06.21.23 BPB Minutes Final City of Beverly Planning Board
June 21,2023
Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 10
CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: City of Beverly Planning Board
DATE: June 21, 2023
LOCATION: Beverly City Hall, 191 Cabot Street, 3rd Floor Council
Chambers
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Vice Chair Derek Beckwith,
Sarah Bartley, Ellen Flannery, George Gomes, Wayne
Miller
MEMBERS ABSENT: Rodney Sinclair
OTHERS PRESENT: Director of Planning& Community Development Darlene
Wynne,Assistant Planning Director Ken Clawson
RECORDER: Naomi Moca
Call to Order
Chair Hutchinson calls the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
Vice Chair Beckwith: Motion to recess. Flannery seconds. Motion carries (6-0).
Recess for Public Hearings
1. Public Hearing: Special Permit#187-23 — 8 Summit Avenue—Robert I. Boudreau
Director Wynne reads the legal notice. Tom Alexander of Alexander and Femino, Robert
Boudreau, Applicant, and engineer George Zambouras are present. Alexander states that
Boudreau owns the Anchor Pub and Restaurant, which has been under his family's ownership
since 1996, and states that the applicant is seeking a special permit for using the lot for parking
purposes which entails a few design deviations as set out in the public notice. The reason for the
deviations is due in part to the relative scarcity of parking and the resulting unsafe parking habits
in the area with the opening of the nearby Mission Boathouse restaurant and due to the upcoming
busy season. The applicant seeks to establish additional parking options for the customers and
staff of his business.
Alexander states that the lot is next to the railroad tracks next to Ellingwood Court and Cox
Court. Alexander outlines how the site meets the criteria for qualifying for a special permit in
Beverly: 1)that the specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use and the character
of the adjoining uses will not be adversely affected; 2)that no factual evidence is found that
property values in the district will be adversely affected by such use, in fact, Alexander states
that the area will be enhanced with more off-street public parking; 3)that no undue traffic and no
nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result, in fact, Alexander states that hazard will overall
1
City of Beverly Planning Board
June 21,2023
Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 10
likely be reduced;)that adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper
operation and maintenance of the proposed use, which is confirmed by Zambouras; 5)that there
are no valid objections from abutting property owners based on demonstrable fact, in fact,
Alexander states that 30 neighboring individuals signed a petition in support of the project as it
may likely ease the parking situation in the neighborhood; 6)that adequate and appropriate City
services are or will be available for the proposed use.
Materials added to the record:
• Petition signed by the residents of the neighborhood in support of the special permit
The Board discusses that the lot is currently vacant, that the surface will be crushed stone gravel
to allow for drainage on site and to minimize runoff, that the traffic flow into the lot is designed
for one way in and one way out, that its use will be sporadic for the use by the restaurant, that the
use of the parallel parking spaces will work the same way as parallel parking on a regular
roadway, and that there is a fire hydrant about 100 feet away. Zambouras and Alexander state
that the parking spaces will be delineated by concrete headers at the top of each space, that on
Ellingwood Court,the spaces will be delineated by signs on the stockade,that the compact
spaces will be delineated with striping on the ground, and that the signs offer guidance but do not
guarantee that drivers will comply with the signage.
The Board discusses that the crushed stone parking lot on West Beach is delineated with a chalk-
style line that periodically has to be refreshed. The Board discusses that the signage will state
"compact car space only" at the head of each compact space, and"for patrons of the Anchor
Pub"in the lot in order for the rules to be enforceable by towing. The Board observes that two of
the three direct abutters have not signed the petition, and Boudreau states that 7 Ellingwood is a
three-family building and that the owner expressed that he is fine with the project when they
spoke. Boudreau states that he placed the stockade fence 15 feet within his property line to allow
extra space as a courtesy.
Donald Swift of 3 Summit Avenue states that he has lived at this address since 1994, and that the
property is a commercial residential lot and not RMD zoned. Swift states that the project will
affect his property value,that the lot's runoff drains directly into his property causing water
issues in his home, that the fence is one foot from his property line, and that if a car fire occurred
in the lot it could be a hazard as his house has vinyl siding. Swift states that there is a three-
family house behind his house, that the lot is already a gravel parking area, and that there is a
one-foot buffer between the lot and 3 Summit Avenue. Swift points out the commercial
residential zoning line.
The Board clarifies with Swift that the zoning was changed to CC zoning two months ago.
Alexander and Boudreau state that the lot has been a vacant lot, not a parking lot, and at one time
it was an access driveway to 17 Summit Avenue. Zambouras states that the lot became
overgrown over a 30-year period, and that it has always been and will continue to be a permeable
surface.
2
City of Beverly Planning Board
June 21,2023
Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 10
Swift states that the lot's organic grass and trees were removed by the engineer, and now it is
gravel, causing water to run off the lot toward his house.
Zambouras states that the grade is pitched one foot east to west toward Ellingwood Court, not
north to south toward Summit Avenue. Zambouras states that it was an uncapped lot until about
two years ago when it was cleared and leveled.
The Board discusses with Swift that the water flow toward and into his house increased in the
time period after the clearing of the lot.
Alexander offers on behalf of the applicant to install a drain into the lot to direct stormwater flow
into the City drainage system at Summit Avenue. The flow would thus be redirected from west
to east into the City drainage.
Zambouras states that part of the lot was always gravel. Swift counters that it was always organic
grass and trees. Zambouras states that the water runoff flows from east to west to the lawn of 7
Summit Avenue and into the City drainage system. The proposed drain would be close to the
property line and eventually drain to the ocean. Swift states that he is unsure of the offered
compromise and he states that the water flows from the 24-unit condominiums, along the entire
length of the property, from north to south, and along the side of the lot where his house is
located.
Zambouras states that the level of the ground in the lot is lower than the top of the concrete wall,
that elevations were measured two weeks ago, and that this is the first time he has learned of the
flow of the water going into Swift's property. Boudreau states that he and Swift previously had a
conversation about the water but the context of the conversation was about water in both their
properties.
Zambouras states that there can be many factors that contribute to water in the basement,
including groundwater or surface water, which makes it difficult to determine how much of the
water problem at Swift's property is caused by runoff from the lot, if any. Zambouras states that
he is confident that a drain can be installed on the lot.
Beckwith discusses a 15-space lot versus a 17-space lot and how a 17-space lot may impact the
proximity of a vehicle to Swift's house, thus potentially risking damage to the house in the case
of a vehicle fire. Alexander states that the preference is for 17 spaces. Hutchinson suggests
eliminating space number 17 due to the noise factor in the neighborhood as space number 17 is
directly adjacent to the property. The applicant agrees to eliminate space number 17. Zambouras
states that eliminating space number 17 will not impact the ability to install drainage.
Flannery: Motion to close the public hearing: Special Permit 4187-23 —8 Summit
Avenue, Robert I. Boudreau, Applicant. Beckwith seconds. Motion carries
(6-0).
3
City of Beverly Planning Board
June 21,2023
Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 10
Director Wynne states some potential conditions of approval for the Board to consider.
Hutchinson asks about the grading of the lot as it relates to the installation of a catch basin.
Miller asks about the maintenance of gravel in the parking lot. Wynne states that annual
stormwater reporting is required under the NPDES permit which would address annual
maintenance.
Beckwith: With regard to application for Special Permit#SP 187-23 —8 Summit
Avenue—Robert 1. Boudreau, Applicant, move that the Planning Board find
that 1)the specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use, and
that the character of the adjoining uses will not be adversely affected, 2)that
no factual evidence is found that property values in the district will be
adversely affected by such use, 3)that no undue traffic and no nuisance or
unreasonable hazard will result, 4)that adequate and appropriate facilities
will be provided for the proper operation and maintenance of the proposed
use, 5)there are no valid objections from abutting property owners based on
demonstrable fact, 6)that adequate and appropriate City services are or will
be available for the proposed use, and to GRANT the Special Permit for the
principal use of the lot as a parking lot, and deviations from the design
requirements by allowing parking spaces within five feet of side lot lines, a
two-way aisle width of less than 24 feet, compact car spaces to take up more
than 25% of the spaces in the lot; and further, the applicant shall post signage
that reads "Compact Spaces" adjacent to the compact parking spaces;
delineate parking spaces with the placement of concrete headers; chalk lines
for the parking spaces; install a catch basin drain in the lot to catch and divert
surface water into the city drainage system,including associate grading of the
lot, which will be reviewed by the City Engineering Department as required;
if the water places a strain on the City's resources,the NPDES conditions
shall apply including but not limited annual stormwater management
reporting and annual maintenance of the gravel surface in accordance with
the City of Beverly Engineering requirements; and eliminate space number
17 so that the total number of spaces is 16. Flannery seconds.
Miller discusses that there is no lighting plan at this time, due to the street lights and the lighting
from the condominium property being sufficient. Miller asks if there is video surveillance in
place and it is stated that video surveillance does exist. Miller asks about snow removal and it is
stated that snow removal will likely not be necessary in the winter as usage of the lot is expected
to decrease. Boudreau states that in the case of an unusual amount of snow, it will be plowed into
the two parking spaces nearest the fence.
Bartley discusses the additional burden of annually refreshing the lines in perpetuity because the
surface is crushed stone. Beckwith discusses that delineation is necessary because at times
headers may not be adequate to delineate spaces, and because the aisle has been narrowed from
24 feet to 18 feet. Zambouras offers to look into installing colored concrete paving stones into
the gravel surface to create permanent parking lines in lieu of chalk or paint.
4
City of Beverly Planning Board
June 21,2023
Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 10
Beckwith: Amended motion: remove the "chalk lines"wording of the motion and
replace it with "provide delineation or demarcation for the spaces."Flannery
seconds.
Motion carries 6-0.
2. Public hearing: Definitive Subdivision Plan— 119 and 119R Rantoul Street and 44 and 46
Pleasant Street—Wilso Ventures LLC and Tiny Ventures LLC
Wynne reads the legal notice. Hutchinson discusses with Alexander that Wilso Ventures LLC
dissolved in 2021 and that Tiny Ventures LLC dissolved in 2016. Hutchinson is unaware of what
implication this information could have on the application. Alexander believes that there is no
harm in moving forward as the LLC's most likely need to file their annual reports. Alexander
states that it is not uncommon in Massachusetts to have an LLC be dissolved as a result of not
filing annual reports and continue to function. Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering is present and
states that in 2022 Christopher Crowley, who is a representative of the two LLCs,purchased the
property. Griffin states that the purpose of submitting a provisional subdivision plan is to
effectively freeze the zoning, and that Crowley has no plan to actually build the subdivision.
Griffin reviews the layout of the proposed plan, which is similar to the previous plan, being
roughly half an acre in size. The plan proposes to remove the existing buildings on the old
Meineke property, and it complies with all the necessary requirements to build a subdivision in
Beverly. There are two lots, and the subdivision is in the CC Zoning district which has no
setback requirements. The drainage ties into the existing City storm sewer system and there will
be a net decrease in runoff.
Miller discusses that since the deed to the property has not been transferred to any other party,
and the LLCs have been dissolved, if Christopher Crowley is legally the representative of at this
point in time. Alexander states that the matter of the LLCs being reinstated can be resolved
within 48 hours. Hutchinson discusses whether a nonexistent entity can legally file the plan, and
Alexander counters that it is commonplace for plans to be filed by entities that have been
dissolved. Hutchinson discusses whether the applicant would have to re-apply in the future in the
case that the entities are reinstated, or whether the applicant can move forward on the condition
imposed by the Board that the entity be reinstated retroactively. Miller discusses that Christopher
Crowley is listed on the application as the owner, but since he is signing on behalf of the LLCs
as the manager, Miller questions whether it is accurate to list his name as the owner.
Alexander states that statutorily, the filing has to be within seven months to effectively freeze the
zoning, and since that purpose has been fulfilled he is comfortable continuing to the July 18,
2023 meeting.
Beckwith: Motion to seek the opinion of the City Solicitor on whether an LLC that has
been dissolved by a court order or by the Secretary of State's Office has legal
5
City of Beverly Planning Board
June 21,2023
Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 10
standing to file an application for a Definitive Subdivision Plan. Flannery
seconds. Motion carries (6-0).
Flannery: Motion to continue to the public hearing to the July 18, 2023 meeting.
Beckwith seconds. Motion carries (6-0).
3. Public hearing: Definitive Subdivision Plan—45, 47, and 53 Cabot Street and 5 Union
Street - Gregory Ward
Wynne reads the legal notice. Miranda Siemasko of Glovsky and Glovsky and Bob Griffin of
Griffin Engineering are present on behalf of the applicant. Siemasko states that there are three
different owners of the four adjacent lots depicted on this definitive plan. Applicant Gregory
Ward,the manager and principal of the two LLCs involved, is named as the applicant which
Siemasko confirms is appropriate when filed under the Subdivision Control Law. Siemasko
states that this filing is being done to preserve the prior zoning, and does not represent anything
that is intended by the owners to be constructed.
Beckwith asks if there are any changes from the Preliminary Plan. Griffin answers that there are
minor changes from the Preliminary Plan that were not initially required, but that the layout of
the lots remains the same. Griffin presents the plan, stating that the four lots together are about
40,000 square feet with 700 feet of frontage on Cabot Street. Griffin states that the layout meets
all the requirements of the zoning, that the plan depicts a cul-de-sac, and that there are no
setbacks. The sizes of lots one, two, three, and four are 9,000 square feet, 5,000 square feet,
5,000 square feet, and 7,000 square feet, respectively. Approximately one third of the land is
tied up in the right-of-way. There is a high capacity for drainage on the site according to the test
pit data,with the ability to accommodate a 100-year storm event. There is a water main and a fire
hydrant on the site.
Miller asks how deep the test pits were dug and Griffin responds that they were approximately
eight feet and that no toxicity checks were conducted. Beckwith asks for a summary of the
stormwater report. Griffin states that the project meets or exceeds the Stormwater Management
standards,which are 1) no new untreated discharges, 2) demonstration that there is no increase in
the rate of runoff from the site after construction and no potential increase in offsite flooding, 3)
the recharge standard, 4)water quality requirement to meet DEP standards for treating water
before it leaves the site, 5)no higher pollutant load, 6) critical area does not apply, 7)meet
redevelopment standards to maximum extent practicable, 8) operations and maintenance, 9)
erosion controls during construction, and 10)no illicit discharges from the site. Miller asks if
there are gas lines in this area and Griffin states that gas lines are present with no indication of
leaks.
Hutchinson discusses that the project could, in theory, be built but that there is no intention to do
any construction. The filing will accomplish the zoning freeze, which will be applicable for
seven years even if it is not built within two years. Hutchinson asks if the traffic data in the
6
City of Beverly Planning Board
June 21,2023
Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 10
traffic report is based on actual counts and Griffin responds that the traffic data for the current
garden center and warehouse are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers traffic
manual's data on land use associated with a farmhouse greenhouse center, as the basis for
potential vehicle trips. Hutchinson asks if there is any actual data on traffic trips and Griffin
responds that there is not. Griffin states that the maximum yield of 23 residential units would
generate approximately 110 trips down from 410 trips according to the traffic manual data.
Miller asks if there is any signage and Griffin responds that there is a stop sign at the end of the
street. Beckwith asks if there are any new hydrants and Griffin states that the plan includes one
new hydrant.
Hutchinson discusses that, if it is not built within two years, the freeze will still exist, and the
applicant will need to come before the Planning Board again. Hutchinson clarifies that while
there is no intention to build, it is a Definitive Subdivision Plan. If a decision were made to go
forward with construction, the project would still be subject to Site Plan Review.
Alexander Knox of 2 Davis Street asks if there are plans for additional street lights and Griffin
answers that there are not. Knox asks if structures can be built on top of the infiltration field
between lots three and four, and Griffin states that he supposes it is possible. Knox asks what
interference can be anticipated during the construction of the triple gate valve at the entrance in
front of the stop sign, and Griffin states that water mains are typically five to six feet below
grade, so it would require a day or two of digging work.
Terrence Shaw of 7 Union Street states that he received the letter from City on Saturday and that
was the first he heard of the plan, and not being a lawyer himself nor familiar with this process,
he seeks clarification on what stage it is at. Shaw expresses that he understands now that the
application is for the purpose of freezing the Zoning.
Hutchinson explains to Shaw that the applicant filed a preliminary subdivision plan in November
of 2022, which does not require a public hearing. The next step required by law is to file a
Definitive Subdivision Plan, with this level of detail, as a placeholder to freeze the zoning. The
applicant has made clear there is no intention to develop it,but that it is a placeholder, and there
is a possibility that in the future there could be another plan. The filing of the application serves
as a mechanism to freeze the zoning. Siemasko adds that when and if a project that is real is
contemplated, the City's requirement for Site Plan Review is a public hearing, and in that case,
adjacent residents and owners are required to receive notice about the real project,just as in the
case of today's placeholder plan.
Shaw asks why the applicant would go through the effort and expense of filing the plan when
there is no intention to build. Hutchinson explains that the law requires this level of detail to
apply and since the new zoning affects the allowable height of buildings,the profit yield from an
additional story might outweigh the cost of submitting these plans. Beckwith further clarifies that
in this case, no variance or waiver from the City is required, meaning it is by-right.
7
City of Beverly Planning Board
June 21,2023
Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 10
Shaw asks if, theoretically, in the next seven years the applicant decides to go ahead with
construction, abutters will receive another notice, and Hutchinson answers yes. Wynne discusses
that mail delivery within Beverly has been slower lately, as these notices were mailed around
Memorial Day.
Chris Brennan of 7 Union Street asks what the new height limitation is and what it was prior to
the zoning change. Wynne states that depending on the lot and its adjacencies,the zoning was
reduced from 55 feet(about five stories)to 45 feet(four stories) in some cases. Brennan
expresses concern that the building or buildings could be five stories high. Wynne explains that
the zoning change has already occurred, and this application allows the applicant to build to the
pre-zoning allowable height. Brennan asks why the height was lowered in the zoning, and
Hutchinson states that among other reasons,there were concerns in the City about the size of
buildings.
Beckwith expresses that the applicant is following the technical letter of the law by doing
everything properly that is required, and the Board cannot deny the applicant's right to do so.
Brianna Buhassi of 14B Stone Street states that it felt shocking to learn that zoning in the area
was changed and that there were neighbors contemplating building a five-story building.
Hutchinson explains that this public hearing is the first notification and opportunity to ask
questions about it. Miller explains that there is a grace period provided by law that allows
property owners to freeze the previously existing zoning after the zoning goes into effect.
Buhassi asks what possibility there is for her or others in the neighborhood to change or put a
stop to the plan. Hutchinson explains that if the applicant makes a decision to build anytime over
the next seven years, the plan must come before Board for Site Plan Review, at which time the
neighbors will be notified again. At that time, the neighbors will have the opportunity and right
to review the plan, ask questions, and potentially express to the Board the reasons they oppose it.
Hutchinson states that the filing of a site plan does not guarantee that the plan will be approved.
Buhassi states that if she were a property owner, she would want to maximize her investment by
constructing the maximum capacity building possible. Buhassi expresses concern about potential
noise, height, and sustainability issues with the project. Hutchinson discusses that prior to the
zoning change, the owner had the right to build 5-story building all along, and that the discussion
today is hypothetical. Hutchinson emphasizes that plans typically go through multiple iterations
over the course of the approval process, and uses The Block project near the Post Office as an
example. Hutchinson states that neither the Board nor Buhassi can change the fact that the
zoning is frozen, but Buhassi has the right to express her opinion about why the building should
not be five stories.
Peter Saggese of 14A Stone Street states that there is already an existing traffic problem on Stone
Street due to its being a state highway with parking on the odd-numbered side of the street, and
expresses concern that the development may add to the traffic issues. Furthermore, Saggese
states that the traffic light at Cabot Street causes daily backups. Saggese expresses concern that
8
City of Beverly Planning Board
June 21,2023
Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 10
parking would be constructed adjacent to his property in the access way that runs behind 10
Stone Street and 14 Stone Street.
Griffin clarifies that he was talking about the traffic on Cabot Street,not Stone Street,in his
presentation. Griffin states that the plan includes nothing on the access way because it cannot
accommodate parking, being 18 feet in size. Hutchinson discusses that the comments are valid
and perhaps better left for a potential future time if or when the plan becomes definitive.
Wynne states that a subdivision plan is defined as the creation of a roadway and lots, and
explains that the plan does not show any buildings, so essentially,the applicant is showing the
re-adjustment of the lot lines. Wynne states that there are zoning requirements that have to be
met with adjacent properties as well.
Knox asks what is being approved at this meeting. Hutchinson explains that the applicant has
asked the Board to approve the definitive subdivision plan, which freezes the pre-change zoning.
The submission of this plan, not the approval, enacts the zoning freeze. Knox expresses that he
opposes the plan based on the expected increase in traffic flow. Hutchinson discusses that the
applicant has complied with every requirement and that the comments of the neighbors may be
better suited to a time when the plan moves forward.
Beckwith: Motion to close the public hearing. Flannery seconds. Motion carries (6-0).
Beckwith discusses that the application was done correctly, following the letter of the law, so the
Board does not have legal standing to vote against it. Tonight's vote is not on laws or zoning
ordinances,but rather on the approval of the plan. Bartley states that property owners have the
right to develop their property within the parameters of the law, and the Board seeks to protect
their rights as well the rights of their neighbors, and requiring a project to change only because
neighbors do not like it is overstepping. Miller states that the Board does not have legal standing
to deny this request as it meets all parameters and is upheld by state law. Flannery points out that
the developer has historically met with neighbors on other projects and is open to discussion and
compromise.
Flannery: Motion to approve the Definitive Subdivision Plan application for 45, 47, and
53 Cabot Street and 5 Union Street- Gregory Ward, Applicant. Miller
seconds. Motion carries (6-0).
Flannery: Motion to reconvene the regular meeting. Beckwith seconds. Motion carries
(6-0).
Reconvene Meeting
4. Set public hearings,if any:
a. Definitive Subdivision plan: Trask Lane—Folly Hill Associates
9
City of Beverly Planning Board
June 21,2023
Meeting Minutes
Page 10 of 10
Wynne summarizes that this Definitive Subdivision Plan received conditional approval for the
benefit of a zoning freeze six years ago,was appealed, and then was remanded back to the
Planning Board in 2022. The Board delayed at the request of the owner due to a pending sale and
the potential owner wanted to come in with a plan to address the deficiencies. The Board
approved the Definitive Subdivision Plan but denied certain waivers, and the applicant appealed
the approval. The owner has had the benefit of a zoning freeze for six years that has not started
yet.
Wynne explains that the City Solicitor suggested putting this item back on the agenda to address
the fact that it has been remanded back to the Planning Board by the courts. Wynne states that
the applicant's attorney has requested that the Board not schedule the public hearing. Wynne
states that her office will provide a detailed history, and that any questions should go to Wynne
individually to comply with open meeting law. If any current members were not on the Board at
that time, they are still eligible to discuss and vote at the hearing.
Beckwith: Motion to set the public hearing for the July 18, 2023 meeting. Miller
seconds. Motion carries (6-0).
5. New or other business:
a. The Board discusses nominating a representative to serve on the Community
Preservation Committee (CPC). Beckwith's current CPC term expires July 31, 2023.
Beckwith summarizes the CPC's projects in the last funding round, and expresses that
he is happy to continue volunteering on the CPC.
Flannery: Motion to nominate Beckwith as the Planning Board representative to serve
on the Community Preservation Committee for the August 1, 2023 —July 31,
2026 term. Miller seconds. Motion carries (5-0-1). Beckwith abstains.
6. Adjournment
Flannery: Motion to adjourn. Miller seconds. Motion carries unopposed.
Meeting adjourns at 9:28 p.m.
The next regular meeting of the Planning Board is scheduled for Tuesday, July 18, 2023.
10