2009-10-28
CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION:
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE:
LOCATION:
Planning Board, Special Meeting
MEMBERS PRESENT:
October 28, 2009
City Council Chambers, Beverly City Hall, 3rd
Floor
Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice Chairperson
John Thomson, Ellen Hutchinson, David Mack,
Stephanie Williams
Joanne Dunn, Ellen Flannery, Charles Harris
Assistant Planning Director Leah Zambernardi
Andrea Bray
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
RECORDER:
Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order.
New/Other Business
1. Update: Thompson Farm Definitive Subdivision - Expiration of Construction
Completion Date (October 30. 2009) - Thomas Carnevale
Zambernardi reminds the Board of the items that remained incomplete as of the last
meeting, which include:
. Submission of recorded copies of a deed conveying Parcel X to the Rice property
and an easement showing that the drainage within Lots 5 and 6 are the sole
responsibility of Lot 6.
. Installation of a stop sign, a dead end sign and a 6-inch wide white road strip.
Zambernardi confirms that all of the required items have been completed. She also
reminds the Board that, at the last meeting, members voted to revoke the $11,000 bond if
these items are not completed by the end of the business on October 30, 2009; but that
this revocation would be nullified if the developer delivers, by the close of business on
October 30,2009, an extension of the Letter of Credit through November 30,2009, and if
the Planning Department receives this extension, the construction completion would be
extended to November 30,2009. She adds that the Board may vote to release the bond.
Thomson cites the Subdivision Rules and Regulations Section III.C.II, which state that
20% of the bond shall be held by the City for 18 months to ensure maintenance of the
streets and municipal services.
Zambernardi states that it will be held for 18 months or when the street is accepted by the
City, whichever is sooner. She adds that the Board may recommend to the City Council
Planning Board
October 28, 2009
Page 2 of 4
that the street be accepted, and upon the Council's acceptance of the street, the remaining
bond money may be released back to the developer.
Attorney Tom Alexander, representing the developer, states that even though the 20%
hold back is a rule, he doesn't believe that it is a normal practice to do it.
Williams states that the rules state that they "shall" do one or the other and she doesn't
think that the Board has discretion.
Mack reviews the ordinance and states that there isn't any wiggle room.
Thomson states that if the rules say "shall" the City must hold the 20%.
Thomson: Motion to take the bond to the extent of $2200 and release the rest, and if
the street is accepted by the City then City staff is authorized to return the $2200,
seconded by Mack. All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 5-0.
Williams: Motion to recommend to the City Council that they accept the street,
seconded by Hutchinson. All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 5-
O.
2. Continued Discussion/Decision: Minor Modification ReQuest #2 to Site Plan #98-
08 - New CVS at corner of Elliott and Rantoul Streets / Richard Me2uerditchian &
Ardi Company. LLC & G.B. New En2land 2. LLC
Attorney Mark Glovsky states that at the last meeting they requested 3 minor site plan
modifications, and 2 were approved, and the third was held until they heard from the fire
department that the turning radius was acceptable.
Zambernardi reads a letter dated October 22, 2009, from the Fire Department, Lieutenant
William Fiore, into the record.
Zambernardi states that she has some email correspondence with Lieutenant Fiore where
he questioned whether a fire truck could turn, and she assumes that his letter means that
he had determined that a fire truck will have sufficient space to turn in and out of the site.
Glovsky states that Lieutenant Fiore attended a meeting and reviewed the specs to
confirm that a fire truck could turn. He adds that in order to construct the driveway with
the original radius it would require National Grid to move a pole.
Hutchinson states that she thinks that Lieutenant Fiore was confused and the letter leaves
her to wonder about his intent.
Much discussion ensues regarding the letter.
Planning Board
October 28, 2009
Page 3 of 4
Mack: Motion to deem that the modification of the turning radius is minor,
seconded by Williams. All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 5-0.
Mack: Motion to approve the minor modification, seconded by Williams. All
members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 5-0.
Glovsky states that they anticipate another issue. He explains that, as part of the Site Plan
approval, the streetscape must contain lighting consistent with the Rantoul Street lighting
plan, but the City cannot provide the contractor with such a plan. He adds that there
might be a change to the signaling at Rantoul and Elliot and an additional arm might be
needed.
Glovsky confirms that the applicant would be wiling to post a bond or a cash payment for
the work, which the City cannot post specs for at the moment. He adds that he would like
to get the Board to consider this so it won't hold up the schedule, and requests a
modification of the decision so the PB would be willing to accept a cash payment or
Bond.
There is much discussion about this situation.
Glovsky states that concrete sidewalks are going in and they might need to be dug up for
installation of the lighting.
Thomson asks if the cash payment would be in lieu of CVS doing the work.
Glovsky confirms that the applicant wishes to price the work that they were going to do
and give that amount to the City to complete the off site improvements. In this way,
Glovsky states that his client may not have to be told that he cannot open on schedule.
Dinkin states that he sees a couple of problems with the cash payment because it might
become part of the general fund. He adds that the other issue here is that he needs to be
convinced that this is a minor modification.
Glovsky states that the option would be for them to just do what had been approved.
Zambernardi states that in terms of the street lights there is a notation on the plan that
says that there needs to be coordination with the City streetscape improvements.
Dinkin suggests that the applicant install the lights based on his impression of the lighting
for the neighborhood.
Thomson asks how the Board can hold up this applicant because the City is not doing
what it is supposed to do. He states that doing so would be unconscionable.
Planning Board
October 28, 2009
Page 4 of 4
Glovsky states that normally the Site Plan involves only the site, and in the course of this
Site Plan approval the Board took them off-site to stipulate other items that are on City
property. He explains that it gets difficult when the applicant must depend on others. He
clarifies that they are not asking for any items to be eliminated; they are asking for the
City to do the work on the City owned property and they are willing to pay for it.
Regarding the cash payment, he says that he believes that the monies could be held in a
separate account for the specific work to be done.
Thomson suggests the Board ask the City if the money could be escrowed for the purpose
of installing the lighting when they are ready to do such work.
Zambernardi suggests inviting someone from the City to the meeting.
Glovsky states he is looking ahead and anticipating that this might become an issue that
could delay the opening of the store, and that the more they can anticipate the better.
Dinkin suggests that Glovsky advise Miranda Gooding to prepare an argument, for the
meeting, that would explain why this is a minor modification.
Williams states that it seems incredibly unfair that the applicant is ready to do the work
and suddenly they are required to provide additional substantiation because the City isn't
doing what they are required to do.
Glovsky states that they are not modifying the site plan because they are putting some of
the work off.
Dinkin states that it is relatively new for the Board to be in this position to determine
whether a modification is minor, so he will always be looking for a line to draw as to
what is minor.
Thomson states that they need to determine who to invite to the meeting.
After more discussion, Glovsky thanks the Board and steps out.
Mack: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Williams. All members and the Chair
vote in favor. The motion passes 5-0.
The meeting is adjourned at 7:50 pm.