2012-05-15CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Planning Board
SUBCOMMITTEE: -
DATE: Tuesday, May 15, 2012
LOCATION: Council Chamber, City Hall, third floor
PLANNING BOARD
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard Dinkin, Vice Chairman John Thomson,
Ellen Hutchinson, Ellen Flannery, James Matz, David
Mack, John Mullady, Michael O'Brien
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 8:00 p.m.
Mack made a motion to recess and reconvenes the Regular Meeting of the Beverly
Planning Board. Motion seconded by Flannery. Motion carried 7.0.0.
Continued Concurrent Public Hearings — Special Permit #129 -11 and Site Plan Review
Application #105 -11 — 48 Dodge Street — Westward Apple Orchards Limited Partnership.
Attorney Thomas Alexander stated that as requested a Transportation Peer Review has been
completed and a written response from MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc. has been
submitted to the Planning Staff.
Jeffrey Dirk, Vanasse & Associates, Inc. discussed the recent meeting with the Parking and
Traffic Commission. Based on the requests made, Bohler Engineering has prepared a revised site
plan that incorporates modifications to the following:
1. Dodge Street drive -way (addition of reflectorized stanchions to the flush serrated
concrete island) and on -site circulation (addition of direction and regulatory signs and
modification of the painted island proximate to the exit from the drive - through
prescription facility to a flush serrated concrete island with reflectorized stanchions).
2. VAI has prepared a Conceptual Improvement Plan depicting recommended sign and
pavement marking enhancements for the Route 128 Southbound off -ramp at its
intersection with Dodge Street (Route IA) northbound that are designed to channelize
off -ramp traffic to the north and to discourage crossing maneuvers to the gas
Regular Meeting
Beverly Planning Board
May 15, 2012
Page 2 of 10
This Document is Subject to Review and Approval by the Beverly Planning Board
station/convenience store/Dunkin Donuts located along the west side of Dodge Street
opposite the off -ramp.
3. Applicant has committed to the development of an optimal traffic signal timing, phasing
and coordination plan for the signalized intersections along the Dodge Street corridor that
include the Dodge Street/Conant Street /Shaw's Plaza driveway intersection.
During the discussion, Dirk mentioned that the double yellow centerlines on Route I in front of
the proposed site are meant to deter vehicles from cutting across the Rt. 128 exit ramp but the
markings are faded such that motor vehicles may not see them.
Thomson asked if anyone has talked with the Mass DOT about the faded double yellow
centerline. Dirk responded no but they will have discussions with Mass DOT about the matter.
Mack asked about signs other than the ground sign previously mentioned. Dirk stated that they
are in the process of data collection and will provide a written response back addressing
comments made. Signage will be added to the site plan at a later date and reviewed by the
Design Review Board. Dirk stated the Applicant is not proposing to reconstruct the site's
frontage. In addition, subject to MASS DOT approval, the plan will include optimal traffic
signals addressing the traffic plan.
Thomson requested further information pertaining to the strip of land owned by the City behind
the proposed building site. Thomson stated that the Board would need to know if the City agrees
to allow the Applicant access to landscape the area as an added buffer zone between the site and
the residential homes that abut the site. Alexander responded that the plan is to berm the area
and to place a fence and plantings on the Applicant's portion of the property. Alexander stated
that the plans for the strip of land will meet the requirements of Beverly's Zoning Ordinance and
the Applicant is planning to present the proposed plans for such to the City Council.
Cheryl Oliphant, 2 Chipman Road, Beverly, stated that she is a direct abutter to the
aforementioned area. Oliphiant asked if there is a Plan B if the City does not approve the
Applicants request regarding the 50 ft. strip of land behind the proposed site. Alexander
responded that regardless, they plan to have screening on their own property. The City property
would be above and beyond the screening the Applicant will have in place.
Thomson requested that there should be research done to determine the usage of the 50 ft. buffer
zone area. Alexander concurred.
Dinkin requested confirmation to the relief needed in relation to parking. Alexander responded
that the Applicant is requesting a waiver of 5 parking spaces. The revised plans show 95 parking
spaces - the Zoning Ordinance calls for 100 spaces.
Regular Meeting
Beverly Planning Board
May 15, 2012
Page 3 of 10
This Document is Subject to Review and Approval by the Beverly Planning Board
Josh Swirling from Bohler Engineering added that the parking reduction was a direct attribute to
keeping the historical structure in place and the relief requested is easily translated with
preserving the historical structure
Thomson asked if in relation to the peer review there were any discussions or thought to angled
parking spaces. Swirling responded that it was considered however angled parking spaces would
result in further deviation to the total parking spaces on the site.
Swirling explained the rights with respect to the other commercial establishments at the location
and stated that those customers will come in the same entrance as shown on the plan and turn left
for access to the other commercial establishments and vehicles for the entire site will exit the site
using the shared Right of Way. Swirling added that the other parties involved are agreeable to a
stop sign at the Right of Way.
Flannery asked about hours of operation. Alexander replied that Walgreens is requesting the
option for a 24 -hour facility.
Rhuda added that Walgreens is not expected to be open 24 hours but that it is a standard request
to have the option in the event they choose to do so at some point in the future. Normal hours of
operation are between Sam -IOpm.
Cheryl Oliphant, 2 Chipman Road, asked for clarification to the proposed entrance off Route IA.
Swirling responded explaining that with the new plan, they would enter 10 ft. north than what is
there today. All vehicles will enter to the right of the stanchions. Swirling stated that the
stanchions are flush and are no more than a typical car length.
Oliphant expressed concerns with making vehicular traffic turn right from the Route 128 exit
ramp. Oliphant feels that vehicles would be diverted and forced to enter the site on Conant
Street and neighbors are fearful that will happen. Swirling replied that according to the traffic
study report there are less than 20 vehicles during peak hours coming off the ramp.
Patricia Johnson, 34 Chipman Road, Beverly, stated that she recently wanted to take a right out
of Chipman Road and it took two changes of the light to exit. Johnson added that she counted 14
cars in the cue at the light.
Bill Lorigan of Moser Architects stated they have been working diligently with the Design
Review Board on the design of the proposed building. Lorigan explained that with a smaller
footprint they were able to have a second story, which adds positive elements to the residential
street side. Lorigan stated the second story would be used for storage only. Lorigan discussed
Regular Meeting
Beverly Planning Board
May 15, 2012
Page 4 of 10
This Document is Subject to Review and Approval by the Beverly Planning Board
the roof top units and the design to alleviate noise levels adding that the equipment will not be
visible from the surrounding area. Lorigan reviewed the proposed materials to the external
building in detail. Lorigan stated that based on the request from the Design and Review Board
the "W" at the front of the Walgreens building has been made larger. The drive - through roof has
been lowered 6 ft. which will give more attention to the entrance. In addition, an awning /canopy
off the facade of the entrance area of the building has been added.
Thomson asked for the height of the proposed building. Lorigan responded that the highest point
is 33' -9 ".
Thomson asked if there are any plans for landscaping around the building. Swirling responded
that there will not be any landscaping and explained why they found it to be a maintenance
problem. Swirling stated that the idea is to keep an open walkway wide enough - giving an
example of those with a stroller and child. Swirling pointed out that they have incorporated a
strip of green and an iron like fence to soften the asphalt at the front of the site.
Flannery asked Alexander, relative to the design for Walgreens, if there has been any thought to
restorations to the historical building. Alexander replied that they plan to mimic the front of the
historical building on the backside of the building.
Mullady asked if the illuminated sign on the building would be on 24 hours expressing his
concern to residents on Conant Street. Lorigan responded that the sign will only be illuminated
during business hours of operation and the design and materials used for the illuminated sign will
not affect residents in any way.
Flannery asked about size of the ground sign. Alexander responded that at the appropriate time
the Applicant would request signage approval with the Design and Review Board.
At this time, Dinkin opened the Public Hearing to comments from the public.
Don Martin, 28 Berrywood Lane, Beverly, asked if there is a time frame before Walgreens
becomes a 24 -hour establishment. Lorigan responded that there are no immediate plans. It is
Walgreen's standard practice to have the option available to them if they choose to do so at some
point.
Rosemary Maglio, 30 Pleasant Street, Beverly, requested the flow of delivery trucks including
waste removal on the revised plan be shown. Swirling responded that the new plans have
rerouted the deliveries to the site, which is determined to be a suitable and safe plan. Swirling
added that Walgreens deliveries are on average 1 -2 /week.
Regular Meeting
Beverly Planning Board
May 15, 2012
Page 5 of 10
This Document is Subject to Review and Approval by the Beverly Planning Board
Maglio asked about deliveries to the other commercial establishments and the future possibility
of other commercial tenants moving into the site. Maglio stated that she has heard only
discussions with Walgreens and the Applicant has not touched upon other businesses on the site.
Rhuda responded that the other businesses on site do not have heavy retail use in the office
spaces and most tenants take UPS or FedEx deliveries at the storefront. Rhuda added that they
are reducing the impervious surface from the existing condition.
Dinkin made reference to Maglio's concern and asked what other vendors will be making
deliveries besides the 1 -2 Walgreen deliveries /week and how many other delivery trucks will be
coming in and out of the site daily. Swirling responded that he made comment to Walgreen's
deliveries only because they will be the larger truck deliveries. Other delivery trucks such as the
bread /soda suppliers are much smaller than the Walgreen delivery trucks and are staggered
throughout the week.
Dinkin addressed Alexander for the record that it came to his attention it was made clear to
neighbors at the neighborhood meeting that if this project is not approved the site would house
even more intensive uses. Dinkin made it clear that those comments made at the neighborhood
meeting sound threat like and that he will take those remarks into consideration on how the
Applicant is presenting the plans to the general public.
Alexander responded that it was absolutely not a threat in any way but rather educating the
Boards and Neighbors to have a clear understanding of all options for the proposed site.
Alexander discussed a situation in the past where they felt the public was not properly informed
of the options for a site and then realizing after the fact that it could have turned out differently
for greater or lesser. Dinkin stated that he disagrees.
Bill Swiff, 509 Conant Street, Beverly, discussed his concerns on Conant Street and asked if
there have been any discussions on marking the Conant Street exit with a right hand turn only
out of the plaza. Taking a left makes it difficult for those residents taking a right out of
Chipman Road.
Lorigan responded that in relation to traffic, making a right turn only out of the site onto Conant
Street would make it difficult for those that live on Conant Street or Chipman Road that use the
site to get back to their home.
Flannery stated that those vehicles should travel south on Route IA and take a right at the fire
station and go around which is the way the traffic should flow.
Flannery asked if dumpster is enclosed. Swirling responded yes.
Regular Meeting
Beverly Planning Board
May 15, 2012
Page 6 of 10
This Document is Subject to Review and Approval by the Beverly Planning Board
Scott Przybycien, 5 Conant Street, Beverly, stated that he has concerns with the Walgreens sign
in relation to the hours it is illuminated and the direct impact with his home. Przybycien asked if
it was appropriate to discuss those concerns at this meeting. Thomson responded that if the
application is approved the Planning Board can add conditions at that time with respect to
signage and lighting during hours of operation.
Flannery made a motion to recess the Public Hearing for Special Permit #129 -11 and Site
Plan Review Application #105 -11 until June 19, 2012 at 8:45 p.m. Motion seconded by
Mack. Motion carried 7.0.0.
Continued Public Hearing Pursuant to Land Court Remand Order: Modification to 875
Hale Street Definitive Subdivision Plan — Montrose School Park, LLC.
Thomson made a motion to waive the reading of the public notice. Motion seconded by
Flannery. Motion carried 7.0.0.
Attorney Brad Latham of Latham Law Offices, LLC, 643 Main Street, Reading, stated that since
the last public hearing, both the Applicant and Council have provided new information to the
Board. Latham stated that the main issue is the question of road length. Latham discussed in
detail their view on the definition of a cul -de -sac and a dead -end street paraphrasing language
from different documents he incorporated into the research including the Beverly Subdivision
Rules and Regulations relating to the definition.
Latham referenced a memo dated May 14, 2012 from Assistant Planning Director Zambernardi.
Latham presented a sketch of the roadway pointing out that their determination is believed to be
consistent with the Beverly Subdivision Rules and Regulations that he paraphrased earlier. It is
their belief that applying the standard and principal for a cul -de -sac with a hammerhead is
appropriate measuring from the starting point of the curvature to the center point. Latham stated
that there is no logical reason to use a different standard simply because the turnaround is a t-
shape versus a circular shape. Latham reminded the Board that the City Fire and Police
Department as well as the City Engineer had approved the plans previously in which he believes
they used the same logic to provide safe and adequate access for vehicles. Latham stated that by
using the initial point of curvature, the road length would be 207', or by taking measurements to
the center point would be 249' both of which the Applicant feels complies within the City's
Rules and Regulations.
Regular Meeting
Beverly Planning Board
May 15, 2012
Page 7 of 10
This Document is Subject to Review and Approval by the Beverly Planning Board
Thomson asked for clarification from Latham that it is his position that the use of the word cul-
de -sac and all dead -end streets are the same thing. Latham replied yes. Latham stated that he
does not believe it has to be an actual dead -end street to apply the same logic.
RJ Lyman, 852 Hale Street, Beverly — abutter to the site and also an attorney, stated that the
Board is not obligated in any way to accept the Applicant asking for special treatment under the
minor subdivision provision. Lyman stated that Rhuda is challenging and undermining the City
Ordinance in which the City has worked so hard to create. Lyman paraphrased sections of the
Zoning Ordinance in Section 4, subsection b, paragraph 5 and subparagraph C (Page 5 and 6 of
the Zoning Ordinance) explaining the definition of a cul -de -sac. Lyman stated there is no
geometric shape that has a diameter and is a circle. There is no diameter in a hammerhead. With
respect to a hammerhead drive, Lyman stated that you couldn't use the definition explained for
methodology of measurement. Lyman referred to the Ordinance section that reads "or other
means of turnaround acceptable to the Planning Board ". Lyman agreed that under certain
circumstances allowing a hammerhead turnaround is acceptable however you can't use the
methodology for a cul -de -sac when the plans presented are clearly not. Lyman noted that the
Applicant has wasted a lot of the neighbors' and City's time already and feels the Applicant
needs to comply with what the City of Beverly's Subdivision Rules and Regulations state and is
asking the Planning Board to do the same.
Latham stated he disagrees with Lyman's statement. The Applicant has spent a lot of time
working with City on the proposal. Latham stated the Applicant would not have appealed on
their own as they were prepared to live with OSRD. Latham stated that they have fully
researched and reviewed many documents including the Zoning Ordinance and they believe they
have used what they consider to be the best measurement consistent with the Beverly
Subdivision Rules and Regulations.
Latham asked if the Planning Board is willing to vote before closing the Public Hearing or get a
consensus from the Board with respect to the road length.
Dinkin responded that he believes that deviation from the rules can be subject to an appeal.
Thomson asked if there are any alternatives for the roadway that the Applicant may want to
discuss before the Board's decision.
Latham requested Chairman Dinkin's approval to have a moment with his client to discuss
matters. Dinkin concurred.
Regular Meeting
Beverly Planning Board
May 15, 2012
Page 8 of 10
This Document is Subject to Review and Approval by the Beverly Planning Board
Latham asked the order of process to the waivers requested that are still before the Board.
Dinkin responded that it has been the Board's practice to separate waivers from the main plan
and to act on the waivers before acting on the main plan. Latham stated that the Applicant has
nothing else to present at this time.
Dinkin called the regular meeting of Beverly Planning Board to order at this time.
Discussion/Decision — Modification to 875 Hale Street Definitive Subdivision Plan — Montrose
School Park, LLC.
Dinkin clarified to those present that the Board will begin with their findings of fact with respect
to the status of the roadway continuing with moving on to the waivers requested and concluding
with the main question to the Subdivision.
Thomson recognized the briefs from counsel and felt it was very helpful. Thomson stated he
feels the Planning Board is bound by the City's Regulations and how they are written. Thomson
agrees with the conclusion that not all dead -end streets are a cul -de -sac and that there is a
distinction made in the Regulations between cul -de -sacs and other forms of dead -end streets.
Thomson stated the only measurements described in the Rules and Regulations involve
measuring the sideline of the through street to the beginning of the cul -de -sac with no guidance
to measure other dead -end situations and leaves it to the Planning Board to work through the
definition on their own. The Board has expressed its opinion that there is a clear difference
between a dead -end road and a cul -de -sac. Logically the street goes all the way to the end of the
street in this case, the "T" shape in a hammerhead. In the absence of the Regulations not stating
otherwise, not to the beginning, not to center, but to the end of the flat end, as comments made
by counsel, Thomson felt that is the only form of measurement the Board should take.
Dinkin agreed with Thomson's view. Dinkin stated that a hammerhead does not have a
measurable diameter and should be viewed and measured as any other dead -end street by
measuring from the nearest cross street to end of the pavement.
Thomson made a motion finding as a matter of fact, the dead -end street is 292.17 ft. long.
Motion seconded by Mack. Motion carried 8.0.0.
Dinkin closed the Public Hearing at 9:20 p.m.
Discussion/Decision — Modification to 875 Hale Street Definitive Subdivision Plan —
Montrose School Park, LLC.
Regular Meeting
Beverly Planning Board
May 15, 2012
Page 9 of 10
This Document is Subject to Review and Approval by the Beverly Planning Board
Dinkin requested waivers be read aloud for the record.
Zambernardi read the list of other waiver requests as follows with motions from the Board
individually:
1. Definitive plan shall show trees six inches in caliper measured four feet above ground.
Thomson made a motion to grant the above - mentioned waiver request as submitted.
Motion seconded by Mack. Motion carried 7.0.0.
2. Definitive plan shall show street address numbers for each lot.
Thomson made a motion to grant the above - mentioned waiver request as submitted.
Motion seconded by Mack. Motion carried 7.0.0.
3. Definitive plan shall show the location of proposed streetlights.
Thomson made a motion to grant the above - mentioned waiver request as submitted.
Motion seconded by Mack. Motion carried 7.0.0.
4. Definitive plan shall show the location of fire alarm system
Thomson made a motion to grant the above - mentioned waiver request as submitted.
Motion seconded by Mack. Motion carried 7.0.0.
5. Drainpipes shall have a 3' minimum cover.
Thomson asked for the measurement to the cover being provided on the plan. Ogren responded
the drainpipe covers on the plan are a little over 1 - '/ 2 ft.
Thomson asked Zambernardi if there has been any guidance from the engineering department.
Zambernardi responded that the City Engineer has reviewed and approved the plan with respect
to the drain cover.
Thomson made a motion to grant the above - mentioned waiver request as submitted.
Motion seconded by Mack. Motion carried 7.0.0.
Thomson stated that the plan was presented to the Planning Board as a Yield Plan and the
assumption was that it was a minor subdivision. The Planning Board agrees that with
modifications to the Definitive Subdivision Plan and the litigation before them, the Board is
required to look at the entire subdivision plan, which may require other waivers.
Regular Meeting
Beverly Planning Board
May 15, 2012
Page 10 of 10
This Document is Subject to Review and Approval by the Beverly Planning Board
Thomson made a motion to deny the Subdivision Plan on the basis of the lack of a waiver
for the dead end road length. Mack seconded the Motion. Motion carried 8.0.0.
Matz joined the meeting at this time.
2. New or Other Business
a. Request for Meeting Date for CPA Presentation — Community Preservation
Beverly
The Planning Board agreed to set the date for the CPA Presentation on June 19, 2012 at 7:30
p.m.
b. Set Public Hearing date for new site plan special permit and inclusionary housing
permit— Cabot Street Apartments, 130 Cabot Street, Jay Levy and Armando
Maffeo, Trustees of 130 -140 Cabot Street Realty Trust.
Flannery made a motion to hold the public hearing June 19 th , 9:30 p.m. for Cabot Street
Realty Trust. Motion seconded by Hutchinson. Motion carried 7.0.0.
Zambernardi reminded the Planning Board that there would be a joint public hearing between the
City Council and the Beverly Planning Board on June 4, 2012 at 7:20 p.m. held in City Council
Chambers and a Special Meeting after.
Mullady made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Motion seconded by O'Brien.
Motion carried 7.0.0.