2012-03-20CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION:
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE:
LOCATION:
Planning Board
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Council Chamber, City Hall, third floor
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice Chairperson John
Thomson, Michael O'Brien, Ellen Hutchinson, Ellen
Flannery, James Matz, David Mack, John Mullady
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. He stated
the Board was going to recess at this time to conduct an Executive Session to discuss litigation.
He stated that the Board would reconvene its regular meeting immediately following the
Executive Session. The Board then took a roll call vote of the Members to enter Executive
Session.
Dinkin reconvened the regular meeting of the Planning Board at 7:57 p.m.
New or Other Business
a. C. Ronald Vitale, Special Permit #115 -07 for Sam Fonzo Drive /Trask Street — Request for
additional 2 -year extension.
Mr. Vitale stated that due to the continuing state of the economy and financing for the project, he
is requesting another 2 -Year extension for Special Permit #115 -07.
Zambernardi stated that the request falls within the Permit Extension Act and would bring the
expiration date to April 2, 2014.
Mack made a motion to approve the request for an extension until April 2, 2014 — Special
Permit Application #115 -07. Motion seconded by Flannery. Motion carried 7.0.0.
b. Michael McNiff, 28 Michael Road Extension, Definitive Plan — Request for partial release of
performance bond.
Regular Meeting
Beverly Planning Board
March 20, 2012
Page 2 of 11
Michael McNiff stated he is requesting a partial release of the $44,000 performance bond.
McNiff has agreed with the Public Works Department and Engineering that there are a few items
needing work for upkeep on the road. The amount of $4,000 will be kept on file to test the sewer
and for grinding of the street to repair a patch.
Zambernardi stated the City Engineer has given his recommendation and has agreed with the
amount of $4,000.
Thomson made a motion to reduce the bond amount to $4,000 and release the remaining
funds. Motion seconded by Mack. Motion carried 7.0.0.
Thomson made a motion to recess the Regular Planning Board Meeting for the scheduled
Public Hearing. Motion seconded by Flannery. Motion carried 7.0.0.
Concurrent Public Hearings — Special Permit Application #130 -12, Site Plan Review
Application #106 -12 and Inclusionary Housing Application #03 -12 — 79 Rantoul Street —
Enterprise Apartments — Rantoul Enterprise Realty Trust
Zambernardi read aloud the public notice for the record.
Attorney Miranda Gooding, Glovsky and Glovsky, was present representing the Applicant
Rantoul Enterprise Realty Trust (Beneficiary, Windover Development). Gooding introduced the
following professionals as present and prepared to discuss the project: Ann Grant, Glovsky and
Glovsky; Lee Dellicker, President of Windover Properties; Charlie Ware, Project Engineer,
Meridian Associates; Thaddeus Siemasko, Principal, Siemasko and Verbridge Associates; and
John Harden, Architect, Siemasko and Verbridge Associates.
Gooding began by giving an overview of the proposed project at 79 Rantoul Street (79 -83
Rantoul Street). Gooding stated that the site is in the CC Zoning District and in the Depot
Parking Overlay District. The property is currently leased to Enterprise Rental Car and also has
a used car lot on site (Ultimate Auto sales). Gooding described other buildings and sites along
Rantoul Street and states the Applicant believes the proposed project fits in well with the
surrounding area. Gooding described the lot to be approximately '/2 acre (just under 22,000 s.f.)
and gave the dimensions of each side of the site. The proposal is to demolish the existing 1 -story
building and to construct a 4 -story mixed -use building. Gooding reviewed the specs for the units
for each floor and the 1 commercial unit on the first floor (15 apartments on each floor
containing a mix of 27, 1- bedroom and 18, 2- bedroom apartments). Gooding stated that the
proposal conforms to Beverly's Parking Regulations with a total of 45 parking spaces onsite
including 2 spaces that satisfies the commercial use. The project complies with the City's
Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance Regulations with 12% of the proposed units to be affordable
units. Gooding stated a total of 6 units would be designated as affordable units. Gooding stated
that the project would comply with all dimensional requirements. She stated that under Section
29 -17B the project complies with frontage requirements and height requirements of 55 ft.
(proposed building of 47 ft.).
Regular Meeting
Beverly Planning Board
March 20, 2012
Page 3 of 11
Thomson asked Gooding for the record to review the reason for the Special Permit request.
Gooding reiterated the Special Permit request is under Section 29 -17C1 and she said that a
mixed -use building that contains less than 25% commercial space on the ground floor requires a
Special Permit from the Planning Board.
Thaddeus Siemasko, Principal, Siemasko and Verbridge Associates, 126 Dodge Street, presented
the building plans and described the one -way circulation to the parking garage, which holds 47
spaces. Siemasko reviewed the enter and exit sites proposed, landscape details, and described
the internal floor plans giving the square footage of the 1 and 2 bedroom units proposed.
John Harden, Architect, Siemasko and Verbridge Associates, 126 Dodge Street, gave a
breakdown of the affordable units that are distributed evenly between the 2nd and 3 floor.
Harden discussed the roof deck plans that are accessible by elevator and provided aesthetic
details for the exterior building design plans. Harden described many of the surrounding
buildings on Rantoul Street pointing out that most of those buildings are four stories high.
Harden pointed out that based on the City's Regulations, the project allows a 5 -story building but
the Developer chose to go with what fits in the surrounding area.
Dinkin asked if there are any plans for a roof garden. Harden responded that due to its size and
building code a roof garden is not feasible. However, they can look into making it a "Green" roof
area.
Charlie Ware, Engineer, Meridian Associates, 500 Cummings Center, Beverly, discussed the
utilities for the site including; water, sewer, gas, electric, telephone and fire lines. The intention
is to connect utilities to those mains in existence and add a fire line to serve the building site. In
reference to drainage, Ware explained that the entire site is paved right now. By introducing a
small green area (10 -15% of site) the site will actually result in a decrease with the rate of run -off
to the site with a reduction of impervious surface. The roof drainage will connect to the existing
street drainage.
Thomson asked Ware to elaborate on the drainage expected with the green space added to the
front of the building. Ware responded that the landscaped green area would consume most, if
not all, run -off adding that the area is graded so any run -off would exit out to the drainage on
Edwards Street.
Thomson asked about lighting. Harden went over the lighting design on the plans describing the
type and positioning of lighting for the building.
Matz asked if a peak -flow analysis was performed on the roof drainage. Harden responded that
calculations for roof drainage had been performed, and overall the site has a reduction in the rate
of run -off
At this time, Dinkin put the Public Hearing in recess until 8:40 p.m.
Regular Meeting
Beverly Planning Board
March 20, 2012
Page 4 of 11
Continued Concurrent Public Hearing — Special Permit Application #129 -11 and Site Plan
Review Application #105 -11 — Raze part of existing building and construct Walgreens
Pharmacy — CG Zone — 48 Dodge Street — Westward Apple Orchards Limited Partnership.
Thomson made a motion to waive the reading of the Public Notice. Motion seconded by
Flannery. Motion carried 7.0.0.
Jeff Rhuda, Symes Associates, (a division of Westwood Apple Orchards Limited Partnership)
was present requesting an extension of the Public Hearing for Special Permit Application #129-
11 and Site Plan Review Application #105 -11. Rhuda also asked the Planning Board to give
authorization for the City to hire a consultant to perform an outside peer review for a traffic
analysis at 48 Dodge Street. Rhuda stated that Symes Associates would absorb the costs.
Zambernardi stated a letter of request from Westwood Apple Orchards dated March 20, 2012
was submitted into the record to extend the Public Hearing until the next scheduled Planning
Board Meeting.
Thomson made a motion to continue the Public Hearing for Special Permit Application
#129 -11 and Site Plan Review Application # 105 -11 to April 26, 2012 at 8:00 p.m. Motion
seconded by Hutchinson. Motion carried 7.0.0.
Thomson made a motion to accept the Applicants request to incur the costs in hiring an
independent consultant to perform a peer review traffic analysis. Motion seconded by
Hutchinson. Motion carried 7.0.0.
Regular Meeting of the Beverly Planning Board called back to order.
Subdivision Approval Not Required Plan
a. 15 Noble Hill Road and 7 Marshall Road — Francis W., Jr. & Maryann Davis and
Candace & Charles Harting
Zambernardi states that the purpose of this plan is to convey a 5835 s.f parcel from the Harting
parcel to the Davis Parcel. She stated that the plan conforms to the Board's Regulations.
Thomson made a motion to endorse the plan as one not requiring approval under the
Subdivision Control Law. Motion seconded by Mack. Motion carried 7.0.0.
Dinkin put the regular meeting in recess in order hold a scheduled public hearing.
Concurrent Public Hearings — Special Permit Application #130 -12, Site Plan Review
Application #106 -12 and Inclusionary Housing Application #03 -12 — 79 Rantoul Street —
Enterprise Apartments — Rantoul Enterprise Realty Trust
Lee Delliker, President, Windover Properties, spoke about the design team effort to make the
project work similar to Burnham Apartments at Depot Square, which has had great response to
the market and feels that the market will respond well for this project also. The proposal meets
all regulations and requirements for the City of Beverly. Delliker noted that there have been
questions pertaining to the commercial space. Delliker stated that he is a member of the Beverly
Main Streets Committee and it is his personal opinion, that because there are a lot of empty retail
Regular Meeting
Beverly Planning Board
March 20, 2012
Page 5 of 11
spaces downtown due to the current economic conditions, he strongly feels it is best to bring in
the residential development first, that could ultimately create a need for commercial space at
some point in the future. In relation to 1 -2 bedroom units, Delliker stated that the current market
for apartments are for 1 bedroom units than any other based on their research and based on the
Depot Square building on Rantoul Street. Delliker stated that they have met with the Design
Review Board as well as neighbors regarding the project and received a positive response.
Matz asked about the number of units and the commercial unit proposed on the first floor. Matz
stated that based on assertions that he personally has heard from the public that are opposed to
the project the commercial space is being put in only to expand the number of units on the site.
Matz asked if adding commercial space in fact gives Windover the opportunity to increase the
number of units. Dellicker responded that unit space is limited by parking.
Matz stated that some members of public believe the building abuts a residential zone however
the Applicant insists that it does not. Matz requested confirmation one -way or the other. Matz
asked the Applicant to respond as to whether the number of units would not be admissible if the
site in fact abuts a residential zone. Siemasko responded by going over the zoning and property
lines to the site that are in a CC and RHD Zone.
Matz stated that based on what has been presented and what is on the books in Beverly, the
Applicant and those representing the Applicant are certain the number of units proposed are
correct per City Ordinance.
Gooding responded that they are certain. Gooding stated that the plans were reviewed with the
City's Building Inspector before the plans were filed. The Building Inspector agreed and was
clear with the interpretation of the zoning. In addition, they talked with Planning Department
staff According to Section 29 -17 of the Beverly Zoning Ordinance, specific to #5, the situation
falls under a combined commercial /residential use on lots with side and rear yards which do not
abut a residential district. Gooding reiterated that the plans had been clarified and affirmed with
the City's Building Inspector.
Hutchinson asked what would be the requirements for this project if the 504 s.f of commercial
space was excluded from the plans. Gooding responded that it would be entirely residential and
according to Section 29 -17, Subsection 2 of the Zoning Ordinance, the lot area requirements are
1,000 s.f of lot area per dwelling unit. Dinkin asked Gooding to repeat the lot size. Gooding
responded that the lot is just under 22,000 s.f. Hutchinson asked for the square footage of the
building footprint. Siemasko responded 17,000 s.f. Gooding reminded the Board that residents
as well as the City Councilor attended the neighborhood meeting and the response was favorable.
In addition, the Design and Review Board meeting was favorable to the project as well as their
meeting and discussion with the Parking and Traffic Commission.
Gooding emphasized that the City of Beverly made the decision to reduce the parking
regulations and made zoning amendments to promote and accommodate projects such as this.
Regular Meeting
Beverly Planning Board
March 20, 2012
Page 6 of 11
The zoning amendment was debated with the Beverly Planning Board as well as the City
Council. Gooding stated that both she and Dellicker are on the Board of Directors with Beverly
Main Streets and they are very involved with all that happens in the downtown initiative to
revitalize the area and bring more people to downtown. Gooding added that there have been a
number of changes over the past 4 -5 years to promote development such as this project and she
and her client believe this project works well for the proposed site.
Gooding reviewed each requirement for a special permit and how the project complies with each.
The following members of the Public spoke in opposition to the project:
Rosemary Maglio, 30 Pleasant Street, Beverly, spoke in opposition about several items related to
the proposed project. Maglio submitted her findings in writing to the Board for the record.
Euplio (Rick) Marciano, 141 McKay Street, raised concerns about roof noise that may affect
residents next to the proposed site and asked about plans to control noise. Harden responded that
there will be small individual air- conditioning units placed in the center of the building facing
away from any residential building. Units were purposefully placed so that they will not be
visible to the eye and to reduce any noise. Harden described the decibels per ambient allowed.
Marciano asked about handicap parking spaces. Harden responded that the requirements are 2
handicap spaces, which they have placed near the elevator.
Marciano asked how much Windover pays in property taxes now. Dinkin responded that it is not
relevant to the proposed consideration.
Marciano questioned if Windover would be able to make money on 30 units vs. 45 units. Dinkin
responded that once again it is not relevant.
Marciano commented on the quality of the Depot Square building, which he feels is great, and
asked if this project has plans to be the same quality and referred to concrete structures in the
building design at Depot Square. Delliker commented on the concrete structures at Depot
Square that where used for a particular reason but that the quality of the site is of equal quality as
Depot Square.
Mary Roderick, 14 Peabody Ave, Beverly, stated that in her opinion, looking at the GIS zoning
map, the site appears to abut a residential zone. Gooding reiterated the Zoning Bylaw and
repeated comments made earlier regarding meeting with the Building Inspector and confirmation
that the site in fact does not abut a residential district.
Roderick asked if the proposed plans include the use of renewable energy. Delliker responded
that they construct all buildings to energy star requirements but are not using any solar for this
project.
Rosemary Maglio, 32 Pleasant Street asked how the proposed massive boot shaped building does
not adversely affects the single and 2 -3 family homes on Fayette and Edwards Street that have
only 50 feet of frontage. Maglio referred to the GIS map and stated that she has photos that
reflect such.
Regular Meeting
Beverly Planning Board
March 20, 2012
Page 7 of 11
Maglio described that many other buildings on Rantoul have setbacks and is bothered by the
proposed site not having any front setbacks. Siemasko responded by reviewing the exterior of
the building and reiterating earlier statements that the decision was made to place the open space
at the rear of the building on the residential side and to keep the urban pattern on the street -side,
which was felt to be an appropriate response to the project.
The following members of the Public spoke in favor:
John Fuller, 27 Fayette Street, Beverly, stated that he lives directly across from the entrance to
the proposed building. Fuller stated that he is troubled that someone who lives on Pleasant Street
has more objections than he does especially to something that would not affect that person
directly. Fuller stated he feels the project is a good urban fit, the building appears to be scaled
properly, and the materials used are in a cohesive design. In addition, the project responds to
city sidewalk requirements. Fuller continued on to say that the City and the Community should
all be looking at transit - oriented development and sustainable initiatives and he feels that this
project responds to all of those in a great way. Fuller commented on the City having too many
unsightly lots and empty storefronts and he expressed his welcome to the project feeling that it
will add benefit to the neighborhood.
Ken Goldstrum, 45 Edwards Street, Beverly, stated his opinion that the project makes sense.
The site as it sits now is an unsightly part of the City and he welcomes the project that he feels
will add benefit to the City. Goldstrum stated in his opinion the building is scaled nicely to be
consistent with other buildings along Rantoul Street, the project will bring working people to the
neighborhood, and bring life to the streets of Beverly. Goldstrum commented on the current
parking situation, which is open and an eyesore versus the proposed enclosed parking garage.
Goldstrum concluded by stating in his opinion, the project will be a vast improvement on the city
landscape and the project makes sense.
Wes Slate, 26 Lothrop Street, Beverly, stated that he is Vice President with the Beverly City
Council and Ward 2 Councilor. Slate expressed his support for the project stating that he
attended the neighborhood meeting referred to earlier. Slate stated that many questions were
asked by those that attended the meeting and the outcome was positive. Slate mentioned that he
also attended the Parking and Traffic Commission meeting. At that meeting, there was an issue
with the initial building entrance and exit sites. Slate stated that the Architect from Siemasko
adjusted the plans to accommodate concerns expressed at the meeting and has demonstrated to
his satisfaction that the new entrance to the garage on Fayette Street and the exit site to be on
Edwards Street. Slate reiterated there were many questions raised at the meeting and all
questions were answered to the satisfaction of those present. It was a very positive meeting.
Slate feels strongly about generating more life in the downtown area. Slate commented on
projects that come before the City that are either looked at as a benefit to the community or not.
He stated he is against any citizen(s) that present projects as the worst thing they have ever heard
Regular Meeting
Beverly Planning Board
March 20, 2012
Page 8 of 11
of who find every single thing negative about a project whether it is legitimate or not. Slate
stated he heard from one constituent in opposition and emphasized "only one" at the public
meeting. Once questions were answered to that constituent's satisfaction, that opposition no
longer was there. Slate stated that he is very much in favor of the project adding that the
Applicant, Developer, and Architect are well known with a good track record in the City of
Beverly. Slate stated that he strongly feels this proposal is exactly the kind of development in
the downtown area that is needed to see the kind of growth the community wants to see in the
City of Beverly.
For the record, Zambernardi read aloud letters submitted by members of the public in favor of
the project.
February 15, 2012, Pam and JoAnna Hulbert
March 19, 2012, William Goldberg
Zambernardi gave a brief summary of letters submitted by Municipal Departments and Boards
and Commissions:
February 19, 2012 Amy Maxner, Conservation Commission
February 07, 2012 Parking and Traffic Commission
February 06, 2012 William Burke, Board of Health Director
February 12, 2102 William Fiore, Fire Department
January 05, 2012 Design and Review Board
March 13, 2012 Sargent Russ Rollins, Beverly Police Department
February 21, 2012 Eric Barber, City Engineer
Thomson questioned if the Applicant has addressed or plans to address concerns presented in the
aforementioned letters. Delliker responded yes.
Scott Houseman, 27 Appleton Ave., Beverly, and Ward 4 Councilor, stated that based on his
experience with the Zoning Board he is very familiar with special permits and the City's zoning
ordinance. Houseman stated that this is precisely the kind of development the City is
encouraging and Rantoul Street can benefit from this project. Houseman suggested however that
there be an agreement that any landscaping that may die over time should be replaced by the
long -term owner of the property.
Rosemary Maglio, 32 Pleasant Street, stated that she is not opposed to the project for residential
use. However, she is opposed to the high density and size of the building being proposed.
Maglio voiced many reasons why she the project should not move forward.
Euplio Rick Marciano, 141 McKay Street, expressed concerns over real estate taxes when the
site becomes condos and doesn't feel the public needs the extra burden of paying another
$20,000 in property taxes. Marciano stated that he did not receive notice to the neighborhood
meeting and doesn't feel that all residents were aware of the meeting. Marciano expressed his
Regular Meeting
Beverly Planning Board
March 20, 2012
Page 9 of 11
feeling that 30 units would be reasonable for the project but that 45 units is above and beyond the
needs of the area.
Mary Roderick, 14 Peabody Ave., expressed her disappointment with Rantoul Street's overall
development. Roderick expressed issues she has with the zoning requirements if the project is
100% residential versus 75% residential and 25% commercial space. Roderick stated that only
1% of the proposed building is commercial and does not agree with the strategy and commented
on its small size. Roderick suggested that if any commercial space is to be available downtown,
that it be a place for residents to buy groceries. For a transit oriented development area, she
stated concerns over residents not having a place to buy groceries within a walkable distance.
Roderick continued on stating that with four train stations in Beverly, the only station that is
talked about for transit oriented development is the Depot Train Station. In addition, Roderick
disagrees with the 1 parking space per unit and feels that even those that commute into the City
typically have a car. In addition, the affect to those residents not having a public school within
walking distance from downtown is concerning. Roderick concluded by stating that the City
needs to have residential zoning that is followed by not giving Applicants a special permit for
everything that comes along.
Dinkin commented on Roderick's remarks stating that the Planning Board does not have in its
authority to promote development in Beverly; they only discuss what is before them.
Mack made a motion to close the Public Hearing at this time (10:10 p.m.) Thomson
seconded the motion. Motion carried 7.0.0.
Dinkin called the Regular Meeting of the Beverly Planning Board back to order.
Discussion/Decision — Special Permit Application #130 -12, Site Plan Review Application
#106 -12 and Inclusionary Housing Application #03 -12 — Rantoul Street, Enterprise
Apartments — Rantoul Enterprise Realty Trust.
Matz stated that he would like to bring an issue to the table for the record. Matz began by saying
there is a lack of stability today in the public discourse referring to comments made earlier in the
evening while waiting for the executive session to conclude. Matz stated that he applied for a
position on the Beverly Planning Board to volunteer his time to make a difference in the
community that he loves. Matz went over several areas that he is a proponent of for the City of
Beverly. Matz stated that he will not have his integrity challenged again in that manner by a
member of the public and is appalled at the comments made during that time making clear the
person(s) in the audience tonight knows who they are. Matz is in favor and encourages that
citizens in every community need to speak up and make a stance. Matz referred to the
Wellington Heights project as the best example he has ever seen of the community coming
together. Matz stated he does not support those that show up and find every little thing they can
find about a proposal and being negative all the time for every proposed project. Matz stated that
in his opinion, he doesn't see how that helps the community. Matz proceeded to say that the
Regular Meeting
Beverly Planning Board
March 20, 2012
Page 10 of 11
proposed project before them has the support from the Design Review Board, Beverly Main
Streets Organization, Neighbors, and the City Councilor. Matz concluded his comments by
stating he is in support of the project as part of the redevelopment of Rantoul Street in its
continued efforts in the removal of eyesores and bringing the neighborhood current into this
century.
Dinkin stated that he grew up in Beverly and reminded those that lived in Beverly 10 years ago
to recall the quality of Rantoul Street and the numerous improvements that have been made since
that time. Dinkin stated that Windover Properties has been a positive contributor to the success
of Rantoul Street and agrees with Windover that this project will bring people into the core of the
City, and by doing so, before adding more commercial space, is wise. Dinkin stated he is in favor
of the project.
Mullady stated that he feels that the project is a step in the right direction and it will bring new
blood into the City and help revitalize downtown.
Hutchinson stated that the project looks fantastic and is certainly much better than what exists
there now. Hutchinson questioned the benefits of having only 1% commercial space in a mixed -
use building that allows more developable units. Hutchinson expressed concern over the
language in the existing Zoning Ordinance that allows applicants to crawl through loopholes
ultimately becoming more profitable for an economically viable project. Hutchinson stated that
she is torn because she is in favor of the redevelopment of Rantoul Street but not for the benefit
or profit to the owners.
Thomson responded to Hutchinson's comment stating that characterizing the Special Permit,
standards for approving and disapproving special permits and doesn't feel profit motive one of
them. Thomson agrees that there is dense development on the site but it is within the City
Ordinance.
Matz stated that he is in favor of the project however still questions if 45 units over 30 units is
best suited for that neighborhood and said he is just not convinced.
Mack responded to Matz comments and said the question should be is 15 more units adverse to
the neighborhood and are more units going to make any difference good or bad. Mack stated that
he feels it is good.
Dinkin responded to the comment Matz made and said looking for more density is not the
enemy. If the site would support 60 units, he feels that it would be better. Dinkin discussed
what he feels happens if you exclude too many things in a City ordinance and that Beverly's
motto is there is room for everyone.
Thomson made a motion to grant the Special Permit #130 -12, Site Plan Review Application
#106 -12 subject to compliance with the requirements stated in all the submitted municipal
letters from various departments on record including any and that all failed landscaping be
replaced at the owners expense. In addition, the Board has discussed all conditions under
Regular Meeting
Beverly Planning Board
March 20, 2012
Page 11 of 11
Section 29 -17 Special Permit Conditions (a through f) and finds all conditions are met.
Motion seconded by Mack. Motion carried 7.0.0.
Thomson made a motion to approve the Inclusionary Affordable Housing application as
presented. Motion seconded by Mack. Motion carried 7.0.0.
New or Other Business - Continued
c. Setting Public Hearing Date, 875 Hale Street, Modification to Definitive Subdivision Plan.
Thomson made a motion to set a Public Hearing date for April 26, 2012 at 9:00 p.m.
Motion seconded by Hutchinson. Matz abstained from the vote. Motion carried 6.1.0.
Election of Officers for 2012 — Chairperson and Vice - Chairperson
At this time, Thomson took the gavel and requested a motion on the open nomination for Chair
of the Beverly Planning Board.
Matz made a motion to nominate Richard Dinkin as Chair of the Beverly Planning Board
for the year 2012. Motion seconded by Thomson. Motion carried 7.0.0.
At this time, Flannery took the gavel and requested a motion on the open nomination for Vice
Chair of the Beverly Planning Board.
Dinkin made a motion to nominate John Thomson for Vice Chair of the Beverly Planning
Board for the year 2012.
Approval of Meeting Minutes
Matz made a motion to approve the December 7, 2011 minutes of the Regular Meeting as
submitted. Motion seconded by Flannery. Motion carried 7.0.0.
Adiournment
Mack made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:35 p.m. Motion seconded by
Hutchinson. Motion carried 7.0.0.