BPB Minutes March 15 2016Beverly Planning Board
March 15, 2016
Board:
Date:
Location:
Members Present
Members Absent:
Others Present:
Recorder:
CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Planning Board Meeting
March 15, 2016
Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers
Chair John Thomson, Ellen Flannery, Catherine Barrett, James
Matz, Ned Barrett, Michael Rotondo, Wayne Miller (via phone)
Ellen Hutchinson, David Mack
Assistant City Planner Darlene Wynne
Eileen Sacco
Thomson calls the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.
Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans
Discussion/ Decision: Subdivision Approval Not Required Plan — 6 Knowlton Street —
William B. Moody, Trustee of Dane Street Real Estate Trust
Flannery: Motion to endorse the SANR for 6 Knowlton Street as presented. Matz seconds
the motion. The motion carries (7 -0).
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the Planning Board meeting held on December 15, 2015 were presented for
approval.
Flannery: Motion to approve the minutes as amended and to be amended by typographical
corrections. Matz seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0).
Special Permit #115 -07 for Sam Fonzo Drive and Trask Street (Approved March 2008)
Request for Additional Two Year Extension — C. Ronald Vitale
Wynne explains that the applicant is requesting a two -year extension of his special permit for the
property located on Sam Fonzo Drive in Cherry Hill Industrial Park. She explains that the
special permit was granted by the Planning Board in April of 2008 for the construction of a light
industrial building within the watershed protection overlay district. She notes that the permit has
been extended three times before due to national economic conditions and the Commonwealth's
permit extension acts.
Mr. Ronald Vitale explains he has recently made efforts to prepare the site for construction and is
looking to sell the property. Wynne notes that Planning Dept. staff has reviewed the request and
Page 1 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
March 15, 2016
recommends that the Board grant the applicant's request for a two -year extension. She further
notes that there is a Conservation Commission Order of Conditions on the site that expires at the
end of July 2016; it is not eligible for an extension, the applicant or subsequent owner will have
to refile with the Conservation Commission.
C. Barrett asks how many extensions can be allowed by the Board. Wynne explains that there is
no limit and it is at the discretion of the Board.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter,
N. Barrett: Motion to approve a two -year extension for Special Permit #115 -07 Sam Fonzo
Drive and Trask Street. C. Barrett seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0).
Open Space Residential Design Site Plan (OSRD) and Definitive Subdivision Plan — Cove
Village — 50 -54 Boyles Street — Request to Release Lots from Form G Covenant and
Acceptance of Irrevocable Letter of Credit as Performance Bond — Cove Village, LLC
Matz recused himself from discussion and vote on this matter.
Thomson explains that Cove Village LLC has submitted a letter requesting release of lots from
the Form G Covenant and the Board's acceptance of an irrevocable Letter of Credit as a
performance bond for the estimated cost of the remaining infrastructure, roadway, and lot
construction at Cove Village. Mr. Jeff Rhuda, Symes Associates, explains that the developer is
making progress and looking to reduce the bond release the lots. He notes that the bond
reduction has been approved by the City Engineer and that, since his approval, they have
completed even more work. Thomson explains that this is a standard procedure during
subdivision construction and the applicant has submitted a Letter of Credit from the Salem Five
Bank.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter,
N. Barrett: Motion to release the lots from the Form G Covenant and that the Board accept
the Letter of Credit provided by the applicant from the Salem Five Bank.
C. Barrett seconds the motion. The motion carries (6 -0).
Continued Public Hearing — Open Space Residential Design (OSRD) Site Plan #8 -15 and
Definitive Subdivision Plan — 11 -15 Sunny_ crest Avenue — Create 6 new Residential lots -
PD Building LLC
N. Barrett: Motion to recess for public hearings at this time. C. Barrett seconds the motion.
The motion carries (7 -0).
Flannery: Motion to waive the reading of notice. Matz seconds the motion. The motion
carries (7 -0).
Page 2 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
March 15, 2016
Wynne states that there were two Planning Board members who were not present at the first
meeting on this matter and they have both certified they have listened to the recording of the
prior meeting.
Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering is present for the applicant.
Griffin addresses the Board and explains that since the last meeting they have met with the City
Engineer and reviewed his comments and as a result they have made a few minor changes to the
plans. He explains the changes to the plan.
Thomson notes that there is a lengthy list of proposed conditions from the Planning Department
on this matter and confirms that the applicant agrees with them all. He notes that the Parking
and Traffic Commission has recommended a sidewalk be provided on both sides and throughout
the entire length of the proposed subdivision consistent with the Beverly Complete Streets
policy.
Griffin states that he believes a sidewalk is not appropriate and conflicts with the OSRD. He
notes it is a small subdivision and there are no connecting sidewalks on either Sunnycrest or
Netherton and that the subdivision regulations allow no sidewalks.
City Planner Aaron Clausen stated that the City has adopted a Complete Streets policy which
requires the street sections to be built for all users, including sidewalks in areas where street
connectivity can be enhanced and the City is trying to be consistent in enforcing that. While the
Board can waive the sidewalk requirement, the City feels that this site is located in a denser
suburban neighborhood where sidewalks are needed.
Griffin states that if they thought that there was a safety issue they would be proposing sidewalks
but in this case they do not feel they are necessary. Thomson asks if the City has a plan to
construct sidewalks on these streets. Mr. Clausen explains that the City is required to look at
sidewalk installation as part of the repaving schedule, and cited Cole Street as a recent example.
N. Barrett asks where a sidewalk might be located on the other side of the street and discusses
options with Mr. Griffin. N. Barrett suggests a reasonable compromise would be sidewalks on
either side of the straight section. Griffin indicates it might impact the root zone for the tree.
Wynne explains that the grass strip could be waived so as to minimize impact on the tree.
Thomson confirms there is a chain -link fence around the stormwater management facility, and
inquires whether any screening is necessary. The open space will be gifted to Parks and
Recreation, without a blazed trail. Thomson states that the recommended conditions include a
Homeowners Association to maintain the stormwater management facilities, including the
detention pond, water quality structure and pipe. Griffin indicates that they will agree to that.
Thomson asks if the roadway is being constructed in accordance with City standards. Griffin
states that they are in compliance with City standards for road construction.
Thomson opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. There is no one present who
wishes to comment on the matter.
Page 3 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
March 15, 2016
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Matz: Motion to close the Public Hearing. N. Barrett seconds the motion. The motion
carries (7 -0).
Thomson states that the staff has prepared a list of proposed conditions and asks Wynne to
review them with the Board.
Wynne reviews the proposed conditions with the Board. The Board discussed recommended
construction hours.
N. Barrett asks if they are proposing an endowment for the maintenance of the open space.
Wynne explains that there is none proposed and explains that the Parks and Recreation
Department has agreed to accept the open space and has not initiated discussions about an
endowment.
Griffin states that the land donation is more than generous and notes that there have been no
discussions on an endowment. Wynne explains that Essex Crossing provided a $10,000
endowment.
N. Barrett notes that there was some neighborhood concern about trees on the site and suggests
that $5,000 is not too much to ask.
N. Barrett stated that he would recommend that the Board approve all of the suggested
conditions that have been recommended with the exception of the one requiring the installation
of sidewalks.
N. Barrett: Motion to approve the OSRD Site Plan for 11 -15 Sunnycrest Avenue as proposed
with all waivers and incorporating by reference the conditions and
recommendations made bythe various City Departments, Boards and
Commissions,as stated in the Board's conditions, with specific reference to the
construction activity times of 8:OOam — 6:OOpm Monday to Friday, 9:OOam to
6:OOpm on Saturday and no construction on Sundays and holidays; that sidewalks
shall be built on the south side as shown on the plan and the north side from
position 0.00 to 0.80; and that a $5,000 endowment be made to the Parks and
Recreation Department with the conveyance of the open space.
Flannery seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (6 -1) with Rotondo
opposed.
N. Barrett: Motion to approve the Definitive Subdivision Plan as presented, with all
the waivers required for the project incorporated and with the condition that the
plan is consistent with the prior OSRD Site Plan approval. C. Barrett seconds the
motion. The Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (7 -0).
Page 4 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
March 15, 2016
Public Hearing — Site Plan Review Application #120 -16 — Redevelop Existing Gasoline
Station Site with Improvements Including Construction of a new 3,520 s.f. Building, Fuel
Pumps /Islands and Fuel Island Canopy — 131 Brimbal Avenue — Sunoco Inc. (R &M) c/o
Michael Grendal
C. Barrett: Motion to recess for public hearings at this time. Rotondo seconds the motion.
The motion carries (7 -0).
Wynne reads legal notice.
Attorney Thomas Alexander addresses the Board and states that he is joined this evening by
Michael Grendal of Sunoco Inc. He explains that they are submitting their application for Site
Plan Review for the redevelopment of an existing Sunoco gas station site with improvements
including the construction of a new 3,520 + /- s.f building, fuel pumps, islands and a fuel island
canopy at 131 Brimbal Avenue.
Atty. Alexander explains that this gas station has been in this location since the 1950's and they
are seeking to rebuild to make the site more efficient. He notes that they are moving the pumps
back from the street which will be an improvement in light of the reconstruction of Brimbal
Avenue and they are proposing to move the store further back on the site to create better
circulation.
Atty. Alexander explains that the Zoning Board of Appeals has issued a Special Permit and
approval of the plan and the Beverly Conservation Commission has approved the project and the
Parking and Traffic Commission has reviewed the project and issued a favorable
recommendation.
Atty. Alexander explains that with the Brimbal Avenue reconstruction project the street is wider
and they are now 11 feet from the edge of the street. He explains that the reconstruction of the
site will result in the gas station being 35 feet from the edge of the street. He notes that this new
layout will provide for better circulation of cars on the site.
Atty. Alexander explains that in 1990, underground storage tanks were removed from the site as
well as contaminated soils. He notes an Activity and Use Limitation has been recorded on the
site. He explains that the Activity and Use Limitation governs how the property can be
developed if excavation is involved. He notes that a Licensed Site Professional will be onsite
during demolition and construction and they have submitted a Safety Management Plan. He also
notes that the Beverly Conservation Commission has reviewed the plans and there was a lot of
collaboration with them during the process and they have issued an Order of Conditions.
Atty. Alexander explained that the City Engineer has made a number of suggested revisions to
the plan that they have incorporated into the revised plans.
Atty. Alexander introduced Michael Grendal and Eric Redding of Burnham Associates to review
the specifics of the project.
Page 5 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
March 15, 2016
Mr. Redding addresses the Board and explains that the access to the site will remain the same
using the existing curb cuts. He notes the location of the proposed new building on the site
noting that this will also provide for more parking on the site.
Redding reported that they will be keeping the existing area lights at the site and will be
swapping the heads to provide LED lights. He also notes that the new canopy will be lighted
with LED lights as well. He explains that there will be less of a glare for the drivers on Brimbal
Avenue.
Redding explains that they have worked with the Conservation Commission and they are vastly
improving the wetland area. He explains that they will be planting trees to provide extra shade
and will be adding landscaping to the back of the store. He notes that any vegetation disturbed
during construction will be replaced. He also states that they will be removing and replacing
landscaping along Brimbal Avenue.
Redding explains that the utilities on the site will be upgraded. He also explains that the current
drainage on the site drains to Brimbal Avenue. He explains that they are proposing to collect the
drainage in deep snout hoods that cleans large sediment and goes into an oil and water separator
and into a catch basin. He notes that it is designed for a 2, 10 and 100 year storms and is in
compliance with DEP regulations.
Redding explains that they are proposing standard Sunoco signage for the site and notes that they
have reviewed the signage with the Design Review Board.
Thomson opens the hearing up for comments from members of the Planning Board at this time.
Matz questions if there will be a new diesel dispenser on the site. Redding explains that there
will be all new piping on the site.
Matz questions if this construction project will be going on at the same time as other construction
in the area. Thomson notes that the construction schedule is beyond the purview of the Board.
Atty. Alexander explains that the construction for the building across the street will not begin for
a while noting that there is a lot of site work that has to be done and estimated that construction
of the building is probably a year out.
Flannery notes that the City Engineer requested vertical granite curbing. Redding explains that
there is vertical granite curbing on Brimbal Avenue and they are not changing that.
C. Barrett asks if the store and gas station will be closed during construction. Atty. Alexander
explains that the store will be torn down and rebuilt and the gas station will close as well. He
estimated that the site would be closed for about 90 days.
C. Barrett asks if we know when the MA DOT project will be completed. Atty. Alexander stated
that the project is way ahead of schedule and is expected to be completed this spring.
Page 6 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
March 15, 2016
C. Barrett asks if the final resurfacing of Brimbal Avenue will be completed before this
construction and questions if they would be digging up new pavement.
Atty. Alexander states that they will be installing the utilities first so they do not dig up the new
road.
N. Barrett asks what the dimensions of the new canopy will be. Redding explains that the
existing canopy is 50x50 and the new one will be 24x99.
Flannery states that the Design Review Board reviewed the signs for the site and requested that
the wording "Official Fuel of NASCAR" be removed from the canopy.
Thomson notes that the drainage for the site is not changing but they are treating it. Redding
confirmed that and notes that nothing is changing in the drainage now on the site and explains
that the drainage will flow southwest to the new catch basin.
Thomson opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. There is no one present who
wishes to comment on this matter.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Flannery: Motion to close the public hearing. Rotondo seconds the motion. The motion
carries (6 -0 -1), Miller temporarily left the meeting.
N. Barrett notes that the City Engineer has not had a chance to respond to the revised plans since
he issued his initial comments on the project. Atty. Alexander states that they are confident that
they have addressed all of the City Engineer's concerns.
Thomson suggests that the Board could issue an approval pending that the City Engineer signs
off on the project.
Matz: Motion to approve the Site Plan Review Application #120-16 pending review and
sign off by the City Engineer and incorporate the comments on the project from
the City Engineer, and other City Boards and Commissions if any. N. Barrett
seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (6 -0 -1), Miller
temporarily left the meeting.
Public Hearing and Public Comment Period — Open Space Residential Design (OSRD)
Initial Review Application #9 -16 — Initial Review and Yield Plan — Create 3 -4 new lots — 122
Cross Lane — Benco, LLC
Miller rejoins the meeting.
Wynne reads legal notice.
Page 7 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
March 15, 2016
Robert Griffin of Griffin Engineering addresses the Board on behalf of his client Ben Carlson,
the owner of the property.
Griffin explains that they have submitted an OSRD Initial Review application to divide the
property which is a 4.2 acre site that consists of two parcels located at the intersection of Boyles
and Cross Streets. He notes that the land is adjacent to a City of Beverly soccer field on Cross
Lane and Sally Milligan Park.
Griffin explains that the larger of the two parcels, lot 6A, is presently developed with a single
family residence — 122 Cross Lane - and associated garage, storage shed, driveway and utilities
and the smaller parcel, Lot 7, is undeveloped. He reviewed the area around the site noting the
location of the soccer field and Sally Milligan Park as well as a single family residence located at
82 Boyles Street and notes the locations on the plan.
Griffin also explains the location of the wetlands resource areas on the undeveloped lot and notes
that most of the site drains to this area. He also notes that the wetland resource areas are
Bordering Vegetated Wetlands and Inland Bank. He notes that a vernal pool was documented in
the western portion of the undeveloped lot although it has not been documented.
Griffin explains that the Bordering Vegetated Wetland drains towards Cross Lane where it ponds
in the easterly corner of the lot and eventually flows into a municipal drain located at the
intersection of Cross Lane and Boyles Street.
Griffin explains that the Beverly Conservation Commission has issued an Order of Resource
Area Delineation (ORAD) in January confirming the boundaries of the wetland resource areas.
He notes that there are no flood zones or riverfront resource areas on the site.
Griffin explains that approximately 1.23 acres of the site has slopes greater than 20% and these
areas are mainly ledge outcrops. He notes that the onsite wetlands with its associated 25 foot No
Disturb Zone occupies 0.90 acres of the site.
Griffin explains the proposed Yield Plan for the site noting that they are proposing the demolition
of the existing single family house on the site at 122 Cross Lane and constructing four new
residences and a cul -de -sac roadway. He notes that based on this design the basic maximum
number dwelling units under the OSRD ordinance for this application is four.
Griffin explains that the proposed building lots are positioned along the new cul -de -sac roadway
connecting to Cross Lane and notes that all of the proposed lots conform to the R -22 dimensional
requirements. He notes that the proposed street is short (220') and conforms in all respects with
the City of Beverly Rules and Regulations governing the Subdivision of Land. He also notes
that the Yield Plan layout provides ample land for stormwater management.
Griffin reviews three conceptual plans. He explains that alternative development schemes for the
property were limited due to the topography of the site and the location and extent of the wetland
resources and the open space requirement associated with the OSRD ordinance.
Page 8 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
March 15, 2016
Griffin explains that Concept Plan A consists of a development containing three single family
house lots. He notes that all three lots will have frontage on Cross Lane and two of the lots will
be dimensionally conforming. He explains that the middle lot will be a "pork chop lot" and will
therefore require a Special Permit from the Planning Board. He also notes that the existing
driveway under this alternative will be a common driveway providing access to all three building
lots. He also explains that an open space parcel will be created of approximately 1.02 acres in
size and the developer is prepared to convey the open space land to the City at no cost.
Griffin also notes that it is straight forward plan and a little blasting may be required.
Matz notes that one of the lots is a "pork chop lot" and notes for benefit of the public that it
would require a special permit because it would have inadequate frontage.
Griffin explains that Concept Plan B involves constructing a 250 foot roadway with associated
cul -de -sac and utilities. He explains that four new residences are proposed along the roadway
and new utilities will be installed within the roadway to service the new homes. He also notes
that approximately 1.02 acres of open space is proposed, similar to what is proposed in
Concept A.
Griffin explains that similar to the second concept plan, Concept Plan C shows the construction
of four single family residences with a shorter roadway (100 feet) and cul -de -sac turnaround and
creates more space for larger lots while still maintaining the required open space and No Disturb
Zone areas.
Griffin states that their preferred plan is Plan A. He states that there is a lot to like about Plan C
but at the same time it does require more process. They can live with Concept A if it is the
Board's preferred plan and if they can get construction started this year.
Thomson states it is his understanding that if they had to build Concept A they would still have to
go back to the Conservation Commission. Griffin states that they would have to go back to the
Commission for permission to build the house on Lot 3 and some driveway work; he notes that
he does not see much concern for the Conservation Commission regarding any of these
proposals. He explains that if they go to Plan B or Plan C, there is a little bit of work in the buffer
zone and explains the location. Thomson notes that even the yield plan would have to go to the
Conservation Commission for approval. Griffin explains the lot location in the buffer zone and
notes that they would most likely separate the roadway application and the house lot
applications. He notes that there are no waivers required for any of the plans. Thomson states
that Conservation Commission approval is a waiver in the Planning Board's view, because it is
not as- of- right, and that would be up to the Commission to determine if they can meet the
requirements.
Thomson states that his understanding is that the 20% sloped areas are conservation areas and
notes that the primary objectives of the OSRD is to protect those areas and he was expecting the
alternative plans to show ways that they would protect them. He questions if there is nothing
they could come up with that would produce 3 house lots without going into any of those sloped
areas and reviews areas of the plan where the houses could be located. Griffin explains that one
Page 9 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
March 15, 2016
of the constraints they have is the No Disturb Zone and notes that area on the plan; he notes that
the two houses would be very close together. Thomson states that he realizes that it is a small
parcel and they have a lot of constraints and he appreciates that they are preserving open space
but he is concerned about these primary conservation areas and notes that the sloped areas are
included in that.
Griffin stated that he doesn't believe steep slopes are primary areas of habitat and given the
underlying nature of the parcel it will be difficult to spread the houses out across the area, noting
that that they have set aside a lot of land for open space and have provided decent buffers
between the soccer field and the site.
C. Barrett asked what the size of the houses will be. Griffin states that he expects they will be
around 2,500 s.f.
C. Barrett confirms if Plan A is their preferred plan. Griffin states that if the Board can accept the
plan they could proceed with construction and will not spend the next year in the permitting
process. He explains that with the other plans they would have to go to the Conservation
Commission and that would be a 3 -4 month process which would bring them to the next
construction season.
C. Barrett asks if the pork chop would share a driveway with the other house. Griffin explains
the plan and notes the location of the lots and notes the location of the shared driveway.
Thomson states that he assumes that there would be a driveway maintenance agreement between
the two owners regarding that.
Thomson states that he would like to continue this to the next meeting noting that he would like
further input from the Planning Department regarding the concerns that he has raised.
Thomson asks if members of the Board have any more questions regarding this.
N. Barrett states that he would like to see the applicant take the spirit of the OSRD more into
consideration noting that he would like to see them take the buffer zones, etc., into consideration
regarding the footprint of the site.
Griffin states that Plan A will be using the existing driveway. He explains the proposed locations
of the houses and states that he feels that they have tailored the plan in a manner that is
consistent with the OSRD.
Thomson asks why Lot 1 is so large and suggests that they could look at pulling the other houses
back. Griffin explains that he thinks that they could take a look at that.
Wynne states that the size of Lot 1 was a common theme in the comments from other Boards and
Commissions and that work should be done to avoid or impact the No Disturb Zone for the
wetlands or the vernal pool. Griffin explains that they could certainly explore making some of
the No Disturb Zone part of the dedicated open space area.
Page 10 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
March 15, 2016
Thomson reviews his concerns and notes that he would prefer the shared driveway and see the
houses further away from Cross Lane and he would like to see Lot 1 smaller.
Griffin notes that they had filed a 9 -lot yield plan for Sunnycrest with work in the buffer zone
that was similar to what is being proposed here and the Board approved that. Thomson notes
that this is a different plan.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Flannery: Motion to continue the matter to the next meeting of the Planning Board. C.
Barrett seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0).
Discussion/Recommendation to Citv Council Order #014: Zoning Amendments Relative to
Various Sections of Zoning Ordinance, Chapter XXXVIII
Thomson notes that the Planning Board and the City Council held a Public Hearing on this order
on February 16, 2016 and notes that members of the Planning Board who were not present at the
meeting have certified that they listened to the recording of the meeting.
Thomson explains that the Zoning Amendment proposal is relative to a proposed Amendment to
various sections to Zoning Ordinance Chapter XXXVIII Section by establishing new land use
categories that support arts and creative economic sectors, including Artist Live /Work Space,
Brewery, Distillery, Winery, and Maker Space. A new section 3 8-3 5 is proposed creating land use
and permitting procedures for Artist Live /Work facilities.
Thomson reported that he received a call from Councilor Houseman and explains that he was
questioning whether the Planning Board should be the special permit granting authority (SPGA)
for the commercial district and noted that the Planning staff gave an explanation of the reasoning
regarding the SPGA, that those are the bodies who already have the SPGA in those districts. He
notes that Councilor Houseman did not indicate that he was opposed to the ordinance
amendment. Thomson wanted to note that he received the call.
Wynne states the SPGA for brewery and maker space is the ZBA, the artist live /work is the
Planning Board at all times because of the type of use and that the type of use and type of review
it requires, being more in line with a site plan review, and any use in the CC District is under
purview of the Planning Board.
Rotondo questions if home based businesses could be considered for this ordinance noting the
owner of Joe's On A Roll. Clausen explains various scenarios where these use types would be
allowed and what types of activities constitute an art use. He notes that home based businesses
and artist live /work are different uses and it is an important distinction. Wynne notes that it
would be allowed if they live in one of the approved districts.
Clausen reviews the areas where the artist live /work areas would be located and some of the
scenarios that they have considered. He also notes that there is a separate provision in the
Zoning Ordinance to allow a person to operate a business out of their home.
Page 11 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
March 15, 2016
N. Barrett asks where this matter stands with the City Council. Clausen explains that the Council
has 30 days following the public hearing to act on the recommendation of the Planning Board
and the Board has 21 days to issue that recommendation. He explains that the Board passed the
21 -day time period but noted that the matter will sit in the Legal Affairs Committee of the
Council until they receive the recommendation from the Board.
Wynne reviews the zoning map and notes the areas for the zoning amendment is depicted. The
Board reviews various locations.
Flannery notes that the map was very helpful in seeing where the areas are that are designated for
this zoning.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Flannery: Motion to recommend to the City Council that they adopt proposed amendments
for the Beverly Zoning Ordinance to include Artist Live /Work,
Brewery/Distillery, and Maker Space. Matz seconds the motion. The Chair votes
in favor. The motion carries (7 -0).
Set Public Hearing Date- Site Plan Review Application #121 -16 — Construct 2 Story
Building at 102 Cherry Hill Drive — 102 Cherry Hill Development, LLC
Wynne explains that the Board needs to set a Public Hearing date for the application filed for site
Plan Review by 102 Cherry Hill Development, LLC, to construct a 2 story building containing
approximately 80,000 s.f of gross floor area for engineering, fabrication, distribution and related
office uses.
Flannery: Motion to set the Public Hearing for Site Plan Review for 102 Cherry Hill Drive
for April 27, 2016. C. Barrett seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor. The
motion carries (7 -0).
New or Other Business
Wynne reminds the Board that a Joint Public Hearing with the Planning Board and the Beverly
City Council on a proposed amendment to the City of Beverly Zoning District Map to remove
Map 55, Lots 19, 20, 21, 23, 24 and Map 56 lots 20, 20A, from the IR Overlay District referred
to in Article XXXVIII, Chapter 19 will be held on April 4, 2016 at 8:00 p.m.
Wynne also reports that the Board has received a request for a minor modification from Krohne,
Inc. and suggested that the Board hold a special meeting before the Joint Public Hearing on
April 4, 2016 at 7:30 p.m. to consider this matter.
Adjournment
Page 12 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
March 15, 2016
There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening a motion
wasmade by N. Barrett to adjourn the meeting, seconded by C. Barrett. The motion carried (6-
0), Miller had left the meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30p.m.
Page 13 of 13