure and indemnify the project against hazards. Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2006 Page 10 of 17 City Engineer Killilea adds that the Fire Department monitors the blasting. They will locate sizemonitors on other properties if requested. Photos are taken before, during and after the blasting. John Thomas of Beals & Thomas, Inc. representing the Residents of Bay View Avenue requests soils information. He notes that there may be some Chapfield Hollis Rock Outcrop in that area. He asks Griffin to describe that condition. Griffin states there might be Chapfield Hollis Rock Outcrop and some evidence of ledge along the water. Some ledge removal will be necessary but the exact amount has not been determined. He states there is a fluctuating depth to ledge. John Thomas states the drain line cut will be approximately 20 feet and the overall depth of cut excavation should be 8-9-10 feet. Vicky Watt of 11 Woodbury Street inquires about the type and size of the houses in the project and how the projected tax revenue over $100,000 had been calculated. Architect Paul Duran states that structures will be 3000-5000 square foot high-end custom shingle style homes typical of much of New England, and the tax revenue is based on the size of the properties which will all be multi-million dollar homes. Nathan Zoll of 4 Orchard Street questions what protection will be given to some of the exquisite trees on the land, many of which are estimated to be over 100 years old. Dinkin explains that the Planning Board has asked developers to provide a map of trees to be left intact. The decision to remove a tree is a marketing and economic decision. The old trees usually stay because the property value is higher with old trees. Thomson advises Mr. Zoll that the Planning Board can place conditions on any waiver that is granted. It is important for the Board to hear the public’s concerns so that they will have an idea of which conditions they should place on the waiver. Councilor Kevin Hobin of 6 Gardner Street notes that this plan emerged after the City Council approved the OSRD. Handley states that the plan was submitted prior to the effective date of the OSRD. Tommy Thompson of 18 Bayview Avenue asks if Hanna Park is owned by the City. Dinkin responds positively. Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2006 Page 11 of 17 A resident of 37 Abbot Street speaks of the trees, shrubs and wildlife on the site and states it would be too bad if we lost that. Bill Mead of 8 Lanthorn Lane questions the lot size, stating that there is some confusion about whether there will be 7 or 5 house lots. He has heard both during this meeting. Is there a back up plan to go to 5 lots? He inquires as to the method by which the lot boundaries are drawn. Griffin explains that each lot’s location is based on physical terrain. The plan is for 7 lots with no back-up plan. The property currently has two pre-existing lots. The plan calls for an increase of 5 lots for a total of 7 lots. Melvin Rosen of 7 Lawnbank Road asks if the City will mandate a start and completion date, or will the construction go on for years. Dinkin explains that the subdivision regulations ask for projects to be completed two years from the approval date but that timeline is often extended. Peter Lappin of 46 Neptune Street expresses concern for the storm water drainage, some of which is being redirected, flowing to the ocean. If the property is over five acres and all the storm water is washed into the sand on the beach, what will be the ecological effect? He states that an increase in the volume of water on the sandy shore may be detrimental to the ecosystems in that area. Griffin addresses the issue and states that he anticipates no detrimental effect on the shoreline. Michael Harrington requests the projected timeline for the discussion of this issue. He wishes to know when the other side may present their statements. Dinkin acknowledges the lengthy period of questions but states that the most efficient way to organize this discussion is to get people to ask questions first. Handley notes that two attorneys have spoken tonight in a representative capacity, but have not identified any of the people that they represent. Dinkin says that one Attorney mentioned that he represents Friends of Hospital Point, and the other Attorney represents the Residents of Bayview Ave. Handley requests that these Attorneys submit their client lists as a point of record. Donald Lombardi of 3 Lawnbank Road states “We are all here tonight. We are all tax payers.” Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2006 Page 12 of 17 Rick Gandoni of 58 Neptune Street notes the long-time, uncorrected water pipe issue and inquires as to whether it is a common practice for the Planning Board to award waivers for subdivision developments in order to improve municipalities. Dinkin explains that in the past the Board has awarded waivers if a marked improvement to the City could be proven. The beneficiary of the waiver would create some public good. Lt. Russ Bowman representing the U.S. Coast Guard asks if during the hearing the Board would read all of the letters on this project. He notes that he would like to comment on the letter written on behalf of the U.S. Coast Guard. Dinkin states that all of the letters will be read and he may comment on the U.S. Coast Guard’s letter at that time. Joseph Savy of 25 Neptune Street expresses concern over the possibility for part of the cliff to fall into the ocean. He questions the location of the blasting in proximity to the edge of the cliff, and asks whether Beverly has ever had any previous blasting this close to a cliff. Griffin explains that there is a 25 foot no-disturbance zone next to the cliff. City Engineer Killilea states that the Fire Department has historical information about blasting. They will know if blasting has been this close before. Griffin recalls that the Tanzella Hill development had blasting close to the ocean. Bob Shirley of 52 Ober Street inquires as to the method by which the $100,000 additional tax revenue was estimated. Handley explains that the tax revenue is based on the lot size and location. Shirley asks if there have been any studies on the net cost. Handley explains that houses of this size typically do not use the public school system. He states that these will be multi-million dollar houses. Tim Flaherty, Councilor-at-Large, 1 Michael Road references the City-owned land rearby and the problems the City has had with the U.S. Coast Guard. Griffin states that access to Hannah Park will be improved. The Coast Guard does not permit access to Hannah Park. Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2006 Page 13 of 17 Dinkin states that the meeting agenda is full and it is apparent that this discussion will not conclude tonight. He wishes to continue this issue at a later meeting. He asks if anyone who came to this meeting to speak cannot come to the next meeting, and if they would like to speak now. Lt. Russ Bowman representing the Coast Guard wishes to address the issue of public access to Hannah Park. He states that the lighthouse at Hospital Point is the residence of the Admiral (the First Coast Guard Commander). The lighthouse property has a fence that runs the outer perimeter of the property. The Coast Guard objects to any easement over the Coast Guard property to the extent that it provides access to federal property. He states that it is the Coast Guard’s position that it is federal property, completely encircled by a larger parcel. th Thomson: Motion to continue the hearing to July 18 at 8:30 p.m. and to accept an extension of time from the applicant,seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor, no one in opposition. Board member Charles Harris recuses himself. The motion passes 7-0 John Sutyak of 12 Ober Street inquires on what grounds the Board would consider granting a waiver for the Bayview Court project. Dinkin explains that the Board will grant the waiver if the benefit to the public is deemed to offset the potential inconvenience. He emphasized that the Board looks for a benefit to the public and not a benefit to any individual or group of individuals. The Board will always consider the question, “Is the City better off with the waiver granted and the project built than without the project built.” Zambernardi asks if the Board would like traffic and drainage comments from the neighbor’s sent to the Board’s consultants for peer review. Flannery: motion to forward information relevant to the Bayview Court Development to the Board’s consultants for peer review, seconded by Walter. All members are in favor, none in opposition. Board member Charles Harris recuses himself. Motion passes 7-0 Dinkin reconvenes the regular Planning Board meeting. 4. Sargent Avenue Preliminary Subdivision Plan The Sargent Avenue project has been extended until June 20. (Note: the Board later scheduled this meeting to June 5, 2006) 5. Cleveland Road Extension Subdivision: Acceptance of performance bond, release of lot for building and sale purposes, execution of Form H Release Form Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2006 Page 14 of 17 Zambernardi states that in 2005 the Board approved an additional lot at the end of Cleveland Road. The owner posted a Form G covenant with the Board as surety, and would now like to sell the lot. To do so an alternative form of surety must be posted with the Board and the lot released from the language of the Form G restrictive covenant, which prohibits the sale of, or building on the lot unless an alternate form of surety is posted, or all required improvements completed. A bond amount of $8750.00 has been established by the Engineering Department as surety. Zambernardi has a letter of request and letter of recommendation. Attorney Phil Posner represents the applicant and has documents and a check, and the original Form H release form. Thomson inquires as to the destination of the check Zambernardi states that the check will go to the Finance Department. Thomson: Motion to accept the substitution of cash in place of the performance bond for the Cleveland Road Subdivision, and accept the Form H Release Form, seconded by Dunn. All members are in favor, none are in opposition. The motion passes 8-0. 6. City Council Order #31: Add Subsection 29-17.D.5. (building and area requirements for uses that do not abut residential zoning districts) Zambernardi states that this City Council order will create a new subsection relating to “CC” zoned properties not abutting residential properties. She states that there are CC zoning regulations for everything except that one. The current draft allows for building heights up to 75 feet and a setback requirement of 50 feet. Thomson recalls that the Planning Board’s recommendation was to not adopt this new order as written but it was recommended that the new 75 foot maximum height apply only to Rantoul Street excluding the waterfront district. Dinkin asks if the Board wishes to vote on this issue. Thomson states that if they don’t vote the Board will lose the opportunity to have any influence on this amendment although the Board did not segment the order and in fact disposed of it at their April meeting. No action is taken. 7. Recommendation to the City Council to set a Joint Pubic Hearing with the Planning Board: City Council Order # 109 Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2006 Page 15 of 17 Zambernardi states that Attorney Thomas Alexander has submitted a request to re-zone the parcel at 10-12 Congress Street (a.k.a. Ventron Property) from it current IG zone to a new WDR zone. This new zoning district is heavily based on the existing WD zoning District. It proposes a new district with the following changes from the WD district regulation: changes to allow increased building height; new requirements for water views; amended requirements for the required 20% area dedicated for the restaurant or water-dependent use; maximum length for multiple dwellings; and provisions for underground parking. This change is requested to accommodate an upcoming proposal for a condominium development on the site. Zambernardi states the Planning Board is being asked to recommend to the Council that a joint public hearing be set. Dinkin states that this application is an example of piecemeal zoning designed for the specific purpose of allowing the property owner to have anything he wants. This is not a variance application. Attorney Alexander is requesting an entirely new zone. Zambernardi questions whether the Board has the authority to deny the request to hold a hearing. Thomson notes that the applicant is opting to go this route to avoid the variance process and the ensuing appeal. If the City Council will grant a zoning change there is no need for the Planning Board to go through the same process. Miranda Gooding inquires if there is an alternative procedure that the Planning Board would follow instead of a zoning change. Dinkin states that he would like to see additional study performed before any approval is granted. Thomson notes that he is getting a sense that the City is so busy with its regular business that there is not a place where this rezoning consideration is taking place. Attorneys force an issue in this way. Peter Thomas asks if the City’s master plan addresses any of these issues. Dinkin explains that the Board has talked of this. The Ventron property is in the densest neighborhood. The Ventron property is large and very dirty. He would like to hold off on a public hearing. Zambernardi states that the City Council’s public hearing must be held within 65 days of an order’s filing date. Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2006 Page 16 of 17 Peter Thomas suggests opening the hearing in June then immediately continuing it for 90 days. Thomson: Motion to recommend that the City Council schedule a joint public hearing on City Council Order #109, seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor, none are in opposition. The motion passes 8-0. 8. 495 Cabot Street: Upcoming report and review of drive-through traffic Zambernardi states that in April of last year, the Board approved a site plan for a drive- through window for bank tellers and an ATM at the rear of the commercial building at 495 Cabot Street. The drive-through is an element of the Salem Five Bank on the site. As part of the conditions of approval of the site plan, the Board retained jurisdiction to review the traffic impact and queuing situation of the teller drive-through lane and drive- through ATM one year after the bank commenced operations. Zambernardi states that August will be one year from Commencement of bank operations and she asks the Board to schedule a time to bring the Bank in for a review. She also asks the Board what kind of information they want. Thomson states the Board’s reason for traffic concern has ceased with the closing of Memorial Middle School. He states that there is no need for a review at this time but that the Board should retain the jurisdiction to review this if traffic becomes an issue in the future. Thomson: Motion to recognize that the conditions driving the Board’s desire to further review the traffic and cueing at the drive-through no longer exist due to the closing of the Memorial Middle School and to opt not to conduct a review at this time but to retain jurisdiction to review the traffic impact and cueing situation of the drive-through and ATM in the future in the event that the school reopens and traffic becomes problematic, seconded by Thomas. All members are in favor, none are in opposition. The motion passes 8-0. 9. Approval of minutes: February 22, March 6, and March 28, 2006 Meetings Flannery: Motion to accept the minutes, seconded by Harris. All members are in favor, no one in opposition. The motion passes 9-0. 10. Set public hearing.- Modification to Site Plan Review: Dunkin Donuts on Elliot Street. Flannery: Motion to set public hearing for Tuesday June 20th at 7:45 PM, seconded by Mack. All members are in favor, none are in opposition. The motion passes 9-0. Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2006 Page 17 of 17 Thomas: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor, no one in opposition. The motion passes 9-0. The meeting is adjourned at 11:30 p.m.