Loading...
2008-10-21 CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: LOCATION: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: RECORDER: Planning Board, Regular Meeting Tuesday, October 21,2008 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. New/Other Business 1. Subdivision Approval Not Reauired (SANR) - 90 & 92 Bovles Street - Paradise Beverlv Realtv Trust Attorney Tom Alexander explains that these two lots are presently in existence and they are seeking to donate a parcel of land from each lot to the City. He adds that this donated land will augment other open space, including Sally Milligan Park and the Hill Estate, and that the Conservation Commission has endorsed this. Alexander states that the remainder of each lot will still be large enough to qualify as buildable with the current zomng. Thomson: Motion to endorse this ANR, seconded by Flannery. Passes 7-0. The Chair does not vote. 2. Pennv Lane Subdivision (a.k.a. Hale Court) - Expiration of Construction Completion Date (October 31. 2008) and Letter of Credit - T. Ford Tom Ford explains that Penny Lane has three completed houses and the last 2 lots are owned by the Frisch family. He states that he wishes to delay the application of the top coat of asphalt until all of the houses are complete. Dinkin asks if it is Ford's money that is being held, and Ford states that it is his. Thomson asks if all other requirements are completed except for the asphalt, and Ford states that the as-builts are not done yet. Planning Board October 21,2008 Page 2 of7 Zambernardi reads a letter from City Engineer, Frank Killilea, recommending the extension. Dunn asks about the stages of construction. Ford states that the fourth house is pre-sold and the foundation is going in, and the fifth house is uncommitted. Thomson: Motion to extend the construction completion date to September 1, 2009, seconded by Flannery. Passes 7-0. The Chair does not vote. 3. Bass River Estates (a.k.a. Foh!:er Avenue Extension) - Expiration of construction Completion Date (November 1. 2008) - Joseph Phelan III. Bass River LLC. Peter Zion for Joe Phelan III asks for a one year extension to allow for the completion of the road. He adds that one house will close in about 1 month. Zambernardi reads a letter from Frank Killilea, Director of Engineering, recommending the extension. Flannery asks how many houses are completed, Zion states that it is a 10 home subdivision and 2 houses are completed. He adds that they are finally getting some activity. Thomson states that he has to have some sympathy to people who are living there so he recommends that if the board does vote to extend this that the applicant use the next year to finish much of the requirements. Zion agrees that it is his hope to finish the project within the next year. Thomson: Motion to grant extension until October 31,2009, seconded by Mack. Passes 7-0. The Chair does not vote. 4. Plannim!: board Receipt of Chapter 91 License - Black Cow Restaurant Dinkin states that they just need to receive the license and put it on file. Zambernardi agrees and states that they could schedule a public hearing to determine if the public interest is being served. Thomson asks if assistance is needed in moving the application forward. Planning Board October 21,2008 Page 3 of7 Zambernardi states that she doesn't know. She adds that this Board has never held a hearing for a Chapter 91 License, and there is a public comment period. She explains that if the zoning amendment is approved they may need to look at this again because the WD zoning district requires a site plan review for buildings larger than 1000 square feet III SIze. Dinkin states that this application will move quickly through the DEP approval process because it will be clear to DEP that the City supports this project. Dunn asks about the environmental issues and Dinkin states that this would be out of the Board's jurisdiction. Harris states that he was impressed with the initial site plan. 5. Montserrat Housim!: Development - 11 Sprim!: Street - Beverlv Housim!: Authoritv - ReQuest for approval of recreational facilities plan (Zonim!: Ordinance Section 29-13.H.8) Attorney Tom Alexander, representing the Beverly Housing Authority (BHA), states that this is the parcel plan that abuts the Montserrat Train Station zoned RMD (Residential Medium Density), which requires 4000 square feet of land area for each dwelling. He adds that they plan to add 2 townhouse buildings each having 2 units. Alexander says that the proposal does conform with the existing zoning however under the RMD zoning requirement there is a provision that the Planning Board must approve a recreational area which must make up 10% of the gross area of the site. He shows the layout of the site and the recreational area, confirming that the 10% requirement will be met. Dinkin asks if there will be benches, and Alexander states that there are no current plans for benches now. Dinkin asks if this will be affordable housing available by lottery. Dawn Goodwin ofBHA states that it will be waitlisted and there will be a rental subsidy situation. She provides other information regarding income qualifications. Hutchinson asks if there has been any attempt to notify the people in the neighborhood about this. Alexander states that they have not contacted the neighbors because this is a by-right addition. Dunn expresses confusion about the zoning and Alexander states that this small area has been zoned RMD for about 30-40 years. Planning Board October 21,2008 Page 4 of7 Thomson: Motion to approve this recreational area and the project as a whole, seconded by Williams. Six members and the Chair vote in favor. Hutchinson votes in opposition. The motion passes 7-1. Dinkin recesses the meeting for a scheduled public hearing. 6. Public Hearim!: - Special Permit Application #121-08 - Create One Pork Chop Shaped Lot - 14 and 16 Cole Street - Arthur Thompson II & Scott Gorman Zambernardi reads the legal public hearing notice. Attorney Matthew Kavanagh shows the plan and explains that Parcel A is owned by Arthur Thompson's sister. He cites Section to 29.5.1 of the zoning bylaw for this lot, and explains that the parcel will meet the qualifications for a pork chop lot. His explanation includes the following points: . The lot is harmonious to the neighborhood because the single-family use is consistent with the surrounding homes. . The police and fire departments did comment on the application, and found no undue traffic would be caused, but stated that the house must be appropriately numbered. . The police department did not have any concerns. . There is water and gas on the street. . All of the facilities are adequate. . He is not aware of any objection to this proposal. . Overall lot size is 57,000 square feet, more than twice the size required by zoning. He describes the lot dimensions. . There are no pork chop lots contiguous to this. There is one pork chop lot at 10 Cole Street. Williams asks Kavanagh to review the history of parcel A. Kavanagh states that all of the land was owned by the Thompson sisters and they needed to pick up a triangular portion of land that was never sold because they intended to sell it to Arthur and Scott. Kavanagh clarifies that Arthur Thomson's father owned all of that property at one time. John Thomson states that at one time an election was made to carve the land up into the parcels that now exist. He asks about the frontage of Cole Street Subdivision LLC, and Kavanagh states that it is 162 feet and 125 feet is required. Planning Board October 21,2008 Page 5 of7 Thomson makes the point that if that subdivision had been originally carved down to the 125 feet required, there would be no need to be here for a special permit tonight. He expresses concern about the recent drainage. Arthur Thompson states that there was a problem with the drainage and some neighbors paid for the installation of 2 catch basins. He adds that he had not yet considered installing a drainage system for this site. Kavanagh clarifies that an NOI with the Conservation Commission will be needed for this parcel. He states that he has not received any comments from the Engineering Department, and Zambernardi states that she as a letter that she will read later. Thomson recalls the time when the Thompson Farm was going in and he was concerned about the traffic going into the street at parcel A. He adds that he would need a site visit before making a decision. Zambernardi reads the following letters: . Dated October 21,2008, from Frank Killilea, Director of Engineering . Dated October 21, 2008, from Amy Maxner, Environmental Planner . Dated October 8, 2008, from William Fiore, Beverly Fire Prevention . Dated October 6, 2008, from William T. Burke, BOH . Dated October 6, 2008, from Sgt. Joseph Shairs, Police Department, Traffic Officer Gary Neuman of 17 Cole Street asks about the house placement, not more than 250 feet from the street. Zambernardi states that the building commissioner interpreted the 250-foot provision, and if the house is sited within the part of the lot that does not meet the conforming portion, it cannot be more than 250 feet from the street. However, she clarifies that if the house is in the conforming portion it can be located anywhere. She clarifies that the "250" number is the limit of the pork chop portion of the lot. Thomson asks where the house is planned. Kavanagh shows the plan and states that the house will probably be in the widest area of the lot. Thomson clarifies that this special permit is for only one house. Andrew Neuman of 17 Cole Street speaks in favor of the special permit. Dinkin closes the public hearing. Planning Board October 21,2008 Page 6 of7 7. Discussion/Decision: Special Permit Application #121-08 - 14 and 16 Cole Street - Arthur Thompson II & Scott Gorman Dinkin states that within the context of the requirements for a special permit for a pork chop lot, he sees no reason not to approve this special permit. Thomson disagrees stating that there are times when he was presented with pork chop situations in the past, particularly on Foster Lane and Bay View Ave, that this problem was created by the way the developer chose to develop his own property. He states that the pork chop ordinance was not to be used by someone who only wished to squeeze in an extra lot. He acknowledges that all of the conditions have been met for this lot. He expresses concern with drainage but concedes that the Conservation Commission will be paying attention to this. He states that although this might be viewed as a self-created problem it can be distinguished from the recent denial at Bay View Avenue. He concludes that this applicant might later divide this into two lots because it is very large for the R15 zone but has chosen not to. Thomson says that he has heard from the neighbors that Arthur Thompson has been a good steward of this land. He therefore states that he will vote to approve this lot but restrict any future subdivision. Thomson: Motion to approve this special permit, subject to having no further subdivision on this property, seconded by Harris. Passes 6-1-1. Williams votes in opposition. Hutchinson abstains. 8. Citv Council Order #170 - ReQuest bv Citv Council for Plannim!: Board Review and Recommendation of Zonim!: Ordinance Section 29-5.1. "Pork Chop Shaped Lots" Dinkin states that he is not comfortable making a recommendation in the absence of a public hearing. He adds that he would make a recommendation on a draft but not on an existing order in the absence of a public hearing. Mack asks what prompted this investigation. Dinkin states that Councilor Hobin requested that this ordinance be examined. He iterates that the City Councilor issued the order and then asked the Planning Board for an advisory opinion. Much discussion ensues regarding the appropriate steps for the Planning Board to take with this issue. Thomson states that there are legitimate reasons for having this ordinance reviewed. Dinkin states that the existing ordinance appropriately defends against having a developer attempt to squeeze a lot out of any parcel. Planning Board October 21,2008 Page 7 of7 Thomson states that the problem should be identified first rather than having the Board look at the total ordinance. Thomson: Recommend to the Council that, in the event the Council desires a general review of the pork chop lot ordinance, it should consult with Planning Staff rather than the Planning Board for a professional opinion. In the event that the Council has specific amendments to this ordinance in mind, the Board recommends that the traditional procedures for amending a zoning ordinance, as described in M>G.L. cAOA, s.5 should be followed, seconded by Flannery. All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 8-0. Harris commends the planning staff for compiling an in-depth historical summary of the pork chop lot ordinance and Dinkin agrees. 9. Recommendation to Citv Council to Set a Joint Public Hearim!: - Citv Council Order #230 - Proposed Zonim!: Amendment - Create new "IR Overlav" District within part of the IR Zonim!: District alom!: Brimbal Avenue comprised of the followim!: parcels: Assessors Map #55. Lots 19.20.21.23.24.28.29.30: and Map #56. Lots 20. 20A - CEA Group Mack: Motion to recommend to the City Council that a joint public hearing be scheduled, seconded by Hutchinson. Passes 7-0. The chair does not vote. 10. Approval of Minutes - Julv 8. 2008 and Julv 15.2008 The members review the minutes and make suggestions for amendments. Harris: 7-0. Motion to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Flannery. Passes Mack: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Hutchinson. All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 8-0. The meeting is adjourned at 9:00 pm.