Loading...
2006-10-17 CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: Planning Board SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: October 17, 2006 LOCATION: City Council Chambers, Beverly City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice-Chair John Thomson, Ellen Flannery, Don Walter, Charles Harris, David Mack, Peter Thomas, Joanne Dunn MEMBERS ABSENT: Eve Geller-Duffy OTHERS PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Leah Zambernardi, City Engineer Frank Killilea RECORDER: Andrea Bray Acting Chairperson Thomson calls the meeting to order. Flannery: Motion to recess for public hearing, seconded by Harris. All members are in favor, none in opposition. The motion passes 8-0. 1. Concurrent Public Hearings: Proposed Open Space Residential Design Ordinance (OSRD) Rules and Regulations and Amendment to Rules Governing Fees and Fee Structures Zambernardi reads the public hearing notice. Zambernardi states that the OSRD fee has been added to the City’s document containing fees and fee schedules. She adds that the OSRD fee has been set at $400, which is anticipated to cover staff costs. Thomson asks the Board if there are any questions. There are none. Thomson asks the public if there are any questions. Rene Mary of 274 Hale Street states that she has never seen a document of fees and fee structures. Zambernardi cites the document that lists all of the administrative fees for the City, which adheres to MGL Ch 44 Sec 53G. Mary states that this is a good idea to have this document. She asks if the public could see the document. Planning Board Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 2 of 6 Zambernardi states that she would be happy to provide Ms. Mary with a copy of the document. She adds that the document has not been posted to the City’s website. Zambernardi explains the OSRD Rules and Regulations document and each of its components. She adds that the Planning Director has some comments, and then went on to describe the Planning Director’s comments. Thomson asks the Board and the public if there are any questions or comments. Mack asks if these Rules and Regulations would need further amendments based on Ken Buckland’s recommendations. Zambernardi states that further amendments may be required at the time that Ken Buckland’s recommendations are adopted into the OSRD Ordinance. Dinkin states that the term “strongly encouraged” is futile in any regulatory language. Rene Mary of 274 Hale Street asks if the group will discuss the individual points of the ordinance. Thomson states that the Board will not go through this item by item. Mary asks what the difference is between “rules” and “regulations”. Zambernardi states that these are basically the same thing. Dinkin states the term “Rules and Regulations” is an anachronism. “Regulations” generally refer to legal matters and procedures, and that the title “Rules and Regulations” gives the document a nice historical “kitch”. Mary Roderick of 14 Peabody Avenue notes that a land surveyor and a wetland biologist should be mentioned in this document. She states that not all of the Planning Director’s comments were mentioned. Zambernardi states that this issue was discussed with the Planning Director and she and Ms. Cassidy decided to leave certain comments out. Mary states that the wetland scientist should be added in addition to the landscape architect. Thomson closes the public hearing and opens the regular session. Dinkin: Motion to approve the fee schedule; seconded by Mack. All members are in favor, none in opposition. The motion passes 8-0. Planning Board Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 3 of 6 Dinkin: Motion to incorporate the Planning Director’s amendments that were presented tonight into the draft OSRD Rules and Regulations, seconded by Harris. All members are in favor, none in opposition. The motion passes 8-0. Dinkin: Motion to approve the OSRD Ordinance with amendments; seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor, none in opposition. The motion passes 8-0. Dinkin asks to take the Chair back. Thomson turns the Chair over to Dinkin and sits down to the Vice-Chair position. Dinkin states that he wishes to address the board about the events that occurred last night. He apologizes to the Board members for his anger last night, stating that he behaved like a 3 year old. He explains that he was disturbed that the person who has regular dialogue with the residents in the location of the new zone (the City Councilor for Ward 2) was not allowed to speak. He adds that he senses an undercurrent of incivility within the group. Dinkin then offers to resign, stating that he leaves his service to the pleasure of the board. Harris states that he thinks Dinkin should step down. He states that Dinkin's behavior was reprehensible. He states that a tantrum for a man of Dinkin's age and position on this Board is conduct unbecoming. He states that he does not accept Dinkin's apology. He states that he thinks that Dinkin has a bias. He states he thinks that Dinkin has an agenda. Thomson states that he shares Harris’s view of Dinkins conduct but that he accepts Dinkin’s apology. He adds that he thinks Dinkin brings a huge amount of perspective to the Board. Thomson explains that he believes that certain members didn’t allow the City Councilor to speak was because they had a different perspective of the Councilor and noticed her surprise when asked to speak. Thomson states that he wants Dinkin to stay in the Chair. Dunn thanks Dinkin for the apology, agreeing with Thomson and wants Dinkin to stay on as the Chair. Thomas states that he is not bothered by the outburst, but finds that Dinkins comments to the public and other Board members can be condescending. He adds that he is not comfortable with the way things are here on the Board. Mack states that as the newest member of the Board he was surprised by Dinkin’s behavior, but, being the father of a 3 year old, can accept Dinkin’s apology. He adds that he doesn’t understand Dinkin’s comment of the undercurrents because he has been here only a few months and hasn’t noticed any problems. He states that he is prepared to move on while acknowledging that we all lose our patience. He adds that he has not witnessed any condescending remarks from Dinkin. He states that he would like the events of last night to serve as a lesson to the Board. Planning Board Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 4 of 6 Walter states that he sides with Harris and feels that some people have not been treated as fairly as they should be. He adds that Dinkin was the one to resign last night and that it should be his decision to resign tonight. Flannery thanks Dinkin for his guidance and his apology and agrees with Thomson in wishing for Dinkin to stay on as Chair. She adds that she wants to move on and continue the meeting tonight and be done with it. Dinkin moves on with the meeting. 2. Subdivision Approval Not Required (SANR’s): 1 Gary Court Zambernardi distributes the plan and states that the parcel is being transferred from Macdonald to Ryder. The Board examines the plan. Thomson: Motion to accept the plan, seconded by Harris. All members are in favor, none in opposition. The motion passes 8-0 3. Hawk Hill Subdivision: Performance Bond Release and Approval of As-Built and Street Acceptance Plans Dinkin asks for comments from Killilea. Killilea recommends that the Acceptance Plans be approved. Thomas asks about the cart path with a chain post and a concrete barrier in front of it. Killilea states that he will look into it. Zambernardi states that she would like the cart path to be a separate issue from these items tonight. Thomson: Motion to release the bond, seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor, none in opposition. The motion passes 8-0. Thomas: Motion to approve the as-built and acceptance plans, seconded by Mack. All members are in favor, none in opposition. The motion passes 8-0. 4. Approval of Minutes: Regular Meeting, September 20, 2006 Dinkin asks the Board for any comments or amendments to the minutes. There are none. Planning Board Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 5 of 6 Harris: Motion to approve the minutes, seconded by Walter. All members are in favor, none in opposition. The motion passes 8-0. 5. Walkable Communities Zambernardi explains that the City is hosting a Walkable Community Workshop to be held on October 24, 2006. 6. City Council Order #170: Proposed Zoning Amendment – Section 29-26.C 11/6/06 Zambernardi states that a hearing is scheduled for November 6 at 7:10 p.m regarding a proposed zoning amendment on demolition and destruction of nonconforming structures. She adds that she will be providing the Board members information packets on the order. 7. Federal Heights: Public Hearing to Revoke Special Permit (11/21/06) Zambernardi reminds the Board that a motion was made at the last meeting to consider revocation of the special permit for the project for the November regular meeting. She states that this motion was made with the provision that, in the event an agreement is made between the developer and the abutter, Linda Giallongo, to extend the expiration date of September 30, 2006 for the work specified in Condition #2 of Special Permit #112-05 and that such agreement sets out a schedule indicating such work will be completed before December 31, 2006, the Board will cancel this public hearing. Zambernardi adds that the Board also required that the developer submit a request to modify his site plan to reflect the architectural changes that have been made during building construction. She states that to date, the developer has submitted an agreement to Mrs. Giallongo who finds that it is inadequate and will review the agreement with her attorney. Zambernardi states that City staff hand delivered a site plan review application to the developer although no application has been filed yet. She recommends that the Board publish the public hearing notice. Dinkin asks Killilea to comment on the status of the wall. Killilea states that the City's structural consultant met with the project’s design engineer on the site and determined that the top and bottom portions of the wall must first be taken down, and then the new design for the wall must be finalized. He adds that this is a major issue. Dinkin asks for clarification. Killilea states that the developer should have built the wall before building the structure. It will be difficult to get equipment to the wall now. Planning Board Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 6 of 6 Flannery questions why the developer seems surprised that this wall is deficient, stating that it appeared deficient long before the project was started. The Board agrees to publish the public hearing notice for the November meeting. 8. Hale Court Subdivision: Change of Street Name Zambernardi states that the developer has asked that the name of the new street be changed from Hale Court to Penny Lane, as the Hale Court name is confusing. The group discusses the procedure for changing street names. Flannery: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Dunn. All members are in favor, none in opposition. The motion passes 8-0. The meeting is adjourned at 8:40 p.m.