Loading...
2010-04-20 CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: LOCATION: Planning Board, Regular Meeting MEMBERS PRESENT: April 20, 2010 City Council Chambers, Beverly City Hall, 3rd Floor Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice Chairperson John Thomson, Joanne Dunn, Ellen Flannery, Ellen Hutchinson, David Mack, James Matz Charles Harris Assistant Planning Director Leah Zambernardi Andrea Bray MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: RECORDER: Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order. 1. ReQuest for Minor Modification to Site Plan #98-08 - CVS - Corner of Rantoul and Elliott Street - Amendment to Bond Covenant Miranda Gooding states that the applicant is requesting to modify the Covenant regarding the off street traffic improvements and the decorative lighting of the streetscape. She explains that the City Electrician now feels confident that he will be able to obtain funding for the lighting of all of Rantoul Street, and he is recommending that CVS contribute the $75,000 to the City so that the City can do the work that is consistent with the rest of Rantoul. Zambernardi reads the following letters into the record: . Dated march 8, 2010 from William Ambrefe, City Electrictian . Dated March 21,2010 from Frank Killilea, City Engineer Thomson asks if they are requesting the elimination of lighting on Elliot Street. Gooding states that they have no strong feelings on this and CVS can release the $75,000 to the City and the Elliott Street lighting can be the decision of the City. Zambernardi states that the actual notation on the plan states that the locations of the street lights are to be worked out with the City. Much discussion ensues regarding this issue. Thomson: Motion to grant the request to release the $75,000 to the account of the City, and the funds to be dedicated to the installation of lighting along Rantoul Street. Planning Board March 20,2010 Page 2 of7 The applicant is still required to install the lighted bollards, seconded by Mack. Passes 6- O. The Chair abstains. Mack asks if the Board must first determine if the bond release and change in the lighting installation is a minor modification and Thomson states that it is. Thomson moves to withdraw his previous motion and Mack seconds. Thomson: Motion that the elimination of the lighting requirement IS a mInor modification, seconded by Mack. Passes 6-0. Thomson reinstates his original motion, and Mack seconds. Passes 6-0. 2. Set Public Hearin2 Date: Site Plan #101-10 - Italian Communitv Center 292 and 302 Rantoul Street Flannery: Motion to schedule the public hearing on May 19, 2010 at 7:30 pm, seconded by Thomson. Passes 6-0. 3. Set Public Hearin2 Date: 1 Lakeshore Avenue - OSRD Initial Review Application Flannery: Motion to schedule the public hearing for May 19, 2010 at 8:00 pm, seconded by Mack. Passes 6-0. 4. Set Public Hearin2 Date: Special Permit #122-10 - Create One Pork-Chop Shaped Lot - 865 Hale Street - Kevin and Susan Barrv Flannery: Motion to schedule this public hearing on May 19, 2010 at 8:45 pm, seconded by Mack. Passes 6-0. 5. Set Public Hearin2 Date: Modification to Site Plan - Aero Manufacturin2 - 40 & 100 Sam Fonzo Drive Flannery: Motion to schedule this public hearing on June 15, 2010 at 8:00 p.m. seconded by Mack. Passes 6-0. 5. ReQuest for Waiver of OSRD Ordinance - 865 Hale Street - Kevin and Susan Barrv Zambernardi states that the Board has received a request for this waiver and for the creation of a pork chop lot. She reads a letter, dated March 31, 2010, from attorney Thomas Harrington, representing Susan and Kevin Barry, into the record. Planning Board March 20,2010 Page 3 of7 Kevin Barry, the property owner, states that he is only looking for one additional lot and would be in compliance with all the items that were included in the letter. Thomson states that if Barry does, in fact, comply with all of the items in the letter he would be inclined to approve the waiver. Dinkin asks if he will transfer the lot unimproved, and Barry says yes and he will own both of the lots. Barry explains the genesis of this is the possible rezoning in this area, stating that he does not wish to transfer this new lot to Symes. Thomson states that it makes sense to look at it and agree once the documents are in front of the Board. Barry asks what information is requested by the Board. Dinkin states that there are four specific items that are requested and Barry must provide all four. Thomson states that Barry would need to present an executed deed restriction and a plan, and the rest is for the Board to look at it. 6. Set Public Hearin2 Date: Inclusion of Affordable Housin2 (Zonin2 Ordinance Section 29-34) - Review and Acceptance of Draft Submission ReQuirements. Procedures & Supplemental Re2ulations Flannery: Motion to schedule this public hearing for Junel5, 2010 at 8:30, seconded by Mack. Passes 6-0. Mack: Motion to recess for a public meeting on the 875 Hale Street OSRD, seconded by Hutchinson. Passes 6-0. 7. Continued Public Meetin2: Open Space Residential Desi2n (OSRD) #02-10 - Initial Review - 875 and 875 ~ Hale Street - Montrose School Park. LLC Matz recuses himself from this issue and takes a seat with the public. Peter Ogren, with Hayes Engineering, describes the reconfigured driveway to accommodate the fire truck. He adds the he needed to move the location of one of the homes. He states that the open space is 23% of the buildable area. Dinkin opens to the public. Planning Board March 20,2010 Page 4 of7 Bob Lewis of 903 Hale Street points out the wetlands on the property and expresses concern about the water issue. He provides a packet of information and reads the contents of the packet. He requests that Symes install a back-flow valve into the private sewer line so it will not back up into his house. He states that he had 2 feet of water in his yard on the Mother's Day storm of 2006. He shows pictures of the flooding from March 15 and March 30,2010. He asks the Board not to make it worse. Renee Mary of274 Hale Street states that she took a site walk and she observed that there are 2 brooks going into that property. She says that it is clear that there are wetlands. Marilyn McCrory of2 Lovett Court and a member of the OSRC states that this is the first time that the developer has specified the amount of open space that will be preserved in this plan and it is less than planned on the OSRD. She explains that both OSRC and the Conservation Commission are requesting the Board to have an interim process that allows for creativity and some design features that would result in something that is in the spirit of the OSRD. RJ. Lyman of 852 Hale Street states that he had a surveyor look at the plan according to the ordinance. He provides specific numbers for the open space as subject to OSRD. He states that for the purpose of clarification he had a professional look at this. Nancy Coffey of97 Haskell Street and a member of the OSRC, asks if the OSRC's letter and the Conservation Commission's letter would be read into the record. Zambernardi reads that following letters into the record: . Dated April 16, 2010, from Elizabeth Dunne, Chair, OSRC . Dated April 20, 2010, from David J. Lang, Chair, Conservation Commission Nancy Coffey states that the question of the amount of open space was addressed at the beginning of this meeting and it is well below the required 50%. She reiterates that it seems reasonable to have this property designed in a way to adhere to the 50% rule. Pam Kampersal of241 Dodge Street and a member of the OSRC encourages the Board to urge the applicant to be creative and to find a way to maintain 50% open space. Dinkin asks if the applicant would like to respond and Jeff Rhuda states that they have no response. Thomson states that they have to look at how the additional 3 houses will be located on the site. Rhuda states that they have submitted a few concept plans. Planning Board March 20,2010 Page 5 of7 Thomson states that he needs some general conception of the alternatives and the Board needs to see how the houses will be sited and how they will deal with the water. He suggests a shorter and narrower roadway with the houses closer together. Dinkin states that he is personally persuaded with the comments of the sister boards and he is satisfied that they can allocate more of the property to open space and they can do so with smaller lots and smaller home sites. Rhuda states that they can do that and he suggests asking the abutters if they would like to have 2000 square-foot houses on 6000 square-foot lots. Thomson states that maybe they can be built in a different configuration and maybe they should be attached. Rhuda states that they need to be able to sell the homes. Thomson speaks at length regarding the need to preserve as much of the open space as possible. He explains that he needs to be convinced that it would be harmful for the applicant to comply with the 50% rule. He asks how they plan to deal with the drainage on that site. Ogren states that it would be total infiltration because the soils on that site are very good. Thomson states that they need to have some more creativity shown by the applicant. Flannery concurs with Thomson. Pam Kampersal of 241 Dodge Street and a member of the OSRC asks if they have considered a cluster development. Rhuda states that they have built them all over New England and they have considered it. Attorney Brad Latham states that the runoff is important and it can be contained on site and they had been considering larger homes on the site. There is more discussion about the OSRD process. Thomson states that there are mutual benefits in this process. Rhuda states that Symes Development speaks at the Governors Smart Growth Conference and they have built several developments under OSRD, and the Beverly ordinance is like no other OSRD that they have worked with. Lewis states that he wants them to comply with the ordinance. Planning Board March 20,2010 Page 6 of7 Thomson states that the problem is that this area has 10,000 square-foot ZOnIng In Beverly Farms and it is not appropriate. Rhuda states that the Board has approved a yield plan for 3 lots. He asks the abutters whether they want smaller lots with more open space or larger lots and less open space. Dinkin states that the Board will determine that, not the abutters. Kevin Barry of 865 Hale Street states that he shares a 300-foot property line with this property and he will be the most impacted. He objects to moving the driveway. RJ. Lyman of 852 Hale Street states that he takes Rhuda at his word when he said that he will look into changing the lot size. He adds that he doesn't know how to design this space because he isn't a professional in this field. Ann Lewis of 930 Hale Street states that both of the Conservation Commission letters recommend that the street be on the wetland side and this would be more environmentally friendly. She iterates the water issues that she has had. Dinkin asks Ogren if there would be a difference In the stormwater management depending on the location of the driveway. Ogren states that it would be better if the road is on the high side of the property, along the west. Dinkin asks if, because this is a public meeting and not a public hearing, can they lay this on the table without a time and date certain. Kampersal asks if the developer has considered building green and USIng perVIOUS driveways. Rhuda states that they are going with LID (low impact design). Marilyn McCrory states that open space contributes to the value of a house and there are many OSRD developments that are have valuable properties and value equates more to the design. Dinkin lays this matter on the table. 9. 875 Hale Street Minor Preliminary Subdivision Plan - Montrose School Park. LLC - 875 Hale Street Planning Board March 20,2010 Page 7 of7 Peter Ogren states that they filed a conventional plan at the same time that they filed the OSRD. He explains that flagging was done in August 2009, and they have not dug test holes for soil conditions. He describes the conventional plan for a minor subdivision, eliminating one of the two existing dwellings on the property. He asks for comments from the Board. He states that there are no waivers on this plan. Thomson asks about the letter from Brad Latham. Latham states that the statutory standard of the 7 months. Thomson asks the timeframe for acting on the preliminary plan. Zambernardi states that the developer signed a waiver to June 20,2010. Thomson says he doesn't want the definitive plan ahead of the OSRD process. Much discussion ensues regarding the timing. Thomson recommends that the Board does not act on this. Thomson: Motion to lay this item on the table, seconded by Flannery. Passes 5-0. 11. Approval of Minutes: March 15. 2010 Special Meetin2 and March 16. 2010 Re2ular Meetin2. Mack: Passes 7-0. Motion to accept the minutes as presented, seconded by Hutchinson. Hutchinson: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Matz. All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 7-0. The meeting is adjourned at 9:30 pm.