Loading...
2013-03-19CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Board: Planning Board Date: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 Location: Beverly City Hall Members Present Chairman Richard Dinkin, Vice Chair John Thomson, Ellen Hutchinson, Ellen Flannery, James Matz (arrived at 7:30), John Mullady Members Absent: Charles Harris, Michael O'Brien, David Mack Others Present: Assistant City Planner Leah Zambernardi, Recorder: Eileen Sacco Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Request for 81X Certification Zambernardi addressed the Board and explained that the applicant is requesting an 81X Certification relative to an ANR granted by the Planning Board in July of 2012. She explained that the Board endorsed the plan and the owner never filed the plan with the Registry of Deeds. She noted that the plan has not changed and planning staff has reviewed the plan and recommends the granting of the 81X certification. Dinkin explained that a majority of members present is needed to approve this. Flannery moved to approve the 81X Certification. Hutchinson seconded the motion. The motion carried (4 -0 -1 with Thomson abstaining). Discussion with Attorney Miranda Gooding Re2ardin2 Inclusionary Housing Credits Attorney Miranda Gooding addressed the Planning Board for a discussion regarding inclusionary housing for 62 Pleasant Street and the potential ability of the developer to get credits for providing more inclusionary housing than is required for a project, to be used towards other developments in the future. She explained that the ordinance allows for this provision and explained that excess affordable units may be utilized for another project in the cc district. She further explained that Windover has another project in the cc district and in total has completed 43 new affordable units over the past couple of years. Gooding explained that it is not clear what Windover's plans are for the other properties that they own. She noted that the ordinance speaks to the ability for credits to be granted by special permit. She referred to Section 4.3 of the Planning Board regulations, which states that the special permit must be filed with the inclusionary housing application, and noted that Windover Draft Beverly Planning Board Minutes March 19, 2013 did not file it when they applied for the 60 Pleasant Street application. She further noted that at the time of approval there was concern with an overload of work force housing in the area and it now makes sense to create a fully market rate housing development. Gooding explained that she is looking for guidance from the Board on how to approach applying for the credits after the fact. She suggested that they could file an application to amend the inclusionary housing application and file for a special permit at the same time. She noted that the ordinance is silent about the timing for this, but the regulation was in effect at the time. Thomson stated that he supports affordable housing and that he saw this project as an opportunity to gain more affordable housing. He noted that if the Board grants a special permit that could transfer credit affordable units to another project, the next project could be all market rate units. He further noted that he does not like that the project can come back with new information that was available at the time the project was approved. He also noted that he feels that this project set out to be affordable. Dinkin stated that the project was planned as an affordable federally subsidized project. He noted that if the Board were to consider voting in the affirmative on this, he would be concerned about the intent of the inclusionary bylaw to disperse affordable housing throughout the community. He stated that he would be reluctant to see the ability to exempt this from inclusionary housing. Thomson stated that the credits would absolve Windover from providing affordable units on another project. He suggested that they can always file the application and the Board could consider it. Zambernardi reviewed the ordinance and noted that it is silent on the timing for application. She noted that the credits have to be used within 10 years of the date that the special permit is issued and the application for the special permit must be filed simultaneously with the application for the inclusionary housing. Dinkin stated that in general he leans towards providing any property owner a ruling and that if the regulations say that the application for the special permit has to occur at the same time as the inclusionary housing application, they are asking the Planning Board to waive the regulations in this case and that is a much different question. Hutchinson questioned how many excess units do they believe they have created. Gooding explained that 32 were built and 4 were required. She asked if there is a process by which an applicant can apply for a waiver of a regulation. Dinkin asked for a consensus of the Board. Gooding stated that she is struggling to see if the Board feels that it is prejudice because they are asking now as opposed to when the project was approved. Page 2 of 9 Draft Beverly Planning Board Minutes March 19, 2013 Dinkin stated that the issue is that the regulations provide a relatively clear schedule for the process. Thomson moved to waive the Planning Board regulation in this instance to allow the applicant to come in for a special permit. Dinkin stated that he is not sure that the motion is in order because he does not see a special permit application before the Board. Thomson withdrew his motion. Hutchinson noted that the Board is not sure if they can waive the regulation at this point and suggested that it might be something to get a legal opinion on. Dinkin agreed that it would not hurt to get a legal opinion on the matter. Thomson moved that under the unique circumstances that are before the Board, that the Board grant a waiver subject to an opinion from the City Solicitor. Flannery seconded the motion. The motion carried (4 -1 -1 Dinkin, Thomson, Flannery and Mullady in favor, Hutchinson in opposition, Matz abstaining). Recess for Public Hearings Thomson moves to recess for public hearings at this time. Matz seconds the motion. The motion carries (5 -0). Public Hearing — Site Plan Application #110 -13 — 96 & 102 Cherry Hill Drive — Connelly Brothers Inc. Zambernardi reads legal notice. Steve Connelly of Connelly Brothers Inc. addressed the Board and explained that they are proposing to construct a 40,000 s.f two story building for a private secondary school with a cafeteria, gymnasium, athletic field, and 80 parking spaces at 96 -102 Cherry Hill Drive at the corner of Sam Fonzo Drive and Cherry Hill. He noted that the site is one of the last remaining to be developed in the Flatley subdivision. He described the lot and noted that they will be using 10 acres of the land. Connelly stated that 96 Cherry Hill LLC will be the owner of the property and they will sign a 20 year lease with New England Academy which is presently located in the Cummings Center. Connelly noted that they are waiting for approval from the FAA. Connelly stated that they expect to start construction in July 2013 and will be completed by July of 2014. Page 3 of 9 Draft Beverly Planning Board Minutes March 19, 2013 John Vogus of New England Academy addressed the Board and explained that they are a secondary school with a student enrollment of 90 -100 students and is a stated Chapter 766 approved educational school. He explained that they serve students with learning disabilities and are currently located in the Cummings Center. He stated that they are in need of a campus and explained that they have a baseball team and a soccer team and a music program as extracurricular activities. Dinkin asked if they are an independent school. Vogus explained that they are approved by the Massachusetts Association of Private Schools and are accredited by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC). Vogus noted that they hold all of their major school events at Endicott College and will continue to do so, noting that they have a great working relationship with Endicott and hold their graduations there. Harry Samelcheck addressed the Board and explained the plans for the school. He noted that it will be a two story building and explained the layout of the school. He noted that there are no plans for signage mounted on the building and explained that there will be a granite monument sign installed in the low land. Samelcheck explained the lighting for the site. He noted that the athletic fields will not have lights and there will be enough lighting in the parking area to make it safe. Thomson questioned why one of the access points goes to the adjoining lot. Connelly explained the location of the lot relative to Sam Fonzo Drive and they noted that they are proposing a single shared entrance proposed for both lots, and noted the locations on the plan. Thomson asked if there is a possibility that semi trailer trucks will be entering the site, noting that he is concerned about the safety of the students. Vogus stated that the only deliveries they get are from the US Post Office or UPS. Peter Ogren of Hayes Engineering addressed the Board and explained the plans. He explained that the plans call for an 80 vehicle parking lot and explained the proposed traffic flow. He also noted that most students will be dropped off by small buses or mini vans. He explained that the Parking and Traffic Commission has reviewed the plan and recommended that additional signage at or near the parking lot exit that informs exiting motorists of the driveway's one way travel direction and that additional signage be installed as needed to make it clear that the easternmost shared driveway is not to be used as an exit from the school site. Ogren noted the snow storage areas proposed on the plan. Ogren explained that there are two watersheds on the site and they are proposing to pipe drainage from the front portion of the site to the existing storm water drainage system on Cherry Hill and the drained from the rear of the site, which includes runoff from the roof, lawn and athletic fields will go to a special subsurface 40 chamber device and sheet flow down a newly graded area that Page 4 of 9 Draft Beverly Planning Board Minutes March 19, 2013 flows into a wetland area on the City of Beverly site to the north. He also noted that they met with City Engineer Eric Barber and the drainage system is compliant with state regulations. Ogren explained that the water connections will be in the center of Cherry Hill Drive. Thomson noted that there were slope failures at 78 -108 Cherry Hill Drive. Connelly explained that they are aware of that and he intends to do the grading work in July and August to protect the major slope and once it is graded they will make sure that it gets tracked back and forth. He also noted that he has worked with steep slopes on other projects. He also noted that he intends to maintain ownership of the site and will watch it carefully. Matz noted that there is compact clay and glacial clay and it is difficult to maintain and if the slope fails because of a lack of compaction that is nothing to be taken lightly. He suggested that they consider having a geotechnical engineer look at the site. Ogren stated that they could agree to having a compaction test after they do the work. Thomson asked if there would be a fence around the playing field. Connelly stated that they are discussing that and are looking at possible locations. He also explained that the slope will be seeded and the grass will be maintained. Dinkin recessed the Public Hearing until 8:55 p.m. at this time. Public Hearing - Special Permit Application #134 -13 — Create One Pork -Chop Shaped Lot — 55 Echo Avenue —MPM Companies LLC Zambernardi reads legal notice. Michael McNiff addressed the Board and explained that he has submitted a special permit application for the creation of one pork chop shaped lot at 55 Echo Avenue. He explained that the parcel has a single family home and garage upon it in the R10 Zoning District with 23, 348 s.f of land area and 180 feet of frontage. He noted that the proposal is to demolish the structures and create two new building lots for new single family homes. He explained that one lot will be a conforming lot and he is requesting a special permit for a pork chop shaped lot. McNiff explained that he has met several times with the neighbors on his plans and they are in support of the plan. He explained that the lots will be 11,400 s.f. and 11,900 s.f and the average size lot on Echo Avenue is 7,000 s.f. McNiff also stated that he is installing the screening of the neighbors' choice with tree plantings or a fence, whatever they want. He also noted that the neighbors signed a petition in support of the plan. Zambernardi read comments from other city Boards and Commissions at this time: William Burke — Board of Health — March 13, 2013 Page 5 of 9 Draft Beverly Planning Board Minutes March 19, 2013 Amy Maxner — Conservation Commission — March 7, 2013 Eric Barber — City Engineer — February 26, 2013 William Fiore — Beverly Fire Department — February 25, 2013 Dinkin opened the hearing up for public comment in favor of the project at this time. Joan Powell of 4 Conway Street, Beverly addressed the Board and stated that she is in support of the project. Roland Simons of 1 Conway Street addressed the Board and stated that he is in favor of the project. Dinkin opened the hearing up for comment in opposition to the project. There was no one present who wished to comment in opposition to this matter. Dinkin declared the public hearing closed at this time. Thomson: Moved to approve the special permit application for one pork chop shaped lot at 55 Echo Avenue, Beverly, MA finding that: a. that the site is an appropriate location for the proposed use and that the character of the adjoining uses will not be adversely affected b. that no factual evidence is found that property values in the district will be adversely affected by such use c. that no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result d. that adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation and maintenance of the proposed uses e. that there are no valid objections from abutting property owners based on demonstrable fact f. that the minimum lot area of the pork chop shaped lot be at least the minimum lot area required in the zoning district in which the pork chop shaped lot is located except the portion of the lot which is the narrow strip or portion of the lot to the way, shall not be included in the lot area calculation g. that the width of the Pork Chop Shaped Lot measured at the shortest distance between side lot lines is no less than seventy five (75) feet at any point between the street and the existing or proposed building on the lot. h. All front, rear and side yard setbacks shall be the same as the minimum setbacks specified for the zone in which the lot is located. i. that the depth of that portion of the lot which fails to satisfy the lot frontage requirements set for in Section 29 -2B. 26 between the street and the existing or proposed building on the lot cannot exceed a distance of two hundred and fifty (250) feet from the street. j. that there is not more than one (1) other Pork Chop Shaped lot with frontage contiguous to it; Page 6 of 9 Draft Beverly Planning Board Minutes March 19, 2013 The approval is subject to the requests and comments in the letters submitted by City Officials and Commissions. Mullady seconded the motion. Dinkin called for vote on the motion. The motion carried (6 -0) with the chair voting in favor. Continuation of Public Hearing — Site Plan Application #110 -13 — 96 & 102 Cherry Hill Drive — Connelly Brothers Inc. Thomson moved to waive reading of the legal notice. Flannery seconded the motion. The motion carried (5 -0). Dinkin asked if there are additional comments from members of the Board. There being none at this time, Dinkin asked if there are any clarifying questions from the members of the public present. Peter Gentile addressed the Board and stated that his son attends the New England Academy and it is a wonderful school and he supports this project. Zambernardi read comments from other City Boards and Commissions: Richard Benevento, Parking and Traffic Commission — March 8, 2013 Amy Maxner, Conservation Commission — March 14, 2013 William Burke, Board of Health, - March 13, 2013 William Fiore, Fire Department, - February 27, 2013 Eric Barber, City Engineer, - March 12, 2013 Design Review Board Steve Frederickson, Zoning Board of Appeal — March 15, 2013 Zambernardi noted that the Conservation Commission noted that the drainage on the site will eventually discharge to the Watershed Protection Overlay District and they recommends that as a condition of any approvals the Board may grant, that the property owner be required to annually report to the Planning or Engineering Department adherence and compliance with a long term operation and Maintenance Plan for storm water BMP's to ensure proper function of the facilities. Thomson suggested that a condition of approval be that weekly inspections of the slope by an environmental scientist occur. Ogren stated that they have two on staff so that will not be a problem. Dinkin expressed concern that the environmental scientist should be independent and not someone at Hayes Engineering. Ogren stated that follow up email from Maxner in terms of monitoring is common practice. Connelly stated that they are subject to a lot of rules and regulations and sign offs are required at various stages and he does not think that they need anyone in addition to Peter Ogren. Page 7 of 9 Draft Beverly Planning Board Minutes March 19, 2013 Thomson suggested that an environmental scientist from Ogren's staff could report to the city on a weekly basis. Connelly stated that he intends to own the property for many years and he has done many projects of this kind. He also noted that he has worked with Ogren on many occasions and he is competent to oversee this. He also noted that they will loam and seed the slope with a jute mat and compaction tests will be done. Zambernardi asked if they would test the soil at the end of the project. Connelly explained that a testing agency comes in after the project is complete and runs soil competence testing under building regulation codes. Flannery asked if those tests were done on the sites where the slopes failed. Connelly stated that he does not know if they were done or not because he did not do the job. Matz stated that it is the owner's responsibility to document that state engineering standards have been met. Dinkin asked for additional comments at this time from the public. William Mahoney, Vice Chair of the Airport Commission addressed the Board and stated that they met with the applicant and they have no concerns about the project. Dinkin declared the public hearing closed at this time. Thomson: Moved to grant approval of the Site Plan Review subject to the condition that the applicant /owner complies with the conditions contained in the following letters from the City's Department Heads and Boards and Commissions, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference: Parking and Traffic Commission dated March 8, 2013, Board of Health dated March 13, 2013, Fire Department dated March 19, 2013, City Engineer dated March 12, 2013, Design Review Board dated March 19, 2013, Police Department dated March 18, 2013, and the Conservation Commission dated March 14, 2013. This approval is made with an exception pertaining to the first recommendation in the Conservation Commission letter, that the owner /applicant's professional engineer, Hayes Engineering, Inc., shall be responsible for the slope compaction study, monitoring compaction and for reporting weekly during the slope stabilization process. A separate independent soil engineer is not required. Flannery seconded the motion. The motion carried (5 -0). Dinkin noted that this is a well designed project and will be a fine addition to the area. Approval of Minutes The approval of the minutes of the November 19, 2012, November 20, 2012, December 18, 2012 and January 15, 2013 Planning Board meetings were presented for approval. Page 8 of 9 Draft Beverly Planning Board Minutes March 19, 2013 Matz: Moved to approve the minutes of the Planning Board meeting as presented. Flannery seconded the motion. The motion carried (5 -0). Adjournment There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening a motion was made by Flannery to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mullady. The motion carried (5 -0) The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Page 9 of 9