2024-12-17 Planning Board meeting minutes FINAL City of Beverly Planning Board
December 17,2024
Meeting Minutes
1 CITY OF BEVERLY
2 PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
3
4 BOARD OR COMMISSION: City of Beverly Planning Board
5 DATE: December 17, 2024
6 LOCATION: Beverly City Hall, 191 Cabot Street, 3rd Floor Council
7 Chambers
8 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Ellen Hutchinson; Vice-Chair Derek Beckwith; Ellen
9 Flannery; George Gomes; Wayne Miller; Nathaniel Lewis,
10 Marcus Glynn; Sarah Bartley
11 STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Kenneth Clawson
12 RECORDER: Kristan Patenaude
13
14 Call to Order
15 Chair Hutchinson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
16
17 1. Proposed Executive Session regarding an MGL c. 40A, Section 17 appeal of the Planning
18 Board's grant of special permit,Brusca et al v City of Beverly Planning Board,Docket No.
19 2477CV01218 and pursuant to Massachusetts General Law ch. 30A, Section 21 (a)(3)
20 (exemption to open meeting law regarding discussing litigation strategy if an open meeting
21 may have detrimental effect on the litigating position of the public body and the chair so
22 declares during open session.)
23
24 The Board will resume in open session at the close of the executive session.
25
26 Beckwith: Motion to enter into Executive Session regarding MGL c. 40A, Section 17 appeal
27 of the Planning Board's grant of special permit, Brusca et al v City of Beverly
28 Planning Board, Docket No. 2477CVO 1218 and pursuant to Massachusetts
29 General Law ch. 30A, Section 21 (a)(3),noting that an open meeting may have
30 detrimental effect on the litigating position of the public body, and to resume in
31 Open Session at the close of Executive Session. Flannery seconds. Motion carries
32 unanimously by roll call vote: Hutchinson -aye; Beckwith - aye; Flannery - aye;
33 Gomes - aye; Miller- aye; Lewis—aye; Glynn—aye; Bartley—aye; (8-0).
34
35 2. Executive session; closed session; not open to the public, not live broadcast.
36 Regarding Brusca et al v City ofBeverly Planning Board, Docket No. 2477CV01218 and
37 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law ch. 30A, Section 21 (a)(3) (exemption to open
38 meeting law regarding discussing litigation strategy if an open meeting may have
39 detrimental effect on the litigating position of the public body and the chair so declares
40 during open session.)
41
42 Beckwith: Motion to reconvene the meeting at 7:20 p.m. Flannery seconds. Motion carries
43 unanimously by roll call vote: Hutchinson -aye; Beckwith - aye; Flannery - aye;
44 Gomes - aye; Miller- aye; Lewis—aye; Glynn—aye; Bartley—aye; (8-0).
45
Page 1 of 11
City of Beverly Planning Board
December 17,2024
Meeting Minutes
46 3. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans
47
48 None at this time.
49
50 4. Modification Request: Modification of Site Plan Review#165-24—50 Balch Street(181
51 Elliott Street, Cummings Center)—Beverly Commerce Park,LLP
52 a. Increasing the number of units from 52 to 59 and increasing the building height
53 from 50 to 53 feet. Zoning Board of Appeals approved a minor modification to the
54 Special Permit for the increase in the number of units and a minor modification to
55 the Variance for the increased building height in October 2024.
56
57 Michael Aveni, Cummings Properties, explained that the applicant is in the process of
58 constructing a five story subsidized elderly housing building with parking below it. In June 2024,
59 this Board issued a Site Plan Review approval for the project. In October, the applicant went
60 back to the Zoning Board of Appeals and received approval for a minor modification to the
61 Special Permit to increase the proposal to 59 units and a minor modification to the Variance to
62 increase it from 50' to 53'. The proposal is to increase the building height to 53'. The proposed
63 roof structure does not change. The intention is to omit berming that was previously shown
64 around the building due to the fact that the project's marketing consultant recommended that the
65 first floor units feel more similar to a garden level. Removal of the berming will make it so the
66 applicant does not have to build a concrete wall to support the backfill of the earth. The lack of
67 berming will allow the windows on the first floor to be enlarged. Some of the proposed colors
68 have changed from browns to grays. Regarding the number of units, the original proposal
69 included some larger units and there was additional consideration as to what is currently driving
70 the market. The footprint of the building is not proposed to be changed, with the length and
71 depth remaining the same. Modifications were made inside the building to make some of the
72 units a little smaller. Increasing the number of units from 52 to 59 allows for an increase in
73 affordable units from 8 to 9.
74
75 Beckwith asked about the original purpose of the berm. Aveni explained that the purpose was to
76 use existing site material and not have to remove it from the site. There did not end up being as
77 much material as previously assumed. The ZBA was okay with this request.
78
79 Beckwith asked about the proposed number of units and the breakdown of bedroom types. He
80 stated that adding more than 10% of the number of units seems to be significant. Aveni stated
81 that likely not more than one or two of the one bedroom units will be affordable.
82
83 Beckwith asked about parking for the project. Aveni stated that the revised plan does not show
84 any additional spaces. There will be an agreement for parking on the property for the additional
85 spaces proposed. There will be approximately 118 spaces available on the site for the units. Each
86 unit will receive a spot closer to the building as a first space,with a second space available
87 elsewhere on the property.
88
89 Hutchinson stated that there seems to be a lot added to the newly proposed plans. Aveni stated
90 that some balconies were moved or added in order to allow for additional light into some of the
Page 2 of 11
City of Beverly Planning Board
December 17,2024
Meeting Minutes
91 units. The color scheme of the building has changed due to an inability to obtain the originally
92 proposed gray windows. White windows are now proposed with a gray building.
93
94 Miller asked the applicant to explain how, in aggregate, these are only minor modifications.
95 Aveni stated that the building size and footprint are not proposed to change. The applicant went
96 before the Parking & Traffic Commission and the proposed change adds less than two AM and
97 PM peak hour trips. Both the Parking & Traffic Commission and the ZBA considered this
98 change to be minor. The proposed traffic change and visual impact seem to be de minimis.
99
100 Beckwith asked about the impact of the additional units on the infrastructure on the building,
101 such as the sewer system. Aveni stated that the revised plans have not yet been shared with
102 engineering, but he believes the increase will be a de minimis impact.
103
104 Flannery asked why the proposed changes were not brought before the Design Review Board.
105 Aveni stated that he believed this was the first step in the process. The proposed changes can go
106 before the Design Review Board next, if the Planning Board sees fit.
107
108 Bartley stated that the location of specific elements seems changed on the revised plans. This
109 could be important for the Design Review Board to consider. Clawson stated that, as this is
110 currently a minor modification request, it would not go before the Design Review Board unless
111 the Planning Board requests for it to. If deemed to be a major modification, it will certainly go
112 before the Design Review Board. Bartley stated that the proposed addition of the number of units
113 seems minor, however it is unclear if the design changes are significant or not.
114
115 Glynn asked if the proposed 12% increase in units is a major modification, in terms of drawing
116 from utilities. Aveni stated that the request for the electric service size has not changed. The
117 water line has not changed and the main has already been installed. There will be more sewage
118 associated but none of the pipes have been changed. Glynn asked about studies on the increased
119 volume. Aveni stated that he would have a conversation with the City Engineer regarding the
120 sewer if there were concerns.
121
122 Clawson asked about bedroom count changes. Gomes stated that this changes from 106-113. The
123 interior space is proposed to change but the footprint is not. Four extra bedrooms in a five story
124 building does not seem significant. He does not believe that the proposed exterior changes rise to
125 being a major modification.
126
127 Miller stated that this is likely a minor modification, but there could still be review by the Design
128 Review Board. Clawson stated that the Board could continue this hearing to the next meeting,
129 pending input from the Design Review Board.
130
131 Beckwith expressed concern with the presentation made this evening regarding the proposed
132 changes. He would support this going before the Design Review Board.
133
134 Flannery: Motion to deem the request for Modification of Site Plan Review 9165-24 as
135 minor. Gomes seconds. Motion carries unanimously (8-0).
Page 3 of 11
City of Beverly Planning Board
December 17,2024
Meeting Minutes
136
137 Beckwith: Motion to request the applicant bring the project before the Design Review Board
138 for its input at its January 9, 2025, meeting. Flannery seconds. Motion carries (7-
139 1-0, with Gomes against).
140
141 Flannery: Motion to continue this hearing to January 15, 2025. Beckwith seconds. Motion
142 carries unanimously (8-0).
143
144 5. Continued Public Comment Period on Concept Plans: Open Space Residential Design
145 (OSRD) Initial Review Application #12-24 - 184 & 186 Hart Street—CS Hart,LLC
146 a. Public comment period for the three submitted Concept Plans each showing 7
147 residential lots
148
149 Bob Griffin, on behalf of Ryan Carvalho—RC Enterprise, Inc., explained that this request is for
150 the Board to make a determination as to which of the options presented is the preferred plan.
151 There have been no requests for plan changes. The site contains approximately 1 I acres of land
152 with some wetlands in the middle and less than half an acre of slopes that are steeper than 20%.
153 This leads to an area of approximately eight acres of buildable land. The Open Space Residential
154 Regulation requirements include 50% of open space of the buildable portion of the property to be
155 set aside as a no disturb zone. All three of the proposed options meet those criteria. Option A is
156 the applicant's preferred choice. It would involve saving the existing large residence on the
157 parcel and replacing the structure at 9184. Option A includes two additional single family houses
158 with driveways onto Hart Street, and three single family houses with a common driveway in the
159 open field area to the north of the large building. Options A and C provide for a relatively large
160 open space parcel, more than 50% of the buildable land. For Option A,this is approximately
161 63% of the land with wetlands in the middle. This Option allows for access to the open space off
162 Dyer Road, which could be convenient for public access. The Yield Plan showed seven lots, and
163 that is the number of lots for all of the options. Concept B does not have the same contiguous
164 nature of the open space proposed. It includes a 450' long cul-de-sac with a 40' wide right of
165 way, 24' of pavement, and approximately a 100' diameter, serving five buildings. Option C has
166 slightly more open space than Option A. It also includes a short stub roadway providing access
167 to three houses at the bottom, instead of them having driveway access onto Hart Street.
168 Regarding the comments received from some of the City departments, a letter was submitted
169 from the Conservation Commission showing a preference for Option A, then C, and then B. A
170 letter from the Open Space Commission indicated a preference for Option A. The Board of
171 Health had some general comments regarding being cautious for hazardous materials, controlling
172 dust, controlling rodents, etc. The Engineering Department asked for clarifications regarding
173 some of the easement provisions in Options C and A and making sure that the common driveway
174 can cross the easement. The applicant is happy to address these items.
175
176 Beckwith stated that Option A shows a loop driveway, and he asked if this would require two
177 curb cuts at Hart Street. Griffin stated that this could potentially be reduced to one.
178
179 There was discussion regarding potential vehicle turnaround areas in Concept C. Clawson noted
180 that Concept C also does not allow for the required 25' buffer at the bottom of lots #1 and#2.
Page 4 of 11
City of Beverly Planning Board
December 17,2024
Meeting Minutes
181 Griffin stated that there is a waiver for this item. There was discussion regarding reducing the
182 curb cuts along Hart Street for Concept C. Griffin stated that Concept A includes six curb cuts
183 onto Hart Street and Concept C includes five curb cuts.
184
185 The Board continued to review the three options.
186
187 Hutchinson asked for public comment at this time.
188
189 Michael DiGuiseppe, 208 Hart Street, stated that this section of the road is a problem. The
190 neighborhood obtained statistics of speed infractions and accidents for this section of road for the
191 last five years. There have been over 30 accidents on this section of road within the 3/4 mile
192 section and 546 speeding infractions. The neighborhood then contacted a traffic engineer who
193 stated that this information would likely lead to a D rating for the section of road. When asked
194 how the proposed number of curb cuts could impact this,the traffic engineer stated that it may
195 lead to a level F rating of service. There is currently a sidewalk only on one side of the road.
196 People living in this area have children that travel to the bus stop at Dyer Road and Hart Street.
197 Children from this new development would have to cross the road twice to access this stop, and
198 this is not a safe situation. Allowing this project to proceed under the Open Space Regulation lets
199 the developer reduce the necessary amount of frontage from 145' as required in this Zone. This
200 relief cuts this to approximately 30'-40', and within 1,000 linear feet there will be ten curb cuts.
201 Visibility and traffic are not good along this road. The only thing the City is getting from this
202 project is open space, most of which is wetlands that can never be built on anyway. Dyer Road
203 floods quite often. Additional impervious surface on these lots will likely increase the flooding
204 and this is not fair to the existing residents. This proposal is not in keeping with the
205 neighborhood.
206
207 Hutchinson stated that the OSRD is not a relief program for developers. OSRD is a policy that
208 the City came up with years ago because the preservation of open space was deemed important.
209 There is an extensive process that these projects have to go through. Due to the proposed acreage
210 and housing units the developer is seeking, this is a mandatory process for this project. Beverly is
211 a wet City. The water on this site plan does not flow toward Dyer Street, but in fact in the
212 opposite direction. DiGuiseppe stated that there has not yet been a hydrology study done for this
213 project and he encouraged one be carried out.
214
215 Mike Boccuzzi, 185 Hart Street, stated that in 2023 there were only 64 motor vehicle stops on
216 Hart Street out of approximately 6,000 in the City. The proposed plan is not a good idea with the
217 number of accidents in this area. This is a huge safety issue that should be studied.
218
219 Scott McKenzie, 7 Dyer Road, stated that he is concerned regarding the water flowing from this
220 new proposed development.Nearby properties already have water issues and additional
221 impervious area will exacerbate this problem. Dyer Road was not built as a through way.
222
223 Tucker Mscisz, 200 Hart Street, stated that adding a curb cut across the front of his property will
224 be between two significant curves and the sight lines are poor. This will create a dangerous
225 situation for the three homes proposed to be serviced by that driveway. Concept C allows for the
Page 5 of 11
City of Beverly Planning Board
December 17,2024
Meeting Minutes
226 greatest acreage of open space. Fewer curb cuts will lead to a safer neighborhood. Removal of
227 the trees in the front of this property will not force people to slow down. Concept C will allow
228 for better sight lines and fewer houses serviced by fewer curb cuts.
229
230 Griffin stated that there was some misrepresentation as to the Police reports that were provided
231 to the Planning Board. The first seven pages of that report describe accidents that are not in the
232 area of this project. The last three pages are a report that describes incidents for an eight year
233 period from 2016-2024 on Hart Street, including 16 accidents in that period of time, not 30. This
234 describes 560 service calls over that period of time which could be for a number of issues. This
235 does not represent a huge number of traffic calls by the Police Department. There does appear to
236 be some speeding on the roadway at times. Of the 16 accidents that occurred in the eight-year
237 period, this totals two accidents per year, none of which involved driveway egress onto Hart
238 Street. Regarding the wetlands on the site, a professional wetland scientist prepared the wetland
239 application which was submitted to the Conservation Commission and approved earlier this year.
240 There were no issues on the delineation. There is some work proposed close to the no build zone
241 line, but this is allowed under the wetlands protection act. The plan is compliant with the wetland
242 regulations. A letter from the Conservation Commission states that the yield plan was
243 reasonable, and this is what was applied to Options A, B, and C. Option A is still the preferred
244 option in the applicant's opinion.
245
246 Miller stated that he would like a traffic expert to opine on the safety of the three options. This is
247 germane to the decision. Clawson stated that comments from the Engineering Department
248 include that sight line distances should be submitted for all curb cuts along Hart Street. Miller
249 stated that he would like to request this from the applicant for all three options. Hutchinson
250 suggested that the concept plans, along with these distances, could be sent to the Parking&
251 Traffic Commission for review.
252
253 Clawson noted that the applicant is requesting certain waivers that the Board will also need to
254 consider.
255
256 Beckwith: Motion to request that the applicant supply the information that the Engineering
257 Department mentions in 93 of its letter of December loth, to provide sight line
258 distances for all proposed curb cuts on Hart Street for each of the concept plans,
259 also the Engineering Office recommends that the applicant ensure the American
260 Association of State Highway Official's standards are met for sight distances, and
261 to review the calculations of speed limit and stopping distances, etc., and to
262 provide that information for the Planning Board's next meeting. Flannery
263 seconds. Motion carries unanimously (8-0).
264
265 Beckwith: Motion to continue this matter to January 15, 2025. Flannery seconds. Motion
266 carries unanimously (8-0).
267
268 Flannery: Motion to recess for ten minutes. Glynn seconds. Motion carries unanimously (8-
269 0).
270
Page 6 of 11
City of Beverly Planning Board
December 17,2024
Meeting Minutes
271 Flannery: Motion to reconvene the meeting at 9:27pm. Beckwith seconds. Motion carries
272 unanimously (8-0).
273
274 6. Recess for Public Hearings
275
276 Beckwith: Motion to recess for public hearings. Miller seconds. Motion carries unanimously
277 (8-0).
278
279 7. Public Hearing: Special Permit#198-24—81-83 Hale Street - Chanphaly Ouk
280 a. Reduction in the required number of parking spaces from 2 to 1 in a CN Zone for
281 a residential apartment.
282
283 Clawson explained that this deals with the Colorful Nails Salon at the corner of Hale Street and
284 Lothrop Street. The existing driveway is approximately 9'x27' with enough space for only one
285 car. The Parking & Traffic Commission has reviewed this and recommends approval with the
286 condition that a car parked in the driveway cannot have its rear sticking out onto the sidewalk.
287
288 Gomes noted that there is an existing apartment in this building. Chanphaly Ouk, 81-83 Hale
289 Street, agreed and stated that the request is to allow for one parking space instead of two. The
290 apartment is one-bedroom, approximately 700 s.f. There has only ever been one car parked in the
291 space.
292
293 Hutchinson asked for public comment. There was none at this time.
294
295 Beckwith: Motion to close the public hearing. Gomes seconds. Motion carries unanimously
296 (8-0).
297
298 Beckwith: Motion that the Planning Board make the following findings for Special Permit
299 #198-24 for 81-83 Hale Street, Chanphaly Ouk:
300 1. The specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use and that the
301 character of adjoining uses will not be adversely affected.
302 2. No factual evidence is found that property values in the District will be
303 adversely affected by such use.
304 3. That no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result.
305 4. That adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper
306 operation and maintenance of the proposed use.
307 5. That there are no valid objections from the abutting property owners based on
308 demonstrable fact.
309 6. That adequate and appropriate City services are or will be available for the
310 proposed use.
311 Gomes seconds. Motion carries unanimously (8-0).
312
313 Beckwith: Motion to approve Special Permit 9198-24 for 81-83 Hale Street, Chanphaly Ouk,
314 Gomes seconds. Motion carries unanimously (8-0).
315
Page 7 of 11
City of Beverly Planning Board
December 17,2024
Meeting Minutes
316 8. Continued Public Hearing: Site Plan Review#168-24—0 Trask Lane—Corcoran Trask
317 Lane, LLC,Attn: Peter Mahoney,EVP
318 a. Development consisting of 6 multifamily buildings containing 440 units in the
319 aggregate; associated amenity and recreational areas; 882 surface and garage
320 parking spaces; an extension of Trask Lane; and various site improvements
321 including landscaping elements, common walkways,4 monument signs, utilities,
322 drainage infrastructure, and stormwater management facilities.
323
324 Miranda Siemasko, Glovsky & Glovsky, explained that the peer reviews have not yet come back
325 for this project. The applicant has had one Planning Board meeting,two DRB meetings,two
326 Conservation Commission meetings, and one Parking & Traffic Commission meeting. The
327 applicant submitted responses to the Staff and Engineering Department comments and is in the
328 process of working on a third parry study with the Fire Department. The applicant has filed a
329 draft Environmental Impact Report with the State which included updated traffic studies based
330 on the actual number of units proposed. The project involves six buildings divided into two
331 clusters, for 440 apartments with 880 parking spaces that are required by zoning. This includes
332 53 affordable units, or 12%, and an approximately 65 acre open space parcel. The applicant has
333 heard comments from Staff regarding whether a shuttle bus would be an adequate mitigation
334 method. The City seems to have an interest in growing its transportation network and enhancing
335 the Beverly Shuttle and the Salem Clipper. The applicant is willing to commit to a financial
336 contribution to this network. The applicant proposes to repurpose approximately 1,000 s.f. of
337 what is currently amenity space for the residents and set it aside as commercial space, such as a
338 convenience store for the residents. The applicant has some concern with the ability to lease this
339 space to a third-parry operator but will commit to attempting this for up to three years. This has
340 also been proposed in the MEPA filings. The applicant is also proposing to place a trail network
341 on the open space property and is willing to potentially make this open to the public, as well as
342 the residents. The applicant has heard a request regarding having two parking spaces for each
343 unit on the site. Based on the bedroom count for the project, the applicant believes the optimal
344 number would be approximately 1.1 spaces per bedroom, or 1.6 spaces for unit, or a total of 704
345 spaces, compared to the 880 spaces needed for zoning. The applicant believes the site is
346 overparked by approximately 176 spots.
347
348 Rebecca Brown, Greenman-Pederson, Inc., reviewed the parking demand data. This shows an
349 ITE peak parking demand of 1.23 parking spaces per unit, which is much lower than the 1.6
350 spaces proposed by the applicant. The proposal is to reduce the parking supply from 880 to 704
351 parking spaces,which equates to 1.6 parking spaces per unit or 1.02 parking spaces per bedroom.
352
353 Siemasko explained that to reduce the parking spaces, the applicant could add a Special Permit
354 application limited to the parking issue and make a case that it improves the project, or the
355 applicant could ask for a condition of the Site Plan approval that would recognize that the two
356 spaces per unit are designed for on the site but in a way to allow some of those spaces to not be
357 built until a future time, if needed.
358
359 Beckwith asked about snow removal in terms of the newly proposed parking plan. Joe Peznola,
360 Hancock Associates, stated that the applicant would propose installing retaining walls in the
Page 8 of 11
City of Beverly Planning Board
December 17,2024
Meeting Minutes
361 same locations as originally shown. These areas would slope into the parking lot and be available
362 for snow storage. The satellite parking lot could also be used for offsite snow storage if needed.
363 The Conservation Commission would like snow storage to be in contained areas to allow the
364 snow to melt into the stormwater treatment system.
365
366 Miller asked about the paved surface material. Peznola stated that this material would be asphalt.
367 Miller suggested the applicant consider alternative permeable materials. Peznola agreed that the
368 Conservation Commission has also requested these options be considered. The applicant does
369 not need to propose these alternatives at this time based on stormwater management for the site.
370
371 Gomes asked about the flexibility proposed with the Special Permit option. Siemasko stated that
372 this could enable a reduction in some of the retaining walls or additional flexibility in the parking
373 layout that could be less impactful.
374
375 Beckwith stated that this area of the City is not easily accessible by anything other than vehicles.
376 He asked about a strategy for the needs specifically for these new residents. Siemasko stated that
377 there is a focus on this area and extending the shuttle to include more stops. This area of the City
378 needs more public transport and the contribution from the applicant would go toward this
379 specifically.
380
381 Hutchinson asked for public comment at this time.
382
383 Patrick Knight, 4 Duck Pond Road# 202, expressed concern regarding the proposed parking
384 option. Site A has four proposed buildings and is on top of a pond and steep slopes. This unit is
385 on top of his building and parking/traffic will be a nightmare.
386
387 Siemasko stated that the grade changes of the site are challenging, and the Board will be walked
388 through the detailed site plans. There is no concern that Site A residents will walk up the steep
389 slopes to find parking in nearby development areas.
390
391 Brian Johnson, 4 Duck Pond Road#219, stated that his development has historically borrowed
392 40 spaces on the area that will contain Site A. He is concerned with the parking as proposed. He
393 stated that the developers need to show more respect for the public safety employee concerns.
394
395 Bruce Sperr, 11 Oberlin Road, stated that Trask Lane can be considered a dividing line and
396 everything on the left is within Beverly. Everything multifamily is within Beverly. There are
397 many resources being used for emergency calls in this area. Residents are feeling unheard,
398 neglected and concerned. The traffic study data should be updated.
399
400 Beth Ann Sperr, 11 Oberlin Road, stated that the parking issue is part of a much larger traffic
401 issue in this area.
402
403 Philip Scholten, 4 Duck Pond Road, stated that Cherry Hill has been the stewards of Duck Pond
404 for some time and there is concern regarding the number of proposed cars that will now access
405 the area. He suggested that the back entry through Duck Pond could be for emergencies only.
Page 9 of 11
City of Beverly Planning Board
December 17,2024
Meeting Minutes
406 Speed bumps may also reduce the speed of traffic in this area. He suggested a traffic circle at the
407 Apple Hill/Cherry Hill intersection to handle the additional vehicles. He stated that 1.2 parking
408 spots really means two vehicles.
409
410 Beatrice Heinze, 17 Conant Street, stated that some residents have recently had sewage backing
411 up into their homes. The beaches in the City closest to the sewer lines were closed 19 times this
412 year. The sewer system must be spilling into the rivers and harbors.
413
414 Susan Johnson, 4 Duck Pond Road 9219, expressed concern regarding the snow removal for the
415 main part of the Cherry Hill Condominium parking lot. Maintenance of the existing road will
416 become a problem with the additional vehicles from this development.
417
418 Peter Mahoney, John M. Corcoran & Company, explained that his parcel has an easement which
419 allows access rights as proposed. There is no proposal to remove any of the existing parking.
420
421 Beckwith: Motion to continue this hearing to January 15, 2025. Flannery seconds. Motion
422 carries unanimously (8-0).
423
424 9.Reconvene meeting
425
426 Flannery: Motion to reconvene the meeting. Miller seconds. Motion carries unanimously (8-
427 0).
428
429 10. Set Public Hearings
430
431 None at this time.
432
433 11. Letter from Design Review Board to the Planning Board acknowledging the condition
434 of the approval of the modification to SGOD #01-18— 108-110 Sohier Road—Anchor Point,
435 LLC, dated September 19,2024, has been met.
436
437 The Board reviewed the letter from the Design Review Board.
438
439 12. Request for Extension of Letter of Credit: OSRD Site Plan #10-17—Hickory Hill Way
440 (f/k/a 20,30,40 Webster Avenue)—extend from December 7,2024,to June 7,2025—
441 Hickory Hill,LLC
442
443 Hutchinson noted that the letter requesting an extension has not yet been received and this item
444 should be tabled until the letter is submitted.
445
446 Flannery: Motion to continue this matter to January 15, 2025. Beckwith seconds. Motion
447 carries unanimously (8-0).
448
449 13.Approval of Minutes (as available):
450 a.June 18,2024
Page 10 of 11
City of Beverly Planning Board
December 17,2024
Meeting Minutes
451
452 None at this time.
453
454 b.July 16,2024
455 c.August 20,2024
456 d. October 29,2024
457 e.November 19,2024
458
459 Beckwith: Motion to accept the meeting minutes of July 16, 2024; August 20, 2024; October
460 29, 2024; and November 19, 2024; as amended. Flannery seconds. Motion carries
461 unanimously (8-0).
462
463 10. New or Other Business
464
465 Clawson stated that the Board received a letter from the MA Historical Society stating that the
466 David Lynch Memorial Park was accepted for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
467
468 Bartley suggested adjusting the agenda for future meetings in order to allow for public comment
469 without rushing through it.
470
471 11. Adjourn
472
473 Flannery: Motion to adjourn. Bartley seconds. Motion carries unanimously (8-0).
474
475 Meeting adjourns at 11:03 p.m.
Page 11 of 11