Loading...
2009-05-19 CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: LOCATION: Planning Board, Regular Meeting MEMBERS PRESENT: May 19, 2009 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 MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Planning Director Tina Cassidy, Assistant Planning Director Leah Zambernardi Andrea Bray RECORDER: Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order. 1. New/Other Business a. Subdivision Approval Not Reauired (SANR) -14 Cole Street - Arthur F. Thompson II and Scott D. Gorman Attorney Matthew Kavanagh reminds the Board that the applicants were granted a special permit last September and now they wish to sell their existing dwelling on lot F-2 and build a structure for themselves on lot F-3, so they are seeking an ANR. Thomson asks if this is exactly the same division as with the special permit. Kavanagh states that there is one difference and points it out on the plan. Dinkin asks if they will remove all or a portion of the wall and Kavanagh states that it will be shifted. Thomson asks if this is in a wetlands jurisdiction. Zambernardi states that there are wetlands across the street. Kavanagh reads the letter from Amy Maxner, stating that BVW is across the street. He adds that he would need to return to the Conservation Commission for any improvements and the only improvement would be a driveway. Zambernardi asks if this is in the 25-foot no disturb zone. Planning Board May 19, 2009 Page 2 of 14 Kavanagh states that he is unclear about that and the Conservation Commission would need to approve any work on the site. He points out the existing driveway, which comes off of Cole Street and terminates in front of the barn. Zambernardi confirms that they received a special permit as a pork chop lot. Arthur Thompson confirms that it is his intention to build on the lot. Dinkin asks if he is able to describe the zone of the lot of application, with engineering exactness. Kavanagh states that he cannot speak about the site in such detail. Zambernardi reads from the zoning regulations, specifically the statement, "unless the wetlands crossing has been approved by the Conservation Commission." Thomson confirms that anything that needs a permit does not fall under the purview of an ANR. He states that the Board is barred from endorsing this ANR if the applicant cannot establish to the Board's satisfaction that the requirements are met. He suggests that they withdraw the application. Kavanagh states that he will withdraw it and apologizes for taking the Board's time. Thomson: Motion to grant the withdrawal of this application, seconded by Mack. Motion passes 6-0. The Chair abstains. Williams arrives. b. Subdivision Approval Not ReQuired (SANR) - 2 Hull Street - Cvnthia Bud2en Attorney Tom Alexander speaks for the applicant stating that there is enough frontage to create another lot and the existing garage on lot 1 will be torn down and the barn on lot 2 will be torn down. Dinkin asks for clarification on the lot lines and Alexander points out the lines on the plan. Thomson: Motion to endorse the plan as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law recognizing that there is no issue of wetlands on this parcel, seconded by Mack. Motion passes 7-0. The Chair abstains. Planning Board May 19, 2009 Page 3 of14 c. Subdivision Approval Not ReQuired (SANR) - 5 Pole Swamp Lane - John Soursourian Zambernardi presents photographs of the street that is finished. Engineer Peter Ogren presents the plan. Dinkin asks the width of the pavement. Soursourian states that it is 18 feet wide. Thomson states that they discussed this last year and agreed that if the road was finished for enough frontage they would be inclined to approve the ANR. He states that not all of the road is paved and this raises the question as to whether there is adequate access and frontage. He states that they can do the ANR but this still might not satisfy the building inspector. He explains that the building inspector might find that the access and frontage are not adequate. Dinkin clarifies that the question is whether frontage on an unpaved road is adequate to meet the requirements for an ANR. Thomson states that the wants to avoid setting precedent. He cites two similar examples. Zambernardi states her opinion that the roadway is adequate, based on a site visit she made. Thomson advises the applicant that the Board's endorsement of this does not constitute approval by the building inspector. Thomson: Motion to endorse this plan as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, with the understanding that this does not constitute any approval by the building inspector, seconded by Flannery. Motion passes 7-0. The Chair abstains. Thomson: Motion to recess for the public hearing, seconded by Harris. Motion passes 7-0. The Chair abstains. Dinkin calls the regular meeting back to order. 2. Continued Public Hearin2: - Site Plan Review Application #100-09 - Black Cow Restaurant - demolition and removal of existin2: buildin2: and construction of new buildin2: with associated site improvements - One Water Street - Citv of Beverlv and Joseph A. Leone Planning Board May 19, 2009 Page 4 of 14 Dinkin states that Harris listened to a recording of the previous meeting and signed an affidavit, which qualifies him to vote on this issue. Thomson: Motion to waive the reading of the public hearing notice, seconded by Flannery. Motion passes 7-0. The Chair abstains. Flannery: Motion to recess the meeting for 5 minutes, seconded by Dunn. Motion passes 7-0. The Chair abstains. Dinkin recesses the meeting for 5 minutes and then calls the hearing back to order. He explains to the audience that the Board will be conducting this hearing without benefit of staff, since Planning Director Tina Cassidy is assisting in the public hearing presentation. Cassidy introduces herself to the audience and states that the City is proposing to lease a piece of property on the waterfront (the former McDonald's site) for a restaurant. She introduces the development team as restaurauteur Joe Leone, architect Doug Trees, and engineers Bill Bergeron and Peter Ogren from Hayes Engineering. She also introduces members of the Harbor Management Authority who are in the audience. Cassidy states that she is here to answer questions raised at the last public hearing. She adds that Ogren will provide a quick recap of the plan and explain a change to the proposed site plan. Cassidy show slides of the site with the existing structures and then the original plan. Ogren reviews the original plan and states that traffic would have needed to make a 3- point-turn in the parking lot, and a parking lot attendant would have been needed to explain directions for cars to turn out of the lot and access Cabot Street and Goat Hill Lane to access the parking spaces in the Harbormasters lot. He explains that the new plan proposes the installation of an 18' wide driveway across the F erry Way Landing to allow cars to travel directly from the restaurant lot to the Harbormaster's lot. He states that the Ferry Way Landing passageway will be paved with "Turfstone", and that this area will not be plowed but the snow will be blown from the passageway during the winter. Cassidy states that the Parking and Traffic Commission met this morning and recommended that this passageway stay open from at least Memorial Day to Labor Day. Ogren describes the location of handicapped parking spaces and the handicapped access from the Harbormaster's site, across the Ferry Way Landing and to the proposed restaurant site. Ogren points out the Designated Port Area portion of the site which must have a hard surface, so they will use pavers in a different color from the parking lot to differentiate Planning Board May 19, 2009 Page 5 of 14 this area. He points out the location of the fire hydrant and the water connections and states that they have changed the sewer design. Cassidy states that they are happy to answer questions from the Board and the public. Thomson asks if any parking spaces were lost with the change. Ogren states that none were lost but there has been a redistribution (2 were removed from the restaurant lot and 2 were added to the Harbormaster's lot for a net change of zero). Thomson asks Ogren to trace the path from the area under the bridge to the waterfront public way, and Ogren points it out on the plan. Dinkin asks if a portion this walkway will be posted as public access. Ogren states that Chapter 91 requires that the walkway be made clear with a sign and with a different color paving. Harris asks if there is parking across the street. Ogren states that additional parking exists across the street next to the Anchor Pub, which is known as the Creamery Lot. He adds that they don't need that lot to meet the parking requirements of zoning, even with outside seating. Harris asks about the parking attendants and if the cars must back up. Ogren states that the cars will need to back up on the aisle east of the restaurant. He clarifies the dimensions of the parking spaces and the travel lane. He states that this is a "blind parking lot" because there is no way to see available parking spaces at the entry. Mack asks if the major difference between the original proposal and the new one is the new vehicular access and Ogren confirms that this is the major improvement. Mack asks about the title issues recalling a use restriction for the Ferry Way Landing parcel. Ogren states that it was previously believed that the passageway might constitute a "violation of some deed restriction" and that a subsequent title search determined that there is no such deed restriction. Cassidy clarifies that the City owns the Ferry Way Landing and the Harbormaster's site as well as the McDonald's site. Williams confirms that the turfstone way will be one way and asks how this will be enforced. Planning Board May 19, 2009 Page 6 of 14 Ogren states that there will be signage on both ends of the driveway. Harris asks about the traffic congestion, especially between 4:30 and 5:30 pm. Ogren states that the Mass Highway Department laid out this new traffic configuration at the time that the new Beverly-Salem bridge was designed. He states that they could make an adjustment to the light timing signal and that might ease the traffic issue. There is no room available within the existing right of way to add lanes, etc., and that in order to do so additional land takings would be required. He explains that a traffic study will be conducted within 3 months of the opening of the restaurant, and that might result in a recommendation for changing the timing of the lights. Cassidy adds that the Parking and Traffic Commission recommended this condition in its letter. Hutchinson asks if the green strip will change the character and use of the Ferry Way Landing parcel. Ogren states that it is a change in texture but it will appear to be more green at a distance and the bulk of the parcel to the south of the proposed driveway will remain as it is today. Dinkin clarifies that the matter before the Board is a site plan review and the use, per se, will not be reviewed. He then invites the public to ask clarifying questions. Duane Anderson of 157 Colon Street asks if there is any potential for a gain of green space. Ogren states that they probably could increase some of the green space when the parking lot is configured. Frank Kinzie of36 Washington Street asks how there can be vehicular access on the Ferry Way Landing site. Cassidy repeats that there is no deed restriction preventing it and states that a question regarding its legality is best posed to the City Solicitor. City Solicitor Roy Gelineau states that he will not answer the question tonight but will look into it at the Board's request. Richard Faulkner of 20 Front Street expresses concern about the traffic and parking in the neighborhood. Dinkin states that where parking is legal it is legal and where it is not legal it is not legal. He adds that this is a law enforcement issue. Planning Board May 19, 2009 Page 7 of 14 Faulkner states that this should be taken up in this meeting. He asks what will happen if the restaurant fails due to a failing economy and asks why the City is contributing millions of dollars to the project. Cassidy states that the City has had long-standing plans to reinvest in these facilities, which are very old and in need of improvements. She explains that the seawall needs repair, and improvements are needed to the floats in the commercial marina and the recreational marina and that handicapped accessibility is needed on the public pier. She states that the City's investment in its marina facilities has nothing to do with the Black Cow project, but rather are necessitated simply by the age of the facilities. Dinkin confirms that the improvements on the upland portion of the site (e.g. the restaurant site) are leaseholder improvements and will not done by the City. He clarifies that the City is not investing $6M in the Black Cow restaurant project but rather in the City-owned marinas. Ward 3 City Councilor John Burke of 13 West Dane Street asks the Board to request a legal opinion regarding zoning changes enacted after the issuance of the City's Request For Proposals. Dinkin states that the Board does not have a legal opinion on that matter, and that that issue is up to the City Solicitor to investigate. He adds that it is unlikely that the Board will vote on this matter until they hear from the City Solicitor. Rosemary Maglio of30 Pleasant Street asks Bergeron about the traffic study, specifically if the restaurant use was considered in the study. She states that this is inconsistent with the statement that this will be adequate. She expresses concern about the parking. Bergeron states that the total number of the seats considered in the study include all of the bar seats. He adds that the zoning requires one parking space for every 4 seats and that is what is being provided. Eric Yakos of 3 Lothrop Street asks if there has been a traffic study that looks at the busiest times of the day. Bergeron says there was a "Level of Service Analysis". Y akos asks if he can see the study. Dinkin states that it is on file at the Planning Department and he can obtain a copy there. Renee Mary of274 Hale Street asks about the park and the pavers. Ogren points it out on the plan. Planning Board May 19, 2009 Page 8 of 14 Mike Milnicke, commercial fisherman, asks if there is space for offloading and loading for the commercial fishermen. Cassidy states that she is not familiar enough with the current layout of the Harbormaster's site to be able to say for certain whether the City's plan for reconfiguring that lot will affect existing conditions in that regard. Bill Finch of 50 Front Street asks if the six recreational use parking spaces will be used by restaurant patrons during busy times. He expresses concern about the shortage of parking for non-restaurant patrons visiting when the parking lot is full. Ogren states that for DP A uses they could use the wharf space. Finch suggests using one-way parking gates at the passageway on the Ferry Way Landing site. Cassidy states that they could look into that possibility. June Vanknowe of 42 Front Street asks if the traffic on the bridge will be affected by the restaurant. Bergeron states that it will not affect the bridge, only Water Street. Linda Cross of28 Front Street asks for clarification on the public walkway. Ogren clarifies the location of the public walkway and states that the Ferry Way Landing site is all public. Maglio asks how this roadway across the public park can enhance the public space. Steve Lotito of 24 Cabot Street states that his land was taken by eminent domain and the City promised that he could park at any time at the McDonald's site. He asks what can be done about this and where the recreational fishers will park. Cassidy states that she is not aware of the existence of any written agreement or parking arrangement between his business and the City. She explains that the City intends to install parking meters with a 3 hour limit on the former McDonald's site and the meters will be enforced by the Police Department's meter enforcement personnel. Lotito expresses concern about the parking situation. Cassidy states that on balance they will be able to accommodate everybody and there will be an analysis of traffic conditions post construction. Planning Board May 19, 2009 Page 9 of 14 Sue Kinzie states that boaters will go out all day long and the 3 hour limit for the parking meters will not accommodate them. Cassidy states that the area under the bridge will not be metered and the Creamery parking lot will not be metered either. Eric Yanko of 3 Lothrop Street inquires about the accommodation of emergency vehicles. Cassidy states that the site plan was reviewed by the Parking and Traffic Commission and that the Fire and Police Departments are represented on that Commission. The fire trucks will go wherever they need to go to respond to an emergency situation. Neither department requested nor needed the use of the proposed driveway in their estimation. Ogren states that the building will be fully sprinkled and two hydrants will be located on the lot or nearby. William Flanagan of 48 Bartlett Street asks how many parking spaces the restaurant can use. Ogren states that there are a total of 144 parking spaces and zoning requires 83 spaces. Flanagan asks about employee parking. Ogren states that there will be off-site parking for employees. Janis Coall of 2 Davis Street asks about "level of service C". Ogren explains the term "level of service" and states that the time on the light will be increased. Coall asks about the 6 recreational parking spaces. Cassidy states that the spaces are reserved for any recreational use and there will be signage identifying them. Coall asks whether the City has considered putting in some long term parking meters to address the issue of boaters who need more than 3 hours. Cassidy states that they have not looked into it but it is a good suggestion. Coall asks if 2 cars can fit on the one-way passageway and Ogren state that they can. Mary Beckman of 15 Larcom Avenue asks if the Board is ready to move on to comments. Planning Board May 19, 2009 Page 10 of14 Dinkin states that if the questions are exhausted he is ready but the Ward 2 City Councilor will speak first. Mack asks how frequently all 90 spaces are currently used. Cassidy states that she is not familiar with the Harbormaster's site, and the McDonald's site is full about twice/year and the Creamery site is often full for the Anchor Pub. Meg Falloni of 9 Porter Street states that the lots are full on occasion, especially on the Fourth of July and in the fall when Santa arrives on the waterfront by boat. Rich Lotito 55 Hillside Avenue states that the lot is full frequently. Steve Lotito of 24 Cabot Street states that the parking lot is full all summer long. Miranda Gooding states that she manages the building and has never had a problem finding a parking spot. Nancy Marino of9 Wellman Street asks how they will enforce employee parking at an off site location. Ogren states that the restaurant operator must advise the City of how they will enforce it. This was another recommendation of the Parking and Traffic Commission. Marino asks if the traffic study will be conducted of the very congested Goat Hill area. Marino asks if they will look into traffic in the neighborhood streets. Cassidy states that the recent study that was conducted is the count of cars over the bridge. She adds that they might need to place signs near Rowand's and Goat Hill Lane to direct traffic out of the area. Dinkin reads the recommendation letter dated May 19,2009 from the Parking and Traffic Commission signed by Chairman Richard Benevento into the record. Ogren states that the recommendation regarding the future traffic and parking study is vague and there must be some boundaries as to the additional requirements that might be added if the study reveals a parking issue. He requests some limiting language on that Issue. Cassidy states that the Planning Board has the discretion to modify any suggestions they receIve. Planning Board May 19, 2009 Page 11 of 14 Linda Cross of28 Front Street asks if the City owns the area under the bridge. Cassidy states that it is owned by the State. Maglio asks about the hours of operation of the restaurant, delivery trucks, landscaping, and whether the trees or the stairway will be removed. Ogren points out the place for the delivery trucks, and states that the stairs will remain. Black Cow Owner Joe Leone states that the hours of the restaurant will be 11 :30 am- 1 :00 am daily, and the size of the delivery trucks vary. Dinkin moves into comments in favor of the project. Ward 2 City Councilor Wes Slate speaks in favor of the project. Rinus Oosthoek of 185 Hale Street, a member of the Harbor Management Authority and President of the Salem Chamber of Commerce, speaks in favor of the project. Don Neuman of26 Washington Street, a member of the Harbor Management Authority, speaks in favor of the project. Miranda Gooding of 10 Hopkins Avenue speaks in favor of the project. Dinkin opens to comments in opposition. Eric Yanko of 3 Lothrop Street speaks in opposition to the project. Ward 3 City Councilor John Burke of 13 West Dane Street speaks in opposition to the project, specifically regarding the zoning change, which occurred after the RFP. Dinkin asks Burke if there are litigants on this issue. Burke states that he doesn't know if there are any litigants. Mary Beckman of 15 Larcom Avenue, owner of Custom Medicine, speaks in opposition to the project. She presents a PowerPoint presentation to support her statement. Frank Kinzie of36 Washington Street, owner of Beverly Port Marina, speaks in opposition to the project. Rosemary Maglio of30 Pleasant Street speaks in opposition to the project. Dinkin states that he would like to continue this discussion at the meeting on June 16th. Planning Board May 19, 2009 Page 12 of14 Harris: Motion to recess this hearing until June 16,2009 at 7:45 pm, seconded by Hutchinson. All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 8-0. Dinkin reconvenes the regular meeting. New or Other Business (Continued) d. ReQuest for Certificate pursuant to MGL Chapter 41. Section SIX - 239 Hale Street/40 Brackenbury Lane - John Lod2e Cassidy states that the plan was not recorded within six months of endorsement as required by the Subdivision Control Law. Staff has subsequently reviewed the plan and determined that the Board's 2007 approval has not been modified, changed or rescinded, nor has the plan been changed. She adds that Zambernardi prepared a certificate to this effect for the Board's endorsement. Thomson recuses himself from this matter. Mack: Motion to authorize the majority of the Board to sign the M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81-X Certificate for this ANR, seconded by Flannery. Motion passes 6-0. Thomson and the Chair abstain. e. Sar2ent Avenue Extension Definitive Subdivision - Expiration of Construction Completion Date - D. Jeremv Campbell Cassidy states that the construction completion date was June 2009 and she reads the requirements for the refund of the bond. She explains that the applicant won't be able to complete the required work by June 19,2009, but he has advised the Planning Department that he will have all of the work completed by the end of June. She recommends discussing this matter at the June Meeting as a result. Mack: Motion to continue this issue until June 16,2009, seconded by Flannery. Motion passes 7-0. The Chair abstains. f. Thompson Farm Definitive Subdivision - Expiration of Construction Completion Date - Tom Carnevale Attorney Tom Alexander states that the street trees required in this subdivision were planted last week and that bid proposals for the final sidewalks have been obtained and they will prepare "as-built" plans upon completion of the final layer of paving. Planning Board May 19, 2009 Page 13 of14 Dinkin asks Alexander to explains why many of the residents are unhappy with the incomplete work. Alexander states that the residents are anxious to see this subdivision completed. He adds that now that the last property is under agreement they will finish the topcoat of the roadway pavement and the other outstanding work. He assures the Board that the applicant will not return for another extension. Thomson: Motion to grant an extension of the construction completion date for the Thompson Farm Subdivision to August 1,2009, seconded by Flannery. Motion passes 7-0. Hutchinson abstains. Dinkin states that he would like the developer at his own expense to notify the abutters that this matter will be up for a final disposition at the July meeting and a copy of the letter forwarded to the Planning Board. f. Mass Development Finance A2encv - Plannin2 Board Notification of Harborli2ht Communitv Partners. Inc. Application for Revenue Bond Cassidy informs the Board that it has received notification of pending MDF A funding for several Beverly construction projects. She states that the notification will be on file in the Planning Department and available for review there. g. Recommendation to Citv Council to Set a Joint Public Hearin2 - Citv council Order #72 - Proposed Amendments to Parkin2 and inclusionarv Housin2 Sections of Zonin2 Ordinance Cassidy explains to the Board that it must vote to recommend a Joint Public Hearing on this proposed zoning change. Mack: Motion to recommend to the City Council that they schedule a Joint Public Hearing on Council Order #72, seconded by Harris. Motion passes 7-0. The Chair abstains. h. Set Date for Julv and September Plannin2 Board Meetin2s Cassidy asks if the July meeting can be rescheduled, and the members agree to reschedule the meeting for July 28th. The members agree to reschedule the September meeting for Wednesday, September 16th because the third Tuesday of September will be the date of a primary election in the City. I. Approval of Minutes - April 21. 2009 Meetin2 Planning Board May 19, 2009 Page 14 of 14 Voting members are Dinkin, Thomson, Dunn, Flannery, Harris, Hutchinson, and Mack. Dinkin asks if there are any changes or corrections that should be made to the draft minutes. There are none. Thomson: Motion to approve the draft minutes of the Board's April 21, 2009 meeting, seconded by Flannery. Motion passes 6-0. The Chair abstains. 3. Adjournment Dinkin reminds the members that a motion to adjourn is always in order. Dunn: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Flannery. All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 8-0. The meeting is adjourned at 11: 15 pm.