08.16.22 BPB Minutes Final DRAFT
CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
COMMISSION: Planning Board
DATE: August 16, 2022
LOCATION: City Hall; Council Chambers;
BevCam (live stream on YouTube):
https://bevcam.org/video/live-stream/
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ellen Hutchinson (Chair), Derek Beckwith (Vice-Chair) Ellen
Flannery, Wayne Miller, Sarah Bartley, Andrea Toulouse
MEMBERS ABSENT: Rodney Sinclair
STAFF PRESENT: Darlene Wynne, Director of Planning
OTHERS PRESENT:
RECORDER: Sharlyne Woodbury
Call to Order
Chair Hutchinson calls the meeting to order at 7:03 pm.
1. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans
a. 114&116 Livingstone Avenue—7 Porter Terrace LLC
Bob Griffin on behalf of the applicant and presents to the board. Griffin describes the lot line is an
adjustment, Lot 3 is deemed as a not buildable lot. The owner proposes to reduce the size of lot 2,
create parcel A, and convey the land to lot 3. Makes no change to the frontage of lot 2 or 3. Lot 3 was
deficient in frontage. The bond was approved at the June 2022 meeting. Beckwith, there is an existing
subdivision already approved. The applicant is ANR. Griffin reads for the board the Ch 41 of the ANR
handbook. A developer/landowner may submit in the form of an ANR changes to shape and size of a
previously approved subdivision plan. Beckwith questions if this is a modification. Griffin further cites
from the handbook reiterating the landowner is well within rights. Flannery inquires why the changes.
Griffin, at some point the owner intends to file an application to make lot 3 buildable. With these
changes lot 3 will not require a waiver as the land will be over 10,000 sq ft.
Beckwith returns to discussing lot 3 not being a buildable lot in lieu of the turnaround loop/easement
conditions as part of the subdivision approval. Beckwith recalls lot 3 was offered up as not buildable to
the Planning Board as a contingent to approve the subdivision plan. This was not intended to be a
buildable lot. Griffin rebukes, there was never any promise to not develop lot 3 in the future. Wynne
asks Griffin to clarify the square footage of lot 2. If 1400 sq ft is removed, and lot 2 is already at 10,000
sq ft, how can this be approved. Griffin cites the Beverly zoning ordinance. "The previous calculation
excluded the area of the turning easement.The subtraction for the easement or right away is not
appropriate since it is open to government agencies and open to public use".The owner's attorney,
former city solicitor Marshall Handley has reviewed the language in the ordinance and conditions from
the plan, believes it is in appropriate for the calculations to subtract the easement area from the lot
area.
Hutchinson asks for clarification on the calculations submitted and how they are changing. Lot 2 was
11,429 sq ft. including the turnaround, there was a subtraction of 1355 (turnaround/easement area)for
a total of 10,074 sq ft adjusted area. Griffin proposes lot 2 is 10,001 sq ft including the easement area.
Planning Board
August 16, 2022 Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 8
Hutchinson asks why it was appropriate to exclude the easement area for the first approval, and now
this time it is appropriate to include it. Griffin, if Mr. Marks (owner) had the council of Mr. Handley years
ago the calculations would not have been counted as they were originally. Mr. Handley reviewed the
zoning regulation, applied it to the dimensions of the lot and determined it is inappropriate to exclude
the easement area as done two years ago.
Wynne confirms the definition of lot is included in the staff report and that it is a private way. Members
express concerns about lot 3 remaining unbuildable. Members would also like to seek council from the
city solicitor on the matter. Members are expressing concerns with the interpretation of the statutory
language of the ANR handbook. Hutchinson asks members if they would like to continue to the
September meeting in lieu of their concerns and clarification for the statutory language.
There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter:
Motion: Flannery moves to continue subdivision approval not required plans for 114& 116
Livingstone Avenue—7 Porter Terrace LLC to the September 13, 2022 meeting. Beckwith
seconds. Motion carries 6-0.
Motion: Beckwith moves to recess for public hearing. Flannery seconds. Motion carries 6-0.
Recess for Public Hearing
2. Continued Public Hearing:Site Plan Review#154-22 and Inclusionary Housing#20-22—218-
224 Cabot Street and 18 Federal Street—Miranda Siemasko, Glovsky Councilor at law for
Leggat McCall Properties LLC
Miranda Siemasko on behalf of the applicant and presents to the board. The Historic District
Commission (HDC)found the property not preferably preserved; the Design Review Board (DRB) with a
unanimous vote approved of the project; and the Parking and Traffic Commission (PTC) requested a
peer review of the parking study. M. Siemasko asks questions for parking please be stayed until the peer
review is complete. The units decreased from 113 to 112 with the loss of that one residential unit going
to the allotment for 4 artist studios. This is a 5-story building, about 5000 sq ft of renovated commercial
space complete with new storefronts; 153 residential parking spaces, 124 in the parking garage and 29
on the adjacent lot; high level of sustainability incorporated in the design; preserving the existing store
building; the project design complies with the existing zoning ordinance.
M. Siemasko address some questions posed from the prior meeting. The team was asked to be better as
describing what currently exists in the building and what they are proposing, specifically the artist studio
spaces. Presently there are 15 studio spaces with 11 currently rented. The rent ranges from $325.00-
$425.00.The spaces range from 240-625 sq ft. What is proposed is comparable to what already exists.
The rest of the second floor would be the residential apartments. M. Siemasko, the team was asked to
provide more information on the current commercial space as to what is proposed. The 17,000 sq ft will
reduce to 5000 sq ft. The retail sq ft will be 2200 and the restaurant sq ft will be about 2900 plus 1100 sq
ft of patio space in the back for a restaurant. This is comparable to what is present at Bone Fish Harry's.
M. Siemasko explains how the reduction of retail sq ft impacts the parking requirements and reduces
what is presently needed.
Planning Board
August 16, 2022 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 8
Community concern and board members concerns were expressed at losing the Family Dollar. M.
Siemasko notes the applicant is not making a commitment to lease to the Family Dollar, even at reduced
space. M. Siemasko notes there is flexibility to address the situation if the demand is great enough.
Siemasko points out the other food available options in the area between Cabot and Rantoul Streets
which are less than a mile from the site. With the exception of Stop & Shop, none of the market venues
mentioned offer fresh food, but they do offer comparable food options similar to the Family Dollar.
Another area of concern expressed at the prior meeting was the building mass. M. Siemasko reviews the
other tall buildings: Beverly Housing Authority McLean Building, St. Mary's School (not of same height
but similarly massed building), Cabot YMCA, the Odd Fellows Building, residential property behind the
Atomic Cafe and the Cabot Lodge. Hutchinson interrupts discussing the mass of the building. Her
concern was less about the presence of Cabot Street and more about creeping into the neighborhood,
establishing precedent that goes back into the 2 and 3 family homes. Her concern was preserving the
history and character of the neighborhood. M. Siemasko points out the developer is designing according
to regulations and zoning ordinances in place. These ordinances existed for decades.
M. Siemasko introduces Addy Grady to address the concerns for housing and rent affordability. The slide
presentation includes income limits by household size (see table below). There was concern that the
income and rent levels demonstrated by the 60% and 80%AMI for inclusionary path that followed may
not be an appropriate discount to market rents. The team reviewed the income restriction to the
neighboring income and census track. Grady points out AMIs did substantially increase 2021. The team
crossed out the 80%AMI because the 60% is more of an appropriate discount to what a market rate
renter could afford. Grady concedes as pointed out in the prior meeting these rents do not seem
affordable for renters currently living in the area.The team cropped out the 80%AMI levels by
reviewing the zoning ordinance. Addy asks the board to keep in mind this project is not subsidized by
any affordable housing income tax credits, grants, etc. AS a result, in order for the units to be affordable,
the burden is placed on the market rate units increases. If this becomes too great, it is not economically
feasible for the project to move forward. They propose a loss of 3 units from 12 to 9 and all the units are
at the 60%AMI instead of the 60%/80%AMI split.Therefore, there is 25% less affordable units, but the
remaining affordable units rents are also decreased by 25%.
This is not the census track, this is a HUD defined income level area, Beckwith clarifies with Grady.
Household Size 60%AMI (Gross income limit) 80%AMI (Gross income limit)
1 $58, 920 $78,300
2 $67,320 $89,500
3 $75,720 $100,700
4 $84,120 $111,850
*Gross income per 2022 HUD limits for Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MA
Maximum rents by apartment size and household size (estimated)
Unit size Household size 60%AMI max rent 80%AMI max rent
1BR 1 $1473 $1957
1 BR 2 $1683 $2237
2 BR 2 $1683 $2237
Planning Board
August 16, 2022 Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 8
2 BR 3 $1893 $2517
2 BR 4 $2103 1 $2796
Members discuss the issue of affordable housing. Collectively the group feels that affordability is a major
concern. Hutchinson acknowledges the skyrocketing rents are increasingly a policy issue.The group
consensus is that building more housing is not going to help make rent more affordable beyond the 30%
total earned income for an individual. Grady and M. Siemasko review the rent data. Beckwith expresses
grave concerns regarding the rent and the impact to the current residents. Wynne discusses the
multifaceted issues with the supply and demand for affordable housing. M. Siemasko offers final
thoughts on the matter.The increase in demand relates to people pushed out of Boston and the
Burroughs moving further out.
Beckwith returns discussion back to the mass and scale of the building affecting the character of the
area. M. Siemasko speaks to the mixed-use buildings, small businesses and the project team meeting
with Beverly Main Streets. Wynne clarifies that the housing between Rantoul and Cabot Streets is a
different zoning. The city is kicking off a grant to do a historic survey in that area. New design standards
are also under review and scheduled to be further discussed in the fall. Bartley asks for more
clarification regarding the public comments about private amenities in the building and public spaces.
Comments at the July meeting focused on being part of the community, not having a massive building
where the residents seem fortified and not approachable. Grady reiterates the enclosed backyard is not
at ground level,therefore remains private. Surveys from the pandemic pointed to a greater desire for
residents to have their own quiet outdoors spaces and sanctuaries. Members point discussion to the
increased units/spaces of affordable rents for artist studios.
Chair Hutchinson opens the floor for public comment.
Mike Mendez, 4 Chapman Street
The location of the egress of the building, specifically the large garage doors. Can those doors relocate
to Bow and Federal Streets? Chapman Street is residential. The traffic and noise are concerns for
residents on Chapman Street. T. Siemasko informs Mr. Mendez there is not enough frontage on Bow or
Federal Street. The best access is on Chapman. Restoring the historic front facade on Cabot Street is not
conducive to the restorative plans. T. Siemasko offers to bring the traffic flow and garage doors before
the PTC review. Mendez asks about the noise pollution of the HVAC units. T. Siemasko assures Mendez
the HVAC units are located on the roof and there should not be noise pollution. Mendez final comments
are concerns for vermin control. M. Siemasko informs the board there is a report from the Board of
Health addressing pest control and mitigation measures.
Peter Johnson, 677 Hale Street
Speaks to the value of the Family Dollar and how Montserrat art students use that as a source of
affordable food. The college does not have a cafeteria to provide meals for their students.Johnson
addresses the vanishing viewpoint down Cabot Street, especially from the street corner of the Baptist
Church. Johnson discusses the seriousness of the design standards and changing the zoning for the area.
Melissa Casey, 16 Chapman Street
Major concern is the construction,the impact to the old homes, cracks in walls, and the noise pollution
affecting the businesses and St. Mary's School (to be used temporarily as a charter school). M. Siemasko
Planning Board
August 16, 2022 Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 8
confirms the project does not have the full construction plan, however;there are city ordinances
mandating when construction and noise can occur. There will be no blasting at the site.
Margaret Graves, 24 Federal Street
Asks if there is any way to lessen noise on one side to have the least amount of interruptions to St.
Mary's School. Grady discusses how to minimize onsite construction. Grady assures the neighbors all city
ordinances will be followed to reduced impact on the neighborhood.
Sylvia Berger, 23 Vestry Street
Working artist in the city. Recently acquired space above 222 Cabot Street for an artist studio. There is
still not enough studio space in the art district. The Porter Mills wait list is 3 years. Discusses how
difficult it is to get something back once it goes away. Berger would like to see a compromise between
adding more affordable housing and studio spaces. Appreciates what has been done so far, but too
many people, 7 artists is a lot to displace. Grady notes it is difficult to mitigate the displacement and find
alternatives.
Ashlee Beade, 29 West Dane Street
Discusses the loss of artist spaces, increased rent prices for the development, retail and restaurant
space. Has seen many colleagues forced out of Beverly. Has grave concerns of being priced out within
the next two years; residents are continuously priced out of Beverly. The atmosphere and community
are going to change with such a large development. During construction when the road is closed down,
small businesses lose out on valuable foot traffic.
There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter:
Motion: Beckwith moves to continue to the October 4,2022 meeting. Flannery seconds. Motion
carries 6-0
3. Public Hearing:Waiver of Frontage and Subdivision Plan—17 Jordan Street—Thomas
Alexander,Alexander& Femino for James Clarizia
The subdivided property is for 17 Jordan. Mr. Clarizia lives at 13 Jordan Street, he's a long-time resident.
The subdivision was approved by the Planning Board in 1948. The plans show the lot area to be 7,000
and 8,775 sq ft respectively for each lot. The original area lot dimensions from 1948 were 6,500 sq ft.
The approval from the Planning Board allowed the lots to return to the original lot sizes. They are
seeking a waiver of frontage to allow 70 feet in frontage for lot 17B. The other lot would have a frontage
of 90.66 linear feet. There are not concerns from the Engineering department or from the Conservation
Commission.
There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter:
Motion: Beckwith moves to close the public hearing. Flannery seconds. Motion carries 6-0.
Motion: Flannery moves to grant the waiver of frontage for 17 and 17B Jordan Street. Bartley
seconds. Motion carries 6-0.
Motion: Flannery moves to approve the definitive subdivision plan at 17 Jordan Street. Bartley
seconds. Motion carries 6-0.
Planning Board
August 16, 2022 Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 8
Discussion on the motion:
Miller appreciates this type of housing development is in keeping with the master plan. Bartley concurs.
4. Public Hearing:Special Permit#182-22 and Site Plan Review#155-22 40 Dunham Ridge—
Miranda Siemasko, Glovsky Councilor at Law for 40 Dunham OC, LLC
M. Siemasko represents the applicant and introduces the team, Lauren Jezienicki; Ian Ramey; Nancy
Ludwig; Caitlin Glass. Siemasko asks that any parking questions are tabled to the next meeting since the
PTC requested a peer review. The residential project is for 55 and older households; subsidized 160
units.
Nancy Ludwick reviews the architect and design plans. Site has a lot of topography with a rising ridge
grade to the north and a relatively flat south side. The Garage will have a green roof and the parking
area is limited. 123 spaces in the garage, 90 spaces located around the site for a total of 213 spaces. This
is a green building. All the units will have some outdoor space. They are planning robust sustainable
initiatives, with an all-electric building. The plan to have solar photovoltaics. The units are a mixed stack
of 1 and two bedrooms. Exterior materials include white fiber cement lap siding; gray fiber cement lap
siding; white fiber cement panel; wood look siding; stone masonry veneer; photovoltaic canopy. The
desired effect is to match the exterior to the natural surroundings in the area. Would like the canopies
to provide photovoltaics and an arched entry. There is a recessed courtyard on the east elevation.
Ian Ramey provides the landscaping plans. Embrace One Circle's core mission health and wellness.
Locally sourced materials, create an environment that promotes interaction with neighbors and nature.
Increase biodiversity on site. Rain gardens; shade trees; play lawn; pollinating habitat; meandering path;
firepits; community garden; multi use labyrinth; pool & arbor. Use permeable pavers; retaining wall
palette used native stacked stone; reviews landscape lightening for ambiance. Planting strategy
presented; native species to be functional and beautiful falling back on the long bloom periods to
encourage pollination.
Caitlin Glass reviews the storm drain coverage. Discusses the grade changes in the area, the existing
culverts and catch basins. Reviews the curb cuts along Dunham Ridge Road for the site and proposed
sidewalks along Dunham Ridge Road, around the site,the garage and loading zone. The proposed storm
water system includes several rain gardens, porous pavers, subsurface infiltration basins. Reviewed the
peak rates of runoff per the 2, 10, 25 and 100 year flood plans.
M. Siemasko summarizes the project benefits.These include generous well landscaped open space; new
bounding sidewalks connecting the large campus to open spaces; building is outside the 100 ft wetland
buffer; building sits into the hillside to reduce the height. Includes several robust sustainability goals:
Fitwell Healthy building certified; pursuit of passive house certification; all electric systems; EV charging
stations; enhanced recycling and composting. Finally, 15%or 24 units are affordable at 30%AM[ (area
median income). Construction would begin summer 2023 ending in summer 2025 with full leasing 2026.
M. Siemasko reminds the board they are also seeking a special permit to reduce the 2 required parking
spaces per unit. The reduction is 1.33 spaces per unit. Miller asks how many parking spaces per unit. M.
Siemasko informs the board the PTC expressed concerns with the special permit request for parking
reduction.
Planning Board
August 16,2022 Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 8
Members and Jezienicki discuss the social aspects and resident composition, singles, married, etc.
Beckwith and members discuss the rent.There are no fees, and while the rent is more than the average,
the rent per square foot is comparable and affordable.Jezienicki emphasis this building is a lifestyle
choice and discusses the turnaround rate for residents.The residence focal point is an active lifestyle.
They estimate about 245 residents in total, based on per unit and per family.
Miller discusses the loading and trash entry, with focus on the composting and recycling. Miller,why are
there only 3 3-bedroom units. Due to spacing and allocation within the building, these 3 units were a
determination as a result of the space and volume of the building. Miller asks if there will be any gas
lines, Ludwig replies with the exception of the social spaces, fire pits, etc. Miller asks if they considered
geothermal heating options. Ludwig, those options are not considered for this project. They require
more information and project site does not lend to a cost-effective site. More often than not backup
systems are designed because investors are concerned with the equipment. Miller asks about transit-
oriented options, including ride share, shuttles, etc. M. Siemasko explains they are looking into a shuttle
service modeled off the Salem service.There is not a specific shuttle project.They are working on
coming up with a greater connectivity to the community for residents to have more access to bike,
walking and ride share options. Miller confirms utilities are separate. Ludwig confirms efficiency and
usage are better moderated when individuals are responsible for their usage. Members circulate back to
traffic trips with the age, were physical therapy, home therapies, and other amenities/home care needs
taken into consideration.
Chair Hutchinson opens the floor for public comment.
Diane D'Angelis, 207 Brimbal Ave
D'Angelis cautions the team on expecting the age group to be closer to 72 as opposed to 55. Does not
believe comparing Beverly to Natick is appropriate. Beverly is by the water.The water is a great draw for
many people. Keep in mind the age limit closer to the lower end of the spectrum will also have more
trips generated by a younger crowd driving, travelling and many still have children (young/young adult)
living with them or visiting as well. D'Angelis asks if the affordability can be re-examined like the Leggat
McCall project reconsidered their rental structure focusing on 60%AMI.
Commends Chair Hutchinson for stating to look at this project as "least invasive" rather consider the
impacts of the project as standalone. For acknowledging the true effects of the neighborhood on its own
merit. Where most responses are to "it could be worse; this is better than what could go in there".
D'Angelis implores the board to not ignore the letter written by an abutter, Lisa Middleton. The letter
addresses the impact on neighborhood home values with this building construction. Homeowners feel
they are losing value in their neighborhoods next to Dunham Ridge.That letter was presented at a
different board meeting. D'Angelis feels the letter was not properly acknowledged at that meeting.
Barbara Salerno, 16 Dunham Road
Traffic is the major concern for the neighbors, will hold comments and attend the PTC meeting on
September 13, 2022. Discusses the flooding issues since all the development in the industrial park.
Upset and dismayed at the dwarfing of the neighborhood. Price range for rent were high, starting at
$2500.00. Safety issues because of increased traffic. Road is very busy,too narrow for sidewalks
proposed.The development is too big for the area. Neighbors feel they are not being heard or taken
seriously. Recently city hall depreciated a neighbor's home value because of the area development.
Planning Board
August 16, 2022 Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 8
There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter:
Motion: Beckwith moves to continue to the September 13, 2022 meeting. Miller seconds.
Motion carries 6-0.
Wynne informs the meeting the Parking&Traffic Commission next meeting is September 13, 2022; 8:30
AM, at City Hall Council Chambers.
Motion: Flannery moves to reconvene regular meeting. Beckwith seconds. Motion carries 6-0.
Reconvene Meeting
S. Public Hearing
a. Site Plan Review#156-22 and Inclusionary Housing#21-22—26, 28, 28R Cabot Street;
4-6, 8 Rantoul Street and portion of 10 Rantoul Street (Map 1, Lots 79 and 80; Map 4,
Lots 160, 161, 162, 163)—Miranda Siemasko, Glovsky Councilor at Law for Southwest
Rantoul Gateway LLC
Motion: Toulouse moves to set the public hearing for September 13, 2022. Bartley seconds.
Motion carries 6-0.
b. Site Plan Review#154-22 and Inclusionary Housing#20-22—218-224 Cabot Street and
18 Federal Street—Miranda Siemasko, Glovsky Councilor at Law for Leggat McCall
Properties LLC
Motion: Beckwith moves to set the public hearing for October 4, 2022. Miller seconds. Motion
carries 6-0.
6. Approval of minutes
a. July 19, 2022
The minutes will be reviewed at the September 13, 2022 meeting.
7. New/Other Business
Net zero energy training and survey for the board members. Wynne will
8. Adjournment
Motion: Miller moves to adjourn. Bartley seconds. Motion carries 6-0.
Meeting adjourned at 10:25 pm.