Loading...
2006-11-21 CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: Planning Board SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: November 21, 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 MEMBERS ABSENT: Eve Geller-Duffy, Joanne Dunn, Peter Thomas OTHERS PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Leah Zambernardi, City Engineer Frank Killilea RECORDER: Andrea Bray Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order. Thomson: Motion to recess for public hearing, seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor, none in opposition. The motion passes 6-0. 1. Revocation of Special Permit Application #112-05 (approved 9/21/05): Federal Heights – 253 Rantoul Street and 48 Federal Street: Sonny Antinarelli Zambernardi reads the public notice. Dinkin asks if the applicant, Mr. Antinarelli is present. He is not. James Decoulos who represents Linda Giallongo states that he spoke to him today and expected him at 7:15 p.m. tonight. Dinkin asks if anyone would like to speak in favor of the revocation. Sheila Costello of 41 Federal Street speaks in favor of the revocation of the special permit. She states that she originally spoke against this project, and expresses her disapproval of the recent development in the area which she feels is overbuilt and has caused a strained parking situation. She adds that there are vacant units all around the area. Costello states that the applicant’s property does not resemble the property that was originally represented during the original approval process, because it is lacking the planned garden, a front door and some windows, among other things. She adds that she now must look across the street to what appears to be the back of the building because the door and some windows were not placed there as planned. She states that she believes that the builder is just building anything that he wants and plans to get the City’s approval after the fact. She notes that the only two abutters that got something out of this project Planning Board Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 2 of 10 approved the deal, and all of the other neighbors didn’t want to see this building go up. The abutting neighbors got a new retaining wall. She claims that the building is not being built well, and she would like to see the building knocked down. She asks the Board to revoke the special permit. The applicant, Sonny Antinarelli, enters the meeting at 7:40 p.m. Dinkin asks if anyone else wishes to speak in favor of revocation. Cheryl Dion of 251 Rantoul Street states that there is an issue with the cable. The builder ripped out all of the cable lines and, as a neighbor, she cannot get cable now. She requests that if the Board allows this project to be finished that they require the applicant to fix the cable and phone lines. Attorney James Decoulos of 226 Rowley Bridge Road in Topsfield represents and abutter, Linda Giallongo at 31 Home Street. He suggests that the builder post a surety bond subject to completing the project in accordance with the approved plan. He adds that Giallongo has not yet reached an agreement with the applicant because she is still waiting to see the finished design for the wall. John Burke of 13 West Dane Street speaks in favor of the revocation. He states that the Board is the last line of defense when it comes to enforcing the rules and regulations for developers. Antinarelli states that he understood at the last meeting that the Board wanted an agreement with the abutter. He states that his efforts to reach an agreement were unsuccessful so he took no further steps to get the wall finished. Decoulos states that there is no agreement because Mr. Antinarelli has failed to get the plan for the retaining wall. Antinarelli states that the plan was not approved by the City and he understood that the Board only wanted an agreement with the abutter. Daniel Gendron of 46 Federal Street states that he wants to get his driveway back. Antinarelli asks the Board if his assumption of only needing the agreement was accurate. Dinkin states that the Board did require an agreement, and there is no agreement. He adds that if one party wants to see a plan before signing an agreement, the other party must get the plan. Dinkin adds that there was never any agreement on what would constitute an agreement. Thomson asks Mr. Antinarelli if there has ever been a plan. Planning Board Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 3 of 10 Antinarelli states that a plan was submitted. Zambernardi advises the members that Killilea has a copy of the submitted plan. Thomson asks Killilea if the city ever approved the plan. Killilea states that the city did not approve it. Thomson asks Antinarelli why the plan wasn’t ready by the earlier deadline of September th 30. Antinarelli states that he did not meet with the City Engineer until October. Thomson asks Antinarelli why he didn’t advise the Board during the September meeting th that he could not have a plan by September 30. Dinkin asks the group to hold the discussion for two minutes and then opens the public hearing for Foster Lane. 2. Foster Lane Definitive & Cluster Subdivision Plans: 30 Foster Street – Hub Realty Trust, Robert Hubbard, Trustee Thomson: Motion to waive the reading of the public hearing notice, seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor, none in opposition. The Chair is in favor. The motion passes 6-0. Zambernardi states that there are not enough eligible voting members because of Eve Geller-Duffy’s absence. She says that she wishes to reschedule the meeting. th Dinkin suggests meeting on January 16 at the Senior Center. th Thomson: Motion to continue this public hearing until 7:30 p.m. on January 16, seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor, none in opposition. The motion passes 6-0. Dinkin reconvenes the public hearing on the Special Permit Revocation for Federal Heights Thomson asks Zambernardi what written notice was sent to Mr. Antinarelli. Zambernardi reads the notice which was sent to him. Antinarelli states the he could not get a signed agreement from the abutter. Planning Board Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 4 of 10 Thomson asks where the rest of the project stands, and what has been done in terms of finishing the work. Antinarelli states that he has not been enthused about finishing the project if it will be stopped or torn down. Thomson asks if the answer to his question is that Antinarelli has not done anything. Antinarelli states that he has not gone forward as quickly as he would have if he didn’t think that his special permit was in jeopardy. Mack asks Antinarelli why he has not moved forward with a plan for the retaining wall. Antinarelli says that he thought he was to get together with the city engineer and he does not have an engineer on staff that can draw a plan. Dinkin asks Killilea when he notified Mr. Antinarelli that the plan would not be approved. th Killilea states that Antinarelli was notified on July 6 that his plan was unacceptable. Killilea adds that it was then determined that he needed to meet with the developer and his engineers. He says that it was then determined that the existing wall had to go and a new wall must be built in its place. Thomson asks Killilea whether he believes that Mr. Antinarelli’s engineer understands what needs to be done. Killilea states that Mr. Antinarelli’s engineer never returned any of his calls. Attorney Decoulos, representing the abutter Linda Giallongo states that several detailed points were discussed between the engineers but no further action was taken by Mr. Antinarelli. Decoulos listed the outstanding items from their conversation. Sheila Costello states that she is concerned about the plans changing, with the lack of a front door and some windows and the garden. Dinkin advises Costello that it is the job of the building inspector to take action on those nonconformance issues. Giallongo states that she advised Zambernardi of the displacement of the front door, and that she had been critically watching the development too. She states that Zambernardi then issued a letter to the Building Inspector. She adds that Antinarelli has not done Planning Board Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 5 of 10 what he was supposed to do and she does not want talk to him if he is going to tell her the same thing. Dinkin says to Giallongo, “I understand that you bought an agreement which has not been carried out.” Harris suggests that the Board close the discussion and move to a motion on this issue. Dinkin asks if anyone has any other comments. There are none. Dinkin closes the public hearing, and reconvenes the regular meeting. 3. Revocation of Special Permit #112-05: Federal Heights – 253 Rantoul Street & 48 Federal Street: Sonny Antinarelli Zambernardi states that she doesn’t know if it is in anyone’s best interest to revoke a permit, and suggests that the Board take a non-binding, preliminary vote as to whether it is inclined to revoke the permit. If it is so inclined to revoke the permit, she suggests the Board first ask the City Solicitor what the consequences would be in the event of a revocation before taking its vote. Dinkin states that the Board now has a quorum and next meeting will not. Harris expresses his discontent with the many issues of noncompliance in this development and the applicant’s lack of response on meeting deadlines. Harris: Motion to revoke the special permit for Federal Heights, seconded by Walter. Dinkin asks for discussion on the motion. Thomson states that he shares the frustration of the Board on this issue and is trying to think of a compromise that would benefit the City. He adds that he is not sure that stopping the construction will help, and that he would prefer to focus on the wall. He states that noncompliance with an approved plan is an enforcement issue, which is not the Board’s job. He says that the Building Inspector should take action. Thomson says that the specific condition for the extension of the special permit, which is the execution of an agreement, has not been complied with. He suggests revoking the permit unless a plan is presented and approved by the City Engineer in a specified time frame. Failing that, then the special permit would be revoked. Planning Board Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 6 of 10 Walter states that all of these conditions mentioned by Thomson were already specified in September, and the applicant let the deadline pass. He agrees with Harris that the board needs to revoke the special permit. Mack agrees with both Walter and Thomson. He cites the previous meeting in September when the Board put it in the hands of two parties to reach an agreement. He acknowledges the current lack of trust between the applicant and the abutter. He adds that if Mr. Antinarelli wants to save the money that he has put into the building he will take steps to see that the building complies with the plan. Harris states that the current construction of the building is not in conformance with the initial plan, and that by asking for more time the Board is going in the wrong direction. He states that he would like to vote on his motion without amendments. Flannery asks what would happen if the permit is revoked. Dinkin guesses that the property would become an unpermitted building and the Building Inspector, Bob Nelson, could issue an administrative fine of $1000 per day, and later the City could take the building at auction. Dinkin states that he has a tremendous amount of frustration with this project, not only because of the impact on all of the abutters that are not getting what they were told they would get, but also because he is concerned for the residential revival on the lower half of Rantoul Street. He notes that this building is not helping. He says that the City may have a protracted eyesore for years. He expresses his disgust for the situation stating that the people involved with this project seem to know nothing about how to use a telephone. Walter states that letting something like this slide sends the wrong message. “How can we allow a building to be built in a way that is unlike the approved plan?” Zambernardi reads a letter from the building inspector. Thomson states that he is scared for the City as it would have to deal with this conundrum, but agrees that the Board should stick with the procedure. He asks if Harris would accept the motion for an amendment and again explains the language of the th amendment using December 15 as the deadline for performance. Thomson advises Harris that he will not make the motion for the amendment if Harris does not want to consider it. Harris states that he will accept the amendment. Dinkin suggests that the amendment direct Zambernardi to refer Nelson to begin instating administrative fines immediately based on noncompliance with the plans submitted. Zambernardi asks Killilea if this is an unrealistic time frame. Planning Board Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 7 of 10 Killilea states that he is waiting for the survey to be done before the wall can be designed. Mack agrees with the notion of this amendment if certain deadlines can be met, but expresses concern about the timeframe if the plans have to be signed off by the City and the abutter. Dinkin states that the Board has the agreement between Mr. Shippa, the original property owner, and Ms. Giallongo, the abutter. Zambernardi reads the agreement between the original applicant and the abutter. Thomson: Motion to revoke the special permit, with the revocation being stopped and considered null and void effective December 15, 2006 if a plan for the retaining wall is submitted to the City Engineer and the plan is approved by the City and the abutter by December 15, 2006. The Board also directs the Assistant Planning Director to communicate with the Inspectional Services Department that the Board wants them to look into enforcement actions on the noncompliance issues. The motion is seconded by Flannery. Dinkin states that the amendment will need 5 votes to pass and the motion will need 6. th Mr. Antinarelli states that December 15 will not be enough time for him to complete those tasks. More discussion ensues between Thomson and Antinarelli regarding the status of the plan for the retaining wall. Dinkin asks for any other discussion from the Board, and then takes the vote. The motion for the amendment passes 6-0, with all members and the Chair in favor. The amended motion passes 6-0, with all members and the Chair in favor. Dinkin explains to the neighbors that the Board has voted to revoke the special permit for th Federal Heights on December 15 unless the specified tasks are completed. 4. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR): 23 School Street – Angelina & Elizabeth Amerigo, Trustees Zambernardi states that both lots have frontage on Ellingwood Court, a private road that is maintained by the City. Planning Board Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 8 of 10 Attorney Mark Glovsky who represents the applicant agrees that it is a private way and is maintained by the City. He reviews the history of Ellingwood Court, saying that it shows up on a 1906 plan, and on an ANR plan for another property in 1971, and has been in existence long before zoning. He states that the newly defined definition of “frontage” clearly makes this an ANR. He reads the amended definition of “frontage” and states that the lot has adequate frontage based on the new ordinance. Thomson asks where the pavement ends on Ellingwood Court. Glovsky shows Thomson the aerial photo and explains where the pavement ends. Thomson: motion to endorse the plan, seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor, none in opposition. The Chair votes in favor. The motion passes 6-0. 5. Penny Lane Subdivision, Performance Bond Reduction and Extension of Construction Completion Date: Thomas Ford Zambernardi explains that the Board received a letter asking for a bond reduction to $25,000, and extension of the construction completion deadline, and then reads the letter. She adds that the Engineering Director approves the bond reduction. Thomson: Motion to approve the bond reduction to $25,000 and to extend the construction completion expiration to December 21, 2007, seconded by Walter. All members are in favor, none in opposition. The Chair votes in Favor. The motion passes 6-0. 6. Approval Not Required (ANR): 195 Common Lane – Birch Knoll Realty Tr. – Joan Ritter, Trustee Zambernardi explains that the applicant wishes to convey lot 11a to lot 10. Both lots have frontage on Common Lane. The plan does not show the building on lot 10. Dinkin states the application procedure requires a plan which shows the affected houses on the lots. Zambernardi reads a letter written by Sherwin Ritter explaining why he doesn’t want to show the building on the plan (to save the cost of a survey). Dinkin states that in the past the Board has declined ANR applications because they did not meet technical requirements. Walter: Motion to deny the application, seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor, none in opposition. The chair votes in favor. The motion passes 6-0. Planning Board Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 9 of 10 7. Subdivision Approval Not Required (SANR): 12 Cabot Street: City of Beverly and Commonwealth of Massachusetts Zambernardi explains that the City is purchasing a piece of this property from the Commonwealth to be used for a parking lot, and that the parcel is exempt from zoning requirements because it is government-owned land being used for public purposes. Thomson: Motion to endorse the plan, seconded by Mack. All members are in favor, none in opposition. The Chair votes in favor. The motion passes 6-0. 8. Subdivision Approval Not Required (SANR): 514 Hale Street and 13 Thissell Street: Cohen & Richardson Zambernardi states that the applicants have decided not to move forward with this ANR and never submitted a formal application. 9. Approval of Minutes th Harris wishes to amend the minutes on the November 17 meeting. He reads the amendment to the minutes as follows: The fifth paragraph of page 3 should read as follows: “Harris states, ‘I think you should step down. Your behavior was reprehensible. A tantrum for a man of your age and position on this Board is conduct unbecoming. I do not accept your apology. I think you have a bias. I think you have an agenda.” Dinkin asks for a motion. Thomson: Motion to accept the minutes as amended, seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor. The motion passes 6-0. 10. Special Permit Application #113-06 and Site Plan Review Application #87-06: Beverly Affordable Housing Coalition: 319 and 325 Cabot Street (formerly Mayflower Motel) Zambernardi explains that she is a member of the Board of Directors for the Coalition, so Tina Cassidy will work on this issue to avoid any potential conflict. She states that the organization is requesting a meeting in December. Thomson asks the members if they think he should recuse himself because he has provided legal representation to this organization in the past. Dinkin states that if Thomson provides a written disclosure to the Mayor he could still chair the December meeting, and vote on the issue. th The Board agrees to meet on December 19 at 7:30 p.m. Planning Board Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 10 of 10 11. Site Plan Review and Compliance Issues Zambernardi explains that some noncompliance issues have occurred recently with projects such as Federal Heights and Bushby Estates. She cites one problem exists with occupancy permits being issued prior to the entire site being finished. Zambernardi advises the Board that other towns are requiring a bond for any work not completed when an occupancy permit is issued prior to completion. She adds that this change requires an amendment to the Site Plan Ordinance and will probably be presented to the Board in about three months. Dinkin suggests initiating a formal procedure for communication with the Building Inspector, Bob Nelson. Much discussion ensues regarding the building plan distribution, and Thomson suggests that the Planning Department get copies of all plans when signing off on a building permit. 12. Holiday Party Zambernardi advises the Board that the holiday party will be held on December 14, with cocktails at 6:30 p.m. and dinner at 7:00 p.m at Harry’s 240. Flannery: Motion to Adjourn, seconded by Harris. All members are in favor. The motion passes 6-0. The meeting is adjourned at 9:30 p.m.