Loading...
2007-03-20 CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: LOCATION: MEMBERS PRESENT: Planning Board, Regular Meeting OTHERS PRESENT: March 20, 2007 City Council Chambers, City Hall, 3rd floor Chairperson Richard Dinkin, John Thomson, Joanne Dunn, Ellen Flannery, David Mack, Stephanie Williams Eve Geller-Duffy, Charles Harris, Don Walter Planning Director Tina Cassidy, Assistant Planning Director Leah Zambernardi, Director of Engineering Frank Killilea Andrea Bray MEMBERS ABSENT: RECORDER: Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order. Thomson: Motion to recess for public hearing, seconded by Mack. All members vote in favor. The Chair votes in favor. The motion passes 6-0. 1. Concurrent Public Hearim!:s: Special Permit Application #114-07 and Site Plan Review Application #88-07: Seventv-two residential units in two buildim!:s (formerlv Ventron) - 10-12 Con2ress Street Beverlv Office Development LLC Zambernardi reads the public hearing notice. Attorney Tom Alexander represents the applicants for the former Venton site and asks that this issue be continued until the next regular Planning Board meeting because some issues must be addressed first such as the traffic issue. He adds that this application warrants a super majority vote for approval and there are currently only 6 members here tonight, so he would rather make his presentation when a greater number of Board members are present. Dinkin advises Alexander that he is disinclined to grant a continuance. Thomson states that the circumstances described by Alexander such as the need for further study indicate that this application will probably need to continue, and the public deserves the opportunity to be heard by a full board, and unfortunately tonight there are some vacancies on this Board. He states that he doesn't like the idea of having any applicant expect a unanimous vote for any reason, and it is unfortunate that this situation has developed. Planning Board Minutes March 20, 2007 Page 2 of 13 Dinkin says that he disagrees in this case because he believes that this particular applicant has manipulated events to make an issue seem more critical than ever, and that this is a proposal that is well known throughout the City. He states that he believes that this applicant is attempting to manipulate the outcome of the hearing. Thomson states he is still in favor of granting the continuance and result of which will be a minor inconvenience for any members of the Board or the public. Mack asks if the members of the public that wish to speak tonight and will not be here at the next meeting to speak can have a chance to speak now. Dinkin states that he would prefer that. Thomson asks about the schedule for the next regular meeting. Zambernardi states that the next regular meeting is on April 17 and there is already a public hearing at that meeting, and that week is a school vacation. The next is May 15, 2007. Thomson asks the public if there is anyone that will not be able to be here on May 15, 2007. He then states that he will defer his motion but he doesn't feel that it is necessary for Alexander to make his presentation tonight. Dinkin states that it should be Alexander's choice as to whether to speak now or later. Alexander states that it would be his preference to make a full presentation during the meeting in May, and he asks if the non-attending members of the Board would be qualified to vote at a future meeting. Zambernardi states that a law was passed last summer, which would allow the non- attending members to vote if they certify that they have reviewed the record of the hearing missed. Alexander says that he has not seen that law and so he prefers to wait until May to make his presentation. Dinkin asks the public if anyone wishes to speak now. Rick Marciano of 141 McKay Street requests that the applicant go directly to the Planning Board or the ZBA if any unforeseen problems arise with the development of this project. He cites a previous example in which an applicant went to other City officials with problems instead of going directly to the Planning Board or the ZBA first. Planning Board Minutes March 20, 2007 Page 3 of 13 Duane Anderson of Front Street states that he is inclined to wait until everyone is here before making his statement. Thomson states that members of the public can always write a letter to get a concern before the Board, and they don't have to wait until the next meeting to do that. Thomson: Motion to continue the public hearing on May 15, 2007 at 7:30 p.m., seconded by Flannery. Five members vote in favor. The Chair votes in opposition. The motion passes 5-1. Dinkin recesses the public hearing and reconvenes the regular meeting. Then he opens discussion on last night's public hearing. 2. Discussion/Decision: Citv Council Order #35: Proposed Zonin2 Amendment: Allow 75' buildin2s on Rantoul Street bv Special Permit where 55' is allowed Planning Director Tina Cassidy clarifies some of the points on the zoning map. Williams asks Cassidy about the possibility of excluding the Post Office and Veterans' Memorial Park from this area. Cassidy states that she can see no legal impediment to eliminating these lots from the ordinance. Dinkin disagrees with this stating that such an elimination of two lots might bring this ordinance dangerously close to spot zoning. He adds that by using the special permit process it would be unlikely that this Board or any future board would vote to create a seven story building on these lots. Thomson asks if these lots are currently in the CC district which could go up to 55' anyway. Cassidy states that he is correct; these lots are in the CC district. Thomson questions the correlation between the height in feet and the number of stories, citing examples of people referring to an eight-story building last night. Cassidy states that she doesn't know exactly how many stories would be possible with a 75' building. Dinkin states that it is unlikely that eight stories would be put in a 75' building because there must be some space between the ceiling of one story and the floor of the next story. Planning Board Minutes March 20, 2007 Page 4 of 13 Cassidy adds that the 75' measurement must incorporate the very top ridge of the building, including any roof pitch. Williams agrees with Dinkin on the issue of the Post Office and the Veterans' Memorial Park stating that it is highly unlikely and that the special permit process would assist in preventing development on those lots. She adds that the Post Office is listed as a landmark building which may carry with it some development restrictions. Thomson asks if the term "landmark" as mentioned in the Design Guidelines for Taller Buildings is an official designation. Cassidy states that it is not an official designation but was listed in the design guidelines as a "landmark building". Dunn asks how tall the Gateway building is. Cassidy states that the old building has 5 stories (6 with the turrets), and the new building 7 stories (8 with the turrets). Dunn asks how tall the Depot Square is. Cassidy says that she believes it is 68'. She offers to exclude the two lots in question if it doesn't cause any legal impediment. Dinkin says that he has a question for City Solicitor Roy Geleneau; Would removal of two parcels from this overlay make the ordinance more or less restrictive? Thomson says that this is a good question and we should get the answer to this before making a decision. Cassidy says that she doesn't know the answer. Dinkin asks if an answer could be obtained by the March 29, 2007, because he doesn't want to delay the Board's decision too long. Cassidy states that she will look into it. Thomson notes that it does seem possible to exclude these lots and still have a contiguous district because there are parcels behinds these lots. Thomson: Motion to continue this discussion until March 29, 2007, seconded by Flannery. All members vote in favor. The Chair votes in favor. The motion passes 6-0. Planning Board Minutes March 20, 2007 Page 5 of 13 3. Con2ress Street Preliminary Plan #2: 10-12 Con2ress Street (former Ventron Site) - Beverlv Office Development LLC Attorney Alexander, who represents the applicant, asks to lay this matter on the table for consideration by the Board until April 17, 2007. Flannery: Motion to lay this matter on the table for consideration by the Board until April 17, 2007, seconded by Mack. All members vote in favor. The Chair votes in opposition. The motion passes 5-1. 4. Subdivision Approval Not reQuired (SANR): 10-12 Con2ress Street: Beverlv Office Development LLC Alexander states that the applicant is seeking to shift a lot line between these two lots which have adequate frontage and area under the existing zoning. Thomson asks if the frontage is fully accessible with no wetland. Alexander states that it is fully accessible and has no wetland. Thomson: Motion to endorse this ANR, seconded by Dunn. Five members vote in favor. The Chair votes in opposition. The motion passes 5-1. Thomson states that it is his view that the content of the discussion on Special Permit Application #114-07 and Site Plan #88-07 (Ventron) during tonight's public hearing consisted mainly of questions related to procedure rather than any specific dialogue about the petition, and therefore the Board members who were not in attendance missed no concrete issues related to this application. 5. Election of Officers for 2007: Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson Flannery nominates Richard Dinkin as the Chairperson, seconded by Mack. All members vote in favor. Dinkin abstains. The motion passes 5-1-0. Dinkin nominates John Thomson for Vice Chair and publicly thanks John for the amount of work that he brings to this Board and for taking over as Chair in his absence, seconded by Flannery. All members vote in favor. Thomson abstains. The motion passes 5-1-0. 6. Si2n Ordinance: Recommend a Joint Public Hearin2 Zambernardi states that the Board needs to make a recommendation to the City Council for a joint public hearing. Planning Board Minutes March 20, 2007 Page 6 of 13 Thomson: Motion to recommend to the City Council that a joint public hearing be held for the sign ordinance, seconded by Mack. All members vote in favor. The Chair votes in favor. The motion passes 6-0. 7. Inclusionarv Zonin2 Ordinance: Recommend a Joint Public Hearin2 Zambernardi states that a draft of the new inclusionary zoning ordinance will be ready in April and the Board will need to recommend a joint public hearing to the City Council. She asks them to do so now. Mack: Motion to recommend to the City Council that a joint public hearing be scheduled for the inclusionary zoning ordinance, seconded by Flannery. All members vote in favor. The Chair votes in favor. The motion passes 6-0. Dinkin recesses the meeting until 8: 3 0 p. m. Dinkin calls the meeting back to order. Thomson: Motion to recess for a public hearing, seconded by Flannery. All members vote in favor. The Chair votes in favor. The motion passes 6-0. 8. Public Hearin2: North Shore Commons Definitive Subdivision Plan - 3 lots and new roadwav in IR Zone - 140 Brimbal Avenue. Brimbal Avenue Development. LLC/CEA Group Inc Zambernardi reads the public hearing notice. Alexander represents the applicant and describes the plans for the roadway and states that the design is in full compliance. He states that the applicant is requesting a waiver for the requirement to show the location of trees 6" in caliper measured 4' above the ground and from the regulation requiring borings and percolation tests. Alexander explains that a claim has been made on a strip of this property near Brimbal Avenue, and the matter was researched and found not to be a valid claim. He invites Bob Griffin of Griffin engineering to expand on the plans. Griffin describes the major elements of the plans stating that since the last Board review the entry has been moved 15' so as to be further away from the highway ramp intersection. He adds that this change has altered the lot lines dramatically, and now an easement is in place to provide a drive-through to access Lot 1. Griffin explains other features of the parcel stating that a drain line runs through the lot, sidewalks with granite curbs will be on both sides of the new roadway, and a hydrant will be installed at the intersection to Brimbal Ave. Additionally, he states that an ADA compliant cross walk will be placed at Brimball Avenue, and four street trees will be installed. Griffin describes the grade of parcel at 2% which allows water to run off into the catch basins. Planning Board Minutes March 20, 2007 Page 7 of 13 Griffin states that Rizzo Associates have provided a traffic report based on a light industrial use with a total of 43,000 square feet of space even though there are no specific proposals for the use of this property right now. He explains that the study estimates 314 car trips per day on Brimbal Avenue would be added due to the new development, which is a very small fraction of the current usage of Brimbal Avenue. Griffin states that the operation of the intersection was studied and included in the report, and the traffic will improve on Brimbal Avenue once the new 128 interchange is completed. Dinkin states that Griffin has provided a great deal of detail for a traffic study which is based on a hypothetical use. Thomson asks about businesses on the other side ofBrimbal. Griffin says that is a Sunoco gas station and a commercial property and the Vitorio Rossi building. Dinkin asks where the Northridge Homes development is located. Griffin points to the location on the map and says that one unit comes close to the lot line. Dunn asks if this is in the IR zone, and how many buildings can go on this lot. Alexander states that the parcel is in the IR zone that there is no restriction on the number of buildings, only on the use. Dinkin states that screenIng would be required between the commercial and the residential property. Zambernardi states that IR zoning ordinance addresses the screening requirement and she reads from this section of the Zoning Ordinance. Thomson asks for details on the waiver requests. Griffin states that it is impractical to identify all of the trees that are 6" or larger because it was a landfill with thick undergrowth and no specimen trees to speak of. Thomson expresses concern about the removal of too many trees in the subdivision. Griffin states that this parcel was a dump-site and it looks like a dump site and there are no specimen trees to speak of. Dinkin states that the site plan review process does not require that the applicant mark significant trees on the lot. Planning Board Minutes March 20, 2007 Page 8 of 13 Griffin suggests that the board consider placing a condition requiring the identification of significant trees after a buyer or user for this property presents an application. He adds that it could be the Board's decision to place such a restriction as part of the approval for any specific applicant. Griffin goes on to explain the additional waiver request for exemption from boring and percolation tests, citing the significant depth of waste near the proposed cul-de-sac. Zambernardi asks him to speak to the status of the landfill. Griffin states that it is so old that it does not require a cap but they need to notify DEP through a post closure use plan for the roadway. Dick Woodbury Chairman of the Board for Northridge Homes states that the LEL level of one of the gasses being emitted from the parcel has been extremely high, and he is concerned about these gasses becoming airborne. He adds that he wishes to see the big trees on the border between the two properties remain, and that some water run off from this location could be a problem. He emphasizes the importance of the screen for the building, which is handicapped accessible. Rick Marciano of 141 McKay Street states that this subdivision is creating three more separate irregularly shaped lots, thereby creating a possible hardship, which would qualify the property for a variance application. Rosemary Maglio of 30 Pleasant Street asks about the set back requirements for the IR district, specifically the 150' rear setback from a residential district and she suggests it be applied in this case. Dinkin states that the setback applies for the residential district, not for any residential use in the IR district as is the case with the Northridge Home complex. However, he adds that the board could apply a setback condition to the approval. Zambernardi suggests that Ms. Maglio would not want to apply those setback requirements anyway because the 150' front setback would move the new buildings much closer to the Northridge parcel. Joan Murphy of 36 Longmeadow Road inquires about runoff onto Brimbal Avenue. Griffin points out the catch basins on the map and describes the drainage system. Dick Woodbury of North ridge Homes asks for further clarification on the setbacks. Zambernardi states that the rear setback requirement is 25' in the IR zone. Planning Board Minutes March 20, 2007 Page 9 of 13 Director of Engineering, Frank Killilea asks Griffin if the roadway will be private. Griffin states that the applicant is proposing a public roadway. Killilea states that the engineering department does not like the idea of a public roadway on a landfill and construction of the pipeline must be done carefully because it is critical that the existing pipeline is not compromised. Rene Mary of274 Hale Street asks if there are wetlands and fragmites growing there. Griffin states that no wetlands have been identified on that parcel. Dick Woodbury of Northridge Homes states that there are wetlands and wetland vegetation between the two properties. Zambernardi reads the following letters: . Dated March 20,2007, from Frank Killilea, Director of Engineering . Dated March 19, 2007, from Amy Maxner, Environmental Planner . Dated March 16, 2007, from Christopher Negroti, Traffic Sergeant . Dated March 7,2007, from William T. Burke, Director of Public Health . Dated July 10,2006, from William T. Burke, Director of Public Health . Dated March 1, 2007, from Wayne Frances, Police Department . Dated March 20, 2007 from Pam Kampersal of 241 Dodge Street Dinkin asks for comments in support. There is no response. Dinkin asks for comments in opposition. Rene Mary of274 Hale Street registers opposition to the application. Mack asks about the absence of the cap. Griffin states that under law the parcel does not need a cap because it is too old. Frank Killilea concurs with that finding stating that this dump site closed before the capping requirement with the DEP. Thomson asks Griffin if the purpose of this application is to freeze the zoning, and if there are no current plans to build anything on this parcel. Planning Board Minutes March 20, 2007 Page 10 of 13 Alexander agrees and states that in the future, a use may be found for this parcel, but the applicant currently has no plans for the lot. Thomson asks how this is affected by a covenant which runs for two years, and what the plans are after two years. Alexander states that there is no plan at the moment but the owners will reevaluate the market at a later date. Dinkin asks Alexander if he wishes to request a vote which requires unanimity less one. Alexander states that the subdivision control law does not require a super majority vote, only a majority of those members present. Thomson: Motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Flannery. All members vote in favor. The Chair votes in favor. The motion passes 6-0. Dinkin closes the public hearing and reconvenes the regular meeting. 9. Discussion/Decision: North Shore Commons Definitive Subdivision Plan: 140 Brimbal Avenue - Brimbal Avenue Development Zambernardi suggests that a condition to allow no driveway access to Brimbal Avenue from Lot 1 be placed on the approval of the application. Thomson expresses concern about the trees on the property and asks the members if a site visit is in order prior to the vote. He suggests that the other alternative would be not to grant the waiver. Dinkin agrees that the Board must have some direct knowledge of the trees on the site before making a decision, but states that the plan cannot be approved in the absence of the waiver because it is non-compliant. Zambernardi stated the Board could talk about its inclination to grant the waiver and if it is not inclined to do so, the applicant could request a continuance and submit the tree information at a later meeting. Dinkin thinks that the Board should not have this discussion after the public hearing has been closed because the public would not have an opportunity to comment. Alexander cites a law which states that a party that voted in favor of closing a public hearing can move to reconsider within 24 hours and then reopen the public hearing. Planning Board Minutes March 20, 2007 Page II of 13 Thomson states that he would also like to recommend that the roadway on this parcel be private and not public, and he wishes to have the City Solicitor determine to what effect the question of ownership effects the decision. Thomson: by Mack. Motion to reopen the public hearing on North Shore Commons, seconded Dinkin expresses objection to the reopening of the public hearing stating that at the time of the public hearing closure, the applicant's representatives and the public appeared to be satisfied with the closure. After some discussion Dinkin calls for the vote. Five members vote in favor, the Chair votes in opposition. The motion passes 5-1. 10. Public Hearin2: North Shore Commons Definitive Subdivision Plan: 3 lots and new roadwav in IR Zone - 140 Brimbal Avenue - Brimbal Avenue Development. LLC/CEA Group Inc Dinkin reopens the public hearing. Mack asks if the Conservation Commission could look at the trees on this parcel. Dinkin states that the Conservation Commission will intervene only if there are wetlands on the property. Thomson asks if Griffin is willing to show the trees on the plan. Thomson asks for any comments on the various letters. Alexander states that he wishes to discuss with his client the idea of having this roadway be private instead of public. Killilea states that the parcel has a two foot base, and one foot of sub-base, and a geotech membrane used on a sewer system, and that peat was discovered during the digging. He then cautions the members about the installation of stone piles on this land. Dinkin asks if this would require the City to remove and replace the existing drainage system. Killilea states that it would be very difficult to replace because the pilings must go below the bottom of the waste and in some places the waste is 15 feet deep. Griffin states that he believes that the drainage pipe does not need to be replaced. Planning Board Minutes March 20, 2007 Page 12 of 13 Dinkin asks if the drainage system as it exists today would be suitable for the new development. Griffin states that there might be some impact on the current drainage system depending on the use of the parcel. Thomson asks Killilea if the construction and the drainline would raise the issues that he is raising, and if constructing a road that can stand up for 50 years on a landfill would need more scrutiny before approval. Dinkin states that he would like to ask City Solicitor Geleneau what conditions can be imposed on the site plan review. Dick Woodbury Northridge Homes expresses concern about the roadway being a public road and not a private road. He clarifies this by stating that he wishes to see the roadway be whichever type that would have the strictest controls. He also expresses concern about the drainage from this property stating that the basketball court floods 2-3 times per year, and he wants the drainage pipe to be as strongly protected as possible. Alexander makes two points; first that it is his understanding that Mr. Killilea would not like to see the fill on top of this pipe, and that the city never received an easement to put this drainpipe over this property. Mack asks if the Board can place a condition on the bond for this development. Dinkin states that the City can only impose a bond for the value of the proposed improvements, plus some fudge factor to compensate for inflation. He adds that he wishes to add this question to the list for Geleneau. Williams asks how long the drainpipe has been there. Alexander states that it has been there at least 20 years, but he doesn't know the exact age of the drainpipe. He adds that it was dug up once and there was a newspaper under the pipe from1952. Killilea says that the City repaired this pipeline at the cemetery property after receiving permISSIon. Thomson asks where the start of the drainage pipe is located. Killilea states that it begins near Windsor Courts. Rick Marciano 141 McKay Street asks if the pipe does collapse what will be the City's costs of resolution. Planning Board Minutes March 20, 2007 Page 13 of 13 Woodbury states that there was monetary damage to the Northridge Homes the last time that the pipe broke. Thomson asks if this is also a drainline for Brimbal Avenue. Killilea states that it is used for Brimbal Avenue. Joan Murphy of36 Longmeadow asks if this is a sufficient size for the area. Killilea states that it is. Thomson: Motion to continue this hearing to April 17, 2007 at 8:30 p.m. seconded by Flannery. All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 6-0. 10. Federal Hei2hts: Modified Site Plan and Special Permit Application Zambernardi states that Atlas Mortgage Company submitted a modified site plan review and special permit application for Federal Heights. Dinkin instructs Zambernardi to advise the applicant that everything is on the table once a modification for a special permit is requested. Zambernardi requests that the Board set a public hearing. Mack: Motion to schedule a public hearing for Federal Heights on May 15,2007, at 8:30 p.m. seconded by Flannery. All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 6-0. 11. Approval of Minutes: Joint Public Hearin2 and Special Meetin2s of Februarv 7 and March 5. 2007 and Re2ular Meetin2 of Februarv 20. 2007. Thomson: Motion to approve the minutes, seconded by Flannery. All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 6-0. Dunn: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Mack. Five members vote in favor. The Chair votes in opposition. The motion passes 5-1. The meeting is adjourned at 10:00 p.m.