2007-03-29
CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION:
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE:
LOCATION:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Planning Board, Special Meeting
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
March 29,2007
City Council Chambers, City Hall, 3rd floor
Chairperson Richard Dinkin, John Thomson,
Ellen Flannery, David Mack, Stephanie
Williams, Charles Harris, Don Walter, Eve
Geller-Duffy, Joanne Dunn
None
Assistant Planning Director Leah
Zambernardi
Andrea Bray
RECORDER:
Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order.
Walter: Motion to recess for public hearing, seconded by Harris. All members
vote in favor. The Chair votes in favor. The motion passes 8-0.
1. Continued Concurrent Public Hearim!:s: Foster Lane Cluster & Definitive
Subdivision Plans: 30 Foster Street - Hub realtv TrustIRobert J. Hubbard. Trustee
Dunn, Harris, Williams and Mack recuse themselves from this public hearing.
Thomson: Motion to waive the requirement to read the public hearing notice,
seconded by Flannery. All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 8-0.
Zambernardi provides background information about this project stating that the hearings
were opened in February 2006 and continued for some negotiations between the applicant
and the abutter. She says that after these negotiations halted the Board wished to address
some of the outstanding issues, such as the drainage design and the utilization of an
easement from neighboring property, and the site lines at the intersection at Foster Street.
She also points out that there is still some question of whether conditions imposed on this
property in connection with a pork chap lot special permit granted in the 1980s preclude
the current property owner from subdividing this property now.
Dinkin asks Zambernardi to read any recent letters. She read the following:
Dated March 27,2007, from Amy Maxner, Environmental Planner
Dated March 27, 20007, from Chris Negrotti, Traffic Safety Officer
From Wayne Francis, Deputy Chief of Fire Prevention
Dated March 29,2007, from the Board of Health
Planning Board Minutes
March 29, 2007
Page 2 of 17
Dated February 16, 2007, from the Board of Health
Dated March 29,2007, Frank Killilea, Director of Engineering
She notes that the engineer from Camp Dresser and McKee has some follow-up questions
for Griffin.
Griffin states that he delivered 9 copies of the drainage reports to the Planning
Department (Drawings C3 and PI). The Board members locate the plans and examine
them.
Dinkin describes the process for the public to speak. He then asks for questions from the
Board.
Thomson states that there have been changes made that have not been explained and he
requests a presentation of the changes.
Griffin displays the plans and explains them. He addresses Amy Maxner's comment
about the possibility of another wetland on the property, stating that a biologist that
works for Griffin Engineering has confirmed that the small depression on the property
does not qualify as a wetland.
Griffin shows the definitive subdivision plan describing the catch basins and the
detention pond and an underground system allowing storm water to feed into an existing
drainage system on Foster Street. He explains that the subdivision has been reduced from
5 lots down to 4 lots. He describes the location of the hydrants and street trees and states
that all of the utilities will be underground. Griffin describes the street's 3% grade for 75
feet melded with the curb, which changes to 6% beyond the 75-foot distance from Foster
Street.
Thomson asks if the definitive plan requires any waivers.
Griffin states that the only waiver requested is for an exemption from the 6" tree
identification requirement.
Thomson asks Griffin to explain the drainage system.
Griffin states that by taking the water to the back of the property to the detention pond it
will reduce the runoff from this property.
Thomson asks if the drainage system has been designed for a 100-year storm.
Griffin states that he believes that it is but he will need to check his notes.
Thomson asks if blasting will be necessary for the formation of the road.
Planning Board Minutes
March 29, 2007
Page 3 of 17
Griffin states that it will require blasting to construct the pipelines.
Thomson asks how long it will take to remove that much earth and how much truck
traffic will be required.
Griffin says that he does not know the exact amount of truck traffic that will be generated
but it is not an expensive project and it could be completed in 3-4 months.
Thomson asks if the detention pond can detract all of the water in a 100-year storm or
will some be released into the wetland.
Griffin states that the detention pond is designed to slowly and continually release water
into the wetland.
Thomson asks if there is an outlet for the detention pond or if it will seep through the
ground below.
Griffin says that the detention pond provides both of those functions, with the use of an
outlet pipe and seepage.
Thomson asks Killilea if he agrees with this analysis.
Killilea states that the biggest concern has to do with the swale which needs to do
everything that it is expected to do.
Zambernardi states that the Camp Dresser and McKee engineer has more studying to do
before concluding her review.
Killilea states that he wishes not to have this drainage system feed into the existing city
storm drain system.
Griffin suggests that a private homeowners association be formed for the maintenance of
the drainage system.
Walter asks how frequently these on-site systems need maintenance.
Griffin states that during the first year they must be checked every quarter and then at
least annually.
Walter asks what guarantee he can have that this system will be cleaned and maintained
properly by the homeowners association.
Killilea states that the City requires that the homeowners submit an annual report.
Planning Board Minutes
March 29, 2007
Page 4 of 17
Walter asks if there is a specified date every year for the required report.
Killilea states that it will be due on a certain month.
Thomson asks how the system feeding into the street will be checked.
Griffin states that there will be a manhole.
Thomson asks how to expose the area directly below the street to clean it.
Griffin states that the pipes are 24" diameter pipes and someone would be able to get in
there and clean it but the normal method is for the running water to clean these pipes out.
Thomson asks how the water gets into the subsurface structure.
Griffin explains that the water goes into the catch basins at the street and into the
retention and then into the outlet structure.
Thomson asks if the water going into the catch basin will be solely from this property or
will some come from the street.
Griffin states that a small amount will come from the street.
Thomson asks if any standing water in the street will cause this whole system to fail. He
states that it all seems like the water is cycling back on itself.
Griffin states that it will not do that because it will be directed to the detention pond. He
adds that the post-development drainage volume is estimated to be lower that the pre-
development drainage volume.
Thomson expresses his appreciation to the applicant for subtracting one of the lots from
the definitive subdivision plan. He asks if the applicant is prepared to add any restriction
on the back area.
Handley states that they would definitely consider that.
Geller-Duffy asks about the possibility of water running into the garages of the new
homes.
Thomson states that an architect for this development may design a house plan, which
diverts the water away from the garage.
Mack asks if the City has evaluated the drainage calculations.
Planning Board Minutes
March 29, 2007
Page 5 of 17
Griffin states that the City has evaluated the drainage calculations and is continuing to
evaluate the calculations.
Walter asks if the retention systems are planned for a 100-year storm such as the one last
Mother's Day.
Killilea states that last Mother's Day storm was bigger than a 100-year storm and more
like a 150-year storm.
Griffin states that he will look to see if they have planned for a 100-year storm but they
have not done any evaluation for a 150-year storm such as last Mother's Day.
Killilea states that you don't design for a 150-year storm because it is too expensive.
Dinkin asks for additional questions from the Board on the definitive subdivision plan.
There are none.
Griffin displays the cluster subdivision plan and describes it stating that the detention
pond is higher up the hill and smaller than the one on the definitive subdivision plan and
the roadway is steeper, shorter and thinner. He adds that the estimated post-development
volume is lower than the estimated pre-development runoff. Griffin says that waivers are
requested for the width of the roadway and the width of the pavement and the 6" tree
requirement and the hammerhead turn instead of the cul-de-sac.
Dinkin asks if there is a common driveway and what is the width.
Griffin states that it is a common driveway with a width of about 18 feet.
Dinkin asks about fire truck access.
Griffin states that they would need to back out of the common drive, and there is a
hydrant at the hammerhead. He adds that in general there were fewer revisions to this
plan.
Mack asks if there is any difference between the two proposed detention systems.
Griffin states that the system for the cluster subdivision plan is smaller.
Geller-Duffy asks if the 10% grade is standard.
Dinkin states that the 10% grade requires a waiver.
Thomson asks why they could not achieve a 6% grade.
Planning Board Minutes
March 29, 2007
Page 6 of 17
Griffin states that they wished to minimize the street length and keep the costs down.
Thomson asks if adding another lot would cover the cost of extending the street.
Griffin states that these lots would receive less because they are smaller, and that he
wishes to keep the length of the road under 500 feet.
Handley states that the cluster plan's effort is to move everything to the front so that a
substantial chunk of the property can remain as open space for public use.
Thomson asks if the applicant has a preference for an approval.
Griffin states that the preference would be to have both plans approved.
Flannery asks for an example of a street in Beverly with a 10% grade.
Griffin states that the road that runs by the hospital is steeper than 6%. He mentions
some other streets that are steeper than 6%, and adds that some slopes up to 15% have
been approved.
Killilea clarifies that Griffin was quoting Bayside Engineers that there are some slopes
approved up to 15%, but the Beverly Engineering Department prefers to see only a 6%
slope.
Walter asks if the City will maintain the cluster utilities and plowing and the trash
collection.
Griffin states that he believes that the City will not plow private roads and the trash will
be picked up at the intersection of Foster Lane and Foster Street.
Dinkin states that he has a serious issue with a shared driveway because a shared
driveway is really a street that you don't want to build up to standards.
Geller-Duffy asks what would happen to the value of the lots if the road were continued
down to between lots 4 and 5.
Griffin states that he is not prepared to answer that question and that the shared driveway
should work well.
Dinkin states that the economics of this plan is not an issue before this Board.
Christine Obrien of 31 Foster Street asks if there will still be less runoff after building
and what does "less" mean.
Planning Board Minutes
March 29, 2007
Page 7 of 17
Griffin states that it would not be noticeable because the detention system is
underground.
Joe Boccia of 6 Standley Street mentions the rugged topography and asks the height
difference between the two sides of the cul-de-sac.
Griffin states that the elevation is 78 on both sides of the cul-de-sac and increases to 88
away from the cul-de-sac.
Boccia asks how the water will run toward his property.
Griffin states that the property will be retaining more water than it currently is.
Boccia asks about the amount of land that will be removed and the size of the canyon that
will be created, and how low below the existing grade that road will be.
Griffin states that once the land is removed it will be a maximum of 18 feet below the
existing grade.
Boccia asks if the swale drops below.
Griffin states that the swale provides a means to allow water to be slowly routed to the
wetlands.
Bill Kelly of 220 Common Lane asks where the stop sign was proposed on the traffic
study.
Griffin states that it will be at the end of Foster Lane at Foster Street and it was
recommended that the speed limit of 25 MPH be posted.
Kelly states that they should look at Standley Street for the traffic. He asks Killilea how
many developments have problems with the drainage where the homeowners associations
must manage this.
Griffin states that within the last 3 years in 4-5 developments the deeds of each lot has
this requirement. He sites Hawk Hill as an example of this recent trend for the
homeowners association to take responsibility for the drainage.
Dinkin recesses until 9:05 p.m.
2. Continued Public Hearim!:: Depot SQuare Condominiums: Modification of
Special Permit Application #109-04 and Site Plan Application #80-04. Chan2es to
the proposed parkin2 areas. buildin2 and facade construction details. landscapin2.
Planning Board Minutes
March 29, 2007
Page 8 of 17
and the condition of approval related to Affordable Housin2. 116-128 Rantoul
Street - Beverlv Crossin2 LLC
Thomson: Motion to waive the reading of the public hearing notice, seconded by
Flannery. All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 8-0.
Dinkin advised attorney Glovsky that he wishes to continue this issue until 10:00 p.m. in
order to finish with the discussion about Foster Lane.
Thomson: Motion to continue the Depot Square public hearing until 10:00 p.m. in
order to return to the Foster Lane public hearing, seconded by Flannery. All members
and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 8-0.
3. Continued Concurrent Public Hearin2s: Foster Lane Cluster & Definitive
Subdivision Plans: 30 Foster Street - Hub Realtv TrustIRobert J. Hubbard.
Trustee
Dinkin reopens the public hearing.
Thomson: Motion to waive the reading of the public hearing notice, seconded by
Flannery. All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 8-0.
Richard Masotta of 222 Common Lane asks Killilea about the plans for a follow-up
survey on the site before any solutions are decided.
Killilea states that the follow-up survey will be done after the road is constructed.
Dan Spencer of 14 Foster Street asks Griffin if the percolation tests were done by his
company and was there an observer.
Griffin states that his company did the tests and there were no third parties present to this
test.
Spencer asks about the waiver for the 6" trees and asks if most of the trees will be taken
down. He also asks what will happen if the homeowners association ignores their
responsibility and places the burden onto the City for repairing the drainage system.
Griffin states that the deeds could require the formation of a homeowners association and
a fund for repairs.
Bob Egans with the Girl Scouts asks if the wetlands level will be raised.
Planning Board Minutes
March 29, 2007
Page 9 of 17
Griffin says that the ponds are outside the 100-foot buffer zone and the Conservation
Commission will require no review of the drainage system. He adds that the detention
pond will reduce the volume of water going into these wetlands.
Mike Bright of 224 Common Lane asks if there is a more thorough traffic study needed
for this development.
Dinkin states that a traffic study does not deal with enforcement issues, and they only
look into the site distances and the additional traffic that will be generated, and they
assume compliance with traffic laws.
Griffin states that with 4 or 5 additional lots on the property, this development will not
generate a significant amount of additional traffic.
Debra Bright of 224 Common Lane states that there is concern about the intersection and
asks if there can be a more detailed traffic study. She adds that she is also concerned
about the drainage issue.
Griffin states that the ONM agreement will establish a repair fund to work on these
systems.
Steve Cranich of 30 Pride Avenue asks if any of the Board members have gone to this
area and looked at this proposed intersection site, and that this is a substandard street and
that the Board should look at it.
Christine Obrien of31 Foster Street asks about the plan and if Boyles Street is the
intended site for the yield sign.
Griffin states that it is.
Steve Crane of 3 Robin Road asks if the question about the possibility of the additional
wetland is before the Conservation Commission. He asks if the drainage into the catch
basin at the intersection will have any additional volume, and how the grade changes will
alter the drainage.
Griffin states that the grade changes were all factored in.
Crane asks why the water must run into the catch basin.
Griffin states that piping the water out to the creek was not considered feasible.
Crane asks about the soil conditions under the retention pond.
Planning Board Minutes
March 29, 2007
Page 10 of 17
Griffin states that the test determined the soil condition under the detention ponds and the
water will go into the wetlands.
Rene Mary of274 Hale Street asks if they have had any discussions with the MBTA and
why not.
Griffin states that the drainage study would address the MBTA's question.
Mary states that she is downstream and asks about CFS (cubic feet per second) and if it
has been studied.
Griffin states that studies have concluded that there is no significant difference to
Centerville Creek.
Mary asks about Amy Maxner's letters and if the Conservation Commission will look at
these proposals afterwards and not now.
Griffin states that the Conservation Commission is the last step in the permitting process
and the applicant will go to the Conservation Commission after the Planning Board has
ruled on it.
Debra Bright of 224 Common Lane states that there will be water going to Centerville
Creek, and asks if they have addressed how the new development will affect the compost
site.
Griffin states that there will not be a significant difference to the compost site.
Patricia Grimes of26 Old Town Road asks about the grade of that street and the winter
conditions.
Griffin states that the 3% leveling area for 75 feet before the intersection should enable
cars to stop at the intersection.
Dinkin asks for comments in support. There are none.
Dinkin asks for comments in opposition to the development.
Elizabeth Macomber of28 Foster Street says that her driveway is adjacent to the
proposed street and expresses concern with the line of site. She speaks against the
application. She requests a more in-depth traffic study that measures both volume and
speed on that street. She expresses concern about the impact that any blasting will have
on her foundation and windows. She expresses concern with water issues and says that
most any storm has significant impact on the homes in this area. She requests that the
Planning Board Minutes
March 29, 2007
Page 11 of17
Board visit the property and view the street conditions. She addresses the name of Foster
Lane and states that it causes too much confusion and requests they use a different name.
Christine Obrien of31 Foster Street echoes Ms. Macomber and expresses concerns about
water and safety.
Dan Spencer of 14 Foster Street expresses concern about safety with the trucks that go to
the compost site and to Sweeney's Greenhouse. He expresses concern about the water
issue stating that he has had problems for years and he can't handle one more drop of
water.
Joe Boccia of6 Standley Street raises the issue of the legality of this project and reads
from the decision for the property to be subdivided. He addresses the bad smell from the
compost site stating that the homeowners on the site will be uncomfortable with the odor.
Thomson states that because CDM analysis is needed he wishes to continue this issue on
another night.
Thomson: Motion to continue this public hearing on April 17, 2007, at 7:45 p.m. at
the Library, seconded by Walter.
Dinkin asks Boccia ifhis photographs are available on electronic files. A member of the
public agrees to provide them to the City.
Thomson suggests continuing this to the May meeting instead of the April meeting and
he amends his original motion.
Zambernardi shows the May meeting schedule, which looks quite full. She suggests
using the tentative joint public hearing date.
Much discussion ensues about the date and time of the next meeting for this application.
Thomson amends his motion to 7:45 on May 7,2007. All members and the Chair vote in
favor. The motion passes 5-0.
Geller-Duffy steps down. Dunn, Harris, Williams and Mack return.
4. Subdivision Approval Not ReQuired (SANR): Pennv Lane and Hale Park
Avenue.
Attorney Phil Posner states that the result of the settlement between his client and the
neighbor is that lots 2a and 2b will be given to his client and no subdivision is being
created here.
Planning Board Minutes
March 29, 2007
Page 12 of 17
Thomson asks if 2a and 2b are cut off of a preexisting lot.
Posner states that these lots are cut off of a preexisting lot.
Thomson: Motion to endorse this ANR application, seconded by Harris. All
members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 8-0.
Thomson: Motion to recess for public hearing, seconded by Flannery. All members
and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 8-0.
5. Continued Public hearin2: Depot SQuare Condominiums - Modification of
Special Permit Application #109-04 and Site Plan Application #80-04
Thomson: Motion to waive the requirement to read the public hearing notice,
seconded by Flannery. All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 8-0.
Zambernardi states that only 5 members were present at the last meeting so it was
continued. She adds that 6 members are needed for the special permit vote and
Chairperson Dinkin and Charles Harris have reviewed an audio recording and signed a
certification of evidence review. She reads the certifications into the record.
Attorney Mark Glovsky represents the applicant and states that he wishes to correct the
application and site plan. The three areas that need correction are affordable housing, the
sidewalks, and the parking. He explains each issue at length. He states that ultimately he
thinks that the applicant has provided the City with a better and safer project. He
requests that the Board substitute the as-built plans for the plans presented at the time of
the original application.
Dinkin asks about the total number of affordable units and the size of the off-site units.
Justin Belaveau represents the applicant and answers stating that all of the affordable
housing rentals are two-bedroom units.
Dinkin inquire as to the amount of the rent.
Belaveau states that rent is determined by HUD and is $1300 per month.
Thomson asks Zambernardi if the Board's role tonight is solely to make a
recommendation to the City Council.
Glovsky states that the applicant will go to the City Council after the Planning Board
grants the variance for the sidewalk.
Thomson asks if the sidewalk has been installed on the other side of the street.
Planning Board Minutes
March 29, 2007
Page 13 of 17
Glovsky states that it has been installed with curbs and the roadways have been
resurfaced at Windover's expense.
Steve Cranish of3 Pride Avenue asks who would own the off-site affordable rentals.
Glovsky states that the property owners would own them with a restriction to be
permanently used as affordable rentals.
Dinkin states that the applicant is proposing to take existing market-rate units and convert
them to affordable rental units.
Cranish asks if the Board can site a previous example when a sidewalk has been turned
over to a private property owner.
Dinkin states that he doesn't know of any example of a sidewalk being transferred to a
private property owner.
Cranish and Glovsky discuss the sidewalk replacement.
Rosemary Maglio of30 Pleasant Street asks how removing a sidewalk when there is a
sidewalk that goes under a railway bridge and connects to River Street with a big drop-
off can be a better and safer project. And she asks how they arrived at the new number of
parking spaces for the parking garage.
Glovsky explains that when Windover took over the project and found that there were no
structural supports in the garage and no space allotted for the ramps and utilities they
needed to change the total number of parking spaces from the plan. He adds that
Wind over purchased the property across the street to provide additional parking.
Maglio asks for the address of Wind over and asks when they acquired the property.
Glovsky says he doesn't know the exact date.
Maglio asks when they became aware that the parking spaces needed to be altered.
Glovsky says it was in July of2005.
Maglio speaks in opposition of the project.
Dinkin asks if she has any new material.
Maglio states that the material is different. She states that it was known that Wind over
chose to use cheaper girders, which required the use of the large columns, which took
Planning Board Minutes
March 29, 2007
Page 14 of 17
away parking spaces. She adds that Wind over has changed the grade of Pleasant Street
and Rantoul Street. She speaks at length about the prior knowledge that the applicant had
long before any application for a variance was submitted and they made changes before
applying for the variance.
Cranish states that in principle this type of project is roughly what the City needs but his
concern with the sidewalk is the possibility of setting precedent for private property
owners to request a conversion to private use.
Mary Roderick of 14 Peabody Avenue agrees with Ms. Maglio and sites the corner at the
sidewalk on Rantoul Street stating that there is a dangerous drop-off at the corner.
Rosemary Maglio of30 Pleasant Street states that in July of2004 the parking and traffic
commission wrote a letter requesting that these be 24 feet.
Rene Mary of274 Hale Street states her confusion of Glovsky's statement about the
improvements.
Dinkin states that this project was not built as originally approved and they are here today
to receive a modification for these changes.
Glovsky states the slope of the sidewalk adjacent to the building was unsafe and
Wind over made improvements to make up for the unsafe conditions.
Walter asks about the garage and the girders and how that was determined. Was it a cost
issue and did they make a major construction change?
Glovsky states that you can satisfy the Beverly parking requirements by providing
parking within 500 feet of the building. He adds that the only one that lost on this change
was Wind over because the condo units without garage parking will sell for significantly
less than planned.
Annette Alstrong of Winter Street Architects represents Wind over and states that it
wasn't the columns that reduced the number of parking spaces it was the elevator and the
utilities. She adds that by using the old girders they would not have created any more
parking.
Steve Dodge of Wind over Development states that it was not the physical space and that
the original design was flawed and the columns took no spaces away. He says that he
spent about 20% more on this building than was originally planned because of unforeseen
changes. He says that they have sold 21 units so far and that this project has lost a
significant amount of money. He adds that the City should be proud of that building and
that he is proud of it. He states that he is personally offended by the notion that they have
built a cheap project and that they have been disingenuous about this project. He says
Planning Board Minutes
March 29, 2007
Page 15 of 17
that it is important to him that what his company is proposing to do is something that the
City wants, and if it is not, he wants to know that and they will move on.
Cranish asks who approved the change to the parking.
Glovsky states that it was approved by the ZBA in July 2006, and they applied to the
Planning Board in December 2006.
Rosemary Maglio reads a letter from Lee Dellicker to Steve Dodge listing reasons for the
costs changes. The letter mentions the girders.
Dinkin closes the public hearing and reconvenes the special meeting.
6. Discussion/Decision: Foster Lane Definitive & Cluster Subdivision Plans: 30
Foster Street - Hub Realtv TrustIRobert Hubbard. Tr.
Dinkin states that this will be dealt with it at a future date.
7. Discussion/Decision: Depot SQuare Condominiums - Modification of Special
Permit Application #109-04 and Site Plan Review Application #80-04: 116-128
Rantoul Street - Beverlv Crossin2. LLC.
Dinkin states that he is troubled by changes that are made before the variance is granted,
and he is not concerned about whether or not a developer makes money, only in what is
best for the City. He asks the Board to frame this request as though it were coming fresh.
Dunn asks if the extra lot for parking will be maintained by Wind over.
Glovsky states that Wind over will insure that there is the same amount of parking spaces
during all phases of the construction process and that commuter parking will be enhanced
by this project.
Dunn asks how much will be charged for the parking.
Tina Cassidy states that the charge will be $3.00 per day.
Dunn asks if there will be a problem with the grade if the sidewalk will be put back.
Killilea states that the street was too steep and the sidewalk was dangerous because there
was no visibility for the cars exiting the garage. He adds that Wind over paid for the
repaving of the streets and the sidewalk construction on the other side of the street.
Dinkin asks Killilea if it is his opinion that the removal of the sidewalk from the original
side and replacement across the street is safer.
Planning Board Minutes
March 29, 2007
Page 16 of 17
Killilea: Absolutely.
Harris states that the developer was not trying to dodge anything and they acted in good
faith, and they responded well to a situation that was beyond their control. He asks
Dinkin to clarify his anger.
Dinkin states that he will clarify that but not in a public forum.
Walter asks for some clarification about the parking.
Dunn asks what will stop the public from using that lot.
Glovsky states that it is clearly marked.
Thomson states that he is unhappy with the procedural aspects of this but he knows that
when projects are underway there might be a delay in coming to the Planning Board. He
adds that the applicant made the changes in consultations with the City officials, which is
what they needed to do. He says he thinks the internal areas of change do not affect the
interest of the City, but the external changes do affect the City. He provides the example
of the affordable housing units stating that moving them off-site was a negative, but
because they added an additional unit it resulted in a City gain regardless whether the
units are new or are preexisting. He states that he is up in the air about the sidewalk.
Dinkin states that sidewalks are not in the jurisdiction of this Board.
Thomson: Motion to grant approval to accommodate the changes that were made
with exception to the changes in the sidewalk and subject to the suggestions made in the
letters of comment, seconded by Flannery.
Dinkin states that because they moved the units from ownership to rental and moved
them offsite, he would like to see them rented at 30% of200% ofFPL (federal poverty
level) for a family of 4 (about $1100).
Glovsky states that the ZBA elaborated on the way in which the rentals would be handled
and if their language differs from the Planning Board he doesn't know how the two can
be reconciled.
Thomson states that it is too late to change that standard where another Board has made
that decision.
All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 8-0.
Thomson makes some final comments.
Planning Board Minutes
March 29, 2007
Page 17 of17
On the subject of the sidewalk, Thomson states that he thinks that downtown Beverly
should have a sidewalk on both sides of the street, and that he would like to see them
rebuild it unless it will be so stupid and impossible to do so.
Dinkin says it is his view that sidewalks are not in the jurisdiction of the Planning Board.
Thomson acknowledges that the applicant has other projects coming before the City and
this is a learning process being the first project of this kind and being inherited, and he is
confident that the applicant will be more scrutinizing in planning his next project.
Steve Dodge agrees stating that his company could do better and it will.
10. Continued Discussion/Decision: Citv Council Order #35: Proposed Zonin2
Amendment: Allow 75' buildin2s on Rantoul Street bv Special Permit where 55' is
allowed.
Thomson states that after listening to all of the people at the public hearing and
considering the issue of the exclusion of the post office and the veteran's park he has
made his decision. He says that he thinks that this Planning Board and any future Board
will be sensitive to the post office and the park and any special permits for these
properties may have specific restrictions assigned to them.
Thomson: Motion to approve the 75' ordinance, seconded by Flannery. All members
vote in favor except for Harris and Walter who vote in opposition. The Chair votes in
favor. The motion passes 6-2
Flannery: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Mack. All members and the Chair vote in
favor. The motion passes 8-0.
The meeting is adjourned at 11:40 p.m.