Loading...
2007-06-19 CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: LOCATION: Planning Board, Regular Meeting MEMBERS PRESENT: June 19,2007 City Council Chambers, Beverly City Hall, 3rd Floor Chairperson Richard Dinkin, John Thomson, Joanne Dunn, Ellen Flannery, David Mack, Stephanie Williams, Charles Harris, Don Walter Eve Geller-Duffy Assistant Planning Director Leah Zambernardi Andrea Bray MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: RECORDER: Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order. Thomson: Motion to recess for Public Hearing, seconded by Walter. All members vote in favor. The Chair votes in favor. The motion passes 8-0. 1. Continued Public Hearim!:: North Shore Commons Definitive Subdivision Plan- 3 lots and new roadwav in IR Zone -140 Brimbal Avenue - Brimbal Avenue Development. LLC/CEA Group Inc. Thomson: Motion to waive the legal public hearing notice, seconded by Flannery. All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 8-0. Attorney Tom Alexander speaks about the plans for the subdivision. He states that the applicant attempted to televise the drainage pipe and found that access to the manhole has been filled with debris and the applicant agrees to be responsible for removing the debris in the manhole prior to sale. He adds that the applicant will accept a private or a public roadway installation on this site. Alexander says that there are no changes in the plan. Thomson asks if all of the trees of 6" in caliper are shown on the plan. Zambernardi presents the plan to Thomson and Dinkin who study the plan with Alexander and Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering. Dinkin asks about the plans to screen the abutting residential use. Alexander states that there are no plans to screen the abutting residential use. Planning Board Minutes June 19,2007 Page 2 of 12 Williams asks for more information about what will happen with the testing of the drain line and the dry weather sampling. Alexander states that the developer will have to provide adequate drainage. Griffin states that the pipe that runs through the property is the only pipe that discharges water off of the property so this must be working properly. Mack asks if the developer will hire an LSP. Griffin states that the site is regulated by Massachusetts Solid Waste Regulations and disturbance of this site requires DEP approval, and the applicant is moving in the Solid Waste Division of the DEP. Mack asks if an LSP will be in site. Griffin states that the LSP will not be on site during the work but a Post-Closure-Use- Plan will be prepared prior to any disturbance to the land, and this plan will be followed and checked after the land is developed. Zambernardi says that she spoke with John Carrigan with the DEP and DEP will follow through construction to be sure that it complies with the Post-Closure-Use-Plan. She reads a letter written by the City Solicitor regarding this issue. Mack suggests using the same requirement for an LSP as was used for the Ventron approval. Griffin says the there are two different sets of regulations with this site having a solid waste issue and the Ventron Site having a hazardous waste issue. He adds that the type of waste and the nature of the waste must be determined and a risk assessment must show that there is no significant risk to the public or users of the land. Thomas says that it sounds like an LSP will do the work beforehand and then follow up after the construction. Griffin states that these are the same grade of people. He goes on to say that test results have found the presence of methane gas on the property in concentrations varying from 0% to 40 or 50 %. He says that any less than 50% indicates that the waste is in the declining phase of decomposition but any level over 5% is potentially explosive. Griffin states that the applicant needs to take precautions on this site to prevent possible explosions, but this is not a risk during the construction of the road itself. He adds that the workers on site will need to take precautions to avoid inhaling the gas. Mack asks what other contaminates have been found. Planning Board Minutes June 19,2007 Page 3 of 12 Griffin states that he does not have the results of the ground water tests yet. Zambernardi reads the following letters: . Dated June 14,2007, from Roy Gelineau, City Solicitor in which he responds to 3 questions posed to him by the Board. . Dated June 18,2007, from Frank Killilea, Director of Engineering regarding the 24" drain pipe. . Dated March 20, 2007, From Frank Killilea, Director of Engineering stating that the road should be private. . Dated March 1, 2007, from Wayne Francis, Deputy Chief of Fire Prevention . Dated March 7,2007, from William T. Burke, Director of Public Health . Dated March 16, 2007, from Christopher Negroti, Traffic Seargent . Dated March 19, 2007, from Amy Maxner, Conservation Agent Dick Woodbury, President of the Board of North ridge Homes, expresses concern with a play area for the children which abuts the property, stating that the levels of methane are too high and the drainage pipe runs across their property. He adds that their basketball court has flooded several times in the past and during the summer the sewer comes out of the ground. Dinkin asks if the blockages are occurring on his property or the subject property. Woodbury says that the testing has shown that the sewer pipe is clean at the Northridge property but he doesn't know exactly where it backs up. He expresses more concern about the methane and other airborne contaminates and the pipe. He says that there is water running through Northridge all of the time and they have frost heave problems during the winter because of the water. Griffin says that the gas migration could be dealt with by allowing the developer to develop the property because, prior to that, they will learn about exactly what is there, and they might need to add a barrier to prohibit gas from migrating off of the subject property and onto the abutting property. Alexander agrees that the development of this property will initiate a full investigation into the types of substances on this site. Woodbury again expresses concern with the lack of information about the exact condition of this property. Mack questions the point at which the DEP gets involved with this project, and what if the development doesn't trigger a site plan review. Planning Board Minutes June 19,2007 Page 4 of 12 Alexander addresses the concerns ofMr. Woodbury stating that the BOH will be involved with the DEP but the DEP will run the show. He adds that all of the investigation work is done before construction begins. He says that first they need the subdivision approval then they will get the DEP involved. He states that the Board can have a condition to require a site plan review. Walter reminds the group about a clean up at the Stop-N-Shop Plaza and on Congress Street before any construction. He states that we don't know what is on that property, and asks why it wouldn't it be totally cleaned before it gets subdivided. Alexander states that the DEP would need to get a closure plan before any construction can begin. Harris asks the statute on a land fill before it is mature enough to be developed. Griffin states that landfills that were closed before 1970 do not have the same restrictions as those closed later. He adds that a 21E phase study was done prior to the purchase of the property by the current owner and that study didn't find any potentially hazardous conditions. Harris asks who takes responsibility for a damaged pipe. Griffin states that if there is damage caused by the developer he will fix it. Williams asks if the requirement for DEP approval is triggered by the construction of the road. Griffin states that they would need to get permission from the DEP to disturb the land to build the road. Williams asks if they know that the waste extends beyond the property line. Griffin states that they have evidence that it does extend beyond the property line but he doesn't know how for it extends. Woodbury objects to the approval of the subdivision prior to answering the important questions. Thomson asks Woodbury why they didn't test on their own property. Woodbury states that they didn't know there was gas on that property until testing was done. Planning Board Minutes June 19,2007 Page 5 of 12 Rosemary Maglio of30 Pleasant Street asks if the Board can place a condition for the Board to review the DEP study prior to approving the subdivision. Dinkin states that her question is interesting but there is a point where the Board overreaches its authority, and when that happens the Board will be sued. Dinkin closes the public hearing. 2. Continued Public Hearim!:: San!:ent Avenue Extension Definitive Subdivision Plan -19 San!:ent Avenue - Michael and Suzanne Fiore Thomson: Motion to waive the reading of the legal public hearing notice, seconded by Mack. All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 8-0. Attorney Tom Alexander speaks on behalf of the applicant and states that they have made adjustments to the plan, moved the hydrant, added a soil berm, and designed it so that there will be no increase in drainage volume or runoff from the new lot. He adds that the new berm would hold of any runoff toward 110 Essex Street. Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering distributes the new plans and speaks about the exact location of trees and states that they will save all of those trees at the beginning of Sergent Avenue and some will be removed at the hammerhead. He points out the new location of the hydrant. He describes the berm location along Essex Street to prevent any water going into the abutter's land on Essex Street. Thomson asks the footprint of the building. Griffin states that the footprint is 1504 square feet and it could be increased by 10% without effecting the drainage calculations. Dinkin asks if they will build on spec and then sell or sell first. Fiore states that he is not sure yet. Brian Cafferty of 23 Sergent Avenue asks if this is the same plan that was at the site visit. Griffin states that it is the same except for the diversion berm which has been added since the site visit. Cafferty commends Fiore and his team for being accommodating to the neighbors. He states that he sent a letter to the Board which lists his concerns, and then he reviews those items, which include: . That the retaining wall should not divert any additional water onto his property Planning Board Minutes June 19,2007 Page 6 of 12 . That safety precautions are taken during construction . That there is no blasting . That any damage to the sewer line caused by construction be repaired in a timely fashion Zambernardi reads the following letters: Dated June 19,2007, from Frank Killilea, Director of Engineering Dated April 13, 2007, from Wayne Frances, Deputy Chief of Fire Prevention Dated April 4, 2007, from William T. Burke, Director of Public Health Dated March 19, 2007, from Amy Maxner, Conservation Agent Dated April 13, 2007, from Christopher Negroti, Traffic Sargeant Zambernardi states that she has Mr. Cafferty's letter and asks if it should be read into the record. Dinkin gives Cafferty the choice to have this letter placed in the record or read into the record. Cafferty says that he is happy to have it just placed into the record without reading it. He adds one more requests to his list, that the approval specify that there is only a single lot back there and that no further subdivision can occur. Marshal Handley of 6 Clark Avenue states that Mr. Cafferty's concerns are valid but he believes that Mr. Fiore has been a good neighbor. He adds that he would support this application ifMr. Cafferty's concerns could be addressed. Dinkin closes the pubic hearing. 3. Public Hearim!:: Site Plan Review Application #89-07 - Construction of 68' x 52' Wood Framed Buildim!: - 369-399 Rantoul Street - Wind over Properties LLC Zambernardi reads the Public Hearing notice. Tom Menetta from Menetta Inc. speaks about the site which was the Kelly Infiniti site. He states that the existing building is vacant and there are no plans for that building at this time. He adds that they wish to build a wooden structure which would house Weaver Glass at the Roundy Street corner of this site. He describes the plans. Dinkin asks for clarification on the front entrance of the building. Menetta states that the front entrance will be on Rantoul Street. Planning Board Minutes June 19,2007 Page 7 of 12 Zambernardi asks for an explanation of the proposed delivery access area specified in the plan. Menetta states that that is being held as a possible delivery access area even though the owner has no plans for that area at this time. Zambernardi reads the following letters: Dated June 19,2007, from Frank Killilea, Director of Engineering Dated May 22,2007, from William T Burke, Director of Public Health Dated May 31,2007, from Tina Cassidy, Chair of the Parking and Traffic Commission Dated June 8, 2007, from Kate Newhall, Associate Planner, DRB Dated June 14,2007, from Amy Maxner, Conservation Agent Dated Jun 14, 2007, from Wayne Frances, Deputy Chief of Fire Prevention Dated June 7,2007, from Christopher Negroti, Traffic Sergeant Pierre Nuccio of 141 Park Street states that he received a letter from the Planning Board. He expresses disapproval with the lack of information given in the letter. Zambernardi states that Mr. Nuccio is free to call the Planning Department any time that he wishes to obtain more information about the plans for a site. Rosemary Maglio of30 Pleasant Street asks if this site is comprised of two parcels. Menetta: Yes. Maglio asks how the traffic flows on that property. Menetta explains that the curb cut on Rantoul Street is about 115/ from the intersection. Maglio states that Roundy Street is a one-way street and if the trucks use the side door to exit the building they will be routed through the residential area. She expresses concern with the additional traffic in the residential area. She asks about the size of the trucks. Menetta states that it will vary. Jim Ladder of 145 Park Street states that he lives closest to this site and the DPW uses that road extensively and the Weaver Glass traffic would have minimal additional impact. He adds that Mr. Weaver has been a good citizen of this City and he supports this construction. Maglio states that it isn't necessary to have a sign on Roundy Street. She adds that he didn't show the elevation that faces the residential area. Planning Board Minutes June 19,2007 Page 8 of 12 Menetta shows the rear elevation. She expresses concern about this wall which has no windows. Menetta states that the lack of windows will keep the noise down. Maglio states that it doesn't look very appealing. Williams asks Menetta if the DRB approved these plans. Menetta: Yes Thomson asks the business hours of Weaver Glass. Dave Weaver, owner of Weaver Glass Company, explains that his business hours are 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Monday - Friday, and 8:00 AM to noon on Saturday. Thomson asks about the drainage. Menetta states that some of the drainage ties into the City Drain system under the old Kelly Infinity Building and the rest goes into the storm drains on Rantoul Street. Maglio asks about the dimensions of the driveway area reserved as potential delivery space. Menetta states that it is 18/ wide and there is nothing proposed for that area now. Zambernardi asks about the curb on Roundy Street. Menetta states that it is a granite curb on Roundy Street which goes right down to Rantoul Street. Maglio asks about trash collection. Weaver states that they will wheel out the trash and wheel it back in after pick up. Dinkin closes the public hearing. 4. Discussion/Decision: North Shore Commons Definitive Subdivision Plan - 140 Brimbal Avenue - Brimbal Avenue Development. LLC/CEA Group Inc. Thomson states that this is unique because it is the only subdivision that is on an existing landfill. This is a bit of an unknown site and there is no ability to do any other testing before deciding and the Board must rely on the opinions of others. He says that he would Planning Board Minutes June 19,2007 Page 9 of 12 feel more comfortable if an LSP were involved in this, and he would like to leave this up to the staff to determine if this should be done. He adds that this should be a private way. Thomson states that the applicant should complete a televised inspection of the drain line, and the developer must accept total responsibility for it and remedy any issues that are found during the inspection. Alexander states that there is no easement for the drain line. Thomson states that there will be an easement. Dinkin states that he wants Killillea to determine whether the drain line needs to be replaced or repaired. Zambernardi advises the Board that the voting members for this application are Dinkin, Thomson, Flannery, Dunn, Mack and Williams. Thomson: Motion to grant the subdivision pursuant to all conditions in the letters from Boards and Departments. The drain line must be fully inspected prior to construction and if it needs to be replaced or repaired it will be done by the developer in conjunction with the road construction. The road will be a private way. The City will hold an easement for the City drain line. Any further development beyond the subdivision road would require a site plan review. The applicant must file periodic reports (one report before the commencement of the work, one during the construction of the roadway, one after the construction of the roadway) by an LSP regarding all environmental issues associated with the land fill. This motion is seconded by Flannery. Mack asks if the drainage pipe is city property. He wishes to make sure that the Board is not exceeding its requirement by forcing the applicant to fix it. Thomson states that the applicant will be using that drain line so the Board can require them to fix it. Alexander states that the repairs made to the drain line will allow it to tie in to the subdivision. All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 6-0. 5. Discussion/Decision: San!:ent Avenue Extension Definitive Subdivision Plan - 19 San!:ent Avenue - Michael and Suzanne Fiore Thomson asks Alexander if he has seen the letter from Mr. Cafferty. Alexander states that he has not. He receives a copy of the letter and reads it with his client. Planning Board Minutes June 19,2007 Page 10 of 12 Thomson: Motion to approve the subdivision provided the new lot can only be a single lot and that there will be no increase in volume or runoff, seconded by Flannery. All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 8-0. 6. Discussion/Decision: Site Plan Review Application #89-07 - 369-399 Rantoul Street - Windover Properties LLC Thomson: Motion to approve this application provided that there are no curb cuts on Roundy Street and following the conditions in the BOH letter, seconded by Flannery. All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 8-0. 7. Comprehensive Permit Application to ZBA/Reauest for Plannim!: Board Comments: Holcroft Park Homed - 5. 9. 17-19.21.25.33 & 37 Mill Street and 10. 22 and 28-30 Grant Street - Holcroft Park Homes. LLC Attorney Tom Alexander states that this is an affordable housing project and he is prepared for this plan to go to the DRB. Alexander states that because the project is 100% affordable housing they are applying for a comprehensive permit. Dinkin asks if the BAHC intends to retain and manage this complex. Alexander says that the BAHC will manage this in partnership with the North Shore YMCA. He states that the last comprehensive permit was granted for the Millery, and the Board is welcome to comment on the project and lend its opinions. Zambernardi states that the ZBA is opening this hearing next week. Alexander says that they do not want the hearing to be closed next week. Dinkin asks the members if they would like to hear about this project and the members state that they would. Zambernardi states that the DRB was not notified as part of the standard notification process. She asks if the Board would like the DRB's comments from their site plan review, and the members say that they would. Mack suggests that they put this issue on the July 17 agenda and Zambernardi agrees to do this. Planning Board Minutes June 19,2007 Page 11 of 12 Dinkin states that he sees no reason to subject the applicant to a public hearing if one is not required. 8. Subdivision Approval Not ReQuired (SANR): 93 and 81-89 Elliott Street- Me2uerditchian/Peterson Zambernardi distributes plans. The members study the plans and ask some clarifying questions. Zambernardi states that this plan is technically compliant. Thomson: Motion to accept this SANR, seconded by Mack. All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 8-0. 9. Subdivision Approval Not ReQuired (SANR): 11 Con2ress Street/Con2ress StreetIMoulton Court - Eleven Con2ress Street Corp./Con2ress Street Realtv Trust Zambernardi states that this application was withdrawn without prejudice. Attorney Marshal Handley explains that this was an ancient way and asks if they need waivers if they have the right to pave it. Dinkin states that they should pave it before applying for the SANR. 10. Subdivision Approval Not ReQuired (SANR): 216 Dod2e Street - Bertram Thomas - Approved 2004 (Si2nature for Recordation) Zambernardi states that the Board endorsed an ANR plan for this property in 2004 and the owner was unaware that he was required to file that plan within 6 months. She adds that if this is not done, the applicant must apply to the Planning Board or the City Clerk for a certificate, and must show that there has not been any modification, change, amendment or rescission to the approval of the plan. She confirmed that this plan has not changed. Mack: Motion to give the applicant the certification, seconded by Dunn. All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 8-0. 9. Foster Lane Site Visit: Saturdav. June 23. at 11:00 AM Don Walter states that he will not be able to make it to the meeting on Saturday. Zambernardi states that the applicant might have constructive approval if the Board does not vote on this in soon. Planning Board Minutes June 19,2007 Page 12 of 12 The members discuss their options on this issue. Dinkin phones Attorney Marshall Handly who agrees to another extension for this application. The members agree to go ahead with the site visit on Saturday and then schedule another meeting to vote on this application. Harris: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Mack. All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 8-0. The meeting is adjourned at 10:20 p.m.