Loading...
2008-03-24 CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: LOCATION: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: RECORDER: Planning Board, Regular Meeting March 24,2008 City Council Chambers, Beverly City Hall, 3rd Floor Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice Chairperson John Thomson, Joanne Dunn, Ellen Flannery, Charles Harris, Ellen Hutchinson, David Mack, Stephanie Williams Leo Panunzio Assistant Planning Director Leah Zambernardi Andrea Bray Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order. Thomson: Motion to recess for public hearing, seconded by Flannery. Passes 7-0. 1. Pubic Hearin2: - Site Plan Review Application #93-08 - construction of multi- tenant buildin2: - Sam Fonzo Drive/Trask Street - C. Ronald Vitale Zambernardi reads the legal public hearing notice. Peter Ogren of Hayes Engineering speaks about the project. He states that the site will have 50 parking spaces and one structure containing 5 individual commercial rental units. He says that the HV AC pads will be located in the landscaped area in front of the building, not on the roof. Zambernardi reads the following letters: Dated March 24,2008 from Attorney Marshall Handley, representing the applicant. Dated March 18, 2008 from William T. Burke, Director of Public Health. Dated March 13, 2008, from Tina Cassidy, Chairperson of the Parking and Traffic Commission. Dated March 10, 2008, from Associate Planner Kate Newhall, Design Review Board. Dated March 12, 2008, from Sergeant Joseph Sheers, Safety Office, Police Department. Thomson asks for review of the landscaping in the front. Ogren explains that they placed landscaping in the front to discourage parking in front of the building because there is adequate parking on either side of the building. Planning Board March 24, 2008 Page 2 of 11 Mack asks about the abutting parcels. Ogren states that one abutting property had an RFP and will be used by Rice Rental. He adds that N.E.Power owns another property, and residential properties are along Trask Street. Harris asks about the distance to the residential abutters. Ogren states that the building will be about 110 feet away from the property lines at the closest point. Thomson asks about the vegetation between the building and the abutters. Ogren states that there will be a continuous row of eastern white pine. Thomson suggests continuing the arborvitae around the corner of the lot to effectively screen the building from the abutters. Ogren states that there is an embankment on one side, which will allow snow storage. Williams asks for clarification on the snow storage area. Ogren states that the snow storage will be in back along one side and will drain down to a sump and will then flow around the dike and to the outflow, allowing the solids to settle out before discharging in to a brook. Dinkin asks if there will be screening for the A/C units. Ogren states that they will not be screened. Dinkin asks about the sound produced by these units. Ogren reviews the specs and states that these will be the size of a regular household unit, and therefore not very loud. Dinkin asks how they can have 2.5 loading docks. Ogren states that the center unit will have only a half of a loading dock. Thomson asks if banking will be included in the uses. Handley states that they are not proposing a bank use for this space. Hutchinson asks about the clear ceiling height for the mezzanine section. Planning Board March 24, 2008 Page 3 of 11 Ogren states that he doesn't know but the total building height will be 26 feet. Hutchinson asks if one of the walls might be eliminated if a tenant wished to use 2 spaces. Ogren says they will not eliminate a wall, but they might have doorways between the units. Williams requests clarification about the uses, asking if only the uses in his letter will apply, and Handley agrees. Dinkin asks for clarifying questions from the public. Linda Briggs of 54 Trask Street asks about the lighting and operating hours. Ogren shows the lighting fixtures which produce .5 foot candle at the most, and the wall pac units will have 10 foot candles of power. William Allen of 22 Trask Street asks if this meets all setback requirements. Zambernardi states that it does. Brian Pothier of 57 Trask Street asks about truck storage. Ogren says that there might be some truck storage on site. Bob Shaw of 42 Trask Street asks if any storage containers will be there. Ogren says there will be no storage containers on site. Shaw asks if the lighting in the parking will stay on all night. Ogren says they can program them turn of a half hour after the closing. Eleanor Pavlowitz of 52 Trask Street requests that, if the Planning Board passes this, they make the condition that the applicant go before the Planning Board to gain approval for each tenant. William Allen of 22 Trask Street states that there is no screening between his house and the building. He expresses concern about having the snow plow leave snow on the corner of his property, which will drain toward his house. Thomson asks if he accesses his house from Sam F onzo Drive. Planning Board March 24, 2008 Page 4 of 11 Allen says that he does not, he accesses it from the other end of Trask Street. Thomson asks if he would like the applicant to put the up a screen. Allen says that he doesn't know any solution to this problem because he owns the land up to the corner of this property. Susan Movalli of 20 Trask Street states that her property is right behind Liberty Publishing, and the white pines do not cut down on any of the lighting from the parking lot. She says that there are already vacant properties on this street and she thinks this is development is unnecessary. Bob Shaw of 22 Trask Street expresses concern about the snow storage area draining into the retention pond by his house. He states that any additional water there would threaten to flood his yard and increase the mosquito population. Zambernardi reads an email dated March 24, 2008, from Andrew Newman of 27 Trask Street. Handley states that this structure will be distinguishable from the Liberty Publishing building because this structure is facing into the industrial area, not toward the residences. He offers to extend the plantings along the edge of Trask Way. Ogren explains that Trask Street was originally the access to this property but they don't need this any more because they now have Sam Fonzo Drive. He offers to put planting on this space if the abutters would like it. He states that the snow will not be stored on the corner of Mr. Allen's property, but along the parking lot. He offers to address any mosquito problem that might arise. He states that there will be very low lighting on the site, which should not impact the abutters. Dinkin closes the public hearing. 2. Continued Public Hearin2 - Citv Council Order #24 - Proposed Zonin2 Amendment relative to Open Space Residential Desi2n (OSRD) Site Plan Ordinance (Section 29-24.B) Zambernardi states that the joint public hearing with the City Council was held on March 3, 2008, and the board's task is to finish the public hearing, develop recommendations and send them to the City Council for their April 7 meeting. Zambernardi reads a letter dated March 24, 2008, from the Open Space and Recreation Committee, Robert Buchsbaum, Chairman. She states that she has other letters which are lengthy. Planning Board March 24, 2008 Page 5 of 11 Thomson: Motion to waive the reading of the remaining letters because members received the letters individually, seconded by Mack. Passes 7-0. Thomson: Motion to waive the reading of the public hearing notice, seconded by Flannery. Passes 7-0. Dinkin asks for comments from members of the public. Mary Roderick of 14 Peabody Avenue states that she has a 9-page memo that she would like to give to the board. She gives them to Dinkin. Rosemary Maglio of30 Pleasant Street states that the public should hear the letters. Dinkin states that the purpose of this hearing is for the board to hear from the public. Renee Mary of 374 Hale Street asks if the public will have a chance to have a dialogue with the planning board. Dinkin states that this is the opportunity to do that. Renee Mary asks if the board will close the hearing tonight. Dinkin says he will not know until he has heard from all of the members of the public that wish to speak. Renee Mary states that she would like to recommend language changes. She adds that she would like the Conservation Commission to review this. She expresses concern about the potential for reduction in the open space. Scott Houseman of 27 Appleton Avenue expresses concern about the board closing the public hearing prematurely. He expresses concern about changes relative to the R-90 zone. Attorney Carmen Frattaroli of 14 Beaver Pond Road questions section 7.1, which seems to be a limitation on the board's power to reduce lot sizes. Rosemary Maglio of 30 Pleasant Street says that this is no longer a joint public hearing because the City Council portion is scheduled separately. She requests that the PB continue this hearing to be joined, once again with the City Council. Rene Mary reads a suggested change to section 3 .1.B. Planning Board March 24, 2008 Page 6 of 11 Dinkin states that her version is not better because they do not wish to imaginatively place structures. Rosemary Maglio states that this is a 19-page ordinance and only the parts highlighted in red ink are being revised, but Attorney Frattaroli made a suggestion about changing an area that is not in red. Following that line, she states that she has suggestions for changes in other areas too. Dinkin says they cannot further amend this ordinance in the absence of advertising unless the amendment is less restrictive. Thomson states that the Board should continue this to the next regularly scheduled meeting, so they will have time to review the written comments. He states that written comments are far more persuasive than anything he hears at a public hearing. Dinkin states that this hearing is quasi-legislative and so the board can continue to review written comments. He agrees that they should not make a recommendation this evening. Williams asks whether the areas that are not red lined may only be altered if they related directly to the red lined areas. Zambernardi states that the Planning Board has 21 days from the close of the hearing to make a recommendation and the next meeting is in 25 days. Thomson says that he wishes to leave the public hearing open as long as there is any additional information coming to the board in writing. Williams agrees and adds that she would like to hear from the City Solicitor regarding those areas that are within the purview of the board. Flannery asks if the board could set a deadline for written comments. Dinkin says that he is resistant to the concept of rejecting a comment for an administrative reason, but the board can request that comments arrive within a certain timeframe. Harris suggests holding a special meeting. Mary Roderick states that she tried to present her document earlier and was told that it could not be presented until the public hearing. She adds that these amendments were presented by the planning department, and she feels that the public should have the right to present amendments as well. Planning Board March 24, 2008 Page 7 of 11 Dinkin agrees that the public does have a right to propose an amendment to the zoning ordinance if the amendment is being proposed by 10 taxpayers. Thomson says that he plans to propose an amendment to deal with the situation presented by Attorney Frattaroli. Thomson: Motion to continue this public hearing, seconded by Harris. Passes 7-0. The members discuss possible dates for the next meeting. Mack: Motion to continue this public hearing until April 15, 2008, at 7:00 PM, seconded by Flannery. Passes 7-0. Dinkin reconvenes the regular meeting. 3. Discussion/Decision: Site Plan Application #93-08 - Sam Fonzo Drive/Trask Street - C. Ronald Vitale Voting members are Dinkin, Thomson, Flannery, Harris, Mack, and Williams. Thomson confirms that the issue before them now is only the site plan. Thomson: Motion to grant site plan approve with the conditions that all facts stated in the applicant's letter be included as requirements, overnight parking located will be located as far as possible from the residential district, there will be no outside storage, the hours of operation will not exceed 5am -7pm, the parking lot lights will turn off at 9pm, the applicant will provide mosquito control, the applicant will screen the HV AC units from Sam Fonzo Drive, the board retains jurisdiction on the issue of screening the neighbors' properties, the applicant will clarify the top elevation, seconded by Flannery. All of the voting members including the Chair vote in favor. Passes 6-0. (Please refer to written decision for official vote) 4. Continued Discussion/Decision: Special Permit Application #115-07 - Sam Fonzo Drive/Trask Street - C. Ronald Vitale Thomson states that the only issue before the board is protection of the watershed area. He adds that the professional opinion is that it does not drain to Wenham Lake. He reviews the building specifications, and states that he feels that it is not a threat to the watershed. Thomson: Motion to grant the special permit incorporating all of the findings for the special permit (He reads the findings.), seconded by Mack. Passes 7-0. (Please refer to written decision for official vote) Planning Board March 24, 2008 Page 8 of 11 5. Recommendation to Citv Council - Council Order #24 - Zonin2 Amendment - Open Space Residential Desi2n (OSRD) Site Plan Ordinance Dinkin states that the board will not discuss this issue tonight, but reminds the public that all portions of the zoning ordinance are available in the planning department. 6. Continued: OSRD Initial Review #01-08 - Beaver Pond Road - Gwenn Evitts Zambernardi states that the public comment period remains open for this issue. Attorney Frattaroli addresses issues previously raised by the board. He states that, as part of the ANRAD process, the Conservation Commission will meet at the site on Sunday to confirm the location of the flags. He says that they have hired a licensed landscape architect who has submitted reports. He states that they have had a neighborhood meeting with about 6 of the households, and they had the preference that they be full lots. He reminds the board that this is an R-45 zone and the average lot is 4 acres or larger. He says that he looks forward to the board making a site visit, and he wishes that the board will look at the entire road from Dodge Street to Rte. 128. Frattaroli states that in the last 26 years only 8 additional houses have been built on the old estate, all of which have septic, and only 2 or 3 have city water. He confirms that this is not the best test case for OSRD, because it is not an easy law, and it is a work-in- progress. He reminds the board that they might consider amending section 7.1. Dinkin asks for public comments on the plans. David McKay of 24 Beaver Pond Road says that he doesn't understand Attorney Frattaroli's comment that 50% of the land will be taken by OSRD. He says that he does not want people to build smaller houses that are out of character with the neighborhood. He would like to see a plan of what it would actually look like if they comply. Frattaroli says that he has contended they allow these lots to be I-acre lots. He adds that he believes the neighbors would like the houses built to be consistent in size, quality, and value. Dinkin says that he voted against OSRD because he was persuaded by Housemen's argument that homes built under an open space restriction would have a higher value, and that would have a negative impact on the affordability of property in Beverly. Dinkin states that it is more important to continue to hold open space as much as possible. Frattaroli says that it is unworkable to have the one open parcel in the middle of 4 properties because no one will be able to access it. He adds that he has the sense that this Planning Board March 24, 2008 Page 9 of 11 road is different from the intent of the OSRD, so he suggests giving a greater restriction for this open parcel. Thomson states that Frattaroli's presentation makes no distinction between land that is under CR today and that which will be under CR in the future. He adds that they have to take this one step at a time, beginning with ANRAD to determine the placement of the structures. He says that Frattaroli should not come out of the box requesting that the board waive the open space requirement stating that this will not work. He says that it is a four step process. Frattaroli states that he will have the ANRAD soon. Dinkin clarifies that Frattaroli's desire to maintain status quo on this road differs from the position of the City. Thomson agrees and says that the priority in this is the open space, and it will look much like what is there today. He stresses that Frattaroli follow the steps. He says that this may not be the perfect case for OSRD but you never get the perfect case. Dinkin states that he would like to leave the public comment period open until they see a plan that reflects the results of the ANRAD. Thomson agrees. Frattaroli asks if the board is looking for information regarding the other natural design features of the property. Dinkin says that the board is looking for information on those areas on this parcel that ought not be disturbed, and only then can the board determine the location of the lot lines and structures and the size of those lots. Thomson reads section 5 as instructions for Frattaroli to proceed. Mack states that this information, once assembled, might further his argument that these lots are unbuildable. Thomson says that they will set a site visit at the next meeting when they receive the ANRAD and site information. Dinkin corrected a characterization that Frattaroli made, stating that this is information that the ordinance requires, not information that the board has just asked for tonight. Frattaroli clarifies that he has already provided a lot of information. Planning Board March 24, 2008 Page 10 of II Harris: Motion to lay this issue on the table until the next meeting, seconded by Thomson. Passes 6-0. Williams abstains. 7. Thompson Farm Subdivision - Expiration of Construction Completion Date - Tom Carnevale Hutchinson recuses herself from this issue. Zambernardi reads a letter requesting an extension and states that the Engineering Department has not been able to respond to this request in writing. She adds that the Assistant Engineer has stated that he has no problem with this extension. Carnevale says that since the granite curb went in there is no problem with water washing off of the property. Mack asks what is left to be done and how much is on the bond. Carnevale says that the tree, sidewalks, and asbuilts, need to be completed. Mack: Motion to extend this application until September 18, 2008, seconded by Flannery. Passes 6-0. Hutchinson and the Chair abstain. 8. Special Permit Application #116-08 & Site Plan Review Application #94-08 - 363- 399 &380 Rantoul Street (former auto sales and service facilitv) - Raze existin2 buildin2 and construct four storv buildin2 containin2 fortv-three one-bedroom units (Burnham Apartments) - Windover Properties. LLC - Set Public Hearin2 Zambernardi says that the board received a letter requesting to withdraw without prejudice. Mack: Motion to accept their request to withdraw the application without prejudice, seconded by Harris. All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 8-0. 9. Approval of Minutes - Re2ular Meetin2 of Februarv 19. 2008. and Special Meetin2 and Joint Public Hearin2 of March 3. 2008 The members review the minutes. Thomson makes a suggestion for a revision on the February 18, 2008 meeting minutes. Flannery: Motion to approve the amended minutes for all three meetings, seconded by Hutchinson. Passes 7-0. Planning Board March 24, 2008 Page 11 of 11 10. Fol2er Avenue - Bass River Estates Zambernardi states that there is a bond of $450,000 and there is some work left to be done and, last fall, the board voted to extend the bond. Since that time they have received a letter from an abutter, stating that he as received blasting damage, dust issues, and sediment control issues. The department heads met today to determine what should be done for the abutter, and it was suggested that they use the bond as a remedy. Dinkin objects stating that the City should not take the bond before the construction is completed. The members discuss the options with this issue. Dinkin suggest that Zambernardi have the developer come in and put him on the agenda for the April 15 meeting. 11. Cleveland Road - Campbell Zambernardi states that the project is basically completed and they need a formal inspection by engineering. She adds that Mary Vitolo posted the $8,750 performance bond and has contacted the office many times to have the bond released and the board cannot do this until the construction is complete. The members discuss their options for this issue. They recommend requesting the as- built plans from the developer and getting a report from Engineering and then the board can release the bond if the applicant has complied. Dunn: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Flannery. All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 8-0.