BPB Minutes May 17 2016Beverly Planning Board
May 17, 2016
This Documents is Subject to Review and approval by the Planning Board
CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Board: Planning Board Meeting
Date: May 17, 2016
Location: Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers
Members Present Chair John Thomson, Vice Chair Ellen Hutchinson (7 =08), Ellen
Flannery, Catherine Barrett, James Matz, Ned Barrett (7.13),
Michael Rotondo, Wayne Miller, David Mack
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Assistant City Planner Darlene Wynne
Recorder: Eileen Sacco
Thomson calls the meeting to order at 7 =05 p_m_
Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans
Wynne indicates that there are no SANRs this evening_
Public Hearing — Special Permit Application #149 -16, Site Plan Review Application #122-
16 and Inclusionary Housing Application #09 -16 — Construct 5 -Story Mixed Use Building
with Retail and Commercial Space on Ground Floor and Related Parking, Utility and
Landscaping Improvements — 480482 Rantoul Street — Beverly Crossing 480, LLC
Mack: Motion to recess for public hearings_ Flannery seconds_ The motion carries 8 -0_
Wynne reads legal notice_
Attorney Miranda Gooding addresses the Board and states that she is joined this evening by
Chris Koeplin of Windover, Thad Siemasko and John Harden of Siemasko Verbridge Architects,
Charlie Wear of Meridian Associates, and Sam Gregorio of TEC_
Attorney Gooding gave an overview of the project and explains that the applicants are Beverly
Crossing 480 LLC and is a joint partnership with Windover Development and Aston
Investments, principals Roy & Dinart Serpa, the owner of the property_ She explains that the
Serpas, long -term Beverly residents and business owners, have owned the property since 1997
and will remain the owners_ She notes that the property will be managed by Dolman Properties_
Atry_ Gooding explains that the site is the former Friendly's site on Rantoul Street and notes that
there are two separate parcels containing 85,000 s_f_ with 221 feet of frontage on Rantoul Street_
Page 1 of 12
Beverly Planning Board
May 17, 2016
She also notes that the site borders Rantoul Street on one side and the back of the site borders an
MBTA Right of Way_
Gooding notes that there is a small isolated wetland area on the south corner which will not be
disturbed_ They are before the Conservation Commission contemporaneously with this process_
Atry_ Gooding explains the history of the efforts to redevelop this site, which has been vacant
since 2000, including that a commercial / retail plaza of 21,000 sf and 125 parking spaces was
approved in 2007_ She notes that the Serpas have unsuccessfully tried to sell the site for 10 years_
Atty_ Gooding reviews a rendering of the proposed site and describes an L- shaped building with
the shorter side parallel to Rantoul Street_ She notes that the 5 -story mixed -use building will
contain 90 residences and 1,900 sf retail/commercial storefront, requiring 7 commercial parking
spaces_ In the CC District, there are no other dimensional requirements except for frontage and
height, with which the building complies_
Atty_ Gooding explains that the relief requested is for two special permits, one of which is to
allow a mixed -use building in the CC zoning district with the residential component being more
than 75% of the building_ Gooding also notes that 1/3 of the building frontage will be dedicated
to commercial space due to the size of the building; which they think is an appropriate size for
the project_
She explains that the other special permit is for a reduction in parking for residential use from the
required 118 (1 space per bedroom or 1.3 spaces per unit) to 108 spaces, which comes to 1.2
spaces per unit_ Atty_ Gooding explains that reduction in parking request is spurred by the
consideration given to an abutter who requested accommodations to continue an access easement
for an existing business_ She also notes that they used data from the Beverly Planning
Department parking study which shows that much less parking is utilized by multifamily
buildings in the downtown than is required by zoning_
Atty_ Gooding also explains that the Parking and Traffic Commission asked for adjustments to
the flow of traffic within the site_
Atty_ Gooding explains that they have also submitted an application for an Inclusionary Housing
Permit and notes that 12% of the units are required to be inclusionary units which translates to
11 affordable units for this project_ She explains that two 2- bedroom units and nine 1- bedroom
units, 4 of which will be handicap accessible, will be evenly distributed throughout the building_
Atty_ Gooding states that they may in the future like to have the inclusionary housing offsite and
would like to reserve the right to come back to the Board_ She explains that they are working
with community partners on a potential project that would be affordable housing_
Atty_ Gooding explains that the proposed rents for the units would be $1,387 for 1- bedroom units
and $1,657 for 2- bedroom units, based on 80% AMI figures for 2016_
Page 2 of 12
Beverly Planning Board
May 17, 2016
Atty_ Gooding explains that they began this process in March and met informally with the
Parking and Traffic Commission and the Design Review Board for their input on the project_ She
also explains that they have met with the neighbors and a number of City Councilors_ She notes
that as a result they have received letters of recommendations from the DRB with no conditions
and the Parking and Traffic Commission has approved the project with conditions_
Atty_ Gooding explains that the Conservation Commission is midway through their process and
the City Engineer has submitted a lengthy comment letter noting that there are more comments
than requests for changes in the proposal_ She notes that Charlie Wear has talked with them and
there are very minor changes, noting that there will be some minor changes to what is before the
Board this evening_
Chris Koeplin of Windover Development Crossing addresses the Board and explains that
Windover and Beverly Crossing are separate companies and reviews their mission statement_ He
states that they are not about just building housing_ He notes that the site has been vacant for a
number of years and notes that the location is 7 /10` of a mile from the train station in the area_
He also notes that zoning encourages this type of development in this area_
Koeplin states that they have learned from previous projects and know that they had to design
this site better than the Enterprise site_ He explains that the design for 90 units is a lot but this is a
big site and notes that they looked at other buildings around the city and estimates that the
average is about 46 units per acre and this size building is appropriate for this site_
Koeplin reviews photos of the area as it exists today and notes the kinds of businesses that are in
the area_
Thad Siemasko addresses the Board and explains the proposed building_ He explains that they
are proposing 1,900 s_f_ of commercial space on the corner of the building, noting that it is a
large building and will be an anchor for that end of Rantoul Street_
Siemasko reviews the elevations for the building and reviews a rendering of the proposed
building showing the street scape of Rantoul Street_ Siemasko explains that the materials they are
proposing for the facade of the building is masonry and corrugated metal with a stucco color
palette and a field stone color_ He notes that 50% of units have either balconies or patios_
Siemasko explains the traffic circulation on the site and notes that they gave up a couple of
parking spaces to provide tractor trailer access for a neighboring industrial condo and notes the
location on the plan_ Siemasko explains that they are proposing 108 parking spaces which is a
reduction from the 118 parking spaces required by zoning_
Siemasko reviews the landscaping plan for the site and notes that the planting schedule calls for
100 shrubs and 70 trees_ He also notes that they will be providing bicycle racks on the site_ He
further notes that the lighting plan calls for covered lights to eliminate an undue glare_
Siemasko reviewed the sidewalk plans, including set - backs, planters, residential units, and
required width for walking_ He notes that each unit will be separated by landscaping and they
Page 3 of 12
Beverly Planning Board
May 17, 2016
hope is it will be an active living environment on the street_ He goes through the individual floor
plans_ He notes that there 28 2- bedrooms (around 1,050 sf) and 62 1- bedrooms (around 750 sf); 5
of the total units are accessible, 3 of which are affordable per the inclusionary standards_
Charlie Wear of Meridian Associates addresses the Board and reviews the site design_ He
explains that utilities exist on Rantoul Street and water, sewer gas, electric, cable and telephone
connections are readily available_
Wear explains that there used to be a stream running through the site and in the 1970s it was
routed through a 48 inch culvert and the land was filled and today looks like a field_ He explains
the topography of the land and notes that the site is almost all fill_
Wear explains that there is a small wetland pocket which is an isolated wetland that is protected
by the Beverly local ordinance_ He notes that they have filed with the Conservation Commission
and met with Conservation staff who agreed that it is a currently low functioning wetland_
Wear explains that there is wetland vegetation on the site and they have proposed to clear the
invasive species on the site and replant as well as replant the buffer zone under an agreement
with the Conservation Commission_
Wear reported that he met with the City Engineer and noted that he has made several comments
on the project noting that some of them are editorial or clarifications_ He notes that they filed a
response to the comments with the City Engineer today_ He comments that the culvert is
probably the most important issue, because it has a history of backing-up- They have proposed
mitigation to address it and reduce runoff from the site_ He explains that infiltration basins will
be installed to capture roof runoff and parking lot runoff_ He also notes that the infiltration
system they are proposing to use is ideal for capturing pathogens_
Sam Gregorio of TEC addresses the Board and reviews the traffic impact from the project_ He
describes the traffic study methodology and reviews the peak hour traffic counts and forecasts_
He describes the accepted models on which this study is based_ He notes that traffic generation
will be less than 1 trip per hour and that having amenities on the site, such as a workout facility,
will reduce trip generation_
Gregorio explains that the timing of the lights at Rantoul and Colon Street may need to be
adjusted noting that the reconstruction project by MA DOT should improve that area_ He
estimated that there would be an 8- second delay during p-m_ peak hours and that would be the
worst case_ Gregono reported that they are working with MA DOT to alter the timing structure
as part of the improvements_ Discussion ensued about the MA DOT plans_
Gregorio reported that a concern was raised about cut through traffic on Lenox Street and
reported that less than 50% of the cars coming through could be considered cut - through traffic_
They do not feel that the site will generate any more cut - through traffic for Lenox Street noting
that people are not likely to go around the block to cut through_
Page 4 of 12
Beverly Planning Board
May 17, 2016
Gregorio reiterated information presented earlier on parking and elaborated on parking demand
models used_ He noted the peak parking demand is 108 spaces, which is the amount proposed_
Thomson opens the hearing up for questions from the members of the Planning Board at this
time_
Mack questions if there is signage proposed for residents entering the parking lot to indicate
residential parking_ Koeplin reported that they could provide those_
Rotondo questioned the use of 7 on- street parking spaces for the commercial portion of the
building noting that there are thriving businesses in the area that may depend on that parking_ He
notes that he has 16 parking spaces for his business and he does not have enough parking_ Atry_
Gooding explains that it depends on the time of day noting that there could be an opportunity for
the use of some of the residential parking spaces for the commercial_ She notes that she hears the
concern but notes that the project meets the zoning requirements_ Gooding explains that they
have proposed parking according to zoning and notes that there will be additional curb area when
the Rantoul Street construction project is completed_
Mack asks if cars will be able to go left and right to exit the site_ Gregorio states that that is how
it is currently planned and explains the circulation of the area_
Thomson asks what effect this project will have on the Rantoul/Elliott Street and Myrtle and
Cabot Street intersections and the major intersection_ Gregorio reports that it is currently a
LOS D, which is an acceptable standard for an urban area, and that will not change, noting that
there may be a slight increase with timing improvements and DOT improvements_
Mack asks where the dumpster area for the site is planned_ Siemasko reports that it will be in the
far corner of the site in an enclosed area against the railroad tracks_
Flannery asks where the snow storage locations are on the site_ Siemasko explains the designated
areas for snow storage and notes that significant snow fall will result in trucking the snow from
the site_
N_ Barrett asks what else Windover has planned for Rantoul Street_ He expressed concern that a
5 -story building would create a canyon effect and there would be a lot of crowding on the street_
He also notes that he is concerned that every project that comes before the Board only has 100
parking spaces and cites three projects that total 300 parking spaces_ He states that he would like
to see what the bigger picture is going to be taking practical realities into consideration_
Koeplin addresses the Board and reviews the projects that they have completed to date_ He
reported that they have no plans at this time for the Press Box and Casa de Luca site and explains
that they want to do the development right_ He states that they have done some sketches for 84
units at the Ford site, but notes that they like the way the dealership building looks and want to
try and save it_ He explains that they are not ready to develop it at this time_
Page 5 of 12
Beverly Planning Board
May 17, 2016
Koeplin states that with regards to traffic and people they believe that people will use the trains
and bikes more if there are businesses such as grocery stores and shops in the area and that
people will be less car dependent_
Koeplin reports that they do not own the Congress Street site at this time but they were the
proponents of the re- permitting process noting that they have reduced the scope of the project
from 72 units to 62 units_ Koeplin states that the MBTA site for the parcel near the parking
garage is out to bid but notes that he is not sure that they are going to bid on the project_
N_ Barrett states that he is concerned with the urbanization of Beverly, noting that it is allowed
by zoning and the city's Master Plan, therefore it's important to hear the larger vision_ He states
that he likes the use of technology noting the electric car chargers and encourages the promotion
of Live/Work space within these projects_ He would also like to see people encouraged to use the
MBTA, car sharing programs, and bicycles_ He states that he would like to see Windover think
about the issues as the big picture_
Miller asks what the expected demographic and ages of the prospective tenants will be_ Koeplin
states that he expects young professionals or newly married (18 -35) and recent retirees with
connections to the North Shore to be interested in this site_ He notes that Beverly has a lot to
offer such as beaches, the hospital and other services and attractions that would be attractive to
this demographic_ He also notes that the 30- minute train ride to Boston is a plus for young
professionals_ Koeplin explains that the parking required for the site is 1 space per bedroom and
there are 118 bedrooms proposed for the site_
Thomson inquires about the proposed rents for the site_ Koeplin notes that the rents referred to
earlier in the meeting were for the affordable housing units and estimated that the market rate
units could be $1,600 for 1 bedroom and $1,900 42,000 for 2 bedroom units_
Matz notes that they are requesting a special permit to reduce the retail from the 25% required by
zoning and asked what percentage they are proposing_ Atty_ Gooding stated 2% and explained
that the 25% retail requirement is a difficult bar to meet in the CC zoning district if the building
is 4 stories or higher_ She notes that in the case of the 131 Rantoul Street site it did not make
sense to bring the retail to the back of the building in a residential neighborhood_ She notes that
the retail percentage for that project is 7 %_
Matz states that he has trouble visualizing a 5 -story building fitting into that neighborhood,
rather than 4 stories_ Siemasko explains why he believes there isn't a big difference between a 4-
story building or a 5 -story building at this site_ The pedestrian experiences the building at the
street line, which is set back at 2 stories_ He states that it will be a big building but it will visually
fit in the neighborhood_ He referred to the surrounding properties and notes that they want to
make a new statement in the neighborhood that Beverly is changing at that end of town_ Also,
that the building does work well with comice lines across the street_
Hutchinson addresses the Board and refers to the size of the Cummings Center building_ She is
worried that the proposed building would dwarf the neighborhood_
Page 6 of 12
Beverly Planning Board
May 17, 2016
Siemasko states that when you look at the width of Rantoul Street this large of a building is
appropriate and reviews the building plans noting that the zoning allows a 55- foot -high building_
He also reviews the setbacks and the siting of the building on the site_
Atty_ Gooding stated that this is a good debate and notes that we are talking about the CC zoning
district_ She explains that the area has been studied and the site has been vacant for a good long
while_ She notes that this street from a design perspective can support taller buildings_ She
recalled that the only other project that has been permitted for this site was all commercial retail
and nobody has come forward to build it_ She states that they feel that this project will help make
the city come back to life and further notes that the Downtown 2020 plan recommends bringing
residential housing to the neighborhood to bring additional people to support local businesses_
Rotondo inquired about the desire to reserve the right to request off -site units in the future_
Thomson suggests that it might simply be a modification to request later_ Gooding expressed
concern that the inclusionary regulations require the decision to be made now and wanted to be
forthcoming_
Hutchinson asked for clarification about the financials of the project_ Koeplin explains that if the
5 th floor is removed, the project would not be a financeable project_
C_ Barrett informed the Chair that she has several questions to ask of the applicant_ Thomson
stated that given the hour he would like to allow for some public comment this evening_ He
asked if Ms_ Barrett could hold her questions to the next meeting as the Board will be continuing
the matter to the June meeting_ Ms_ Barrett agreed_
Thomson opens the hearing up for public comment at the time_
Dominic Secondiani, 485 Rantoul Street, addresses the Board and states that he has concerns
about the proposed number of parking spaces_ He states that he has lived in that area since 1970
and there have always been parking issues in the neighborhood_ He also questions why they are
being allowed to build to the sidewalk, without being set back_
Siemasko states that good urban designs provides an active streetscape_ Buildings separated from
the street by parking lots is not pedestrian-friendly- He states that the CVS building is an
example of a suburban building in an urban area_ He also noted that the building needed the
entire site to meet the parking requirements; any more commercial area would have required
more parking_
Walter Ewaschuk, 24 Myrtle Street, addresses the Board and states that he agrees that there is not
enough parking in the area for the residents and that traffic will be a concern_ He also states that
the design of the building is too big for the neighborhood_
Gin Wallace, Executive Director of Beverly Main Streets, addresses the Board and calls attention
to the Downtown 2020 strategic vision plan which was drafted with input from the residents
about what they wanted downtown Beverly to be_ Two of the key points were= one, rooftops
before retail, meaning that it makes sense to build up to the 25% commercial requirement and
Page 7 of 12
Beverly Planning Board
May 17, 2016
two, that they do not want Cabot and Rantoul Streets to look the same_ She also states that she
does not see this as one parcel_ She explains that the vision for the area is for more than 1,000
residential units that could support quality retail_ She appreciates that the building appears stark
at first, but it might not later_ She further stated that she and the Board at Beverly Main Streets
fully support the project_
Cynthia Modugno, Trustee of Utility Park Condominium Trust, a direct abutter, addresses the
Board and states that they are happy that something is being developed on the site_ She also
noted that the existing conditions cause flooding on her property from this site when there is
heavy rain_ She also notes that this is a nice - looking building, although a little large but she feels
that anything developed on the site is a win for her as a direct abutter_
Suzie LaMont, 20 Porter Street, addresses the Board and states that she supports that the
development is set closet to the street, but she agrees that the proposed building is a monstrosity
and is too big for the neighborhood_ She states that it is inconsistent with the neighborhood of
wood -framed two - family homes across the street_ She urged the Board to make this right for the
neighborhood_
Gary Rourke, 103 Elliot Street, addresses the Board and states that the Association has been
discussing the project_ He confirms that the area floods in heavy rains_ He is concerned that by
paving it over the problem will get worse_ He asks the Board to consider that issue_ He also
expresses concern about parking_
Mr_ Secondiani comments that the people who spoke in favor of this proposal do not live across
the street and will not have to look at this monstrosity every day_
Mack questions the runoff calculations for the site_ Mr_ Wear explains that there will be a 50%
reduction in the rate of flow and he is not sure what the reduction in volume will be_ He also
notes that the City Engineer has reviewed the plans but has not signed off on them yet but they
sent a response to him today_ He reviews the runoff areas and locations on the plans_
Matz asks for an opinion that the proposed situation would actually improve the flooding
problem on adjacent sites_ Mr_ Wear confirms_ Wear reports that revised plans will be submitted
in response to the City Engineer's comments_
Wynne reported that the project team met with Planning Department staff and responded to their
comments on the initial plans_ She reported that the city supports building along the street in the
downtown because it supports the pedestrian environment and noted that there is a demand for
housing in the area_ Thomson indicated that the Rantoul Street construction will improve
conditions_
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter this evening, Thomson calls
for a motion to continue the public hearing to the June meeting_
C. Barrett: Motion to continue the public hearing to the June Planning Board meeting_ Miller
seconds the motion_ The motion carries (9 -0)_
Page 8 of 12
Beverly Planning Board
May 17, 2016
Thomson calls for a five - minute recess at this time_
Thomson resumes the meeting at 9 =40 p_m_
Public Hearing — Site Plan Review Application #123 -16 and Special Permit Application
#150 -16 — 2 Hardy Street — Hardy Street Realty, LLC
Flannery: Motion to recess for a public hearing at this time_ Hutchinson seconds the motion_
The motion carries (9 -0)_
Wynne reads legal notice_
Michael Doucette of Glovsky and Glovsky addresses the Board and explains that they are
seeking approval of site plan review and a special permit application for the construction of six
2- bedroom units in a 3 -story multi- family dwelling with onsite parking for 6 cars in the CC
District and the Depot Parking and Height Overlay Districts_ He explains that the site is located
at Hardy and Pleasant Streets and is currently vacant_ He further explains that the 6,800 sf
property is located behind the 131 Rantoul Street project which is currently under construction_
Atty_ Doucette explains that they are requesting a special permit because they are proposing no
commercial use in the CC district_ He also recalls that the Board endorsed an SANR plan
creating this lot in January of 2015_ Atty_ Doucette reviews the plan and notes the location in
relation to the 131 Rantoul Street project and the property lines_
Thad Siemasko, Siemasko + Verbridge, the architect for the project, addresses the Board and
explains the plans_ He reviews the facade, landscape plan, and the various views of the proposed
building_ He notes that the parking lot needs to be moved a few feet toward Hardy Street to
better meet parking lot set -back requirements_
Charlie Wear, Meridian Associates, addresses the Board and reviews the utilities for the site_ He
explains that they will access the utilities from Pleasant Street_ The site is currently completely
paved; by placing the house and green space, they are actually reducing the runoff_ He reviews
the slope and the location of the catch basin, which will tie into the existing drainage_
Thomson inquires about site lighting_ Siemasko explains that they will be installing covered
lighting at the entrances to the porches and they feel that is enough as there is also lighting on the
street_
Thomson asks if there is a handicapped accessible entrance_ Siemasko reports that there is on the
first floor only and explains the location on the plan_
Thomson asks if there are any questions from members of the Board at this time_
Page 9 of 12
Beverly Planning Board
May 17, 2016
Miller asks if they are constructing the building to accommodate solar panels in the future_
Koeplin reports that they would put solar on all of their buildings if it were possible, but that they
have not studied this site_ Siemasko explains that there is a large flat spot that they could look at_
C_ Barrett asks if visitors will be parking on the street_ Siemasko confirms that they will park on
the street_
C_ Barrett asked if there will be trash facilities on the site_ Siemasko explains that there is a trash
shed and explains the location_ He explains it will have the capacity for trash for the 6 units and
notes that he does not know if they will have public trash removal or if it will be private_
N_ Barrett states that he thinks that the design of this building is great for the neighborhood_ He
asks what the zoning requirements are for parking on the site_ Siemasko reports that it is 1 space
per unit and they are providing 6 spaces on the site_
Wynne explains that reduced parking is allowed because this site is located in the Parking
Overlay District and its proximity to the train station and the MBTA parking garage_ She also
notes that the Parking and Traffic Commission included a condition that they encourage tenants
to look at alternative transportation options_
Thomson opens the public hearing up for public comment at this time_
Ann Theriault, 5 Hardy Street, addresses the Board and states that this building is going to
shadow her house_ She also states that she is concerned about visibility when backing out of her
driveway_ She also notes that most 2- family homes in the area have parking for two cars_
Wear reports that there has been a temporary increase in traffic on Hardy Street due to the
131 Rantoul Street construction project and that there are good sight lines on the street_
Wear also reviewed a comment letter received from the Engineering Department_ He notes that
the existing retaining wall will be broken though and they will bring the driveway to the
sidewalk grade_
Suzie LaMont, 20 Porter Street, addresses the Board and states that she supports the project and
she likes the design and thinks it fits in the neighborhood well_
Wynne reviews comment letters from the various Boards and Commissions and notes any
conditions requested_
There being no further questions or comments at this time, Thomson calls for a motion to close
the public hearing_
N. Barrett: Motion to close the public hearing_ Flannery seconds the motion_ The Chair votes
in favor_ The motion carries (9 -0)_
Mack: Motion to grant the request for a Special Permit for 2 Hardy Street subject to the
conditions recommended by other City Departments, Boards and Commissions
Page 10 of 12
Beverly Planning Board
May 17, 2016
and that the Board finds that the application meets all the Special Permit criteria
a_ -f_, as stated_ Flannery seconds the motion_ The Chair votes in favor_ The motion
carries (9 -0)_
Mack: Motion to approve the Site Plan Review application for 2 Hardy Street subject to
the same conditions as the Special Permit approval_ Flannery seconds the motion_
The Chair votes in favor_ The motion carries (9 -0)_
Mack left the meeting at this time_
Plan Endorsement and Form G Covenant — OSRD & Definitive Plan —11 -15 Sunnvcrest
Avenue — (Sunnvcrest Circle) — PD Building, LLC
Wynne reported that members will recall that the Board approved the project for 11 -15
Sunnycrest Avenue earlier this year_ She explains that the appeal period for the project has
expired and the developer has submitted Mylar plans for signatures by the Board to allow for the
recording of the plans at the Registry of Deeds_ She also reported that the developer has
submitted a Form G Covenant for acceptance by the Board to guarantee the completion of the
subdivision_ She notes that Planning staff has reviewed the covenant and the Engineering
Department has reviewed the Mylar plans to ensure that they are consistent with the plans
approved by the Board_ She recommended approval of the Form G Covenant and the signing of
the Mylar plans_
Flannery: Motion to approve the Form G Covenant for 11 -15 Sunnycrest Avenue_ Matz
seconds the motion_ The Chair votes in favor_ The motion carries (8 -0)_
Set Public Hearing Date — Site Plan Review Application #124 -16 — 62 Dunham Road — Iron
Tree Services, LLC
Wynne explains that plans have been filed for the construction of a 4,800 s_f_ storage building at
62 Dunham Road and the Board needs to set a date for the public hearing_
Hutchinson: Motion to set the date for the Public Hearing for 62 Dunham Road for the next
meeting of the Board on June 21, 2016 at 7.30 p-m_ noting that the meeting is
starting at a different time_ Flannery seconds the motion_ The Chair votes in favor_
The motion carries (8 -0)_
New or Other Business
Wynne informs the Board that the final Open Space and Recreation Plan was included in the
Planning Board packet for the last meeting_ She explains that the OSRC needs a letter of support
from the Planning Board to submit with the plan_ She notes that a draft of the letter has been
given to the Board and recommends that the Board approve the letter of support_
Page 11 of 12
Beverly Planning Board
May 17, 2016
N. Barrett: Motion to approve the letter of support for the Final Open Space and Recreation
Plan_ Flannery seconds the motion_ The Chair votes in favor_ The motion carries
(8 -0)_
Wynne reported that the Planning Department and the Engineering Department are applying for
a grant from Coastal Zone Management to study the impact of climate change and to create a
strategic plan to deal with the impact_ She requested that the Board approve the draft of a letter
of support from the Board in support of the project_
C. Barrett: Motion to send a letter of support from the Planning Board with the grant
application for Coastal Zone Management_ Miller seconds the motion_ The Chair
votes in favor_ The motion carries (8 -0)_
Adiournment
There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening a motion was
made by N_ Barrett to adjourn the meeting_ Hutchinson seconds the motion_ The motion carried
(8 -0)_
The meeting was adjourned at 10.30 p_m_
Page 12 of 12