CITY OF
PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES
MONDAY,
NOVEMBER 13, 2006 at 7:00 PM
KYROUZ AUDITORIUM, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT
Paul Lundberg, Chair Michael Rubin Gregg Cademartori, Planning Dir.
Jeneth Fahey, Vice
Chair
Ellen Preston, Assistant Planner
Mary R. Black
Lisa English, Recording Clerk
Marvin Kushner
Henry McCarl
I. BUSINESS
A. Call to order with
Quorum of Planning Board.
B. Introduction of Planning Board Members and Staff.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A.
Meeting of October 23, 2006
Motion: Mr. Kushner moved to approve the minutes of October
23, 2006 as presented.
Second: Mr. McCarl
Vote: 5-0; Motion carried.
III. PUBLIC COMMENT
Stevan Goldin, 14
Hodgkins Street, stated that what he felt what was notable about the agenda
is that it is all about developments and does not focus
on regulations. He stated in his opinion
two things needed to be addressed: 1.) the fact that
subdivisions are exempt from getting an
Excavating and Fill Special Permit; and 2.) the frontage
requirement is only 100 feet. It is Mr.
Goldin’s opinion that this should be revisited. He stated that most other town’s requirements
are
between 200 – 300 feet. Mr. Goldin does not feel
that the
have been created.
James Groves, 50
Revere Street, stated that many projects are before the Planning Board and
the City Council. He
stated that the sewer extension policy should be revisited. He feels that the
Planning Board should adopt a proper timeline regarding
the submission of documents.
Joie Busby, 14
Gloucester Ave, stated that ten people have been hit by cars in the
in the last 10 years.
She feels that the concern should be
since 1999 but did not give the web address as she stated
it was too lengthy. She distributed
copies of her statement to the Board.
IV. CONSENT AGENDA
A. New Form A Application:
1.
The McNiff Company to
relocate internal lot line at
Ms. Preston stated that this ANR plan is merely a redrawing of the lot line within
a large lot. It presented no issues for
the Planning Department.
Motion: Ms.
Fahey moved that the Subdivision Control Law does not apply to an
application from the McNiff
Company to relocate internal lot line at 44-48
Second: Mr. McCarl
Vote: 5-0;
Motion carried.
B. Chapter 91
Recommendation:
1. Waterways License Application W06-1743 of the City of
maintain an
existing failed culvert under
flowed tidelands of
the
Mr. Lundberg stated that this is an
existing culvert on
repair. He reviewed commentary from the Planning Department and
stated that they did
not have any issues with the replacement.
Motion: Ms.
Fahey moved to recommend to the state of
Waterways License
Application W06-1743 of the City of
replace and maintain an existing failed
culvert under
over filled and flowed tidelands of the
purpose and is not detrimental to the
public rights.
Second: Mr.
Kushner
Vote: 5-0;
Motion carried.
V. CONTINUED PUBLIC
HEARING
A. An
application from Carrigan Enterprises, Inc., for a Cluster Development Special Permit entitled “Annisquam Woods”
at 7 & 11 Hutchins Court and 14 Tufts Lane for 30 units (Assessors Map 125, Lots 71 & 22; and Map 115,
Lot 30). Definitive Cluster Plan prepared by Hayes Engineering; dated
June 26, 2006.
Michele Harrison, 63 Middle Street, asked if Ms. Fahey and Mr.
Rubin can be briefed and still be
able to vote, and asked if the Board could wait for Mr. Rubin to arrive.
Mr. Lundberg stated that yes that was
possible. He asked that the next public
hearing come
forward.
VI. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.
An application from Walter
& Roberta Donnelly for a Common Driveway Special Permit, Zoning Ordinance
Section 3.5, to serve three lots at 102-106 Thatcher Road (Assessors Map 178,
Lot 3).
Mr. Cademartori stated that this hearing is
a result of a revocation of a Common Driveway Special
Permit.
Roberta Donnelly, 106 Thatcher Rd, stated that she thought she
had applied for 3 common driveways on the
same property. She stated that she has
since rescinded and has had a new plan drawn
up. It was her understanding that at
tonight’s meeting it would be either accepted or denied.
Mr. Lundberg stated that that is
true. We can also hear from you, the
applicant, and city staff.
Ms. Donnelly stated that she expected a
decision.
Mr. Lundberg stated that the Planning
Board needs Mr. Judd to be present as he was the person who designed the common driveway. His comments as a response to the City
Engineer are needed. He stated that it is possible to continue to
the next meeting or wait a bit for him.
Ms. Donnelly chose to wait a bit.
Mr. Lundberg stated that we will wait
for Mr. Judd and proceed with next hearing.
B.
Amend the Gloucester Zoning
Map and corresponding zoning district in the Zoning Ordinance by rezoning 7.9
acres in the General Industrial (GI) district to Extensive Business (EB), and 4.8 acres in the R-2
(low/medium density residential) district to EB
to allow for a Demoulas Supermarket at
intersection of
Mr. Lundberg explained to the audience
what will happen tonight. That the
Planning Board can not change the
Zoning but the City Council can. It is
the duty of the Planning Board to recommend
or not the proposed amendment to the City Council.
James McKenna, 63
Middle Street, stated that he received a lot of good input from the TAG meeting. He also stated that this is the beginning of
a long process. He encouraged the public
to please come forward with
questions. He invited the audience to a meeting
on Thursday,
November 16, 2006 at 7 pm to be held at the
Jim Ward, Attorney
representing Demoulas Supermarket, stated the purpose is to consolidate the two zones into one. He stated that converting to Extensive
Business (EB) will allow the
project to be in a better environmentally smart area. He stated that approximately 60% of the site will be open space. He stated that when the Applicant began to
look at changing the zoning,
he tried to focus on the needs of the neighborhood. Mr. Ward stated that in his opinion the rezoning is consistent with the
City’s planning goals. Once the property
is rezoned, it is then necessary to
come back and get Special Permits to actually develop the site. He stated that he believes the zoning protects the City and the process.
Mr. Ward
listed the benefits of rezoning as follows:
·
No risk to the City
·
Would alleviate some of the failed Title V systems in the area with the
sewer
·
Provide a shopping alternative for
·
Increase tax revenues
·
Increase jobs
Speaking in favor:.
Phil Lambert, One
Becker Lane, talked
about the financial savings that Market Basket could offer.
James Melanson, 4A
Birch Grove Heights, stated that he feels we need to look more to the industrial
parks for
Robyn Miller, One
Thompson Street, stated that she has been waiting 20 years for Demoulas to come to
Tracy Mecurio, 28 Elm
Street, stated
that she is living on a fixed income.
She stated that Shaw’s and
Stop & Shop charge more on Cape Ann than in
Sheila Brown, 8 Becker
Lane, stated
that she does not shop in town. She
stated that in her opinion it is just as
easy to go out of town as shop in town.
She feels it is about time that
Clinton Harvey, 19
Lincoln Street, stated that he is ashamed at the current site and the way it has not been kept up. He feels that Market Basket will maintain the
property nicely.
Sereda Feener, 19
Lincoln Street, stated that in spite of the gas increase, she travels out of town to Market Basket in
Melissa Hobbs, 1166
Washington Street, stated that although she prefers to keep dollars in
Speaking in
opposition:
Russell Sherman, 95
Concord Street, stated he sympathizes with his fellow neighbors but he feels that this property is the
gateway of
Kathy Hurlburt, 6
Causeway Street, stated hat she has a petition with 95 names of people that do not want the development. With 20,000 cars a week and motor homes in
the summer, Demoulas should buy and
build elsewhere.
Donna Chamberlin, 124
Concord Street, stated that she is worried that once the zoning is changed it is permanently changed. She stated that there are many wetland issues
on the property; it is a huge
cleansing property.
Jane Fox-Dobson, 14 Becker
Circle, stated
that she is on the fence; that she moved to
Jane Wolf, 32 Atlantic
Street, stated
that she feels that the tax base will not change. She added that
there will be traffic and parking problems.
She wonders if the
Applicant will they pay for the
waste water treatment.
Jim Plankey, 4
Causeway Street, stated that he is opposed to the rezoning because he does not see any details in the plan. There is a residential parcel directly across
the street and there has been no
discussion on what will happen to that.
He is concerned about traffic with the impact of 20,000 additional cars.
He also stated that there are two neighborhood stores in the area that Market Basket would destroy. He added that the sewers have a high
betterment fee.
William Dobson, 14
Becker Circle, stated that he thinks the development would destroy the whole area.
He is concerned that the City has not even done road repair from water
work that was done.
William Aubrey, 77
Concord Street, stated that the rezoning would take a neighborhood and turn it into an industrial park. The increase in traffic would be a danger and
there are too many wetlands.
Robert Snider, 96 Concord
Street, stated
that the issue of traffic has not been addressed. He wonders
how big the development will be when they start. He feels that the amount of water on the site is overwhelming and that there is no
drainage to speak of. He stated that it
flows right into the drive-in area.
Mr. Lundberg stated that some of the
questions raised are very valid. All
that is to be decided now is
the change in zoning. Once that happens
then the developer will come forward with a proposal
that will address many of these issues.
Tonight is a very small beginning.
Christine Rasmussen, 82 Woodward Avenue, asked the Planning Board to look at Section 12.1.4 of the Daylor Plan. It states that a neighborhood group needs to
sit down and talk with the developer
and create a plan for the development and this has not happened. She does not feel that the Planning Board can go forward without this important
meeting.
Mr. McKenna stated that the Applicant
intends to follow the Daylor report and Plan 2001, and that this proposal is just the beginning of a long process. Many answers need to come forward. He
feels that the site can work and will consider the objectives of the Daylor
report.
Michael Kettenbach,
Vice President of Retail Management and Development for Demoulas Supermarket, stated that he would like to
address the issue of pricing. He feels
that the company’s track record
speaks for itself. He stated that Demoulas Supermarkets do not swap prices around in different zones. He
would like the opportunity to improve the site and make this project work.
Mr. Cademartori referred to his memo which
stated that other than a Laundromat or dry cleaning
facility, every use would be by a Special Permit. What the zoning will do is allow the Applicant to move forward with the process.
Mr. Kushner
asked if the largest portion is zoned General Industry (GI), and if it is
changed from GB to EB, a less
intensive district, can the smaller R-2 parcel be retained as a buffer.
Mr. Lundberg
asked if there are there are residents on what is currently R-2.
Mr. Kettenbach
stated that there are not and then he showed where the development would be on the map.
Mr. McCarl stated that he concurs with
Mr. Kushner that at the present time the majority is zoned GI. If it were to be
used for GI, it would be a lot less desirable for the neighborhood than what is being proposed.
Motion: Mr.
McCarl moved to close the public hearing.
Second: Ms.
Fahey
Vote: 5-0; Motion carried.
Mr. Lundberg stated that the parcels
have been zoned for quite some time. He
would recommend to the City
Council that the zoning be changed and let a developer who has an idea explore that idea. There will be plenty of time to address
issues through the Special Permitting process.
Ms. Fahey
moved for a discussion point. She stated
that it is important to note what the applicant
stated was important to the neighborhood and that the minutes be included in
the recommendation to City Council.
Motion: Mr.
McCarl moved that the Planning Board recommend to the City Council to amend the Gloucester Zoning Map
and corresponding zoning district in the Zoning Ordinance by rezoning 7.9
acres in the General Industrial (GI) district to Extensive
Business (EB), and 4.8 acres in the R-2 (low/medium density residential) district to EB at the
intersection of Concord Street and Route 128 (Assessors Map 234, Lots 38 &
42) pursuant to an application submitted by Demoulas Super Markets, Inc. Also, the minutes of the Planning Board
meeting shall be attached to the recommendation
to reflect the concerns of the neighborhood and the Applicants’
response.
Second: Mr. Kushner
Vote: Those voting in favor: Mr. Lundberg,
Ms. Fahey, Mr. Kushner, Ms. Black, Mr. McCarl. 5-0; Motion carried
VI. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS – Continued from
earlier time on agenda
B.
An application from Walter
& Roberta Donnelly for a Common Driveway Special Permit, Zoning Ordinance
Section 3.5, to serve three lots at
John Judd, Engineer with Gateway
Consultants, representing the Donnelly’s, explained the
reason
for a new common driveway which will serve two lots located on
only
the two lots but also a third. He stated
that, at the request of the Planning Staff, he is before
the
Board to request to install an improved common driveway that would improve the
safety conditions as well as the
turning movements from
Mr. Lundberg asked about the driveway
that originally served the three lots.
What does it serve currently?
Mr. Judd stated that it served only
the Murphy’s at
Mr. Lundberg read from Mike Hale’s
letter dated November 8, 2006. He then
asked Mr. Judd about the proposed
compliance to Mr. Hale’s letter.
Mr. Judd answered those questions
using the map to show the improvements to the driveway.
Mr. Cademartori stated that Mr. Judd was
working within tight constraints. He
also stated that although this
was a better design, it is not ideal.
Mr. Lundberg stated that the plan with
the waiver satisfies the concerns of Mr. Hale.
Motion: Ms.
Fahey moved to close the public hearing.
Second: Ms.
Black
Vote: 5-0;
Motion carried.
Motion: Ms.
Fahey moved to approve an application from Walter & Roberta Donnelly for a Common Driveway Special Permit, Zoning
Ordinance Section 3.5, to serve two lots at
Second: Mr.
Kushner
Vote: 5-0;
Motion carried.
Mr. Cademartori stated that a revised
maintenance agreement and covenant should be filed, and
that
a condition should be incorporated in the decision that the applicants should
regrade and
repave
the apron of the old common driveway since it is on their property.
V. CONTINUED PUBLIC
HEARING – Continued from earlier time on agenda
A. An
application from Carrigan Enterprises, Inc., for a Cluster Development Special Permit entitled “Annisquam Woods”
at 7 & 11 Hutchins Court and 14 Tufts Lane for 30 units (Assessors Map 125, Lots 71 & 22; and Map 115,
Lot 30). Definitive Cluster Plan prepared by Hayes Engineering; dated
June 26, 2006.
Ms. Harrison stated that while Ms. Fahey
missed one meeting in October and Mr. Rubin is
missing
this meeting, they can listen to the transcripts to catch up on the
testimony. She stated that the purpose of her presentation was to review
the comments of the third party reviewer Vanasse
Hagan Brustlin (VHB); items 1 – 53 were reviewed. VHB stated that the matters have been addressed. Ms. Harrison would like to address stormwater
management at the next meeting on
Monday, November 27, 2006. Ms. Harrison
stated that one issue that is remaining is the secondary
access road from
Mr. Tim McIntosh, Vanasse Hagan Brustlin
(VHB), stated
that the objective was to perform an
independent third party peer review, which has been extensive. He stated that he was prepared to discuss civil and traffic related issues. VHB had a site visit and then prepared an initial review. They then attended two meetings with the City
and its engineer. He stated that they looked at increasing the
roadway design for 20mph; making sure the roadway is safe for its intended users.
Mr. Lundberg asked if Mr. Macintosh was
specifically speaking of the roadway within the development.
Mr. McIntosh replied yes.
Mr. Lundberg asked if the review
included the review of traffic.
Mr. Joe Quitter of VHB conducted the review
of the traffic study. He stated that the
applicant did address the site
distance issues.
Mr. Lundberg asked if the preferred
traffic flow is more through
Mr. Quitter stated yes, although in his
opinion it doesn’t really matter because the increase in traffic will be so minimal.
Ms. Black asked if someone from VHB could explain what “possible alternative designs” mean as stated on page 6, item #19. She also inquired how that affects VHB’s comments that it has been