2010-03-16
CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION:
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE:
LOCATION:
Planning Board, Regular Meeting
MEMBERS PRESENT:
March 16, 2010
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,
James Matz
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
RECORDER:
Assistant Planning Director Leah Zambernardi
Andrea Bray
Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order.
1. Subdivision Approval Not ReQuired (SANR) - 9 Dondi Road and 7 Wed2emere
Road - Morrissev and Hall
Zambernardi states that this will be a land swap between the two properties. She adds
that this meets all of the requirements for the ANR.
Thomson:
Passes 8-0.
Motion to endorse this plan approval not required, seconded by Harris.
2. Special Permit #114-07 and Site Plan Review #88-07 for 10-12 Con2ress Street
(approved Mav 2007) - ReQuest for Additional One-Year Extension - Beverlv
Office Development. LLC
Attorney Tom Alexander states that this is the old Ventron site, and the project was
approved almost 3 years ago and then was granted a one-year extension one year ago. He
explains that he isn't aware of any changes for this project that would be needed in
conjunction with the Black Cow development. He clarifies that the extension would
mean that the project must be started prior to May 2011. He states that there is currently
no market for this development and the lenders are reluctant to finance this project at this
time.
Harris: Motion to grant the one-year extension, seconded by Flannery. Passes 7-
O. The Chair abstains.
3. OSRD #01-08 - Site Plan - Beaver Pond Road (approved Julv 2008) - ReQuest to
remove tree within "no disturb" area - Alden Drake
Planning Board
March 16, 2010
Page 2 of9
Alden Drake, property owner, presents a plan and states that the do-not-disturb line goes
through the tree and the tree leans toward the house and the street and he is concerned
that it might come down. He adds that he values the woods and nature and privacy on
that site and he has saved as many trees as possible on the lot. He states that he can't pull
the house forward because it would alter the septic system plans. Drake states that the
tree's diameter is 12"-14" with a single trunk and a large crown.
Zambernardi reads an email into the record dated March 12, 2010, from Phil Klimowitz,
City Arborist which recommends removal of the tree.
Matz concurs that the tree should probably be removed.
Dinkin states that he is concerned that they might set a precedent that dictates that any
changes in the vegetation within the do-not-disturb zone is a minor modification.
Thomson agrees and states that he could clarify in the motion that it is minor for this
particular circumstance. He adds that he doesn't feel that the Board should have to go
through a process of saying that the removal of one tree on the border of a buffer zone is
minor, and that he would like to allow the Planning Department to grant permission for a
removal of a tree that is in this circumstance.
Thomson: Motion that the removal of the tree of this type and in this particular
circumstance is deemed to be a minor modification, seconded by Hutchinson. Passes 8-0.
Thomson: Motion that this being a minor modification and with the recommendation
of the arborist to allow this tree to come down. Passes 8-0.
Thomson: Motion for the Planning Staff to make the determination on their own to
permit the removal a single tree, upon recommendation from the City Arborist, seconded
by Harris.
Harris states that there is a "vista cut" provision in the ordinance and this would be
consistent with the "vista cut" provision.
Mack asks how the Board can distinguish this type of case from any other minor
modification for any site plan approval. Dinkin states there may have to be an ordinance
change to allow for staff determinations like this.
Much discussion ensues regarding this point.
Thomson states that he doesn't feel that strongly about it and he is willing to withdraw
his motion.
Planning Board
March 16, 2010
Page 3 of9
Thomson:
Motion to withdraw the previous motion, seconded by Harris. Passes 8-0.
Thomson:
Motion to recess for a public hearing, seconded by Flannery. Passes 8-0.
4. Recommendation to City Council: Council Order #3 - Zonin2 Amendments
relative to the "Residential Reuse of Existin2 and Former Public Buildin2s" (Section
29-24.E.)
Planning Director Tina Cassidy states that there might have been confusion and concern
around the use of the word "properties", in respect to the change that would exempt
applicants from OSRD, so she made some suggested changes. She reads the suggested
changes.
Cassidy states that she also modified the language regarding the affordable units.
The members review the suggested change in the language.
Matz asks what happens to the rest of the land if it would normally fall under OSRD.
Thomson states that the Council could condition that the open space be preserved.
Dunn asks if buildings are subject to OSRD.
Cassidy states that any development that measures 2 acres or more in the R10 zone would
trigger OSRD.
Hutchinson asks if the lot has a legal definition in the ZOnIng bylaws and Cassidy
confirms that it does.
Mack: Motion to recommend to the City Council that they adopt the changes including
the changes suggested by Cassidy, seconded Dunn. Passes 7-0. Thomson abstains.
5. Public Hearin2 (continued): Open Space Residential Desi2n #02-10 - Initial
Review Application and Yield Plan - 875 and 875 ~ Hale Street - Montrose School
Park. LLC
Dinkin opens the public hearing and then recesses it until 8: 10 pm.
Dinkin reopens the public hearing.
Matz recuses himself from this hearing and steps down to sit in the audience.
Planning Board
March 16, 2010
Page 4 of9
Peter Ogren of Hayes Engineering states that they have worked through a few plans and
he presents the latest yield plan in which the 2 existing dwellings will remain and 3 new
lots will be added. He states that it is possible to fit a house on each lot and that the road
would be outside the buffer zone, so therefore this is a waiverless plan.
Ogren then presents the OSRD conceptual plan with a common drive along the west side
with a buffer to the abutting property. He states that he has worked out an agreement
with the abutter that wishes to have access to their property via a stub out off the new
common drive.
James Emanuel, Landscape Architect, provides a description of what the character of the
landscape might be upon completion of the project. He states that greenery will divide
the lots, and they will preserve much of the existing trees.
Ogren states that he understands that if the Board agrees that this would be the preferred
plan he would come back with more details and have a public hearing.
Harris asks about the wetland, who controls it and who owns it.
Attorney Brad Latham states that it would remain with the property but would be
protected as open space in perpetuity, under a CR, or it would be in a homeowners
association.
Thomson states that they don't have to commit to the ownership of that space today.
Ogren states that the street will be 20 feet wide, then narrow to 18 feet wide after the first
driveway, and then narrow again to 16 feet wide after the second driveway. He states
that he has not yet spoken to the fire department.
Regarding conversations with the abutters, Jeff Rhuda states that he spoke to Mr. Barry
and that his attorney is here and they have a gentlemen's agreement. Rhuda adds that he
has not spoken to Mr. Lewis and he has spoken to Mr. Grant.
Landscape Architect James Emanuel reviews the type of approach he took to identify the
developable area and the method for locating the houses and the lot lines.
Thomson asks if the spur to the neighbor would be paved and Emanuel states that they
haven't determined that yet.
Zambernardi reads the following letters into the record:
. Dated February 3, 2010, from David 1. Lang, Chairman, Conservation
Commission. Zambernardi adds that the new yield plan and OSRD plan were
received last week and the Conservation Commission can have comments on the
new plans at the next meeting.
Planning Board
March 16, 2010
Page 5 of9
. Dated February 9, 2010, From Chair Elizabeth Dunne, Open Space and
Recreation Committee (OSRC).
. Dated January 28,2010, from the Board of Health, Director William T. Burke
. Dated March 16, 2010, Email from Conservation Agent Amy Maxner.
Zambernardi then reads the following letters from members of the public into the record:
. Dated March 12, 2010, from Nancy Coffey.
. Dated March 15, 2010, from Alfred L. Brown, Jr.
. Dated March 14, 2010, from Walker Martin.
Dinkin asks the percentage of the developable land that is preserved.
Ogren states that he does not have a number at this time.
Bob Lewis of 903 Hale Street states that he has lived in his home for 27 years, and that
his home was built at the turn of the last century. He submits a letter and presents the
pictures taken yesterday, which show the flooding going up through the 100-foot buffer
zone. He states that this development would be a disaster to the neighborhood. He
outlines his primary concerns: 1) Ogren said that the sewer across that lot was public and
it is not, and it is a gravity feed, and he is concerned that it will flow back into his
property, 2) Ogren said that the existing property had two driveways, and if the carriage
house driveway is used on a daily basis it will be the most dangerous driveway in Beverly
Farms, and 3) The drainage problem is major because there has been flooding in this area
for many years and the City has taken great measures to correct it but there is still
flooding.
Nancy Coffey of 97 Haskell Street, founder of the Beverly Farms History Project, and
member of the OSRC presents photos of the house. She cites one of the secondary
purposes of OSRD as the preservation of historic resources in a manner consistent with
the Master Plan. She states that this is a vista from West Street up to the house, and
explains that farmscapes are an important part of the Beverly Farms character. She
requests that the Board uphold the 50% open space provision in the OSRD ordinance.
Joe Gal of 861 Hale Street states that he has lived there for 42 years, and was originally
attracted to Beverly Farms because it offered the quality of small town life. He requests
that the Board consider not just the legal and environmental issues but also the quality of
life issue while making the ruling on this plan.
Tom Grant of 868 Hale Street, across the street from the property, states that he would
like every consideration to be given to a few dimensions of this project: 1) the historical
significance of this property, and 2) the safety implications of using three driveways just
before a significant bend that creates blind views, particularly since the driveway for the
Planning Board
March 16, 2010
Page 6 of9
cottage has never been used as a driveway. He requests that the rules of the OSRD be
given every consideration including the 50% rule.
R. Jeffrey Lyman of 852 Hale Street asks whether the Board engaged a technical
reviewer for these current plans and Dinkin says they did not.
Lyman asks if they have submitted a narrative for the preferred plan and yield plan.
Latham states that the narrative has been provided orally.
Lyman asks that, if they are inclined to approve the preferred plan or yield plan, to
expressly note that it shall not foreclose further review of the plan, just in case the
Board's ruling is appealed.
Joseph Gal of 861 Hale Street expresses concern about the additional traffic that will be
coming out of the driveway.
Dinkin states that restrictions come out of the review and hearing process and it would be
premature to discuss the possibility of restrictions, and the date for that is not yet
determined.
Marilyn McCrory of 2 Lovett Court asks for clarification on the buildable area.
Ogren clarifies the buildable area and states that he doesn't know the percentage to
remam open space.
McCrory clarifies the 50% ruling for the buildable area and requests that the Board
adheres to this rule.
Elizabeth Dunn of 16 Greenwood Avenue, Chair of the OSRC, states that it is very hard
to be playing tag with a new plan because, in order to comply with the open meeting
laws, her committee must wait until the next meeting to comment on the current plan, and
by that time the Planning Board has already reviewed it. She concludes by stating that
the members of the OSRC are concerned about this unfortunate timing glitch.
Grant asks if the 50% restriction is on the buildable area.
Thomson clarifies the 50% ruling stating that the developer can only use 50% of the
buildable area, but the Board has the authority to approve a smaller percentage to be
reserved as open space, and the Board cannot deny the applicant the ability to build fewer
structures than would be approved under a waiverless yield plan.
Lyman asks why the Board cannot restrict the developer to lessen the yield.
Thomson states that the OSRD ordinance prohibits it.
Planning Board
March 16, 2010
Page 7 of9
Lyman asks if Thomson can show him where the OSRD ordinance prohibits this.
Thomson looks for this in the OSRD.
Joan Murphy of36 Longmeadow Road asks about the first plan vs. the second plan.
Dinkin explains that the yield plan is used to illustrate the number of lots that would be
permitted under the zoning.
Renee Mary of 374 Hale Street asks where the wetlands are on the plan.
Ogren indicates the wetlands on the plan, and states that the intermittent stream is not
indicated on the plan.
Renee Mary expresses concern that only one parcel is portrayed and not the greater
picture to include the intermittent stream and all of the wetland. She asks where the road
IS gomg.
Ogren states that the abutter has expressed interested in accessing an additional lot on his
property.
Renee Mary asks why there is not a narrative.
Ogren states that there was one with the OSRD presentation.
Renee Mary asks the Board to require a narrative of at least one paragraph.
Lewis asks if it is normal for the Conservation Commission to look at one set of plans
and then another set of plans.
Dinkin states that it is common to go through several iterations of a plan, in part because
applicants are responding to the comments from Boards and Commissions throughout the
process.
Lewis states that there should be some procedure in place that allows time for the other
boards and commissions to review the current plans prior to the public hearing.
Thomson states that they are now in the Initial Review process, which is informal and the
next phase will include a public review of the preferred plan, and that this ordinance is
intended to give the other boards time to weigh-in on the concerns of the site. He adds
that the Board needs to determine whether to close this hearing tonight or to continue it.
Mack agrees.
Planning Board
March 16, 2010
Page 8 of9
Lyman reads the OSRD ordinance and asks if they will be requesting any waivers on the
yield plan and Latham says "no".
Latham states that the letters that were read tonight from the OSRC and Conservation
Commission dealt with earlier plans. He requests that the Board approve the yield plan.
Ogren clarifies the narrative request is required for the submittal of the preferred plan.
Zambernardi states that the Conservation Commission letter requests that the houses be
sited on the other side of the roadway away from the wetlands.
Latham states that they didn't place the driveway on the side of the wetland to be
sensitive to the abutters.
Walker Martin asks the Board if they will determine if this is the preferred plan or
determine that this is the concept from which they will construct the preferred plan.
Dinkin states that they will determine if this is the concept from which they will construct
the preferred plan. He adds that there are 2 motions that are appropriate at this time: 1)
to adjourn this hearing, and 2) to continue this hearing to a date certain.
Much discussion ensues regarding the procedure.
Thomson:
Motion to close the public hearing on the yield plan, seconded by Mack.
Hutchinson clarifies that the Conservation Commission has not seen this yield plan.
Jeff Rhuda states that the Board has an email from the Conservation Commission stating
that the buffer zone indicated on the yield plan is accurate.
Zambernardi reads an email dated March 16, 2010, from Amy Maxner, Agent to the
Conservation Commission.
Hutchinson asks if they should close the public hearing now on the yield plan without
getting input from the Conservation Commission and the OSRC.
Dinkin clarifies that the Conservation Commission has stated that the wetlands are
correctly delineated on the current yield plan except that there are additional flags on the
plan.
Thomson states that this is a yield plan for 5 lots and it would not be a yield plan for 6
lots.
Planning Board
March 16, 2010
Page 9 of9
Dinkin states that he should like to see how Mr. Rhuda intends to sell the golf club
shaped lot, and Lyman requests that the Chair's comments go on the record.
The members vote on the motion to close the hearing on the yield plan. Passes 7-0.
Dinkin abstains.
Dinkin suggests that they set a date certain to continue this hearing for the conceptual
OSRD plan.
Thomson: Motion to continue the public comment session until April 20 at 8:00 p.m.
at the Beverly Public Library, seconded by Flannery. Passes 7-0. The Chair abstains.
6. Discussion/Decision: Open Space Residential Desi2n #02-10: 875 and 875 ~
Hale Street - Montrose School Park. LLC
Thomson: Motion to approve the Yield Plan but that it be revised to reflect the
comments from Amy Maxner on the wetland flags, seconded by Mack. Passes 7-0. The
Chair abstains.
7. Special Permit #117-07 for Sam Fonzo Drive/Trask Street (approved March
2008) - ReQuest for Two-Year Extension - C. Ronald Vitale
Ronald Vitale requests a two-year extension and gives reasons why his project has not yet
commenced.
Thomson:
Motion to grant the two-year extension, seconded by Harris. Passes 8-0.
8. Approval of Minutes - February 9. 2010 Re2ular Meetin2
Mack:
Motion to approve the minutes, seconded by Hutchinson. Passes 8-0.
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 10:20 p.m.