2009-09-16
CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION:
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE:
LOCATION:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Planning Board, Regular Meeting
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
RECORDER:
September 16, 2009
Conference Room B, Beverly City Hall, 3rd Floor
Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice Chairperson John
Thomson, Joanne Dunn, Ellen Flannery, Charles Harris,
Ellen Hutchinson, David Mack
Stephanie Williams
Planning Director Tina Cassidy
Andrea Bray
Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order.
1. Virginia Avenue and Kathleen Drive - Subdivision Approval Not Required - Evelyn
Conant
Cassidy describes the lot and the plans for the subdivision, stating that the plan meets all of the
requirements for an ANR. She explains that a neighbor has expressed concern about the snow
removal because some snow is stored on that lot.
Thomson asks if Kathleen Drive is a fully functional street.
Cassidy states that there are already two houses on Kathleen Drive, and at least one has access
solely off of Kathleen Drive.
Dinkin confirms that the City plows the street and provides trash collection. He asks if there is
adequate room for emergency vehicles to turn around at the end of the street.
Cassidy states that she isn't sure if there is any built-out turn around space for emergency
vehicles.
Thomson:
Motion to endorse this plan as one not requiring approval under the Subdivison
Control Law, seconded by Flannery. Motion passes 6-0 (the Chair abstains).
2. Carleton and Rodrick Avenues - Subdivision Approval Not Required - Tom &
Cheryl Carnevale and Michael & Tara Paulin
Dinkin recuses himself from this issue and Thomson assumes the role of chairman for this issue.
Cassidy states that this plan proposes a transfer of land between two properties to square off the
property lines. She adds that it meets all of the requirements for endorsement as an ANR, and
the building inspector is in agreement.
Planning Board
September 16,2009
Page 2 of 5
Thomson suggests that the explanatory note on the plan should be modified to reflect the fact
that the small parcels that will change hands are not to be considered separate building lots, but
rather are to be combined with the respective larger lots to form one contiguous lot.
Harris: Motion to endorse the plan as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision
Control Law, subject to the condition that the plan not be released unless and until a
notation is added to the plan as suggested by Thomson above, seconded by Mack.
Motion passes 5-0 (Dinkin in recusal, Thomson in abstention).
3. Thompson Farm Definitive Subdivision - Expiration of Construction Completion
Date and Letter of Credit - Tom Carnevale
Cassidy states that the developer appeared before the Board in May requesting a three-month
extension of the construction completion date for this six-lot subdivision, and the Board granted
that request.
Cassidy states that Mr. Carnevale has completed nearly all of his obligations except for a few
items. She explains that there is a retention pond on one lot for which a drainage easement must
be granted, and a draft of the easement was submitted to the City Solicitor today but has not yet
been reviewed.
As for the other outstanding items, Cassidy estimates that $11,000 of the surety bond should
cover these matters, which include:
. Preparation of As-built plans
. Preparation of Acceptance plans
. Submission of a drainage easement in a form acceptable to the City Solicitor; and
. Erection of a street sign
Cassidy states that the $11,000 includes $8,800 for the outstanding issues plus a 25%
contingency for a total of $11,000. She reminds the Board that the full surety bond is for
$57,575 and expires on October 16,2009.
Cassidy recommends that the Board vote to revoke the remaining $11,000 of the bond unless the
applicant can extend until after October meeting.
Dinkin states that he would like to reduce the bond to $11,000, discharging the difference
between that and the current amount.
Attorney Tom Alexander requests clarification of the wishes of the Board, to reduce the amount
of the bond that must be held from $57,575 to $11,000, and to revoke the bond if the developer
does not provide an executed extension of the Letter of Credit posted as surety before a specific
date.
Planning Board
September 16,2009
Page 3 of 5
Dinkin states that the bond could be revoked on October 31, 2009 if these outstanding
obligations have not been met.
Mack:
Motion to reduce the bond for the Thomson Farm Road subdivision from
$57,575.00 to $11,000.00, and to begin bond revocation proceedings for the
remaining $11,000 unless the applicant presents an extension of the Letter of
Credit posted as surety from the bank no later than September 23, 2009, which
extension must extend the expiration date of the bond until October 30, 2009,
seconded by Flannery. Motion passes 5-0, with Dinkin and Thomson abstaining.
Alexander states that the developer was ready to pave the street in early August but the City
asked them to grind down the binder coat of the pavement for drainage purposes.
4. Penny Lane Definitive Subdivision (a.k.a. Hale Court) - Expiration of Construction
Comoletion Date - T. Ford
Cassidy states that the construction completion date for this project expired on September 1,
2009, and the applicant is requesting an extension of the completion date until December 15,
2009.
The members agree to grant the extension until December 14, 2009, because the Board will meet
on December 15 and this will give the City a chance to take the bond if the obligations are not
met. Cassidy states that Mr. Ford informed her that he expects to fulfill all of his remaining
obligations before that date.
Thomson:
Motion to extend the construction completion date for the Penny Lane subdivision
to December 14, 2009. Motion seconded by Hutchinson, all members in favor
(the Chair abstains).
5. Informal Discussion: Potential OSRD subdivision application for parcel in Beverly
Farms. Svmes Develooment
Jeff Rhuda of Symes Development describes the parcel near the corner of Hale Street and West
Street that contains one old house in need of updating and a barn that is used as a dwelling unit.
He states that the land area is 2.72 acres (approximately 118,500 square feet). A wetlands
specialist has delineated the wetlands on the site and found the lot contains 36,000 square feet of
wetland and a no-cut zone of 11,000 square feet for a total of 47,000 square feet of no disturb
zone.
He displays the first of three plans, describing it as a standard subdivision plan, having a total of
6 lots, the two existing dwellings plus 4 additional lots. This plan might suffice as the "yield
plan" for OSRD.
Thomson questions the setbacks for the two existing dwellings, noting that as drawn one seems
to create a zoning violation in that regard. Rhuda agrees to check for setback conformance on
those structures.
Planning Board
September 16,2009
Page 4 of 5
Dinkin asks about the wetland conformance, stating that this parcel may not conform to the
allowable maximum wetland percentage (no more than 20% of total square footage of wetlands
on a lot can be counted toward that lot's area, for purposes of compliance with the zoning
ordinance). Rhuda agrees to look into this aspect.
Rhuda displays his second plan, adjusted to meet OSRD requirements by excluding the wetland
and 50% of the remainder for open space preservation, reducing the buildable area to 35,000
square feet. He explains that using this scenario allows for a total of 4 lots, 2 existing plus 2
additional, ifhe meets all of the set-back, buffer zone, and minimum lot size requirements.
Rhuda displays the third plan, stating that he is hoping that the Board would be willing to waive
some of the basic requirements, and this plan assumes possible waivers. He explains that the
plan allows for 30% open space, with some building inside the 100-foot buffer but not in the 25-
foot no disturb zone, and with the roadway reduced to a 40 ft right-of-way. He adds that this
plan would have a total of 6 units, 2 in existing structures plus 4 additional house lots.
Thomson states the normal procedure for this OSRD would be to start with the areas that need to
be protected and then to look at the variables.
Cassidy states that the OSRD ordinance calls for a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. Rhuda
states that the lots in this plan would be 10,000 square feet or larger.
Thomson states that the final plan might look more conventional but might not look as bad as
this plan. He states that there are some areas where the yield plan might be suspect (setback
requirements and wetlands) and urges Rhuda to reevaluate it on those points.
Much discussion ensues regarding the final yield.
Thomson states that the ordinance is framed so that a parcel that could yield 6 lots with a
conventional subdivision would still yield 6 lots under the OSRD process.
Rhuda thanks the Board members for their time.
6. New/Other Business
a. Chapter 91 License Amendment Requests: Cumming Center (Chapter 91
License #8526) and City of Beverly's Waterfront Improvement Project
(Chapter 91 License #4346 )
Cassidy informs members that the Planning Department received copies of requests for Chapter
91 License amendments from Cummings Center (for the Garage on the corner of Elliott and
McKay Streets), and from the City of Beverly (for the former McDonalds and current
Harbormaster' s site). These documents will be on file in the Planning Department and available
for review on request.
Planning Board
September 16,2009
Page 5 of 5
b. Approval of Minutes - July 28, 2009 Meeting
Dinkin asks if there are any corrections that need to be made to the draft minutes of the Board's
July meeting. There are none.
Thomson:
Motion to approve the minutes from the July 28, 2009 meeting, seconded by
Hutchinson. Motion passes 6-0 (the Chair abstains).
Dinkin asks if there is any other business for the Board to conduct this evening. There is none.
Mack:
Motion to adjourn, seconded by Dunn. All members and the Chair vote in favor.
The motion passes 7-0.
The meeting is adjourned at 8:30 p.m.