Loading...
10.4.22 BPB Minutes Final CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES COMMISSION: Planning Board DATE: October 4, 2022 LOCATION: Beverly Middle School Library 502 Cabot Street, Beverly, MA 01915 Social Media Platform: BevCam (YouTube): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsIoEZrieQgRUgraldiSklw MEMBERS PRESENT: Ellen Hutchinson (Chair), Derek Beckwith (Vice-Chair) Ellen Flannery, Wayne Miller, Sarah Bartley, Rodney Sinclair, Andrea Toulouse, George Gomes MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Darlene Wynne, Director of Planning OTHERS PRESENT: RECORDER: Sharlyne Woodbury Call to Order Chair Hutchinson calls the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. 1. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans—N/A 2. Reconsideration of Modification Request a. OSRD#10-17 Hickory Hill Way—20, 30, &40 Webster Avenue— Benco LLC The Board reviews a request for a modification of an Open Space and Residential Design Site Plan and Definitive Subdivision to add a 5-car garage on an existing property. Ben Carlson of Benco LLC asked the board to come back and review the scope of the project for the garage. They are adding the garage accommodating their residents. Carlson and the members review the itemized list of improvements presented. Beckwith reviews the itemized improvements in comparison to the site plan. Carlson points out the items focused on during the last meeting were not necessary to return for since they are improvements that could typically be made without the Board's review. Wynne confirms. Hutchinson inquires what are considered modifications per the site. Beckwith felt the number of different changes happening to the site was perceived as more than a minor modification. Sinclair discusses the issue of interpretation and consistency of interpretation on site plan reviews for future meetings. Members discuss what collectively are considered and are not considered minor modifications. Miller asks what the height of the garage is. Carlson confirms it was reduced in order to avoid a variance. Hutchinson asks if it meets the zoning requirement. Wynne notes even if the height does not meet requirement,that issue is not the within the purview of this board. There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter: Motion: Beckwith moves to reconsider the prior vote on OSRD#10-17 Hickory Hill Way—20, 30, &40 Webster Avenue. Flannery seconds. Motion passes 8-0. Motion: Beckwith moves the modification request for OSRD#10-17 Hickory Hill Way—20, 30, & 40 Webster Avenue be deemed minor in nature. Sinclair seconds. Motion carries 8-0. Planning Board October4, 2022 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 12 Motion: Beckwith moves to endorse the merits of the modification request OSRD#10-17 Hickory Hill Way—20, 30, &40 Webster Avenue. Flannery seconds. Motion carries 8-0. Recess for public hearings. Motion: Miller moves to recess for public hearings. Toulouse seconds. Motion carries 8-0. 3. Public Hearing a. Site Plan Review#157-22;350-354 Rantoul Street—350-354 Rantoul Street LLC The Board considers the site plan for the reconstruction of a two-story commercial building for a previously approved marijuana retail facility. Because the prior plan was for rehabilitation, it did not require Planning Board review. Conor Walsh, Glovsky& Glovsky, presents to the board on behalf of the applicant. Present are Chris Tymula, Greenman-Pederson, Inc, via google meet, and Rick Alpern, owner, via public audience. Walsh summarizes the approvals from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) and Parking &Traffic Commission (PTC). The proposed new building reduced the height from 3-to a 2-story building. Walsh reviews the parking arrangement detailing the agreement for parking in a private lot further up Rantoul Street, on site spaces, and on-street parking on Rantoul Street. Walsh discusses the proposed elevations. Hutchinson confirms with Walsh the Host Community Agreement has already been approved by the City. Miller asks for the expectation for employee parking. Walsh confirms it is predominantly off-site.Alpern discusses employee parking.There are 20 spots located near the Pickled Onion, 12 of which are dedicated to the employees. There is also space available off-site at the temple on Lothrop Street, which they could use if necessary. Miller asks for hours of operation. Alpern answered it will be originally 10-8, or 11-8, on Sunday 11-6. Miller confirms there is no cultivation onsite. Alpern addresses the odor concerns.There is a filtration system for the air. All inventory is tracked from "seed to sales". Chris Tymula addresses the HVAC systems. Miller asks about the green efficiency of the new building, expressing concerns of a fossil fuel driven HVAC system. Miranda Siemasko, Glovsky& Glovsky, speaks to the reconstruction of the building. The original system was fossil fuel driven. The architect is not available to further discuss green energy initiatives. Mike Tierney, AJ & Sons Construction Management, is on the construction team for the project. He reviews the building redesign, energy efficiency, and confirms they are researching LEED certifications. Tierney assures members they are doing all measures possible to make this building energy efficient. Alpern points out decreasing the size of the building is energy efficient, secure, and minimalist. Siemasko confirms security must be tight. Flannery inquires if the exterior lighting is too bright for neighboring residences. Walsh explains the external light fixtures point down toward the sidewalk and confirms for security there must be adequate lighting. Members continue discussing building security and safety during transactions. Bartley confirms with Alpern there is an ATM onsite. Wynne reviews the letter of recommendations submitted by the PTC and edits contained therein. Wynne reviews the letter from the Board of Health, letter from the Design Review Board and the Historic District Commission. The Fire Department reviewed and approved with no comments. They also participated in the PTC review. There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter: Planning Board October4, 2022 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 12 Motion: Flannery moves to close the public hearing. Beckwith seconds. Motion carries 8-0. Motion: Beckwith moves the board approve Site Plan Review Application #157-22 pursuant to Section 300-98 to demolish the existing structure and construct in its place a 2-story, 6,167 square foot commercial building to be used as a recreational marijuana dispensary, accompanied by 7 parking spaces on-site and a shared parking agreement for up to 20 parking spaces at 380 Rantoul Street, and associated site improvements in the CC Zoning District, subject to the following conditions: That the Applicant Owner shall comply with the following conditions set forth by the Parking &Traffic Commission in a letter dated 10/3/2022, are incorporated herein as follows: A. That the applicant prepare a Construction Traffic Management Plan for the demolition and new construction. B. That the same conditions as previously recommended to the Zoning Board of Appeals in April 2022 [May 2021, as amended in August 2022] which address parking, traffic circulation, and pedestrian access, still apply(these are listed below). 1. That appropriate and adequate signage will be determined by the appropriate entity in the City, whether it be the City Council, Design Review Board, or other. 2. That employees shall not occupy the on-street public parking, but may park in other public parking lots. 3. That the applicant will come back to the Parking &Traffic Commission four months after their opening date to review parking and traffic. This will be a discussion only. C. That the Applicant/ Owner shall comply with the specific conditions set forth in a letter issued by the Beverly Board of Health, dated 6/29/2022. Miller is not comfortable deciding on this without further information on the energy efficiencies of the building and the HVAC system. Sinclair disagrees as this is not part of the board's requirement and purview. Miller counterpoints, energy efficiency and green buildings should be part of their future review going forward. Hutchinson explains the board frequently questions HVAC systems, the noise, the impact to the public, etc. Wynne explains the Board's purview and that the current ordinance does not require people to specify their energy sources. Beckwith suggests conditions for the motion. Siemasko offers to provide a summary statement detailing the green energy efficiencies of the building. Wynne councils the board on the suggested condition. After further discussion, no amendment to the motion is made. Motion carries 8-0. 4. Continued Public Hearin a. Special Permit#182-22 and Site Plan Review#155-22,40 Dunham Ridge—40 Dunham OC, LLC The Board reviews the proposed construction of 160 units of subsidized elderly housing in a new 5-story building with 213 parking spaces. Lauren Jezienicki, OneCircle LLC and applicant, Matt Kealey,Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Miranda Siemasko, Glovsky& Glovsky. Siemasko presents to the board on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is seeking special permit approval to reduce the required number of parking spaces as required per ordinance. The parking ratio reduces to 1.33 spaces per unit as opposed to the 2 spaces required. The Cummings Center has an agreement for 50 shared parking spaces.Jezienicki reviews the sidewalk construction plans as well as a ride share plan and on demand shuttle service. Siemasko reviews written responses to the prior meeting's questions for the board. Hutchinson suggests reviewing the report highlights. Planning Board October 4, 2022 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 12 Kealey reviews traffic volume increase estimated at 1% per annum and the volume on Dunham Road. Based off July 2022 Traffic Impact and Access Study(TIA), Dunham Road carries about 240 cars per hour during the weekday morning peak hour and 250 vehicles per hour during weekday evening peak hour. Beckwith asks about how many cars per minute, Kealey confirms the numbers translate into about 4 cars per minute. Miller notes that is a 15% increase. Beckwith notes traffic is heavy in the area, the cars are still slightly above speed limit. Beckwith states that anything to reduce the traffic on the road should be priority#1. Kealey summarizes crash study and confirms it is below the MassDOT district average rating with 3 crashes seen along the corridor. Kealey discusses the traffic calming measures. The average speed is 25-26 mph. Posted signs are 20-25 mph. Reviews data from College Lane and Presidential Circle where speed measurements were taken 9/21-22/22 via speed radar sign. Miller notes the noise of large trucks ambling by. Kealey reviews the North Shore Crossing traffic simulation. Because this project is not altering any significant changes to roadways or intersections.The site generated traffic is only 37 trips during morning peak hours and 45 trips during the weekday even peak hours. Miller confirms with Kealey that 15% increase is not significant enough to see a change in traffic volume. Miller points out completing the simulation would prove that point in their favor. Miller points out the NSMT traffic was not considered with any of these reviews. Kealey discusses the benefits of bike sharrows along Dunham Road. Jezienicki reviews the shuttle information with the Salem Skipper, an on demand mini bus. This shared service may be available to test the pilot program. Wynne noted the City was a part of a regional grant to get the pilot going and she noted that an earmark has been made for$2 million, but City investment would be required if it goes forward. A pilot program could include Beverly, Salem, Danvers, and other surrounding communities. Kealey explains the proposed project does not fit the description of a transit- oriented plan, despite being a mile away from the North Beverly Commuter Rail. Due to high cost, the project will pursue other sustainable methods for stormwater strategies, rain garden and barrel, solar panels, charging EV stations.Jezienicki confirms geothermal is not part of the project budget at this time. She reviews the project timeline. They don't expect to be fully leased until fall of 2026. Jezienicki summarizes project benefits Wynne provides an update from the Engineering Department for the design concept and scope of the Brimbal/Dunham intersection. Wynne reviews the Cummings contributions took the project to 25% design, then the city will identify funding to take the project from 25-50%. That would require involving the MassDOT for improving traffic flow and safety. Wynne also describes the anticipated Phase II project and that a roundabout is not feasible due to grading changes in the highway. Working with other design firms to find alternative conceptual measures. They will be discussing with future landowners. They are one year out to see if they have funding and commitment for the Phase II (overpass) project. Beckwith asks what the total estimated cost of the project is. Wynne notes that information is not available. Hutchinson asks why a younger person closer to 55 would be interested in the building.Jezienicki notes that occupants are buying into a lifestyle change and experience. Flannery asks what peak hours are used. Kealey answers 7:30—8:30 am and 4:30—5:30 pm. Miller notes the residents are not thrilled with this project. He adds, the challenge to fix the issues are not the obligation of the builders, but also not to make it worse. Kealey notes the biggest area is the intersection between Dunham and Brimbal. Planning Board October4, 2022 Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 12 Wynne states for the record Bartley was absent for the 9/13/2022 meeting and confirms Bartley has read all the required evidence and materials for the project. The chair opens the floor for public comment. Cathy Burack, 6 Brimbal Hills Drive Discusses the traffic flow numbers. On Wednesdays when the NSMT is in operation during their season, there is a 2 pm matinee in addition to a 7:30 evening show. Burack discusses the NSMT schedule for the regular show season. It is a significant part of the year. Wednesday afternoons are hell. Getting through Dunham and then through Whole Foods rotary. Barbara Salerno, 16 Dunham Road The traffic study is frustrating to her. She believes there is a lot more that goes on than the 24 hours represents and accounts for in the traffic study. Endicott College uses the NSMT parking and shuttles with big buses for events. Points out the Cummings properties is not fully occupied with expected 1500 parking spaces. What about snow bans and other weather conditions. At the PTC they concluded the road is too narrow for sidewalks. She is frustrated that the parking study is disingenuous and downplays the traffic problems.There are a lot of big trucks. She has personally had accidents with people not being able to back out from her property. She's lived there since 2004. She would like to know where the radar was placed. It's not a safe road for traffic. There is too much in the area between the NSMT, Cummings, NS Crossing leaving and entering Dunham Road. People speed on the road and it is congested. Wynne clarifies, in response to a comment that the City is not starting over completely with the Phase II project. The project is being moved to a different area for crossing the highway due to design issues. The new engineers are reviewing the right spot for the project. Kathleen Feldman, Ward 1 Councilor Supportive of her constituents and maintains her prior comments. Appreciate that Phase II is gaining attention and need. There being no other comments from members of the public, the chair closes public comment. Siemasko summarizes the special permit criteria.The special permit is specifically for the request for relief from the parking requirements. First, she notes this is a subsidized elderly housing apartment model developed as opposed to senior living. Per the zoning ordinance this project is an appropriate use because it is subsidized elderly housing. The ordinance supports all elderly subsidized housing. Siemasko quotes from the Master Plan where the future senior population is expected to increase 28%. Advocates for the applicant's willingness to assist with shuttle and other modes of transportation. 15%of their units are committed to subsidized housing. The site is located in an existing industrial campus. The Dunham Road problem precluded this project. Siemasko reminds the members the developers are trying to ameliorate the problem that is bigger than what their project is. The adjoining property values will not be adversely affected since this is in the industrial district. No undue traffic or reasonable nuisance will result. The project has been demonstrated in an extensive study. The incremental traffic increase is not causing any undue nuisance to the area. The applicant has gone to all possible green standards as being environmentally progressive. Planning Board October4, 2022 Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 12 Hutchinson asked if the applicant is comfortable with the conditions voted on from the PTC letter dated 9/22/22. Jezienicki confirms they are comfortable with a few points of clarification necessary. Toulouse clarifies if the special permit is approved,they will apply to both the site plan and special permit. Siemasko notes the concerns are language in the report. The traffic calming requirements without designating what they are and notes a further discussion is necessary with PTC to outline what their responsibilities per the conditions. Siemasko notes the conditions are worded in an open-ended way, specifically condition #4. #4"all the transportation management demand measures proposed in the application shall be implemented in the original application". Two of those merits are under investigation and the applicant does not have the goal line to commit to. Beckwith notes that committing to move forward is different than a commitment to studying its feasibility or to explore it. Siemasko notes this is a large price tag, that the city has not imposed on other projects, it is not fair to one project to shoulder such a burden. Hutchinson and Beckwith discuss the language of#4. Beckwith does not want the vague language to be determined after the fact. Miller notes a commitment to a report may be more of a firm stance. Siemasko and Bartley discuss possibilities for the conditions where vague language can be further defined at a later date with feasibility commitments by the applicant. Miller suggests perhaps training residents to use ride sharing like existing entities Uber and Lyft. Hutchinson suggests returning to the agenda. Give the applicant sometime during this meeting to review their wordsmithing. Bartley asks about conditions 5 and 6. The applicant is going to wordsmith #4. Miller clarifies the board is not committing to the applicant they can change the condition. Hutchinson confirms the board is granting the applicant the opportunity to review the language and come back to the board. The board is not confirming to approve their language prior to discussion. Toulouse inquires if there are any other entities that are trying to solve the traffic problem. There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter: Motion: Flannery moves to recess for item #4 at 9:32 and return at 9:45. Bartley seconds. Motion carries 7-0. Gomes is ineligible to vote due to not being seated on the Board when the public hearing started. b. Site Plan Review#154-22 and Inclusionary Housing#20-22;218-224 Cabot Street and 18 Federal Street—Leggat McCall Properties LLC The Board is reviewing a proposal to construct a mixed-use building containing 113 residential units; 5,000 sq ft of ground floor commercial space; 153 parking spaces.The applicant has requested a continuance since the traffic analysis is still under review. Motion: Beckwith moves to continue the public hearing to November 15, 2022. Flannery seconds. Motion carries 7-0. Gomes is ineligible to vote due to not being seated on the Board when the public hearing started. S. Set Public Hearings a. Site Plan Review#158-22, 119 Rantoul Street—Wilso Ventures LLC&Tiny Ventures LLC New mixed-use building with 56 residential units; 1650 sq ft of commercial space; 57 parking spaces Planning Board October4, 2022 Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 12 Motion: Flannery moves to set the public hearing on 10/25/22. Toulouse seconds. Motion carries 8- 0. 6. Approval of minutes Outstanding minutes will be reviewed at the 10/25/2022 meeting. 7. New/Other business Wynne provides the updates. a. City Council hearing schedule a public discussion for the proposal to reduce the allowed heights in the city to three stories. It is not a valid ordinance change at this time. The meeting is scheduled for Monday October 24, 2022. b. Wynne shared new proposed design standards to be considered at a future date for ordinance updates. Wynne may present to the City Council. c. Wynne has reached out to Citizen Planner Training Collaborative for Board training. They offer sessions on making motions and other planning board activities. Suggests they could come into and meet with a few boards. d. Wynne confirms the master plan is posted and available on the city website since January 2021. Beckwith asks what if there are any additional projects coming before the board for tall buildings since these guidelines are about to be discussed. Motion: Beckwith moves to reconvene the public hearing on Special Permit#182-22 and Site Plan Review#155-22,40 Dunham Ridge—40 Dunham OC, LLC. Flannery seconds. Motion carries 7-0. Gomes is ineligible to vote due to not being seated on the Board when the public hearing started. Siemasko returns with the applicant with amendments and proposes to add one sentence end of#4. The additional language, "the applicant will commit to pay up to $15,000 to fund a pilot program". Miller is more interested in a commitment where residents are trained to use ride share systems like Uber and Lyft.Jezienicki notes there is an office manager onsite that can assist with sharing information about TDM measures in place. Miller asks for clarification for the EV charging stations.Jezienicki states they are required for 20% EV ready but would like to have more. Miller suggests about 80% by 2026 will have electric vehicles. Hutchinson clarifies that the special permit is for a reduction from 2 spaces per unit to 1.33?Siemasko confirms 1.3 spaces. Miller asks how the residents will know they have 1.3 spaces. Jezienicki notes they will have office management to determine how the spaces are allocated per unit and family size. Hutchinson asks Wynne if she has any comments on #4. Wynne comments that she believes the PTC would welcome the clarity on the number. Hutchinson appreciates the open- endedness of the questions. Hutchinson asks the board if they will accept the altered language in#4. Siemasko informs the board of the special permit voting requirements and asks for a straw vote. The vote must be 5 for majority. Bartley asks Flannery as a long serving member how often this request is granted and is it appropriate. The Board does not take the straw vote. Planning Board October4, 2022 Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 12 Motion: Bartley moves to close the public hearing on Special Permit#182-22 and Site Plan Review#155-22, 40 Dunham Ridge-40 Dunham OC, LLC . Miller seconds. Motion carries 7-0. Gomes is ineligible to vote due to not being seated on the Board when the public hearing started. Motion: Toulouse moves to approve the Special Permit#182-22 for 40 Dunham Ridge-40 Dunham OC, LLC to reduce the ratio of parking from 2 to 1.33 spaces per unit; for a total of 217 spaces for 160 units with an agreement to share 50 spaces with the Cummings Properties, after making the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: On the basis of the evidence presented to the Board, as described above,the Board made the following findings with respect to Special Permit#182-22 pursuant to Section 300-98 of the Beverly Zoning Ordinance: a. That the specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use and that the character of adjoining uses will not be adversely affected.The Board finds that the project site is located within an existing office/industrial campus, in proximity to other high density residential uses, and with ample parking and access to existing utilities to support the project. b. That no factual evidence is found that property values in the district will be adversely affected by such use. The Board has heard no evidence that property values in the IR zoning district nor the adjacent residential district will be adversely affected by the project. c. That no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result.The Board finds support from the reports provided by VHB, Inc. for the Applicant, the review provided by the Beverly Parking &Traffic Commission, and mitigation proposed by the Applicant. d. That adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation and maintenance of the proposed use.The Board finds support for this finding from the review by the Beverly City Engineer and other City boards, committees, and staff who have reviewed this project. Further, the Board has heard no credible or demonstrable evidence to the contrary. Additional evidence has been submitted including but not limited to the Stormwater Report, the Transportation Impact and Access Study, and Supplemental Traffic Analysis, among others (referenced above). e. That there are no valid objections from abutting property owners based on demonstrable fact. The Board finds that,while they have heard valid opinions from members ofthe community,these do not rise to the level of objections based on demonstrable fact sufficient to deny the special permit. f. That adequate and appropriate City services are or will be available for the proposed use. The Board finds support for this finding from the review by the Beverly City Engineer and other City boards, committees, and staff who have reviewed this project. Further, the Board has heard no credible or demonstrable evidence to the contrary. Additional evidence has been submitted including but not limited to the Stormwater Management Report,the Transportation Impact and Access Study, and the Supplemental Traffic Analysis, among others (referenced above). Conditions: Planning Board October4, 2022 Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 12 1 The following conditions set forth by the Parking&Traffic Commission in a letter dated 9/29/2022, as modified by the Board's vote with respect to Condition 1.4 below, are incorporated herein as follows: 1.1 That the shared parking agreement with Dunham Ridge LLC (aka Cummings Properties)for 50 parking spaces on nights and weekends, as referenced in the September 6, 2022 supplemental traffic memorandum, shall be executed and submitted, reviewed, and approved by the City of Beverly in accordance with the Beverly Zoning Ordinance Section 300-65. Such agreement shall be furnished to the City prior to the issuance of the building permit for the project. 1.2 That four(4) additional parking spaces shall be added to the site, removing existing landscape islands, as referenced in the September 6, 2022 supplemental traffic memorandum. 1.3 That reserve parking spaces, if needed, will require review by the Parking &Traffic Commission and the Planning Board as a modification to the Site Plan Review and Special Permit, prior to construction of any reserve parking spaces.Additionally, the head in parking proposed on Dunham Road shall not be constructed, but those parking spaces will be provided elsewhere as needed. 1.4 That the Transportation Demand Management(TDM) measures proposed in the original application and the September 6, 2022 supplemental traffic memorandum, and as referenced above, shall be implemented by the developer and in coordination with the City of Beverly, as applicable. The Applicant shall demonstrate that all TDM strategies are in effect prior to the Certificate of Occupancy being issued by the Beverly Municipal Inspections Department, to the extent feasible. Specifically, with regard to the partial funding of the pilot program for the Via Shuttle, the Applicant will pay an amount not to exceed $15,000 to fund any such pilot program. Such payment would be due within thirty (30) days of the City's adoption of a pilot program for the shuttle. 1.5 That pedestrian connections and improvements shall be made, including handicapped ramps, along Dunham Road from the project site to at least College Road, only where the improvements can be made in the public way. The Applicant shall work with the City of Beverly Department of Public Services to identify the public way and the extent of improvements necessary. 2 That the following condition set forth by the Beverly Fire Department dated 7/26/2022 and submitted through the City's Central Square permitting portal, are incorporated herein as follows. 2.1 Apparatus Access and water supply must meet 527 CMR. Planning Board October4, 2022 Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 12 3 That the following conditions set forth by Beverly Engineering Department dated 7/21/2022 and submitted through Central Square permitting portal are incorporated herein, as follows: 3.1 ADS cut sheet for water quality units does not indicate selected model. 3.2 Stormwater Reporting requirements may be subject to change in accordance with Engineering Department rules and regulations and/or regulatory agency requirements. Stormwater report shall note this comment. 3.3 Prior to commencement of work, stormwater management plan shall be signed by the Owner's Representative with Site Super and relevant contact information provided. This includes all relevant sections of the report. 3.4 Utility permits, drainage alteration permit and Erosion and Sedimentation Control permits are all due to the City prior to the commencement of work. 3.5 Construction phase and Long Term O&M plan reporting requires full back up documentation to be provided to support maintenance activities i.e. inspection photos, measurement logs, invoices/reporting from outside contractors etc. The O&M plan should note this requirement. This work must be performed by a qualified professional. 3.6 During Construction phase activities, excavation, and earth work shall be done in compliance with erosion control rules and regulations. Open areas of disturbance and soil/material stockpiles shall be protected from waterborne and windborne erosion and shall not have any negative impact on surrounding privately owned or municipally owned property. 3.7 Commencement of work under this permit is acknowledgment by all involved parties that they understand and will abide by all current Engineering Department Rules and Regulations. Failure to abide may result in cease and desist orders and/or additional fees and fines. This document can be found on the City's Website: https://www.beverlyma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2985/Master-Rules-and-Regulations- June-2022-Update-PDF 3.8 Domestic and Fire Suppression water lines incur a water demand fee based on line size. 4 The grfgPAiQaA i PwA i t y Boat k2e d 7/20/2022. 5 Work shall conform to the approved project plans, incorporated herein by reference and attached, as amended where appropriate: • Planning Board Site Plan Set including civil, architectural and landscape plans, entitled: "40 Dunham Ridge, Beverly,MA 01915"prepared for 40 Dunham OC LLC,prepared by Icon Architects, VHB, Inc. and Copley Wolff Design Group (29 Sheets, scale varies,) issued July 8, 2022. 6 Any changes made in any plans, proposals, and supporting documents approved and endorsed by the Planning Board without the written approval of the Planning Board, shall require submission of a modification request to the Planning Board for review and approval and shall include a description of the proposed modification, reasons the modification is necessary and supporting documentation. The Planning Department shall determine the course of review. Planning Board October4, 2022 Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 12 7 Prior to the commencement of authorized site activity, the Applicant shall provide to the Planning Board Office the name, address, email, and business phone number of the individual who shall be responsible for all construction activities on site. 8 The terms, conditions, restrictions and/or requirements of this decision shall be binding on the Owner and its successors and/or assigns. In the event of the transfer of the site as a whole, within five (5) days of such transfer, the Owner shall notify the Board in writing of the new owner's name and address. 9 Refuse removal, ground maintenance, and snow removal shall be the responsibility of the Applicant. Winter snow in excess of snow storage areas on the site shall be removed off-site. 10 As-built Plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, shall be submitted to the Beverly Planning Department and City Engineer, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. The As-Built plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer in an electronic file format suitable for the City's use and approved by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. 11 To the extent that construction work has been completed sufficient for a Certificate of Occupancy to be issued for a portion of the Project or the Project in its entirety, but that the As-Built plans have not yet been fully completed (for said portion of the Project or the Project in its entirety), the applicant may provide a performance bond or surety in an amount and from subject to approval of the Planning Department to ensure that the As-Built Plans are completed within a reasonable timeframe. 12 The Applicant shall be responsible for maintenance of the stormwater management system. In the event that the Applicant, its successors, or agent fails to maintain the stormwater management system in accordance with the operation and maintenance plan (Stormwater System Inspection and Maintenance Schedule) as shown on the above-referenced plan, the City may conduct such emergency maintenance or repairs, and the Applicant shall permit entry onto the Property to implement the measures set forth in such guidelines. In the event the City conducts such maintenance or repairs, the Applicant shall promptly reimburse the City for all reasonable expenses associated therewith; if the Applicant fails to so reimburse the City,the City may place a lien on the property to secure such payment. 13 Violations of any condition shall result in revocation of this permit by the Planning Board, unless the violation of such condition is waived by a majority vote of the Planning Board. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-1 (Beckwith against). Gomes is ineligible to vote due to not being seated on the Board when the public hearing started. Motion: Toulouse moves to approve Site Plan Review#155-22, 40 Dunham Ridge—40 Dunham OC, LLC to construct a 5-story(up to 60') building containing 160 residential units with 217 parking spaces in the IR Zoning District, subject to the same conditions applicable to Special Permit#182-22. Flannery seconds. Discussion on the motion. Hutchinson addresses the public and encourages residents to push the state on Phase II and notes that she empathizes with the neighbors' concerns. Motion carries 7-0. Gomes is ineligible to vote due to not being seated on the Board when the public hearing started. Planning Board October 4,2022 Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 12 Wynne notes a correction for the record.The pilot program is$20-25 per ride. Costs$12,000 a week to run. The City of Salem only charges$2-3 per ride. 8. Adjournment Motion: Miller moves to adjourn. Bartley seconds.The motion carries 8-0. Meeting adjourned 10:20 pm. Next meeting scheduled 10/25/22.