2011-07-19CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Planning Board
SUBCOMMITTEE: -
DATE: Tuesday, July 19, 2011
LOCATION: Beverly City Hall, Council Chamber, 3 Floor
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard Dinkin, Vice Chairman John Thomson,
Michael O'Brian, Ellen Hutchinson, Ellen Flannery, David
Mack, James Matz
MEMBERS ABSENT: Charles Harris
OTHERS PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director, Leah Zambernardi
RECORDER: Diana Ribreau
Dinkin called the Regular Meeting of Beverly Planning Board to order at 7:30 p.m.
1. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR's)
a. Corner of L.P. Henderson Road and Sam Fonzo Drive — City of Beverly and Cicoria
Tree Service /Mark Cicoria
John Morin, Engineer, Neve -Morin Group, speaking on behalf of the City of Beverly and Mark
Cicoria was present to discuss the ANR Application. The parcel currently owned by the City is
241 acres of which the City plans to sell off 2.83 acres in the IR District located on the corner of
L.P. Henderson Road and Sam Fonzo Drive. Morin gave a brief description of the property
stating that the parcel exceeds the minimum lot requirements and conforms to frontage
requirements. Morin discussed and provided documentation for access off the legal frontage from
Sam Fonzo Drive.
Thomson asked Morin if a conceptual driveway off Sam Fonzo Drive would require approval
from the Conservation Commission. Zambernardi responded stating it would need approval from
the Conservation Commission for work in the buffer zone.
Thomson made a motion to endorse the plan as submitted. Motion seconded by Flannery.
Motion carried 6 -0 -0.
b. John and Nancy Frates, 106 -108 Bridge Street, Beverly /Just Kidding Consignment
Dinkin stated that he is an abutter and he passed the gavel over to Vice Chairman Thomson and
recused himself from the discussion.
Public Meeting Minutes — Beverly Planning Board
July 19, 2011
Page 2 of 11
Tom Alexander representing the Applicants John and Nancy Frates, 106 -108 Bridge Street was
present to discuss the SANR. Alexander gave the history of the aforementioned properties. 108
Bridge Street is zoned for commercial use and is presently a consignment kids clothing /items store
called Just Kidding. The parcels are in the CN Zone and have two separate uses. The Frates have
resided at 106 Bridge Street for approximately 20 years and 108 Bridge Street has been used
commercially since 1949. Alexander stated that pursuant to Mass General Law, Chapter 41,
Section 81L the request is to subdivide the parcel, which has two buildings on the lot, into 2
separate parcels. The two buildings will then be on separate lots. He stated that this proposal
qualifies as an ANR because both buildings were in existence prior to the Subdivision Control
Law coming into effect.
Zambernardi asked for more detail about the concrete path that is crossing into both lots.
Alexander responded.
Matz asked what the purpose is to the path. Alexander responded that it is a very simple pathway
that leads from one property to the next.
Mack made a motion to approve the Subdivision Approval Not Required Plan. Motion
seconded by Flannery. Motion carried 6 -0 -0.
Dinkin assumes the position of Chairperson.
2. Pending Application for Modification of Wellington Heights Definitive Subdivision
(a.k.a. Oak Hill Estates Subdivision) - Request for Waiver of Owner Signature on Form C
Application - Glenn Wood on behalf of Roundy Estates, LLC.
Zambernardi gave an overview of the ongoing request. Zambernardi read aloud for the record a
letter to the Planning Board dated July 11, 2011 from Roundy Estates that withdraws the request
for a waiver of owner signature.
Dinkin asked Zambernardi if they have submitted a subsequent request. Zambernardi responded
no.
At this time, Dinkin requested a motion to recess the Regular Public Meeting and reconvene for
the scheduled Public Hearing.
Thomson made a motion to recess the Regular Public Meeting. Motion seconded by Mack.
Motion carried 6 -0 -0.
Public Hearing: Continued Public Hearing - Special Permit Application #127 -11- Convert
existing property to 32 studio apartments for supportive veterans housing with additional
studio unit for live -in- responder - CC Zone - 60 Pleasant Street (a /k/a 62 Pleasant Street) -
Pleasant Street Apartments - Windover Properties, LLC.
Public Meeting Minutes — Beverly Planning Board
July 19, 2011
Page 3 of 11
Thomson made a motion to waive the reading of the Legal Notice. Motion seconded by
Flannery. Motion carried 6 -0 -0. Reading of the legal notice was waived.
Zambernardi gave an overview of the special permit application and discussion from the June 21,
2011 meeting. She reminded the Board there is a minimum of 6 members required for a vote.
Planning Board member Charlie Harris attended the last meeting however is not present for the
vote tonight. Ellen Hutchinson was not present at the June 21, 2011 meeting and is present
tonight to vote. Zambernardi informed the Board that Hutchinson has reviewed the audio record
and made a certification of evidence review making six members eligible to vote this evening.
Zambernardi noted that there are several letters from the public to be read into the record tonight
as well as letters from the Planning Director and Building Commissioner /Zoning Enforcement
Officer on the issue of parking. Dinkin asked that the letters be read for the record after the
presentation from representatives on the subject.
Dinkin asked Gooding if she would like to make a presentation. Gooding responded that in lieu
of a formal presentation there are a number of things she would like to clarify from comments
made by the public following their presentation from the last meeting with respect to parking.
Gooding noted that one of the members of the Board requested duplicate copies of the portfolio
from Peabody Properties. Gooding submitted the document to the Board.
Zambernardi read the following letters aloud for the record:
Letter dated July 12, 2011 Tina Cassidy, Director of Planning & Development
Letter dated July 13, 2011 Steven R. Frederickson - Building Commissioner /Zoning Officer
Gooding gave an overview of the project and request for special permit. The proposed project is
comprised of more than 75% residential space requiring a special permit for use. The project
meets all zoning ordinance requirements with respect to the structure and meets the parking
requirements under the zoning ordinance. Gooding stated that they have confirmed with Steve
Frederickson that they are allowed to rely on public parking within 500 ft. of property to satisfy
their parking requirements. She added that the NIBTA has confirmed that until garage
construction begins, the surface parking lot on Pleasant Street is allowed for public parking.
Gooding mentioned that Lee Dellicker from Windover Properties could not be present this
evening.
Betsy Collins, Doreen Bushashia, and Larry Oaks from Peabody Properties were present to
address concerns made by the public with respect to security and parking and the overall
operation of the property itself.
Bushashia followed up on questions from last month regarding background checks on tenants.
Bushashia reiterated that all properties have tenant selection plans which allows for screening
Public Meeting Minutes — Beverly Planning Board
July 19, 2011
Page 4 of 11
including checks on criminal, sex offender and immigration histories, credit checks, income
verification, home visits, landlord records, personal records and more. She stated that it is
standard operating procedures mandated by the State Regulatory Agency. She added that there is
a Compliance Department in -house and the processes are very consistent and followed across the
board.
Dinkin asked if the EIV database that she referred to includes data on criminal activity that is not
within the Commonwealth. Bushashia responded that EIV is a federal database and that CORI is
Massachusetts based.
Thomson asked if Peabody Properties is eligible to reject the application based on criminal
records found. Bushashia responded that they are able to reject an application. Collins added
that a comment was made at the last meeting with respect to the VASH Program through the
Federal Agency and that it would force them to accept any tenant. Collins stated that it is simply
not true.
Mack said that there were a number of comments made at the last meeting that part of the
selection process would be subject to federal vouchers and that Peabody Properties would be
unable to select tenants to occupy the units with only local veterans. The units would be open to
any veteran in the country. It was also mentioned that federal vouchers could prohibit them from
performing background checks.
Gooding responded that the tenant selection plan will be in place and there is no exception to the
plan. The Plan allows them to turn down a tenant based on findings in a background check. The
VASH vouchers that are being awarded are governed by Section 8 rules and can be project based.
With respect to local residents, there are wait lists and referral processes that can be put in place
but they legally can't hold the building specifically for local veterans.
Dinkin asked if there is history in the past of requiring a project to take a specific individual
without a background check. Bushashia responded no. A project like this requires a tenant based
selection plan.
Mack asked if a selection plan is in place for this project. Bushashia replied that Peabody
Properties would draft it once the project is approved.
Dinkin reminded the Board and advised members of the public that a special permit approval can
be conditioned.
Flannery asked a follow up question to Mack's comments. If a veteran were from out of State,
would they still be able to do a background check? Bushashia responded yes.
Dinkin asked if a veteran with a last known address were outside of Massachusetts, would
Peabody Properties in the tenant selection plan be able to check out of State databases for
criminal records. Bushashia responded they could for a cost.
Public Meeting Minutes — Beverly Planning Board
July 19, 2011
Page 5 of 11
Bushashia said that the Board had asked her to present information on the general number of
police calls to Peabody Properties managed buildings in the North Shore area. Bushashia
reviewed a summary sheet and provided a copy to the Board.
With respect to the Millery and Conant building, Dinkin asked what the distribution of market rate
and nonmarket rate units are. Bushashia replied that she doesn't have that information on hand
but can forward information to Dinkin.
Dinkin said he has concerns with Bushashia's demographic representation. He said that out of the
approximately 650 units, 500 are elderly and handicap, and those are not the specifics he was
looking for. Dinkin doesn't feel it is a valid sample for the proposed project and asked her to
resubmit information going outside the North Shore area to have comparable data relating to
veterans housing. Bushashia concurred.
Dinkin asked at what point, if ever, in -house staff makes a referral to a conventional social
services agency. Bushashia responded frequently. Bushashia stated that Peabody Properties is
about promoting successful tenants. She added that there is a fulltime on -site staff person with
case management background and is either a licensed LSW or LICSW.
Gooding suggested Larry Oaks describe the supportive services provided to permanent housing
projects such as the proposed.
Oaks introduced himself as the Co- Project Manager and he works with Collins closely. Oaks went
over the supportive services model and said there are individual service plans for each veteran's
needs.
Dinkin asked for a breakdown of part -time and full time coordinators. Bushashia complied.
Matz asked if Peabody Properties and Windover are working together with Capozzi and North
Shore Veteran's Association. Gooding responded that they met with Capozzi months ago with
the concept for the project but because it is a different type of veterans housing program they are
not working together. Matz said that the proposed project and North Shore Veteran's brings in
one large group with special service needs. Matz asked if the neighborhood could take on such a
large group and assimilate both programs. Gooding responded that North Shore Veteran's is a
separate program and with respect to this project, Peabody Properties has demonstrated a
professional track record with supportive and low - income housing and they have a proven track
record in Beverly.
Thomson reminded the Board and members of the Public that the request is for a special permit to
allow more than 75% of the building as residential. There are six qualifications for a special
permit. He feels that the additional 20% floor area is a narrow request. Gooding responded that
the additional request results in a few additional units.
Dinkin agreed with Mack but said he is attempting to gather enough information to determine that
conditions necessary for approval for a special permit exist or do not exist.
Public Meeting Minutes — Beverly Planning Board
July 19, 2011
Page 6 of 11
Hutchinson asked for further clarification with respect to parking in the MBTA lot. Gooding
responded. She has email correspondence from Mark Boyle of the MBTA that the lot is intended
for public use. Gooding provided the correspondence for the record.
Gooding summarized why the project meets each of the 6 criteria with respect to the special
permit.
At this time, Dinkin requested Zambernardi read letters from public. Zambernardi read the
following letters for the record.
July 18, 2011 - Barry N. Checci, 116 Rantoul Street, Beverly
July 15, 2011 - Victor Capozzi, 9 Park Street, Beverly
July 14, 2011 - William Crisafi, Director, Italian Community Center, Beverly
July 15, 2011 - Robert Pieroni, 6 Linden Street, Beverly
Thomson made a motion to restrict the remaining portion of the subject to 30 minutes.
Motion seconded by Flannery. Motion carried 6 -1 -1 with the Chair abstaining.
Mr. Wes Slate, 26 Lothrop Street, City Councilor for Ward 2, stated that he had a number of
communications with residents along with the applicant and others regarding the proposed
project. Slate read his comments for the record. He concluded by asking that the application be
denied.
The following members of the public commented on the proposed project:
• Michelle Gordon, 60 Rantoul Street.
• Victor Capozzi, 138 Bridge Street, Beverly.
• Michelle Bernice, Unit 303, Edwards Harborview, 45 Rantoul Street
• Susan Fielding, 116 Rantoul Street
• Timothy Lodman, 116 Rantoul Street
• Robin Fielding, 116 Rantoul Street
• Rosemary Maglio (read aloud and submitted a letter by Maglio and Mary Rodrick of
Beverly).
• Michelle Gordon, 60 Rantoul Street (Submitted a signed petition)
Public Meeting Minutes — Beverly Planning Board
July 19, 2011
Page 7 of 11
Gooding responded to comments. She clarified Mr. Capozzi's comment regarding a potential
client and access to a 201 file. Gooding added that part of the tenant selection plan process
excludes tenants that have been dishonorably discharged.
Dinkin asked if the right to privacy in the 201 file goes to the subject of the file or if it is a right
that goes to the military only. Veterans Agent Gerry Giulebbe and Capozzi responded.
Gooding continued by reiterating that Peabody Properties has experience with supportive veterans
housing. She stated that parking requirements for this facility are less than may otherwise be
required. She gave an example of other veteran housing projects that are not near public
transportation managed by Peabody Properties and provided information with respect to the
average parking use.
Hutchinson asked if there are any stats or comparisons to back up her comments with respect to
parking use at other locations. Gooding responded.
Gooding gave examples of parking needs if the building was dedicated to office use, restaurant
use, or other possible uses. Gooding said if parking were so much of an issue for this project, it
certainly would be more so an issue if the building is used for other purposes than what they are
proposing. Gooding said that Windover and Peabody Properties are in partnership that brings
resources together and it is a resourceful partnership. Gooding stated that they would not be
engaging in this project without having some ability to accommodate parking that is there. They
can meet the zoning requirements legally. If something changes down the road, there are
relationships that could be sought out. She added that with 17 of the MBTA parking garages in
the state, they offer some sort of shared or off -hour parking arrangements.
Matz made motion to close public hearing. Motion seconded by Mack. Motion carried 6-
0-0.
3. Discussion/Decision: Special Permit Application #127 -11 and Inclusionary Housing
Application #02 -11 - 60 Pleasant Street - Pleasant Street Apartments - Windover
Properties, LLC
Thomson stated he does not recall discussing the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance yet to this
matter.
Gooding spoke to Zambernardi and said the project qualifies for administrative approval of
Inclusionary Housing. She stated they need to work out the regulatory agreement with the
DHCD. She informed the Board that they are not quite there yet, but currently in discussions
with them. Pending approvals and getting funding, they have submitted the application, submitted
a sample regulatory agreement, and propose to come back to the Board for the Inclusionary
Zoning piece at a later time. Gooding stated that action for the Inclusionary Housing is off the
table for the Planning Board for now.
Public Meeting Minutes — Beverly Planning Board
July 19, 2011
Page 8 of 11
Zambernardi stated the deadline is 35 days of the date of the open meeting. A Public Hearing is
not required for this portion of the process.
Matz referred to comments he heard at the June 21, 2011 meeting about the characterization of
homeless veterans and how disappointed he was by the comments. Matz stated that as member of
the Planning Board, he is required to stick to the merits and facts of the proposal. However, it
has become quite clear that the entire neighborhood is against the proposed project. He does not
like the neighborhood opinion but he feels as though he has to respect it. He is also concerned
about parking. Matz stated he is voting no tonight to the request for a special permit.
Thomson said that he considers this a very difficult matter quoting "if you can't build a project
like this next to a train station downtown where could you put it ?" He stated that the government
is putting money into permanent housing for homeless veterans and he is elated to see that
happening. Thomson agreed with Matz that he is also troubled by some of the comments and
characterizations made of veterans. No one in the Ward seems to be in favor for the project,
however a decision needs to be made based on the confines of the evidence to determine if it is an
appropriate use or not. Within the confines of the ordinance, parking is allowed within 500 ft. of
the building. It is a risk the applicant is taking with respect to parking. The Planning Board's job
is to determine if the increased usage of an extra 20% of the building for residential purposes is an
appropriate use. Thomson concluded by saying he has heard a lot of speculation and opinion,
however not a lot of fact.
Mack agreed with Thomson's statements. Mack said that there is a traffic problem in downtown
Beverly now and parking will be an issue with the next project that comes along and the next. The
City of Beverly's Ordinance allows the applicant to use this property as 75% residential and 100%
commercial. The issue of safety is real however, he hasn't seen anything under the Ordinance that
will give the Planning Board the ability to deny it. He said that the Planning Board could impose
conditions that address those concerns. The applicant has expressed an interest and has agreed to
address concerns in the best possible manner in order to have a successful project.
Dinkin said that the direction of questioning was to establish whether or not an adverse impact
would be caused by this project. Given his knowledge of supportive services and high service
need populations, he is convinced that there would be no adverse impact in the surrounding
neighborhood. There are already a number of residences that service a high service need
population in Beverly. There will be police incidences not any different than any other rental
housing projects which all have their share of police reports. He stated that he is encouraged that
a private entity would come forward wanting to provide a critical service for this population and
also encouraged by Mr. Capozzi and the organization he manages.
Zambernardi stated that a decision is needed 90 days from the date of the hearing (today).
Zambernardi also mentioned that Planning Board member O'Brien is not eligible to vote as he did
not attend the June 21 Public Hearing and reminded the Board that there needs to be 6 voting
Public Meeting Minutes — Beverly Planning Board
July 19, 2011
Page 9 of 11
members to pass the request. Mr. O'Brien would be eligible to vote if he were to listen to
transcription.
Dinkin stated that the subject will be tabled until the next Regular Meeting scheduled for
September 13, 2011.
4. Continued Discussion/Decision: 875 Hale Street Definitive Subdivision Plan -
Create 6 new lots in R10 Zone - Montrose School Park, LLC
Jeff Rhuda, Symes Development and Attorney Brad Latham were present on behalf of the
Applicant. He informed the Board that by next Friday they will file a Definitive OSRD
Subdivision Plan. Rhuda said they have progress prints and they plan to follow through with this
commitment.
Dinkin asked if they are withdrawing the Definitive Plan. Rhuda responded no
Thomson asked if they are deferring until after they submit the other plan. Latham asked him to
clarify. Thomson asked if the applicant is extending the time for the Planning Board to make a
decision on the Conventional Definitive Plan. Latham responded that they are not able to do that
because of the appeal rights that exist and the appeals that have been threatened. Thomson and
Dinkin stated there has been an appeal. Latham stated that for that reason they need to terminate
the conventional process, hopefully with a favorable vote. Rhuda indicated that their intention is
to file without prejudice an OSRD Plan that was presented before. Rhuda informed the Board that
a draft was filed in the Planning office today. Thomson stated that he thought what the applicant
had represented was that they were going to amend the conventional plan to conform to the
OSRD. Latham stated that to protect their rights under the Conventional Plan, they have to
submit it as a separate file. Thomson stated that at the last meeting he thought he asked the
applicant if they thought they would amend the conventional plan to conform to the OSRD and
the answer to that was yes. Thomson stated that on that basis they were approving the OSRD.
Latham stated that was after the OSRD vote. Thomson disagreed and stated he remembers
asking that question before the vote on the OSRD.
Rhuda asked if he understands correctly that there has been an appeal to the OSRD. Thomson
confirmed. Rhuda stated then "all bets are off the table ". Rhuda stated that their only defense is
the Conventional Plan in order to develop this plan in the next 12 months.
Thomson asked the applicant what they are requesting of the Board. Latham requested that the
Planning Board take action with the Conventional Plan. He was not aware of a new appeal.
Rhuda stated that the applicant would not be filing a Definitive OSRD Plan. He said that they
have worked extensively to make this work and they don't want to be in court for years. He
continued to say that this action is not what they want to do and feels that their hands have been
forced to take a different plan of action. He asked that the Board respect the amount of time they
have spent with them on making the OSRD work for this project. They have done everything
Public Meeting Minutes — Beverly Planning Board
July 19, 2011
Page 10 of 11
they can and the Board should understand and respect their right to build on this land and not
have it be tied up in court for years. Their insurance window is the Conventional Plan only.
Thomson clarified that they are asking the Board to take action on the Conventional plan this
evening and that they are not going to approve any other extensions. Rhuda confirmed.
Zambernardi stated the deadline for a decision is July 30, 2011.
Thomson believes that the Applicant, despite its appearance of good faith, has strung the
proceeding out by effectively ignoring the OSRD and by twisting it different ways and he feels
that the developer has caused more than half of the delay in this. He is unsympathetic to that
activity. He believes the Applicant has had it in for the Ordinance from the start and is doing its
best to undercut it. He believes this action tonight is seminal. He added that he acknowledges
that the Subdivision Control Law is a "stand alone" statute that the local authority has no ability
to modify. He doesn't want to be in a position where the Board is accused of doing that.
Thomson stated that there are three options for the Board to take:
a: Approve it, as is, without conditions.
b: Approve it with conditions.
c: Deny it.
Thomson continued to say that up until now preference has been to deny it. However, he feels it
may give the Applicant an easier avenue to attempt to overturn the OSRD Ordinance and for that
reason he believes the proper action should be to follow what Mr. Lyman suggested some time
ago, which is to add a condition to the approval of the Definitive Subdivision Plan which requires
as a condition that a statement be recorded on the plan that it is subject to Section 29 - 24.B of
Beverly Zoning Ordinance with the benefit of any waivers lawfully be granted there under. He
would add to that in particular, that the approval is subject to the provisions of the Board's
OSRD decision issued in June.
Thomson made a motion to grant the approval of the Definitive Conventional Subdivision
Plan subject to the condition that said Plan note that this approval is subject to Section 29-
24.B of the Beverly Zoning Ordinance with the benefit of any waivers lawfully be granted
there under and to the OSRD decision of this Board issued at the June meeting. The
suggested conditions of the Board of Health shall also be incorporated into the approval.
Motion seconded by Flannery. Motion carried 7 -0 -0 with the Chair voting affirmative.
Rhuda stated that he understands the Board's decision however the Plan has been before the
Planning Board for 18 months with the Public Hearing closing 9 months ago. Their intent from
the beginning has been to work to meet the OSRD Ordinance requirements but because of the
appeal their hands have been forced to take a much shorter avenue.
Public Meeting Minutes — Beverly Planning Board
July 19, 2011
Page 11 of 11
5. Request for Minor Modification to Site Plan Application #102 -10 and Special
Permit Application #126 -10: 363 -393 Rantoul Street - Windover Properties, LLC -
Burnham Apartments
Miranda Gooding presented a request for a minor modification to Burnham Apartments,
Application #102 -10 to allow changes to the size of the windows from the previously approved
plan. The windows approved in the plans did not work with the kitchen design and they were
increased by 6 inches. This matter wasn't picked up until the Applicant applied for a building
permit. Gooding stated that Zambernardi gave an overview to the Design Review Board staff and
she did not have a problem with respect to the windows, but because it is a variation to the
original approved plans, they are before the Planning Board this evening.
Mack made a motion that the Planning Board find the proposed modification to be minor
in nature. Motion seconded by Hutchinson. Motion carried 6 -0 -0.
Mack made a motion to approve the proposed modification request. Motion seconded by
Hutchinson. Motion carried 6 -0 -0 with the Chair abstaining.
6. Cluster Subdivision for Chapman's Corner Estates (Settlement Plan) - Expiration
of Construction Completion Date - Manor Homes Development, LLC & Matthew
Kavanagh
Zambernardi updated the Board on the ongoing plans. The original construction completion date
was July 2010. The Developer then received a one -year extension, which is coming up July 12,
2011. Zambernardi read for the record the Applicant's request for the Planning Board to concur
with the automatic 2 -year extension set forth in the Permit Extension Act.
Mack made a motion to concur with the 2 -year extension request. Motion seconded by
Flannery. Motion carried 6 -0 -0.
New or Other Business:
7. Approval of Minutes: March 29, April 26, and May 10 Meetings
Flannery made a motion to approve the minutes to the March 29, 2011 meeting subject to
the correction on Page 2; Glenn Wood's office is located in Boston. Motion seconded by
Hutchinson. Motion carried 6 -0 -0.
Flannery made a motion to approve the minutes to the April 26, 2011 meeting as well as the
May 10, 2011 meeting. Motion seconded by Mack. Motion carried 6 -0 -0 with the Chair
abstaining.
Mack made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Motion seconded by Thomson.
Motion carried 6 -0 -0.