2013-03-19CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Board: Planning Board
Date: Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Location: Beverly City Hall
Members Present Chairman Richard Dinkin, Vice Chair John Thomson, Ellen
Hutchinson, Ellen Flannery, James Matz (arrived at 7:30), John
Mullady
Members Absent: Charles Harris, Michael O'Brien, David Mack
Others Present: Assistant City Planner Leah Zambernardi,
Recorder: Eileen Sacco
Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Request for 81X Certification
Zambernardi addressed the Board and explained that the applicant is requesting an 81X
Certification relative to an ANR granted by the Planning Board in July of 2012. She explained
that the Board endorsed the plan and the owner never filed the plan with the Registry of Deeds.
She noted that the plan has not changed and planning staff has reviewed the plan and
recommends the granting of the 81X certification.
Dinkin explained that a majority of members present is needed to approve this.
Flannery moved to approve the 81X Certification. Hutchinson seconded the motion. The
motion carried (4 -0 -1 with Thomson abstaining).
Discussion with Attorney Miranda Gooding Re2ardin2 Inclusionary Housing Credits
Attorney Miranda Gooding addressed the Planning Board for a discussion regarding inclusionary
housing for 62 Pleasant Street and the potential ability of the developer to get credits for
providing more inclusionary housing than is required for a project, to be used towards other
developments in the future. She explained that the ordinance allows for this provision and
explained that excess affordable units may be utilized for another project in the cc district. She
further explained that Windover has another project in the cc district and in total has completed
43 new affordable units over the past couple of years.
Gooding explained that it is not clear what Windover's plans are for the other properties that they
own. She noted that the ordinance speaks to the ability for credits to be granted by special
permit. She referred to Section 4.3 of the Planning Board regulations, which states that the
special permit must be filed with the inclusionary housing application, and noted that Windover
Draft Beverly Planning Board
Minutes
March 19, 2013
did not file it when they applied for the 60 Pleasant Street application. She further noted that at
the time of approval there was concern with an overload of work force housing in the area and it
now makes sense to create a fully market rate housing development.
Gooding explained that she is looking for guidance from the Board on how to approach applying
for the credits after the fact. She suggested that they could file an application to amend the
inclusionary housing application and file for a special permit at the same time. She noted that
the ordinance is silent about the timing for this, but the regulation was in effect at the time.
Thomson stated that he supports affordable housing and that he saw this project as an
opportunity to gain more affordable housing. He noted that if the Board grants a special permit
that could transfer credit affordable units to another project, the next project could be all market
rate units. He further noted that he does not like that the project can come back with new
information that was available at the time the project was approved. He also noted that he feels
that this project set out to be affordable.
Dinkin stated that the project was planned as an affordable federally subsidized project. He
noted that if the Board were to consider voting in the affirmative on this, he would be concerned
about the intent of the inclusionary bylaw to disperse affordable housing throughout the
community. He stated that he would be reluctant to see the ability to exempt this from
inclusionary housing.
Thomson stated that the credits would absolve Windover from providing affordable units on
another project. He suggested that they can always file the application and the Board could
consider it.
Zambernardi reviewed the ordinance and noted that it is silent on the timing for application. She
noted that the credits have to be used within 10 years of the date that the special permit is issued
and the application for the special permit must be filed simultaneously with the application for
the inclusionary housing.
Dinkin stated that in general he leans towards providing any property owner a ruling and that if
the regulations say that the application for the special permit has to occur at the same time as the
inclusionary housing application, they are asking the Planning Board to waive the regulations in
this case and that is a much different question.
Hutchinson questioned how many excess units do they believe they have created. Gooding
explained that 32 were built and 4 were required. She asked if there is a process by which an
applicant can apply for a waiver of a regulation.
Dinkin asked for a consensus of the Board.
Gooding stated that she is struggling to see if the Board feels that it is prejudice because they are
asking now as opposed to when the project was approved.
Page 2 of 9
Draft Beverly Planning Board
Minutes
March 19, 2013
Dinkin stated that the issue is that the regulations provide a relatively clear schedule for the
process.
Thomson moved to waive the Planning Board regulation in this instance to allow the applicant to
come in for a special permit.
Dinkin stated that he is not sure that the motion is in order because he does not see a special
permit application before the Board.
Thomson withdrew his motion.
Hutchinson noted that the Board is not sure if they can waive the regulation at this point and
suggested that it might be something to get a legal opinion on. Dinkin agreed that it would not
hurt to get a legal opinion on the matter.
Thomson moved that under the unique circumstances that are before the Board, that the Board
grant a waiver subject to an opinion from the City Solicitor. Flannery seconded the motion. The
motion carried (4 -1 -1 Dinkin, Thomson, Flannery and Mullady in favor, Hutchinson in
opposition, Matz abstaining).
Recess for Public Hearings
Thomson moves to recess for public hearings at this time. Matz seconds the motion. The
motion carries (5 -0).
Public Hearing — Site Plan Application #110 -13 — 96 & 102 Cherry Hill Drive — Connelly
Brothers Inc.
Zambernardi reads legal notice.
Steve Connelly of Connelly Brothers Inc. addressed the Board and explained that they are
proposing to construct a 40,000 s.f two story building for a private secondary school with a
cafeteria, gymnasium, athletic field, and 80 parking spaces at 96 -102 Cherry Hill Drive at the
corner of Sam Fonzo Drive and Cherry Hill. He noted that the site is one of the last remaining to
be developed in the Flatley subdivision. He described the lot and noted that they will be using
10 acres of the land.
Connelly stated that 96 Cherry Hill LLC will be the owner of the property and they will sign a 20
year lease with New England Academy which is presently located in the Cummings Center.
Connelly noted that they are waiting for approval from the FAA.
Connelly stated that they expect to start construction in July 2013 and will be completed by July
of 2014.
Page 3 of 9
Draft Beverly Planning Board
Minutes
March 19, 2013
John Vogus of New England Academy addressed the Board and explained that they are a
secondary school with a student enrollment of 90 -100 students and is a stated Chapter 766
approved educational school. He explained that they serve students with learning disabilities and
are currently located in the Cummings Center. He stated that they are in need of a campus and
explained that they have a baseball team and a soccer team and a music program as
extracurricular activities.
Dinkin asked if they are an independent school. Vogus explained that they are approved by the
Massachusetts Association of Private Schools and are accredited by the New England
Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC).
Vogus noted that they hold all of their major school events at Endicott College and will continue
to do so, noting that they have a great working relationship with Endicott and hold their
graduations there.
Harry Samelcheck addressed the Board and explained the plans for the school. He noted that it
will be a two story building and explained the layout of the school. He noted that there are no
plans for signage mounted on the building and explained that there will be a granite monument
sign installed in the low land.
Samelcheck explained the lighting for the site. He noted that the athletic fields will not have
lights and there will be enough lighting in the parking area to make it safe.
Thomson questioned why one of the access points goes to the adjoining lot. Connelly explained
the location of the lot relative to Sam Fonzo Drive and they noted that they are proposing a
single shared entrance proposed for both lots, and noted the locations on the plan.
Thomson asked if there is a possibility that semi trailer trucks will be entering the site, noting
that he is concerned about the safety of the students. Vogus stated that the only deliveries they
get are from the US Post Office or UPS.
Peter Ogren of Hayes Engineering addressed the Board and explained the plans. He explained
that the plans call for an 80 vehicle parking lot and explained the proposed traffic flow. He also
noted that most students will be dropped off by small buses or mini vans. He explained that the
Parking and Traffic Commission has reviewed the plan and recommended that additional signage
at or near the parking lot exit that informs exiting motorists of the driveway's one way travel
direction and that additional signage be installed as needed to make it clear that the easternmost
shared driveway is not to be used as an exit from the school site.
Ogren noted the snow storage areas proposed on the plan.
Ogren explained that there are two watersheds on the site and they are proposing to pipe drainage
from the front portion of the site to the existing storm water drainage system on Cherry Hill and
the drained from the rear of the site, which includes runoff from the roof, lawn and athletic fields
will go to a special subsurface 40 chamber device and sheet flow down a newly graded area that
Page 4 of 9
Draft Beverly Planning Board
Minutes
March 19, 2013
flows into a wetland area on the City of Beverly site to the north. He also noted that they met
with City Engineer Eric Barber and the drainage system is compliant with state regulations.
Ogren explained that the water connections will be in the center of Cherry Hill Drive.
Thomson noted that there were slope failures at 78 -108 Cherry Hill Drive. Connelly explained
that they are aware of that and he intends to do the grading work in July and August to protect
the major slope and once it is graded they will make sure that it gets tracked back and forth. He
also noted that he has worked with steep slopes on other projects. He also noted that he intends
to maintain ownership of the site and will watch it carefully.
Matz noted that there is compact clay and glacial clay and it is difficult to maintain and if the
slope fails because of a lack of compaction that is nothing to be taken lightly. He suggested that
they consider having a geotechnical engineer look at the site. Ogren stated that they could agree
to having a compaction test after they do the work.
Thomson asked if there would be a fence around the playing field. Connelly stated that they are
discussing that and are looking at possible locations. He also explained that the slope will be
seeded and the grass will be maintained.
Dinkin recessed the Public Hearing until 8:55 p.m. at this time.
Public Hearing - Special Permit Application #134 -13 — Create One Pork -Chop Shaped Lot
— 55 Echo Avenue —MPM Companies LLC
Zambernardi reads legal notice.
Michael McNiff addressed the Board and explained that he has submitted a special permit
application for the creation of one pork chop shaped lot at 55 Echo Avenue. He explained that
the parcel has a single family home and garage upon it in the R10 Zoning District with 23, 348
s.f of land area and 180 feet of frontage. He noted that the proposal is to demolish the structures
and create two new building lots for new single family homes. He explained that one lot will be
a conforming lot and he is requesting a special permit for a pork chop shaped lot.
McNiff explained that he has met several times with the neighbors on his plans and they are in
support of the plan. He explained that the lots will be 11,400 s.f. and 11,900 s.f and the average
size lot on Echo Avenue is 7,000 s.f.
McNiff also stated that he is installing the screening of the neighbors' choice with tree plantings
or a fence, whatever they want. He also noted that the neighbors signed a petition in support of
the plan.
Zambernardi read comments from other city Boards and Commissions at this time:
William Burke — Board of Health — March 13, 2013
Page 5 of 9
Draft Beverly Planning Board
Minutes
March 19, 2013
Amy Maxner — Conservation Commission — March 7, 2013
Eric Barber — City Engineer — February 26, 2013
William Fiore — Beverly Fire Department — February 25, 2013
Dinkin opened the hearing up for public comment in favor of the project at this time.
Joan Powell of 4 Conway Street, Beverly addressed the Board and stated that she is in support of
the project.
Roland Simons of 1 Conway Street addressed the Board and stated that he is in favor of the
project.
Dinkin opened the hearing up for comment in opposition to the project. There was no one
present who wished to comment in opposition to this matter.
Dinkin declared the public hearing closed at this time.
Thomson: Moved to approve the special permit application for one pork chop shaped lot at
55 Echo Avenue, Beverly, MA finding that:
a. that the site is an appropriate location for the proposed use and that the character of the
adjoining uses will not be adversely affected
b. that no factual evidence is found that property values in the district will be adversely
affected by such use
c. that no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result
d. that adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation and
maintenance of the proposed uses
e. that there are no valid objections from abutting property owners based on demonstrable
fact
f. that the minimum lot area of the pork chop shaped lot be at least the minimum lot area
required in the zoning district in which the pork chop shaped lot is located except the
portion of the lot which is the narrow strip or portion of the lot to the way, shall not be
included in the lot area calculation
g. that the width of the Pork Chop Shaped Lot measured at the shortest distance between
side lot lines is no less than seventy five (75) feet at any point between the street and the
existing or proposed building on the lot.
h. All front, rear and side yard setbacks shall be the same as the minimum setbacks
specified for the zone in which the lot is located.
i. that the depth of that portion of the lot which fails to satisfy the lot frontage requirements
set for in Section 29 -2B. 26 between the street and the existing or proposed building on
the lot cannot exceed a distance of two hundred and fifty (250) feet from the street.
j. that there is not more than one (1) other Pork Chop Shaped lot with frontage contiguous
to it;
Page 6 of 9
Draft Beverly Planning Board
Minutes
March 19, 2013
The approval is subject to the requests and comments in the letters submitted by City Officials
and Commissions. Mullady seconded the motion. Dinkin called for vote on the motion. The
motion carried (6 -0) with the chair voting in favor.
Continuation of Public Hearing — Site Plan Application #110 -13 — 96 & 102 Cherry Hill
Drive — Connelly Brothers Inc.
Thomson moved to waive reading of the legal notice. Flannery seconded the motion. The
motion carried (5 -0).
Dinkin asked if there are additional comments from members of the Board. There being none at
this time, Dinkin asked if there are any clarifying questions from the members of the public
present.
Peter Gentile addressed the Board and stated that his son attends the New England Academy and
it is a wonderful school and he supports this project.
Zambernardi read comments from other City Boards and Commissions:
Richard Benevento, Parking and Traffic Commission — March 8, 2013
Amy Maxner, Conservation Commission — March 14, 2013
William Burke, Board of Health, - March 13, 2013
William Fiore, Fire Department, - February 27, 2013
Eric Barber, City Engineer, - March 12, 2013
Design Review Board
Steve Frederickson, Zoning Board of Appeal — March 15, 2013
Zambernardi noted that the Conservation Commission noted that the drainage on the site will
eventually discharge to the Watershed Protection Overlay District and they recommends that as a
condition of any approvals the Board may grant, that the property owner be required to annually
report to the Planning or Engineering Department adherence and compliance with a long term
operation and Maintenance Plan for storm water BMP's to ensure proper function of the
facilities.
Thomson suggested that a condition of approval be that weekly inspections of the slope by an
environmental scientist occur. Ogren stated that they have two on staff so that will not be a
problem.
Dinkin expressed concern that the environmental scientist should be independent and not
someone at Hayes Engineering. Ogren stated that follow up email from Maxner in terms of
monitoring is common practice.
Connelly stated that they are subject to a lot of rules and regulations and sign offs are required at
various stages and he does not think that they need anyone in addition to Peter Ogren.
Page 7 of 9
Draft Beverly Planning Board
Minutes
March 19, 2013
Thomson suggested that an environmental scientist from Ogren's staff could report to the city on
a weekly basis.
Connelly stated that he intends to own the property for many years and he has done many
projects of this kind. He also noted that he has worked with Ogren on many occasions and he is
competent to oversee this. He also noted that they will loam and seed the slope with a jute mat
and compaction tests will be done.
Zambernardi asked if they would test the soil at the end of the project. Connelly explained that a
testing agency comes in after the project is complete and runs soil competence testing under
building regulation codes.
Flannery asked if those tests were done on the sites where the slopes failed. Connelly stated that
he does not know if they were done or not because he did not do the job.
Matz stated that it is the owner's responsibility to document that state engineering standards have
been met.
Dinkin asked for additional comments at this time from the public.
William Mahoney, Vice Chair of the Airport Commission addressed the Board and stated that
they met with the applicant and they have no concerns about the project.
Dinkin declared the public hearing closed at this time.
Thomson: Moved to grant approval of the Site Plan Review subject to the condition that the
applicant /owner complies with the conditions contained in the following letters from the City's
Department Heads and Boards and Commissions, which are attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference: Parking and Traffic Commission dated March 8, 2013, Board of Health
dated March 13, 2013, Fire Department dated March 19, 2013, City Engineer dated March 12,
2013, Design Review Board dated March 19, 2013, Police Department dated March 18, 2013,
and the Conservation Commission dated March 14, 2013. This approval is made with an
exception pertaining to the first recommendation in the Conservation Commission letter, that the
owner /applicant's professional engineer, Hayes Engineering, Inc., shall be responsible for the
slope compaction study, monitoring compaction and for reporting weekly during the slope
stabilization process. A separate independent soil engineer is not required. Flannery seconded
the motion. The motion carried (5 -0).
Dinkin noted that this is a well designed project and will be a fine addition to the area.
Approval of Minutes
The approval of the minutes of the November 19, 2012, November 20, 2012, December 18, 2012
and January 15, 2013 Planning Board meetings were presented for approval.
Page 8 of 9
Draft Beverly Planning Board
Minutes
March 19, 2013
Matz: Moved to approve the minutes of the Planning Board meeting as presented.
Flannery seconded the motion. The motion carried (5 -0).
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening a motion was
made by Flannery to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mullady. The motion carried (5 -0)
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Page 9 of 9