2014-05-20Beverly Planning Board
May 20, 2014
CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Board:
Date:
Location:
Members Present:
Planning Board Meeting
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Beverly Public Library
Chair John Thomson, Vice Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Ellen
Flannery, James Matz, Catherine Barrett, Wayne Miller, Ned
Barrett
Members Absent: David Mack, John Mullady
Others Present: Assistant City Planner Leah Zambernardi
Recorder: Eileen Sacco
Thomson calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Subdivision Approval Not Require Plans
There are no subdivision approval not required plans this evening.
Recess for Public Hearing
Flannery moved to recess for a public hearing at this time. Hutchinson seconded the
motion. The motion carries (7 -0)
Continuation of Public Hearing and Public Comment Period — OSRD Initial
Review Application #4 -14 and Request for Waivers of Subdivision Rules and
Regulations as Applied to the Yield Plan Under OSRD — 232 Essex Street — DiBiase
Corporation
Atty. Brian McGrail, Paul DiBiase of DiBiase Corporation and John Ogren of Hayes
Engineering are present to review the OSRD application.
McGrail recalled that at the last meeting members expressed concern over approving
a Yield Plan with waivers without having first seen the number of lots that could be
developed under a waiver free plan, meaning that waiver free shall mean only waivers
of the Boards Subdivision Rules and Regulation. McGrail states that they have
submitted a waiver free plan which shows a 19 lot yield plan.
McGrail states that his client is committed to the 16 lot plan reviewed by the Board at
their April 8, 2014 meeting. He notes that the plan includes waivers requested. He
1
Beverly Planning Board
May 20, 2014
also notes that they have received an Order of Conditions from the Beverly
Conservation Commission. He also notes that a memo was sent to other city Boards
and Departments and the Department of Public Services responded as well as the
Fire Department which notes that they have no objections to item 2.
McGrail reports that the Open Space and Recreation Committee has requested a
meeting if this plan goes forward to discuss the open space relative to Kelleher Pond.
He notes that his client has pledged to work with the neighbors and the city as a
whole and would welcome a special condition on this moving forward.
Flannery states that the Planning Board did not ask for a plan showing 19 lots. She
explains that they asked for a waiver less plan but did not specify the number of lots.
McGrail introduces Mr. Ogren of Hayes Engineering to review the 19 lot waiver free
yield plan.
Ogren explains the waiver less plan that has been submitted to the Board. He
compares the plan to the previously presented plan so that the Board can look at both.
Ogren explains that the lay out is similar in terms of lots and the biggest difference is
in the radius of the access drive.
Zambernardi reports that the Planning Board requested that the Engineering
Department review the waiver less plan and they have no issues with it.
Hutchinson questions how the subdivision connects to Ice House Lane and if an
easement is granted by both parties. McGrail states that it would be an emergency
access only easement and it would involve one property.
McGrail notes that the purpose of the yield plan is to establish the number of lots that
can be built as of right and the concept plan submitted shows 16 lots.
Katherine Mills Myers of 176 Colon Street addresses the Board and states that she
supports the project. She further states that the developer has built a trusting
relationship with the neighbors.
Matz asks if comments have been submitted from other departments noting that this is
a concept plan and is theoretical, not being proposed.
Ned Barrett states that he would like to see viable building lots rather than simply
parsing out lots.
Pa
Beverly Planning Board
May 20, 2014
Ogren addresses the Board and notes that the wetland resource areas have been
determined and an Order of Conditions from the Conservation Commission has been
issued. He also notes that there is a steep slope at the rear of the property and they
expect that there will be some flattening and smoothing, removal of ledge and
material will be moved around.
McGrail states that the preferred plan of the developer is the 16 lot plan.
Hutchinson asks if the Board needs to vote on the waiver less plan. Thomson states
that he feels that the waivered plan is the one that the Board should be addressing.
He states that this looks to be minor in nature and typical of what the Board has
granted in the past.
Hutchinson: Motion to approve the Request for Waivers of the Subdivision Rules and
Regulations as Applied to the Yield Plan Under OSRD and to approve the Yield Plan.
Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0).
McGrail states that two concept plans were submitted and describes them to the
Board.
Zambernardi reviews comment letters from the following Boards and Departments:
Conservation Commission: Reviewed the plan at its April 29, 2014 meeting and
requested the following: The area for stockpiling should be removed. McGrail notes
the area proposed for stockpiling on the plan. He notes that they did a number of test
pits on that site and the soil is not suitable for housing, noting that it is all top
soil; Requested that lot #16 be moved noting stormwater retention basins.
Katherine Mills Myers addresses the Board and stated that she attended the
Conservation Commission walk through the site and explained that the Commission
did not want the house too close to the pond.
C. Barrett asked how many feet is the house proposed from the pond. McGrail
explains that lot 16 is 105 feet from the pond.
Board of Health: Has reviewed the plan and made recommendations for the Board to
consider in approving the plan as follows: Prior to site work start up and during site
construction shall employ a licensed pest control firm for site evaluation and service.
Acceptable methods for dust control and street cleaning shall be implemented. If fill
is brought to the site the applicant must comply with Board of Health regulations
regarding Soil and Solid Fill Regulations. The design proposal must concur with the
Engineering Department, Inspections Department, and Conservation Commission for
3
Beverly Planning Board
May 20, 2014
all utility connections, water supply, gas, sanitary waste etc. In accordance with the
Beverly Noise Control Regulations, noise sources associated with the construction,
repair, remodeling or grading of any real property shall not take place between the
hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekday, including Saturdays nor at any time on
Sundays or federal, state and local holidays. The final surface must be graded so as
to create any stagnant water and or runoff which could create objectionable
conditions. All wastes generated by the development activities must be appropriately
stored and removed in a timely manner.
McGrail states that the Board of Health comments are straight forwards and they have
no issues.
Open Space and Recreation Committee reviewed the plan and requested the
following:
Access to Kelleher Pond to the city by gift to the city and that the trails in the area of
the Hannah School be maintained. Sidewalks be installed on both sides of the street
to maintain the integrity along the pond. Conservation Restriction be granted to the
Beverly Land Trust
McGrail states that they will meet with the OSRC to review their proposals. He also
states that they are open to working with the Conservation Commission and the
OSRC on all aspects of the open space and they are happy to do it.
Matz reports that the OSRC's concern is to make sure that the existing trail systems
are maintained within the property as open space and that the public continue to have
access around the pond.
McGrail states that they can talk about sidewalks but it goes against the design
parameters and they would think that one sidewalk would be adequate.
Hutchinson states that the second concept plan shows two back lots and questions if
there is an easement proposed. McGrail explains that is how the grading worked out.
Thomson opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. There is no one
present who wishes to comment on the matter.
Zambernardi explains that the task before the Board is to select the preferred plan.
She also states that the Board can impose conditions if they so choose. She also
explains that the site plan submitted will have to be consistent with the preferred plan
but does not have to be exact, noting that this is a basic layout.
Thomson asks if the Fire Department has reviewed the design. Mr. DiBiase states
4
Beverly Planning Board
May 20, 2014
that they met with the Fire Department and they have no objections to the minimum
width of the road and they also have no objection to putting up a chain.
Zambernardi explains that during the Site Plan Review process the Board will solicit
comments from other City Boards and Commissions as well as the City Departments.
Hutchinson: Motion to approve concept plan #2 and to incorporate the comments
received from the Beverly Board of Health, the Open Space and Recreation
Committee, and the Beverly Conservation Commission. Flannery seconds the motion.
The motion carries (7 -0).
Zambernardi informed the developer and his representatives that the next meetings of
the Planning Board are June 17, 2014 and July15, 2014 in consideration of the filing of
the Site Plan Review for the project.
Request for Minor Modification to Site Plan #111 -13 — 50 Dunham Road —
Anderson Clark. LLC
Steve Drohosky is present for the applicant.
Drohosky addresses the Board and explains that the Board approved the site plan on
July 23, 2013 for the new development at 50 Dunham Road for the construction of the
five story, first class, mixed use building and a precast concrete open parking garage
which is currently under construction and various landscaping and parking features.
He explains that since then their design, engineering, and construction groups have
advanced several minor modifications to the approved site plan, primarily due to the
fact that they have encountered abundant ledge and poor soil conditions on the site.
Drohosky explains that the modifications can be described as tweaks to the parking lot
layout, improvements to site drainage, and an expansion of the 48 building to the
west. He reviews the following modifications:
1. Addition of five parking spaces and reconfiguration of curb lines at the Grade
Level Loading Area at the north end of the existing 50 Dunham Road building.
2. Reconfiguration of parking areas on the east, west and north sides of 48
Dunham Road
3. Reconfiguration of parking areas and vehicle access on the east, west and
south sides of the parking garage.
4. Elimination of the "bioretention cells" on the west side of 48 Dunham Road and
east side of the parking garage, and replacement with a more beneficial system
of multiple stormcepters and a subsurface stormwater recharge system. These
drainage modifications were unanimously approved by the Beverly Conservation
5
Beverly Planning Board
May 20, 2014
Commission at its meeting on April 29, 2014
5. Expansion of 48 Dunham Road to the west, which expansion does not require
full Site Plan Review in an IR zone. The drainage modifications associated with
this expansion were incorporated into the above mentioned Conservation
Commission approval of April 29, 2014.
6. Enhancement of the landscaping throughout the construction area and
adjacent areas.
Hutchinson asks how big the proposed addition is to 48 Dunham Road. Drohosky
states that it is 24,000 s.f.
Miller questions how the modification on the parking garage is considered a minor
modification. Drohosky explains that the ramp is being moved outside and increases
parking without changing the size of the building.
Thomson notes that the Conservation Commission has issued an amended Order of
Conditions allowing the proposed changes. Drohosky agrees noting they issued
normal conditions and they agree with the handling of the drainage on the site.
Matz asks Drohosky to explain the subsurface infiltration system. Drohosky explains
how the system will work on the site. Matz asks if the water will be filtered. Drohosky
states that it will not be filtered.
Matz asks if this exceeds the threshold for the requirements of a major modification
review. Zambernardi reviews the regulations for the review of a minor modification
and notes that the percentage of increase in the gross square footage shall not
exceed 30% of the building and the proposed change is about 20% of the existing
building. She also noted that the Planning Department has reviewed this request and
recommends that the Board favorably consider reviewing the changes as a minor
modification.
Thomson agrees noting that there seems to be nothing contrary to the public interest.
Miller questions if the Parking and Traffic Commission has reviewed the changes to
the parking requested. Drohosky reported that the Parking and Traffic Commission
has reviewed the plan and has requested a parking study on the level of service for
the intersection of Dunham Road and Brimbal Avenue and to review it with them a
year after the certificate of occupancy is granted.
Zambernardi reports that Sean Ciancarelli of the Engineering Department has
reviewed the changes proposed and he has no issues with them.
R
Beverly Planning Board
May 20, 2014
Hutchinson: Motion to find that the requested modifications to the approved site plan
for 50 Dunham Road are minor in nature. Flannery seconded the motion. The motion
carries (7 -0).
Hutchinson: Motion to approve the minor modifications requested for site plan #111-
13 as submitted. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0).
Request for Minor Modification to Site Plan #108 -12 — Inclusionary Housing #04-
12- Cabot Street Apartments —130 Cabot Street LLC
Attorney Chris Latham is present for the applicant.
Latham addresses the Board and explains that the minor modifications being
requested are being made to comply with changes to the City of Beverly Zoning
Ordinance. He explains that the city amended the ordinance relative to parking in
ways that directly impact this project. He further explains that they cannot account for
required parking in public lots within 500 feet in excess of 25 %.
Latham explains that they have submitted a revised proposal which involves a
modified site plan and a modified Inclusionary Housing Permit. He explains that no
special permits are requested and the plan conforms to existing zoning requirements,
including parking. The density of the project has been reduced to a new 3 story
building with 11 residential units and two commercial spaces. The proposed
commercial spaces have not changed in size and the mix of the residential units is 1
studio, (8) 1 bedroom units with a den, and (2) 3 bedroom units. The total bedroom
count has been reduced from 25 bedrooms to 15 bedrooms. Thirteen (13) parking
spaces are required for the residential units and they are provided on site in the rear
lot. The parking spaces for the commercial units are provided for on the municipal lot
across Cabot Street.
Latham further explains that the proposed parking space on Vestry Street has been
eliminated and replaced with additional landscaping. There is a National Grid
transformer with bollards that will be placed in that vicinity on the property.
Flannery notes that the original plans called for 13 one bedroom units and now they
are proposing 8 one bedroom units with a den.
N. Barrett questions if the changing of two one bedroom units to 1 bedroom with a den
is an end run to get around the parking requirements.
Zambernardi reports that the Planning Department consulted with the Building
Department and they indicated that the see no reason why this cannot be done in the
INA
Beverly Planning Board
May 20, 2014
regulations.
Thomson states that he would like to see them install French doors with glass panels
between the rooms to prevent the "den" from becoming a bedroom.
Latham explains that the Parking and Traffic Commission reviewed this proposal in
terms of traffic flow. He noted that the parking presented this evening is consistent
with what was approved the last time.
Thomson states that the lack of parking was an issue during the first approval process
and this could be the equivalent of an end run. He asks Planning Board members if
they feel that a condition regarding sleeping in the dens of the one bedroom units
would be appropriate. He notes that they are not restricting the number of
occupants.
Ward Two City Councilor Estelle Rand addresses the Board and asks which units in
the project would be affordable units. Latham responds.
Hutchinson questions if a condition regarding no sleeping in the den is enforceable.
Miller asks if there are any compact parking spaces proposed. Latham explains that
there are two compact spaces proposed.
N. Barrett notes that there was a great deal of public interest in this project when it
was before the Board last year and he would like to give the public a chance to weigh
in. He further notes that it appears that this is a by right plan but he does not want to
short change people.
Hutchinson: moves to find that the requested modifications to the approved site plan
#108 -12 — Inclusionary Housing #04 -12- Cabot Street Apartments — 130 Cabot Street
LLC is a major modification. N. Barrett seconded the motion. The motion carries (5-
2).
Thomson informs the applicant that the Planning Board will schedule a public hearing
on the matter for their next meeting on June 17, 2014 at 7:00 p.m.
Miller suggests that the Parking and Traffic Commission should review this. Flannery
notes that there are no changes to the outside of the building so there is no need for
the Design Review Board to review it.
Request for Extension of Permits: Special Permit #122 -10 — 865 Hale Street —
Kevin Barry
W
Beverly Planning Board
May 20, 2014
Zambernardi states that Mr. Barry has submitted a letter to the Board requesting
acknowledgement of the additional 2 year automatic extension granted by Section 74
and 75 of Chapter 238 of the Acts of 2012 to May 19, 2016.
Hutchinson: Motion to acknowledge the new completion date for 865 Hale Street to
May 19, 2016. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0)
Special Permit #114 -07 — 10 -12 Congress Street — Beverly Office Development
LLC
Zambernardi states that the applicant has submitted a letter to the Board requesting a
one year extension beyond May 29, 2015 making the new date May 29, 2016. The
reason cited for the delay in construction is the softness of the condominium market
and the recent death of one of the principals of the partnership owning the property
and a delay due to the modification of the project to provide for rip rap along the
boundary of the Danvers River.
Hutchinson: Motion to acknowledge the new completion date for 10 -12 Congress
Street to May 19, 2016. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0)
Joint Public Hearing of the Planning Board and the Beverly City Council
Zambernardi informs the Board that the City Council has scheduled a Joint Public
Hearing with the Beverly Planning Board for Monday, June 16, 2014 at 7:30 p.m. for
the amendment to the Beverly Zoning Map to include the Beverly Harbor Interim
Planning Overlay District and amendment to the Beverly Zoning Ordinance Chapter
38 -31 introducing a new section (38 -31 F) entitled "Beverly Harbor Interim Planning
Overlay District" (BHIPOD)
N. Barrett: Motion to concur with the City Council that the Joint Public Hearing with
the Beverly City Council be scheduled for June 16, 2014 at 7:20 p.m. Hutchinson
seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0).
Zambernardi will distribute the zoning amendments to members via email prior to the
meeting.
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 Hutchinson. The
motion carried (7 -0)
�;
Beverly Planning Board
May 20, 2014
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
10